Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?

We would be if they still existed. There does seem to be some indication that at least parts of the Tauret and Zaboor still exist in todays OT. Those parts can be seen as having counterparts in the Qur'an.

The Injil is more difficult to find any evidence that it still exists in any form. The Injil would be the words revealed to Isa(as). The words Allah(swt) spoke to Isa(as) do not appear to have been preserved. So there is nothing we can fully identify as being the Injil.

In spite of this many Muslims do read the OT and the NT. I have yet to go into a Muslim home that does not have at least one version of the Bible. but, to be honest this is probably more common in english speaking house holds.

I dont have one. To me, I think it's better I spent time understanding the Qur'an before any other scripture. What Allah(swt) says holds more importance to me as a Muslim. So I would think its not an obligation. I mean if your a scholar, then yea why not. But as an ordinary Muslim just wanting to stick with Allah(swt) has ordained, the Qur'an is more in my focus.

format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama

Hadith: Looking to Jews/Christians for answers instead of the Qur'an

Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:

Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."

Sahi Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850



You should not read the bible or other scriptures, especially if you don't know enough about your own book and religion to make distinction between false and truth. Those who have sufficient knowledge of their deen can read other scriptures for comparative analysis only, never for guidance or anything like that.

Allahu alim.

That is very true. however in the Western world many if not most reverts were formerly either Christian or Jew and as a result are much more familiar with the Bible, than with the Qur'an. In turn it is almost essential for us to read the Bible and relate to Islamic Scriptures so that we can see where we are astray in our beliefs and learn to strengthen our weak areas. Also as reverts we have to answer many of those former teachings to our selves and totaly justify as to why we now accept the Qur'an over which we have already spent a life time learning.

But, if a person was raised as Muslim, has had little contact with Non_Islamic teachings and may not be expected to give Da'wah to non-Muslims it is best to give full attention to what you have and unless one is a scholar there would be little reason to venture into other beliefs.

We have to believe that God sent books, we do not have to believe they have been preserved and have no reason to believe so. And even if they were they are not for us so no need to for us to derive rulings or beliefs from them.

format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama

Read Ahmad Deedat's work, he was more bible scholar than Quran and he put many many bible scholars and preachers and what not to shame in debates.

You'll learn more about the scriptures from him then reading the book yourself.

That is true.


Too late, as a former Christian I had memorized very much of the Bible. Now it is more like I need to use the Qur'an to undo erroneous beliefs I had and need to weed out the source of those beliefs. Old memories do not fade they need to be faced and corrected.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville

Hi Everyone:

Please review my understanding of this matter.

1. The Koran notes that Christians and Jews who live in accordance with their Books will not go to hell.

Well if you were to take the understanding based upon the Qur'an and the Sunnah and how the People Who it was preached to understood it then maybe you'd do more justice to the text.

The people of their time, the Jews of Moses' day to whom Moses was sent to are referred to, the Christians i.e. the Jews to whom Jesus was sent to are reffered to, the people of their time and place, the ones they were sent to.

To me and you and you, Muhammad is sent.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville

2. Those Books that were around during the time of Mohammed are available to us today.

Well actually we cannot be sure of that, but even if they were the life of Muhammad shows us that we need not follow those books.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grenville

3. The Koran encourages Muslims to study those Books that were previously sent to the Israelites and Christians. Therefore further confirming that the Koran was referring to Books were available during that time.

I have yet to see where the Qu'ran says study.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

So i have a question.Early christians, just after Jesus Christ death believe that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and after this He ressurected.This knowledge they must have taken from Bible, New Testament. Christians just after Christ death believe in His death and ressurection.Christians 1500 years ago believe in the same. Christians 1000 years ago believed in Christ's death for our sins and ressurection.Christians in XVIth century believed in Christ's death for our sins and ressurection.
Now in year 2007, i open my Bible and guess what, i read that Jesus Christ was killed on a cross, and then He ressurected.So if Bible has been changed through all those centuries, how is it possible that I believe in the same fundamental christian truth as did christians just after Christ's death and as did christians 1000 years ago?

Well actually you are starting with a presumption. You presume that the followers of Jesus believed he died for their sins on the Cross.

There is no clear cut evidence that the actual followers believed that.

Theres much that could be said on this topic.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

If Bible has been changed, so how is it possible that christians always(after His death, 1000 years ago,1500 years ago) believed in the same truths- that Jesus Christ was Son of God, that He died for our sins, that He was born from virgin Mary, that Noah built his arc,that Moses freed Israelis from egyptian slavery,thatfirst people were Adam and Eve, that David killed Goliath, that Loth's wife turned in salt statue,that Jacob predicted to egyptian pharaon his future,that God gave Moses 10 commandments....etc etc,.
If Bible has been changed so how is it possible that through all those centuries we christians always believe in the same truths,in year 2007, 1000 years ago, 2 000 years ago..?

Two points arise, your claim that the early Christians believed this, this in totality has yet to be established.

Secondly, most of the above stuff mentioned is contained in the Old testament, a text which had been present widely before the time of Christian, but in reality if we go back to before that what we see is that even with those stories there is some element of interpolation and the story is not as clear cut. For example the Ten Commandments that you have being given to Moses, peace be upon him, this is a whole topic within itself, there are many studied which speak on the Sources of the Torah, the E J D P I think it is, there is also the differences between text, the Measoric and Samaritan I believe they are called, on top of that there is the Talmud to speak of.

It is very detailed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

If Bible has been changed so how is it possible that through all those centuries we christians always believe in the same truths,in year 2007, 1000 years ago, 2 000 years ago..?

there is no real evidence that all Early Christians did believe that. It seems to have become more of a belief after Paul and did not spread throughout all of Christianity. Most notably it was not the original belief of the Marconites, the followers of Christianity in the churches founded by Mark, until after interaction with Rome. It still is not the following of the sabians, the early Christians that were followers of John the Baptist and later carried Christianity into Iraq. It still is not their belief.

Most if not all of the Apostles went off and started churches, but as the teachings of Paul gained dominance their teachings were ruled gnostic and deleted from the early church.

After Christ's death persecutions of christians began, christians were forced by romans to leave their faith and reject Christ, but so many of them didnt reject Him and stayed with christianity. So you think that people who weren't sure about their belief would give their life for that?
I know that Gospels of John,Luke, Mathew and Marc were written some time (30, 40, or 50 years) after Christ's death, but still its interesting that all 4 of them agree in most fundamental things for christians - that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins and after that ressurected,and that He raised Lazarus from dead, that he gave sight to a blindman, that he multiplied food, that He walked on water..
How is it possible that people would give their lives for something that they are not sure? How is it possible that roman ancient historician, Tacitus, and also Joseph Flavius wrote about Christ' death on a cross and that many people believed that He ressurected?



Roman historian Tacitus in his work The Annals of Imperial Rome.

To suppress this rumour [that the massive fires of Rome had been deliberately set by men], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus.



Suetonius, in his The Twelve Caesars says:

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Crestus [a Latin reference to Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.[11]


Roman historian Thallus (ca. 52 AD) as quoted by Julius Africanus concerning the darkness at the crucifixion, the Roman author and administrator Pliny the Younger's (ca. 112 AD) mention of the early Christians' worship of Christ, and historical references from the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian.




The Quran claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God.
Sura 6:34; 10:34


In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been
corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend
Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon
differences and contradiction between the Bible and the
Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible
must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it
must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But
Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the
present text must have been falsified by the Christians after
the time of Muhammad."
His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts
but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to
safeguard the Quran.
This led him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed
Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as
argument against them.


Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)
h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."

So, to make your claim of tampering credible you will have to answer these questions:

# When happened this tampering? [Before or after Muhammad]?
# Who did the tampering?
# Where was it done? [city, country, ...?]
# What parts of the text were changed?
# How was it done [i.e. without leaving traces of it]?
# Why would anybody do this incredibly difficult thing?

The Qur'an calls on Christians to adhere to the Scriptures that they possessed. There are also verses in the Qur'an which state that John the Baptist and Jesus were taught the Torah by Allah. If this is the case, then the Torah was still intact (according to the Qur'an) during the first century. Add to this the fact that we have in our possession the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which predate John and Jesus' birth by some 200 years. Thus it is easy to demonstrate (for anyone who is willing to examine the facts) that according to the Islamic worldview and the manuscript evidence, it is impossible for the Bible to have been corrupted.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

After Christ's death persecutions of christians began, christians were forced by romans to leave their faith and reject Christ, but so many of them didnt reject Him and stayed with christianity. So you think that people who weren't sure about their belief would give their life for that?

Well again if its true does this prove that the Bible is right? For example, the early followers of Jesus could have been persecuted for saying that Jesus went to heaven and was raised by God, this could mean that he was killed and raised i.e. christian belief now or the Muslim belief that he did not die at all, eitherway it poses a thread to the authorities.

But even so, a person giving his life up for a belief does not neccesitate that he is right, a person could truly believe and feel sure, but he could be sincerly wrong.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

I know that Gospels of John,Luke, Mathew and Marc were written some time (30, 40, or 50 years) after Christ's death, but still its interesting that all 4 of them agree in most fundamental things for christians - that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins and after that ressurected,and that He raised Lazarus from dead, that he gave sight to a blindman, that he multiplied food, that He walked on water..

Well again this could be impressive, but when you take into account the compilation of the four Gospels, for example, let us take the SYPNOTIC I think they are reffered to, due to their similarity, you only have to research to find out that Mark was first written and that it is plausible that Matthew and Luke had a copy of mark and along this also had Source Q for Quelle, a common source which they used, so this would explain all the similarities.

What I find interesting though is that you claim they all agree but in reality the Gospel of John is in a league of it's own! And that is something that not I, Eesa, say but go and check what Christian scholars say and see if they agree.

But as for they all agreeing on the main things, again, this is not entirely true, for example, the Gospel according to Mark that we have now had no resurection story, the Gospel ended upbruptly, at where he said that the Women did not tell anyone anything, the story furthering on is a later addition. And noone knows what the real ending to Mark was. So mark isnt in agreement, he stops short of the glory of the resurection, but then we have three other Gospels, three other Gospels are not much, specially due to the fact that the Gospel Paul preached had been wide spread too so this would have influenced the writers, and it would have been illogical for the dominating congragation to enter in make famous Gospels which spoke of a different ending out of all the Gospels there.

What we do find interesting though is that even within the narratives about the resurection there are discrepencies.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

How is it possible that people would give their lives for something that they are not sure?

A person can be sincerly wrong, they can believe till they are blue in the face, I am sure of Islam at the same time I am kind of sure someone else is sure of christianity, yet both of us would die for it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

How is it possible that roman ancient historician, Tacitus, and also Joseph Flavius wrote about Christ' death on a cross and that many people believed that He ressurected?

I have yet to see such writings, what I have seen is what seemed to be a later interpolation in the name of a Jewish Historian, Josephes or something, and I also saw a discription of what some christians believed someone resurected.

Regards,
Eesa