---

Azahari Hassim

The Book of Isaiah in the Hebrew Bible contains several passages that emphasize the unity and singular nature of God, which are often cited in discussions about monotheism. Here are a few key verses from Isaiah that highlight the unity of God:

1. Isaiah 44, verse 6: “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.’”
   This verse clearly articulates the oneness of God, stating that there is no other deity besides Him.
2. Isaiah 45, verse 5: “I am the LORD, and there is no other, apart from me there is no God; I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”.
   Again, this asserts the exclusivity of God as the only divine being, emphasizing that no other gods exist alongside Him.
3. Isaiah 45, verse 18: “For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other.’”
   This verse not only speaks to God’s uniqueness but also to His role as the sole creator of the universe, reinforcing the idea of His singular divinity.
4. Isaiah 46, verse 9: “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,”.
   This verse emphasizes the uniqueness of God, stating there is none like Him, highlighting His distinct nature and the exclusivity of His divinity.

These verses from Isaiah are often used to support the concept of monotheism, a core belief in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, albeit each religion understands and interacts with this concept differently. In the context of Islamic teachings, similar verses from the Quran echo these themes to assert the oneness of God against polytheistic beliefs and theological concepts like the Trinity in Christianity.

The Jewish Perspective on the Belief in God Having a Son

In Judaism, how grave a sin is it to believe that the God of Abraham has a son?

Judaism is a monotheistic religion that believes in one God who is the creator and ruler of the universe. Judaism rejects the idea that God has a son or any other partner or equal. Judaism considers the belief that God has a son to be a form of idolatry, which is a grave sin and a violation of the first commandment.

According to Judaism, God does not have a physical body or human attributes. God is transcendent and incomparable. God does not need a son or any other intermediary to communicate with humanity. God speaks directly to the prophets and reveals His will through the Torah, the sacred scriptures of Judaism.

The term “son of God” is sometimes used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) to refer to different groups or individuals who have a special relationship with God, such as Israel, the king, the angels, or the righteous. However, this term is not meant to imply any biological or metaphysical connection between God and His creatures. It is a metaphorical expression of love, favor, or covenant.

Judaism does not accept the Christian claim that Jesus is the son of God.

Therefore, to believe that God has a son is contrary to the core principles of Judaism and an offense to God’s uniqueness and sovereignty. It is a serious sin that goes against the most fundamental belief of Judaism:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6, verse 4).

Where in the New Testament does Jesus teach monotheism?

In the New Testament, Jesus affirms the belief in monotheism, the understanding of one God. He upholds the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, which emphasize belief in one true God. Here are several examples:

1. Mark 12, verse 29: In response to a question about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotes the Shema from Deuteronomy 6, verse 4, saying:

“The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’”

Here, Jesus emphasizes the foundational Jewish belief in one God, affirming that monotheism remains central to his teachings.

2. John 17, verse 3: In his prayer to God, Jesus says:

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

By addressing God as the “only true God,” Jesus underlines that God alone is worthy of worship and emphasizes his own role as the one sent by God, distinguishing himself from God and reinforcing monotheistic belief.

3. Matthew 4, verse 10: When tempted by Satan, Jesus responds:

“Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

Quoting Deuteronomy 6, verse 13, Jesus affirms that worship should be directed to God alone, rejecting the idea of worshiping anyone or anything else.

4. Mark 10, verse 18: When a man addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher,” Jesus replies:

“Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone.”

Here, Jesus redirects the focus back to God, attributing ultimate goodness to God alone. This statement reflects Jesus’ humility and his acknowledgment of God’s unique holiness, underscoring monotheism by reserving true goodness and divinity for God alone.

These verses highlight Jesus’ affirmation of belief in one God and his rejection of worshiping any other gods or idols. Jesus consistently teaches that there is only one true God, encouraging his followers to worship and serve Him alone. Through his words and actions, Jesus aligns himself with the core tenets of monotheism found in the Hebrew Scriptures, affirming the oneness and sovereignty of God.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Abraham: The Father of Monotheism and Paragon of Virtue in Jewish Thought

Jewish sages throughout history have frequently cited Abraham as a central figure and role model. They highlighted various aspects of his character, actions, and faith to impart important lessons in Jewish thought and practice. Below are a few examples from notable Jewish sages and classical texts that discuss Abraham’s significance:

1. Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers)

The sages in Pirkei Avot emphasize Abraham’s virtues, contrasting his qualities with those of Balaam, a prophet known for negative traits.

“Whoever possesses these three qualities is of the disciples of our father Abraham, and whoever possesses the opposite three qualities is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam: A good eye, a humble spirit, and a moderate appetite are the traits of the disciples of our father Abraham…”

(Pirkei Avot 5:19)

This teaching underscores Abraham’s generosity, humility, and self-restraint, establishing him as a model of ethical behavior.

2. Midrash Tanchuma

The Midrash Tanchuma provides stories and commentary on Abraham’s faith and his rejection of idolatry. It describes how he came to believe in one God independently and how he influenced others.

“Abraham recognized his Creator when he was three years old… He said, ‘It is impossible that this world should have no guide,’ and he began to seek after God.”

(Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 2)

This midrash shows Abraham as a seeker of truth who rejected the idolatry around him, becoming a model of discovery and monotheism.

3. Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah)

The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah elaborates on Abraham’s hospitality and kindness, particularly the famous scene in Genesis 18 where he welcomes strangers.

“Rabbi Yochanan said: Greater is hospitality than receiving the Divine Presence, for it is written: ‘And he [Abraham] saw three men and ran to greet them’ (Genesis 18:2) even though he was conversing with God.”

(Bereshit Rabbah 48:9)

This commentary highlights Abraham’s dedication to hospitality, even above his personal spiritual experience, presenting him as an example of placing the needs of others first.

4. Maimonides (Rambam)

Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), in his work Mishneh Torah, discusses Abraham’s role in spreading monotheism, portraying him as the first person to teach and bring others to the worship of one God.

“Abraham began to stand and call in a loud voice to all the people, and he informed them that there is one God for the entire world… he taught the people, and he showed them the proper path. As a result, thousands gathered around him.”

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 1:3)

Maimonides sees Abraham as a spiritual teacher who laid the groundwork for monotheism and the Jewish faith.

5. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the Zohar

The Zohar, a foundational work of Jewish mysticism traditionally attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, describes Abraham as the archetype of Chesed (loving-kindness). In Kabbalistic thought, Abraham embodies this divine attribute in the way he lived and interacted with others.

“Abraham personified kindness and love. He spread God’s love to the world and showed people the way to kindness, becoming a reflection of the divine attribute of Chesed.”

(Zohar, Lech Lecha 1:82a)

The Zohar portrays Abraham not only as a historical figure but as a channel for divine attributes, making his life an embodiment of Chesed.

6. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi in the Kuzari

In The Kuzari, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi presents Abraham as the prototype of faith through reason and revelation. He describes Abraham’s path to monotheism and his role as the father of the Jewish nation.

“Abraham, in his search for truth, rejected the worship of stars, the elements, and idols… he desired to reach the One behind it all and was rewarded with divine revelation and the promise that he would become a great nation.”

(Kuzari, Part I, 95)

Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi views Abraham as a model of someone who, through intellectual and spiritual inquiry, arrives at a true relationship with God.

7. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov

Rabbi Nachman, a Chassidic master, saw Abraham as the ideal model of faith and commitment. He taught that Abraham’s unwavering trust in God, even during the Akeidah (binding of Isaac), serves as an example of pure faith (emunah).

“Abraham is our example of true faith—emunah shelemah. Even when commanded to sacrifice Isaac, he trusted completely. Faith like Abraham’s is what we must strive for.”

(Likutei Moharan, Torah 32)

Rabbi Nachman emphasizes Abraham’s deep faith as a spiritual goal for others to emulate.

8. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Rabbi Hirsch, in his commentary on the Torah, focuses on Abraham as a model of ethical monotheism, showing that Abraham’s life represents the union of faith and moral action.

“Abraham… brought to humanity the insight that belief in God necessitates ethical action and love for others. He taught that a relationship with God requires justice and kindness.”

(Commentary on Genesis 18:19)

Rabbi Hirsch sees Abraham’s faith as inherently ethical, showing that belief in God must lead to compassion and righteousness.

Conclusion

Jewish sages regard Abraham as the father of monotheism, the paragon of faith, and the epitome of kindness and justice. His journey of discovering God, spreading monotheism, and practicing righteousness and hospitality is consistently highlighted. These sages see Abraham’s life as an enduring source of lessons on faith, morality, and devotion to God and humanity.

Reexamining the Abrahamic Covenant: Ishmael’s Primacy in Islamic Tradition

Did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know about Mount Sinai and its sacredness?

The biblical accounts suggest that Mount Sinai and its sacredness were not known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The significance sacred of Mount Sinai is primarily associated with the story of Moses and the Israelites’ liberation from Egypt, as described in the Book of Exodus. However, it’s important to note that beliefs and interpretations may vary among different religious traditions.

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 refers to the story of Abraham and his son, implying that Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed. This, combined with historical accounts and interpretations, is used to argue for the primacy of Ishmael in the covenantal promises.

Genesis 22:18: Muhammad, the Hajj, and Differing Interpretations Across Abrahamic Faiths

Did Muhammad, through the Hajj ritual, fulfill the prophecy mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18?

The verse you are referring to, Genesis 22, verse 18, reads: “And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” This promise is made to Abraham after he demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice his son (Isaac, according to the Bible; Ishmael, according to Islamic tradition).
Many Jewish and Christian theologians interpret the “offspring” (or “seed”) mentioned in this verse as a reference to the line of descendants that would lead to the Jewish people, and by extension, to Jesus Christ in Christian theology. Through this lineage, blessings would be conferred to all nations.

In Islamic theology, however, the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, is often interpreted as referring to Ishmael, the son who was nearly sacrificed according to Islamic tradition. Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad, as a direct descendant of Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy, as it is through him that all nations are blessed with the message of Islam.

The lineage of Prophet Muhammad through Ishmael is considered important in Islamic belief because the near-sacrifice event, believed to involve Ishmael instead of Isaac, is central to the Abrahamic covenant. Muslims believe that the final and complete message of God to humanity, Islam, came through this prophetic lineage.
The Hajj ritual, which commemorates events in the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, can be seen by Muslims as a testament to the fulfillment of this prophecy. Every year, followers of Islam globally gather in Mecca to take part in the Hajj pilgrimage, commemorating the tradition of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son Ishmael.

It symbolizes the universality of the blessings promised to Abraham’s descendants. For many Muslims, this pilgrimage is a manifestation of the blessings through Ishmael’s lineage, culminating in Muhammad and the global reach of Islam.

However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, especially among Jewish and Christian theologians, who typically see the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, as referring to Isaac’s line, ultimately leading to the people of Israel and, in Christian theology, to Jesus Christ. Interpretations of scripture are deeply influenced by religious, theological, and cultural perspectives.

In summary, while some Muslims assert that Muhammad, as a descendant of Ishmael, fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 22, verse 18, through the message of Islam and rituals like the Hajj, this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology. It reflects the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the son nearly sacrificed and that Muhammad, as Ishmael’s descendant, brings blessings to all nations. This view is not shared by all Abrahamic faiths.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe Gog, mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel that invades the Holy Land, is the nation that converted to Judaism. They obsess over the Holy Land and Jerusalem due to their conversion. How is this argument explained?

The argument that Gog, mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel, is a nation that converted to Judaism and will invade the Holy Land can be explained through various interpretations and beliefs held by some individuals.

In the Book of Ezekiel, Gog is described as a powerful ruler who leads an army against the people of the Holy land. Some people interpret this passage metaphorically, suggesting that Gog represents a nation or group of nations rather than an individual. According to this interpretation, these nations are believed to have converted to Judaism and developed a strong attachment to the Holy Land and Jerusalem.

This belief may stem from the idea that conversion to Judaism involves adopting not only religious practices but also a connection with Jewish history and heritage. The Holy Land holds immense significance in Judaism as it is considered the promised land given by God to the Jewish people. Therefore, those who convert might develop an intense focus on reclaiming or protecting this sacred territory.

Additionally, Jerusalem holds great importance in both religious and historical contexts for Jews. It is home to significant religious sites such as the Western Wall and Temple Mount. Consequently, individuals who believe in this argument might emphasize Jerusalem’s role as a central point for their newly adopted faith.

It’s important to note that interpretations of biblical texts can vary widely among different individuals or religious groups. While some may support this argument about Gog being a converted nation invading the Holy Land due to their intense focus on Jerusalem, others may have alternative explanations or reject this interpretation altogether.

Do the Khazars have a direct lineage to numerous contemporary Jewish populations?

Some argue that the Khazars are the ancestors of many modern Jews, particularly those of Ashkenazi descent, and that their conversion to Judaism has resulted in a special attachment to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. How does their argument go?

The argument that the Khazars are the ancestors of many modern Jews, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, provides a fascinating historical perspective on Jewish ancestry and the attachment to the Holy Land. Proponents of this view trace the lineage of a significant portion of modern Jews to the Khazar Empire and its conversion to Judaism, which resulted in a lasting connection to Jerusalem and the land of Israel.

The Khazars were a powerful Turkic people who established an empire in modern-day Russia, Ukraine, and the Caucasus between the 7th and 10th centuries. In the 8th or 9th century, many Khazars converted to Judaism as a strategic move to position themselves between the Christian Byzantine Empire and Islamic Caliphates.

Many historians argue that the Khazar conversion to Judaism involved large segments of the population, not just the nobility. The Khazars eventually became a Jewish nation, practicing Jewish laws and customs. This made them a unique case of a Jewish state in Eastern Europe, far from traditional Jewish centers.

After the Khazar Empire fell in the 10th century, many Jewish Khazars migrated westward into Europe, settling in regions like Poland, Ukraine, and Hungary. They eventually became the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jewish population in Eastern Europe.

The Khazar origin of many Ashkenazi Jews contributed to the growth of Jewish populations in Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages. The migration of Khazars after their empire fell, along with their established Jewish identity, helped establish Jewish life in these areas. Some believe a significant portion of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots back to Khazar ancestry, as they integrated into the broader Jewish world and contributed to Jewish culture and practices.

The Khazar conversion to Judaism instilled in them the central tenets of the faith, including the importance of the Holy Land and Jerusalem. This connection was passed down through generations, leading to a special attachment among their descendants—modern Ashkenazi Jews—to Israel. The Khazar lineage reinforced a sense of Jewish identity that maintained a longing for the Holy Land even while living in diaspora.

The Khazar ancestry theory explains the strong connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel. It suggests that many Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars, who converted to Judaism centuries ago, creating a historical and religious bond with Jerusalem and Israel.

The Khazar theory enhances Jewish history by showing how different peoples have contributed to the Jewish diaspora while maintaining a shared religious and cultural heritage centered on the Holy Land. The Khazars played a key role in shaping Eastern European Jews, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, and their conversion to Judaism created a lasting connection to the Holy Land that still impacts Jewish identity.

Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra) – Jewish Scholar

The 12th-century Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra also comments on Ezekiel’s prophecy of Gog and Magog. He suggests that the prophecy refers to a yet-unfulfilled event, emphasizing that it is mysterious.

	“This is a prophecy about a time that is yet to come, and we do not know who these people [Gog and Magog] are, for it is hidden from us.”
(Commentary on Ezekiel 38:2)

Ibn Ezra treats Gog and Magog as a mystery, underscoring that while the prophecy holds significance, its precise meaning and timing remain unclear.

What is the view of Shlomo Sand on the Jewish people?

Shlomo Sand is an Israeli historian and professor who has written several books challenging the conventional views on the Jewish people. According to Sand, the Jewish people are not a distinct ethnic group or a nation with a common origin, but rather a collection of diverse groups who converted to Judaism at different times and places. He argues that the idea of a Jewish people with a continuous lineage from ancient Israel is a modern invention, created by Zionism and supported by nationalist historiography.

Sand’s main arguments are:

There was no mass exile of Jews from the Land of Israel after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Most Jews stayed in their homeland and later converted to Christianity or Islam. The Jewish diaspora was formed mostly by voluntary migration and proselytism.

Judaism was a missionary religion that actively sought converts in the ancient world. Many groups of people adopted Judaism, such as the Edomites, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Khazars, the Berbers, and the Himyarites. These converts became the ancestors of many Jewish communities around the world.

The modern Jews of Eastern Europe, or Ashkenazim, are mainly the descendants of Khazars, a Turkic people who ruled a large empire in the Caucasus and converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century CE. They migrated westward and mixed with local populations, adopting their languages and customs.

The modern Jews of Spain and Portugal, or Sephardim, are mainly the descendants of Berbers and Arabs who converted to Judaism in North Africa and later settled in the Iberian Peninsula. They also mixed with local populations and developed their own culture and language.

The modern Jews of Ethiopia, or Beta Israel, are not related to the ancient Israelites, but rather to local African tribes who converted to Judaism under the influence of Christian missionaries.

The modern Jews of Yemen, or Teimanim, are not related to the ancient Israelites either, but rather to Arabs who converted to Judaism in South Arabia under the influence of Jewish traders and refugees from Roman persecution.

Sand’s books have been widely criticized by other historians and scholars for being based on selective use of sources, flawed methodology, ideological bias, and historical inaccuracies. Some critics have accused him of distorting Jewish history and identity for political purposes, and of denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and their connection to their ancestral homeland.

“The past was not a single narrative but a complex mix of events and developments, shaped and reshaped by human imagination and mythmaking.”

— Shlomo Sand, “The Invention of the Jewish People”

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

In the Quran Surah 3, verse 67, Allah says to the people of the scripture:

”Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was an upright man, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.“

Also, in Surah 2, verse 124, Allah says:

”And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. Allah said, ‘Behold, I make you a leader for the people.’ Said Abraham, ‘And of my seed?’ Allah said ‘My covenant shall not reach the evildoers.’

Was Abraham considered to be Jewish in the context of Judaism?

Yes, in the context of Judaism, Abraham is considered to be the first Jew. He is recognized as the founding patriarch of the Israelites, from whom the Jewish people trace their ancestry. His covenant with God (the Abrahamic Covenant) is viewed as a central event in Jewish history.

This covenant included the promise that Abraham would become the father of a great nation, later understood to be Israel. The details of this covenant, including circumcision and the belief in one God (monotheism), are fundamental principles in Jewish faith and practice.

In light of the fact that the word “Jew” is derived from the word “Judah”, who was Abraham’s great-grandson, how could Abraham have been the first Jew?

Abraham is considered the first Jew because he is recognized as the founding patriarch of the Israelite people, who later became known as the Jews.

While the name “Jew” may be derived from “Judah”, one of Abraham’s great-grandsons, it is Abraham who is credited with making a covenant with God and following his commands, which set the foundation for the Jewish faith and people. Therefore, Abraham is often referred to as the first Jew due to his pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish religion and identity.

Were Adam, Enoch, and Noah regarded as Jewish within the realm of Judaism?

In Judaism, Adam, Enoch, and Noah are considered righteous men and prophets, but they are not identified as Jewish in the way Abraham and his descendants are. This is because Judaism as an organized religion, began with God’s covenant with Abraham. Therefore, figures like Adam, Enoch, and Noah, who appear in the Bible before Abraham, are considered pre-Jewish or existing before the establishment of Judaism.

Abraham and the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

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: The Father of Monotheism and Paragon of Virtue in Jewish Thought

Jewish sages throughout history have frequently cited Abraham as a central figure and role model. They highlighted various aspects of his character, actions, and faith to impart important lessons in Jewish thought and practice. Below are a few examples from notable Jewish sages and classical texts that discuss Abraham’s significance:

1. Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers)

The sages in Pirkei Avot emphasize Abraham’s virtues, contrasting his qualities with those of Balaam, a prophet known for negative traits.

“Whoever possesses these three qualities is of the disciples of our father Abraham, and whoever possesses the opposite three qualities is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam: A good eye, a humble spirit, and a moderate appetite are the traits of the disciples of our father Abraham…”

(Pirkei Avot 5:19)

This teaching underscores Abraham’s generosity, humility, and self-restraint, establishing him as a model of ethical behavior.

2. Midrash Tanchuma

The Midrash Tanchuma provides stories and commentary on Abraham’s faith and his rejection of idolatry. It describes how he came to believe in one God independently and how he influenced others.

“Abraham recognized his Creator when he was three years old… He said, ‘It is impossible that this world should have no guide,’ and he began to seek after God.”

(Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 2)

This midrash shows Abraham as a seeker of truth who rejected the idolatry around him, becoming a model of discovery and monotheism.

3. Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah)

The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah elaborates on Abraham’s hospitality and kindness, particularly the famous scene in Genesis 18 where he welcomes strangers.

“Rabbi Yochanan said: Greater is hospitality than receiving the Divine Presence, for it is written: ‘And he [Abraham] saw three men and ran to greet them’ (Genesis 18:2) even though he was conversing with God.”

(Bereshit Rabbah 48:9)

This commentary highlights Abraham’s dedication to hospitality, even above his personal spiritual experience, presenting him as an example of placing the needs of others first.

4. Maimonides (Rambam)

Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), in his work Mishneh Torah, discusses Abraham’s role in spreading monotheism, portraying him as the first person to teach and bring others to the worship of one God.

“Abraham began to stand and call in a loud voice to all the people, and he informed them that there is one God for the entire world… he taught the people, and he showed them the proper path. As a result, thousands gathered around him.”

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 1:3)

Maimonides sees Abraham as a spiritual teacher who laid the groundwork for monotheism and the Jewish faith.

5. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the Zohar

The Zohar, a foundational work of Jewish mysticism traditionally attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, describes Abraham as the archetype of Chesed (loving-kindness). In Kabbalistic thought, Abraham embodies this divine attribute in the way he lived and interacted with others.

“Abraham personified kindness and love. He spread God’s love to the world and showed people the way to kindness, becoming a reflection of the divine attribute of Chesed.”

(Zohar, Lech Lecha 1:82a)

The Zohar portrays Abraham not only as a historical figure but as a channel for divine attributes, making his life an embodiment of Chesed.

6. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi in the Kuzari

In The Kuzari, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi presents Abraham as the prototype of faith through reason and revelation. He describes Abraham’s path to monotheism and his role as the father of the Jewish nation.

“Abraham, in his search for truth, rejected the worship of stars, the elements, and idols… he desired to reach the One behind it all and was rewarded with divine revelation and the promise that he would become a great nation.”

(Kuzari, Part I, 95)

Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi views Abraham as a model of someone who, through intellectual and spiritual inquiry, arrives at a true relationship with God.

7. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov

Rabbi Nachman, a Chassidic master, saw Abraham as the ideal model of faith and commitment. He taught that Abraham’s unwavering trust in God, even during the Akeidah (binding of Isaac), serves as an example of pure faith (emunah).

“Abraham is our example of true faith—emunah shelemah. Even when commanded to sacrifice Isaac, he trusted completely. Faith like Abraham’s is what we must strive for.”

(Likutei Moharan, Torah 32)

Rabbi Nachman emphasizes Abraham’s deep faith as a spiritual goal for others to emulate.

8. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Rabbi Hirsch, in his commentary on the Torah, focuses on Abraham as a model of ethical monotheism, showing that Abraham’s life represents the union of faith and moral action.

“Abraham… brought to humanity the insight that belief in God necessitates ethical action and love for others. He taught that a relationship with God requires justice and kindness.”

(Commentary on Genesis 18:19)

Rabbi Hirsch sees Abraham’s faith as inherently ethical, showing that belief in God must lead to compassion and righteousness.

Conclusion

Jewish sages regard Abraham as the father of monotheism, the paragon of faith, and the epitome of kindness and justice. His journey of discovering God, spreading monotheism, and practicing righteousness and hospitality is consistently highlighted. These sages see Abraham’s life as an enduring source of lessons on faith, morality, and devotion to God and humanity.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

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.

“Abraham recognized his Creator when he was three years old… He said, ‘It is impossible that this world should have no guide,’ and he began to seek after God.”

(Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 2)

This midrash shows Abraham as a seeker of truth who rejected the idolatry around him, becoming a model of discovery and monotheism.

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.

Understanding Abraham’s Role in Judaism and the Context of Pre-Jewish Figures

In the Quran Surah 3, verse 67, Allah says to the people of the scripture:

”Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was an upright man, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.“

Also, in Surah 2, verse 124, Allah says:

”And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. Allah said, ‘Behold, I make you a leader for the people.’ Said Abraham, ‘And of my seed?’ Allah said ‘My covenant shall not reach the evildoers.“

Was Abraham considered to be Jewish in the context of Judaism?

Yes, in the context of Judaism, Abraham is considered to be the first Jew. He is recognized as the founding patriarch of the Israelites, from whom the Jewish people trace their ancestry. His covenant with God (the Abrahamic Covenant) is viewed as a central event in Jewish history.

This covenant included the promise that Abraham would become the father of a great nation, later understood to be Israel. The details of this covenant, including circumcision and the belief in one God (monotheism), are fundamental principles in Jewish faith and practice.

In light of the fact that the word “Jew” is derived from the word “Judah”, who was Abraham’s great-grandson, how could Abraham have been the first Jew?

Abraham is considered the first Jew because he is recognized as the founding patriarch of the Israelite people, who later became known as the Jews.

While the name “Jew” may be derived from “Judah”, one of Abraham’s great-grandsons, it is Abraham who is credited with making a covenant with God and following his commands, which set the foundation for the Jewish faith and people. Therefore, Abraham is often referred to as the first Jew due to his pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish religion and identity.

Were Adam, Enoch, and Noah regarded as Jewish within the realm of Judaism?

In Judaism, Adam, Enoch, and Noah are considered righteous men and prophets, but they are not identified as Jewish in the way Abraham and his descendants are. This is because Judaism as an organized religion, began with God’s covenant with Abraham.

Therefore, figures like Adam, Enoch, and Noah, who appear in the Bible before Abraham, are considered pre-Jewish or existing before the establishment of Judaism.

The right of Ishmael as being the firstborn of Abraham

Genesis 16, verse 3, is a verse from the Bible that describes a key event involving Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. In this verse, Sarai (later known as Sarah), the wife of Abram (later known as Abraham), gives her Egyptian maidservant Hagar to Abraham as a wife to bear children, as Sarah had not been able to conceive.

This action marks a significant moment in the narrative, as it leads to complex family dynamics and consequences in the story of Abraham and his descendants.

Genesis 16, verse 3, reads:

”And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.“

Deuteronomy 21, verses 15 to 17, is a passage from the Old Testament of the Bible that addresses the rights of a man concerning his sons, particularly in the context of inheritance. The verses outline conditions for a man who has two wives, one he loves and one he does not. The law states that when dividing his inheritance among his sons, he must not favor the son of the loved wife over the son of the unloved wife. Instead, he should acknowledge the firstborn son, regardless of the mother’s status. This passage emphasizes fairness and the importance of honoring the firstborn in matters of inheritance.

Deuteronomy 21, verses 15 to 17, reads:

”If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

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 refers to the story of Abraham and his son, implying that Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed. This, combined with historical accounts and interpretations, is used to argue for the primacy of Ishmael in the covenantal promises.

---

What was the rationale behind the prophet’s decision to present his firstborn instead of his other sons, as detailed in the Bible (Micah 6, verse 7)?

The verse reads:

“Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”.

The rationale behind the prophet’s decision to present his firstborn instead of his other sons in Micah 6, verse 7 is likely based on the cultural and religious significance of the firstborn in ancient Israelite society.

In many ancient cultures, including Israelite culture, the firstborn held a special status and had certain privileges and responsibilities. This included being the primary heir to the family’s inheritance and having a special connection to the divine.

By offering his firstborn, the prophet may have been trying to convey the seriousness and gravity of the situation. This action would have been a powerful symbol of sacrifice and devotion, as the firstborn was typically seen as the most valuable and cherished among the children.

It could also be seen as a way of emphasizing the depth of the prophet’s regret and repentance for his transgressions, as offering one’s firstborn would have been an unimaginable and incredibly difficult act for any parent.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Would Jews revere Jacob’s stone if it had been handed down through the generations from Jacob? What is the similarity between the black stone (Hajar al Aswad) in Mecca and the stone that Jacob used as a pillow in Genesis 28, verses 18 and 22? What is the theological importance from the viewpoint of Abrahamic theology?

To answer this question, we need to consider several aspects of religious history, tradition, and theology. Let’s break it down into parts:

1. Jacob’s Stone in Jewish tradition:

If Jacob’s stone had been handed down through generations, it’s likely that Jews would indeed revere it. Judaism has a strong tradition of venerating physical objects associated with important biblical figures and events. For example, the Western Wall in Jerusalem is revered as the last remaining structure of the Second Temple. However, there is no historical evidence or tradition of Jacob’s stone being preserved or passed down in Jewish culture.

2. Similarity between the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) and Jacob’s stone:

There are some interesting parallels between these two stones:

A. Divine association: Both stones are associated with divine encounters. Jacob’s stone was used as a pillow when he had his dream of a ladder to heaven, while the Black Stone is believed by Muslims to have been sent down by Allah from heaven.

B. Ritual significance: Jacob anointed his stone with oil and set it up as a pillar, declaring it to be God’s house (Genesis 28:18,22). The Black Stone is a focal point of the Hajj pilgrimage, where pilgrims attempt to kiss or touch it.

C. Covenant symbolism: Jacob’s stone became a symbol of his covenant with God, while the Black Stone is seen by some Muslims as a symbol of the covenant between Allah and humanity.

3. Theological Importance from the Viewpoint of Abrahamic Theology:

A. Covenantal Significance:

Both stones are linked to the covenantal promises made by God to the Abrahamic patriarchs, which are foundational to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jacob’s stone marks the place where God reaffirmed the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Hajar al-Aswad is connected to the Abrahamic tradition through its association with the Kaaba, the house of worship built by Abraham and Ishmael.

B. Pilgrimage and Worship:

Both stones are associated with significant pilgrimage sites and ritual practices within their respective Abrahamic traditions. Jacob’s stone became a place of worship and a destination for pilgrimage for the Israelites. The Hajar al-Aswad is a central focus of the Hajj pilgrimage, which is a fundamental obligation for Muslims.

In summary, if Jacob’s stone had been handed down through generations, it would likely be revered by Jews in a similar manner to how the Hajar al-Aswad is venerated by Muslims, as both stones represent profound theological and covenantal significance within the broader context of Abrahamic faiths.

“Jacob’s ladder represents the bridge between heaven and earth. His dream at Bethel shows that God is present in the world, and that human beings can reach spiritual heights through devotion and covenant.”

— Kuzari, Part I, Chapter 95

Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi (1075–1141), author of The Kuzari, viewed Jacob as a symbol of spiritual ascension, tying his visions and experiences directly to Israel’s national and religious identity.

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

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.

Genesis 22:18: Muhammad, the Hajj, and Differing Interpretations Across Abrahamic Faiths

Did Muhammad, through the Hajj ritual, fulfill the prophecy mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18?

The verse you are referring to, Genesis 22, verse 18, reads:

“And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

This promise is made to Abraham after he demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice his son (Isaac, according to the Bible; Ishmael, according to Islamic tradition).

Many Jewish and Christian theologians interpret the “offspring” (or “seed”) mentioned in this verse as a reference to the line of descendants that would lead to the Jewish people, and by extension, to Jesus Christ in Christian theology. Through this lineage, blessings would be conferred to all nations.

In Islamic theology, however, the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, is often interpreted as referring to Ishmael, the son who was nearly sacrificed according to Islamic tradition. Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad, as a direct descendant of Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy, as it is through him that all nations are blessed with the message of Islam.

The lineage of Prophet Muhammad through Ishmael is considered important in Islamic belief because the near-sacrifice event, believed to involve Ishmael instead of Isaac, is central to the Abrahamic covenant. Muslims believe that the final and complete message of God to humanity, Islam, came through this prophetic lineage.

The Hajj ritual, which commemorates events in the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, can be seen by Muslims as a testament to the fulfillment of this prophecy. Every year, followers of Islam globally gather in Mecca to take part in the Hajj pilgrimage, commemorating the tradition of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son Ishmael.

It symbolizes the universality of the blessings promised to Abraham’s descendants. For many Muslims, this pilgrimage is a manifestation of the blessings through Ishmael’s lineage, culminating in Muhammad and the global reach of Islam.

However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, especially among Jewish and Christian theologians, who typically see the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, as referring to Isaac’s line, ultimately leading to the people of Israel and, in Christian theology, to Jesus Christ. Interpretations of scripture are deeply influenced by religious, theological, and cultural perspectives.

In summary, while some Muslims assert that Muhammad, as a descendant of Ishmael, fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 22, verse 18, through the message of Islam and rituals like the Hajj, this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology. It reflects the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the son nearly sacrificed and that Muhammad, as Ishmael’s descendant, brings blessings to all nations. This view is not shared by all Abrahamic faiths.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE)

An influential early Christian theologian and philosopher, Augustine discussed Abraham’s role in God’s plan in his seminal work, The City of God.

	Quote:

	“Abraham is the father not only of the Hebrew nation but of all nations who follow his example of faith. He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Thus, he is truly the father of many nations, not by the flesh but by the unity of faith.”

	— Augustine, The City of God, Book XVI, Chapter 26.

Interpretation: 

Augustine emphasizes that Abraham’s fatherhood transcends biological lineage. It’s rooted in faith, making him a spiritual ancestor to all who believe in God’s promises.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Some Islamic scholars suspect that the scribes tampered with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah. It is argued that Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, may have been added later because Ishmael and Hagar had already left Abraham’s house long before Isaac was born, with Ishmael being an infant according to Islamic tradition.

Similarly, some question whether Genesis 22, verse 2, 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 Islamic viewpoint presented?

The Islamic perspective on the stories of Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac, as presented in the Torah, differs significantly from the Jewish and Christian narratives. These differences have led some Islamic scholars to question the authenticity of certain Biblical passages, suggesting possible later additions or alterations.

In the Islamic tradition, Hagar and Ishmael’s story is seen through a different lens compared to the Biblical account. According to Islamic belief, Ishmael was an infant when he and his mother Hagar were left in the desert, which contrasts with the Biblical narrative where Ishmael is depicted as a young boy during this event. Some Islamic scholars argue that certain verses in Genesis, such as Genesis 21:9-10, might have been added later, as they imply that Ishmael was older and capable of mocking Isaac, which would not align with the Islamic timeline where Ishmael had already left before Isaac’s birth.

The question of who was the intended son of sacrifice is another point of divergence. In the Quran, it is generally believed that Ishmael was the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, whereas the Bible identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice. This discrepancy has led some Islamic scholars to suggest that Genesis 22, verse 2, which refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son,” might be inaccurate, as Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn and was his only son for fourteen years before Isaac’s birth. The argument is that the description of Isaac as the “only son” could have been a later addition to emphasize Isaac’s significance in the Jewish tradition.

Islamic narratives emphasize the significance of Ishmael and his descendants, linking them to the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic tradition holds that Abraham and Ishmael together built the Kaaba in Mecca, a central element in Islamic faith, which is not mentioned in the Bible. The Quran and Islamic teachings often highlight the spiritual and prophetic roles of both Ishmael and Isaac, but with a focus on Ishmael’s role in the lineage leading to Islam.

Conclusion

The Islamic viewpoint on the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah is characterized by skepticism towards the authenticity of certain verses. Islamic scholars argue that the timeline and events described in the Torah may have been altered, and that Ishmael may have been the son referred to in Genesis 22:2 instead of Isaac.

Rashi on Genesis 22:2 – “And He said, ‘Please take your son’… God said to him, ‘Take your son.’ He [Abraham] said, ‘I have two sons.’ He said to him, ‘Your only one.’ He said, ‘This one is the only son of his mother, and this one is the only son of his mother.’ He said to him, ‘The one you love.’ He said to him, ‘I love them both.’ He said to him, ‘Isaac.’”

Rashi’s commentary focuses on the emotional tension in the dialogue between God and Abraham. Abraham’s deep love for both his sons is highlighted, but God singles out Isaac as the one who will be involved in this ultimate test.

Reinterpreting Ishmael’s Age: The Use of ‘Yelid’ and the Question of His Youth in Genesis 21

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.

Calculating Ishmael’s age as 27, a midrash takes a different tack: Sarah had cast the evil eye on him and made him ill, thus incapable of walking.

(‘Gen. Rab.’ 53.12)

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.

---

Holy Quran 37:102

فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ مَعَهُ ٱلسَّعْىَ قَالَ يَٰبُنَىَّ إِنِّىٓ أَرَىٰ فِى ٱلْمَنَامِ أَنِّىٓ أَذْبَحُكَ فَٱنظُرْ مَاذَا تَرَىٰ ۚ قَالَ يَٰٓأَبَتِ ٱفْعَلْ مَا تُؤْمَرُ ۖ سَتَجِدُنِىٓ إِن شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ مِنَ ٱلصَّٰبِرِينَ

Then, when he was old enough to accompany him, he said, “O My son, I see in a dream that I am sacrificing you; see what you think.” He said, “O my Father, do as you are commanded; you will find me, God willing, one of the steadfast.”

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What is Eid al-Adha?

 Eid al-Adha is the “Feast of the Sacrifice,” commemorating Abraham’s devotion to God, when he intended to sacrifice his son and God provided a lamb to sacrifice instead. It follows the Hajj rituals for pilgrims in Mecca, but is celebrated by all Muslims.

Certain scholars contend that Eid Al Adha in Islam suggests a scribal interpolation in the Torah concerning the son intended for near sacrifice, positing that it is Ishmael rather than Isaac. How is their argument articulated?

Some Islamic scholars argue that Eid al-Adha in Islam 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, 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 central figure in the Abrahamic narrative.

It would reinforce the Islamic belief in the Quran as a correction to earlier scriptures.

ثُمَّ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْكَ أَنِ ٱتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ حَنِيفًا ۖ وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ

Then We inspired you: “Follow the religion of Abraham, the Monotheist. He was not an idol-worshiper.”

Holy Quran 16:123

What theological reasoning do Islamic scholars offer to explain how Abraham’s near sacrifice of Ishmael, instead of Isaac, supports the prophethood of Muhammad?

According to Islamic tradition and theology, the near sacrifice of Ishmael by Abraham, rather than Isaac, provides support for the prophethood of Muhammad in several key ways:

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham as a shared patriarch. The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command is seen as a supreme test of faith in all three traditions. By identifying the son as Ishmael rather than Isaac, Islam establishes a direct link between Abraham and Muhammad through Ishmael.

The Quran in Surah 37 recounts the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God. Despite not explicitly naming the son, the Quran places the narrative of the sacrifice before the announcement of Isaac’s birth, which some interpret as an indication that Ishmael was the one sacrificed. This Quranic account is seen as affirming Ishmael’s role.

Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad is a direct descendant of Ishmael. The legitimacy and authenticity of Muhammad’s prophethood is thus connected to this lineage going back to Abraham through Ishmael. Ishmael’s willingness to be sacrificed is viewed as a significant event that foreshadows the prophethood of Muhammad, which holds a central role in the religion.

Muslims believe the Quran is the final, unaltered word of God as revealed to Muhammad, arguing that earlier scriptures like the Torah and Bible have been changed over time. In this view, the Quran corrects these alterations, and its indication that Ishmael was the sacrificial son is seen as the accurate version of the story. This affirms Muhammad’s role in restoring the original monotheistic message.

While acknowledging the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, Islam considers Muhammad to be the final prophet who came to restore the pure monotheistic faith and correct deviations that had entered the earlier religions. The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice is thus seen as part of this corrective prophetic message continuing through Muhammad.

In summary, the Islamic theological argument is that the identification of Ishmael as the son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice establishes a direct link between Abraham, Ishmael, and Muhammad, supporting the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophethood as a continuation of the Abrahamic lineage and monotheistic message that was preserved intact through Ishmael and fully restored in the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad. The Ishmael narrative reinforces Muhammad’s prophetic authority for Muslims.

“The promise that Abraham shall be the father of many nations reflects an expansion of the covenant, indicating that the election of Abraham has implications for the entire world. It foreshadows the universalism that is to come.”

Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, Old Testament Library.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Why does God permit the Song of Solomon to be included in the canon, even though the name of God is absent from it? Some think it is due to the divine name of Muhammad being written in it (Song of Solomon 5:16). How is their reasoning expressed?

The Song of Solomon, also known as the Song of Songs, is a unique book in the Bible due to its poetic, romantic, and sensual nature, as well as the fact that it does not explicitly mention God’s name. Despite this, it was included in the biblical canon because it has been traditionally interpreted as an allegory of God’s love for His people, either between God and Israel or Christ and the Church. The absence of God’s name does not diminish its perceived spiritual depth or its theological significance.

Some individuals, particularly within Islamic circles, argue that the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the biblical canon—despite the absence of God’s name—is due to a prophetic reference to the Prophet Muhammad found within its text. Their reasoning centers on the interpretation of a specific Hebrew word in Song of Solomon 5:16.

In this verse, the Hebrew word “מַחֲמַדִּים” (mahmadim) is used, which is commonly translated into English as “altogether lovely” or “desirable.” The argument is constructed as follows:

1. Phonetic Similarity: The root word “מַחֲמַד” (mahmad) closely resembles the Arabic name “Muhammad” in both spelling and pronunciation. Proponents suggest that this is not a coincidence but a deliberate reference.
2. Plural of Respect: The suffix ”-im” in Hebrew can denote a plural form but is also used to express greatness or majesty (often referred to as the “plural of excellence” or “plural of respect”). Therefore, “mahmadim” can be interpreted as a singular noun denoting a person of great esteem.
3. Direct Reference: By reading “mahmadim” as “Muhammad”, they posit that the verse directly names the Prophet Muhammad, making it a prophetic mention within the Hebrew scriptures.
4. Justification for Canon Inclusion: They reason that the presence of this prophetic reference justifies the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the biblical canon, despite the absence of explicit mentions of God. The text’s value lies in its concealed prophecy about an important future figure—Muhammad.
5. Contextual Interpretation: The surrounding verses describe an individual of remarkable qualities, which they align with descriptions of Muhammad. This alignment strengthens their claim that the text is speaking about him.

An example of their reasoning expressed in interpretative translation might look like this:

“His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is Muhammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

(Song of Solomon 5:16)

By substituting “mahmadim” with “Muhammad”, they assert that the verse explicitly mentions him by name. This interpretation is used to support the idea that the Song of Solomon holds prophetic significance concerning Muhammad, thereby explaining its canonical status despite the absence of God’s name.

Rabbi Akiva (born around 50 CE) famously declared:

“All the writings are holy, but the Song of Solomon is the Holy of Holies.”

This statement emphasizes the profound spiritual significance of the book despite the absence of God’s name.

Rashi (born on February 22, 104) commented:

“The Song of Solomon is entirely allegorical. It is a parable of the relationship between God and Israel.”

Rashi’s interpretation sees the love story in the Song as a metaphor for the divine-human relationship, even though God is not explicitly named.

The Song of Solomon

The Song of Solomon (also known as Shir HaShirim in Hebrew) is a biblical book that has been interpreted in various ways by renowned rabbis and scholars throughout Jewish history. One of the unique aspects of the Song of Solomon is the absence of explicit mention of God’s name, which has led to extensive commentary and discussion. Here are some key perspectives from renowned rabbis and Jewish commentators on this issue:

1. Rabbi Akiva (1st–2nd century CE)

Rabbi Akiva famously considered the Song of Solomon as the “Holy of Holies” among the biblical writings, meaning it is a deeply spiritual and sacred text. Despite the absence of God’s name, Rabbi Akiva argued that the book is a metaphor for the relationship between God and the people of Israel. The love described in the poem is symbolic of the covenantal love between God and Israel, where the deep bond between the lovers mirrors the divine connection between the Creator and His people. Thus, even though God’s name is not explicitly mentioned, the entire text is imbued with divine presence.

2. Rashi (1040–1105 CE)

Rashi, one of the most influential medieval Jewish commentators, also viewed the Song of Solomon allegorically. He believed the absence of God’s name was not significant, since the entire narrative is a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel. Rashi explained that the lovers in the song are symbols of God (the male figure) and Israel (the female figure). The passionate love and yearning described throughout the text reflect Israel’s yearning for God during times of exile and redemption. Thus, Rashi interpreted the absence of God’s name as intentional, since the entire poem is a representation of the divine relationship.

3. Ibn Ezra (1089–1167 CE)

Ibn Ezra, another prominent medieval Jewish commentator, acknowledged the secular, even sensual, nature of the language in the Song of Solomon but, like Rashi, understood it allegorically. He commented that the absence of God’s name does not detract from the sanctity of the book. Rather, the metaphorical nature of the song, in which the lovers represent God and Israel, implicitly includes God throughout the entire narrative. The intense love and yearning reflect the soul’s desire for God, even without His name being overtly mentioned.

4. The Zohar (13th century CE)

The Zohar, the foundational text of Kabbalah, also offers a mystical interpretation of the Song of Solomon. The Zohar reads the song as a deep allegory of the divine union between different aspects of God’s emanations (the Sefirot) and the relationship between God and the Shekhinah (the feminine divine presence). The absence of God’s name in the text is seen as reflective of the hidden and mystical nature of the divine in the world. The love between the bride and groom represents the unification of divine aspects, and the song’s hidden meaning reveals the nature of spiritual love and connection.

5. Nachmanides (1194–1270 CE)

Nachmanides, also known as Ramban, embraced a mystical and allegorical approach to the Song of Solomon. He argued that the absence of God’s name emphasizes the hidden nature of the relationship being described. According to Nachmanides, the Song of Solomon describes not only the historical relationship between God and Israel but also a deeper, mystical connection between God and the world. The absence of God’s name can be seen as symbolizing the hiddenness of the divine in the material world, which is revealed only to those who are spiritually attuned.

Summary

In Jewish tradition, the absence of God’s name in the Song of Solomon is generally seen as a deliberate literary and theological choice. Rather than detracting from its sanctity, the absence of explicit references to God is often interpreted as enhancing the allegorical nature of the text, where the love between the human characters represents the divine relationship between God and Israel or between God and the soul. The entire text is viewed as imbued with spiritual meaning, despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of direct mention of God.

Search

Search