---

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

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Abrahamic covenant: Isaac or Ishmael from a Quranic perspective

In Surah 2, verse 124 of the Quran, it is stated that God made a covenant with Abraham through Ishmael instead of Isaac, and it is implied that Jewish scribes corrupted the Torah in favor of Isaac. How is this interpretation explained?

Surah 2, verses 124 to 125 reads:

“And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My pledge does not include the wrongdoers.”

“And We made the House a focal point for the people, and a sanctuary. Use the shrine of Abraham as a place of prayer. And We commissioned Abraham and Ishmael, “Sanctify My House for those who circle around it, and those who seclude themselves in it, and those who kneel and prostrate.”

The Quran clearly states in Surah 2, verse 124 that God made a covenant with Abraham through his son Ishmael, not Isaac. This contradicts the Biblical account which portrays Isaac as the son who was to inherit the covenant from Abraham.

The Quran suggests the Torah (the first five books of the Bible containing the story of Abraham and his sons) was corrupted by Jewish scribes who altered the narrative to favor Isaac over Ishmael. Evidence for this includes:

The Bible itself initially portrays Ishmael as the firstborn and heir before contradicting itself later by calling Isaac the “only son”.
Islamic sources consistently name Ishmael as the son taken by Abraham for the intended sacrifice, while the Bible names Isaac.

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 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 Quran establishes Ishmael’s lineage as the one that inherits the covenant and religious practices like the Kaaba in Mecca, contradicting the Biblical focus on Isaac’s descendants (the Israelites).

So according to the Quran and Islamic tradition, the Biblical account was distorted to displace Ishmael’s status as Abraham’s heir in favor of Isaac, likely due to Jewish scribes’ bias towards the Israelite lineage.

The Quran asserts that it rectifies this by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the original divine covenant, while the divine choice of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets before the arrival of Islam is intended to prepare the way for Muhammad, the final Prophet.

“Say, [O believers], ‘We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.’”

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:136)

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Did Jesus and John the Baptist announce the coming of the kingdom of God?

Yes, both Jesus and John the Baptist announced the coming of the Kingdom of God. John the Baptist’s ministry focused on repentance and emphasized the nearness of the Kingdom. John’s message in the Gospels urges individuals to repent and return to God, preparing for the arrival of the Messiah, referred to as the “son of man” in Jesus’ parables, who will establish the Kingdom.

Jesus continued this theme in His ministry, often speaking about the Kingdom of God in His teachings. He used parables, miracles, and sermons to explain the nature of this Kingdom, addressing its spiritual dimensions and moral implications.

Did Jesus equate the kingdom with the religion of Christianity?

No, Jesus did not explicitly equate the Kingdom of God with what later became known as Christianity. The term “Christianity” was not used during His lifetime; the followers of Jesus were initially seen as a Jewish sect.

In summary, Jesus and John the Baptist announced the coming of the Kingdom of God, but Jesus did not equate this Kingdom directly with the religion that later emerged as Christianity.

It is thought that Christianity originated as an apocalyptic group within Judaism, with Jesus proclaiming the arrival of the son of man and his Kingdom as described in the Book of Daniel. Islamic scholars believe that this apocalyptic figure, son of man, is none other than Muhammad who established Islam in the land where God promised to Abraham in Genesis 15, verse 18. Islam is regarded as the kingdom of God preached by Jesus. How is their argument articulated?

The argument by some Islamic scholars that the apocalyptic figure referred to by Jesus is Muhammad, and that Islam is the kingdom of God as preached by Jesus, is based on a reinterpretation of certain Biblical and Qur’anic texts. Here’s how the argument is articulated:

1. Jesus and the Son of Man:
   In Christian eschatology, the “Son of Man” is an apocalyptic figure described in the Book of Daniel and in the Gospels. Jesus speaks of the coming of the “Son of Man” who will establish God’s kingdom.
   Islamic scholars who subscribe to this interpretation propose that the “Son of Man” could be a symbolic reference to Muhammad, who they argue, fulfilled this prophecy by establishing Islam from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River including the Arabian Peninsula, a land promised to Abraham’s descendants.
2. The Kingdom of God:
   In Christian theology, the “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of Heaven” is often understood as a spiritual realm where God reigns supreme, and which will be fully realized in the eschatological future.
   Islamic scholars who support this view argue that Jesus’ references to the coming “Kingdom of God” were not about a spiritual kingdom, but a prophetic kingdom established on earth. They interpret this kingdom as the Islamic state that Muhammad established in Medina and later expanded throughout Arabia and beyond.
3. The Covenant and the Land Promise:
   In Genesis 15, verse 18, God promises Abraham’s descendants a specific land. Jewish and Christian interpretations traditionally see this as a promise fulfilled in the biblical history of Israel.
   However, some Islamic scholars reinterpret this promise in the context of Islam, suggesting that the true fulfillment of God’s covenant and the promised land is seen in the establishment of Islam from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River, a promise made to Ishmael instead of Isaac. They argue that Islam, as the final and complete religion, fulfills this covenant.
4. Prophecies and Islamic Tradition:
   Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad is the “Seal of the Prophets,” completing the line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Some scholars interpret Jesus’ statements about a future prophet (like the “Comforter” in John 14, verses 16 to 17) as references to Muhammad.
   They argue that Jesus was predicting Muhammad’s arrival, and that the establishment of Islam represents the realization of the kingdom Jesus spoke of.
5. Theological Implications:
   This argument hinges on the belief that Islam is the final and most complete form of the Abrahamic faith, and that previous scriptures (Torah, Psalms, Gospels) were either incomplete or have been altered over time. The Qur’an is seen as the final, unaltered word of God, and Muhammad as the last prophet who brings the ultimate message.

In summary, the argument is built on a re-interpretation of Jesus’ teachings and the apocalyptic expectations found in the New Testament, suggesting that these were actually referring to the coming of Muhammad as a “son of man”and the establishment of Islam, which they view as the true “Kingdom of God.”

Jesus, Kingdom of God, and Islam

Is the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus in the gospels the same as the fifth kingdom mentioned in Daniel 2 and 7?

The question of whether the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus in the Gospels is the same as the fifth kingdom mentioned in the book of Daniel is a topic of interpretation and belief among biblical scholars and theologians. Different individuals and religious traditions may interpret these passages differently, so there isn’t a single definitive answer.

In the book of Daniel, the fifth kingdom represents a future kingdom that God establishes. It is often understood to refer to the Kingdom of God or the Messianic Kingdom. This kingdom is often associated with the reign of the Messiah and the ultimate triumph of God’s rule over all creation.

In the Gospels, Jesus frequently spoke about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. He proclaimed that the Kingdom of God is near, calling people to repent and believe in this imminent reality. Jesus described this kingdom as both a present reality and a future culmination, emphasizing the rule and reign of God in the hearts and lives of believers.

Some theologians and scholars see a connection between the fifth kingdom in Daniel and the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus. They believe that Jesus came to his people to proclaim the realization of God’s promised kingdom as stated in the Old Testament. Others may see subtle differences or emphasize other aspects of the Kingdom of God.

Ultimately, interpretations vary, and it depends on one’s religious beliefs, theological perspectives, and understanding of Scripture. It is a topic that invites further study, discussion, and input from various sources.

Some believe that Islam is the fifth kingdom mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel 2 and 7, which is understood as a Kingdom of God. Surah 24, verse 55 of the Quran confirms this. How is this argument articulated?

The argument presents the interpretation that Islam represents the fifth kingdom mentioned in the prophecies of Daniel chapters 2 and 7 in the Bible. According to these prophecies, a sequence of world empires will be succeeded by a divine, eternal kingdom established by God.

This interpretation is supported by a verse from the Quran (Surah 24, verse 55), which promises those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will be granted succession on Earth, seen as aligning with the final kingdom prophesied in Daniel.

The visions in Daniel describe a series of empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome), followed by a divine kingdom that will never be destroyed. Proponents of this view argue that the emergence and expansion of Islam fulfill this prophecy, positioning Islam as the fifth kingdom and the everlasting divine kingdom established by God.

The Quran, in Surah 24, verse 55, states that

“Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth.”

This verse is interpreted by some as a confirmation that Islam is the fulfillment of the divine kingdom prophesied in the Book of Daniel.

The Prophecy of Daniel: Constantine the Great and Muhammad the Prophet

Some believe that Daniel 7, verse 25 alludes to Constantine the Great, who presided over the council of Nicaea, while Daniel 7, verse 13, points to Muhammad’s Night Journey. How is this argument explained?

This is a very controversial argument that is not widely accepted by most biblical scholars and Christians, who believe that Daniel 7, verse 25, and Daniel 7, verse 13, refer to the Antichrist and the Messiah, respectively. However, some people who support this argument explain it in the following way:
They claim that Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the little horn of Daniel 7, verse 25, who spoke pompous words against the Most High and tried to change the times and the laws.

They argue that Constantine corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and imposed his own doctrines and creeds on the Christian church, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath, and the celebration of Easter instead of Passover.

They also accuse Constantine of persecuting and oppressing those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, such as the followers of Arianism, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
Arianism sparked significant debates within the Church, particularly during the early Ecumenical Councils. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed established the belief that the Son is “begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.”

Islamic scholars claim that Muhammad, who was the prophet of Islam and who claimed to have a miraculous Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to heaven in 621 AD, was the Son of Man of Daniel 7, verse 13, who came with the clouds of heaven and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days, that is God.

The term “night visions” directly suggests an event that takes place at night. Muhammad’s Night Journey, which is said to have occurred during the night, aligns with this description. In contrast, Jesus’ ascension is generally not described as happening at night in Christian texts.

They argue that Muhammad was a true prophet of God who restored the pure monotheism that was lost by Constantine and his followers. They also assert that Muhammad’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that will never be destroyed, and that all nations and peoples of every language will serve him or submit to his law.

In summary, these are a few points made by Islamic scholars to back the notion that Daniel 7, verse 25, and 7, verse 13, refer to Constantine as the little horn who established the Trinity at the Council of Nicea, and Muhammad as the Son of Man who encountered God on his Night Journey to the seventh heaven.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

In Surah 2, verse 124 of the Quran, God says to Abraham:

“And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words and he fulfilled them.” God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”

What is the interpretation of “the certain words” (بِكَلِمَٰتٍ) in Surah 2, verse 124, of the Quran according to the Quranic commentators? Can you provide a list of those “certain words”?

The interpretation of “the certain words” (بِكَلِمَٰتٍ) in this verse according to Quranic commentators refers to the tests and commands that God gave to Abraham. These tests included leaving his family in a barren land, sacrificing his son Ishmael, rebuilding the Kaaba, and instituting the rite of circumcision.

Some of the specific “certain words” mentioned by Quranic commentators include:

1. Leaving his family in a barren land: God commanded Abraham to leave his wife Hagar and their infant son Ishmael in the desolate valley of Mecca.
2. Sacrificing his son Ishmael: God tested Abraham’s devotion by commanding him to sacrifice his beloved son Ishmael. However, at the last moment, God provided a ram as a substitute for sacrifice.
3. Rebuilding the Kaaba: After leaving Hagar and Ishmael in Mecca, Abraham was instructed by God to rebuild the Kaaba as a place of worship for monotheism.
4. The rite of circumcision: Circumcision is a significant command given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant between God and his followers. It remains a practice among his spiritual descendants, particularly in Islam, symbolizing purification and faithfulness to God’s covenant.

These “certain words” (بِكَلِمَٰتٍ) were tests of faith and obedience for Abraham, which he successfully fulfilled, demonstrating his unwavering devotion to God.

Abrahamic covenant: Isaac or Ishmael from a Quranic perspective

In Surah 2, verse 124 of the Quran, it is stated that God made a covenant with Abraham through Ishmael instead of Isaac, and it is implied that Jewish scribes corrupted the Torah in favor of Isaac. How is this interpretation explained?

Surah 2, verses 124 to 125 reads:

“And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My pledge does not include the wrongdoers.”

“And We made the House a focal point for the people, and a sanctuary. Use the shrine of Abraham as a place of prayer. And We commissioned Abraham and Ishmael, “Sanctify My House for those who circle around it, and those who seclude themselves in it, and those who kneel and prostrate.”

The Quran clearly states in Surah 2, verse 124 that God made a covenant with Abraham through his son Ishmael, not Isaac. This contradicts the Biblical account which portrays Isaac as the son who was to inherit the covenant from Abraham.

The Quran suggests the Torah (the first five books of the Bible containing the story of Abraham and his sons) was corrupted by Jewish scribes who altered the narrative to favor Isaac over Ishmael. Evidence for this includes:

The Bible itself initially portrays Ishmael as the firstborn and heir before contradicting itself later by calling Isaac the “only son”.
Islamic sources consistently name Ishmael as the son taken by Abraham for the intended sacrifice, while the Bible names Isaac.

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 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 Quran establishes Ishmael’s lineage as the one that inherits the covenant and religious practices like the Kaaba in Mecca, contradicting the Biblical focus on Isaac’s descendants (the Israelites).

So according to the Quran and Islamic tradition, the Biblical account was distorted to displace Ishmael’s status as Abraham’s heir in favor of Isaac, likely due to Jewish scribes’ bias towards the Israelite lineage.

The Quran asserts that it rectifies this by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the original divine covenant, while the divine choice of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets before the arrival of Islam is intended to prepare the way for Muhammad, the final Prophet.

“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

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The distinction between the prophethood mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, and that in Numbers 12, verse 6, lies primarily in the nature and role of the prophets being described.

1. Deuteronomy 18, verse 18: This verse speaks of a future prophet who will arise from among the brothers of Israelites, like Moses. The text states:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.”

This prophet is often interpreted as a reference to a specific future figure, which many Christians understand to be Jesus Christ, while in Jewish tradition, it may refer to a line of prophets that continue the work of Moses. Muslims believe it refers to the prophecy of Muhammad as the last prophet. This prophecy emphasizes the authority of the prophet, who speaks God’s words directly and is seen as a mediator between God and the people.

2. Numbers 12, verse 6: In this context, God is speaking about the prophets in general, indicating that He communicates with them through visions and dreams. The verse highlights the distinction between Moses and other prophets, stating that Moses is unique because he speaks to God “face to face” and has a more direct relationship with Him. This underscores Moses’ special status as the leader of the Israelites and the primary lawgiver.

In summary, Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, focuses on the future prophet who will speak God’s words with authority, while Numbers 12, verse 6, emphasizes the unique relationship Moses has with God compared to other prophets. This sets the stage for understanding the role of prophecy in Israel’s history, highlighting both continuity and distinction within the prophetic tradition.

Surah 10, verse 92, reads:

”Today We will preserve your body (O Pharaoh), so that you become a sign for those after you. But most people are heedless of Our signs.“

Some scholars contend that the discovery of Ramses’ body in modern times is viewed as a miraculous event in the Quran, specifically in Surah 10, verse 92. It resembles Moses’ parting of the Red Sea. As a result, they argue that Muhammad is the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, similar to Moses. How do they express their argument?

The scholars who make this argument typically point to several key points to support their claim:

1. Discovery of Ramses’ body: They argue that the discovery of Pharaoh Ramses II’s body in modern times is a significant event that aligns with the story of Pharaoh’s body being preserved as a sign in Surah 10, verse 92 of the Quran. This miraculous preservation of Pharaoh’s body is seen as a fulfillment of that prophecy.
2. Resemblance to Moses’ parting of the Red Sea: The scholars suggest that the discovery of Ramses’ body can be seen as a parallel to the miracle of Moses parting the Red Sea, as both events involve extraordinary occurrences related to Pharaoh and Moses. This parallel further strengthens the connection between the two stories.
3. Muhammad as the prophet like Moses: In Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, the Bible mentions the coming of a prophet like Moses, whom God will raise up among the brethren of Israelites. Some scholars argue that Muhammad fits the description of this prophet due to similarities in their roles, teachings, and experiences with prophethood.

By combining these points, scholars argue that the discovery of Ramses’ body, the resemblance to Moses’ story, and the identification of Muhammad as the prophet like Moses provide evidence for the divine inspiration of the Quran and Muhammad’s status as a prophet in the line of Moses.

The Prophethood of Muhammad and the Hebrew Prophets: Exploring Biblical and Theological Foundations

In Genesis, chapter 21 and verse 18, an important prophecy and interaction between God and Hagar regarding Ishmael is mentioned.

The verse states:

“Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.”

One hypothesis proposes that the prophethood of the Hebrew prophets is tied to the Torah given to Moses, whereas Muhammad’s prophethood is associated with the prophecy of Hagar which predates the Torah. How is this idea presented?

The hypothesis you mention explores the relationship and distinctions between the prophethood of the Hebrew prophets and that of Muhammad, focusing on their respective biblical and theological foundations. This idea can be presented and analyzed through various religious, historical, and scriptural perspectives:

The prophethood of the Hebrew prophets is often seen as being linked directly to the Torah, which according to Jewish tradition, was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. This link is crucial because it establishes a continuous line of prophetic authority and teaching that is rooted in the laws and ethical teachings of the Torah.

The prophets following Moses are considered to have the role of interpreting, enforcing, and expanding upon the Torah’s teachings.

In contrast, Muhammad’s prophethood is sometimes associated with the prophecy attributed to Hagar. Hagar, according to the Genesis account, was the servant of Abraham and Sarah, and mother of Ishmael, who is considered by Muslims to be an ancestor of Muhammad.

This association is used to argue that Muhammad’s prophetic lineage predates the Mosaic Torah and is linked instead to Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael.

This hypothesis suggests that there are distinct covenants in the Abrahamic religions that validate different prophetic traditions. The Hebrew prophets fall under the covenant of Moses and the Sinai revelation, while Muhammad is considered under the covenant given to Abraham and Ishmael (as Hagar’s son).

This distinction is important in Islamic theology which views Islam as a continuation and fulfillment of Abrahamic faith, independent of the Mosaic laws.

The idea also touches upon the nature of the revelations received by the prophets. The Torah is often viewed as a national revelation aimed at the Jewish people, containing civil, moral, and ceremonial laws specifically designed for them.

In contrast, Muhammad’s revelation (the Quran) is considered universal, intended for all humanity, and not tied to the specific legal and ritual practices of the Jews.

By associating Muhammad with a prophecy that predates the Torah, this hypothesis also underscores the notion that prophetic messages have been universal and ongoing throughout human history. This could be seen as an attempt to place Islam within a broader, inclusive prophetic tradition that transcends Jewish ethnic and religious boundaries.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

In Surah 2, verse 124 of the Quran, it is stated that God made a covenant with Abraham through Ishmael instead of Isaac, and it is implied that Jewish scribes corrupted the Torah in favor of Isaac. How is this interpretation explained?

Surah 2, verses 124 to 125 reads:

“And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My pledge (covenant) does not include the wrongdoers.”

“And We made the House a focal point for the people, and a sanctuary. Use the shrine of Abraham as a place of prayer. And We commissioned Abraham and Ishmael, “Sanctify My House for those who circle around it, and those who seclude themselves in it, and those who kneel and prostrate.”

The Quran clearly states in Surah 2, verse 124 that God made a covenant with Abraham through his son Ishmael, not Isaac. This contradicts the Biblical account which portrays Isaac as the son who was to inherit the covenant from Abraham.

The Quran suggests the Torah (the first five books of the Bible containing the story of Abraham and his sons) was corrupted by Jewish scribes who altered the narrative to favor Isaac over Ishmael. Evidence for this includes:

The Bible itself initially portrays Ishmael as the firstborn and heir before contradicting itself later by calling Isaac the “only son”.
Islamic sources consistently name Ishmael as the son taken by Abraham for the intended sacrifice, while the Bible names Isaac.

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 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 Quran establishes Ishmael’s lineage as the one that inherits the covenant and religious practices like the Kaaba in Mecca, contradicting the Biblical focus on Isaac’s descendants (the Israelites).

So according to the Quran and Islamic tradition, the Biblical account was distorted to displace Ishmael’s status as Abraham’s heir in favor of Isaac, likely due to Jewish scribes’ bias towards the Israelite lineage.

The Quran asserts that it rectifies this by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the original divine covenant, while the divine choice of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets before the arrival of Islam is intended to prepare the way for Muhammad, the final Prophet.

The Tests of Abraham: Interpretation of ‘Certain Words’ in Surah 2:124 of the Quran

In Surah 2, verse 124 of the Quran, God says to Abraham

“And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words and he fulfilled them.” God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”

What is the interpretation of “the certain words” (بِكَلِمَٰتٍ) in Surah 2, verse 124, of the Quran according to the Quranic commentators? Can you provide a list of those “certain words”?

The interpretation of “the certain words” (بِكَلِمَٰتٍ) in this verse according to Quranic commentators refers to the tests and commands that God gave to Abraham. These tests included leaving his family in a barren land, sacrificing his son Ishmael, rebuilding the Kaaba, and instituting the rite of circumcision.

Some of the specific “certain words” mentioned by Quranic commentators include:

1. Leaving his family in a barren land: God commanded Abraham to leave his wife Hagar and their infant son Ishmael in the desolate valley of Mecca.
2. Sacrificing his son Ishmael: God tested Abraham’s devotion by commanding him to sacrifice his beloved son Ishmael. However, at the last moment, God provided a ram as a substitute for sacrifice.
3. Rebuilding the Kaaba: After leaving Hagar and Ishmael in Mecca, Abraham was instructed by God to rebuild the Kaaba as a place of worship for monotheism.
4. The rite of circumcision: Circumcision is a significant command given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant between God and his followers. It remains a practice among his spiritual descendants, particularly in Islam, symbolizing purification and faithfulness to God’s covenant.

These “certain words” (بِكَلِمَٰتٍ) were tests of faith and obedience for Abraham, which he successfully fulfilled, demonstrating his unwavering devotion to God.

Two covenants: Abrahamic and Sinai covenants from an Islamic perspective

Genesis 49, verse 10, reads:

“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”

The verse implies that Judah’s offspring will govern Israel until the arrival of “Shiloh,” who holds all royal power. Here, Shiloh, similar to “the Seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, refers to the future Messiah.

From an Islamic perspective, the word “Shiloh” in Genesis 49, verse 10, is connected to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, who, not Isaac, is believed to be nearly sacrificed. Conversely, the terms “scepter” and “lawgiver” mentioned in Genesis 49, verse 10, are associated with the Sinai covenant. How is their argument articulated?

From an Islamic perspective, the interpretation of Genesis 49, verse 10, and its connection to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael involves several key arguments:

1. Shiloh as Muhammad:
   Some Islamic scholars interpret “Shiloh” as a reference to Prophet Muhammad. They argue that the prophecy indicates a shift in divine authority away from the line of Judah to a descendant of Ishmael.
2. Abrahamic Covenant through Ishmael:
   Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was nearly sacrificed by Abraham. This is seen as a pivotal moment in the Abrahamic covenant, establishing Ishmael’s line as the inheritors of God’s promise.
3. Scepter and Lawgiver:
   The terms “scepter” and “lawgiver” in Genesis 49, verse 10, are associated with the Sinai covenant given to Moses. Islamic interpretation suggests that these symbols of authority and divine law would remain with the descendants of Judah until the coming of “Shiloh” (Muhammad).
4. Transfer of Authority:
   The verse is interpreted to mean that the religious and political authority (“scepter” and “lawgiver”) would depart from Judah’s line when Shiloh (Muhammad) comes. This is seen as a prophecy of the transition of divine guidance from the Israelite tradition to Islam.
5. Gathering of the People:
   The phrase “unto him shall the gathering of the people be” is interpreted as referring to the universal message of Islam brought by Muhammad, which would unite people from various nations and backgrounds.
6. Continuation of Abrahamic Legacy:
   Islamic scholars argue that Muhammad, as a descendant of Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy by bringing the final revelation that completes and supersedes previous covenants, while still maintaining continuity with the Abrahamic tradition.
7. Non-Judahite Messiah:
   Some interpretations suggest that the verse implies the coming of a messianic figure from outside the tribe of Judah, which aligns with the Islamic view of Muhammad’s lineage through Ishmael.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology and is not accepted in Jewish or Christian exegesis. The Islamic perspective sees this verse as one of many biblical passages that they believe foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad and the establishment of Islam as the final Abrahamic faith.

“The figure of Abraham is central to all three monotheistic traditions, but in Islam, he is seen as a father not only to Isaac but to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. The Abrahamic Covenant in the Qur’an is seen as the foundation of the pure monotheism that Islam claims to restore, with Ishmael playing a key role in this divine plan.”

Karen Armstrong

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

Examine “Baca” in Psalm 84, verse 6, and “Bakkah” of Surah 3, verse 96, from the Quran. How do they correlate?

An excerpt from Holman Concise Bible Dictionary about Baca in Psalm 84, verse 6:

Baca
(Balsam tree or weeping)
Valley in Psalm 84, verse 6, which reflects a poetic play on words describing a person forced to go through a time of weeping who found that God turned tears into a well, providing water.

Baca, mentioned in Psalm 84, verse 6, is believed to be Mecca, which Surah 3, verse 96 of the Quran refers to as Bakkah. It was Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, who was forced to experience a period of weeping, who discovered that God had turned tears into a miraculous well of Zamzam. What is the articulation of this argument?

The argument you’ve presented draws a connection between two distinct religious texts, the Bible and the Quran, by referencing similar concepts found within both. The statement juxtaposes the poetic description from Psalm 84, verse 6, in the Bible, which mentions the Valley of Baca (often interpreted as a place of weeping or sorrow), with a narrative from the Quran.

According to Surah 3, verse 96, the Quran mentions a place called Bakkah, identified by many scholars and tradition as Mecca, a city of paramount importance in Islam.

The biblical excerpt describes a metaphorical transformation where a time of weeping is turned into a source of sustenance and blessing, symbolized by tears turning into a well. This metaphor captures the idea of divine intervention and support during times of distress, providing not just relief but also nourishment and strength from the adversity faced.

The Quranic reference complements this biblical narrative by recounting the story of Hagar and Ishmael, where Hagar’s desperate search for water in the desert for her infant son Ishmael is rewarded by the miraculous appearance of the Zamzam well. This story is deeply embedded in Islamic tradition and highlights themes of faith, divine provision, and the transformation of despair into hope.

By articulating this argument, the connection being made is that both biblical and Quranic texts, while from different religious traditions, reflect a similar theological theme: the belief in a benevolent deity who transforms moments of deep personal despair into opportunities for divine blessing and providence.

The comparison suggests a shared motif of spiritual testing and divine intervention, where the act of enduring hardship with faith can lead to miraculous outcomes, symbolized through the provision of water in both narratives. This water, whether from the well mentioned in Psalm 84, verse 6, or the Zamzam well in Islamic tradition, stands as a powerful symbol of life, sustenance, and the transformative power of faith.

84:6 Valley of Baka. An unknown location, but apparently a dry place that turns into “a place of springs” that “autumn rains” water because of the faithful pilgrims’ presence.

The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible

The Prophecy of Hagar and Its Fulfillment: A Comparative Analysis of Genesis 21:18 and Isaiah 60:7

There is a belief that the prophecy of Hagar in Genesis 21, verse 18, holds more weight than Isaiah 60, verse 7, which is linked to and completes the former. How is this understanding conveyed?

The belief that the prophecy of Hagar in Genesis 21, verse 18, holds more weight than Isaiah 60, verse 7, which is linked to and completes the former, can be understood through a close examination of the biblical texts and their contexts. Here’s how this understanding is conveyed:

1. Genesis 21, verse 18 (The Prophecy of Hagar).

This verse is part of the story where God speaks to Hagar after she and her son, Ishmael, are sent away by Abraham. Hagar is distraught, fearing for her son’s life in the desert.

The verse reads:

Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.”

This prophecy directly promises that Ishmael will become a great nation. This is a foundational promise, as it assures Hagar of her son’s future and his importance in God’s plan.

2. Isaiah 60, verse 7 (Completion of the Prophecy). This chapter of Isaiah deals with the future glory of Zion, depicting a time of great prosperity and the gathering of nations to honor God.

The verse reads:

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.”

Both Kedar and Nebaioth are descendants of Ishmael. This verse indicates the fulfillment and continuation of the promise given to Hagar, showing that Ishmael’s descendants will play a significant role in the future worship and honor of God.

3. Interconnection and Weight: The prophecy in Genesis 21, verse 18, is seen as having “more weight” because it is the initial divine promise regarding Ishmael, establishing his importance and future. It is a direct communication from God to Hagar at a crucial moment. Isaiah 60, verse 7, is viewed as the completion or continuation of this promise. It confirms and elaborates on the fulfillment of God’s plan for Ishmael’s descendants, showing their eventual integration into the worship of God and their contribution to the glory of Zion.

The “weight” of Genesis 21, verse 18, lies in its foundational nature, while Isaiah 60, verse 7, provides a more detailed and expanded vision of the fulfillment of that initial promise.

This understanding is conveyed by recognizing that the original promise to Hagar is the cornerstone of the prophecy concerning Ishmael and his descendants.

The later prophetic vision in Isaiah builds upon this foundation, demonstrating the fulfillment of God’s promise in a broader and more comprehensive way. Therefore, while Isaiah 60, verse 7 is significant in its completion of the prophecy, Genesis 21, verse 18, holds a primary and foundational weight in the narrative.

---

Some believe that Isaiah 60, verse 7, is related to the Hajj ritual, and is the fulfillment of Hagar’s prophecy regarding Ishmael in Genesis 21, verse 18. How is this interpretation presented?

This is an interesting question. The interpretation that Isaiah 60, verse 7, is related to the Hajj ritual and the fulfillment of Hagar’s prophecy regarding Ishmael is based on the following assumptions:

The verse reads:

“All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered to you, The rams of Nebaioth will serve you; They will go up on My altar with acceptance, And I will glorify My glorious house.”

The flocks of Kedar and the rams of Nebaioth in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refer to the descendants of Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham and Hagar, and the ancestor of the Arabs. Kedar and Nebaioth were two of Ishmael’s sons (Genesis 25, verse 13).

The altar and the glorious house mentioned in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refer to the Kaaba. The Kaaba is a sacred building in Mecca that has a cube shape. Muslims believe it was constructed by Abraham and Ishmael. It serves as the direction of prayer and is also the destination for the Hajj pilgrimage.

The acceptance of the offerings on the altar and the glorification of the house in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refer to Muslims performing their Hajj, known as the Feast of Sacrifice. This sacrifice is performed in remembrance of Prophet Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael and as a demonstration of submission to Allah’s will.

Furthermore, it is a prophecy of God’s acceptance and blessing of the Ishmaelites, who worship Him at the Kaaba in sincerity and submission, as He promised Hagar in Genesis 21, verse 18, “I will make him into a great nation.”

This interpretation is presented by some Muslim scholars and commentators, who see it as a proof of the truth and validity of Islam and the Hajj ritual.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Jewish teachings about the Messiah, often referred to as the “Mashiach,” frequently evoke the figure of the Son of David. Here are a few notable quotes and concepts regarding the Messiah from Jewish rabbinical texts:

1. Maimonides (Rambam): In his “Mishneh Torah,” he states that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David and will restore Israel to its former glory.
2. Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a): The Talmud describes the Messiah as a “Son of David” who will arise in a time of tribulation and will bring peace to the world.
3. Rabbi Isaac Luria (Ha’ari): He emphasized the messianic role of the Son of David in bringing about the final redemption and restoring the Jewish people to their land.
4. Rashi: In his commentary on various texts, he frequently references the Messiah as a Davidic king who will gather Jews from the diaspora and rebuild the Holy Temple.

These teachings reflect a deep-rooted belief in a future redeemer who will come from the lineage of David, fulfilling prophetic promises found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The concept of the Messiah is a source of hope and expectation in Jewish thought.

Is Muhammad the messiah whom Jews were waiting for according to the Islamic belief? The answere is indirectly yes based on Surah 2, verse 89. How is their argument articulated from an Islamic perspective?

While Islamic belief does not directly identify Muhammad as the Messiah awaited by Jews, some interpretations and arguments can imply a connection based on Surah 2:89 of the Quran.

The verse reads:

“And when the Book was sent to them by God verifying what had been revealed to them already even though before it they used to pray for victory over the unbelievers and even though they recognised it when it came to them, they renounced it. The curse of God be on those who deny!“

Here’s how the argument is articulated from an Islamic perspective:

1. “That which was with them”: Surah 2, verse 89, refers to the Jews receiving a Book (the Quran) that confirms earlier scriptures. This verse highlights that those who awaited divine guidance through a messiah should have recognized Muhammad’s prophethood since it aligns with their prophecies concerning redemption.
2. Recognition of Truth: The verse emphasizes that the Jewish people had previously prayed for a deliverer( Messiah) or victory over disbelief. When Muhammad came with a message that they were familiar with (based on their scriptures), many of them rejected him. This rejection is seen as a failure to recognize the fulfillment of what they had been waiting for, which could suggest that from an Islamic perspective, Muhammad embodies the qualities of a Messiah in bringing forth God’s final revelation.
3. Completing the Message: Muslims believe that Muhammad’s role as the final prophet completes the message of the earlier prophets and brings a universal message accessible to all, including Jews. Hence, in this context, some may argue that he fulfills the broader expectations of a Messiah-like figure, even if not in the traditional Jewish sense.
4. Prophetic Tradition: Islamic tradition speaks of the coming of Jesus as a key figure who is also termed the Messiah (Masih). In this context, some Islamic interpretations view Muhammad’s prophecy as part of a continuum, where he is vital in the unfolding of the divine plan, which eventually includes the return of Jesus.

In summary, from an Islamic perspective, while Muhammad isn’t explicitly defined as the Messiah in the same way as in Judaism, some interpretations of Surah 2, verse 89, suggest that his mission aligns with the expectations surrounding a messianic deliverer or prophet, indicating a fulfillment of their hope for divine guidance.

How is the concept of the Messiah in Samaritan belief and which passage in their Torah alludes to the arrival of their awaited Savior?

In Samaritan belief, the Messiah is a significant figure known as the “Taheb,” which means “Restorer” or “Returning One.” The Samaritans believe that the Taheb will be a prophet like Moses who will restore true worship and bring about an era of peace and righteousness.

Unlike Jewish messianism, which emphasizes a kingly Messiah from the line of David, the Samaritan Messiah is viewed primarily as a prophetic leader, focused on restoring the pure faith and re-establishing the sanctity of Mount Gerizim, which the Samaritans hold as the true holy mountain (rather than Jerusalem).
The Samaritan Torah (which is similar to the Jewish Torah but with some differences in emphasis and content) alludes to the coming of this awaited figure. The primary passage that Samaritans believe foretells the arrival of the Taheb is Deuteronomy 18, verse 18.

The verse reads:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.”

This verse is interpreted by the Samaritans to be a prophecy about the coming of the Taheb, a prophet like Moses who will lead the people and restore proper worship of God on Mount Gerizim. It is seen as a promise of divine intervention to bring the Samaritans back to the original teachings and commandments as given to Moses.

In summary, the Messiah (Taheb) in Samaritan belief is a prophetic figure who will bring about a restoration of the true faith, and Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, is the key passage in the Samaritan Torah that alludes to his coming.

Search

Search