Azahari Hassim
What is the reason there is no command in the Torah to commemorate Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac?
Some argue that the absence of a command to commemorate Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah suggests that Genesis 22, verse 2, was altered to include Isaac’s name. This absence is often juxtaposed with the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha in scholarly discussions. How is their argument articulated?
The scholarly argument that the absence of a command to commemorate Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah suggests that Genesis 22, verse 2, was altered to include Isaac’s name can be articulated as follows:
1. Textual Observation:
Genesis 22, verse 2, identifies Isaac as the son that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. However, the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) does not contain any divine commandment or ritual to commemorate this pivotal event in the life of Abraham.
2. Comparative Analysis with Islamic Tradition:
In contrast, the Islamic tradition commemorates this event through the annual festival of Eid al-Adha. Eid al-Adha includes specific rituals such as animal sacrifice (qurbani), distribution of meat to the poor, communal prayers, and multi-day celebrations.
This festival is one of the most significant observances in the Islamic calendar, underscoring the centrality of Abraham’s sacrifice in the Muslim tradition.
3. Scholarly Questions and Implications:
The absence of any commemorative command or ritual for the Binding of Isaac (the Akedah) in the Torah is seen as puzzling by some scholars.
This is particularly notable given that the Torah typically prescribes commemorative rituals for other major events in Jewish history, such as the Exodus (Passover) and the giving of the Torah (Shavuot).
The contrast between the absence of commemoration in the Jewish tradition and the elaborate observance in the Islamic tradition raises questions about the potential development and evolution of the biblical narrative.
4. Historical-Critical Perspective:
Some scholars argue that the absence of a commemorative command in the Torah may suggest that the identification of Isaac as the son in Genesis 22, verse 2, was a later addition or alteration to the original narrative. The argument suggests that the earlier tradition may have been focused on Ishmael, and the inclusion of Isaac’s name might represent a later theological development. The absence of a commemorative commandment may suggest a possible evolution in the text.
5. Scholarly Framework:
This argument employs a comparative religious studies approach, juxtaposing the treatment of the Abrahamic sacrifice narrative in the Jewish and Islamic traditions.
The contrast between the absence of commemoration in the Torah and the presence of a major festival in the Islamic tradition is used as a basis for textual-critical analysis of the biblical narrative.
It is important to note that this argument represents one scholarly perspective, and there are various interpretations and counterarguments within the academic discourse on this subject.
Islamic Eid al-Adha (feast of sacrifice) vs Jewish Passover
Some contend that the celebration of Eid al-Adha (feast of sacrifice) by all Muslims, in contrast to the Jewish observance of Passover, suggests that Muslims are linked to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, while Jews are associated with the Sinai covenant. How does their argument go?
The argument that Muslims are linked to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, while Jews are associated with the Sinai covenant, is based on a few key points:
- Eid al-Adha commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, which Muslims believe was Ishmael rather than Isaac. This directly connects Muslims to Abraham and Ishmael.
- All Muslims worldwide celebrate Eid al-Adha by sacrificing an animal, reminiscent of Abraham’s sacrifice. This universal observance is seen as linking all Muslims to the Abrahamic covenant.
- The Quran portrays Ishmael as assisting Abraham in building the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca, further cementing the connection between Muslims, Abraham and Ishmael.
- In contrast, Passover specifically commemorates the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under Moses’ leadership. This event is directly tied to the giving of the Torah and establishment of the Sinai covenant.
- The Sinai covenant, with its 613 commandments, is seen as specifically binding on Jews rather than on all people.
- Some argue there is a distinction between the Abrahamic covenant characterized by promise, and the Sinai covenant characterized by law.
- While both trace ancestry to Abraham, Muslims see themselves as spiritual descendants of Ishmael, while Jews trace their lineage through Isaac and Jacob.
Therefore, this difference in religious observances implies that Muslims see themselves as heirs to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, while Jews associate themselves more closely with the later Sinai covenant.
However, it’s important to note that both religions still consider Abraham a key patriarch and founder of monotheism.
This argument highlights some of the theological differences between Islam and Judaism regarding their relationship to Abraham and divine covenants, though both religions still revere Abraham as a major prophet and patriarch.
Islamic Views on the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants in Relation to Heritage and Relics
There is no specific Abrahamic relic that has been preserved through Jewish generations, similar to the Kaaba, the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) and the Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim) in Islam. The sole significant artifact associated with Jewish heritage is the Ark of the Covenant.
However, it is important to note that the Ark can be traced back to Moses rather than Abraham and was lost during the destruction of the First Temple. Consequently, Islamic scholars maintain that the Israelites were bound by the Sinai Covenant, while Muslims are considered to be under the Abrahamic Covenant. How does their argument go?
The argument presented by Islamic scholars regarding the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant is based on several theological and historical points. To understand their perspective, let’s break down the key elements:
- Abrahamic Covenant vs. Sinai Covenant: The Abrahamic Covenant is believed to be the original covenant between God and Abraham, which includes promises of land, descendants, and blessings.
The Sinai Covenant, also known as the Mosaic Covenant, was established between God and the Israelites through Moses at Mount Sinai. - Islamic view on continuity: Islamic scholars argue that Muslims are the true inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant, which they consider to be universal and eternal.
They contend that the Sinai Covenant was specific to the Israelites and was temporary or conditional. - Lack of physical relics: The absence of a specific Abrahamic relic in Jewish tradition, comparable to the Kaaba, the Black Stone, or the Station of Abraham in Islam, is seen by some Islamic scholars as significant.
They argue that this absence might indicate a break in the direct line of Abrahamic heritage. - The Ark of the Covenant: While the Ark of the Covenant is a significant artifact in Jewish history, it is associated with Moses rather than Abraham.
Its loss during the destruction of the First Temple is sometimes interpreted by Islamic scholars as a symbolic end to the Sinai Covenant. - Islamic claim to Abrahamic heritage: Islamic scholars often emphasize the direct lineage of Muhammad to Abraham through Ishmael.
They argue that Islam represents a restoration of the original Abrahamic monotheism, unencumbered by later additions or alterations. - Universality vs. particularity: The Islamic view often presents the Abrahamic Covenant as universal, meant for all of humanity.
In contrast, they view the Sinai Covenant as particular to the Israelites and not binding on all people. - Supersessionism: Some Islamic interpretations incorporate a form of supersessionism, suggesting that Islam supersedes earlier revelations and covenants.
It’s important to note that this argument represents a specific Islamic perspective and is not universally accepted outside of Islamic scholarship. Jewish and Christian traditions have their own interpretations of these covenants and their ongoing relevance. The topic of covenants and their applicability is a complex theological issue with various interpretations across different faith traditions.
Heir to Abraham: Isaac vs. Ishmael
The phrase “Heir to Abraham: Isaac vs. Ishmael” pertains to the biblical narrative surrounding Abraham, who is regarded as the progenitor of both Isaac and Ishmael. In the biblical account, God assures Abraham that he will have a son, leading to the birth of two sons: Isaac, born to his wife Sarah, and Ishmael, born to his servant Hagar.
The competition between Isaac and Ishmael arises from their respective positions as heirs to Abraham’s legacy. Within Jewish tradition, Isaac is recognized as the legitimate heir and the primary recipient of God’s covenant with Abraham, while Ishmael is frequently depicted as an outsider or a rejected figure.
Conversely, Islamic tradition perceives Ishmael as a fruit of Abraham, wheras Isaac is considered a divine gift given to Abraham and Sarah during their later years, due to Abraham’s obedience in leaving the infant Ishmael and his mother in the desert near the Kaaba (the house of God), as well as his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael.
I seek clarification regarding the interpretation of this argument.
In the Islamic tradition, Ishmael is regarded as a symbol of Abraham’s initial struggle and test of faith, while Isaac represents the ultimate reward for his unwavering obedience to God. The narrative of Abraham leaving infant Ishmael and his mother in the desert near the Kaaba illustrates Abraham’s trust in God’s plan, even when confronted with difficult decisions.
Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice Ishmael further underscores his complete submission to God’s will, as he was willing to relinquish the most precious thing in his life without hesitation. This act of devotion holds great significance in Islamic teachings and serves as a compelling example of faith and obedience.
As a reward for Abraham’s steadfastness and willingness to follow God’s commands — both in leaving infant Ishmael and Hagar in the desert and in his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael — God granted Abraham and Sarah a miraculous gift: the birth of Isaac in their old age.
This divine blessing signified God’s recognition of Abraham’s faith and further cemented his role as a patriarch of monotheistic faith, with both Ishmael and Isaac becoming the forebears of great nations.
This narrative highlights the interconnected themes of sacrifice, trust, and divine reward, demonstrating that true faith is met with God’s grace and fulfillment of His promises.
The Quran asserts that it rectifies the biblical narrative surrounding Abraham by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant. Additionally, the divine selection of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets under the Sinai covenant before the advent of Islam is seen as a precursor to the coming of Muhammad, the last Prophet.
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 