I know someone who was raised Christian and continues to believe in God, but questions the modern day bible and believes it to have been altered, he also questions the notion of the Trinity, and whether Jesus was simply a human and not is not to be considered the son of God. My understand is that what defines "Ahlul Kitab" are that they believe in God and believe and follow the guidance of the bible/torah based on them being Christian or Jewish, but in situations where someone questions the modern day version of the bible and believes it to have been altered, is he still considered "Ahlul Kitab"? Thank you

I have heard from several pious and sincere Muslims I met in my travels who claimed that the Islamic Prophet Muhammad has been prophesied in the Bible. But, unfortunately they could not show me any clear evidence in the Bible. Being a follower of Jesus Christ I have read the Bible several times. However, I have never found once in the Bible about the coming of a prophet called Muhammad. Sometimes I wonder if it is a mere claim or a claim with evidence.

I have Christian friends that pray before soccer games can I stand with them I am Muslim , sometime they read from the bible too.

I am willing to accept the argument that one shouldn't trust the bible as it has been changed so many times. There are many inconsistencies in the bible, but what if we had the original bible? What if we had access to the original texts, would we still need the Qur'an? I mean Why debate when all we need to do is go to the source of the text.

The Quran suggests Muhammad is written about in what we have of the Torah and the Injeel in Quran 7:157 and other verses and hadiths. >Quran 7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel..." One of the prooftexts often provided is Deuteronomy 18:15-20. >Deuteronomy 18:15-20 [Moses speaking to the Israelites]15 The Lord your God will **raise up for you a prophet like me from among your midst, from your brothers.** You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” > >17 The Lord said to me [Moses]: “What they say is good. 18 **I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers,** and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.” **What is the Islamic basis for understanding that a prophet "among your midst, among your brothers" could include the Ishmaelites as a possibility that would fulfill these verses?** An answer much more thorough than "because it doesn't exclude them explicitly" would be appreciated, as this is counter-intuitive. Additionally, the following data should be taken into consideration: In the same speech of Moses speaking to the Israelites, "brothers" seems to be more definitely restricted to Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:1-2), as the "brothers" have an inheritance, yet the Ishmaelites have no mention of an "inheritance" in Scripture. Again, in Deuteronomy 17:14-15, "brothers" are only part of those entering the Promised Land, the "land that God is giving you," which the Ishmaelites had no place in. The Ishmaelites were geographically quite separated from the Israelite location, so "among your midst" additionally appears to, on the surface, restrict this prophet to be an Israelite. Finally, "brothers" as a familial term seems to also restrict the prophet to be an Israelite. The Israelites and Ishmaelites, at this point, had already been separated in geography and genealogy for over 400 years; while it may seem reasonable to apply the phrase to relatively close genealogical members (though this distance isn't applied in chapters 17-18 mentioned previously), it seems highly unusual to use this term for those separated by such a great blood-relationship distance, many generations ago. So, really, to answer the main question as well as to address the all the data necessary, sub-questions would have to be answered (or counter-examples given): - **What good reason do Muslims propose is there to change the scope of the phrase "brothers" to include the Ishmaelites when it is previously restricted to Israelites in 17:14-15 and 18:1-2?** - **What good reason do Muslims propose is there for "among your midst" to apply to a people group that seems to be not "among your midst"?** (e.g. are there counter-examples in the Tanakh where "among your midst" also applies to two things geographically separated by many miles?) **I would really appreciate direction toward any Muslim scholarly literature that exists on the subject as well as any Muslim scholars familiar with Biblical Hebrew.** A discussion of the use of the term "brothers" and "among your midst" specifically in the Tanakh seems warranted. I recall "brothers" is used at some point in Scripture, though not in the same context, of Esau's descendants, which would still be Isaac's descendant. I welcome answers that dispute with any of the claims throughout this question. Let's leave the proposed corruption of the Bible out of the scope of this question.

If I understand correctly, Islam accepts several holy books as authored by Allah. Obviously, Muslims are encouraged to read the Quran, but among these books are the Bible (or Gospel) and the Torah, and it's not clear to me whether or not Muslims are encouraged to read them too. **Question**: Are Muslims encouraged to read the Bible and/or the Torah? Why or why not? As in: Would it be worthwhile? Could reading these books lead a Muslim astray? Is there some things a Muslim should know before reading them? On one hand, they're authored by Allah. But, at the same time, they're not treated the same way as the Quran, nor do I encounter e.g. Muslims reading or quoting from the Bible. There may also be some underlying politics involved here. It's unclear to me how to interpret this. This question https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/14433/17163 has vague and unreferenced answers. The OP of this question https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/10216/17163 writes "...the Bible is said to be either corrupted or superseded by the Quran." The answer to this question https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/25601/17163 writes "...the Qur'an is the word of God applicable today". The top answer to this question https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/12884/17163 writes "...a large chunk of the New Testament was written by Paul, whom the Qur'an doesn't recognize as a Prophet". And the answer to this question https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/4253/17163 says "...the Gospel and Torah was revealed from Allah but this does not validate its current day authenticity or require us to believe in its present day content entirely." My impression from the above linked questions is that it's either discouraged, or, at least, not strongly encouraged. Nobody seems to be arguing that it's critical for a Muslim to read these books.

Is there any evidence that Isa (a.s.) wrote the Injeel in book form? Because it seems that Allah has already gave him the Injeel when he was a baby. > [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. > > Quran 19:30 Isa (a.s.) said this as a baby after his mother gave birth to him and took him to her people. So I was thinking that Allah put the revelations in his mind beforehand and the Injeel was never actually written. This whole time the Injeel was just memorized inside Isa's mind. **If the Injeel was actually a written text, don't you think someone would have found it by now?** Instead, people keep finding very old un-canonical gospels written by Isa's disciples. No one ever finds the actual Injeel or what some people call "The Gospel of Jesus". I could be wrong but I think the Injeel was in Isa's mind this whole time....not in actual text.

Why did Allah send more than one book to mankind.Explain your Answer. Please consider adding references from the quran and sunnah to your answer.

The following verse in the Torah prophesizes about a nation which will be given "peace" and coming of a praised being: > and I will shake all nations, and the choicest things of all nations(חֶמְדַּת ) > shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of > hosts. 8 Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, saith the LORD of > hosts. 9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of > the former, saith the LORD of hosts; and in this place will I give > peace(שָׁלוֹם), saith the LORD of hosts.' Haggai 2 There is a remarkable appearance of the word חֶמְדַּת having root H-M-D. The arabic root for this is given here as Form IV: أَحْمَدَ (ʼáħmada) Also its said that the nation will be great and shake all other nations and God will give the nation "(שָׁלוֹם)"(Sh-L-M is a root for Islam). I understand that prophecies seem to be very cryptic until when the prophecy actually happens , and the verses become clear after the prophecy is manifested. Hence i guess only the ones who are very firmly grounded in knowledge would give us a clue to understand the above verse? And even they can go wrong in interpreting the verses as God alone would know its true meaning. Have any past Islamic scholars analysed this verse of Torah for such prophesies of Muhammad pbuh ?

I recently saw a trailer about a biblical person named Samson. I have not heard anything similar in the Islamic scriptures. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSolF3QBVBY Do we reject the story or simply ignore it as the Prophet was silent about it?

15When the water in the skin was gone, she put the child under one of the bushes. 16Then she went and sat down opposite him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot, for she said, “Let me not look on the death of the child.” And as she sat opposite him, she lifted up her voice and wept. 17And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. 18Up! Lift up the boy, and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” 19Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. 20And God was with the boy, and he grew up...ESV However in Genesis 17:25 when Ishmael was circumcised (3 chapters before), it says he was 13 years old: And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.ESV Was Ishmael a teenager when he and Hagar were sent away by Sarah? Or was Ishmael a child? genesiscontradiction

Salam , Quran is the un-altered word of Allah. Allah had promised for the protection of Quran. We also believe that Christians and Jews corrupted the Bible and Torah for their personal profits. I want to know that why did Allah only promised protection of Quran and not his others books? Why didn't he saved other books from human corruption, like he's doing for Quran?

Why does Islam reject the current versions of the Bible and Torah, even though the Qur'an confirms the existence of previous Christian and Jewish prophets like Abraham, Moses and Jesus in the Qur'an?

What does Islam think of the bible (both: old and new testament)? According to Islam is it fake or authentic? (many stories in the bible aren't the same as in the Quran) Kindly, support your answer with literature.

> Then has there not been a [single] city that believed so its faith benefited it except the people of Jonah? When they believed, We removed from them the punishment of disgrace in worldly life and gave them enjoyment for a time.**(Quran, 10:98)** so the people of jonah are the only city that benefited from faith? why? does it because they fast 40days? **Bible Jonah:3(4-10)** >4Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. 6When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes. 7He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. 8“But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. 9“Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.” 10When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

I read that the Qur'an does not mention Jerusalem. Israel's former Prime Minister Menachem Begin said, "While Jerusalem and Zion are mentioned over 800 times in the Jewish Bible, the holy city is not mentioned even once in the [Qur'an]." I am curious if this his claim is accurate. Does the Qur'an mention Jerusalem at least once? If so, what are the major passages in the Qur'an that do mention the city? I am not trying to offend anyone or make a point, I am simple trying to learn the facts.

One of my friends here in China wants to become a Christian and wants me to buy him an English-language Bible. My immediate reaction is "I should help; that's a good deed". However, as a Muslim, I'm having doubts as to whether or not this would be appropriate. **Question**: As a Muslim, is it appropriate to buy a friend a Bible? I can pick one up next time I'm in an English-speaking country. I'm not sure how much he will read (or is capable of reading). He's fully aware that I'm a Muslim. I'm tempted to use this verse to justify it: > There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.... -- Qur'an 2:256 However, while I should make no attempt to obstruct his religion, I'm not sure if I should facilitate it.

Qur'an 5:44 describes the Torah (as revealed to Prophet Musa ), and the Jews are to be judged by it. Qur'an 5:47 describes the Gospel (as revealed to Prophet Isa ) and the "People of the Gospel" (presumably this means Christians) are to be judged by it. Then we have: > And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth ... **To each of you We prescribed a law and a method**. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. ... -- Qur'an 5:48 My reading of this is that Jews are meant to follow the Torah, and Christians are meant to follow the Gospel. Moreover, they should do so instead of following the Qur'an. The first part of this is confirmed by tafsir, e.g.: > To every one of you O communities We have appointed a divine law and a way a clear path in religion for them to proceed along. -- Tafsir al-Jalalayn But I'm unsure about the second part... **Question**: Does Qur'an 5:48 imply that Allah wants Jews to follow the Torah and Christians to follow the Gospel, instead of the Qur'an?

"God spoke to Biblical prophets but never to Mohammad" (Gen 8:15 God spoke to Noah, Gen 24:7 to Abraham, Gen 31:11 to Jacob, Exo 6:2 to Moses, 1Sam 3:17 to Samuel, 2Sam 23:3 to David, etc...) **DISCLAIMER**: The above statement is posted by a Christian, not me. He held these prove steadily against Islam as the truth.

Muslims claim Jews and Christians changed the original message of God. Is there **historical/scientific evidence** that, as claimed by Islam, the Bible (both Old Testament [the Jew bit] and New Testament [the Christian bit]) altered the original message of God in, **by definition**, everything that contradicts the Quram? Types of evidence I can think of (not-exclusive list): - manuscripts dated **before** the official ones with a version not contradicting the Quram. - written evidence that the message of Jesus was different from the one reported by the New Testament. Notice the [Gospel of Barnabas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Origins) (which some claim to be closer to the original message of Jesus) was mentioned first as late as the 6th century and the oldest manuscript is from the 18 century, much later than the rest of the documents. - Paul is often regarded as a distorter but he is pretty much in line with the rest of the apostles of Jesus. So perhaps we are looking at evidence of Apostles' early writings with a different message? - But if apostles were also corrupted from the beginning, any writing that gives evidence of this. I am sure you understand that anyone can come with a allegedly "true word" of God and claim that, by definition, anything from before that contradicts this new word has been altered from the "original message", which was "naturally" fully in line with this "corrected" word of God. Also, from a mere logical point of view, the lack of this evidence of course does not invalidates the claim of Islam regarding the Bible, but it does put a very heavy burden of proof on Islam for such claims.