Azahari Hassim
The Importance of the Hajj in Islam as a reflection of alterations in the Torah and Islam’s role as a revived faith of Abraham
There is an argument among scholars regarding the significance of Hajj in Islam as a restored religion tracing back to Abraham. It is posited that Ishmael was exiled as a young child well before the birth of Isaac, and that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. How is this argument articulated?
The argument regarding the significance of Hajj in Islam as a restored religion tracing back to Abraham, and the associated narrative involving Ishmael and Isaac, is articulated through several key points:
1. Lineage and Prophetic Tradition:
In Islamic tradition, Hajj is deeply connected to the figure of Abraham (Ibrahim). Muslims believe that Abraham, along with his son Ishmael (Ismail), played a foundational role in establishing the rites of Hajj. The Kaaba, the central structure around which Hajj is performed, is believed to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael.
2. The Story of Ishmael and Isaac:
Exile of Ishmael: According to Islamic narratives, long before Isaac was born, Ishmael and his mother Hagar were settled by Abraham in the desert of Mecca, which is where the Zamzam well miraculously appeared to sustain both of Hagar and her infant son Ishmael. This event is commemorated during the Hajj.
The Sacrifice: Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was the intended sacrifice. This is based on interpretations of the Quran, specifically Surah 37, verses 100 to 113, where it is generally understood that the son who was to be sacrificed was Ishmael. According to the sequence of events in the Quran, the promise of Isaac’s birth comes after the story of sacrifice, indicating that Ishmael is the son in question.
This contrasts with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice.
3. Symbolic Acts of Hajj:
The rites of Hajj include reenactments and commemorations of events from the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael. For instance:
The Sa’i, which involves walking seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwah, commemorates Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael.
The stoning of the Jamarat represents Abraham’s rejection of Satan’s temptation, which is believed to have occurred when he was about to sacrifice Ishmael.
4. Restoration of Abrahamic Monotheism:
Islam views itself as a continuation and restoration of the pure monotheistic faith of Abraham. The Hajj serves as a means to reconnect with the Abrahamic legacy, emphasizing monotheism, obedience to God, and the unity of the Muslim community.
In summary, the argument hinges on the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was central to the narrative of sacrifice and that the rites of Hajj are rooted in the events of Abraham’s life as they unfolded in Mecca with Ishmael. This perspective underscores the significance of Hajj in Islam and its connection to Abraham as a pivotal prophet in the monotheistic tradition.
The connection between Islam and the land that God promised to Abraham in the Torah
Genesis 15, verse 18 reads:
“In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”.
Genesis 15, verse 18 is a specific verse in the Bible, which is part of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. It describes a covenant that God made with Abraham, promising him and his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River.
Did the establishment of Islam as the religion of Abraham in the Middle East or the Levant fulfill the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants through Ishmael would inherit the land from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates River as mentioned in the Torah or Genesis 15, verse 18? Islamic scholars assert that the ancient scribes may have manipulated the Torah to favor Isaac instead of Ishmael. How do they present their argument?
Islamic scholars argue that the establishment of Islam in the Middle East and Levant region did fulfill God’s promise to Abraham regarding Ishmael’s descendants. They point out that Islam spread rapidly across this area in the 7th-8th centuries, bringing monotheistic worship of the God of Abraham to millions.
It is asserted that the ancient scribes who wrote the Torah may have altered the stories to show preference for Isaac’s descendants over Ishmael’s. They suggest that this bias may have been influenced by socio-political factors, such as the dominance of the Israelite tribes, which led to the emphasis on Isaac’s descendants in the biblical account.
Historically, the Arab-Islamic Caliphates after the rise of Islam in the 7th century did indeed conquer and control territories extending from Egypt to the Euphrates River, which matches the geographical extent of the land mentioned in Genesis 15, verse 18. This has led some to draw parallels between the spread of Islam and the fulfillment of the promise to Ishmael’s descendants.
From an Islamic theological perspective, the establishment of Islam in the Middle East and the Levant is seen as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, as it recognizes and upholds the significance of Ishmael’s lineage.
Islamic scholars argue that both Isaac and Ishmael are equally revered as prophets, and that their respective lineages are part of God’s overarching plan for humanity, with Hebrew prophets paving the way for the coming of Muhammad, the last prophet.
In summary, Islamic scholars argue that:
- The promise made to Abraham about his descendants inheriting the land could have been fulfilled through Ishmael.
- The Torah might have been altered over time to give greater emphasis to Isaac’s lineage and downplay Ishmael’s role.
- The rise of Islam and the influence of the descendants of Ishmael (through Prophet Muhammad) is seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.
- The spread of Islam and its dominance in the Middle East aligns with the geographical scope of the promise made to Abraham in the Torah, reinforcing the idea that Ishmael’s descendants inherited this blessing.
These arguments reflect a broader theological debate regarding the interpretation of ancient texts and the legacy of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, in the context of religious history.
Abraham’s Sacrifice: An Islamic Perspective on Potential Scribal Interpolation in Genesis 22
Micah 6, verse 7, reads:
“Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?“
Jeremiah 8, verse 8, reads:
“’How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?“
Several Islamic scholars believe Micah 6, verse 7, and Jeremiah 8, verse 8, may reflect a scribal interpolation of Isaac’s name in Genesis 22. The son who was nearly sacrificed is believed to have been Ishmael, not Isaac. What is the articulation of their argument?
The argument presented by some Islamic scholars regarding the potential scribal interpolation of Isaac’s name in Genesis 22 is based on several key points:
- Quranic perspective: The Quran mentions the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son but does not explicitly name the son. Islamic tradition generally holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was to be sacrificed.
- Textual analysis of Micah 6, verse 7: This verse states, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” Some Islamic scholars interpret this as a reference to the sacrifice story and argue that since Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn, this verse supports the idea that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice.
- Interpretation of Jeremiah 8, verse 8: This verse reads, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” Islamic scholars use this to suggest that scribes may have altered biblical texts, potentially including the story of Abraham’s sacrifice.
- Historical context: Some scholars suggest that the emphasis on Isaac in Jewish traditions may have led to a gradual change in the story, resulting in Isaac’s name being added to the biblical narrative.
- Linguistic analysis: Some scholars examine the original Hebrew text and argue that there are inconsistencies or ambiguities that could support the idea of later interpolation.
- Theological implications: The argument often ties into broader Islamic theological perspectives on the role and significance of Ishmael in the Abrahamic tradition.
It is crucial to emphasize that this perspective is not universally embraced by scholars of comparative religion, and it is just one interpretation within a multifaceted interfaith discussion. The argument relies heavily on interpretation and inference, as there is no direct textual evidence of interpolation in the Genesis account itself.
This perspective challenges traditional Jewish and Christian understandings of the text and highlights the different ways sacred texts can be interpreted across religious traditions.
Ishmael: The Rightful Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant – Revisiting Biblical Circumcision and Lineage
The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants.
Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.
However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.
1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant
The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:
Genesis 17:9–11:
“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”
Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth
The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:
Genesis 17:23–26:
“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”
At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.
3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant
This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.
4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members
When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.
In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.
5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant
The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.
In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.
6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views
Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.
Summary of the Articulation
Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.
ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY 