---

Azahari Hassim

Excerpt from Notes on the Bible by Albert Barnes (1834) on Isaiah 60:7

The time will come, however, when Arabia, so interesting as settled by the descendants of Abraham; so interesting in the bold, active, and energetic character of its tribes; so interesting as using a language that is one of the most refined and far-spoken of the earth; and so interesting as being, in some parts at least, among the most fertile and beautiful of the earth, shall be converted to God.

Excerpt from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary on Isaiah 60, verses 4 to 7:

It is quite remarkable that, in origin, all these offered treasures are preponderantly Arabian. Perhaps there is a suggestion here that Islam will some day turn to the Cross.

Some believe that the “House of God” mentioned in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refers to the Kaaba, which will be restored as a place dedicated to the God of Abraham.

They connect this verse with the phrase ‘God was with the lad,’ referring to Ishmael in Genesis 21:20. This suggests a specific sacred location where God’s presence would be particularly manifest.

In other words, Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar near the House of God (the Kaaba) and dedicated them to God, as noted in Surah 14, verse 37 of the Quran. How does their argument proceed?

The argument that Isaiah 60, verse 7, refers to the Kaaba and connects with the story of Ishmael in Genesis 21, verse 20, and Surah 14, verse 37, of the Quran is built on several interwoven interpretations from both the Bible and Islamic tradition.

Key Points of the Argument:

1. Isaiah 60:7, and the Kaaba:

Isaiah 60, verse 7, speaks of “the flocks of Kedar” and “the rams of Nebaioth” being gathered and accepted on God’s altar, followed by the glorification of a “glorious house.” Kedar and Nebaioth are descendants of Ishmael, which leads some interpreters to associate this verse with the Arabs, who are traditionally considered descendants of Ishmael.

The “glorious house” is interpreted by some as referring to the Kaaba in Mecca. This interpretation is supported by the belief that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba as a house dedicated to God, making it a sacred site for monotheistic worship. The gathering of Kedar’s flocks is seen as a prophecy about future Arab worship at this site, particularly during the Hajj pilgrimage.

2. Genesis 21:20, and “God was with the lad”:

These scholars argue that the phrase suggests not only divine safeguarding but also refers to a specific sacred location. They connect this notion to Surah 14, verse 37 of the Quran, where Abraham implores:

“O our Lord! I have settled some of my offspring in an uncultivated valley near Your Sacred House.”

The parallels between these texts are viewed as supporting evidence that Ishmael was situated near the Kaaba (the House of God), a place believed to be particularly infused with God’s presence.

3. Surah 14:37, and the Sacred House:

In Surah 14, verse, 37, Abraham prays after leaving Hagar and Ishmael in a barren valley near God’s “Sacred House” (interpreted as the Kaaba). This Quranic passage reinforces the idea that Abraham intentionally placed his son near this sacred site, which would later become central to Islamic worship.

The prayer also asks for people’s hearts to be inclined toward this place, which some interpret as foreshadowing the establishment of Mecca as a center for monotheistic worship, particularly during Hajj.

Theological Implications:

The argument suggests that Isaiah 60, verse 7, is a prophetic vision about Mecca and its significance in future worship. By connecting this verse with Genesis 21, verse 20, proponents argue that God’s promise to make Ishmael into a great nation (Genesis 21, verse 18) finds its ultimate fulfillment in Mecca, where his descendants would worship God at the Kaaba.

This interpretation also ties into Islamic theology, where Abraham’s legacy is closely linked to the Kaaba. The Hajj rituals, including animal sacrifices during Eid al-Adha, are seen as fulfilling prophetic visions like those in Isaiah.

In summary, proponents of this view argue that Isaiah 60, verse 7, refers to the Kaaba and its role in future worship by Ishmael’s descendants. They connect this with Genesis 21, verse 20 (“God was with the lad“) and Surah 14, verse 37 (Abraham settling Ishmael near God’s sacred house), suggesting that these texts collectively point towards Mecca as a divinely favored location for monotheistic worship.

Hajj as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

Torah, Genesis 22 verse 18, reads:

“And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

It is believed the event of the Hajj in Mecca is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18. According to the Islamic belief, Abraham offered Ishmael, not Isaac, as a sacrifice to God, emphasizing Ishmael’s role in fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham. The event of Hajj proves that God made a covenant with Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael rather than Sarah and Isaac. How is this viewpoint presented?

The viewpoint that the Hajj in Mecca is a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18, and represents a covenant made by God with Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael, rather than Sarah and Isaac, is articulated based on several key aspects of Islamic belief and interpretation of religious texts:

1. Prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18: The verse in Genesis states, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Some interpret this as a prophecy that is fulfilled through the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son with Hagar. The Islamic narrative holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was offered by Abraham as a sacrifice to God. This signifies Ishmael’s importance in the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. The Hajj, as a major Islamic ritual commemorating the actions of Abraham and Ishmael, is seen as a manifestation of this blessing.
2. The Hajj and Ishmael’s Legacy: In Islamic tradition, the Hajj includes rituals that are believed to commemorate the life and trials of Abraham and his son Ishmael. The ritual of Sa’i, where pilgrims travel back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwah, is seen as a re-enactment of Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael. According to Islamic belief, the well of Zamzam originated to rescue baby Ishmael.
3. The Kaaba and Islamic Tradition: The Kaaba in Mecca, which is the focal point of the Hajj, is believed in Islamic tradition to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael as a house of worship to the one true God. This act of establishing monotheism in the region is viewed as a key part of fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham.
4. Universal Blessing and Unity of Humankind: The Hajj is seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s descendants. The gathering of millions of Muslims from diverse nations during Hajj is viewed as a symbol of this blessing and the unity of humankind under God’s guidance.
5. Continuity of Abrahamic Tradition: The Hajj is also seen as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism. This perspective posits that Islam, as the final revelation in the Abrahamic tradition, fulfills and perfects earlier revelations given to Jews and Christians.

This viewpoint is part of the broader Islamic interpretation of religious history, which sees Islam as both a continuation and a completion of the monotheistic tradition established by Abraham.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Gospel of Thomas is a non-canonical text that is considered one of the most important early Christian writings outside of the New Testament. This text is part of a group known as the Nag Hammadi library, which was discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. This library contains a collection of early Christian and Gnostic texts that were buried around the 4th century AD.

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says:

“When you see someone not born from a woman, prostrate yourself and worship him, he is your Father.”

Some scholars believe that the above statement means that Jesus did not claim to be God because he was born of a woman. How is their argument articulated?

The argument that some scholars make based on the passage from the Gospel of Thomas—“When you see someone not born from a woman, prostrate yourself and worship him, he is your Father”—rests on the idea that this statement reflects a clear distinction between Jesus and God the Father. Here’s how the argument is generally articulated:

1. Jesus’ Human Birth vs. God’s Divine Nature:
   The phrase “not born from a woman” is interpreted as describing a being who exists outside the physical, human realm—an eternal, divine being who was not subject to human birth. In Gnostic and other mystical traditions, physical birth was often seen as part of the material, imperfect world. Jesus, being born of a woman (Mary), would be part of the human, material realm. Therefore, the figure being referred to in this saying—“not born from a woman”—is not Jesus, but rather God the Father, who is eternal and not subject to physical birth.
2. Distinction Between Jesus and the Father:
   If this passage is taken at face value, it seems to suggest that Jesus is not identifying himself with God. Jesus, as a human being born of a woman, would not fit the description of the one “not born from a woman.” Therefore, the one deserving of worship in this context is God the Father, not Jesus himself. This interpretation supports the idea that in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is positioning himself as a messenger, teacher, or revealer of divine truth, rather than claiming to be God. This aligns with the overall mystical and spiritual themes of the text, which emphasize direct knowledge or experience of the divine (often termed “Gnosis”) over doctrinal or hierarchical distinctions.
3. Gnostic Influence on Christology:
   The Gnostic interpretation of early Christian texts often distinguished between the human Jesus and the divine Father (or supreme spiritual being). In this view, Jesus was seen more as a guide leading people to spiritual enlightenment and understanding of the divine, rather than the divine being himself. This saying in Thomas could reflect that Gnostic influence, suggesting that the ultimate being to be worshipped is God the Father, and not Jesus, who is viewed as a human figure, a teacher or revealer, but not divine in the same way as the Father.
4. Implication for Christ’s Divinity:
   Scholars who hold this view argue that, at least in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus does not claim to be God because he does not fit the description of the one “not born from a woman.”

Instead, the ultimate divine being, the Father, is distinct from Jesus, and Jesus serves as a conduit or messenger of divine wisdom rather than being the object of worship himself.

In sum, these scholars believe that the saying implies a distinction between Jesus and God, and that Jesus is not claiming divinity because he was born of a woman, while the one deserving of worship (God the Father) is outside of the realm of human birth and the material world. This reflects a Gnostic or mystical interpretation where Jesus’ role is to reveal the divine, not to claim divinity himself.

Who were the Unitarian scholars among Christians prior to the establishment of the Nicene Creed?

Prior to the formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 CE, certain Christian scholars and theologians expressed Unitarian beliefs, focusing on the singularity of God and rejecting the doctrines of the Trinity. These figures typically aligned with early theological traditions that emphasized the Father as the sole God. Some of these individuals include:

1. Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century):

Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man who was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (“Adoptionism”). He rejected the idea of Jesus being divine by nature, affirming the singularity of God, and was excommunicated for his views.

2. Paul of Samosata (3rd century):

Paul, a bishop of Antioch, was a key figure in early Christian Monarchianism, emphasizing the unity of God. He taught that Jesus was a man endowed with divine wisdom and power but not preexistent or divine in nature. His views were condemned at the Synod of Antioch (268 CE).

3. Artemon (2nd–3rd century):

Artemon is associated with a form of Monarchianism, maintaining that early Christian doctrine affirmed that Jesus was merely human and not divine. He argued that the belief in Christ’s divinity was a later development.

4. Ebionites (1st–4th centuries):

The Ebionites were an early Jewish-Christian group that rejected the divinity of Jesus and the preexistence doctrine. They viewed Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah but emphasized the absolute unity of God.

5. Photinus of Sirmium:

Photinus was a 4th-century bishop who rejected the Trinity, viewing God as a singular entity rather than three distinct persons. His beliefs conflicted with orthodox Christian teachings, particularly the Nicene Creed established in 325 AD, which affirmed the Trinitarian view. Photinus emphasized God’s unity but was eventually condemned as a heretic by the Church for opposing the established doctrine.

6. Origen (184–253 CE):

Although Origen is often considered a precursor to later Trinitarian thought, he also emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father. His theological framework left room for interpretations that leaned toward a Unitarian understanding of the supremacy of the Father.

7. Arianism and Arius (c. 250–336 CE):

Arius, though post-Nicene, was active before the council and denied the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father and therefore subordinate, aligning with a Unitarian emphasis on God’s singularity.

8. Early Jewish Christians:

Many early Jewish Christians, including those in the Nazarean and Ebionite communities, maintained strict monotheism. They rejected the idea of Jesus’ divinity and upheld the belief in God as a singular being.

These figures and groups represent diverse streams of early Christian thought that diverged from the later Trinitarian orthodoxy solidified at the Council of Nicaea. Their beliefs highlight the rich and contested theological debates of early Christianity.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 22, verse 18, reads:

“And through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Genesis 22, verse 18, is a significant verse within the context of biblical narratives. After Abraham’s test of faith, where he was asked to sacrifice his son, God reaffirms His promises to Abraham, specifying the blessings that will come to him and his seed because of his faithfulness.

Some individuals contend that the reference to the “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, does not pertain to Jesus, citing his statement in Matthew 15, verse 24, as a basis for their argument. Instead, they posit that this reference should be associated with Muhammad, drawing support from Surah 21, verse 107, of the Quran. They believe Ishmael is the son who is to be nearly sacrificed, not Isaac. The articulation of their argument is as follows:

In Genesis 22, verse 18, it is stated, “And through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” The Hebrew term for “offspring” or “seed” is “zera,” which can function as a collective singular noun, suggesting that it may refer either to an individual or a group.

Conversely, in Matthew 15, verse 24, Jesus declares,

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

This declaration is interpreted by some to imply that Jesus’ mission was predominantly directed towards the Israelites, rather than encompassing all nations outright. This interpretation is utilized to argue that Jesus does not fulfill the universal promise articulated in Genesis 22, verse 18, which emphasizes blessings for “all nations.”

In support of their argument, proponents reference Surah 21, verse 107, in the Quran, which states:

“And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.”

This verse is viewed as indicative of Muhammad’s universal mission, which extends to all of humanity, aligning seamlessly with the promise of blessing for all nations mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18.

Advocates of this position argue that given Jesus’ explicit reference to his mission being limited to the Israelites, he falls short of fulfilling the universal dimension of the blessing foretold in Genesis 22, verse 18. In contrast, Muhammad is characterized in the Quran as a mercy extended to all worlds; thus, they assert that the “seed” referenced in Genesis 22, verse 18, pertains to Muhammad, rather than to Jesus.

The validity of this argument hinges on the interpretation of the scope of Jesus’ mission as presented in the New Testament, juxtaposed with the universal mission ascribed to Muhammad in the Quran.

The contrasting views on Jesus’ messiahship in Christianity and Islam.

Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah, while Christians and Muslims accepted him. The difference between Christianity and Islam concerning Jesus’ messiahship is that Islam does not believe Jesus was a Davidic messiah, as Christianity does. The Quran traces Jesus’ lineage back to Aaron and the Levite lineage, rather than David and Judah. How is this argument articulated?

The differences in the views of Jesus’ messiahship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are rooted in the religious texts and theological interpretations of each faith tradition.

In Judaism, the concept of the Messiah (Mashiach in Hebrew) is traditionally understood as a future Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be anointed and will rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.

The Jewish expectation is that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, gather the Jews back to the Land of Israel, and usher in an era of peace and understanding.

Since Jesus did not fulfill these expectations during his lifetime, and because Jews do not accept the New Testament as scripture, the majority of Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah.

Christianity, on the other hand, emerged from Judaism but took a different interpretation of the Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah and the Son of God. They believe that he fulfilled Old Testament prophecies through his teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection.

The concept of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah is central to Christian theology, emphasizing his lineage from King David as foretold by the prophets, such as in the book of Isaiah and the Psalms.

The New Testament, particularly in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, provides genealogies that trace Jesus’ ancestry back to David, aligning with the Jewish expectation of a Davidic Messiah.

Islam respects Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah but has a different understanding of his role and nature. In Islam, Jesus is considered one of the greatest prophets, born to the Virgin Mary without a father, performing miracles, and delivering a message of monotheism.

However, Islam rejects the concept of the divinity of Jesus and does not see him as the Son of God or part of a divine trinity, as Christianity does.

The Quran does not provide a detailed genealogy for Jesus. Although it recognizes his extraordinary birth and his role as the Messiah, it does not establish a lineage connecting him to David and Judah.

Instead, Jesus is often linked with Mary, who is herself described as being from the line of Imran (the father of Moses and Aaron) in the Quran.

This association might lead to the belief that Jesus is traced back to Aaron and the Levite lineage in Islamic tradition. However, Islamic scholars usually do not emphasize Jesus’ ancestry in the same way Christian scholars do with the Davidic lineage, focusing instead on his prophethood and message.

The notion that the Quran traces Jesus’ lineage to Aaron rather than David might be a result of the Quranic emphasis on Mary and her connection to the family of Imran.

It’s important to note that the Quran speaks highly of Jesus and Mary, but the focus is on their piety and their roles in God’s plan rather than on establishing a royal messianic lineage as is emphasized in Christianity.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Why do Jews and Christians not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad?

Jewish tradition holds that prophecy ended with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Therefore, they do not recognize any prophets after this period, including Muhammad.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the final and ultimate revelation of God. They do not see the need for another prophet after Jesus, as they believe he fulfilled all prophecies and brought the final covenant.

Surah 13, verse 43 of the Quran reads:

And those who have disbelieved say, “You are not a messenger.” Say, (O Muhammad), “Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you, and the witness of whoever has knowledge of the Scripture.”

It is believed that Islam is the restored religion of Abraham, and all Muslims hold the belief that Muhammad is the genuine and final prophet of God. How is this argument expressed within the context of Abrahamic theology?

If Abraham had been instructed by God to sacrifice Ishmael instead of Isaac, it could be argued that Islam and Muhammad have a legitimate claim as a true religion and prophet. This argument can be further explained by examining the differences in the narrative of Abraham’s sacrifice between Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions.

The story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son is significant in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, the key difference lies in the identity of the son involved. In Jewish and Christian traditions, it is Isaac who was nearly sacrificed, while in Islamic tradition, it is believed to be Ishmael. Although Ishmael’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, Muslims believe that he was the son whom Abraham was instructed to sacrifice.

If one were to argue for the legitimacy of Islam and Muhammad as a prophet based on the premise that Ishmael was the son intended for sacrifice, the argument might be structured as follows:

1. Shared Abrahamic Roots: All three monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham, recognizing him as a patriarch. The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command is seen as a test of faith in all three traditions.
2. Islamic Narrative: The Quran (Surah 37, verses 100 to 113) recounts the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son as a demonstration of his obedience to God. While the Quran does not name the son, the majority of Islamic traditions and interpretations identify the son as Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham through Hagar. This interpretation is derived from the order of events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred after the sacrifice story, leading to the conclusion that Ishmael was the son mentioned.
3. Prophetic Lineage: In Abrahamic theology, the near sacrifice of Ishmael is regarded as a foreshadowing of Muhammad’s prophethood. This connection between Ishmael’s near-sacrifice and Muhammad’s lineage plays a vital role in confirming Muhammad’s position as a prophet in Islam, serving as a fundamental aspect of the faith and offering valuable insight into the validity of his prophethood.
4. Preservation of Revelation: Muslims believe that the Quran is the final and unaltered word of God, preserved exactly as it was revealed to Muhammad. They argue that earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Bible, have been altered or misinterpreted over time. In this view, the Quran corrects these alterations, and the indication that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed is seen as the correct version of the story.
5. Continuity of Prophethood: Islam acknowledges the prophets of Judaism and Christianity but considers Muhammad to be the last prophet, who came to restore the original monotheistic faith and to correct deviations that had entered earlier religions. The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice, then, is seen as part of this corrective message.
6. Theological Implications: The identification of the son in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice holds great significance as it symbolizes the heir of the Abrahamic covenant. In Islamic tradition, designating Ishmael as the son underscores his pivotal role in their religious history and bolsters the credibility of the Islamic faith for Muslims. This underscores the crucial role that lineage and inheritance play within religious narratives.

In conclusion, the narrative of Ishmael as the son intended for sacrifice strengthens Islam’s theological foundation and affirms Muhammad as a prophet. It shows Islam’s connection to the Abrahamic tradition, preservation of divine revelation, and role in restoring monotheistic beliefs. This narrative difference also highlights the interconnectedness and differences among the three Abrahamic faiths, shaping their unique theological identities.

Contrasting Narratives: The Story of Hagar and Ishmael in Islamic and Judeo-Christian Traditions

Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, reads:

But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Certain Islamic scholars assert that the narrative concerning Hagar and Ishmael as depicted in the Torah may have undergone modifications by later scribes. They propose that the verses in Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10 may have been inserted at a later date, given that Hagar and Ishmael had already left Abraham’s household prior to the birth of Isaac. Furthermore, Islamic tradition indicates that Ishmael was an infant during this period (when departing from Abraham’s household).

The story of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael is recounted in both Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions, but the interpretations of events differ significantly, especially regarding motivations and circumstances.

In Islamic tradition, the narrative emphasizes that Abraham’s decision to leave Hagar and Ishmael in the desert was a direct command from God. This command is viewed as a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience to divine will. Muslims interpret Abraham’s actions as noble and part of a larger divine plan, which highlights his trust in God’s wisdom. The act is not attributed to any personal motives, such as jealousy or resentment, but is instead seen as a fulfilling of God’s purpose for Abraham and his family.

Conversely, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the focus shifts more towards human emotions and relationships. The narrative often centers around Sarah’s jealousy and insecurity upon seeing Ishmael mock Isaac, her son with Abraham. This jealousy leads Sarah to demand that Abraham expel Hagar and Ishmael from their home. This viewpoint highlights how complicated human feelings can be and the possible disagreements that might occur within family relationships. These conflicts can lead to feelings of being left out due to personal emotions.

Concerning the age discrepancy, Islamic texts typically depict Ishmael as a nursing infant when Hagar was left in the desert. This portrayal aligns with the practical realities of the situation, as it is more feasible for a mother to carry a small child rather than an older one. The narrative implies that Hagar, in her role as a mother, is caring for a very young child, which makes Abraham’s abandonment of them even more poignant given their vulnerability.

In contrast, the Biblical account presents Ishmael as approximately 17 years old at the time of his expulsion. This significant age difference raises questions about the practicality of the situation. If Ishmael were indeed a teenager, it would be less feasible for Hagar to carry him in the way described in the narratives. Additionally, the image of a young man depicted as helpless under a bush can create a conflicting view of his character, complicating the emotional weight of the story.

In conclusion, the Islamic viewpoint on the story of Hagar and Ishmael as presented in the Torah is marked by skepticism regarding the authenticity of certain verses. Islamic scholars argue that the timeline and events described in the Torah may have been altered, and Islamic tradition suggests that Ishmael was an infant during this period (when departing from Abraham’s household).

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

There is a belief among Islamic scholars that the Abrahamic covenant, fulfilled through Ishmael instead of Isaac, entails the promise of the land from the Nile River to the great river of Euphrates, along with the blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed.

Those who hold this view argue that God asked Abraham to offer Ishmael, not Isaac. They also contend that the ancient Israelite scribes altered their scriptures.

In contrast, the Israelites are bound by the Sinai covenant, which highlights communal responsibilities and accountability to God and to each other as part of the agreement between God and the Israelites. What is the articulation of their argument?

The argument that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac involves several key points articulated by those who support this view. Here is a summary and analysis of their arguments:

1. Promise of the Land:

Proponents of this view argue that the promise of the land extending from the Nile River to the Euphrates, as mentioned in Genesis 15, verse 18, was intended for the descendants of Ishmael. They believe that this geographic expanse aligns with the territories historically associated with Islam and Muhammad, who was a descendant of Ishmael.

2. Blessing to All Nations:

They interpret the promise of blessings to all nations through Abraham’s seed (Genesis 12, verse 3, and Genesis 22, verse 18) as being fulfilled through Muhammad (Surah 21, verse 107) which reads:

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as a mercy for the unto all beings.”

They argue that Islam, preached by Muhammad, has had a significant historical and cultural impact on a global scale, thus fulfilling the promise of being a blessing to all nations.

3. Sacrifice of Ishmael:

This argument hinges on the belief that God asked Abraham to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice, rather than Isaac. This is primarily based on Islamic tradition found in the Quran (Surah 37, verses 99 to 113), which states that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, and many Muslims believe this son was Ishmael. They argue that this narrative was the original one, which was later altered by Israelite scribes to place Isaac in the position of the sacrificial son.

4. Scriptural Alterations:

Supporters of this view contend that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to reflect Isaac as the chosen son who was to be sacrificed and through whom the covenant would be fulfilled. They believe that these alterations were made to establish and legitimize the Israelite claim to the covenantal promises.

Sinai Covenant Context

The Sinai covenant, distinct from the Abrahamic covenant, focuses on the relationship between God and the Israelites, emphasizing communal responsibilities and accountability. This covenant, given at Mount Sinai, includes the Ten Commandments and a detailed code of laws that govern the moral, religious, and social conduct of the Israelite community. The Sinai covenant underscores the idea that the Israelites are to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests, dedicated to serving God and adhering to His commandments.

Articulation of Their Argument

Those who argue for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael articulate their position by highlighting these key points:

1. Historical and Geographic Claims: They argue that the promise of the land and blessings align more closely with the historical and geographic realities of Ishmael’s descendants rather than those of Isaac.
2. Islamic Tradition: They cite Islamic scripture and tradition, which they believe preserves the original account of the sacrifice involving Ishmael, rather than Isaac. This account is viewed as being more authentic and less altered than the Hebrew Bible’s version.
3. Critical View of Scripture: They take a critical view of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that it underwent alterations by Israelite scribes to support their theological and political claims. They argue that these changes were made to establish a narrative that centers on Isaac and his descendants as the primary inheritors of God’s covenant with Abraham.
4. Fulfillment Through Ishmael’s Lineage: They believe that the widespread influence and significance of Ishmael’s descendants fulfill the covenantal promises more broadly and inclusively, aligning with the idea of being a blessing to all nations.

In summary, the viewpoint that the Abrahamic covenant is realized through Ishmael instead of Isaac is based on scriptural interpretations, historical context, and theological perspectives. This stands in contrast to the conventional interpretation of the covenant, which is linked to Isaac’s descendants, and underscores notable distinctions between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants.

Ishmael, the son dedicated to God, and Isaac, the son of blessing for Abraham and Sarah

It is thought that Abraham abandoned Hagar and the baby Ishmael close to the Kaaba (House of God) to devote them to God as if they were His. Consequently, Muslims celebrate Eid al-Adha and Sa’i, which honors Hagar’s search for water for her child. This happened well before Isaac’s birth. How is their argument explained?

The Islamic narrative of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael differs significantly from the Biblical account and forms an important part of Islamic tradition and ritual. Here’s an explanation of the argument:

1. Abraham’s Journey to Mecca

According to Islamic tradition, Abraham was commanded by God to take Hagar and their infant son Ishmael to Mecca. This journey was not seen as abandonment, but rather as fulfilling a divine command. Abraham left them near the location of what would later become the Kaaba, entrusting them to God’s care.

2. Hagar’s Faith and the Zamzam Well

After Abraham’s departure, Hagar demonstrated remarkable faith. When their water supply was exhausted, she ran between the hills of Al-Safa and Al-Marwah seven times, desperately searching for water for her thirsty child. This act of faith resulted in the miraculous appearance of the Zamzam well, a spring of water that gushed forth near Ishmael.

3. Significance in Islamic Ritual

This event is commemorated in the Islamic pilgrimage (Hajj) through the ritual of Sa’i, where pilgrims run or walk between the hills of Al-Safa and Al-Marwah seven times, reenacting Hagar’s search for water.

4. The Kaaba and Mecca

Islamic tradition holds that Abraham later returned to Mecca multiple times. During one of these visits, he and Ishmael constructed the Kaaba as the first house of worship dedicated to the one true God. This established Mecca as a sacred site in Islam.

5. Eid al-Adha

Eid al-Adha commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son (identified as Ishmael in Islamic tradition) at God’s command. This event is believed to have occurred near Mecca, further cementing the area’s religious significance.

6. Timing in Relation to Isaac

In the Islamic narrative, these events occurred before Isaac’s birth. Ishmael is considered the elder son and the one whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice.

7. God’s Blessing of Isaac

Following the near sacrifice of Ishmael, God blessed Sarah and Abraham with a son named Isaac, fulfilling His promise to them and establishing Isaac as another patriarch in the Abrahamic faiths.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Did classical Bible scholars engage in a debate regarding Ishmael’s age at the time of leaving Abraham’s house?

Yes, classical Bible scholars have indeed debated Ishmael’s age when he and his mother Hagar were sent away from Abraham’s household. The primary source of this debate stems from the biblical texts in Genesis.

According to Genesis 21, verses 8-14, the event occurred after Isaac was weaned. Since weaning typically happened around the age of three in ancient times, Ishmael would have been around 17 years old, given that he was 14 years older than Isaac. However, some interpretations of the text suggest that Ishmael is depicted as a much younger child, which has led to discussions about potential inconsistencies or symbolic interpretations within the narrative.

This debate highlights the complexities and nuances in interpreting ancient texts, where cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts play significant roles.

Some people think that Ishmael, when sent away by Abraham in the Torah, was just a young child, not a teenager, based on the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20. They point out that the Hebrew word “yelid” is used for both Ishmael and baby Moses (Exodus 2, verse 6). How do they explain this argument?

The argument is articulated by pointing out the use of the Hebrew word “yelid” in both Genesis 21, verses 14 to 15, and Exodus 2, verse 6. In these verses, “yelid” is used to describe both Ishmael and infant Moses. Supporters of the argument claim that since “yelid” is used to describe Moses when he was an infant, it should also be understood to mean that Ishmael was still a young child in Genesis 21, verse 20.

Additionally, the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20, is interpreted by some to imply that Ishmael was still in the process of growing and developing, suggesting a younger age. They argue that if Ishmael were already a teenager or older, it would not be necessary to mention his growth.

It should be noted, however, that interpretations of biblical texts can vary, and different scholars or readers may have different understandings of the intended meaning.

Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael’s story:

1. The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.
2. Abraham’s son, who was offered as a sacrifice.

Examining Claims of Scribal Interpolation: Who Was Abraham’s Sacrificial Son, Ishmael or Isaac?

Was there a scribal interpolation in the Torah regarding which son, Ishmael or Isaac, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, as suggested by the celebration of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) in Islam?

Some Islamic scholars argue that Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) points to a scribal interpolation in the Torah regarding which son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. Their argument for scribal interpolation is articulated as follows:
Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. This belief forms the basis for the celebration of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice), one of the most important festivals in Islam.

Scholars who support this view present several arguments:

1. Primacy of Ishmael: They argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant and thus the logical choice for such a significant test of faith.
2. Quranic Account: The Quran’s narrative of the sacrifice does not explicitly name the son, but contextual evidence and Islamic tradition point to Ishmael. This interpretation stems from the chronological events presented in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred after the narrative of the sacrifice, thereby suggesting that Ishmael was the son mentioned in that context.
3. Historical Context: These scholars suggest that ancient Israelite scribes may have altered the original text to emphasize Isaac’s role, shifting the focus away from Ishmael to establish a stronger theological foundation for Israelite claims.
4. Geographical Inconsistencies: They point out that the biblical account mentions Mount Moriah, while Islamic tradition places the event near Mecca, where Ishmael and Hagar settled.
5. Linguistic Analysis: Some argue that careful examination of the original Hebrew text reveals inconsistencies that suggest later editing.
   If this interpretation is accepted, it would have significant implications:

It would challenge the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.
It would support the Islamic view of Ishmael as a key figure in the Abrahamic covenant and narrative.
It would reinforce the Islamic belief in the Quran as a correction to earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospel.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

There are some scholars who believe the prophethood of Muhammad is related to Abraham’s near sacrifice of Ishmael. Therefore, Muslims commemorate Eid ul-Adha or the Feast of Sacrifice. How is this argument articulated?

The argument that the prophethood of Muhammad is related to Abraham’s near sacrifice of Ishmael is based on the Islamic tradition that Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Ishmael, not Isaac as mentioned in the Bible.

This event is seen as a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience to God, and Ishmael’s willingness to be sacrificed is seen as a demonstration of his own faith and submission to God’s will.

In Islamic theology, this event is considered a precursor to the prophethood of Muhammad, who is seen as a descendant of Ishmael. The story of Abraham’s sacrifice is commemorated by Muslims during the Eid al-Adha, or the Feast of Sacrifice, which is one of the most important Islamic holidays.

The argument is articulated as follows:

1. Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Ishmael, as mentioned in the Quran (Surah 37, verses 100 to 108).
2. Ishmael was willing to be sacrificed, demonstrating his faith and submission to God’s will.
3. This event is seen as a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience to God.
4. The prophethood of Muhammad is related to this event, as he is a descendant of Ishmael.
5. The story of Abraham’s sacrifice is commemorated by Muslims during the Eid al-Adha, which is a celebration of Abraham’s faith and obedience to God.

Therefore, the prophethood of Muhammad is seen as a continuation of the legacy of Abraham and Ishmael, and the story of Abraham’s sacrifice is seen as a precursor to the prophethood of Muhammad.

What is Eid al-Adha?

Eid al-Adha, also known as the “Festival of Sacrifice,” is one of the most significant Islamic holidays. It commemorates the willingness of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) to sacrifice his son Isma’il (Ishmael) as an act of obedience to God. According to Islamic tradition, just as Ibrahim was about to sacrifice his son, God provided a lamb to sacrifice instead.

The holiday is marked by various rituals and traditions, including:

1. Prayer: Special prayers are held in congregation, usually at a mosque or an open field.
2. Sacrifice: Families who can afford it will sacrifice an animal, typically a sheep, goat, cow, or camel. The meat is then distributed among family, friends, and those in need.
3. Charity: Emphasizing the importance of helping others, Muslims give to charity and ensure that everyone can partake in the celebration.
4. Gatherings and Feasts: Families and communities come together to share meals, celebrate, and enjoy each other’s company.

Eid al-Adha is celebrated on the 10th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the last month of the Islamic lunar calendar, and it coincides with the pilgrimage to Mecca known as Hajj. Muslims who are performing Hajj experience this holiday in a particularly special way.

The Seed of Promise: Analyzing the Fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 in the Context of Jesus and Muhammad

Genesis 22, verse 18, reads:

“And through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Genesis 22, verse 18, is a significant verse within the context of biblical narratives. After Abraham’s test of faith, where he was asked to sacrifice his son, God reaffirms His promises to Abraham, specifying the blessings that will come to him and his seed because of his faithfulness.

Some individuals contend that the reference to the “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, does not pertain to Jesus, citing his statement in Matthew 15, verse 24, as a basis for their argument. Instead, they posit that this reference should be associated with Muhammad, drawing support from Surah 21, verse 107, of the Quran. They believe Ishmael is the son who is to be nearly sacrificed, not Isaac. The articulation of their argument is as follows:

In Genesis 22, verse 18, it is stated, “And through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” The Hebrew term for “offspring” or “seed” is “zera,” which can function as a collective singular noun, suggesting that it may refer either to an individual or a group.

Conversely, in Matthew 15, verse 24, Jesus declares, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This declaration is interpreted by some to imply that Jesus’ mission was predominantly directed towards the Israelites, rather than encompassing all nations outright. This interpretation is utilized to argue that Jesus does not fulfill the universal promise articulated in Genesis 22, verse 18, which emphasizes blessings for “all nations.”

In support of their argument, proponents reference Surah 21, verse 107, in the Quran, which states, “And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.” This verse is viewed as indicative of Muhammad’s universal mission, which extends to all of humanity, aligning seamlessly with the promise of blessing for all nations mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18.

Advocates of this position argue that given Jesus’ explicit reference to his mission being limited to the Israelites, he falls short of fulfilling the universal dimension of the blessing foretold in Genesis 22, verse 18. In contrast, Muhammad is characterized in the Quran as a mercy extended to all worlds; thus, they assert that the “seed” referenced in Genesis 22, verse 18, pertains to Muhammad, rather than to Jesus.

The validity of this argument hinges on the interpretation of the scope of Jesus’ mission as presented in the New Testament, juxtaposed with the universal mission ascribed to Muhammad in the Quran.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

The Significance of Ishmael in Islamic Faith

If Abraham had been instructed by God to sacrifice Ishmael instead of Isaac, it could be argued that Islam and Muhammad have a legitimate claim as a true religion and prophet. This argument can be further explained by examining the differences in the narrative of Abraham’s sacrifice between Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions.

The story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son is significant in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, the key difference lies in the identity of the son involved. In Jewish and Christian traditions, it is Isaac who was nearly sacrificed, while in Islamic tradition, it is believed to be Ishmael. Although Ishmael’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, Muslims believe that he was the son whom Abraham was instructed to sacrifice.

If one were to argue for the legitimacy of Islam and Muhammad as a prophet based on the premise that Ishmael was the son intended for sacrifice, the argument might be structured as follows:

1. Shared Abrahamic Roots: All three monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham, recognizing him as a patriarch. The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command is seen as a test of faith in all three traditions.
2. Islamic Narrative: The Quran (Surah 37, verses 100 to 113) recounts the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son as a demonstration of his obedience to God. While the Quran does not name the son, the majority of Islamic traditions and interpretations identify the son as Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham through Hagar. This interpretation is derived from the order of events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred after the sacrifice story, leading to the conclusion that Ishmael was the son mentioned.
3. Prophetic Lineage: In Abrahamic theology, the near sacrifice of Ishmael is regarded as a foreshadowing of Muhammad’s prophethood. This connection between Ishmael’s near-sacrifice and Muhammad’s lineage plays a vital role in confirming Muhammad’s position as a prophet in Islam, serving as a fundamental aspect of the faith and offering valuable insight into the validity of his prophethood.
4. Preservation of Revelation: Muslims believe that the Quran is the final and unaltered word of God, preserved exactly as it was revealed to Muhammad. They argue that earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Bible, have been altered or misinterpreted over time. In this view, the Quran corrects these alterations, and the indication that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed is seen as the correct version of the story.
5. Continuity of Prophethood: Islam acknowledges the prophets of Judaism and Christianity but considers Muhammad to be the last prophet, who came to restore the original monotheistic faith and to correct deviations that had entered earlier religions. The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice, then, is seen as part of this corrective message.
6. Theological Implications: The identification of the son in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice holds great significance as it symbolizes the heir of the Abrahamic covenant. In Islamic tradition, designating Ishmael as the son underscores his pivotal role in their religious history and bolsters the credibility of the Islamic faith for Muslims. This underscores the crucial role that lineage and inheritance play within religious narratives.

In conclusion, the narrative of Ishmael as the son intended for sacrifice strengthens Islam’s theological foundation and affirms Muhammad as a prophet. It shows Islam’s connection to the Abrahamic tradition, preservation of divine revelation, and role in restoring monotheistic beliefs. This narrative difference also highlights the interconnectedness and differences among the three Abrahamic faiths, shaping their unique theological identities.

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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Islamic tradition holds that Abraham left his wife Hagar and their son Ishmael alone in the desert near Mecca. Ishmael was still an infant at the time. The interpolation of Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, is therefore evident from this event. How are they articulating their argument?

The argument regarding the interpolation of Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, in the context of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael is articulated by contrasting the Islamic tradition with the Judeo-Christian narrative. Here’s how the argument is framed:

1. Divine Command Versus Human Jealousy:

In Islamic tradition, Abraham’s decision to leave Hagar and Ishmael in the desert was a direct command from God as a test of faith. This is seen as a noble and divinely ordained act, rather than a result of Sarah’s jealousy.

In the Judeo-Christian narrative, the banishment is attributed to Sarah’s jealousy when she saw Ishmael “mocking” Isaac, which led her to demand their expulsion.

2. Age Discrepancy:

Islamic sources describe Ishmael as a nursing infant when he was left in the desert, which aligns with the practical details of Hagar carrying him and the subsequent events.

The Bible suggests Ishmael was about 17 years old, which raises logical issues about Hagar carrying him and the depiction of him as a helpless child under a bush.

3. Miraculous Provision:

In Islamic tradition, the story emphasizes the miraculous provision of water through the Zamzam well, which is a central part of Hajj rituals and symbolizes God’s care and provision.

The Judeo-Christian account also mentions divine intervention, but it does not have the same ritualistic and symbolic significance as in Islam.

4. Cultural and Religious Impact:

The Islamic narrative underscores the foundational role of Ishmael and Hagar in the establishment of Mecca and the Kaaba, highlighting their importance in Islamic tradition.

In contrast, Ishmael plays a minor role in Judeo-Christian traditions, primarily recognized as the ancestor of the Arabs but not central to religious practices.

Conclusion

The interpolation argument is articulated by highlighting these differences and suggesting that the Genesis account may have been influenced or altered to fit the theological and cultural context of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Islamic narrative, with its emphasis on divine command and the early age of Ishmael, presents a coherent and practical story that aligns with the physical and spiritual elements of the Hajj pilgrimage, thus offering a distinct perspective on the events surrounding Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael.

The Significance of Hajj: Commemorating Hagar’s Search for Water and Abraham’s Sacrifice

Introduction:

Hajj, the annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, holds great significance for millions of Muslims worldwide. While Hajj is primarily associated with the life of Prophet Muhammad, it also commemorates important biblical events. One such event is the story of Hagar’s search for water for her baby Ishmael, as well as Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Ishmael. This essay aims to explore the historical and religious significance of these events in the context of Hajj.

Historical Background:

To understand the significance of Hagar’s search for water for her baby Ishmael and Abraham’s sacrifice, it is crucial to delve into their historical context. According to Islamic tradition, Hagar was the wife of the Prophet Abraham and the mother of Ishmael. Hagar and Ishmael were sent away by Abraham at God’s command. They wandered in the desert near Mecca until they ran out of water, prompting Hagar to search desperately for water to save her infant son.

Hagar’s Search for Water:

Hagar’s search for water for her infant son Ishmael is a deeply emotional and poignant story that resonates with the theme of struggle and resilience. In Islamic tradition, it is believed that Hagar’s unwavering faith and determination led her to the miraculous discovery of the Zamzam well, which continues to provide water for pilgrims during Hajj. The act of retracing Hagar’s footsteps during the Hajj pilgrimage symbolizes the physical and spiritual journey of seeking Muslims blessings and guidance from God.

Abraham’s Sacrifice:

Another biblical event associated with Hajj is the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael. According to Islamic tradition, Abraham received a command from God to sacrifice his beloved son as a test of his faith. Abraham, demonstrating unwavering devotion, prepared to carry out the command, but at the last moment, God intervened and replaced Ishmael with a ram. This event is commemorated during Hajj through the observance of Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice.

Symbolism and Spiritual Significance:

The story of Hagar’s search for water for her infant son and Abraham’s sacrifice carries profound symbolism and spiritual significance for Muslims. Hagar’s unwavering faith and determination symbolize the importance of perseverance and trust in God’s providence. Her search for water reflects the universal human struggle for survival, while the discovery of Zamzam represents divine intervention and sustenance.

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son symbolizes the ultimate act of submission to God’s will. Muslims commemorate this event during Hajj by performing the symbolic stoning of the pillars representing Satan, symbolizing the rejection of temptation and evil. The act of sacrificing an animal during Eid al-Adha symbolizes one’s willingness to give up personal desires and possessions for the sake of God’s pleasure.

Conclusion:

Hajj, the annual Islamic pilgrimage, holds immense religious and historical significance for Muslims worldwide. The commemoration of Hagar’s search for water for her infant son and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael adds depth and meaning to this sacred journey. These events symbolize the themes of struggle, faith, perseverance, and submission to God’s will. By retracing Hagar’s footsteps and participating in the rituals associated with Abraham’s sacrifice, Muslims reaffirm their commitment to their faith and seek spiritual enlightenment and blessings during Hajj.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Islam is considered a restored religion of Abraham, based on the perspective that both Judaism and Christianity have deviated from his original teachings.

Adherents of Islam assert that Judaism has altered the command regarding the sacrifice of Abraham’s son, holding that the son in question was Ishmael rather than Isaac.

Furthermore, they contend that Christianity has diverged from the tenet of monotheism by introducing the concept of the Trinity and modifying the practice of circumcision.
Therefore, from the Islamic viewpoint, Islam embodies the authentic restoration of the teachings of Abraham as presented in the Quran.

Was the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac?

The belief that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac, including the promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed, is held by some, particularly within Islamic tradition. Here’s a more detailed articulation of their argument:

Ishmael and the Covenant

1. Ishmael as the Firstborn: Supporters of this view argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant. They emphasize that Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant.
2. Sacrifice Narrative: They contend that the narrative of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son originally referred to Ishmael, not Isaac. This is based on the belief that ancient scriptures were altered by Israelite scribes to emphasize Isaac’s role.
3. Blessing and Land Promise: The promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations is seen as applying to Ishmael’s descendants. Islamic tradition views Ishmael as an ancestor of the Arab peoples, and thus sees the fulfillment of these promises through the Islamic Hajj and in the rise of Islamic civilization.

Scriptural Alteration Argument

1. Scribal Changes: They argue that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to shift the focus from Ishmael to Isaac. This was done to establish a theological foundation for the Israelites’ claim to the land and their unique covenantal relationship with God.
2. Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran does not name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition identifies him as Ishmael. This is supported by the timeline in the Quran, which implies that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred following the sacrifice event, suggesting that Ishmael was the probable candidate.

In conclusion, the perspective that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the true heir to the Abrahamic covenant is rooted in the belief that Ishmael, as the firstborn, was the original recipient of God’s promises. This view is supported by interpretations of Islamic tradition and arguments regarding scriptural alterations. While this belief contrasts with the traditional Judeo-Christian view that Isaac was the chosen heir, it highlights the diverse understandings and interpretations of Abrahamic history within different religious traditions.

The Significance of Ishmael in Islamic Faith

If Abraham had been instructed by God to sacrifice Ishmael instead of Isaac, it could be argued that Islam and Muhammad have a legitimate claim as a true religion and prophet. This argument can be further explained by examining the differences in the narrative of Abraham’s sacrifice between Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions.

The story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son is significant in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, the key difference lies in the identity of the son involved. In Jewish and Christian traditions, it is Isaac who was nearly sacrificed, while in Islamic tradition, it is believed to be Ishmael. Although Ishmael’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, Muslims believe that he was the son whom Abraham was instructed to sacrifice.

If one were to argue for the legitimacy of Islam and Muhammad as a prophet based on the premise that Ishmael was the son intended for sacrifice, the argument might be structured as follows:

1. Shared Abrahamic Roots: All three monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham, recognizing him as a patriarch. The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command is seen as a test of faith in all three traditions.
2. Islamic Narrative: The Quran (Surah 37, verses 100 to 113) recounts the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son as a demonstration of his obedience to God. While the Quran does not name the son, the majority of Islamic traditions and interpretations identify the son as Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham through Hagar. This interpretation is derived from the order of events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred after the sacrifice story, leading to the conclusion that Ishmael was the son mentioned.
3. Prophetic Lineage: In Abrahamic theology, the near sacrifice of Ishmael is regarded as a foreshadowing of Muhammad’s prophethood. This connection between Ishmael’s near-sacrifice and Muhammad’s lineage plays a vital role in confirming Muhammad’s position as a prophet in Islam, serving as a fundamental aspect of the faith and offering valuable insight into the validity of his prophethood.
4. Preservation of Revelation: Muslims believe that the Quran is the final and unaltered word of God, preserved exactly as it was revealed to Muhammad. They argue that earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Bible, have been altered or misinterpreted over time. In this view, the Quran corrects these alterations, and the indication that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed is seen as the correct version of the story.
5. Continuity of Prophethood: Islam acknowledges the prophets of Judaism and Christianity but considers Muhammad to be the last prophet, who came to restore the original monotheistic faith and to correct deviations that had entered earlier religions. The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice, then, is seen as part of this corrective message.
6. Theological Implications: The identification of the son in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice holds great significance as it symbolizes the heir of the Abrahamic covenant. In Islamic tradition, designating Ishmael as the son underscores his pivotal role in their religious history and bolsters the credibility of the Islamic faith for Muslims. This underscores the crucial role that lineage and inheritance play within religious narratives.

In conclusion, the narrative of Ishmael as the son intended for sacrifice strengthens Islam’s theological foundation and affirms Muhammad as a prophet. It shows Islam’s connection to the Abrahamic tradition, preservation of divine revelation, and role in restoring monotheistic beliefs. This narrative difference also highlights the interconnectedness and differences among the three Abrahamic faiths, shaping their unique theological identities.

The Legacy of Isaac and Ishmael: Diverging Perspectives in Judeo-Christian and Islamic Traditions

What is the issue between Isaac and Ishmael from a Judeo-Christian perspective?

The issue between Isaac and Ishmael from a Judeo-Christian perspective stems from the story of Abraham and his two sons. According to the biblical narrative, Abraham and his wife Sarah were unable to have children, so Sarah gave her servant Hagar to Abraham in order to bear a child. Hagar bore Ishmael, but later Sarah miraculously gave birth to Isaac.

The tension between Isaac and Ishmael arises from the fact that both sons were considered heirs to Abraham, and their descendants became the ancestors of the Jewish and Arab peoples, respectively.

This has led to conflict and rivalry between the two groups throughout history. In the Bible, Ishmael and his mother Hagar were eventually sent away by Abraham at Sarah’s insistence, further exacerbating the animosity between the two sons and their descendants.

The issue between Isaac and Ishmael serves as a source of division and conflict within the Judeo-Christian tradition, often emblematic of the larger divides between the Jewish and Arab peoples. However, interpretations and understandings of this issue can vary among different religious and cultural contexts.

---

It is a common belief among Jews, Christians, and Muslims that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son. However, these faiths differ on which son was to be sacrificed. Jews and Christians, drawing from the Old Testament, believe it was Isaac. In contrast, Muslims believe it was Ishmael.

In Genesis 22, verse 18 of the Torah, God tells Abraham, “In your seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” Here, “seed” is interpreted by Jews to signify a great redeemer or divine messenger who will bring salvation to humanity. Christians share this view due to their inheritance of the Hebrew Bible.

Muslims, however, see Muhammad as the fulfillment of this promise, a view not shared by Jews and Christians. The Quran, in Surah 21, verse 107, states, “And we have not sent you (Muhammad) but as a mercy to the worlds,” reinforcing this belief. The Hajj, a central pillar of Islam, is considered a restoration of the religion of Abraham, which has been distorted by the Jews through their writings pertaining to whose son is to be sacrificed.

The Islamic narrative suggests that since Ishmael was Abraham’s only son for 14 years before Isaac’s birth, it is he who was to be sacrificed—a point hinted at in Genesis 22, verse 12, where God refers to Abraham’s “only son” without specifying a name. Muslims see this ambiguity as indicating Ishmael, rather than Isaac.

Circumcision is another point of contention. It is a practice traced back to Abraham and mandated in the Torah. Christians, however, have largely abandoned physical circumcision, instead emphasizing spiritual circumcision, or placing one’s faith in Jesus Christ. The Quran does not explicitly mention circumcision, but Surah 16, verse 123, which instructs Muhammad to follow the religion of Abraham, is interpreted by some to imply the practice. Thus, circumcision is widely regarded as obligatory in Islam.

The article questions why the Torah does not require the Israelites to commemorate Abraham’s sacrifice, as it does with other significant events like Passover. It suggests that this absence supports the Islamic claim that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was nearly sacrificed.

Furthermore, it argues that the practice of circumcision, which renders a sacrifice blemished according to Deuteronomy 17, verse 1, would disqualify both Isaac and Jesus as perfect offerings.

Since the scripture forbids sacrificing animals with defects, it’s argued that this applies to the child meant for offering. Isaac’s circumcision on the eighth day, alongside Jesus’s, is seen as scripturally imperfect for such a sacrifice.

In conclusion, the article implies that the religious practices of Jews and Christians have deviated from what it claims to be the original Abrahamic faith, particularly concerning the Sacrifice of Abraham and the rite of Circumcision.

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.

Search

Search