Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?

[believer]

Exactly what i ment dude he was just asking a simple question and this thread is being hijacked ahhhh run or else we are going to die :skeleton:
OFF TOPIC let's go to topic i think the person who started this thread proberly 1%he got his answer 99%off topic things get answered so i am hoping this thread closed

Before the thread is closed... I'd like to answer your question.

Are Muslims obliged to read the Bible? - the answer is NO!
You are not obliged. So meaning - it is your own option. As the surgeon generals warning: "it can be dangerous to ones health..." but - it's your choice.

May Allah guide you.

 

[Walter]

Hi Everyone:

Just before this thread is closed, let us summarise where we are in this debate.

1. I proposed that Muslims are obligated to read the Books that came before and provided evidence. It was asserted that Muslims were not to believe “the scripture which He sent to those before” as specified in the Qu’ran, but simply to believe that scripture was sent before and not to read it. To interpret the verse this way would be to damage the integrity of the verse.

2. It was asserted that the Books sent before are corrupted and unavailable. In fact, the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the errors in copying the Bible are negligible. Also, the Bible that was most likely available to Mohammed was a copy of the Codex Sinaiticus which was available in Egypt and widely copied about 300 years before. Mohammed referred to the Scriptures and recommended their use. Therefore regardless of the amount of copying errors (which were minor), it was acceptable to Mohammed and should therefore be acceptable to us.

3. It was asserted that there are inconsistencies with what is presented in the Qu’ran and the Bible. I asked for these inconsistencies, and it seems that they can be adequately resolved. For example, the contentious verse about Jesus’ crucifixion can be interpreted in more than one way – even the Tafsirs acknowledge that. Therefore if a contentious verse can be interpreted in a way that is harmonious with the Bible, the rest of the Qu’ran and with recorded history, without damaging the integrity of the verse, then why not do so – especially when the Tafsirs acknowledge that the Arabic in the contentious verse lends itself to more than one interpretation. It seems that others choose to hold on tightly to Islamic tradition rather than a harmonious interpretation of the Qu’ran.

4. The next contentious issue currently being discussed is Jesus being the Son of God. This can also be adequately resolved.

So basically this is where we are, and the evidence suggests that Muslims are obligated to read the Books that came before which are contained in the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Skillganon]

Hi Everyone:

Just before this thread is closed, let us summarise where we are in this debate.

1. I proposed that Muslims are obligated to read the Books that came before and provided evidence. It was asserted that Muslims were not to believe “the scripture which He sent to those before” as specified in the Qu’ran, but simply to believe that scripture was sent before and not to read it. To interpret the verse this way would be to damage the integrity of the verse.

2. It was asserted that the Books sent before are corrupted and unavailable. In fact, the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the errors in copying the Bible are negligible. Also, the Bible that was most likely available to Mohammed was a copy of the Codex Sinaiticus which was available in Egypt and widely copied about 300 years before. Mohammed referred to the Scriptures and recommended their use. Therefore regardless of the amount of copying errors (which were minor), it was acceptable to Mohammed and should therefore be acceptable to us.

3. It was asserted that there are inconsistencies with what is presented in the Qu’ran and the Bible. I asked for these inconsistencies, and it seems that they can be adequately resolved. For example, the contentious verse about Jesus’ crucifixion can be interpreted in more than one way – even the Tafsirs acknowledge that. Therefore if a contentious verse can be interpreted in a way that is harmonious with the Bible, the rest of the Qu’ran and with recorded history, without damaging the integrity of the verse, then why not do so – especially when the Tafsirs acknowledge that the Arabic in the contentious verse lends itself to more than one interpretation. It seems that others choose to hold on tightly to Islamic tradition rather than a harmonious interpretation of the Qu’ran.

4. The next contentious issue currently being discussed is Jesus being the Son of God. This can also be adequately resolved.

So basically this is where we are, and the evidence suggests that Muslims are obligated to read the Books that came before which are contained in the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

Nope false reasoning, false assertion and importantly no evidence suggest that.

Try again, people are not stupid.

I think this has been answered many time.

Secondly where you are heading?, because the Quran denies 100% that Essa bin maryam did not get crucified nor killed.

Also it 100% affirms Essa bin Maryam to be 100% man,

100% denies him being God, 3rd of God, God-Man, even son of God in any sense or word.

It also clearly denies any act of worship towards Essa bin Maryam.

 

[MustafaMc]

Nope false reasoning, false assertion and importantly no evidence suggest that.

Try again, people are not stupid.

I think this has been answered many time.

Secondly where you are heading?, because the Quran denies 100% that Essa bin maryam did not get crucified nor killed.

Also it 100% affirms Essa bin Maryam to be 100% man,

100% denies him being God, 3rd of God, God-Man, even son of God in any sense or word.

It also clearly denies any act of worship towards Essa bin Maryam.

Brother, I agree with you 110%. There must be a hidden agenda. We, of course, believe in the message that was revealed to Prophet Jesus ('Essa), but no one contends that even the gospels are a complete and accurate record of the message spoken by Jesus. It is obvious that the gospels are similar to hadith linked together in story form with just a sprinkling of Injeel (red letter Bibles). Just as we don't accept hadith (except for Hadith Qudsi) as divine revelation, neither do we accept the NT as divine revelation. Since even the quotes in the gospels attributed to Jesus are not accurate, we can't reliable accept them as true revelation either.

 

[believer]

Hi Everyone:

Just before this thread is closed, let us summarise where we are in this debate.

1. I proposed that Muslims are obligated to read the Books that came before and provided evidence. It was asserted that Muslims were not to believe “the scripture which He sent to those before” as specified in the Qu’ran, but simply to believe that scripture was sent before and not to read it. To interpret the verse this way would be to damage the integrity of the verse.

2. It was asserted that the Books sent before are corrupted and unavailable. In fact, the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the errors in copying the Bible are negligible. Also, the Bible that was most likely available to Mohammed was a copy of the Codex Sinaiticus which was available in Egypt and widely copied about 300 years before. Mohammed referred to the Scriptures and recommended their use. Therefore regardless of the amount of copying errors (which were minor), it was acceptable to Mohammed and should therefore be acceptable to us.

3. It was asserted that there are inconsistencies with what is presented in the Qu’ran and the Bible. I asked for these inconsistencies, and it seems that they can be adequately resolved. For example, the contentious verse about Jesus’ crucifixion can be interpreted in more than one way – even the Tafsirs acknowledge that. Therefore if a contentious verse can be interpreted in a way that is harmonious with the Bible, the rest of the Qu’ran and with recorded history, without damaging the integrity of the verse, then why not do so – especially when the Tafsirs acknowledge that the Arabic in the contentious verse lends itself to more than one interpretation. It seems that others choose to hold on tightly to Islamic tradition rather than a harmonious interpretation of the Qu’ran.

4. The next contentious issue currently being discussed is Jesus being the Son of God. This can also be adequately resolved.

So basically this is where we are, and the evidence suggests that Muslims are obligated to read the Books that came before which are contained in the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

Hi Grenville!

I appreciate your passion in seeking for truth... I am a revert... and I was once a Catholic Seminarian for priesthood. I have read the Bible like it's the only book worthy of reading everyday - both OT and NT.

But after I was divinely guided to find Islam after my surrender to God... I found myself in his land and I have read the Qur'an.

After reading and finishing the Qur'an in one month more or less... (reading it only in the Mosque 5 times a day - at least 1 chapter to 5 chapters per sitting) I read it again just to be sure of the revelations unfolding right before my eyes.

I have been re-reading the Qur'an over and over ever since. And I have no more desire to be reading any other book other than the Qur'an. Basically, the Qur'an confirms and affirms what was in the Bible. But, it also rectifies the falsehood which was placed in the former scriptures by human hands and minds.

Being in this stage of my faith... I see no heavy reason why Muslims should bother reading the Bible since this is not really recommended anymore...

It is like telling a Nuclear Science Student to read back some Junior High Science Books.

You need to accept that the Qur'an is the most credible of all the Holy Books... and it is also preserved in its original state - deep in the hearts of men all over the world.

In other words... the Qur'an is GODS WORDS - The Latest and Final Edition.

Why read back the old editions when you already have the latest in your hands?

Isn't it time for you to really read it and see the beauty of God's words First Hand?

May Allah guide and Bless you and your Family...

 

[Walter]

Hi Believer:

Thank you for your response. Like you, I desire to know the Truth. However, I do not wish to be intellectually dishonest in doing so (I am not accusing anyone of doing this).

The evidence for Muslims being directed to believe the Books sent before is clear. However, rather than examining the evidence fully or presenting evidence from the Qu’ran that supports Muslims not being required to read the Books that came before, some inexplicably conclude “Muslims should not read the Books” without providing evidence to support this conclusion.

I believe that the verses that appear to be contentious really are not. They can be resolved to be in harmony with the Bible, recorded history, and the rest of the Qu’ran. However, rather than examine these verse, some revert to unfounded accusations.

The verse about Jesus’ crucifixion can clearly be interpreted in at least two ways. However, rather than at least consider the other interpretation, some appear to simply close their eyes, stop their ears and then write a response – that cannot be reasonable.

Regarding the Trinity, there is simply no effort made by anyone on this forum to look at the verse from a way that is harmonious with the Bible. If they would try, even a little bit, if they would be willing to make even the slightest of effort to examine the contentious verse, they would recognise that there is no one currently alive on this earth that believes the trinity in the way that it was presented to Mohammed. But rather than do this, people are trying to defend their religious traditions rather than what is actually written in the Qu’ran or in the Bible. What did Jesus say about religious tradition?

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
”This people honours Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—
the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God,
that you may keep your tradition. (John 7:6-9)

What did Jesus say about those who defend religious tradition by blocking their followers from knowing God:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men;
for you neither go in yourselves,
nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matt 23:13)

It was asserted that I have a “hidden agenda”. My agenda is well known. It is to know what is true without being intellectually dishonest, in all aspects of knowledge. Show me the evidence and let us examine it. If it requires interpreting before we can conclusively agree what we are examining, then let us interpret the evidence with out damaging it.

Now I understand the analogy about reading the fundamental text books and I can accept that analogy. However, if the advanced book specifically directed the reader to read the rudimentary books, then the choice is to either obey and benefit, or to disobey and …

Regards,
Grenville

 

[believer]

Hi Greville,

It has always been a pleasure crossing paths with you....

Which reminds me of verses in the Qur'an which says that the Qur'an is for those people who Reflect, Appreciate, Remember and Think.

You and a few others fall into this category...

I am a bit busy now... but I will address your post later.

May Allah bless us.