Azahari Hassim

🌍 If Abraham Had Not Existed: Reimagining the Foundations of the Abrahamic Faiths

🕊️ Introduction

Few figures in human history hold as central a place as Abraham. Revered as a patriarch by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, Abraham’s life represents faith, obedience, and covenantal relationship with God. Yet one may ask: what if Abraham had not existed? How would the three great monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—have looked without him?

⸻

✡️ 1. Judaism Without Abraham

In Judaism, Abraham is Avraham Avinu—“our father Abraham”—the first to recognize and worship one God. He embodies the beginning of the covenant through which God promised descendants as numerous as the stars and granted the Land of Israel as their inheritance.

Without Abraham, Judaism might never have developed its distinctive identity as a covenantal faith. The entire theological framework linking the Jewish people to divine promise and land would lack its origin. A different patriarchal figure might have emerged, but the concept of the chosen people bound by a divine covenant could have been far less defined or even absent altogether.

⸻

✝️ 2. Christianity Without Abraham

Christianity draws deeply upon Abraham as the model of faith before the law. In Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (4:3), Abraham is cited as the one who “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” For early Christians, Abraham’s faith symbolized justification through belief rather than works—a cornerstone of Christian theology.

If Abraham were missing from the biblical narrative, Christian thought might have lacked its archetype of faith and obedience. The connection between the Old and New Testaments would have been weaker, and Paul’s theological bridge from Judaism to Christianity less convincing. The doctrine of salvation through faith could have taken a different shape or rested upon another figure entirely.

⸻

☪️ 3. Islam Without Abraham

In Islam, Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام) stands as one of the greatest prophets and the friend of Allah (Khalīlullāh). He is seen as the renewer of pure monotheism and the spiritual father of both prophetic lines—through Isaac leading to Israel, and through Ishmael leading to the final Messenger, Muhammad ﷺ.

Without Abraham, Islam would lose a profound ancestral link that unites the prophetic tradition. The rituals of Hajj—circumambulating the Kaaba, performing Sa‘i between Safa and Marwah, and the symbolic sacrifice—are all reenactments of Abraham’s and Ishmael’s devotion. Without his example, the pilgrimage and even the symbolism of the Kaaba as the restored “House of God” might not exist in the same form.

⸻

🔥 4. The Missing Narratives of Faith and Sacrifice

Abraham’s absence would erase some of the most formative narratives of divine testing and human submission. The binding of Isaac (in Jewish and Christian scripture) or sacrifice of Ishmael (in the Qur’anic version) expresses the highest model of surrender to God’s will. Without such a story, the moral archetype of total faith under trial would be lost. The concept of “submission” (Islam) itself finds its origin in Abraham’s willingness to yield entirely to divine command.

⸻

📜 5. The Prophetic Testimony: “That is Abraham, upon him be peace”

Islamic tradition exalts Abraham as the best of creation. Anas bin Malik reported:

A man came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said,“O best of creation!”
The Prophet replied, “That is Abraham, upon him be peace.”
(Sahih Muslim)

This humility of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reveals not only reverence for Abraham’s spiritual stature but also the continuity of divine mission across time. Abraham’s unwavering monotheism and selfless faith form the spiritual DNA of all later prophets.

⸻

🌟 Conclusion: The Irreplaceable Patriarch of Monotheism

Had Abraham never lived, the landscape of world religion would be unrecognizably different. Judaism might lack its covenantal foundation; Christianity might lack its doctrine of faith; Islam might lose its living model of surrender and devotion.
Abraham’s existence bridges heaven and earth, past and future, uniting humanity under the banner of pure monotheism. As the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ affirmed, Abraham remains the best of creation—an eternal symbol of faith, obedience, and divine friendship.

Islam and Paul on the Abrahamic Covenant ✦ Ishmael, Isaac, and the Fulfillment of Faith

🔥 Who really inherits the promise of Abraham?

For over two thousand years, this question has divided believers. To Jews, the answer is Isaac, father of Israel. To Christians, following Paul, Isaac again becomes the key—but in a spiritualized sense, fulfilled in Christ. To Muslims, however, the heir is Ishmael, the firstborn son, consecrated through sacrifice and covenant, and the forefather of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

This is not just a matter of family tree—it’s about the very meaning of faith, law, and salvation. Islam and Paul tell two radically different stories about Abraham’s covenant, and those stories still shape how billions of people understand their relationship with God today.

⸻

Abraham (Ibrahim, عليه السلام) is one of the few figures who holds such a central position in the Abrahamic faiths. Revered as the friend of God, he embodies pure monotheism and the bearer of a covenant that continues to shape history. Yet the legacy of Abraham takes two very different paths in Islam and in the theology of Paul of Tarsus.

➤ In Islam, Ishmael (Ismāʿīl عليه السلام) is upheld as the true heir of the covenant.

➤ In Paul’s epistles, Isaac becomes the symbolic heir, while Ishmael is cast aside.

This is not a minor exegetical debate—it is a fundamental clash over lineage, covenant, and the meaning of salvation itself.

⸻

Abraham in Islam ✦ Ishmael as Covenant Heir

The Qur’an presents Abraham as chosen to lead humanity through his submission:

“Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.”

Abraham asked, “And of my descendants?”

Allah replied, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”

— Qur’an 2:124

✔ The covenant was universal and ethical, not restricted by ethnicity.

✔ Ishmael was alive when circumcision—the sign of the covenant—was established (Genesis 17:23–26). Isaac was not yet born.

✔ Abraham prayed for a prophet from Ishmael’s descendants (Qur’an 2:129), which Muslims believe was fulfilled in Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

Even the sacrifice story in Surah Aṣ-Ṣāffāt (37:100–113) aligns with Ishmael as the son offered—his submission alongside his father consecrated him as the rightful heir of Abraham’s mission.

⸻

Paul’s Theology ✦ Faith and Isaac

Paul reframes Abraham’s covenant for a Gentile audience. His central claim: true heirs of Abraham are those who share his faith, not his bloodline.

✦ “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.” — Galatians 3:7

✗ Circumcision, Paul argues, is unnecessary. Abraham was justified by faith before being circumcised (Romans 4:9–11).

✗ In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul allegorizes the two sons:

• Ishmael = slavery, law, bondage.

• Isaac = freedom, promise, fulfillment in Christ.

Here, Paul reverses what Islam upholds: Ishmael is not heir but excluded, while Isaac is made central to salvation history.

⸻

The Sinai Covenant ✦ Broken or Temporary?

➤ Islam’s View:

• The Mosaic covenant was valid but conditional.

• Israel repeatedly broke it through disobedience (Qur’an 2:63, 5:13).

• Ultimately, God restored the Abrahamic covenant universally through the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

➤ Paul’s View:

• The Law was never ultimate but only a temporary guardian (Galatians 3:24–25).

• With Christ, the covenant of grace supersedes the Law entirely.

• The Sinai covenant is not revoked for disobedience but rendered obsolete by design.

⸻

Key Contrasts ✦ Islam vs. Paul

✔ Covenant Heir

• Islam: Ishmael, consecrated through sacrifice and circumcision.

• Paul: Isaac, symbol of promise; Ishmael cast as bondage.

✔ Sign of Covenant

• Islam: Circumcision, first practiced by Abraham and Ishmael.

• Paul: Faith alone—ritual is secondary.

✔ Fulfillment of Covenant

• Islam: Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, descendant of Ishmael, restoring pure monotheism.

• Paul: Jesus Christ, descendant of Isaac, fulfilling promise through death and resurrection.

✔ Path to Salvation

• Islam: Submission (islām), obedience, and faith in one God.

• Paul: Grace through faith in Christ, apart from works of the Law.

⸻

Conclusion ✦ Competing Visions of Abraham’s Legacy

Islam and Paul stand on opposite sides of Abrahamic theology.

✦ Islam preserves Ishmael as heir, upholding the covenant through lineage, obedience, and the coming of Muhammad ﷺ.

✦ Paul spiritualizes the covenant, detaches it from law and ritual, and anchors it solely in faith through Christ.

At stake is more than which son was chosen—it is the very definition of what it means to be a true child of Abraham:

• In Islam: surrender to God’s will.

• In Paul’s theology: faith in Christ’s grace.

⸻

✨ This contrast continues to define how Islam and Christianity understand their Abrahamic roots—not merely as history, but as competing theological claims about covenant, salvation, and divine promise.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

📜 Relics as Symbols of Covenant Continuity in Islam and Judaism

Throughout religious history, sacred relics have served as powerful symbols of divine-human relationships. In the Jewish tradition, the Ark of the Covenant and the First and Second Temples stood as tangible manifestations of God’s presence among the people of Israel. These objects were revered not only for their spiritual significance but also as physical markers of a covenant — a binding promise between God and His chosen people. However, within Islamic theology, the concept of relics takes on a different dimension: one that shifts the focus from static objects of memory to living, dynamic symbols of ongoing devotion.

⸻

🕊️ From Sacred Objects to Living Symbols

In Judaism, the Ark — which housed the tablets of the Law given to Moses on Mount Sinai — symbolized the Sinai Covenant, a legal and national covenant between God and Israel. The Temple in Jerusalem, as the dwelling place of God’s presence, further anchored this relationship in a specific geography and people. Yet the loss of these relics — the Ark’s disappearance and the destruction of both Temples — marked the end of a historical era.

Islam, by contrast, does not locate its covenantal identity in lost relics or vanished sanctuaries. Instead, it offers living symbols that actively participate in the spiritual lives of believers to this day. These include:

• 🕋 The Kaaba in Mecca, built by Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael as a sanctuary for the worship of the One God, stands as the spiritual center of Islam and a lasting symbol of Abraham’s legacy.
• ⚫ The Black Stone, set in the Kaaba’s corner, is believed to have been given to Abraham by the Angel Gabriel. Pilgrims venerate it as a sign of the covenant between God and humanity.
• 👣 The Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim) marks where Abraham stood while building the Kaaba, symbolizing his faith, devotion, and obedience to God.

Unlike relics confined to sacred texts or museum displays, these Islamic symbols are embodied in worship: believers walk around the Kaaba (House of God) during the Hajj, kiss the Black Stone as a gesture of reverence, and pray facing the Kaaba (House of God) five times a day. In doing so, they reaffirm a covenant not of the past but of the present — one that continues to live through ritual, faith, and devotion.

⸻

🕍 Covenant Theology: Sinai vs. Abraham

Islamic theology draws a significant distinction between two covenants central to the Abrahamic tradition:

1. 📖 The Sinai Covenant, specific to the children of Israel and signified by the Ark and the Temples, was tied to a legalistic framework and particular lineage.
2. 🌍 The Abrahamic Covenant, which Islam claims to fulfill universally, envisions Abraham as a monotheist who submitted to God (Qur’an 3:67–68). This covenant is timeless, inclusive, and centered on submission (Islam), not ethnicity.

Whereas the Ark belonged to the age of law, carried exclusively by Levitical priests, the Kaaba (House of God) belongs to the age of unity, open to all believers. Every Muslim, regardless of race or nation, participates equally in the rites associated with these symbols — most notably during Hajj, where the unity of believers in submission to one God is vividly enacted.

Thus, the Kaaba stands as the enduring symbol of the universal Abrahamic covenant, fulfilling the divine promise that through Abraham’s seed — specifically through Ishmael and his descendants — all nations would be blessed in the worship of the One True God.

⸻

🌟 Sacred Heritage Reimagined

Islam thus reimagines the role of relics in religious life. They are not merely sacred objects to be preserved; they are sacred acts to be lived. This is why the Kaaba (House of God), the Black Stone, and the Station of Abraham are not relics in the traditional sense — they are active participants in Islamic spiritual life.

The physical continuity of these symbols in living worship stands in stark contrast to the historical loss of the Ark and the Temples in Judaism. Islam claims this continuity as proof of its role as the final bearer of the Abrahamic covenant, fulfilling and universalizing the faith of Abraham.

⸻

🌈 Conclusion

In essence, Islam’s theology of relics reveals a profound transformation in the understanding of sacred heritage. Where other traditions may look to lost artifacts as reminders of a divine past, Islam sees in its living symbols — especially the Kaaba (House of God) — a present and enduring connection to the covenant made with Abraham. This covenant is not etched in gold or stone, but in the hearts and actions of those who, like Abraham, submit fully to the will of the One God.

Thus, the Islamic view holds that true sacred continuity lies not in relics of the past, but in the unified devotion of the present — a faith that circles, not carries, the House of God.

If Abraham Had Not Existed: Reimagining the Foundations of the Abrahamic Faiths

🕊️ Introduction

Few figures in human history hold as central a place as Abraham. Revered as a patriarch by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, Abraham’s life represents faith, obedience, and covenantal relationship with God. Yet one may ask: what if Abraham had not existed? How would the three great monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—have looked without him?

⸻

✡️ 1. Judaism Without Abraham

In Judaism, Abraham is Avraham Avinu—“our father Abraham”—the first to recognize and worship one God. He embodies the beginning of the covenant through which God promised descendants as numerous as the stars and granted the Land of Israel as their inheritance.

Without Abraham, Judaism might never have developed its distinctive identity as a covenantal faith. The entire theological framework linking the Jewish people to divine promise and land would lack its origin. A different patriarchal figure might have emerged, but the concept of the chosen people bound by a divine covenant could have been far less defined or even absent altogether.

⸻

✝️ 2. Christianity Without Abraham

Christianity draws deeply upon Abraham as the model of faith before the law. In Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (4:3), Abraham is cited as the one who “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” For early Christians, Abraham’s faith symbolized justification through belief rather than works—a cornerstone of Christian theology.

If Abraham were missing from the biblical narrative, Christian thought might have lacked its archetype of faith and obedience. The connection between the Old and New Testaments would have been weaker, and Paul’s theological bridge from Judaism to Christianity less convincing. The doctrine of salvation through faith could have taken a different shape or rested upon another figure entirely.

⸻

☪️ 3. Islam Without Abraham

In Islam, Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام) stands as one of the greatest prophets and the friend of Allah (Khalīlullāh). He is seen as the renewer of pure monotheism and the spiritual father of both prophetic lines—through Isaac leading to Israel, and through Ishmael leading to the final Messenger, Muhammad ﷺ.

Without Abraham, Islam would lose a profound ancestral link that unites the prophetic tradition. The rituals of Hajj—circumambulating the Kaaba, performing Sa‘i between Safa and Marwah, and the symbolic sacrifice—are all reenactments of Abraham’s and Ishmael’s devotion. Without his example, the pilgrimage and even the symbolism of the Kaaba as the restored “House of God” might not exist in the same form.

⸻

🔥 4. The Missing Narratives of Faith and Sacrifice

Abraham’s absence would erase some of the most formative narratives of divine testing and human submission. The binding of Isaac (in Jewish and Christian scripture) or sacrifice of Ishmael (in the Qur’anic version) expresses the highest model of surrender to God’s will. Without such a story, the moral archetype of total faith under trial would be lost. The concept of “submission” (Islam) itself finds its origin in Abraham’s willingness to yield entirely to divine command.

⸻

📜 5. The Prophetic Testimony: “That is Abraham, upon him be peace”

Islamic tradition exalts Abraham as the best of creation. Anas bin Malik reported:

A man came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said, “O best of creation!”
The Prophet replied, “That is Abraham, upon him be peace.”
(Sahih Muslim)

This humility of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reveals not only reverence for Abraham’s spiritual stature but also the continuity of divine mission across time. Abraham’s unwavering monotheism and selfless faith form the spiritual DNA of all later prophets.

⸻

🌟 Conclusion: The Irreplaceable Patriarch of Monotheism

Had Abraham never lived, the landscape of world religion would be unrecognizably different. Judaism might lack its covenantal foundation; Christianity might lack its doctrine of faith; Islam might lose its living model of surrender and devotion.
Abraham’s existence bridges heaven and earth, past and future, uniting humanity under the banner of pure monotheism. As the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ affirmed, Abraham remains the best of creation—an eternal symbol of faith, obedience, and divine friendship.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

📜 Excerpt from Notes on the Bible by Albert Barnes (1834) on Isaiah 60:7

Albert Barnes (1798–1870) was an American theologian and biblical scholar.

---

What is the main clause of the sentence in the image?
The main clause of the sentence is:

“The time will come … when Arabia … shall be converted to God.”

Everything else between “Arabia” and “shall be converted to God” consists of a series of descriptive or modifying phrases introduced by “so interesting as…” — these describe Arabia in various ways, but the grammatical backbone of the sentence is:

Main clause: The time will come …
Embedded clause: when Arabia … shall be converted to God.

So the full main clause is “The time will come when Arabia shall be converted to God.”

---

Importance of the Passage and Barnes’s Interpretation of Isaiah 60:7

🔮 1. Prophetic Fulfillment Theme

Isaiah 60 is a prophetic vision describing the future glorification of Zion when nations will turn to the God of Abraham, bringing their wealth, flocks, and service to Him. Verse 7 mentions “the flocks of Kedar” and “the rams of Nebaioth,” tribes associated with Arabia and the descendants of Ishmael.

🕌 2. Arabia’s Conversion and Inclusion

Barnes interprets this as expressing a future time when even the Arab peoples—those descended from Abraham through Ishmael—would be turned to worship the true God. In his view, this demonstrates the universal reach of the gospel, extending beyond Israel to all nations, including those historically distant or opposed to it.

🏜️ 3. Cultural and Linguistic Appreciation

Barnes highlights Arabia’s distinctiveness—its lineage from Abraham, its vigorous people, its poetic language, and its beautiful landscape. He seems to underscore that these nations, with all their admirable traits, are not excluded from divine purpose. Their eventual “conversion to God” will bring these noble qualities into harmony with divine truth.

⏳ 4. Eschatological Overtones

More broadly, this reflects a 19th-century Christian eschatological vision rooted in the gospel message, which saw prophetic Scripture as anticipating the future Kingdom of God—a time when all nations, including the Arab world, would acknowledge the God of Abraham.

🌟 In sum, the significance of this passage in Barnes’s exegesis is that it expresses hope for the spiritual transformation of the Arab world as part of Isaiah’s vision of universal redemption and global faith in God. It emphasizes both the dignity of Arabia’s heritage and its destined participation in the divine plan foretold by the prophet.

📜 Isaiah 60:7 and the Kaaba: A Prophetic Connection Between the Bible and the Qur’an

Introduction: A Meeting Point of Scriptures

The prophetic poetry of Isaiah 60 envisions a time when distant nations will turn toward the worship of the One God. Among its vivid images stands a verse that has drawn the attention of both biblical scholars and Islamic interpreters alike:

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you; the rams of Nebaioth shall serve you; they shall come up with acceptance on My altar, and I will glorify the house of My glory.”
— Isaiah 60:7

While Christian commentators such as Albert Barnes (1834) and the Wycliffe Bible Commentary traditionally view this as symbolic of future conversion to God, others have proposed a remarkable possibility: that this prophecy refers specifically to the Kaaba in Mecca — the “House of God” associated with Abraham and Ishmael.

⸻

☪️ 1. The Arabian Lineage of Kedar and Nebaioth

Isaiah’s imagery centers on Kedar and Nebaioth, two tribes descended from Ishmael (Genesis 25:13). Their mention situates the prophecy firmly within the Arabian context.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary notes that the treasures mentioned in Isaiah 60 are “preponderantly Arabian,” and even suggests a future turning of Islam “to the Cross,” signaling an openness among some Christian commentators to interfaith prophetic fulfillments.

Similarly, Albert Barnes, writing in 1834, observed that Arabia, with its descendants of Abraham and its deeply spiritual traditions, would eventually be “converted to God.” Though Barnes wrote from a Christian missionary perspective, his acknowledgment of Arabia’s religious importance ties into the broader idea that Ishmael’s lineage has a divine role.

Yet from an Islamic perspective, this “turning” may rather represent a return — a reorientation of the descendants of Ishmael toward the pure monotheism of Abraham, centered on the Kaaba.

⸻

🕋 2. “The Glorious House”: Identified with the Kaaba

Many Muslim scholars interpret the phrase “the house of My glory” as referring to the Kaaba (Baytullāh) — the sacred House of God in Mecca.
According to the Qur’an (2:125–127), Abraham and Ishmael were commanded to raise its foundations:

“And when We designated for Abraham the site of the House, saying, ‘Do not associate anything with Me and purify My House for those who circumambulate it and those who stand, bow, and prostrate [in prayer].’”
— Surah al-Ḥajj 22:26; cf. al-Baqarah 2:125–127

If Isaiah foresaw a time when the descendants of Kedar and Nebaioth would bring offerings to the altar of the “glorious house,” then this could signify the Hajj pilgrimage, where animals are sacrificed in devotion to God — a living ritual traceable to Abraham himself.

⸻

🌟 3. “God Was with the Lad”: The Presence of God with Ishmael

The book of Genesis provides another link to this prophetic vision. When Hagar and Ishmael were cast out, the text affirms:

“And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.”
— Genesis 21:20

Traditional Islamic exegesis understands this “wilderness” to be the valley of Bakkah (Mecca). The phrase “God was with the lad” is thus interpreted not only as divine protection but as a declaration of God’s presence in a sacred location — a site where His worship would endure through Ishmael’s lineage.

This understanding aligns perfectly with the Qur’anic narrative, in which Abraham’s prayer identifies that same location as the “Sacred House”.

⸻

📜 4. Surah 14:37 — Abraham’s Prayer and the Sacred House

The Qur’an preserves Abraham’s moving invocation:

“O our Lord! I have settled some of my offspring in an uncultivated valley near Your Sacred House, our Lord, so that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them, and provide for them fruits that they might be grateful.”
— Surah Ibrāhīm 14:37

Here, Abraham explicitly locates Ishmael and Hagar beside the Sacred House (al-Bayt al-Muḥarram), implying that the Kaaba already existed as a holy site, later rebuilt by Abraham and his son. His prayer anticipates Mecca becoming a spiritual center to which human hearts would turn — precisely what Isaiah 60 envisions when nations stream toward God’s glorified house.

⸻

🌟 5. Theological Implications: Fulfillment through Ishmael’s Descendants

Interpreters who draw this connection propose that Isaiah 60:7 prophesies Mecca’s role as the universal center of monotheistic worship.
The flocks of Kedar and Nebaioth symbolize the submission of Ishmael’s descendants to God, as visibly fulfilled in the Islamic rites of Hajj and Eid al-Adha. The sacrificial offerings at the Kaaba — echoing Abraham’s own devotion — mirror Isaiah’s vision of accepted sacrifices on God’s altar.

In this interpretation:

• Isaiah 60:7 anticipates the revival of Abrahamic worship among the Ishmaelites.
• Genesis 21:20 foreshadows divine favor upon Ishmael’s descendants in a specific sacred region.
• Surah 14:37 confirms that sacred geography: the barren valley of Mecca, chosen for divine worship.

Together, they form a triadic continuity — a prophetic, historical, and theological alignment linking the Bible and the Qur’an through Abraham and Ishmael.

⸻

Conclusion: The House of God Revisited

The convergence of these scriptural strands suggests a profound harmony: that both the Bible and the Qur’an point toward a future restoration of Abrahamic monotheism centered on God’s “House of Glory.”

For believers who see the Kaaba as this very House, Isaiah’s vision is not merely about the distant conversion of nations, but about the universal return to the pure worship of the One God first established by Abraham and his son Ishmael.

⸻

References:

• Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible (1834), on Isaiah 60:7
• The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, on Isaiah 60:4–7
• Genesis 21:18–20; Isaiah 60:7
• Qur’an 2:125–127; 14:37; 22:26

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

📜 The Family of Abraham in Islamic and Judeo-Christian Perspectives

Ishmael as the Son of Sacrifice and Covenant, Isaac as the Son of Reward and Blessing

⸻

🌟 Introduction

Within the Abrahamic faiths, the household of Abraham (Ibrāhīm عليه السلام) stands as a sacred model of obedience and divine promise. Yet, the interpretation of this family’s story differs sharply across traditions.

In the Islamic understanding, Abraham’s family is not a story of rivalry but of divine sequence and harmony. Ishmael (Ismāʿīl عليه السلام) is the son of sacrifice, through whom the ultimate test of faith was fulfilled and the covenant was established. Isaac (Isḥāq عليه السلام) is the son of reward, granted to Abraham and Sarah as a divine blessing following their endurance and obedience.

In contrast, the Judeo-Christian tradition often portrays Abraham’s household as marked by jealousy and exclusion. Islam restores unity to this narrative by recognizing both sons as integral to God’s unfolding covenantal plan.

⸻

1. The Near Sacrifice: Ishmael as the Son of Testing

The Qur’an recounts Abraham’s supreme test — the command to sacrifice his beloved son:

“He said, ‘O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I am sacrificing you, so see what you think.’
He said, ‘O my father, do as you are commanded; you will find me, if Allah wills, among the steadfast.’”
— Surah al-Ṣāffāt 37:102

Both father and son displayed perfect submission to the divine will. When Abraham fulfilled the command, God intervened:

“We ransomed him with a great sacrifice, and We left for him [a good mention] among later generations.”
— Surah al-Ṣāffāt 37:107–108

This episode signifies the culmination of Abraham’s trials and the perfection of his faith. Classical exegetes such as al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr affirm that the son in this event was Ishmael, as Isaac’s birth occurred only afterward. Ishmael thus becomes the son of trial, sacrifice, and covenantal submission, the one through whom Abraham’s obedience is eternally commemorated.

⸻

2. The Covenant Established After the Sacrifice

The Qur’an indicates that the divine covenant (ʿahd) was granted after Abraham had successfully completed all his tests — culminating in the near sacrifice:

“And [mention] when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands, and he fulfilled them. He said, ‘Indeed, I will make you a leader (Imām) for mankind.’ Abraham said, ‘And of my descendants?’ [Allah] said, ‘My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.’”
— Surah al-Baqarah 2:124

This verse marks the formal establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant, conferred only after Abraham’s demonstration of perfect obedience. The covenant was not inherited automatically, but earned through faithfulness.

Because Ishmael was the son involved in the supreme test, the covenant naturally extends through his line — the line of submission (islām) — culminating in the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the final bearer of the Abrahamic mission.

The covenant, therefore, follows the pattern:
Trial → Fulfillment → Covenant → Reward.

⸻

3. Isaac: The Son of Reward and Blessing

After Abraham’s trial and the establishment of the covenant, God rewarded him and Sarah with the joyful announcement of a new son — Isaac:

“And We gave him good news of Isaac, a prophet from among the righteous.”
— Surah al-Ṣāffāt 37:112

Isaac’s birth represents divine reward for Abraham’s faithfulness and Sarah’s endurance. His arrival in their old age symbolizes the mercy that follows obedience. Isaac is thus the son of reward and blessing, embodying the continuation of prophecy and grace among the Children of Israel.

In the Islamic framework, Isaac’s role complements rather than replaces Ishmael’s. Ishmael carries the covenantal trust, established through the trial of sacrifice, while Isaac carries the prophetic continuation within his descendants.

According to this understanding, the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Ya‘qūb عليه السلام) are bound by the Sinai Covenant, revealed later to Moses (Mūsā عليه السلام), whereas the descendants of Ishmael remain under the universal Abrahamic Covenant — the primordial covenant of submission (islām) that extends to all nations through the final Messenger, Muhammad ﷺ.

⸻

4. The Judeo-Christian Portrayal: Rivalry and Election

In the Biblical narrative, Abraham’s household is often portrayed as a drama of jealousy and exclusion. Sarah’s envy of Hagar leads to Ishmael’s expulsion (Genesis 16; 21), and the covenantal blessing is confined to Isaac’s lineage. This introduces the theology of divine election, which prioritizes one lineage over another.

Christian writers such as Paul later spiritualize this tension, contrasting Ishmael as “born according to the flesh” with Isaac as “born according to the promise” (Galatians 4:22–31). Such readings reinforce a dichotomy of rejection versus election — a divide that Islam transcends by recognizing both sons as divinely chosen for distinct missions.

⸻

5. The Islamic Restoration: Unity Through Faith and Obedience

In the Qur’anic vision, Abraham’s family is unified by faithful submission, not divided by bloodline or favoritism. The covenant rests upon righteousness and obedience, not genealogy.

• Ishmael is the son of sacrifice, through whom the covenant of divine leadership was confirmed.
• Isaac is the son of reward, through whom the chain of prophethood was extended to the Children of Israel.

The Kaaba, built by Abraham and Ishmael (2:125–127), stands as the living symbol of the universal covenant, while the Torah at Sinai represents the specific covenant with Israel. Both reflect divine guidance within their respective missions — yet Islam views the Abrahamic Covenant as the root from which all subsequent covenants branch.

⸻

6. Theological Implications: Covenant as the Fruit of Obedience

The Islamic chronology clarifies the divine order of revelation:

1. The Trial — Abraham’s command to sacrifice Ishmael.
2. The Fulfillment — Both submit to God’s will.
3. The Covenant — Leadership and divine favor established (2:124).
4. The Reward — Birth of Isaac and continuation of prophecy.

Thus, the Abrahamic Covenant arises as the result of Abraham’s perfect obedience, not as a prior entitlement. Ishmael is its living witness, and Isaac is its blessed continuation — both united in purpose, distinct in role.

⸻

Conclusion

In Islam, the family of Abraham embodies the balance between sacrifice and mercy, trial and reward, covenant and continuation. Ishmael stands as the son of sacrifice and covenant, the one through whom the divine test was fulfilled; Isaac as the son of reward and blessing, the one through whom prophecy flourished among Israel.

While the descendants of Isaac through Jacob entered the Sinai Covenant, the descendants of Ishmael preserved the Abrahamic Covenant, culminating in the universal message of Islam — the final expression of monotheism envisioned by Abraham himself.

Thus, Islam transforms the story of Abraham’s family from rivalry into revelation, from division into divine harmony — where every son, every covenant, and every test reveals a single eternal truth: submission to the One God (Allāh).

Islamic Perspective on the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: Relics, Lineage, and Legacy

🕋 Islamic Perspective on the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: Relics, Lineage, and Legacy

In the world of Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—divine covenants are foundational. But how do Muslims view the Abrahamic Covenant differently from the Sinai (Mosaic) Covenant? And why do Islamic scholars emphasize the presence of relics such as the Kaaba and Maqam Ibrahim?

Let’s explore the Islamic argument step-by-step.

⸻

📜 1. Two Covenants, Two Purposes

🔹 Abrahamic Covenant

• Established between God and Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام)
• Promises: land, descendants, and blessings
• Seen as universal and everlasting

🔹 Sinai Covenant

• Made between God and the Israelites through Moses (Musa عليه السلام)
• Based on laws, rituals, and national identity
• Considered conditional and historically bound

💡 Islamic scholars emphasize that the Abrahamic Covenant is broader and deeper in scope than the Sinai Covenant, which was tailored for a specific people and time.

⸻

🕌 2. Who Inherits Abraham’s Covenant?

Islam teaches that:

• Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a direct descendant of Abraham through Ishmael
• Muslims are the spiritual heirs of Abraham
• Islam is a continuation and completion of Abraham’s monotheistic path

🧭 “Follow the religion of Abraham, the upright one” (Qur’an 3:95)

Islam doesn’t view itself as a new religion, but as a revival of the original Abrahamic faith—centered on Tawḥīd (absolute monotheism).

⸻

🪨 3. Sacred Relics: Islam vs. Judaism

A unique Islamic argument is based on the physical relics of Abrahamic heritage.

✅ Islam’s Abrahamic Relics
• Kaaba (House of God) – Built by Abraham and Ishmael (Qur’an 2:127)
• Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) – Set into the Kaaba by Abraham
• Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim) – Stone where Abraham stood to build the Kaaba

These are living relics, central to Islamic worship to this day.

❌ Judaism’s Absence of Abrahamic Relics
• No relics directly tied to Abraham
• The Ark of the Covenant is significant, but it belongs to the Mosaic era, not Abraham’s

🔍 Islamic scholars argue that this absence suggests a discontinuity in preserving Abraham’s legacy in Jewish tradition.

⸻

📦 4. The Ark of the Covenant: A Mosaic, Not Abrahamic, Relic

The Ark of the Covenant held the stone tablets of the Torah and symbolized God’s presence. However:

• It is connected to Moses, not Abraham
• It was lost during the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians

⛔️ Some Islamic scholars interpret this loss as a symbolic end to the Sinai Covenant, highlighting its temporary nature.

⸻

🌍 5. Universality vs. Particularity

Islamic scholars often highlight a critical distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant in terms of their scope, audience, and enduring relevance.

According to the Islamic perspective, the Abrahamic Covenant is viewed as universal—intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity or geography. It is seen as an eternal and inclusive promise, centered on monotheism (Tawḥīd), moral conduct, and submission to God’s will. Muslims believe this covenant continues through the line of Ishmael, culminating in the mission of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who is regarded as the final messenger to all nations.

In contrast, the Sinai Covenant, established through Moses with the Children of Israel, is seen as particular—limited in scope to a specific people and context. It was tied to a legal code and ritual system meant for the Israelites and was dependent on their obedience. Because of its conditional nature and the eventual loss of key elements like the Ark of the Covenant, Islamic scholars view the Sinai Covenant as historically bound and no longer universally applicable.

This contrast reinforces the Islamic claim that while earlier covenants were authentic, they were limited in time and scope, whereas Islam represents the final, universal fulfillment of God’s covenant with humanity.

📌 Muslims believe their practices are rooted in Abrahamic foundations — not innovations.

⸻

🕊 6. Islam as Fulfillment of the Covenant

Islamic theology often includes a form of supersessionism:

• Islam is the final and complete revelation
• It confirms what came before (Torah, Gospel) and corrects distortions
• The Qur’an is the final testament, just as Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets

🕯 “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you…” (Qur’an 5:3)

⸻

✅ Summary: Why Islam Claims Abraham’s Legacy

🔑 Key Arguments by Islamic Scholars:

• Islam preserves Abraham’s practices and relics
• Muhammad ﷺ is a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael
• The Sinai Covenant was limited in scope and its relic (the Ark) is lost
• The Abrahamic Covenant, as revived in Islam, is universal, unbroken, and active

⸻

📚 Final Thought

While Jewish and Christian traditions have their own views on covenants and divine legacy, the Islamic perspective offers a compelling theological and symbolic continuity with Abraham—not just through scripture, but also through historical relics, sacred space, ritual, and lineage.

🕋 In every circumambulation of the Kaaba and every prayer facing it, Muslims affirm their living connection to the covenant of Abraham.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

🕋 The Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant: An Islamic Perspective

Introduction

In the history of divine revelation, few themes are as central as the notion of covenant—a sacred bond between God and humankind. Both Judaism and Islam trace their spiritual origins to Abraham (Ibrāhīm عليه السلام), yet they diverge significantly in how they interpret the continuity and authority of that covenant. While Jewish tradition venerates the Ark of the Covenant (Aron ha-Berit) as the central relic of divine presence, Islam maintains a living connection to Abraham through enduring symbols such as the Kaaba (House of God), the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad), and the Station of Abraham (Maqām Ibrāhīm).

From an Islamic standpoint, this difference reflects not merely a matter of heritage, but a profound theological distinction between two divine covenants: the Abrahamic and the Sinai.

⸻

1. The Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant represents God’s original and universal promise to Abraham—offering him descendants, land, and blessings for all nations (Genesis 12, 15, 17). It is viewed in Islam as the foundation of true monotheism and moral submission (islām).

In contrast, the Sinai Covenant (or Mosaic Covenant) was established later with the Israelites through Moses (Mūsā عليه السلام) at Mount Sinai. This covenant centered on the Law (Torah) and bound a particular nation to divine commandments. Islamic scholars interpret this as a temporary covenant intended to guide a specific community until the restoration of the universal Abrahamic faith.

⸻

2. Continuity and Fulfillment in Islam

Islamic theology asserts that Muslims are the true inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant. This covenant, described as universal and eternal, transcends tribal or ethnic boundaries. It was renewed and fulfilled through Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, a direct descendant of Abraham through Ishmael (Ismāʿīl عليه السلام).

In contrast, the Sinai Covenant is seen as particular and conditional—its blessings dependent on Israel’s obedience to divine law. When that law was broken and the Ark of the Covenant lost, Islamic scholars view it as symbolizing the closure of that covenantal phase.

⸻

3. The Significance of Relics and Continuity of Faith

A striking contrast between Judaism and Islam lies in the preservation of relics tied to their covenantal heritage.

• Judaism possesses no surviving Abrahamic relic; the Ark of the Covenant—the holiest object of ancient Israel—was associated with Moses, not Abraham, and disappeared after the First Temple’s destruction.

• Islam, by contrast, maintains tangible Abrahamic relics: the Kaaba (House of God), built by Abraham and Ishmael; the Black Stone, believed to mark God’s covenantal witness; and the Station of Abraham, where he stood during construction of the Kaaba.

Islamic scholars often interpret this continuity of relics as an enduring testimony that Islam preserves the living Abrahamic legacy in both spirit and form.

⸻

4. The Ark of the Covenant and the End of the Sinai Order

The Ark of the Covenant served as the focal symbol of God’s presence in Israelite religion, containing the stone tablets of the Law revealed to Moses. However, its loss during the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple is understood in Islamic thought as emblematic—the withdrawal of divine favor from a covenant that had fulfilled its temporal purpose.

In contrast, Islam views the Kaaba as the restored House of God (Bayt Allāh), representing a continuous line of divine worship from Adam to Abraham and finally to Muhammad ﷺ.

The Ark belonged to the age of law, but the Kaaba belongs to the age of unity. The former was carried by priests; the latter is circled by all believers.

⸻

5. Lineage and Restoration of the Original Faith

Islamic scholarship emphasizes that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ descends from Abraham through Ishmael, preserving the original monotheistic lineage. This genealogical link reinforces Islam’s claim as the restoration, rather than innovation, of Abraham’s faith.

Thus, Islam positions itself not as a new religion but as the revival of the primordial covenant—the same faith of Abraham, purified from human distortions and reaffirmed for all nations.

⸻

6. Universality and Particularity

Theologically, Islam presents the Abrahamic Covenant as universal, extending to all humanity through submission to one God. By contrast, the Sinai Covenant is viewed as particular, restricted to the Israelites and their historical experience.

This distinction underscores Islam’s claim that the divine message, once localized in Israel, has now been universalized through the final revelation of the Qur’an—fulfilling God’s promise to make Abraham “a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5).

⸻

7. Supersession and Fulfillment

Some Islamic interpretations express a form of supersessionism, not in the sense of replacement but of completion. The Qur’an acknowledges earlier covenants while affirming that final guidance was perfected in Islam:

“This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and chosen Islam as your way.”

(Qur’an 5:3)

Thus, the Abrahamic Covenant, renewed through Muhammad ﷺ, is seen as the culmination of God’s redemptive plan that began with Abraham and reached universality through Islam.

⸻

Conclusion

The Islamic distinction between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants is not merely historical but profoundly theological. The loss of the Ark, the absence of Abrahamic relics in Judaism, and the survival of the Kaaba and the Station of Abraham in Islam are read as symbolic of a divine transition—from the particular to the universal, from the Mosaic to the Abrahamic, from the temporal to the eternal.

In the eyes of Islamic scholarship, the covenant lives on not in a lost ark of gold, but in the living hearts of those who submit to God in the faith of Abraham—the father of all who believe.

📜 Abraham, His Sons, and the House of God: A Comparative Study of the Bible and the Qur’an

🌟 Introduction

Across the Abrahamic traditions, the figure of Abraham stands as a foundational patriarch whose life, trials, and descendants shape the theological identity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Yet the way these scriptures portray Abraham’s relationship to sacred places differs significantly. The Qur’an presents Abraham and his firstborn son Ishmael as the physical builders and consecrators of the Kaaba in Mecca. The Bible, in contrast, links Abraham and Isaac to the future Temple Mount through narrative association rather than construction. This distinction reveals how each tradition frames the origins of sacred space and the covenantal roles of Abraham’s sons.

⸻

♦️ 1. The Qur’an: Abraham, Ishmael, and the Kaaba

The Qur’anic narrative places Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) at the centre of the establishment of the Kaaba, the primordial sanctuary in Mecca.

1.1 Building the Kaaba

The Qur’an explicitly describes Abraham and Ishmael raising the foundations of the Kaaba:

“And when Abraham raised the foundations of the House, and [with him] Ishmael, [saying], ‘Our Lord, accept this from us…’” (Qur’an 2:127)

This verse identifies them not only as worshippers but as architects of the House of God.

1.2 Dedication and Purification of the Sacred Space

Abraham and Ishmael are commanded to cleanse the House for those who perform worship, circumambulation, and devotion (Qur’an 2:125). Another passage speaks of Abraham leaving Ishmael’s descendants in the valley near the House to establish true worship (Qur’an 14:37), reinforcing their custodial role.

1.3 Universality of the Kaaba

The Qur’an describes the Kaaba as “the first House established for mankind” (Qur’an 3:96), giving it a universal, primordial character. Abraham and Ishmael thus appear not merely as historical figures but as founders of a sacred centre for all humanity.

In Islamic tradition, Abraham and Ishmael are understood as active constructors, purifiers, and guardians of the Kaaba — the earliest sanctuary dedicated to monotheistic worship.

⸻

♦️ 2. The Bible: Abraham, Isaac, and the Temple Mount

While the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament) also portrays Abraham as central to God’s covenantal plan, it does not attribute to him or to Isaac the establishment of a physical sanctuary.

2.1 Abraham and Isaac at Mount Moriah

Genesis 22 recounts the “Akedah,” or Binding of Isaac. God commands Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice “on one of the mountains in the land of Moriah” (Genesis 22:2).

Centuries later, 2 Chronicles 3:1 identifies this same region as the site of Solomon’s Temple:

“Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David his father…”

This connection retroactively links the Akedah to the future Temple Mount. Yet the link is narrative and theological rather than architectural; Abraham and Isaac do not participate in constructing the sanctuary.

2.2 David and Solomon as Temple Builders

In the biblical tradition, the idea of a permanent sanctuary arises not with Abraham or Isaac but with King David. The Temple itself is built by Solomon (1 Kings 6), fulfilling David’s aspiration as narrated in 2 Samuel 7. Thus, temple-building is royal, not patriarchal.

⸻

♦️ 3. Key Difference: Builder vs. Symbol

A clear contrast emerges between the two scriptural traditions:

3.1 Qur’anic Perspective

• Abraham and Ishmael are direct builders and consecrators of the Kaaba.
• The sanctuary originates in their hands and through their supplication.
• The Kaaba becomes the focal point of monotheistic worship for all humanity.

3.2 Biblical Perspective

• Abraham and Isaac are linked to the site of the future Temple (Mount Moriah), but only symbolically.
• They do not build or establish a sanctuary.
• Temple-building is attributed to the Davidic-Solomonic monarchy.

3.3 Associative vs. Foundational

• The Bible connects Abraham and Isaac to the Temple through memory and location: the Akedah becomes part of Jerusalem’s sacred geography.
• The Qur’an connects Abraham and Ishmael to the Kaaba through construction and divine command: they physically establish the House of God.

⸻

♦️ Conclusion

Both the Bible and the Qur’an situate Abraham at the heart of sacred history, yet they portray his relationship to holy places in distinct ways. In the Qur’an, Abraham and Ishmael lay the physical and spiritual foundations of the Kaaba, making them architects of a universal sanctuary. In the Bible, Abraham and Isaac are remembered for their obedience at Moriah, a site later reinterpreted as the location of the Temple, but they do not build it.

These contrasting narratives shape how each tradition understands sacred space, lineage, and the enduring legacy of Abraham and his sons.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

📜 Muhammad Mythicism: Origins, Arguments, and Scholarly Responses

❇️ Abstract:

Muhammad mythicism—the claim that the Prophet Muhammad did not exist as a historical person—has emerged in recent decades from both ideological and revisionist impulses. While it draws on broader skepticism toward early Islamic historiography, it remains largely outside peer-reviewed academic scholarship. This article outlines the development of Muhammad mythicism, evaluates its central arguments, and highlights the scholarly consensus affirming Muhammad’s historicity based on a range of converging evidences.

⸻

♦️1. Introduction

The figure of the Prophet Muhammad stands at the foundation of Islam, yet a small but vocal movement questions whether he existed at all. This position, known as Muhammad mythicism, has garnered attention in popular circles, particularly since the early 2000s. Although often perceived as a new phenomenon, its roots can be traced back to a largely forgotten Soviet Marxist tradition. Today, its proponents include figures such as Yehuda Navo, Judith Corin, the Inara school, Johannes Jantzen, and Robert Spencer. Despite its public appeal, Muhammad mythicism is virtually absent from mainstream academic discourse.

⸻

♦️2. Historical Development of Muhammad Mythicism

Muhammad mythicism has two distinct phases:

• Soviet Marxist Origins: Early expressions of Muhammad mythicism appeared within the context of Soviet ideology, where religion was broadly critiqued as a socio-economic construct. These views, however, did not significantly impact Western scholarship.

• Western Revival (2000s–present): A more developed form of mythicism emerged in the early 21st century, influenced by broader skepticism towards early Islamic historiography. This revival coincided with an increase in revisionist approaches to the study of Islam’s origins, though mythicism remains a fringe position even within revisionism.

⸻

♦️3. Core Arguments of Muhammad Mythicism

3.1. Argument from Silence

Mythicists often argue that early sources fail to mention Muhammad explicitly, implying he was invented later. However, this is contradicted by a growing body of early non-Muslim sources, coins, and inscriptions that reference Muhammad or closely associated events within a few decades of his death. Scholars also note that earlier strata of Islamic reports can often be reconstructed through isnāds (chains of transmission), preserving information from a relatively early period.

3.2. “Muhammad” as a Title

Another mythicist argument claims that “Muhammad” originally functioned as a title for Jesus, rather than a personal name. This interpretation fails linguistically and contextually. In both Quranic passages and early inscriptions, “Muhammad” appears as the definite subject in nominal sentences—a syntactic structure indicating a proper name. Additionally, non-Arabic sources transliterate the name, a treatment typically reserved for personal names, not titles. Historical evidence also shows “Muhammad” was already in use as a personal name decades prior to the earliest known inscriptions bearing the name.

3.3. Geographical Discrepancies – The Petra Thesis

Some mythicists propose that early Islam originated not in Mecca but in Petra, based on perceived discrepancies in geographical descriptions. However, early non-Muslim sources that would have known of Petra provide no such indication. Furthermore, Islamic tradition preserves no memory of a shift in the sanctuary’s location, which would be an unlikely omission had such a move occurred. Scholars widely consider this thesis speculative and unsupported.

⸻

♦️4. Scholarly Consensus on Muhammad’s Historicity

Despite justified caution regarding the reliability of many early Islamic sources, most scholars maintain that a historical Muhammad did exist. This position is supported by several key lines of evidence.

4.1. Corroboration from Non-Muslim Sources

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence comes from an Armenian chronicle dated around 660 CE—approximately 30 years after Muhammad’s death. It summarizes Muhammad’s career in terms that largely match the traditional Islamic narrative. The source is widely accepted as authentic and undermines claims of late fabrication or interpolation.

4.2. Chronological and Political Frameworks

Coins, inscriptions, and non-Muslim writings from the 7th century corroborate the chronological and political framework of Islamic history as preserved in Islamic tradition. These external sources reinforce the notion that key elements of early Islam, including its leadership structures and expansionist policies, were in place soon after Muhammad’s supposed lifetime.

4.3. Reliability of Genealogical Traditions

The detailed genealogical data found in early Islamic sources, particularly regarding Arabian tribes, has been partially verified through inscriptions and is considered largely accurate. Muhammad’s lineage, for example, fits within this broader genealogical framework, further affirming his historical reality.

4.4. Inter-Regional Consistency and the Criterion of Dissimilarity

Early Islamic centers—Medina, Kufa, Basra, and Syria—independently preserved traditions about Muhammad that align on basic facts, including his name, his marriage to Khadijah, and his tribal affiliation with the Banu Hashim. Importantly, some of this information contradicts the interests of powerful factions (e.g., the Umayyads), suggesting it was inherited and widely accepted rather than fabricated. This aligns with the criterion of dissimilarity, often used in historical Jesus studies, which holds that information unlikely to have been invented for polemical reasons is more likely to be authentic.

⸻

♦️5. Conclusion

While Muhammad mythicism has gained some popularity in certain online and ideological circles, it lacks serious support in academic scholarship. The weight of evidence—from early non-Muslim testimony, material culture, internal consistency across regions, and linguistic and genealogical data—strongly supports the conclusion that Muhammad was a real historical figure. The study of ancient figures frequently presents challenges in establishing historical certainty. Nevertheless, the most credible interpretation of the available evidence indicates that a Prophet Muhammad did exist in 7th-century Arabia.

📋 How Jay Smith and His Group Argue That “Muhammad” (MHMD) Originally Referred to Jesus

Jay Smith is part of a Christian polemical movement that challenges the early history of Islam. Within this framework, Smith and his colleagues—such as those connected to the “Inarah Institute”-inspired revisionist school—propose that the term MHMD (محمد / muhammad, meaning “the praised one”) in the earliest Islamic texts may not refer to a historical Arabian prophet, but instead to Jesus as the “praised” or “glorified” figure.

Their argument has five major pillars:

⸻

1. “Muhammad” Means The Praised One, Not Necessarily a Personal Name

Smith’s foundational linguistic claim:

• The word muhammad is a passive participle meaning “the praised one”.
• It can function as a title, not only a personal name.
• Christian traditions frequently refer to Jesus as:
• “The Glorified One”
• “The Praised One”
• “The Blessed One”

Smith’s group argues that the Qur’anic and inscriptional term MHMD may originally have functioned like these titles.

⸻

2. Early Arabic Inscriptions Contain “MHMD” Without Any Biographical Link to Mecca or a Human Prophet

Smith refers to early inscriptions such as:

• The Dome of the Rock inscriptions (690 CE)
• The Arab-Byzantine coins (early 7th–8th century)
• The Zuhayr inscription and others

He argues:

• The inscriptions say things like “Muhammad is the servant of God” but do not give:

• A birthplace,
• A mother,
• A life story,
• A prophetic career.
• He claims these phrases could easily be read as:
“The Praised One is God’s servant” → referring to Jesus.

Thus, he says:
Early Islam’s use of “MHMD” was devotional and Christological, not biographical.

⸻

3. Early Coins Depict a Human Figure Who Resembles Byzantine Christian Imagery

Smith famously analyzes early Islamic coins:

• Some feature a standing figure with a cross-like staff.
• Others include Christian formulas.
• The term mhmd appears alongside symbols long associated with Jesus.

Smith’s interpretation:

• These coins do not depict an Arabian prophet, but rather a modified representation of Jesus, adapted by Arab Christians who later formed part of the Umayyad administration.

Thus he claims:

“MHMD” was a Christological epithet on early Arab-Christian coins.

⸻

4. The Qur’an Never Gives Muhammad a Biography—Indicating, Smith Claims, That the Name Was Originally Symbolic

Jay Smith argues:

• The Qur’an does not describe Muhammad’s:
• Parents,
• Childhood,
• Tribe,
• Location,
• Chronology,
• Battles (except allusions without names),
• Wife names,
• Mecca.

Since the Qur’an contains no narrative biography, he argues the term muhammad may not have originally referred to a person, but to a theological figure—similar to:

• al-Masīḥ (the Messiah)
• al-Muṣṭafā (the Chosen One)

He claims early Muslims later retroactively attached a biography to the title.

⸻

5. Christian Sources Before Islam Refer to Jesus as “The Praised One” (Parallel to MHMD)

Smith cites Syriac Christian literature:
• The Syriac word “maḥmūdā” (ܡܗܡܘܕܐ) meaning “praised, glorified”
• Used in reference to Jesus

He argues:
• Arab Christians may have used the Arabic equivalent “muhammad” as a devotional epithet for Jesus.
• Thus, MHMD originally identified Jesus, not a separate prophet.

This supports his claim of a Christological reading of early Qur’anic phrases such as:

wa-muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh
“The Praised One is the messenger of God.”

From Smith’s perspective, this could mean:

“Jesus, the praised one, is God’s messenger.”

⸻

Synthesis: Jay Smith’s Overall Thesis

Putting the claims together:

1. MHMD = “The Praised One,” a title.
2. Early inscriptions and coins do not reference a historical prophet Muhammad.
3. MHMD appears in Christianized contexts with Christological imagery.
4. Qur’an lacks biographical material, consistent with a title rather than a person.
5. Syriac Christian liturgy used similar titles for Jesus.

Conclusion (according to Jay Smith):

The earliest “Muhammad” was not the Prophet of Islam but a title for Jesus, and only later—during the 8th–9th centuries—was this title reinterpreted as the proper name of a new Arabian prophet.

⸻

Important Note

This is Jay Smith’s polemical position, not the mainstream academic view.

Most historians—Muslim and non-Muslim—accept that:

• “Muhammad” was a real historical figure,
• The Qur’an’s references to him are contextual,
• Early inscriptions genuinely refer to the Prophet of Islam.

📜 Is “Muhammad” a Title? A Critical Examination of the Claim in Light of Early Islamic Evidence

A recurring argument in certain revisionist circles—most notably among some Christian polemical scholars—is the proposal that the name “Muhammad” (MHMD) in early Islamic inscriptions and within the Qur’an itself is not a personal name but a title meaning “the praised one.” Proponents of this view claim that these references originally pointed not to a historical Arabian prophet, but rather to Jesus as a praised or exalted figure.

However, a closer examination of linguistic, historical, and epigraphic evidence reveals significant weaknesses in this theory. The totality of available data points instead to “Muhammad” functioning as a proper name from the earliest strata of Islamic history. This article evaluates the argument critically and demonstrates why the thesis of “Muhammad as a title for Jesus” fails under scrutiny.

⸻

1. Linguistic Structure of Early Islamic Formulae

One of the most decisive challenges to the title-theory lies in the grammatical construction of early Islamic declarations, especially the formula:

“Muḥammad rasūl Allāh” — “Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

In classical Arabic syntax, this phrase is:

• A standard nominal sentence consisting of a clear subject (mubtadaʾ) and predicate (khabar).
• The word Muḥammad functions as a definite, non-descriptive subject, which is how proper names consistently behave in Arabic.

If muhammad were intended as a title or adjective, we would expect linguistic markers such as:

• The definite article al- (i.e., al-muḥammad = “the praised one”),
• Or syntactic positioning that reflects adjectival usage rather than nominal identity.

These features do not appear. Instead, the phrase behaves identically to other proper-name constructions such as:

• ʿĪsā rasūl Allāh (Jesus, a messenger of God)
• Mūsā kalīm Allāh (Moses, the one who spoke with God)

Thus, the grammar of early Islamic formulae strongly implies a named individual, not an honorific applied to another figure.

⸻

2. Transliteration in Non-Arabic Sources Indicates a Personal Name

A second major weakness in the title-theory concerns the way Muḥammad is rendered in contemporary external sources, including:

• Syriac chronicles
• Greek Christian writings
• Armenian historical texts

These sources consistently:

• Transcribe Muḥammad phonemically, not semantically.
• Treat the term as a proper noun, analogous to how they transcribe names like Abraham, Ishmael, or ʿUmar.

Had muhammad been understood by non-Muslims as a title meaning “praised one,” translators would have rendered it into their own languages—e.g., “the praised,” “the glorified.” But they do not. The foreign transliterations reflect recognition of a personal figure who is named Muhammad, not a descriptive epithet attached to Jesus or any other figure.

This pattern is consistent and widespread, offering strong historical evidence that contemporaries of early Islam understood Muhammad to be an actual person, not a symbolic title.

⸻

3. Personal Use of the Name “Muhammad” Predates the Earliest Inscriptions

Archaeological and documentary evidence indicates that “Muhammad” was already used as a personal name by Arabs before the first Islamic inscriptions that mention the Prophet.

Generations prior to Islam, the name Muḥammad appears in:

• Pre-Islamic Arabian genealogical records
• South Arabian inscriptions
• Early Arabic naming traditions documented by later historians

These attestations demonstrate that:

1. The name was culturally available and recognizable before the rise of Islam.
2. It was used as a human personal name, not as a title.
3. The appearance of the name in early Islamic contexts fits a pre-existing naming pattern, not a sudden invention for theological purposes.

This genealogical continuity significantly undermines any theory that mhmd originally functioned as a Christological epithet.

⸻

4. Early Inscriptions Treat Muhammad as a Historical Figure

The earliest Islamic inscriptions—including the Dome of the Rock (691 CE), the Zuhayr inscription, and Arab-Sasanian coins—contain formulae linking Muhammad to:

• God’s messengership
• The proclamation of monotheism
• The emerging Islamic community

These inscriptions reflect:

• A figure with clear prophetic identity,
• Integrated into developing Islamic statecraft,
• Referred to in ways typical for leaders and historical figures, not theological abstractions.

Even inscriptions lacking narrative biography still treat Muhammad as a recognizable referent, consistent with proper-name usage. None of this fits the theory that “Muhammad” originally denoted Jesus or functioned exclusively as a praise-title.

⸻

5. Conclusion: The Title-Theory Lacks Linguistic and Historical Support

While the idea that “Muhammad” is a title may appear attractive within certain polemical frameworks, it is undermined by multiple lines of evidence:

(a) Linguistic evidence:

Early formulae function grammatically as naming statements.

(b) Philological evidence:

Non-Arabic sources transliterate Muhammad as a proper noun, not a descriptive title.

(c) Onomastic evidence:

The name was used in Arabian society before Islam, showing its function as a personal name.

(d) Epigraphic evidence:

Early Islamic inscriptions employ “Muhammad” in ways that presuppose a concrete, historical referent.

Taken together, these findings overwhelmingly support the view that “Muhammad” in the Qur’an and early Islamic inscriptions denotes a historical individual, not a title referring to Jesus or any other figure.

The title-theory, therefore, remains linguistically weak, historically implausible, and epigraphically unsupported.

Haggai 2:7 and the Night Journey of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: An Islamic Reading

🌟 Introduction

Haggai 2:7 declares:

“And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.” (KJV)

From an Islamic perspective, this verse can be seen as an allusion to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ) to Jerusalem. The key lies in the Hebrew term חֶמְדָּה (ḥemdāh)—translated as “desire” or “delight”—which shares its root with the Arabic names Muhammad and Ahmad. ✨ Notably, the Hebrew word ḥemdāh is the feminine form of ḥemed, while the Arabic name Ahmad is another title of Muhammad ﷺ, prophesied by Jesus in Surah 61:6. This linguistic bridge offers a fascinating interfaith reflection on prophecy, sacred language, and divine promise.

⸻

🔤 The Hebrew Root ח מ ד (ḥ-m-d)

The root ḥ-m-d in Hebrew conveys desirability, preciousness, and belovedness. Several Hebrew words derive from it:

• 📖 ḥāmed (חָמֵד): “desirable” or “coveted”
• 📖 ḥemdāh (חֶמְדָּה): “delight” or “precious object” (appearing in Haggai 2:7)
• 📖 neḥmād (נֶחְמָד): “pleasant” or “lovely”
• 📖 maḥmād (מַחְמָד): “delight” or “desirable thing”

All of these share the same root idea of something beloved or longed for 💖.

⸻

🕌 “The Desire of All Nations Shall Come”

Haggai’s prophecy envisions a time when the house of God in Jerusalem will be filled with divine glory. For Muslims, this recalls the Prophet’s miraculous Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ), explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām to al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 17:1)

🌙 This verse establishes the link between the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, Mecca, and Jerusalem. His presence at al-Masjid al-Aqṣā sanctified the site, bringing a moment of divine glory to the Temple Mount. Thus, Haggai’s vision of the “desire of all nations” entering God’s house can be interpreted as pointing to Muhammad ﷺ, whose Night Journey symbolically unites all prophets and all nations 🌍 in worship of the One God.

⸻

🔗 A Linguistic and Theological Bridge

The connection becomes clearer when Hebrew and Arabic are read side by side:
• ✡️ Hebrew: ḥemdāh → “delight” / “precious object”
• ✡️ Related forms: ḥāmed → “desirable,” neḥmād → “pleasant,” maḥmād → “delight”
• ☪️ Arabic: ḥ-m-d → Names Muhammad (“the praised one”) and Ahmad (“the most praiseworthy”)

The Qur’an itself records Jesus ✝️ foretelling the coming of a messenger named Ahmad:

“And [remember] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, ‘O Children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you, confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.’” (Qur’an 61:6)

In both languages, the root carries the idea of something or someone deeply desired, beloved, praised, and precious. 🌹

Theologically, the prophecy of nations being “shaken” 🌍⚡ aligns with Islam’s transformative impact on world history. Within a generation of Muhammad’s Night Journey, the message of Islam spread across nations, fulfilling the vision of divine glory filling God’s house 🕋.

⸻

⚖️ Limits and Interpretive Context

It is important to stress that this reading is an interpretive possibility rather than a universally held Islamic doctrine. Classical Muslim exegetes (mufassirūn) did not directly cite Haggai 2:7 as prophecy of the Night Journey. Rather, modern interfaith scholars and daʿwah perspectives highlight it as an example of linguistic and symbolic overlap between the Hebrew Bible and the Qurʾan.

⸻

✅ Conclusion

From an Islamic perspective, Haggai 2:7 can be read as an anticipation of the Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey 🌙 to Jerusalem. The shared Semitic root ḥ-m-d links the Hebrew ḥemdāh (“desire, delight”) with the Arabic Muhammad (“praised one”) and Ahmad, while the verse’s imagery of nations shaken 🌍 and the house of God filled with glory ✨ aligns with Islam’s transformative impact on world history and resonates deeply with the Prophet’s presence at al-Masjid al-Aqṣā (Qur’an 17:1).

Coupled with Jesus’ announcement of Ahmad in Qur’an 61:6, this interpretation reflects the profound ways in which language, prophecy, and sacred history intertwine across the Abrahamic traditions ☪️✡️✝️.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

📜 Constantine the Great and Prophet Muhammad in the Vision of Daniel 7: An Alternative Interpretation

⸻

♦️ I. Introduction

The seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel has long captivated theologians, historians, and mystics alike. Within its apocalyptic imagery lies a vision of four beasts, a “little horn” that speaks arrogantly against God, and the appearance of the “Son of Man” coming with the clouds of heaven. Traditional Judeo-Christian interpretations identify the “little horn” with the Antichrist and the “Son of Man” with the Messiah—most often understood as Jesus Christ.

However, an alternative and highly controversial view, circulating among certain Islamic thinkers and independent researchers, proposes a radically different interpretation: that Daniel 7:25 alludes to Constantine the Great and the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), while Daniel 7:13 foreshadows Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ wa al-Miʿrāj). Though not accepted by mainstream scholars, this perspective offers a striking counter-reading of history and prophecy.

⸻

♦️ II. Constantine the Great as the “Little Horn” (Daniel 7:25)

The verse in question declares:

“He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law.”
(Daniel 7:25)

Those who associate this verse with Constantine argue that it corresponds to his religious and political reforms that reshaped Christianity and the Roman world. They maintain that Constantine, though hailed as the first Christian emperor, altered the faith’s original teachings and merged political expedience with theology, giving rise to an imperial form of Christianity.

Proponents claim that:

1. Changing “times and laws” refers to Constantine’s alteration of key religious observances.
   • He replaced the Sabbath (Saturday) with Sunday worship, aligning Christian practice with the solar cult of Sol Invictus.
   • He endorsed Easter in place of Passover, detaching Christianity from its Judaic roots.
2. Speaking “pompous words” symbolizes his role in defining divine doctrine.
   • At the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), Constantine presided over theological debates that condemned Arianism—a movement denying the full divinity of Jesus—and established the Nicene Creed, proclaiming Christ as “of one substance with the Father.”
   • Critics argue this moment marked the institutionalization of the Trinity, a concept absent from Jesus’ original message of pure monotheism.
3. Persecution of dissenters reflects Constantine’s suppression of alternative Christian sects.
   • Those who refused to accept Nicene orthodoxy—particularly the Arians—were marginalized, exiled, or silenced, thereby consolidating a new orthodoxy under imperial control.

In this view, Constantine emerges as the “little horn” who rose from the fourth beast—the Roman Empire—changing divine law and redefining the spiritual calendar of the faithful.

⸻

♦️ III. Prophet Muhammad as the “Son of Man” (Daniel 7:13)

Daniel 7:13–14 describes a majestic vision:

“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 (God), and they brought him near before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.”
(Daniel 7:13–14)

While Christians traditionally interpret this passage as a prophecy of Jesus Christ, some Muslim scholars draw intriguing parallels with Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ wa al-Miʿrāj). They observe that Daniel’s vision occurs specifically “in the night”, which resonates with the Qur’anic account of the Prophet’s miraculous ascent to heaven from Jerusalem, guided by the angel Gabriel.

Key interpretive points include:

1. “Night visions” correspond to the nocturnal nature of Muhammad’s ascension, as mentioned in Surah al-Isrāʾ (17:1) and Surah al-Najm (53:13–18).
   • This event, which took place around 621 CE, is said to have culminated in the Prophet’s encounter with God (“the Ancient of Days”) and the conferral of divine authority.
2. “Coming with the clouds of heaven” symbolizes the Prophet’s heavenly journey, not as a divine being but as a chosen servant elevated by God.
   • His ascent was not an act of self-deification but a manifestation of divine favor and revelation.
3. “Given dominion, glory, and a kingdom” reflects the universal scope of Islam, which emerged soon after as a civilization uniting diverse nations, languages, and peoples under one creed of monotheism (tawḥīd).
   • The phrase “an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away” aligns with the Islamic belief that the message of Muhammad is final and enduring, sealing all previous revelations.

In this framework, Muhammad is not identified as a deity but as the final prophet, fulfilling the vision of a divine kingdom based on submission to the One God—a restoration of Abrahamic monotheism after its corruption in earlier traditions.

⸻

♦️ IV. Historical and Theological Implications

This interpretation views Daniel 7 as a prophetic drama depicting two pivotal moments in sacred history:
• The corruption of faith through Constantine’s imperial Christianity, symbolized by the little horn who changes divine law.
• The restoration of true monotheism through Muhammad’s mission, symbolized by the Son of Man who ascends to God in a night vision and is granted universal dominion.

Supporters argue that this reading reconciles the continuity of divine revelation across time, casting Islam not as a break from the biblical narrative but as its culmination.
It reframes Daniel’s prophecy as a chronicle of decline and renewal—from theological distortion to prophetic restoration.

⸻

♦️ V. Conclusion

Though controversial and rejected by mainstream Christian exegesis, the alternative interpretation of Daniel 7 provides a provocative interfaith lens. It depicts Constantine the Great as the agent who altered the message of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad as the divinely chosen messenger who restored it.

Seen this way, Daniel’s vision transcends time, linking the fall of a corrupted empire with the rise of a new spiritual order in Islam, which restored the principle of pure monotheism after centuries of distortion. Whether one accepts this interpretation or not, it highlights a profound truth shared by both scriptures—that divine sovereignty continues beyond the rise and fall of empires, and that ultimate authority belongs only to the Eternal God, “the Ancient of Days.”

Until Shiloh Comes: The Transfer of Covenant from Sinai to Abraham through Ishmael

Introduction

🌟 Genesis 49:10 stands as one of the most profound prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, where Jacob’s blessing to Judah speaks of a mysterious figure called “Shiloh”. For centuries, both Jewish and Christian traditions have understood this verse as messianic, anticipating a redeemer from Judah’s lineage.

However, when examined through the wider lens of covenantal theology, this verse reveals a deeper transition — from the Sinai covenant, particular to Israel and bound by Mosaic law, to the Abrahamic covenant, universal in scope and ultimately fulfilled through Ishmael’s descendants.

This article explores how the prophecy of “Shiloh” may refer not to a ruler from Judah, but to a divinely appointed messenger from Ishmael’s descendants, through whom the Abrahamic faith reaches its completion and universality in the message of Islam.

This perspective recognizes that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom God commanded Abraham to offer in sacrifice — the supreme act of submission that sealed Abraham’s faith. This event, memorialized every year by Muslims in the festival of Eid al-Adha, signifies the enduring covenant through Ishmael’s line, culminating in the coming of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the promised Shiloh through whom divine guidance attained its universal form.

---

1. The Context of Jacob’s Prophecy

In Genesis 49, Jacob gathers his twelve sons and speaks of their future destinies. Concerning Judah, he declares:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh comes;
and to him shall the obedience of the peoples be.”
(Genesis 49:10)

Traditionally, this prophecy has been interpreted as predicting Judah’s enduring leadership until the arrival of a messianic ruler. Yet a covenantal reading reveals that this marks not permanence but transition — from Judah’s temporal authority under the Sinai covenant to the restoration of the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, the son of sacrifice and obedience.

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.

---

2. The Scepter and Lawgiver: Symbols of the Sinai Covenant

The first half of the verse — “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet” — symbolizes the religious and political authority vested in Judah.

The scepter represents kingship, embodied in David and his royal line.

The lawgiver refers to the Torah, the revealed law of Sinai that governed Israel’s covenantal life.

This Sinaitic covenant was conditional and particular, bound to a specific nation and land. It endured “until Shiloh came” — until divine authority passed to the heir of Abraham’s universal covenant through Ishmael.

---

3. Shiloh and the Renewal of the Abrahamic Covenant through Ishmael

The word Shiloh carries meanings such as peace, rest, or he whose right it is. It thus designates the rightful inheritor of divine authority.

In the story of Abraham’s supreme test, as preserved in Islamic tradition, Ishmael is the son chosen for sacrifice — the act that confirmed both Abraham’s faith and Ishmael’s submission. In recognition of this, God renewed His promise:

“As for Ishmael, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”
(Genesis 17:20)

This promise is inseparable from the earlier Abrahamic benediction in Genesis 22:18:

“And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

From an Islamic perspective, this universal blessing reaches its perfection in Shiloh — the divinely appointed messenger from Ishmael’s descendants, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, through whom the Abrahamic faith was universalized beyond lineage and territory.

---

4. Shiloh as the Prophet from Ishmael’s Descendants

In the Islamic understanding, Shiloh points to Muhammad ﷺ, the final messenger and restorer of Abrahamic monotheism.

The scepter and lawgiver symbolize Judah’s rule under the Mosaic order, which lasted until Shiloh’s advent.

The arrival of Shiloh marks the transfer of divine covenant from a national to a universal dispensation.

The phrase “and to him shall the obedience of the peoples be” finds its fulfillment in the global ummah united in Islam.

Through Muhammad ﷺ, the two branches of Abraham’s family — Isaac and Ishmael — converge in spiritual unity, as the promise made on the mountain of sacrifice finds its universal realization.

This fulfills the Abrahamic prophecy of Genesis 22:18 — “in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” — echoed centuries later in the Qur’anic verse:

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to all the worlds.”
(Surah 21:107)

The blessing to “all nations” in Genesis thus finds its full resonance in the Qur’an’s rahmah lil-‘ālamīn — mercy to the worlds.”

---

5. The Living Memory of the Covenant: Eid al-Adha

The memory of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Ishmael is not a forgotten legend. It is commemorated annually by Muslims worldwide in the sacred festival of Eid al-Adha (“The Feast of Sacrifice”).

Each year, millions of believers retrace Abraham’s obedience by offering sacrifices in remembrance of his willingness to surrender his beloved son at God’s command. This universal observance — transcending race, nation, and language — is the living embodiment of the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, reaffirming humanity’s submission (Islām) to the One God.

Through Eid al-Adha, the covenant of faith, obedience, and trust in divine will is renewed across generations — a perpetual testimony that the legacy of Abraham and Ishmael remains alive within the heart of the Muslim community.

---

6. The Biblical and Qur’anic Continuity

The Qur’an reaffirms this covenantal unity:

“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, Ishmael, and Isaac — One God, and to Him we submit.’”
(Qur’an 2:133)

Here, Ishmael stands explicitly alongside Abraham and Isaac as a patriarch of covenantal faith, confirming that divine favor is not ethnic but spiritual — a continuity of submission to the Creator.

---

7. The Transfer of Covenant and Authority

The New Testament, too, preserves a hint of this covenantal transition. Jesus proclaimed:

“And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
(Matthew 8:11–12)

This declaration signifies a divine realignment of covenantal authority. The “children of the kingdom” — those who claimed exclusive descent from Israel — would lose their privileged position, while “many from the east and west” would inherit the covenantal blessings by embracing the faith of Abraham.

From an Islamic perspective, this imagery points to the emergence of a new spiritual community beyond ethnic or national boundaries — the ummah of Islam — gathered from all directions of the earth. It is this global assembly of believers, united in the submission (Islām) that characterized Abraham himself, who truly “sit with Abraham” in the renewed Kingdom of Heaven.

In the Abrahamic continuum, this renewal is realized through Ishmael’s descendants, led by Muhammad ﷺ, the promised Shiloh, through whom the covenant finds its universal completion. Thus, the “Kingdom of Heaven” in Jesus’ saying can be seen as the restored Abrahamic faith of submission, embodied and perfected in Islam.

---

8. From Sinai to Mecca: The Completion of the Covenant

The geography of revelation reflects this sacred progression:

From Mount Sinai, where the Law was given to Moses;
To Mount Zion, where David ruled over Israel;
To the Sanctuary of Mecca, where Muhammad ﷺ restored the House of Abraham.

Thus, revelation moves from law to faith, from tribe to humanity, from Sinai to Mecca. The coming of Shiloh from Ishmael’s line fulfills the Abrahamic promise in its universal form, making Islam the completion of the covenant’s long journey — the very fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 and Surah 21:107 united in one divine truth.

---

9. Conclusion

Genesis 49:10 encapsulates the divine drama of covenantal history — the passing of the scepter of revelation from Judah’s temporal rule to Ishmael’s enduring spiritual lineage.

For the Jews, Shiloh remains the awaited Messiah.
For Christians, he prefigures Christ.
But for Muslims, he is Muhammad ﷺ — the promised Shiloh, the Seal of Prophethood, and the descendant of Ishmael, whose submission on the altar of sacrifice became the symbol of perfect faith.

Every year, the world’s Muslim community renews this covenant through Eid al-Adha, keeping alive the memory of Abraham’s trial and Ishmael’s obedience. Through that living tradition, the promise of Genesis 22:18 — “in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” — finds its full realization in the Qur’an’s affirmation:

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to all the worlds.”
(Surah 21:107)

Thus, the Abrahamic covenant, universalized through Ishmael and fulfilled in Muhammad ﷺ, stands as the enduring testament that divine mercy, guidance, and covenantal blessing belong to all humankind.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

📜 Haggai 2:7 and the Night Journey of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: An Islamic Reading

🌟 Introduction

Haggai 2:7 declares:

“And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.” (KJV)

From an Islamic perspective, this verse can be seen as an allusion to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ) to Jerusalem. The key lies in the Hebrew term חֶמְדָּה (ḥemdāh)—translated as “desire” or “delight”—which shares its root with the Arabic names Muhammad and Ahmad. ✨ Notably, the Hebrew word ḥemdāh is the feminine form of ḥemed, while the Arabic name Ahmad is another title of Muhammad ﷺ, prophesied by Jesus in Surah 61:6. This linguistic bridge offers a fascinating interfaith reflection on prophecy, sacred language, and divine promise.

⸻

🔤 The Hebrew Root ח מ ד (ḥ-m-d)

The root ḥ-m-d in Hebrew conveys desirability, preciousness, and belovedness. Several Hebrew words derive from it:
• 📖 ḥāmed (חָמֵד): “desirable” or “coveted”
• 📖 ḥemdāh (חֶמְדָּה): “delight” or “precious object” (appearing in Haggai 2:7)
• 📖 neḥmād (נֶחְמָד): “pleasant” or “lovely”
• 📖 maḥmād (מַחְמָד): “delight” or “desirable thing”

All of these share the same root idea of something beloved or longed for 💖.

⸻

🕌 “The Desire of All Nations Shall Come”

Haggai’s prophecy envisions a time when the house of God in Jerusalem will be filled with divine glory. For Muslims, this recalls the Prophet’s miraculous Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ), explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām to al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 17:1)

🌙 This verse establishes the link between the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, Mecca, and Jerusalem. His presence at al-Masjid al-Aqṣā sanctified the site, bringing a moment of divine glory to the Temple Mount. Thus, Haggai’s vision of the “desire of all nations” entering God’s house can be interpreted as pointing to Muhammad ﷺ, whose Night Journey symbolically unites all prophets and all nations 🌍 in worship of the One God.

⸻

🔗 A Linguistic and Theological Bridge

The connection becomes clearer when Hebrew and Arabic are read side by side:

• ✡️ Hebrew: ḥemdāh → “delight” / “precious object”

• ✡️ Related forms: ḥāmed → “desirable,” neḥmād → “pleasant,” maḥmād → “delight”

• ☪️ Arabic: ḥ-m-d → Names Muhammad (“the praised one”) and Ahmad (“the most praiseworthy”)

The Qur’an itself records Jesus ✝️ foretelling the coming of a messenger named Ahmad:

“And [remember] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, ‘O Children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you, confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.’” (Qur’an 61:6)

In both languages, the root carries the idea of something or someone deeply desired, beloved, praised, and precious. 🌹

Theologically, the prophecy of nations being “shaken” 🌍⚡ aligns with Islam’s transformative impact on world history. Within a generation of Muhammad’s Night Journey, the message of Islam spread across nations, fulfilling the vision of divine glory filling God’s house 🕋.

⸻

⚖️ Limits and Interpretive Context

It is important to stress that this reading is an interpretive possibility rather than a universally held Islamic doctrine. Classical Muslim exegetes (mufassirūn) did not directly cite Haggai 2:7 as prophecy of the Night Journey. Rather, modern interfaith scholars and daʿwah perspectives highlight it as an example of linguistic and symbolic overlap between the Hebrew Bible and the Qurʾan.

⸻

✅ Conclusion

From an Islamic perspective, Haggai 2:7 can be read as an anticipation of the Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey 🌙 to Jerusalem. The shared Semitic root ḥ-m-d links the Hebrew ḥemdāh (“desire, delight”) with the Arabic Muhammad (“praised one”) and Ahmad, while the verse’s imagery of nations shaken 🌍 and the house of God filled with glory ✨ aligns with Islam’s transformative impact on world history and resonates deeply with the Prophet’s presence at al-Masjid al-Aqṣā (Qur’an 17:1).

Coupled with Jesus’ announcement of Ahmad in Qur’an 61:6, this interpretation reflects the profound ways in which language, prophecy, and sacred history intertwine across the Abrahamic traditions ☪️✡️✝️.

Does the phrase “the night visions” in Daniel 7 refer to Muhammad’s Night Journey?

How do some argue that the phrase “the night visions” in Daniel 7, verse 13 refers to Muhammad’s Night Journey to the seventh heaven to meet God instead of Jesus, whose ascension did not occur at night?

Some argue that the phrase “the night visions” in Daniel 7, verse 13, refers to Muhammad’s Night ( الإسراء والمعراج) rather than Jesus’ ascension based on the following points:

1. 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.

2. According to Islamic tradition, during the Isra, Muhammad traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem and then ascended through the heavens in the Mi’raj. He is described as having profound spiritual experiences, meeting past prophets, and ultimately coming into the presence of God.

In Daniel 7, verses 13 to 14, “one like a son of man” is seen coming with the clouds of heaven and approaching the “Ancient of Days” (interpreted by scholars as God). This imagery of traveling through the heavens and meeting a divine figure has parallels with Muhammad’s Night Journey.

3. The mention of the “clouds of heaven” could be metaphorically linked to the ethereal and divine nature of Muhammad’s ascent through the heavens, which is a central element in the Night Journey narrative.

4. Some Muslim scholars see Daniel’s vision as prophetic, foretelling not just events relevant to Jewish history but also later significant religious events. They interpret the “one like a son of man” as a reference to a future prophet who would establish a new era, which Muhammad is believed to have done in Islam.

5. In the vision, the figure receives authority, glory, and sovereign power, and all nations serve him. Supporters of this interpretation argue that Muhammad’s establishment of Islam fits this prophecy as he united tribes and established a widespread religious and political community.

While these arguments are compelling within an Islamic interpretive framework, this interpretation is not widely accepted in Christian and Jewish traditions.

However, it’s important to note that these interpretations are not mainstream and are often viewed within the context of interfaith dialogue or polemics.

Traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations generally identify the “one like a son of man” as a messianic figure, often associated with Jesus in Christian theology, while in Jewish thought, it can be seen as a representation of Israel or the Messiah.

Search

Search