Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?

[Woodrow]

Thread reopened. Keep all posts on topic please.

 

[Walter]

Hi MustafaMc & Doorster:

Your responses are incredible. Perhaps you forgot the sequence of recent events.

1. I was asked to provide verses from the Qu’ran to support Mohammed instructing Muslims to read the Books sent before which are in the Bible.

2. I provided the verses. It was then claimed that I took the verses out of context and that I had to read the Tafsir to gain understanding. Relevant sections of the Tafsir were then provided to explain the verses that I had provided.

3. The sections of the Tafsir that were quoted actually supported the claim that Muslims were instructed to read and believe Books in the Bible. Further, they provided evidence that the Books were available to Mohammed and he instructed others to read them. I also provided other verses to show that I had not taken any verse out of context.

4. Rather than examine the verses and the Tafsir, you comply conclude, without any supporting information whatsoever:

As far as I am concerned the question asked in the title "Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?" has been definitively answered in the negative. No further discussion is warranted.

I am sure that you can do better than that.

Thankx for reopening this thread Woordow.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[doorster]

for me,best way to deal with you is to not take part in this frivolous waste of time thread. I hope Br.MustafaMc does the same!

wa salam

 

[vpb]

1. I was asked to provide verses from the Qu’ran to support Mohammed instructing Muslims to read the Books sent before which are in the Bible.

2. I provided the verses. It was then claimed that I took the verses out of context and that I had to read the Tafsir to gain understanding. Relevant sections of the Tafsir were then provided to explain the verses that I had provided.

3. The sections of the Tafsir that were quoted actually supported the claim that Muslims were instructed to read and believe Books in the Bible. Further, they provided evidence that the Books were available to Mohammed and he instructed others to read them. I also provided other verses to show that I had not taken any verse out of context.

4. Rather than examine the verses and the Tafsir, you comply conclude, without any supporting information whatsoever:

If you want to believe muslims are obligated to read Bible, then believe, we have shown you plenty of proof that we are NOT obligated to read bible, but u still keep insisting that we are. so why are you still discussing this topic if you already ""know the answer"" ???

The sections of the Tafsir that were quoted actually supported the claim that Muslims were instructed to read and believe Books in the Bible.

To be obligated to believe in a book is totally different from being obligated to read it.

It is part of our faith to believe in previous revelations (that they were sent).

Further, they provided evidence that the Books were available to Mohammed and he instructed others to read them. I also provided other verses to show that I had not taken any verse out of context.

No they didn't, read them again. but again I'm saying if that is what you want to believe , do it, but don't try to tell people that we are obligated to read Bible. as I mentioned above, even without any evidence, just using simple logic is enough to come to the answer of this question,

first, Why was Qur'an sent?
To put people's beliefs on the straight path (on worshiping Allah swt alone without partners), to confirm the other books sent before, since they got corrupted through time.

3:3. It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it;and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

second, is the bible today the bible that Qur'an is talking about???

No, because the bible today is written by humans, Paul, Matthew, John.......etc. While the bible that Allah swt is talking about is a revelation from Allah swt.

but as MustafaMC said,

As far as I am concerned the question asked in the title "Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?" has been definitively answered in the negative. No further discussion is warranted.

there is no point in discussing this, the answer has been answered no, and it is very clear, unless you are trying to convince us to start read Bible.

 

[Umar001]

I have been meaning to finish a reply to this for a while, I will do so in abit.

This thread has mainly been looking at the potential verses which one could use to oblige muslims to read the Bible. It has been ignoring the evidences that Muslims are not to read the Bible. Ones the former are seen in light of the latters then maybe things will be shown more clearly.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Of all posts, I can't believe that yours has dragged me into this (probably meaningless) debate.

I have been meaning to finish a reply to this for a while, I will do so in abit.

This thread has mainly been looking at the potential verses which one could use to oblige muslims to read the Bible. It has been ignoring the evidences that Muslims are not to read the Bible. Ones the former are seen in light of the latters then maybe things will be shown more clearly.

Are you acknowledging in the above statement that there are verses that one might read which would seem to oblige Muslims to have response "A" toward the Bible and other verses that would oblige Muslims to have response "not-A"?

Personally, I don't have a problem with that, all things must be read in context and so verses taken out of context might indeed appear to present contradictory statements that are not truly there. But I am just wanting to be clear, that you believe that such apparent contradictory statements are made within the Qur'an?

 

[Umar001]

Of all posts, I can't believe that yours has dragged me into this (probably meaningless) debate.

Are you acknowledging in the above statement that there are verses that one might read which would seem to oblige Muslims to have response "A" toward the Bible and other verses that would oblige Muslims to have response "not-A"?

Personally, I don't have a problem with that, all things must be read in context and so verses taken out of context might indeed appear to present contradictory statements that are not truly there. But I am just wanting to be clear, that you believe that such apparent contradictory statements are made within the Qur'an?

I don't think its as you say 'apparent contradictory statements' I think its more of, where theres a will theres a way. I can't find the quote but I assume you have heard it, from the Bible. Here;

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."​

I don't think its a matter of genuine confusion, I think its more of a matter, as I would understand the above, of I dont like this, I have my beliefs so let me find something in such and such place to prove it. Like the people used John's eating and not drinking as 'evidence' of him being a demon, and then used Jesus' eating and drinking as 'evidence' of him being a glutton, I think so similarly some will use 'evidence' to prove A B or C.

When I said one could use, I meant, if one totally striped this of immidiete context, rational interepretation, whole context, etc. Like this verse; So woe unto those performers of Salāt (prayers).

 

[Walter]

Hi Vpb and Doorster:

As I said, you asked for evidence and I provided it to you. I was then provided with a LOT of Tafsir information by Abdul Fattah which I took the time to read and found that it supported the evidence that I provided to you. You then completely ignored all of the information and made unsupported conclusions.

If you want to believe Muslims are obligated to read Bible, then believe, we have shown you plenty of proof that we are NOT obligated to read bible, but u still keep insisting that we are.

You seem to have simply ignored my post. Do you not realize that your “proof” actually supports that Muslims should read the Books that came before? Please re-read my post #218.

first, Why was Qur'an sent?

Thank you for asking this question. I agree that one of the principal reasons is to confirm what was sent before. What does confirm mean in the context in which is was mentioned. It seems to mean to confirm their authenticity and reliability.

is the bible today the bible that Qur'an is talking about?

Thank you for asking another question. It is clear that the Bible today is the same Bible that the Qu’ran mentions and sufficient evidence has been provided in this thread to confirm this. The most recent evidence is in the Tafsir: Mohammed asked the Jews to bring the Torah and read it in his presence. He then advised them to follow what it said.

there is no point in discussing this, the answer has been answered no, and it is very clear, unless you are trying to convince us to start read Bible.

You have answered “no”, but that does not mean that the answer is no, especially when the evidence that you provide clearly supports an answer of ‘Yes”. I am hoping that you will obey the Qu’ran and read the books that came before.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Al Habeshi:

You noted:

This thread has mainly been looking at the potential verses which one could use to oblige muslims to read the Bible. It has been ignoring the evidences that Muslims are not to read the Bible. Ones the former are seen in light of the latters then maybe things will be shown more clearly.

When I started reading the Qu’ran, one of the things that stood out clearly to me was Mohammed’s admonition that Muslims should believe the Books that came before, and have the confidence to believe that what is contained in those Books is authentic. In addition to other verses presented in this post, such an admonition seems to confirm that Muslims should not be afraid of reading Books in the Bible.

Please note that I do not ignore any evidence, especially evidence that does not support my opinions. I have no interest in being mislead or being intellectually dishonest and I am fully aware of the dire consequences for misleading others. Intentionally misleading other people appears to carry a similar penalty as idolatry and murder. I wish to know the truth and I have no problem changing my opinion when clear and explicit evidence is presented and has been found to be incontrovertible after being tested with conscientious critical analysis.

You are introducing a new concept with which I am unfamiliar, and I would appreciate it if you could provide these verses from the Qu’ran that forbid Muslims from reading the Bible. I must agree that if such explicit verses do exist and can withstand scrutiny, then the question may have to be answered in the negative.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Umar001]

Hi Al Habeshi:

Howdy,

When I started reading the Qu’ran, one of the things that stood out clearly to me was Mohammed’s admonition that Muslims should believe the Books that came before, and have the confidence to believe that what is contained in those Books is authentic. In addition to other verses presented in this post, such an admonition seems to confirm that Muslims should not be afraid of reading Books in the Bible.

What I see the problem in the above as an example is, taking the command to believe that God sent books in the past, and then using it, with a leap of unexplained logic, to justify or support that Muslims are Obligated to read the Bible.

One line of reasoning, which only covers one aspects of the problems brought from such a view, which you have followed is that in order for mankind to believe in something it needs to be with them, I say not neccesarily, if we God tells us to believe in something, we do not need to question it, if God tells us, there's a book on mars which he revealed to an alien, we do not need to read it to believe that He did do that. If you feel we need to know every word of God, then that's your choice, I don't think we do need to know every word of God in every past scripture to believe it if we have God himself telling us he sent it to people before.

Please note that I do not ignore any evidence, especially evidence that does not support my opinions.

Sorry to say, though I do think you are genuine in your search, I have yet to find any replies to proofs provided by some before.

You are introducing a new concept with which I am unfamiliar, and I would appreciate it if you could provide these verses from the Qu’ran that forbid Muslims from reading the Bible.

So now we have moved from, are Muslims obligated to read the Bible to are Muslims forbiden to read the Bible? The connotations which sorround such phrases are what troubles me. 'Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible' gives a hint of the Bible now, having authority and being spoken of in the Qur'an and being unchanged, this is why I objected, because of that unseperable view.

As for 'Are Muslims forbiden to read the Bible' then I don't see why Muslims would be, would a Muslim be forbiden to read the Bible if he is doing so to try to understand what may have happend, whilst not believing the Bible to be the word of God?

To me that is the crucial difference. When you say Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Bible, that brings connotation that the Islam teaches the Bible 1. Is The Book refered to in the Qur'an 2. Has not changed.

I think Islam does not oblige or forbid the reading of the Bible unless you provide more specific of a question. I.e. Are Muslims allowed to read the Bible to derive rulings for their religion, I think thats a clear no.

I must agree that if such explicit verses do exist and can withstand scrutiny, then the question may have to be answered in the negative.

Well if you want to change the topic from does Islam Obligate Muslims to read the Bible, to does Islam forbid Muslims to read the Bible then a new thread would be more appropiate.

I am still in the process of finishing my answer, I've become more indulged in textual critisism and Biblical History, so time is of the essence as I am sure you'll understand. :

Regards,

Eesa.

 

[Walter]

Hi Al Habeshi:

1.0 Muslims to Read Books in the Bible

Let me clarify the issue about the Bible - a clarification that I have made repeatedly throughout this thread.

The Qu’ran speaks about the Books that came before. Copies of these books are within the Bible. Now we may disagree on the quality of the copying; however, the Torah and Prophets etc, are in the Bible.


2.0 Verses Forbidding Muslims From Reading the Bible

Al Habeshi, I did not introduce this topic. You stated:

This thread has mainly been looking at the potential verses which one could use to oblige muslims to read the Bible. It has been ignoring the evidences that Muslims are not to read the Bible. Ones the former are seen in light of the latters then maybe things will be shown more clearly.

Well if there is evidence in the Qu’ran that forbids Muslims from reading the Books that came before, or books in the Bible, then that evidence is critically relevant to this thread. Actually to quote you “things will be shown more clearly.” Al Habeshi, I urge you to present this evidence for scrutiny.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Umar001]

Hi Al Habeshi:

Hi,

1.0 Muslims to Read Books in the Bible

Let me clarify the issue about the Bible - a clarification that I have made repeatedly throughout this thread.

The Qu’ran speaks about the Books that came before. Copies of these books are within the Bible. Now we may disagree on the quality of the copying; however, the Torah and Prophets etc, are in the Bible.

Giving something the same name does not make it the same thing. If there are scholars which say that there are 4 indipendent sources for the books of Moses are we then to say that since this is held by Jews as the Torah of Moses then it truly is?

2.0 Verses Forbidding Muslims From Reading the Bible

Al Habeshi, I did not introduce this topic. You stated:

Well if there is evidence in the Qu’ran that forbids Muslims from reading the Books that came before, or books in the Bible, then that evidence is critically relevant to this thread. Actually to quote you “things will be shown more clearly.” Al Habeshi, I urge you to present this evidence for scrutiny.

Regards,
Grenville

There is no problem in doing so, but what I wanted to make clear is that if Islam does not prohibit the reading of the Bible this does in no way indicate that it means the Bible has not been changed or anything. That's what I wanted to say.

 

[Walter]

Hi Al Habeshi:

Since we are returning to the authenticity of the Books, then let us try and put this issue “to bed”. Please follow my reasoning below.

1. I believe that we are in agreement that the original documents are probably not available. However, copies are available.

2. We are in disagreement on the quality of the copying.

3. Mohammed referred to the Books that came before and even had portions of these Books read in his presence. He also instructed the reader to obey what was written.

4. Therefore, regardless of the quality of copying, Mohammed felt that the copies had sufficient integrity to be followed.

5. Manuscripts of the Books in the Bible can be seen today in the British Library, and some predate Mohammed by about 500 years.

6. The Qu’ran records Mohammed’s distrust of Rabbis and Monks who had copies of these documents in their possession.

Therefore, even if we assume that the copying was not the best quality, it was certainly good enough for Mohammed to recommend that they be read and followed.

Verses have been provided repeatedly throughout this thread to support these points and they have withstood scrutiny by others. If you wish me to reproduce them, then I would be happy to do so.

Let me clarify the title of this post. I have asked, “Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Bible? The post could have been phrased: “Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Books that came Before?” However, since I believe that these Books are contained in the Bible, I asked the former question.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Al Habeshi:

Since we are returning to the authenticity of the Books, then let us try and put this issue “to bed”. Please follow my reasoning below.

1. I believe that we are in agreement that the original documents are probably not available. However, copies are available.

2. We are in disagreement on the quality of the copying.

3. Mohammed referred to the Books that came before and even had portions of these Books read in his presence. He also instructed the reader to obey what was written.

4. Therefore, regardless of the quality of copying, Mohammed felt that the copies had sufficient integrity to be followed.

5. Manuscripts of the Books in the Bible can be seen today in the British Library, and some predate Mohammed by about 500 years.

6. The Qu’ran records Mohammed’s distrust of Rabbis and Monks who had copies of these documents in their possession.

Therefore, even if we assume that the copying was not the best quality, it was certainly good enough for Mohammed to recommend that they be read and followed.

Verses have been provided repeatedly throughout this thread to support these points and they have withstood scrutiny by others. If you wish me to reproduce them, then I would be happy to do so.

Let me clarify the title of this post. I have asked, “Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Bible? The post could have been phrased: “Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Books that came Before?” However, since I believe that these Books are contained in the Bible, I asked the former question.

Regards,
Grenville

I want to see if I understand your point, so let me restate it in my own words:

Muhammad (pbuh) instructed a person who read from the books of Moses to obey what he had read from those books. It does not follow that Muhammad (pbuh) would do this if he had any doubt as to their integrity. Any distrust that we read about is not levelled at the books themselves, but at those who tried to interpret them to others.​

Is that pretty much the gist of what you are saying?

 

[Umar001]

Hi Al Habeshi:

Since we are returning to the authenticity of the Books, then let us try and put this issue “to bed”. Please follow my reasoning below.

1. I believe that we are in agreement that the original documents are probably not available. However, copies are available.

Copies of copies....of copies are available, ok.

2. We are in disagreement on the quality of the copying.

I guess so.

3. Mohammed referred to the Books that came before and even had portions of these Books read in his presence. He also instructed the reader to obey what was written.

Two points I want to make,

Did the portions of the Books read in his presence equate with the Revevaltions he spoke of.

Where did he instruct people to obey what was written.

A follow up, when we see that he did, then what does this mean? Does it mean that it is the Word of God? Or does it mean that people were allowed to rule by their own laws to a certain extent?

4. Therefore, regardless of the quality of copying, Mohammed felt that the copies had sufficient integrity to be followed.

Does the allowance of non Muslims to judge by their own laws means their laws are God's law, that's a point that needs to be adressed.

5. Manuscripts of the Books in the Bible can be seen today in the British Library, and some predate Mohammed by about 500 years.

Yet, there is no clear cut consensus on the whole book. Furthermore, do we know which type of manuscripts had reached the people Jews in Arabia?

6. The Qu’ran records Mohammed’s distrust of Rabbis and Monks who had copies of these documents in their possession.

Also, claims those who follow the story of Jesus being crucified as following conjecture. On top also claims that those who claim God is three and Jesus is God are total non believers.

Therefore, even if we assume that the copying was not the best quality, it was certainly good enough for Mohammed to recommend that they be read and followed.

There's a difference between letting people utilise their own laws, and commanding his own followers to follow such laws. Also theres a difference, between letting people follow what they hold to be God's word and saying it is God's word.

Verses have been provided repeatedly throughout this thread to support these points and they have withstood scrutiny by others. If you wish me to reproduce them, then I would be happy to do so.

You can do so, but I have yet to see clear cut verses that obligate Muslims to read the Bible, or to read the Injeel of Jesus or the Torah of Moses, what we do see is people bringing verses that the Muslims have to believe in the Word of God, including the previous revelations, to then say this means that they have to study each revelation is in my opinion a farfetched idea.

Let me clarify the title of this post. I have asked, “Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Bible? The post could have been phrased: “Are Muslims Obligated to Read the Books that came Before?” However, since I believe that these Books are contained in the Bible, I asked the former question.

But even if Islam says read the Injeel or Torah, that would not mean, read the books of Isaiah and the Book of Corinthians. This is why the title, are Muslims obligated to read the Bible is by defult wrong, nevertheless we understood what you meant.

Eesa.

 

[Walter]

Hi Al Habeshi:

It seems that our principal area of disagreement is whether Muslims should read the Books that came before. Before we get into that debate, let us at least agree on the suitability of these Books. As before, let us see where we have agreement and then move on from there.

1. We can agree that all who follow God’s revelation are acceptable to God, whether Muslim following the Qu’ran or Jews and Christians following the Books that were sent before.

5:43-5:47 show that the Books that came before were available and recommended by Mohammed to be used by Jews and Christians.

5:48 - To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

Please note a few things here.

1. The Books that came before have been confirmed or validated by the Qu’ran.
2. Muslims are to follow God’s revelation and not corrupt persons’ “vain desires”.
3. Those who follow God’s revelations whether contained in the Bible or the Qu’ran are on the right path.

See supporting verses are provided below.

5:66 - If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

So some Jews and Christians who followed their scriptures during Mohammed’s time, were on the right course.

5:69 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This concept is confirmed repeatedly in the Qu’ran and there is no evidence that Monks and Rabbis would have had any other scriptures to follow than what is contained in the Bible. We can argue about some of the books and the quality of copying until the Lord returns but we must always remember: The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;. (5:48)

Therefore I believe that we can agree that these books are beneficial to the people of the Book. The question that you queried was, does this mean that Muslims must also read them. I will respond to that shortly.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

The gist of what I am saying follows.

Mohammed came into contact with persons who called themselves Christians. They did not believe that he was a Prophet, mocked the religious traditions that he was trying to institute, like prayers at specific times etc, and essentially tried to discourage him.

Perhaps it was the Muslims claim to a relationship with their God, or that they appeared more devout than those following the Christian tradition; but for some reason, they refused to honestly engage him. Much of the Qu’ran therefore is Mohammed telling his followers how to answer those who question or reject their Islamic tradition. Mohammed’s frustration with such persons is clearly evident, but has been misinterpreted as hatred towards Christians and Jews rather than a combination of frustration and pity (that they rejected God’s revelations).

Mohammed is careful to explain to his followers that what God revealed before is beneficial; however, many from the previous groups (Jews and Christians) did not follow it and behaved corruptly. In my most recent post to Al Habeshi, we see that Mohammed acknowledged that some Christians who followed the Books sent before were on the right path. It is clear that the only Boks (scriptures) that Rabbi’s and Monks would have had in their possession around 600 AD would be contained in the Bible, and we have Bibles from before that time and in that region despite Al Habeshi's unwillingness to accept this.

The Codex Sinaiticus (330-350 AD) is on permanent display at the British Museum for all to see. The latest research suggests that it was one of the 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine after his conversion to Christianity and that it was written in Egypt. We know that the Bible is the most copied Book in the world and even Mohammed came across persons with copies in their hands some 300 years later, probably copied from the same Codex Sinaiticus in Egypt.

Now, as explained to Al Habeshi, we can debate meaninglessly for the remainder of our lives on the quality of copying; however, Mohammed considered the quality acceptable for use by Christians and Jews and declared that if they followed their scriptures, that they would be on the right path.

We will now investigate whether Muslims are also obligated to read and follow these Scriptures, which are contained in the Bible, or whether the Qu’ran is sufficient for them.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Al Habeshi:

Sorry about the delay – some work and other commitments had to be addressed.

The issue at hand is: are Muslims obligated to read these Books that came before. The Qu’ran does not say that Muslims are to believe that God’s revelation was sent to people before, it says to believe the actual scriptures themselves in the same manner that they believe the Qu'ran. This requires that Muslims either read or hear the Qu'ran and the Books that came before for themselves.

4:136 - O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

The Qu’ran further instructs Muslims not only to believe what is written in the Books sent before, but to follow or obey what is written in them.

6:155-156 - And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:

I understand that there is some concern over whether the Book referred to in “And this is a Book …” refers to Books contained in the Bible. However, let us look at the context.

6:154: Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.
155: And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy:
156: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:"
157: Or lest ye should say: "If the Book had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they." Now then hath come unto you a clear (sign) from your Lord,- and a guide and a mercy: then who could do more wrong than one who rejecteth Allah's signs, and turneth away therefrom? In good time shall We requite those who turn away from Our signs, with a dreadful penalty, for their turning away.

The Book referred to in 154, 156 and 157 are clearly the Books sent before which are found in the Bible (and again, we can debate forever the quality of the copying). Now, the Book in 155 is clearly referencing the Book in 154 which is older revelation. Therefore Muslims are obligated to read or hear, believe, and follow the Books that came before.

Have a great weekend,
Grenville

 

[vpb]

This requires that Muslims either read or hear the Qu'ran and the Books that came before for themselves.

4:136 - O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

To be commanded to believe in a book doesn't mean to be commanded to read it. It is just that we have to believe in the books that were sent, bc that is what happened, so we can't deny bc if we deny it than basically we are saying that God is telling a lie (astagfirullah). So we believe in Allah, His messengers, angels, books ...... this is the belief.

The Qu’ran further instructs Muslims not only to believe what is written in the Books sent before, but to follow or obey what is written in them.

6:155-156 - And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:

Please stop commenting on verses. The verse here is talking about the Qur'an and not the Bible or Torah.

I understand that there is some concern over whether the Book referred to in “And this is a Book …” refers to Books contained in the Bible. However, let us look at the context.

muslims don't believe in the bible that is today. today we have the bible from humans (paul,matthew etc...) , while the Bible that Qur'an talks about is one book sent from Allah swt to Isa a.s and it's not a "collection of books".

6:154: Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.

and?? I can't see anywhere where muslims are commanded to read/obey the books of Moses. btw, we can't even find the original book given to Moses.

155: And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy:
156: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:"

I explainded above, these verses are talking about the Qur'an.

157: Or lest ye should say: "If the Book had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they." Now then hath come unto you a clear (sign) from your Lord,- and a guide and a mercy: then who could do more wrong than one who rejecteth Allah's signs, and turneth away therefrom? In good time shall We requite those who turn away from Our signs, with a dreadful penalty, for their turning away.

again this verse is not talking about Bible or Torah.

 

[Grace Seeker]

muslims don't believe in the bible that is today. today we have the bible from humans (paul,matthew etc...) , while the Bible that Qur'an talks about is one book sent from Allah swt to Isa a.s and it's not a "collection of books".

Does the Qur'an actually use the word "Bible"(or whatever the Arabic for "Bible" is)? I ask, because the only Bible we have ever had has been in a compilation of books, in other words (in your way of thinking) it has been "the bible from humans". No Bible that could be described as "one book sent from Allah" has ever existed, so why would the Qur'an mention it?