---

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

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Ishmael and the House of God

Some scholars interpret the phrase “God was with the lad” from Genesis 21:20 to imply that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar near the House of God (Kaaba) and dedicated them to God, as mentioned in the Quran, Surah 14, verse 37. They also believe the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21:20 indicates that Ishmael was still an infant at that time. What are their reasoning and arguments?

Here are the key arguments and reasoning behind this particular scholarly interpretation:

1. Analysis of “God was with the lad” (Genesis 21:20):

These scholars argue that this phrase indicates more than just divine protection – it suggests a specific sacred location. They connect this with Surah 14, verse 37, of the Quran where Abraham states: “O our Lord! I have settled some of my offspring in an uncultivated valley near Your Sacred House”. The parallel between these texts is seen as evidence that Ishmael was left near the Kaaba (House of God), where God’s presence would be particularly manifest.

2. Ishmael’s Age and the Phrase “And He Grew”:

The phrase “and he grew” suggests a developmental stage, implying that Ishmael was still a young child or infant when these events occurred. This is consistent with the narrative in Genesis 21, where Hagar carries the child and later places him under a shrub when they run out of water. In Islamic texts, Ishmael is depicted as an infant during the journey to Mecca. The miracle of the Zamzam well, which sprang forth to provide water for Hagar and Ishmael, is a central story illustrating God’s care for them in their vulnerability.

3. Theological Framework:

These scholars view the story as part of a larger narrative of divine purpose. Abraham’s action is interpreted not as abandonment but as a divinely guided placement. The location near the Kaaba is seen as crucial for Ishmael’s future role in establishing monotheistic worship there.

4. Textual Connections:

The scholars draw parallels between the biblical account and Quranic narrative. They see the biblical phrase “God was with the lad” as complementary to the Quranic account of Abraham settling his family near God’s Sacred House. The emphasis on divine presence in both texts is viewed as supporting this interpretation.

This interpretation represents a particular scholarly view that attempts to harmonize biblical and Quranic accounts, though it’s important to note that this is one of several interpretations of these texts.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Why was the Jewish temple so vital to be attached to the person of Abraham?

The Jewish temple was so vital to be attached to the person of Abraham because Abraham was the founder of Judaism and the first person to make a covenant with God. The covenant was a promise that God made to Abraham and his descendants, that they would be God’s chosen people and inherit the land of Canaan, also known as the Promised Land.

The temple was the place where the Jews worshipped God and offered sacrifices, as well as the symbol of their connection to God and the Promised Land. The temple was also believed to be the dwelling place of God’s presence on earth, also known as the Shekhinah. Therefore, the temple was a vital link between Abraham, the father of Judaism, and God, the creator and protector of Judaism.

Did Abraham know that the temple would be built on the site where he almost sacrificed his son?

There is no definitive answer to whether Abraham knew that the temple would be built on the site where he almost sacrificed his son. Different traditions and interpretations have different views on this question. Here are some possible perspectives:

According to Jewish tradition, Abraham was aware of the future significance of Mount Moriah, as he named it “the Lord will provide” (Genesis 22 verse 14), implying that God would provide a place for His presence and worship there. Some Jewish sources also suggest that Abraham saw a vision of the future temple when he ascended the mountain with Isaac.

According to Christian tradition, Abraham did not know the exact location of the future temple, but he had faith that God would fulfill His promises to him and his descendants. Some Christian sources also see Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as a foreshadowing of God’s sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross.

According to Islamic tradition, Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac, but Ishmael, his firstborn son by Hagar. Muslims believe that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the house of God, in Mecca, which is the holiest site in Islam. Muslims do not consider the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the place where Abraham offered his son, but rather as the place where Muhammad ascended to heaven during his night journey.

Abraham’s Role in Judaism and Islam: A Comparative Overview

Some believe that the religion of Judaism is more connected to its history rather than to the person of Abraham when compared to Islam where Abraham plays an important role in the event of Hajj. How is this argument explained?

The argument that Judaism is more connected to its history rather than to the person of Abraham, compared to Islam where Abraham plays a significant role, can be explained by examining the different emphases each religion places on Abraham and their historical narratives.

In Judaism, Abraham is indeed a foundational figure, often referred to as the patriarch of the Jewish people. However, the religion places a strong emphasis on the collective history and experiences of the Jewish people, particularly the Exodus from Egypt, the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and the establishment of the covenant between God and the Israelites. These events are central to Jewish identity and religious practice. While Abraham is revered, the focus is more on the ongoing relationship between God and the Jewish people as a whole.

In Islam, Abraham is a central figure not only as a prophet but also in the rituals and practices of the faith. He is considered a model of faith and obedience to God. His role is particularly highlighted during the Hajj pilgrimage, where several rituals commemorate his actions, such as the building of the Kaaba with his son Ishmael and his willingness to sacrifice his firstborn son Ishmael in obedience to God’s command. These rituals are performed by millions of Muslims annually, reinforcing Abraham’s significance in Islamic practice and belief.

In conclusion, the difference in emphasis can be attributed to the distinct theological and historical developments within each religion. Judaism’s focus on historical events and collective experiences shapes its religious identity, while Islam’s emphasis on prophetic models, including Abraham, integrates these figures deeply into its rituals and daily practices.

Critical Analysis of the Portrayal of Ishmael in the Torah

Some scholars suspect that the scribes tampered with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah. Certain interpretations of Genesis 21, verses 14 to 21, portray Ishmael as an infant whom Hagar carried on her shoulders. Similarly, some question whether Genesis 22, verse 1, could refer to Ishmael, since Isaac had never been Abraham’s only son, whereas Ishmael had been for fourteen years before Isaac was born. How is this viewpoint presented?

The viewpoint as mentioned is part of a critical analysis of the narrative of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah. Some scholars and researchers argue that certain aspects of the story may have been altered or tampered with by scribes over time. They suggest that these alterations could have affected the portrayal of Ishmael and his relationship with Abraham and Hagar.

One aspect brought into question is the interpretation of Genesis 21, verses 14 to 21, which describes Hagar and Ishmael being sent away by Abraham. Some argue that certain interpretations portray Ishmael as an infant or young child whom Hagar carries on her shoulders, which they find inconsistent with the timeline of events. Ishmael would have been around 14 years old at that time, based on the biblical account, and it is suggested that this discrepancy could be a result of later modifications to the text.

Additionally, another point raised is the interpretation of Genesis 22, verse 1, which states that God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his only son. Some question whether this son could possibly refer to Ishmael, as Isaac had not been Abraham’s only son at that point. Ishmael had been born to Abraham and Hagar before Isaac’s birth, and for a period of fourteen years, Ishmael was considered Abraham’s only son. This raises doubts about the traditional understanding of this verse and prompts alternative interpretations.

It’s important to note that these viewpoints are part of a scholarly discourse and not universally accepted. They represent attempts to analyze the text critically and explore potential inconsistencies or alterations. Different scholars may have varying opinions on the matter, and the understanding of these narratives continues to be a subject of debate and interpretation.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What is the explanation of the Midrash about Isaac being called “thy only son” when God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son? In Islamic tradition, it is Ishmael and not Isaac, whom God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his son.

The Midrash, which is a form of rabbinic literature that provides interpretative commentary on the Torah, offers several explanations for why Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s “only son” in the context of the Akedah (the Binding of Isaac). Here are some key points from the Midrashic perspective:

The Midrash explains that while Abraham had two sons, Isaac held a unique status as the son of the covenant. He was born to Sarah, Abraham’s wife, and was seen as the fulfillment of God’s promise. Isaac is considered the spiritual heir of Abraham, chosen to carry on the legacy of monotheism and the covenant with God.

In some Midrashic accounts, when God says “your only son,” Abraham responds by saying he has two sons. God then specifies “the one whom you love,” and Abraham says he loves both. Finally, God says “Isaac,” clarifying His command. The phrase “only son” is interpreted to mean the son who is singularly devoted to God, emphasizing Isaac’s spiritual qualities rather than his birth order.

Some rabbinical commentators suggest that the Hebrew word for “only” (יחיד) can also mean “unique” or “special,” rather than strictly “sole.” The use of “only son” is seen as part of the test, emphasizing the magnitude of what God is asking Abraham to sacrifice.

In contrast, the Islamic tradition, as recorded in the Quran, identifies Ishmael as the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. The Quranic narrative does not explicitly name the son, but Islamic tradition and many Muslim scholars have historically identified him as Ishmael. This is partly based on the sequence of events in the Quran, which suggests that the promise of Isaac’s birth came after the sacrifice narrative, implying Ishmael was the son involved.

The differences between the Jewish and Islamic narratives have been the subject of theological discussions and interpretations. Some scholars suggest that each tradition emphasizes different aspects of the story to highlight their theological and historical narratives.

While the Islamic tradition interprets the sacrificial son to be Ishmael based on him being the firstborn, Judaism relies on the Torah’s explicit identification of Isaac and his special covenantal status to explain why Isaac is called the “only son” in this context. The two traditions remain at odds on this important narrative.

In summary, the explanation of the Midrash about Isaac being called “thy only son” is a matter of religious interpretation, with Jewish and Islamic traditions holding different views on who was the son intended for sacrifice.

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.

The Unnamed Son of Abraham’s Sacrifice in the Quran

In the Quran, the specific name of the son to be sacrificed by Abraham is not mentioned. Thus it signifies that the name of Isaac in Genesis 22, verse 2, is nothing but a scribal interpolation. What is the explanation for this argument?

The argument that the Quran’s omission of the specific name of the son to be sacrificed by Abraham signifies that the name of Isaac in Genesis 22, verse 2, is a scribal interpolation is a viewpoint held by some scholars, but it is not universally accepted within the field of biblical studies or Islamic theology. This argument is based on textual and historical analysis and often arises in discussions about the relationship between the Quran and the Bible.

Here’s a brief overview of the argument:

1. Quranic account: In the Quran, the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son is mentioned in Surah As Saffat (Chapter 37), but the specific name of the son is not provided. This omission has led some scholars to argue that the Quran intentionally avoids naming the son to prevent any confusion or dispute regarding the identity of the son.

2. Biblical account: In the Book of Genesis (Genesis 22, verse 2), the son to be sacrificed is identified as Isaac. This is a well-known account in both Jewish and Christian traditions.

3. Argument: Some scholars propose that the Quranic omission of the son’s name suggests that the original, unaltered biblical account did not specify the son’s name, and the name Isaac was added later through scribal interpolation in the biblical text.

4. Quranic Interpretation:
The Quranic narrative does not explicitly name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition and many Muslim scholars have historically identified him as Ishmael. This belief is supported by the chronological events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth was made after the account of sacrifice, suggesting that Ishmael was the likely candidate for sacrifice.

It’s important to note that this argument is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate among scholars regarding the relationship between the Quran and the Bible. Islamic tradition generally does not delve into such textual criticism but rather focuses on the theological and moral aspects of the story.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some scholars interpret the phrase “God was with the lad” from Genesis 21:20 to imply that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar near the House of God (Kaaba) and dedicated them to God, as mentioned in the Quran, Surah 14, verse 37. They also believe the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21:20 indicates that Ishmael was still an infant at that time. What are their reasoning and arguments?

Here are the key arguments and reasoning behind this particular scholarly interpretation:

1. Analysis of “God was with the lad” (Genesis 21:20):

These scholars argue that this phrase indicates more than just divine protection – it suggests a specific sacred location. They connect this with Surah 14, verse 37, of the Quran where Abraham states:

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

The parallel between these texts is seen as evidence that Ishmael was left near the Kaaba (House of God), where God’s presence would be particularly manifest.

2. Ishmael’s Age and the Phrase “And He Grew”:

The phrase “and he grew” suggests a developmental stage, implying that Ishmael was still a young child or infant when these events occurred. This is consistent with the narrative in Genesis 21, where Hagar carries the child and later places him under a shrub when they run out of water. In Islamic texts, Ishmael is depicted as an infant during the journey to Mecca. The miracle of the Zamzam well, which sprang forth to provide water for Hagar and Ishmael, is a central story illustrating God’s care for them in their vulnerability.

3. Theological Framework:

These scholars view the story as part of a larger narrative of divine purpose. Abraham’s action is interpreted not as abandonment but as a divinely guided placement. The location near the Kaaba is seen as crucial for Ishmael’s future role in establishing monotheistic worship there.

4. Textual Connections:

The scholars draw parallels between the biblical account and Quranic narrative. They see the biblical phrase “God was with the lad” as complementary to the Quranic account of Abraham settling his family near God’s Sacred House. The emphasis on divine presence in both texts is viewed as supporting this interpretation.

This interpretation represents a particular scholarly view that attempts to harmonize biblical and Quranic accounts, though it’s important to note that this is one of several interpretations of these texts.

Abraham and the House of God in Jerusalem and Mecca

Did Moses and Abraham know that the temple would be built in Jerusalem?

The Bible does not explicitly state that Moses and Abraham knew about the future construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, both figures are significant in the Jewish tradition regarding the covenant with God and the eventual establishment of a central place of worship.

1. Abraham: He is often associated with the land of Canaan, which includes Jerusalem. The biblical narrative highlights that he established altars and worshiped God in various locations, symbolizing a connection to the land that would later become significant in Jewish history.
2. Moses: He led the Israelites out of Egypt and received the Law at Mount Sinai. His connection to the Tabernacle, a mobile sanctuary, is significant, as it laid the groundwork for central worship in the future. The establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem is often viewed as a fulfillment of the promise of a permanent dwelling place for God, but there is no direct indication that Moses was aware of the future Temple.

In Jewish tradition, the idea of a Temple in Jerusalem is connected to prophecies and promises made later in the biblical narrative, particularly during the time of King David and Solomon. Therefore, while Moses and Abraham played crucial roles in the religious history of the Israelites, there is no definitive evidence that Moses and Abraham had knowledge of the Temple’s future construction.

---

How is Abraham linked to the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca in Islam?

In Islam, Abraham is deeply connected to the Kaaba in Mecca, which is regarded as the House of God. According to Islamic tradition:

1. Construction of the Kaaba: It is believed that Abraham, along with his son Ishmael, was instructed by God to build the Kaaba as a place of worship. The Kaaba is considered the first house of worship dedicated to the monotheistic belief in one God.
2. Covenant and Submission: Abraham is viewed as a key figure in Islam for his unwavering submission to God’s will and his role as a prophet. His dedication to monotheism is foundational to Islamic beliefs.
3. Pilgrimage (Hajj): The Kaaba is the focal point of the Hajj pilgrimage, one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Muslims from around the world perform rituals around the Kaaba, commemorating the actions of Abraham and Ishmael.
4. Significance of the Black Stone: The Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad), set into the corner of the Kaaba, is said to have been given to Abraham by the angel Gabriel. It is revered by Muslims as a sacred object.

Overall, Abraham’s legacy as a prophet and the father of monotheism links him to the Kaaba (House of God), reinforcing the importance of the site in Islamic faith and practice.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Importance of the Hajj in Islam as a reflection of alterations in the Torah and Islam’s role as a revived faith of Abraham

There is an argument among scholars regarding the significance of Hajj in Islam as a restored religion tracing back to Abraham. It is posited that Ishmael was exiled as a young child well before the birth of Isaac, and that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. How is this argument articulated?

The argument regarding the significance of Hajj in Islam as a restored religion tracing back to Abraham, and the associated narrative involving Ishmael and Isaac, is articulated through several key points:

1. Lineage and Prophetic Tradition: 

In Islamic tradition, Hajj is deeply connected to the figure of Abraham (Ibrahim). Muslims believe that Abraham, along with his son Ishmael (Ismail), played a foundational role in establishing the rites of Hajj. The Kaaba, the central structure around which Hajj is performed, is believed to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael.

2. The Story of Ishmael and Isaac:

  Exile of Ishmael: According to Islamic narratives, long before Isaac was born, Ishmael and his mother Hagar were settled by Abraham in the desert of Mecca, which is where the Zamzam well miraculously appeared to sustain both of Hagar and her infant son Ishmael. This event is commemorated during the Hajj.

  The Sacrifice: Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was the intended sacrifice. This is based on interpretations of the Quran, specifically Surah 37, verses 100 to 113, where it is generally understood that the son who was to be sacrificed was Ishmael. According to the sequence of events in the Quran, the promise of Isaac’s birth comes after the story of sacrifice, indicating that Ishmael is the son in question.

This contrasts with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice.

3. Symbolic Acts of Hajj:

The rites of Hajj include reenactments and commemorations of events from the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael. For instance:

The Sa’i, which involves walking seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwah, commemorates Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael.

The stoning of the Jamarat represents Abraham’s rejection of Satan’s temptation, which is believed to have occurred when he was about to sacrifice Ishmael.

4. Restoration of Abrahamic Monotheism: 

Islam views itself as a continuation and restoration of the pure monotheistic faith of Abraham. The Hajj serves as a means to reconnect with the Abrahamic legacy, emphasizing monotheism, obedience to God, and the unity of the Muslim community.

In summary, the argument hinges on the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was central to the narrative of sacrifice and that the rites of Hajj are rooted in the events of Abraham’s life as they unfolded in Mecca with Ishmael. This perspective underscores the significance of Hajj in Islam and its connection to Abraham as a pivotal prophet in the monotheistic tradition.

The connection between Islam and the land that God promised to Abraham in the Torah

Genesis 15, verse 18 reads:

“In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”.

Genesis 15, verse 18 is a specific verse in the Bible, which is part of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. It describes a covenant that God made with Abraham, promising him and his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River.

Did the establishment of Islam as the religion of Abraham in the Middle East or the Levant fulfill the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants through Ishmael would inherit the land from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates River as mentioned in the Torah or Genesis 15, verse 18? Islamic scholars assert that the ancient scribes may have manipulated the Torah to favor Isaac instead of Ishmael. How do they present their argument?

Islamic scholars argue that the establishment of Islam in the Middle East and Levant region did fulfill God’s promise to Abraham regarding Ishmael’s descendants. They point out that Islam spread rapidly across this area in the 7th-8th centuries, bringing monotheistic worship of the God of Abraham to millions.

It is asserted that the ancient scribes who wrote the Torah may have altered the stories to show preference for Isaac’s descendants over Ishmael’s. They suggest that this bias may have been influenced by socio-political factors, such as the dominance of the Israelite tribes, which led to the emphasis on Isaac’s descendants in the biblical account.

Historically, the Arab-Islamic Caliphates after the rise of Islam in the 7th century did indeed conquer and control territories extending from Egypt to the Euphrates River, which matches the geographical extent of the land mentioned in Genesis 15, verse 18. This has led some to draw parallels between the spread of Islam and the fulfillment of the promise to Ishmael’s descendants.

From an Islamic theological perspective, the establishment of Islam in the Middle East and the Levant is seen as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, as it recognizes and upholds the significance of Ishmael’s lineage.

Islamic scholars argue that both Isaac and Ishmael are equally revered as prophets, and that their respective lineages are part of God’s overarching plan for humanity, with Hebrew prophets paving the way for the coming of Muhammad, the last prophet.

In summary, Islamic scholars argue that:

1. The promise made to Abraham about his descendants inheriting the land could have been fulfilled through Ishmael.
2. The Torah might have been altered over time to give greater emphasis to Isaac’s lineage and downplay Ishmael’s role.
3. The rise of Islam and the influence of the descendants of Ishmael (through Prophet Muhammad) is seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.
4. The spread of Islam and its dominance in the Middle East aligns with the geographical scope of the promise made to Abraham in the Torah, reinforcing the idea that Ishmael’s descendants inherited this blessing.

These arguments reflect a broader theological debate regarding the interpretation of ancient texts and the legacy of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, in the context of religious history.

Search

Search