---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 15, verse 18 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, Islamic scholars argue that:

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

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

The Holy Land of Palestine and Muhammad the Prophet of Islam

The Prophet said:

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ تَوَكَّلَ لِي بِالشَّامِ وَأَهْلِهِ.

“Verily, Allah Almighty has entrusted me with the land of Sham (that is, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) and its people.”

Some believe the hadith is related to establishment of Islamic caliphate in the region of the Levant. How is this argument articulated?

The hadith is reported by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, and it is considered authentic by some scholars. The hadith indicates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was given a special responsibility and honor by Allah to take care of the land of Sham and its people, who are also praised in other hadiths for their faith and steadfastness.

Some people have used this hadith to support the idea of establishing an Islamic caliphate in the region of the Levant, which includes the modern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel. They argue that since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was entrusted with this land by Allah, it is the duty of the Muslims to follow his example and protect it from any foreign occupation or oppression.

They also claim that this land has a special status and significance in Islam, as it is the place where many prophets and righteous people lived, where many battles and victories occurred, and where many signs of the Hour will take place.

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.

In conclusion, the article argues within Islamic tradition that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled through Ishmael instead of Isaac. Key points include:

1. Ishmael as Firstborn: Ishmael’s status as Abraham’s firstborn makes him the original heir to the covenant.

2. Sacrifice Narrative: The initial sacrifice narrative is believed by proponents to refer to Ishmael, with later alterations made to focus on Isaac.

3. Blessing and Land Promise: The land and blessing promise is seen as fulfilled through Ishmael’s descendants, with Islamic traditions highlighting the Hajj and Islamic civilization as proof.

Additionally, it is argued that Israelite scribes modified scriptures to bolster Israel’s claims, while the Quran supports Ishmael’s role in the covenant.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Daniel 7:13-14:

[13] I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

[14] And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Here are some key points about Constantine:

Early Life: Born around AD 272 in Naissus (modern-day Niš, Serbia), Constantine was the son of Flavius Constantius, a Roman army officer, and Helena, who later became Saint Helena.

Rise to Power: After the death of his father in AD 306, Constantine was proclaimed emperor by his troops. His rise to power was marked by a series of civil wars against other claimants to the throne.

Battle of Milvian Bridge: In AD 312, Constantine fought against Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. According to legend, before the battle, he had a vision of a cross in the sky with the words "In this sign, conquer." He attributed his victory to the Christian God, which influenced his conversion to Christianity.

Edict of Milan: In AD 313, Constantine, along with Licinius, issued the Edict of Milan, which granted religious tolerance throughout the empire and allowed Christians to practice their faith openly.

Foundation of Constantinople: In AD 330, Constantine refounded the city of Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). He made it the new capital of the Roman Empire, which later became a center of Christianity.

Council of Nicaea: In AD 325, Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea to address issues within the Christian community, including the Arian controversy. The Nicene Creed, which established foundational Christian beliefs, was formulated during this council.

Legacy: Constantine's reign marked a turning point in the history of the Roman Empire and Christianity. He is often credited with paving the way for the spread of Christianity throughout Europe. His legacy is complex, as he is viewed as a pivotal figure in both the history of the Roman Empire and the development of Christianity.

Death: Constantine died on May 22, 337, and was baptized shortly before his death. He was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople.

Constantine's impact on religion, politics, and culture continues to be studied and debated by historians and scholars to this day.

Islam as the Restored Faith of Abraham: Addressing Perceived Deviations in Judaism and Christianity

Islam is considered as a restored religion of Abraham due to Judaism corrupting their text as regards a son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. At the same time, Christianity corrupted their scripture concerning the oneness of God and the rite of circumcision. What is the explanation for this?

The belief that Islam is a restored religion of Abraham stems from the belief that both Judaism and Christianity deviated from the original teachings of Abraham. According to Islamic beliefs, Judaism corrupted their text by incorrectly interpreting the command to sacrifice a son, as mentioned in the Quran. Muslims believe that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Ishmael, not Isaac as mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

Similarly, Muslims believe that Christianity corrupted their scripture by deviating from the belief in the oneness of God (monotheism) and by modifying the rite of circumcision. Islam emphasizes the concept of tawheed, which is the belief in the oneness of God, and questions the Trinity as mentioned in Christian theology. Islam also practices circumcision, although the method and significance may differ from those in Judaism and some Christian traditions.

These differences and perceived corruptions are seen from the perspective of Islamic theology, which asserts that Islam is the restoration of the original teachings of Abraham, as revealed in the Quran.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

A considerable obstacle to the Jews rebuilding their temple in Jerusalem is the current presence of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, two of the holiest sites in Islam. Both structures are located on the Temple Mount (known as Haram al-Sharif in Islam), which is traditionally believed to be the location of the First and Second Jewish Temples.

Here are some specific challenges related to this:

1. Religious Significance: The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock have been central to Islamic worship for over a millennium. Any attempt to alter or remove these structures would be met with strong resistance from the Muslim world.
2. Political Implications: The status of Jerusalem, and particularly the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, is one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any changes to the status quo could lead to significant political and social upheaval.
3. Historical & Archaeological Concerns: While there is broad consensus among scholars and archaeologists that the Jewish Temples once stood on the Temple Mount, the exact locations and dimensions remain subjects of debate. Excavations or construction on the Mount would be controversial and potentially damaging to existing structures and artifacts.
4. International Response: Any attempt to alter the status quo on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif would likely elicit strong reactions from the international community, given the site’s significance to billions of people worldwide.

It’s worth noting that while there are some groups advocating for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple, mainstream Jewish thought and Israeli policy have, for the most part, accepted the status quo, prioritizing peace and stability over any immediate plans to rebuild the Temple.

“Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, and we shall rebuild the city and its holy sites. But the Third Temple will be rebuilt only in the time of the Messiah.”

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, expressed his view on the Temple in the context of the State of Israel

The Theological Significance of the Ruin of the First and Second Jewish Temples

Some believe that the destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temple by the Babylonians and Romans indicates that God had abandoned Jews, and they were no longer His chosen ones. Theologically, their fate is similar to Cain, the son of Adam, whose sacrifice God rejected. How is this argument explained?

This is a complex and controversial question that has been debated by Jewish theologians and scholars for centuries.

The argument being presented suggests that the destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples by the Babylonians and Romans, respectively, signifies that God had abandoned the Jewish people and revoked their chosen status. This perspective can be interpreted from a theological standpoint, drawing comparisons to the story of Cain, whose sacrifice God rejected.

The comparison suggests that, just as Cain was rejected by God, the Jewish people also faced rejection through the destruction of their temples. The Jewish Temple, serving as a central place of worship and sacrifice, symbolized this rejection.

In this interpretation, the destruction of the Jewish Temples is seen as a divine sign that God had abandoned the Jewish people and withdrew His favor from them. It suggests that their fate is similar to that of Cain, implying a loss of chosen status and a sense of divine rejection.

According to this line of reasoning, the destruction of the temples may be seen as a consequence of the Jewish people’s actions. In the case of Cain, God rejected his sacrifice because of his disobedience and lack of genuine devotion. Similarly, some suggest that the destruction of the temples could be understood as a response to the Jewish people’s shortcomings, such as their failure to follow God’s commandments or their moral transgressions.

This line of thought might interpret these historical tragedies as a sign of losing the status of being “chosen” by God.

  “Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three things that were present there: idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed… And why was the Second Temple destroyed? Because there was baseless hatred among the Jewish people.”

In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Gittin 55b–58a, the destruction of the Temple is described as a punishment for internal strife and sin

What is the function of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem?

The function of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was to serve as the central place of worship for Israelites and Jews, where they offered sacrifices and prayers to God. The temple was also considered the dwelling place of God’s presence on earth, and a symbol of the covenant between God and Israel.

The temple was built and destroyed twice in history, and its location is now occupied by two Islamic structures, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The temple is still revered by Jews as a holy site, and they pray for its restoration in the future.

The temple also has significance for Christians and Muslims, who believe that important events in their religious traditions took place there.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Jesus, in Mark Chapter 8, verse 38, says:.

“For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

The interpretation of the term “Son of Man” used by Jesus in the Gospels has been a subject of debate among biblical scholars. While the majority of scholars understand the term to be a self-designation by Jesus himself, there are a few who propose alternative interpretations, suggesting that it refers to someone other than Jesus.

One prominent scholar who advocates for an alternative understanding of the term is Geza Vermes. Vermes proposes that the phrase “Son of Man” was not a title that Jesus used to refer to himself, but rather a designation for a future apocalyptic figure who would come at the end of time to judge the world. According to Vermes, the phrase “son of man” had its roots in the Hebrew Bible, specifically in the book of Daniel, where it is used to describe a heavenly figure who receives divine authority and is associated with apocalyptic events.

Another scholar who explores alternative interpretations of the term is Robert H. Gundry. Gundry suggests that the usage of “Son of Man” by Jesus indicates a distinct divine figure, separate from Jesus himself. According to Gundry, Jesus employed the term to refer to a heavenly figure who would come with divine authority and power to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

Similarly, John P. Meier, in his multi-volume work “A Marginal Jew,” presents a comprehensive analysis of the historical Jesus. Meier acknowledges the widespread belief among scholars that the term “Son of Man” predominantly refers to Jesus himself in the Gospels. However, he also acknowledges that there are instances where the term could possibly be interpreted differently, referring to a figure other than Jesus.

The diversity of opinions on this subject reflects the complexity of interpreting ancient texts, the nuances of the original language, and the difficulties in reconstructing the historical context and intent of the speakers. Each interpretation is usually backed by a framework of theological or historical reasoning, and scholars often bring different presuppositions and methodologies to their readings of the biblical text.

Does Islam represent the concept of “the Kingdom of God” as taught by Jesus and John the Baptist?

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. Jesus’ message encompassed the fulfillment of the Jewish prophetic tradition and the establishment of a new covenant, but how this developed into Christianity occurred after His death and resurrection through the efforts of His apostles and early followers.

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.”

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe God made a covenant with Abraham through Ishmael rather than Isaac. God chose Israel as his chosen nation prior to the coming of Prophet Muhammad who fulfilled all God’s promises to Abraham. After all, Ishmael was a firstborn, and both Hagar and Ishmael played important roles in the Hajj event together with Abraham. How is this argument articulated?

The argument that God made a covenant with Abraham through Ishmael rather than Isaac is articulated by considering the following points:

1. Firstborn status: Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham, which traditionally holds significance in many cultures. Some argue that being the firstborn, Ishmael had a rightful claim to the covenant blessings. After all, in Deuteronomy 21 verses 15 to 17, it is stated that if a man has two wives and both bear him sons, he should not show favoritism to the son of the loved wife over the firstborn of the neglected wife. The neglected wife’s firstborn should receive double the inheritance as he is the firstfruits of the man’s virility.
2. Mention in the Bible: The Bible does mention Ishmael and his descendants. In Genesis 17 verse 20, God promises to bless Ishmael, saying, “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.” This is seen as evidence that Ishmael was part of God’s plan.
3. Important roles in the Hajj event: Both Hagar and Ishmael played important roles in the Hajj event, where Abraham was commanded by God to leave them in the desert of Mecca. This event is seen as significant because it demonstrates the inclusion of Ishmael and his mother in God’s plan. Muslims believe that Ishmael was the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, but God intervened and provided a ram instead. This event is commemorated by Muslims every year during Eid al-Adha, which is also known as the Festival of Sacrifice.
4. Fulfillment of promises through Muhammad: Some argue that the coming of Muhammad, a descendant of Ishmael, fulfilled the promises made to Abraham. They believe that through Muhammad, God established Islam as the final and complete revelation, encompassing the fulfillment of all previous covenants and promises.
5. Chosen nation prior to Muhammad: The argument suggests that Israel was chosen as God’s nation before the coming of Muhammad, but it does not necessarily mean that Israel was the only chosen nation. They believe that God’s covenant with Abraham through Ishmael was equally valid and fulfilled through the establishment of Islam.

It is important to note that this argument is not universally accepted and is subject to interpretation and theological differences. Different religious traditions may have varying views on this topic.

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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe that the prophecy in the Torah (Genesis 21 verse 18) was fulfilled when Allah established Hajj as an Islamic rite. Pilgrims perform Sa’i in memory of Hagar, who searched for water for her infant son, Ishmael, in the desert, and Allah provided them with the well of Zamzam. Sa’i, which involves walking seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwa in Mecca, is one of the essential rituals of Hajj and Umrah. How is this argument articulated?

There is a belief among some Muslims that the prophecy mentioned in Genesis 21 verse 18 was fulfilled through the establishment of Hajj in Islam. This verse of the Torah prophesies that God will make a great nation from the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. The argument connecting the Islamic narrative with the story in the Torah can be articulated through a few key points:

1. Biblical Story of Hagar and Ishmael: In the Torah, the story of Hagar and her son Ishmael, who were cast into the desert, is recounted. In Genesis 21:18, God tells Hagar, “Lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” This is often interpreted as a divine promise of Ishmael’s survival and future significance.
2. Islamic Narrative and the Ritual of Sa’i: In Islamic tradition, Hagar’s desperate search for water in the desert for her infant son Ishmael is commemorated through the ritual of Sa’i, which is performed during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages. Pilgrims walk back and forth seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwa in Mecca, reenacting Hagar’s search.
3. The Well of Zamzam: Allah’s provision of the Zamzam well for Hagar and Ishmael, as per Islamic tradition, is seen as a miraculous fulfillment of the divine promise. The well is a key element in the story and is considered a symbol of God’s mercy and sustenance.
4. Link to the Prophecy: The argument connects the establishment of Hajj, including the ritual of Sa’i, to the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis. It’s posited that Allah’s establishment of these rituals and the continued commemoration by millions of Muslims is a fulfillment of the promise made to Hagar regarding Ishmael.
5. Symbolism and Continuity: The ritual of Sa’i and the story of Zamzam are seen as not just historical events but also symbolic of God’s continuous guidance and sustenance. This symbolism is linked back to the Biblical prophecy, suggesting a continuity and fulfillment of divine promise across these Abrahamic faiths.

This argument is that the connection between this Islamic rite and the prophecy in the Torah (Genesis 21 verse 18) is seen by some as a fulfillment of the promise made to Hagar in the Torah, where it is stated that God will make a great nation of Ishmael. In Islamic belief, this promise is fulfilled through the lineage of Ishmael and the establishment of Hajj as a central pillar of Islam. Therefore, the act of Sa’i is not only a way for pilgrims to remember and honor Hagar’s struggle but also to symbolize the fulfillment of the prophecy through the establishment of Hajj as an Islamic rite.

Hajj as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

Torah, Genesis 22 verse 18, reads:

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

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

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

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

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

“Hajj, for centuries, has remained a central, unifying force in the Muslim world. It brings together people of every race, language, and culture, in a shared act of worship and submission to God.”

Karen Armstrong, a British author and scholar of comparative religion

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Is Allah the God of Israel?

The question of whether Allah is the God of Israel connects to broader theological, historical, and linguistic discussions. In essence, the answer can vary significantly depending on religious and cultural perspectives:

1. Islamic Perspective: In Islam, Allah is the Arabic word for God, and Muslims believe Allah is the same singular, monotheistic God worshiped by Jews and Christians. This belief is rooted in the Islamic view that all Abrahamic faiths, which include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, worship the same one God who revealed Himself to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Therefore, from an Islamic standpoint, Allah is indeed the God of Israel, as well as the God of all creation.

2. Jewish and Christian Perspectives: Judaism refers to God using several names, the most sacred being YHWH, often vocalized as Yahweh and traditionally not pronounced, using “Adonai” (Lord) in prayer and readings. Christianity, stemming from Jewish monotheism, also worships this God, referring to Him in English as God, and recognizing Jesus Christ as the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity. While Jews and Christians acknowledge their God as the same God of Abraham worshiped by Muslims, the conceptualization of God’s nature can differ significantly among these faiths, especially with Christianity’s Trinitarian doctrine, which is not shared by Judaism or Islam.

3. Linguistic and Cultural Considerations: “Allah” is simply the word for God in Arabic, used by Arabic speakers of various religious backgrounds, including Arab Christians and Jews, when referring to God. The use of the term “Allah” by non-Muslims in Arabic-speaking and -influenced contexts underscores the linguistic aspect of the name rather than a theological one.

4. Theological Divergences: Despite the shared heritage, there are significant theological differences among the three monotheistic faiths, particularly concerning the nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ, and the revelations through their respective scriptures (the Torah for Jews, the Bible for Christians, and the Qur’an for Muslims). These differences lead to distinct understandings and relationships with God.

In summary, from a monotheistic standpoint and particularly within Islam, Allah is considered the same God worshipped in Judaism and Christianity. However, theological nuances and differences in belief systems contribute to varied perceptions and understandings of God’s nature across these faiths.

Did Moses Maimonides, a great Jewish sage, use the word “Allah “ for God in his writing?

Yes, Moses Maimonides, a prominent Jewish philosopher and scholar, did indeed use the word “Allah” for God in some of his writings. In his famous work, “The Guide for the Perplexed,” written in Arabic, Maimonides used the term “Allah” to refer to the monotheistic God. This usage reflects the influence of Arabic and Islamic culture on Maimonides, as he lived in Muslim-dominated Spain and Egypt during the 12th century.

What is “The Guide for the Perplexed”?

The Guide for the Perplexed is a book written by Maimonides, a 12th-century Jewish philosopher and scholar. It tries to explain how to understand the Jewish religion and its sacred texts in a rational way, using the ideas of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. It also discusses some topics of Jewish mysticism and the meaning of God’s attributes. The book was written in Arabic using the Hebrew alphabet, and later translated into Hebrew and other languages. It is considered one of the most influential works of Jewish philosophy and theology, and it has also influenced many Christian and Muslim thinkers.

Saadia Gaon and the Arabic language

Who was Saadia Gaon? Was his writing and commentary on the Torah influenced by Arabic and the name of Allah?

Saadia Gaon was a prominent Jewish scholar and philosopher who lived in the 9th and 10th centuries. He was born in Egypt but spent much of his life in Babylonia, where he served as the head of the Talmudic academy in Sura.

Saadia Gaon’s writing and commentary on the Torah were heavily influenced by Arabic culture and language, as well as Islamic theology. He was well-versed in Arabic literature and philosophy, which he incorporated into his interpretations of Jewish texts. Additionally, Saadia Gaon engaged with Islamic theological concepts such as divine unity (tawhid) and the nature of prophecy.

In terms of the name of Allah, Saadia Gaon did not shy away from using it in his writings. He believed that there was no harm in using the Arabic term for God when discussing theological matters, as long as it did not compromise Jewish monotheism. This openness to incorporating Arabic language and Islamic concepts into his work set Saadia Gaon apart from other Jewish scholars of his time.

Overall, Saadia Gaon’s writing and commentary on the Torah were indeed influenced by Arabic culture and Islamic theology, including references to Allah. His unique approach to blending these influences with traditional Jewish thought helped shape medieval Jewish philosophy and continues to be studied by scholars today.

Pre-Christian Figures in Christian Theology: Understanding the Roles of Adam, Noah, and Abraham

According to Islamic belief, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and all prophets are considered Muslims. Does Christianity hold the view that they were all Christians?

In Christianity, Adam, Noah, and Abraham are not considered Christians in the same way they are viewed as Muslims in Islamic belief. Christianity teaches that these figures lived before the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the central figure of the Christian faith, and therefore could not have been Christians in the traditional sense.

However, these individuals are highly regarded in Christian theology for their roles in God’s plan and are seen as part of the faith’s spiritual heritage.

For example, Abraham is considered a patriarch and a model of faith. He is often referred to as the “father of faith” because he demonstrated faith in God’s promises before the establishment of Christianity.

Christians view themselves as spiritual descendants of Abraham, sharing in the blessings of the covenant through faith in Christ.

Adam and Noah are also recognized as significant figures. Adam is seen as the first human created by God and the forefather of all humanity, and his actions are believed to have led to the fall of man, necessitating redemption. Noah is honored for his righteousness and obedience in the face of a sinful world.

Overall, while these figures are not labeled as Christians, their faith and actions are seen as foundational to the Christian narrative and are respected within the faith for their relationship with God and their roles in biblical history.

Holy Quran 3:33

۞ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱصْطَفَىٰٓ ءَادَمَ وَنُوحًا وَءَالَ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ وَءَالَ عِمْرَٰنَ عَلَى ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ

God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran, over all mankind.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

Isaiah 29, verse 12, reads:

”And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, “Read this, I pray thee”; and he saith, “I am not learned.”

Isaiah 29, verse 14, reads:

”Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”

Some believe that Isaiah 29, verse 14, points to the miracle of the Quran and may be linked to Isaiah 29, verse 12, which suggests a first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad at Mount Hira through the angel Gabriel. How is this connection explained?

The connection between Isaiah 29, verse 14, and the Quran, particularly in relation to Isaiah 29, verse 12, is a matter of interpretation that some Islamic scholars and believers use to suggest a prophecy of the coming of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad. Here’s an explanation of this connection:

Isaiah 29, verse 12 states: “And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”

Islamic Interpretation

1. “The book”: In Islamic interpretation, this is seen as referring to the Quran.
2. “Him that is not learned”: Muslims believe this refers to the Prophet Muhammad, who was illiterate.
3. “Read this, I pray thee”: This is interpreted as the command given to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel during the first revelation.
4. “I am not learned”: According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad responded to Gabriel’s command to read with “I am not learned” (in Arabic: “Ma ana bi qari”).

Isaiah 29, verse 14, states: “Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”

Islamic Interpretation

1. “A marvelous work and a wonder”: This is interpreted by some Muslims to refer to the Quran, considered a miraculous and divine revelation.
2. “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish”: This phrase is seen as indicating that the coming of the Quran would challenge the existing knowledge and wisdom of the people at that time, transforming their understanding and beliefs.
3. “Context of Revelation”: The connection is further strengthened by the context of Isaiah 29, verse 12, which emphasizes a revelation to an unlearned person, aligning with Muhammad’s experience at Mount Hira.

Summary
The connection relies on the belief that Isaiah’s prophecy in these verses points to a future revelation given to an unlearned person (Prophet Muhammad), bringing forth a “marvelous work” (the Quran) that would challenge and transform existing wisdom and understanding. This interpretation is not universally accepted but is used within some Islamic scholarly traditions to draw a link between the Biblical text and Islamic beliefs about the Quran and Muhammad.

The Miraculous Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body: The Connection to Muhammad as the Prophet Like Moses

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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 49, verse 10, reads:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him will be the obedience of the people.”

In this verse, it seems to be implied that Shiloh (Messiah) should be outside of the clan of Judah. What is the explanation for this argument?

The interpretation of Genesis 49, verse 10, particularly the term “Shiloh,” has been a subject of considerable debate among scholars and theologians for centuries. The passage is part of Jacob’s blessings to his sons, where he makes prophetic statements about their futures and the destiny of their descendants.

The verse is traditionally understood as a messianic prophecy within both Jewish and Christian traditions, although interpretations of who or what “Shiloh” represents may vary. The verse indicates that the scepter, which symbolises rulership, and the lawgiver, who represents the law, shall remain with Judah until “Shiloh” comes.

“Shiloh” is often interpreted as a reference to the Messiah, although the exact identity and meaning of the term are not clear from the text itself.

Several scholars believe that the word “until” in the verse indicates the time at which Judah’s authority ended.

Therefore, Shiloh (Messiah) does not descend from David’s lineage, which is traced back to Judah.

Some believe that the statement “and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” in Genesis 49, verse 10, refers to the replacement of the Jewish nation by new nations, specifically pointing to the Muslim community as a whole. Muhammad is regarded as a “Shiloh”. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 8, verse 12. Can you explain this interpretation further?

The verse from Genesis 49, verse 10, is part of the blessings Jacob gave to his sons before he died, where each son’s blessing contained prophecies about their descendants. The verse in question is traditionally ascribed to Judah:

“The scepter 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.”

“Shiloh” is a term that has been interpreted in various ways over the centuries. In Jewish interpretation, it is often understood as a reference to the Messiah from the line of Judah, who would be a ruler over Israel. Christianity interprets Jesus as this Messiah, and thus as “Shiloh.”

However, some Muslim scholars interpret “Shiloh” as a prophecy of Muhammad. In this view, the verse is seen as a prediction that rulership (the scepter) and religious authority (the lawgiver) would remain with the descendants of Judah until a new prophet (Muhammad) arises, and to him, the obedience of the peoples would turn. This interpretation thus sees the Muslim community as the fulfillment of this prophecy, with Muhammad being “Shiloh,” and the Muslim ummah (community) as the gathering of the people.

Matthew 8, verse 12, on the other hand, is a part of the New Testament where Jesus says:

“But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

This verse is often interpreted in a Christian context to mean that those who were originally chosen (the Jewish people) but do not accept Jesus as the Messiah will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Some Muslim interpreters might use this verse to support the idea that there is a new chosen community (the Muslims) that has replaced the old (the Jewish people) due to their acceptance of the final prophet Muhammad, as prophesied in Genesis.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is not a traditional or mainstream understanding within Judaism or Christianity. Both religions typically do not see Muhammad as prophesied in their scriptures. Jewish tradition does not recognize either Jesus or Muhammad as the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies, and Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet.

However, there is the Quranic message of the Surah 2, verse 133, to the Jews and Christians:

“Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, and he said to his sons, “What will you worship after Me?” They said, “We will worship your God, and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac; One God; and to Him we submit.

Shiloh

A title of the Messiah (Gen. 49:10), Heb. shîlōh. Though there has been much discussion as to the grammatical interpretation of the word, Jewish officialdom and the Christian church agree as to the fact that the patriarch is here proclaiming the coming of the Messiah.

While the northern kingly lines were eventually obliterated by the Assyrians, Judah’s royal line continued right up to the time of the arrival of the Messiah. Jacob’s prophecy also points to the fact that eventually God’s kingdom will encompass much more than the Jewish nation. Of course, in a sense, God already reigns over the nations. He is not a mere Jewish tribal deity. He is Lord over all the earth, worthy of everyone’s worship.

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Muhammad and the Hebrew prophets

What is the argument put forth by those who support the idea that the prophethood of Muhammad is linked to Hagar’s prophecy, which predates the Torah, in contrast to Hebrew prophets who are associated with the Torah? Consequently, Muhammad, in contrast to Hebrew prophets such as Jesus, is not bound by the laws of the Torah.

Supporters of the idea that the prophethood of Muhammad is linked to Hagar’s prophecy, which predates the Torah, argue that this connection sets Muhammad apart from Hebrew prophets who are associated with the Torah. Here is a detailed explanation of their argument:

1. Pre-Torah Origins of Hagar’s Prophecy:

Proponents argue that Hagar’s prophecy, as mentioned in Genesis 21, verse 18, predates the Torah given to Moses. This prophecy concerns Hagar’s son, Ishmael, who is promised to become a great nation. This predates the formalization of the Torah, which is traditionally attributed to Moses and his time.

2. Reiteration and Fulfillment in Islamic Rituals:

The Torah reiterates Hagar’s prophecy, but its fulfillment is seen in Islamic practices, particularly the Hajj pilgrimage. The Hajj, which involves rituals connected to Hagar and Ishmael, is viewed as a direct link to their legacy. This pilgrimage is a central practice in Islam, signifying the prophecy’s fulfillment and its importance in Islamic tradition.

3. Marginalization by Ancient Israelite Scribes:

It is suggested that ancient Israelite scribes attempted to downplay the significance of Hagar and Ishmael due to theological and political reasons. This marginalization aimed to elevate the prominence of Isaac and the Israelite lineage over Ishmael. The argument posits that the biblical narrative was shaped in a way that selectively emphasized aspects favorable to the Israelite lineage.

Contrast with Hebrew Prophets

1. Association with the Torah:

Hebrew prophets are closely linked to the Torah, which is seen as the foundation of their prophetic authority. The Torah, given to Moses, contains the laws and ethical teachings that Hebrew prophets were tasked with interpreting and enforcing. This connection establishes a continuous line of prophetic tradition rooted in the Mosaic covenant.

2. Muhammad’s Independent Prophetic Lineage:

In contrast, Muhammad’s prophethood is associated with the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, rather than the Mosaic covenant. This distinction is significant in Islamic theology, which views Muhammad’s message as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic faith, independent of the Mosaic laws. This perspective underscores the universality of Muhammad’s revelation, intended for all humanity, rather than being confined to the specific legal and ritual practices of the Jewish people.

Theological Implications

1. Universal Prophetic Tradition:

By associating Muhammad with a prophecy that predates the Torah, supporters argue that prophetic messages have been universal and ongoing throughout human history. This places Islam within a broader, inclusive prophetic tradition that transcends Jewish ethnic and religious boundaries. It emphasizes the continuity of divine guidance from the time of Abraham through to Muhammad.

2. Distinct Covenants:

The argument also highlights the existence of distinct covenants in the Abrahamic religions. While the Hebrew prophets operate under the covenant of Moses and the Sinai revelation, Muhammad is seen as part of the covenant given to Abraham and Ishmael. This theological distinction reinforces the idea that different prophetic traditions are validated by separate covenants within the broader framework of Abrahamic faiths.

In summary, the argument linking Muhammad’s prophethood to Hagar’s prophecy emphasizes its pre-Torah origins, fulfillment in Islamic Hajj, and the marginalization of Hagar’s significance by ancient Israelite scribes. This perspective contrasts Muhammad’s universal and independent prophetic lineage with the Hebrew prophets’ association with the Torah, highlighting distinct covenants and a broader prophetic tradition.

In Judaism, the Messiah is known as the son of David

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.

Rulership would continue in this tribe till Shiloh (the Messiah) came, and in Him it would remain forever. His people would give Him willing obedience in the day of His power. The meaning of the name “Shiloh” is obscure. Some suggested meanings are: Prince of peace, tranquil, seed, his descendant, whose it is (cf. Ezek. 21:27).

Believer’s Bible Commentary

Search

Search