---

Azahari Hassim

What is the significance of the title “The Matrix of Gog” authored by Daniel Patrick in the context of the book?

The title “The Matrix of Gog” authored by Daniel Patrick holds significant meaning in the context of the book. The term “Matrix of Gog” refers to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, specifically Ezekiel 38 and 39, which describe a powerful world leader named Gog from the land of Magog who will emerge and precipitate a global war. The book aims to inform readers about Gog, Magog, and their connection to the Jews, revealing that today’s Jews are not descendants of Abraham but are of the Turkic bloodline from Khazaria, a country in the Caucasus south of Russia.

The title also implies a complex web or system (matrix) involving Gog and his influence on world events, particularly in relation to Israel and the Jewish people. The book challenges the common belief among Christian Zionists that they must support the Israeli state unconditionally, suggesting that this belief is based on a misunderstanding of biblical prophecy.

In essence, “The Matrix of Gog” is a title that encapsulates the book’s focus on uncovering the true identity of Gog and Magog and their role in fulfilling biblical prophecies, while also critiquing the prophetic paradigm that supports Zionist Israel.

Context and Content

1. Gog and Magog: In biblical and Quranic traditions, Gog and Magog are often associated with apocalyptic prophecies. The book explores the idea that Gog, from the land of Magog, has already exerted influence over the land of Israel, suggesting a fulfillment of these prophecies.

2. Khazars: The book delves into the history of the Khazars, a people who converted to Judaism in the medieval period. The author posits that they play a significant role in the destruction and plunder of lands, tying them to the narrative of Gog and Magog.

3. Prophetic and Historical Analysis: The author examines historical events and their potential prophetic significance, suggesting that the actions of Gog and Magog are part of a larger, divinely orchestrated plan. The “matrix” in the title implies a hidden framework through which these events unfold.

Overall, the title *The Matrix of Gog* reflects the book’s exploration of complex historical and prophetic themes, suggesting an underlying network of influences related to Gog and Magog and their impact on world events, particularly concerning the land of Israel.

According to the author, who is Gog?

According to the author, Gog is the demonic leader or king of the land of Khazaria, which is the country of origin for today’s “Jews.” The book “The Matrix of Gog” informs us about Gog, Magog, and the Jews, revealing that today’s “Jews” are the “Synagogue of Satan” as mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3.

According to the author, who are the present-day descendants of the ancient Israelites?

According to the author, the present-day descendants of the ancient Israelites are not the majority of Jews, but rather some Palestinians who have more Israelite blood than the Jews. Some Palestinians even have DNA markers that establish them as descendants of the ancient priests who worked in the Jewish temples and synagogues.

In what way does “The Matrix of Gog” establish a connection between Khazars and Gog from the land of Magog?

The book “The Matrix of Gog” establishes a connection between Khazars and Gog from the land of Magog by revealing that Gog is the demonic leader or king of Khazaria, which is located in the Caucasus, south of Russia. It explains that the people we call “Jews” today are actually of the Turkic bloodline and not descendants of Abraham, Israelites, or Semites. 

The book informs us about Gog, Magog, and the Jews, showing that the Holy Bible is accurate in its depiction. Additionally, it delves into the lineage of Togarmah, who is related to Magog and Ashkenaz, giving insight into the origins of the Khazars and their connection to the Ashkenazi Jews.

The perspective of the author towards Palestinians is what exactly?

The perspective of the author towards Palestinians is that they had more Israelite blood than the Jews themselves, and some Palestinians even had DNA that established they were ‘Cohens’ – workers at the ancient Temple and synagogues of the Jews.

What is the author’s perspective towards Ashkenazi Jews?

The author’s perspective towards Ashkenazi Jews is critical, as they view revealing books on the origins of Ashkenazi Jewry as a “Frankenstein nightmare” that won’t die despite attempts to suppress it in the media. The author also mentions a book by Dr. Paul Wexler that challenges Zionist beliefs about Ashkenazi Jews. Additionally, the author discusses the Khazar mass migration into Eastern Europe and the DNA research findings that suggest most Jews came from Khazar blood.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Micah 6, verse 7, reads:

“Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?“

Jeremiah 8, verse 8, reads:

“’How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?“

Several Islamic scholars believe Micah 6, verse 7, and Jeremiah 8, verse 8, may reflect a scribal interpolation of Isaac’s name in Genesis 22. The son who was nearly sacrificed is believed to have been Ishmael, not Isaac. What is the articulation of their argument?

The argument presented by some Islamic scholars regarding the potential scribal interpolation of Isaac’s name in Genesis 22 is based on several key points:

1. Quranic perspective: The Quran mentions the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son but does not explicitly name the son. Islamic tradition generally holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was to be sacrificed.

2. Textual analysis of Micah 6, verse 7: This verse states, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” Some Islamic scholars interpret this as a reference to the sacrifice story and argue that since Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn, this verse supports the idea that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice.

3. Interpretation of Jeremiah 8, verse 8: This verse reads, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” Islamic scholars use this to suggest that scribes may have altered biblical texts, potentially including the story of Abraham’s sacrifice.

4. Historical context: Some scholars suggest that the emphasis on Isaac in Jewish traditions may have led to a gradual change in the story, resulting in Isaac’s name being added to the biblical narrative.

5. Linguistic analysis: Some scholars examine the original Hebrew text and argue that there are inconsistencies or ambiguities that could support the idea of later interpolation.

6. Theological implications: The argument often ties into broader Islamic theological perspectives on the role and significance of Ishmael in the Abrahamic tradition.

It is crucial to emphasize that this perspective is not universally embraced by scholars of comparative religion, and it is just one interpretation within a multifaceted interfaith discussion. The argument relies heavily on interpretation and inference, as there is no direct textual evidence of interpolation in the Genesis account itself.

This perspective challenges traditional Jewish and Christian understandings of the text and highlights the different ways sacred texts can be interpreted across religious traditions.

The Scriptural Alteration and the Abrahamic Covenant

Was the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac?

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

Ishmael and the Covenant

1. Ishmael as the Firstborn: Supporters of this view argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant. They emphasize that Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant.
2. Sacrifice Narrative: They contend that the narrative of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son originally referred to Ishmael, not Isaac. This is based on the belief that ancient scriptures were altered by Israelite scribes to emphasize Isaac’s role.
3. Blessing and Land Promise: The promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations is seen as applying to Ishmael’s descendants. Islamic tradition views Ishmael as an ancestor of the Arab peoples, and thus sees the fulfillment of these promises through the Islamic Hajj and in the rise of Islamic civilization.
   Scriptural Alteration Argument
4. 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.
5. Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran does not name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition identifies him as Ishmael. This is supported by the timeline in the Quran, which implies that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred following the sacrifice event, suggesting that Ishmael was the probable candidate.

In conclusion, the perspective that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the true heir to the Abrahamic covenant is rooted in the belief that Ishmael, as the firstborn, was the original recipient of God’s promises.

This view is supported by interpretations of Islamic tradition and arguments regarding scriptural alterations.

While this belief contrasts with the traditional Judeo-Christian view that Isaac was the chosen heir, it highlights the diverse understandings and interpretations of Abrahamic history within different religious traditions.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What is the reason for the lesser popularity of the title “Servant of the Lord” in reference to Jesus, in comparison to the widely recognized title “Son of God,” despite the description given in the well-known book of Isaiah 42?

The lesser popularity of the title “Servant of the Lord” in reference to Jesus, in comparison to the widely recognized title “Son of God,” may be due to several reasons. One reason could be that the concept of a servant is not as commonly understood or revered in the same way as the concept of a son. In many cultures and religious traditions, the idea of a son implies a special and close relationship, while the concept of a servant may not carry the same connotations of significance.

Additionally, the title “Son of God” has been more widely emphasized and popularized in Christian theology and scripture, particularly in references to Jesus in the New Testament. This has contributed to its widespread recognition and acceptance among Christians.

Furthermore, there may be a tendency to focus on the divinity and special relationship of Jesus as the Son of God, rather than emphasizing his role as a servant. This emphasis on divine status may overshadow the significance of the title “Servant of the Lord” in some interpretations of Christian theology.

Overall, the lesser popularity of the title “Servant of the Lord” in comparison to “Son of God” may be a result of its historical and theological emphasis, as well as cultural and linguistic factors. Despite this, the concept of Jesus as the Servant of the Lord is an important and meaningful aspect of Christian faith, as highlighted in the book of Isaiah and other biblical texts.

Muhammad is identified as a servant of Allah in the Quran. There are those who posit that the reference to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42, specifically verse 11 which mentions Kedar, may be alluding to Muhammad. How do they present and support this argument?

Those who posit that the reference to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42, specifically mentioning Kedar, may be alluding to Muhammad, often present and support this argument based on several key points:

1. Kedar’s Descendants: In Isaiah 42, verse 11, it mentions Kedar, who was the second son of Ishmael and, according to Islamic tradition, is considered the ancestor of the Arabs. The argument is that since Muhammad was an Arab, and he came from the lineage associated with Kedar, this reference could be an allusion to him.
2. Characteristics of the Servant: The description of the servant in Isaiah 42 aligns with certain traits that are associated with Muhammad in Islamic tradition. The servant is described as bringing a new law, being a light for the nations, and engaging in conquest and warfare. Proponents of this argument argue that these attributes are consistent with the mission and actions of Muhammad.
3. Similarities in Language and Prophecies: Some commentators draw parallels between the language used in Isaiah 42 and certain prophecies and descriptions related to Muhammad in Islamic sources. They argue that linguistic and conceptual similarities between Isaiah 42 and Islamic teachings support the idea that Muhammad is the servant referenced in the passage.
4. Connection to Monotheism: Proponents of this argument also highlight the emphasis on monotheism in Isaiah 42, which they relate to the monotheistic message of Islam and the role of Muhammad as a carrier of the monotheistic faith in the Arabian Peninsula.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is based on a specific reading of the text and is subject to debate and interpretation within different religious traditions. Not all scholars or religious authorities agree with this perspective, and there are varied understandings of the meanings and implications of the servant mentioned in Isaiah 42. Different religious communities and denominations may have distinct interpretations of these passages based on their particular religious and theological frameworks.

In constructing a genealogy of Muhammad, the Islamic hagiographers traced his descent from Abraham and Ishmael through Kedar.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What distinguishes King Solomon from King Cyrus in relation to messiahship?

The main distinction between King Solomon and King Cyrus in relation to messiahship is:

1. King Solomon was an Israelite king from the Davidic dynasty, while King Cyrus was a Persian king who ruled over the Israelites.
2. King Solomon is not generally considered a messianic figure, though he was an important and influential king in the Old Testament. In contrast, King Cyrus is referred to as a “messiah” or “anointed one” in the Bible (Isaiah 45, verse 1).
3. The reason Cyrus is referred to as a messiah is that, though he was not an Israelite, God used him to facilitate the return of the Jewish people from the Babylonian exile and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. This was seen as a messianic act of delivering and restoring God’s people.
4. Solomon, despite his wisdom and wealth, did not have the same messianic role or divine calling that Cyrus had in relation to the Israelites and their restoration. Solomon was an important king, but not considered a messianic figure in the same way.

So in summary, the key distinction is that Cyrus was explicitly called a messiah in Scripture for his role in facilitating the return from exile, while Solomon, though a great king, did not have the same messianic status or function in biblical theology.

Jesus was teaching in the Temple area. He asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?

With the help of the Holy Spirit, David himself says, ‘The Lord (God) said to my Lord ( my master): Sit by me at my right side, and I will put your enemies under your control. ‘

David himself calls the Messiah ‘Lord.’ So how can the Messiah be David’s son?”

Many people listened to Jesus and were very pleased.

It has been argued by some Muslims that Jesus denies in Mark 12, verses 35 to 37, that the messiah Jews are looking for is a descendant of David. There is also a similar account in Luke 20, verses 41 to 44, and Matthew 22, verses 41 to 46. Their point of contention is that Jesus refers to Muhammad rather than himself. What is the significance of this argument?

The argument that Jesus refers to Muhammad in the above statements rather than to himself as the Messiah, and suggests that the Messiah Jews are awaiting is not a descendant of David, is an interpretation that emerges from a particular reading of these biblical passages in light of Islamic prophecy and eschatology.

This interpretation is not found within mainstream Christian theology but is part of Muslim perspectives that see Muhammad as the final prophet foretold in earlier scriptures, including the Bible. Here’s how this argument is typically explained:

1. Jesus’ Questioning: Among Muslims, Jesus’ questioning is interpreted as a rejection of the idea that the Messiah is a physical descendant of David. Instead, they propose that Jesus is hinting at a more profound spiritual truth about the Messiah’s identity. This interpretation is seen as opening the door to the idea that Jesus might be indicating the coming of another prophet (Muhammad), as per Islamic belief, who is considered the final prophet and a messenger in Islam.
2. Jewish Expectation: At the time, many Jews expected the Messiah to be a political or military leader who would liberate Israel from Roman rule. This expectation was based on various Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would come from David’s lineage.
3. Reference to Muhammad: Some Muslims interpret Jesus’ reference to “my Lord” as a prophecy about Muhammad, who is considered in Islam to be the final prophet and a “Spiritual Messiah.” This interpretation is bolstered by Islamic teachings that regard Muhammad as the “Praised One” (which is what the name Muhammad means) and as fulfilling biblical prophecies about a final messenger.
4. Distinction from Davidic Lineage: By focusing on the term “Lord” and the context in which Jesus presents his argument, some Muslims see this as a clear indication that the coming Messiah, who they believe is Muhammad, would have a different role and authority than the one traditionally ascribed to the Davidic Messiah. This reading suggests that Jesus was pointing to the advent of a new spiritual leader who would come from the lineage of Ishmael, not Isaac, thus not being a direct descendant of David but still fulfilling the role of a Messiah.
5. Islamic Eschatology and Prophecy: This interpretation is part of a broader Islamic eschatological view that sees Jesus and Muhammad as connected within God’s plan for humanity. Jesus is seen as heralding the coming of Muhammad, with his mission serving as a bridge between Jewish expectations of a Messiah and the arrival of the final prophet, Muhammad.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology and is not shared by Jewish or Christian traditions, which have their own understandings of the Messiah and the prophecies concerning him.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

According to biblical accounts, Ishmael is described as a teenager at the time he and Hagar depart from Abraham’s household. In contrast, Islamic tradition presents him as an infant or young child whom Hagar nurses as they leave Abraham’s residence.

Was Ishmael placed on Hagar’s shoulder by Abraham in Genesis 21 before their departure? Was Ishmael able to walk when Abraham sent him and his mother away? How does the Midrash explain it?

Midrash is a term used in Jewish tradition to refer to a method of interpreting biblical texts. It involves exploring and expanding upon the stories, laws, and teachings found in the Hebrew Bible through storytelling, commentary, and analysis. Midrashic interpretations often seek to uncover deeper meanings or lessons within the text and can vary widely in style and content.

The Midrash provides an interpretation of the events in Genesis 21. According to the Midrash, Ishmael was indeed placed on Hagar’s shoulders, and this act is seen as a demonstration of Hagar’s devotion to her son. However, the Midrash also acknowledges the inconsistency between Ishmael’s age and his physical abilities, suggesting that the text may have been altered or fabricated to fit the narrative.

According to Rashi’s commentary, Ishmael was unable to walk at the time, potentially due to an evil eye cast upon him by Sarah that caused him to become ill. Rashi suggests Abraham placed the teenage Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder along with their supplies because he was too feeble to walk on his own.

So in summary, while Rashi argues Ishmael was placed on Hagar’s shoulders because he was too ill to walk, this explanation is debated given Ishmael’s age and other details in the text and Midrash. The passage is ambiguous about how Hagar and Ishmael departed together. Alternative interpretations suggest Ishmael was old enough to walk, even if he required some support from his mother.

A passage from “Hard Sayings of the Bible” states:

A number of commentators have insisted on the fact that Ishmael was placed on the shoulders of Hagar when she left. This would imply that at the time the boy was a mere infant who needed to be carried by his mother. Then in Genesis 21, verse 15, he is spoken of as being cast or placed under a bush.

Now after these interpreters have reached these conclusions about Ishmael being a mere infant, they go on to declare that this assessment is in conflict with Genesis 16, verse 16, 17, verse 25, and 21, verse 5, where the boy seems to be at least thirteen or fourteen years old, and that this is the mark of multiple sources, for the texts were not edited as carefully as they should have been.

What is the explanation for this argument?

The argument you’ve mentioned is centered around the apparent discrepancies in Ishmael’s age in different parts of the Genesis narrative. The confusion arises from the portrayal of Ishmael as both an infant and a teenager in various passages.

According to Genesis 16, verse 16, Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. By the time Isaac was born, Abraham was 100 years old, making Ishmael approximately 14 years old (Genesis 21, verse 5). The event of Hagar and Ishmael being sent away occurs after the weaning of Isaac, which could imply that Ishmael was between 17 and 19 years old at that time.

The passage you’ve cited suggests that some commentators interpret the text as if Ishmael were an infant during this event, based on the description of him being carried on Hagar’s shoulders and placed under a bush. This interpretation could be seen as conflicting with the earlier texts that indicate Ishmael’s teenage years.

The explanation for this discrepancy is a subject of debate among scholars. Some propose that it might be due to multiple sources or redactions in the text, which were not perfectly harmonized. Others suggest that the narrative is not strictly chronological or that the descriptions are figurative rather than literal. It’s also possible that the term “child” or “boy” used in the text does not necessarily imply infancy but could simply refer to a son.

Abraham lived some thirty-seven years after Sarah’s death and died at the age of 175.
The biblical writer’s comment that Abraham was gathered to his people hints at the Israelites’ early belief in an afterlife.
The patriarch’s two oldest sons Isaac (now seventy-five) and Ishmael (now eighty-nine) took the responsibility of burying their father.

THE CSB STUDY BIBLE

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

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

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

1. Lineage and Prophetic Tradition: 

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

2. The Story of Ishmael and Isaac:

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

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

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

3. Symbolic Acts of Hajj:

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

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

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

4. Restoration of Abrahamic Monotheism: 

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

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

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe that Surah 2, verse 129 and 133 of the Quran points to Muhammad as the “Shiloh” prophesied by Jacob in Genesis 49, verse 10. How is this argument articulated?

The argument that Surah 2, verses 129 and 133 of the Quran point to Muhammad as the “Shiloh” prophesied by Jacob in Genesis 49, verse 10, is articulated through several points:

1. Surah 2, verse 29, reads:

“Our Lord, and send among them a messenger from themselves who will recite to them Your verses and teach them the Book and wisdom and purify them. Indeed, You are the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”

This verse mentions a prayer by Abraham and Ishmael for a messenger to be sent among their descendants, which Muslims believe refers to Muhammad. This is seen as a continuation of the Abrahamic prophetic tradition.

2. Surah 2, verse 33, reads:

Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when 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 and Ishmael and Isaac – one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”

This verse mentions Jacob asking his sons whom they will worship after his death, and they affirm their worship of the God of their forefathers, including Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac. This is interpreted as a testament to the continuity of monotheism and the prophetic mission culminating in Muhammad.

3. In Genesis 49, verse 10, Jacob states:

“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.”

This biblical verse speaks of a ruler from Judah until “Shiloh” comes, interpreted by some as a messianic figure. The argument posits that Muhammad, as a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy by bringing a final and universal message.

These points collectively argue that Muhammad is the awaited “Shiloh” who brings the final divine guidance, aligning with the Quranic narrative of prophetic succession.

In Genesis Rabbah, a classical collection of Jewish homiletical interpretations, “Shiloh” is also understood messianically. The Midrash associates “Shiloh” with the coming of the Messiah, who will bring peace (since the word “Shiloh” is linked to the Hebrew word for peace, “Shalom”).

Midrash Rabbah

Muhammad, Torah and Hebrew prophets

Does Hagar’s prophecy in Genesis 21, verse 18, predate the Torah given to Moses?

Yes, Hagar’s prophecy in Genesis 21, verse 18, predates the Torah as given to Moses. The Book of Genesis, which includes the story of Hagar, is considered part of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and traditionally attributed to Moses. 

However, the events described in Genesis, including Hagar’s encounter with God and the prophecy concerning her son Ishmael, are believed to have occurred long before the time of Moses, around the patriarchal period.

The narrative in Genesis 21 describes Hagar and Ishmael in the context of Abraham’s family and is thus seen as part of the pre-Mosaic tradition. The Torah, or Pentateuch, as a compilation and codification, is generally understood to have been formalized during the time of Moses, which occurs much later in the biblical timeline. 

Therefore, the events and prophecies in Genesis can be considered as part of the earlier history before the giving of the law to Moses.

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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Proclamation of the Kingdom:

Jesus began his public ministry with the proclamation that the Kingdom of God was near. In Mark 1:15, he says, “The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

This announcement indicated that the long-awaited reign of God was breaking into history.

Did Jesus equate the kingdom of God he preached with the religion of Christianity?

No, Jesus did not equate the kingdom of God he preached with the religion of Christianity. The kingdom of God that Jesus preached was a spiritual concept centered around the reign and rule of God in people’s hearts and lives. It was about living in accordance with God’s will, showing love and compassion to others, and seeking justice and righteousness.

Christianity, on the other hand, is a specific religious tradition that developed after Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is based on the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, as well as interpretations and beliefs that have been developed over centuries by Christian theologians.

While Christianity sees itself as being rooted in the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of God, it is a distinct religious tradition with its own beliefs, practices, rituals, and organizational structures.

In summary, while Jesus preached the Kingdom of God as the central theme of His ministry, He did not specifically equate it with the religion of Christianity.

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 and the Caliphate] 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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Ishmael was the fruit of Abraham, while Isaac was a gift from God to Abraham.

From the Islamic perspective, Ishmael was the fruit of Abraham, while Isaac was a gift of God to Abraham due to his willingness to sacrifice his firstborn son, Ishmael. What is the explanation for this?

In Islamic tradition, both Ishmael and Isaac are revered as prophets and are the sons of the Prophet Abraham . Here’s a breakdown from the Islamic perspective:

1. Ishmael: He is the first son of Abraham and Hagar. When Hagar and Ishmael were in the desert, God provided them with the well of Zamzam. Ishmael and his father, Abraham, later constructed the Kaaba in Mecca. The majority of Islamic traditions indicate that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. However, at the last moment, God provided a ram to sacrifice in place of Ishmael. This event is commemorated during Eid al-Adha, known as the Festival of Sacrifice.
2. Isaac: He is the second son of Abraham and his wife, Sarah. In Islamic narratives, after the trial of the sacrifice, as a reward for Abraham’s unwavering faith, God blessed him with a second son, Isaac, through Sarah. Isaac is also considered a prophet and is respected in Islamic tradition.

The Islamic account differs from the Jewish and Christian traditions, where Isaac is the one whom Abraham is commanded to sacrifice. In the Qur’an, the specific name of the son to be sacrificed is not mentioned, but many Islamic scholars and traditions identify him as Ishmael based on various hadiths and the historical context.

From a Quranic perspective, Abraham offered Hagar and Ishmael to God as if they belonged to Him. In return, God granted both Abraham and Sarah a son named Isaac as a divine gift.

“Ishaq was a noble prophet of Allah, the son of Ibrahim, and the father of Yaqub (Jacob). Allah blessed him and his descendants, making prophethood and revelation continue through his lineage.”

Ibn Kathir (Renowned Islamic scholar and historian)

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The term “Messiah” signifies the anointment of an individual with consecrated oil, designating them as God’s representative. Who in the Old Testament is anointed with sacred oil to be God’s messiah?

In the Old Testament, the term “Messiah” refers to anointed individuals who were consecrated with sacred oil to serve as God’s representatives. This anointing was a sign of being chosen by God for a special role or mission. The concept of “Messiah” is primarily associated with three types of figures:

1. Priests: The first time the word “Messiah” appears in the Old Testament is in the context of priests, specifically in the Book of Leviticus, where the role of the priest in offering sacrifices for sin is described.
2. Kings: Kings were also anointed with oil when they were consecrated. For example, Samuel the prophet poured oil on the head of Saul, Israel’s first king, and David, Israel’s second king. This anointing signified their role as leaders chosen by God to rule over the people.
3. Prophets: While prophets were typically anointed by God with the Holy Spirit rather than with oil, there is an exception with the prophet Elisha, who was anointed with oil by Elijah as his successor.

These anointings with oil symbolized the presence of God’s spirit and blessing upon these individuals, setting them apart for their divine responsibilities.

The anointing of priests, kings, and prophets with sacred oil was a significant ritual in the Old Testament, marking them as “messiahs” or “anointed ones” in their respective roles.

The term “Messiah” in the Old Testament is thus not limited to a single individual but applies to various people anointed for specific roles by divine command.

“The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the Qumran community expected two Messiahs: one a priestly Messiah of Aaron, and the other a royal Messiah of Israel. This dual expectation highlights the community’s anticipation of both spiritual and political deliverance.”

Geza Vermes (Renowned Scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls)

---

There is a belief that Jesus was a messiah in the same sense as other messiahs before him. Scripturally, Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah who was predicted by the Hebrew prophets to establish God’s kingdom in the Holy Land. Could you kindly provide an explanation for the meaning of the preceding statement?

The belief that Jesus was a messiah in the same sense as other messiahs before him refers to the idea that he was seen as a savior figure who would bring about spiritual redemption and salvation. In this context, messiah is understood as a leader or deliverer chosen by God to fulfill a specific role in the divine plan.

However, scripturally speaking, Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah that many Jews were expecting based on the prophecies found in Hebrew scriptures. The traditional Jewish understanding of the apocalyptic messiah was of a powerful political and military leader who would liberate Israel from its enemies, establish God’s kingdom on earth in the Holy Land, and rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus’ teachings and actions did not align with these expectations of a conquering warrior king. Instead, he preached about love, forgiveness, and spiritual transformation. He emphasized inner righteousness over outward displays of power. This led many Jews to reject Jesus as their expected messiah, that is, the apocalyptic messiah.

In Christian theology, Jesus is believed to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in a different way than what was traditionally expected. Christians see Jesus as the ultimate savior who brings salvation through his sacrificial death and resurrection, rather than through political conquest.

So, when it is said that Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah predicted by Hebrew prophets to establish God’s kingdom in the Holy Land, it means that his role and mission were different from what many people at that time were anticipating based on their interpretation of scripture.

Does the Quran mention Muhammad as the Messiah whom the Jews await?

In the Quran, Muhammad is not explicitly referred to as the Messiah whom the Jews await. However, there is an indirect mention in Surah 2, verse 89, that can be interpreted in this context.

Surah 2, verse 89, states:

“And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them – although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved – but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers.”

This verse is believed by some scholars and interpreters to refer to a prophecy mentioned in Jewish scriptures about a future prophet who would come after Moses. According to this interpretation, the Jews were awaiting this promised prophet or Messiah.

Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet sent by Allah and consider him as fulfilling various prophecies mentioned in previous religious texts. Therefore, some Muslims interpret Surah 2, verse 89, as indirectly referring to Muhammad as the awaited Messiah.

It’s important to note that interpretations of religious texts can vary among different scholars and individuals. While some may see a connection between Muhammad and the awaited Messiah based on this verse, others may have different interpretations or understandings.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Does Isaac possess the necessary credentials to be considered an appropriate sacrifice?

According to the Mosaic law, the offering must consist of the first-born and must be completely flawless.

It seems Isaac does not possess the necessary qualifications to be considered as a suitable sacrifice due to the fact that he was not the firstborn of Abraham.

Furthermore, his circumcision on the eighth day is deemed as a flaw that renders him unsuitable for sacrificial purposes.

How is this argument explained?

The argument you provided appears to be analyzing the story of Abraham and Isaac in the context of Mosaic law. The Mosaic law outlined certain guidelines for offerings, which included the necessity of sacrificing the firstborn and ensuring the offering was perfect and without any flaws.

In the case of Isaac, he did not meet the requirements to be considered a suitable sacrifice according to the Mosaic law for two main reasons:

1. Isaac was not the firstborn of Abraham: The Mosaic law stipulated that the initial offspring should be offered as a sacrifice. Because Isaac was not Abraham’s firstborn son (with Ishmael being the firstborn), he did not fulfill this particular qualification.
2. Circumcision on the eighth day: Circumcision was an important ritual in the Old Testament that signified the covenant between God and the people of Israel. In the case of Isaac, he was circumcised on the eighth day as prescribed by God to Abraham.

However, in the context of sacrificial offerings, having been circumcised was seen as a flaw or imperfection that rendered Isaac unsuitable for a sacrificial purpose because he was already consecrated to God through circumcision.

Therefore, based on the specific requirements outlined in the Mosaic law and the circumstances surrounding Isaac, it can be argued that Isaac did not possess the necessary qualifications to be considered as a suitable sacrifice according to the standards set forth the biblical text.

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

The verse reads:

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

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

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

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

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

The right of the firstborn, known as "primogeniture" in legal and cultural traditions, has been discussed by various scholars and historical figures across different fields. Here are a few notable quotes that explore this concept:

1. Sir Henry Maine, a British jurist and legal historian, discussed the significance of primogeniture in his work on the development of legal institutions:
   
"The practice of primogeniture is, in fact, but another name for the postponement of the claims of equality."
  
This quote reflects Maine's analysis of how primogeniture shapes social structures and legal norms, often at the expense of equality among siblings.

2. James Frazer, in his anthropological work, delved into the cultural and religious dimensions of the firstborn’s rights:
   
 "In many societies, the firstborn son traditionally inherits the lion's share of power and responsibility, seen as both a privilege and a burden."
  
Frazer's examination considers the dual aspects of primogeniture, highlighting the role of the firstborn in maintaining continuity and stability within the family and society.

3. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian and philosopher, provided a theological perspective on the rights of the firstborn in Christian doctrine:
   
"The right of the firstborn is an ordinance of the divine law."
  
Aquinas emphasizes the divine mandate behind primogeniture, linking it to Biblical precedents and theological principles.

These quotes reflect diverse perspectives on the right of the firstborn, exploring its legal, cultural, and theological implications across different societies and historical periods.

Search

Search