---

Azahari Hassim

Isaac: A Son of Joy, Not Sacrifice — Rethinking the Identity of the Sacrificial Son

The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son is one of the most profound and contested episodes in the Abrahamic traditions. While the Hebrew Bible clearly names Isaac as the intended sacrifice, Islamic tradition maintains that it was Ishmael. In recent years, some scholars and believers have revisited the linguistic, theological, and contextual clues surrounding the narrative. A compelling argument centers around the meaning and role of Isaac’s name, suggesting that Isaac’s very identity may indicate he was never meant to be the sacrificial son.

The Meaning of Isaac’s Name

The name Isaac (Hebrew: Yitzḥaq, meaning “he will laugh” or “laughter”) is deeply tied to the emotional response of Abraham and Sarah upon hearing the divine promise that they would have a child in their old age (Genesis 17:17, 18:12). This laughter reflects astonishment, joy, and divine mercy—emphasizing the miraculous and comforting nature of Isaac’s birth. The child represents the culmination of a divine promise and the joy of old age, rather than a figure marked for trial and sacrifice.

Isaac as a Symbol of Fulfillment and Closure

From this perspective, Isaac is seen not as a son of trial, but as a gift of consolation—the final chapter in the long journey of Abraham and Sarah. His birth occurs after decades of wandering, waiting, and testing. His role in the narrative is one of continuation, legacy, and divine reward, not intense sacrifice. The Biblical text even notes that Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90 when Isaac was born—a clear emphasis on grace and joy rather than hardship and testing.

Ishmael as the Son of Trial

In contrast, Ishmael—Abraham’s firstborn by Hagar—is born amid tension, struggle, and uncertainty. According to both Islamic and Biblical narratives, he and his mother were sent away into the wilderness. In the Islamic tradition, this is framed as part of a divine plan, with Ishmael becoming the ancestor of a great nation and a prophet in his own right. Importantly, Islamic scripture (Qur’an 37:99–113) narrates the near-sacrifice without naming the son, but contextual clues suggest it refers to Ishmael, since the announcement of Isaac’s birth follows after the sacrifice episode.

Linguistic and Narrative Inference

The sequence of events in the Qur’an is particularly telling:

“So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son… And when he reached the age of striving, he said: ‘O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am sacrificing you…’” (Qur’an 37:101–102)

This is followed later by:

“And We gave him good news of Isaac, a prophet from among the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:112)

This sequence supports the interpretation that the son being sacrificed was not Isaac, but someone before him—namely, Ishmael. Moreover, this interpretation aligns with a thematic reading: Ishmael is the son through whom Abraham is first tested, while Isaac is the son through whom Abraham is blessed.

Pre-Islamic Arab Tradition

Arab oral traditions preceding Islam also reflect the belief that Ishmael was the son nearly sacrificed. This belief was deeply rooted in the collective memory of the Arab people and manifested in religious rituals such as Eid al-Adha and the Sa’i—the reenactment of Hagar’s search for water. These practices are tied to Ishmael, not Isaac, further reinforcing his role as the son of trial.

Conclusion

While the Biblical tradition names Isaac as the sacrificial son, both linguistic and theological reflections open space for rethinking this assumption. The joyful connotation of Isaac’s name, the sequence of Qur’anic verses, and longstanding Arab traditions all support the idea that Isaac was not the son marked for sacrifice, but rather a son of comfort and reward.

In contrast, Ishmael bears the marks of trial, testing, and divine submission—characteristics that align more directly with the sacrificial narrative. This perspective invites a deeper, more nuanced understanding of Abraham’s legacy and the roles of his two sons in the shared heritage of monotheism.

Ishmael: The Rightful Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant – Revisiting Biblical Circumcision and Lineage

The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants. Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.

However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.

1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant

The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:

“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”

Genesis 17:9–11

Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth

The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:

“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”

At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.

3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant

This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.

4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members

When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.

In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.

5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant

The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.

In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.

6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views

Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.

Summary of the Articulation

Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.

The Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: An Islamic Perspective on Sacred Continuity and Relics

In the comparative theology of Abrahamic religions, the concept of divine covenants occupies a central role. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all trace their spiritual lineage to the Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام), but they diverge in their understanding of which covenant is binding and through whom it continues.

One unique Islamic perspective highlights the theological and symbolic significance of sacred relics and the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai (Mosaic) Covenant. This article explores how Islamic scholars frame the continuity of divine promise, drawing attention to the absence of Abrahamic relics in Jewish tradition and the centrality of Abrahamic symbolism in Islamic rites.

1. Two Covenants: Abrahamic and Sinai

The Abrahamic Covenant, as recorded in both the Bible and Qur’an, was made between God and Abraham, promising:

• A multitude of descendants

• A blessed lineage

• A divinely appointed land

In contrast, the Sinai Covenant—or Mosaic Covenant—was established generations later, between God and the Israelites through Moses at Mount Sinai. This covenant was heavily centered on legal ordinances, ritual purity, and national identity.

Islamic scholars underscore this distinction, arguing that while the Sinai Covenant was specific to the Israelites and conditional upon their obedience, the Abrahamic Covenant is universal, unconditional, and eternal, forming the foundation of Islamic monotheism.

2. Islamic Continuity: Inheriting the Abrahamic Legacy

From an Islamic theological standpoint, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is seen as a direct descendant of Abraham through his firstborn son Ishmael. This lineage is critical in Islamic thought, as it places Muhammad ﷺ and the Muslim ummah within the direct stream of Abrahamic blessing and covenantal responsibility.

Islam views itself not as a new religion, but as the revival and perfection of the original Abrahamic faith. This perspective is reinforced by the Qur’an’s emphasis on following “the religion of Abraham, the upright” (Qur’an 3:95), and by prophetic traditions affirming the the reconstruction of the House of God (Kaaba) by Abraham and Ishmael.

3. The Role of Sacred Relics

A distinctive element of the Islamic argument involves the presence or absence of Abrahamic relics:

In Islam, the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca is considered the house built by Abraham and Ishmael (Qur’an 2:125–127), accompanied by the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) and the Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim). These physical sites serve as living relics of the Abrahamic legacy, venerated by over a billion Muslims worldwide.

In Judaism, no physical relic directly associated with Abraham has been preserved. The most significant ancient artifact, the Ark of the Covenant, belongs to the Mosaic era and is tied to the Sinai Covenant, not Abraham. Moreover, it was lost during the destruction of the First Temple.

Islamic scholars point to this contrast to suggest that the direct covenantal heritage of Abraham has been preserved in Islam, not in Judaism. The absence of relics connected to Abraham in Jewish tradition is interpreted by some as symbolic of a rupture in the transmission of his legacy.

4. The Ark of the Covenant: Significance and Loss

The Ark of the Covenant remains an iconic symbol in Jewish history. It was said to contain the tablets of the Law (Torah) and represented the divine presence among the Israelites. However, from an Islamic perspective, the Ark is not seen as an Abrahamic relic but rather as a Mosaic artifact.

Its eventual loss during the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple is often viewed by Islamic scholars as a symbolic termination of the Sinai Covenant, marking the end of that specific historical phase of divine interaction.

5. Universality of the Abrahamic Covenant in Islam

A key theme in Islamic theology is the universality of the Abrahamic Covenant. Unlike the Sinai Covenant, which was exclusively for the Children of Israel, the Abrahamic Covenant—according to Islamic understanding—was meant for all peoples who follow the monotheistic path of submission to God (Islam).

This universalism is enshrined in the Qur’an (Surah 22:78):

“It is He who has named you Muslims before and in this [revelation], that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over mankind.”

Thus, Islam positions itself as the final and universal expression of the Abrahamic mission, encompassing all of humanity beyond ethnic or tribal lines.

6. Supersession and Theological Fulfillment

While Islam respects the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, many Islamic scholars adopt a form of theological supersessionism: the idea that Islam, as revealed to Muhammad ﷺ, completes and supersedes previous revelations. This includes both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

According to this view, the Qur’an is the final testament, and the Muslim community (ummah) is the rightful heir to Abraham’s spiritual legacy, fulfilling his vision of pure monotheism (tawḥīd) untainted by tribal exclusivism or theological alteration.

Conclusion

The Islamic view on the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants is deeply rooted in both theological reasoning and historical symbolism. By emphasizing the continuity of Abrahamic rites, the preservation of sacred relics, and the universal scope of its message, Islam asserts itself as the true fulfillment of the covenant established with Abraham. The absence of equivalent Abrahamic relics in Jewish tradition and the eventual disappearance of the Ark are seen not as mere historical events, but as spiritual markers—signifying a shift from the tribal covenant of Sinai to the universal mission embodied by Islam.

While these perspectives are uniquely Islamic and may not be shared by Jewish or Christian theology, they contribute meaningfully to the broader discourse on how each faith understands its relationship with Abraham, the friend of God.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

During the caliphate of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, a remarkable incident occurred involving a Jewish rabbi. It is reported in authentic hadith collections that the rabbi approached ʿUmar and said:

“If this verse had been revealed to us in our scripture, we would have commemorated the day of its revelation as a festival.”

The verse in question is found in Surah al-Mā’idah 5:3:

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

ʿUmar replied that this verse was indeed revealed on a momentous day—during the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ final pilgrimage (Ḥajj al-Wadāʿ), which occurred on a Friday, the Day of ʿArafah.

Theological Significance of the Envy

To understand the rabbi’s envy, one must grasp the theological and eschatological significance behind the completion of religion in Islam, especially in light of Jewish expectations regarding the future restoration of divine worship.

In Judaism, especially in rabbinic tradition, animal sacrifice plays a central role in religious life and covenantal atonement. These offerings were to be made exclusively in the Jerusalem Temple, as prescribed in the Torah. However, since the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, this essential element of Judaism has been suspended. The absence of the Temple has left a theological void, with Jews still praying for the arrival of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the Third Temple to resume sacrificial rites.

Isaiah’s Prophecy and Its Ishmaelite Connection

The rabbi’s perspective seems to be influenced by a messianic and prophetic vision found in the Book of Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 60:7:

“All Kedar’s flocks will be gathered to you, the rams of Nebaioth will serve you; they will be accepted as offerings on My altar, and I will glorify the house of My glory.”

This verse is highly significant for several reasons:

1. Kedar and Nebaioth are explicitly named as sons of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13), representing prominent Arabian tribes.

2. The verse foresees a time when descendants of Ishmael—Arab peoples—will bring offerings to God.

3. These offerings will be accepted, and through them, God’s house (often interpreted as the Temple) will be glorified.

The prophecy envisions an eschatological role for Ishmael’s descendants in the worship of the One God—something traditionally seen as inconceivable within the framework of Jewish exclusivity.

Meccan Fulfillment vs. Jerusalem Expectation

Judaism awaits a literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: the Arabs (sons of Ishmael) bringing sacrifices to Jerusalem’s Temple once it is rebuilt.

However, the rabbi in ʿUmar’s time may have begun to realize something profound: this prophecy, rather than pointing to a future temple in Jerusalem, appeared to be fulfilled in Mecca, during Hajj, where:

Sacrificial animals are brought by Muslims from all over the world—many of whom are descendants of Kedar and Nebaioth—as a commemoration of the moment when God tested Abraham with the command to sacrifice his son Ishmael.

These animals are sacrificed as part of the rites established by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who himself descends from Ishmael.

The rites of Hajj center around the Kaʿbah, referred to in the Qur’an as the first house built for the worship of God (Surah 3:96), and restored by Abraham and Ishmael.

Thus, Islam—through its rituals, lineage, and theology—perfectly aligns with the vision in Isaiah 60:7 in a way that neither Judaism (due to the absence of the Temple) nor Christianity (which spiritualizes and abolishes sacrifice) can.

Christian Response and Qur’anic Clarification

Many Christian theologians interpret Isaiah 60 as a prophecy of Arab conversions to Christianity, viewing Jesus’ atoning death as the end of all sacrifices. However, this interpretation contradicts the explicit sacrificial imagery in Isaiah 60:7, where animal offerings are accepted by God—a practice Christianity explicitly abandons.

Furthermore, the Qur’an offers a decisive theological clarification:

“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a ḥanīf, one inclining toward truth, a Muslim. And he was not of the polytheists.”

(Surah 3:67)

Islam asserts itself as the continuation and perfection of Abraham’s monotheism—without the distortion introduced by later religious developments. The Qur’anic declaration in Surah 5:3 signifies the culmination of divine guidance and the completion of Abraham’s covenant, now universalized through Islam.

Conclusion: Islam as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

The Jewish rabbi’s envy was not merely of a verse—but of a divine reality realized in Islam:

A perfected religion, firmly rooted in Abrahamic tradition.

Living sacrificial rites enacted by Ishmael’s descendants.

A universal house of worship (the Kaʿbah) glorified through acts of piety and submission.

Rather than await a future fulfillment through rebuilt temples or symbolic reinterpretations, Islam offers a living embodiment of prophetic hope—something the rabbis of old may have sensed, but could not accept.

This is why the verse in Surah 5:3 provoked not just admiration, but deep theological envy.

Hajj as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

Torah, Genesis 22 verse 18, reads:

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

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

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

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

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

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Quran repeatedly mentions the patriarch Abraham together with his son Isaac and grandson Jacob, highlighting their unique roles in the tapestry of prophetic history.

This frequent association is rooted in both their familial lineage and their significant spiritual legacy, as outlined in several Quranic verses.

The Divine Trust and Distinction

Abraham’s life was marked by profound faith and obedience to God. One of the most significant episodes is when Abraham, following divine command, entrusted Hagar and their infant son Ishmael to God’s protection in the barren land of Mecca. Later, Abraham was tested again when he was commanded to sacrifice his “only son”—a reference understood in Islamic tradition as Ishmael, since Isaac had not yet been born at that time. Abraham’s unwavering submission to God’s will was rewarded: God miraculously granted him and his wife Sarah a son, Isaac, in their old age.

This narrative establishes a distinction: while Ishmael and Hagar were dedicated to God in a unique way—entrusted entirely to His care—Isaac and his mother Sarah remained with Abraham, forming a distinct branch of his lineage. The Quran emphasizes this by presenting Isaac and Jacob as direct gifts and blessings to Abraham, underscoring their special place in his household and in the continuation of prophethood.

Lineage and Prophethood

The Quranic verses that mention Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob together often do so to highlight the continuity of divine guidance and favor within this lineage. For example:

Surah 11:71: “And his wife was standing, and she laughed. Then We gave her good tidings of Isaac and after Isaac, Jacob.”

Surah 38:45: “And remember Our servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—those of strength and vision.”

Surah 29:27: “And We gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and We placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture.”

Surah 19:49: “So when he had left them and those they worshipped besides Allah, We gave him Isaac and Jacob, and each of them We made a prophet.”

Surah 12:38: “And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…”

Surah 6:84: “And We gave to him Isaac and Jacob; all [of them] We guided…”

These verses underscore the divine favor bestowed upon Abraham and his descendants, particularly Isaac and Jacob, who are both recognized as prophets and as forebears of a prophetic lineage.

The Two Covenants: Abrahamic and Sinai

The lineage of Ishmael from Abraham led to the birth of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who, according to Islam, is regarded as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. This covenant signifies the continuity of monotheism (tauhid) and prophethood through the line of Ishmael, culminating in the final prophecy for all of humanity.

On the other hand, Jacob, also known as Israel, is the progenitor of the Israelites. His descendants are central to the Sinai covenant, which includes the giving of the Torah to Moses and the establishment of the Children of Israel as a chosen community with a unique religious mission.

Burial and Legacy

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their wives (excluding Rachel, Jacob’s wife and Joseph’s mother) are traditionally believed to be buried in the Cave of Machpelah, a site revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This shared heritage further emphasizes the interconnectedness of their stories and the enduring significance of their legacy.

Conclusion

This story highlights the clear distinction between Abraham’s two sons: Ishmael and his mother, Hagar, were completely entrusted to God and separated from living together with Abraham. In contrast, Isaac remained by the side of Abraham and Sarah as a divine gift—a reward for Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his firstborn, Ishmael. In this context, it is as if Ishmael had been offered to God and was no longer personally possessed by Abraham as a father.

Ishmael and the House of God

Some scholars interpret the phrase “God was with the lad” from Genesis 21:20 to imply that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar near the House of God (Kaaba) and dedicated them to God, as mentioned in the Quran, Surah 14, verse 37. They also believe the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21:20 indicates that Ishmael was still an infant at that time. What are their reasoning and arguments?

Here are the key arguments and reasoning behind this particular scholarly interpretation:

1. Analysis of “God was with the lad” (Genesis 21:20):

These scholars argue that this phrase indicates more than just divine protection – it suggests a specific sacred location. They connect this with Surah 14, verse 37, of the Quran where Abraham states: “O our Lord! I have settled some of my offspring in an uncultivated valley near Your Sacred House”. The parallel between these texts is seen as evidence that Ishmael was left near the Kaaba (House of God), where God’s presence would be particularly manifest.

2. Ishmael’s Age and the Phrase “And He Grew”:

The phrase “and he grew” suggests a developmental stage, implying that Ishmael was still a young child or infant when these events occurred. This is consistent with the narrative in Genesis 21, where Hagar carries the child and later places him under a shrub when they run out of water. In Islamic texts, Ishmael is depicted as an infant during the journey to Mecca. The miracle of the Zamzam well, which sprang forth to provide water for Hagar and Ishmael, is a central story illustrating God’s care for them in their vulnerability.

3. Theological Framework:

These scholars view the story as part of a larger narrative of divine purpose. Abraham’s action is interpreted not as abandonment but as a divinely guided placement. The location near the Kaaba is seen as crucial for Ishmael’s future role in establishing monotheistic worship there.

4. Textual Connections:

The scholars draw parallels between the biblical account and Quranic narrative. They see the biblical phrase “God was with the lad” as complementary to the Quranic account of Abraham settling his family near God’s Sacred House. The emphasis on divine presence in both texts is viewed as supporting this interpretation.

This interpretation represents a particular scholarly view that attempts to harmonize biblical and Quranic accounts, though it’s important to note that this is one of several interpretations of these texts.

Pre-Islamic Arab Tradition vs Torah

According to established tradition, prior to the advent of Muhammad, the Arabs believed that their ancestor Abraham was on the verge of offering his son Ishmael as a sacrifice to God. It is believed that their pre-Islamic tradition about Ishmael predates the Torah given to Moses. How is their argument articulated?

Scholars argue that the oral traditions of the Arabs, including those surrounding Ishmael, predate the written texts of the Torah. This assertion is based on the notion that oral traditions can be older than their written counterparts, as they may have been passed down through generations long before being codified in scripture.

The argument that the pre-Islamic Arab tradition about Ishmael predates the Torah given to Moses is articulated through several points:

1. Historical Narratives:

Early Arab traditions held that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. This belief is deeply rooted in the cultural and religious narratives of pre-Islamic Arabia.

2. Religious Significance:

The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice is significant in Islam, where it is believed that both Abraham and Ishmael willingly submitted to God’s command. This act of submission is seen as a profound demonstration of faith and obedience.

3. Cultural Artifacts:

Some early Muslim scholars argued that the horns of the ram, which was sacrificed in place of Ishmael, were once displayed in the Kaaba, suggesting a long-standing tradition that predates Islamic scripture.

4. Jealousy Argument:

There is also an argument that Jews claimed Isaac was the intended sacrifice out of jealousy, as Ishmael is considered the ancestor of the Arabs.

These points collectively support the belief that the tradition of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice has ancient roots, predating the Torah and reflecting the unique relationship between God and the Arab people.

Interestingly, before the rise of Islam, ancient Arabs in Mecca circumcised their children at the age of 13 or 14. Did they inherit this practice from the Torah, which requires circumcision at eight days, or was it a tradition tracing back to Abraham that predated the Torah?

It is plausible that the tradition of circumcision among ancient Arabs in Mecca traced back to Abraham, who is considered a common ancestor by both Jews and Arabs. It could be that this practice was passed down through generations independently of any direct influence from the Torah or Judaism.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Religious traditions frequently assert their divine fulfillment, searching for validation of their legitimacy and divine favor within their scriptures.

A notably significant moment in Islamic history illustrates this dynamic—when a Jewish rabbi came to Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb with a remarkable confession: “If a verse like this had been revealed to us Jews, we would have declared the day of its revelation a festival day.” The verse in question is from Surah al-Mā’idah (5:3):

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

This Quranic declaration came during the Prophet Muhammad’s final pilgrimage (Ḥajj), marking the formal completion of Islam as a revealed religion. But why would a Jewish rabbi regard this verse with such admiration—perhaps even envy? To understand this, we must explore a prophetic verse from the Hebrew Bible, found in Isaiah 60:7, and analyze how Islamic rituals, particularly the Ḥajj, embody the prophetic vision better than the expectations of either Judaism or Christianity.

Isaiah 60:7 – A Sacrificial Vision Involving Arabs

The Hebrew verse in Isaiah reads:

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

(Isaiah 60:7)

This verse envisions a time when the descendants of Kedar and Nebaioth, two sons of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13), will offer sacrifices acceptable to God. The mention of “Mine altar” and “house of My glory” is generally understood by Jewish commentators to refer to the Temple in Jerusalem, where animal sacrifices were once offered according to the Torah.

Yet, the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE left a void in Jewish religious life. Without the altar, the sacrificial system central to the Mosaic covenant could no longer be practiced. Jews have since longed for the rebuilding of the Third Temple, expecting the resumption of sacrificial rites in fulfillment of such prophetic verses.

But here lies the tension: the sacrificial act involving the Ishmaelite tribes—Arabs from the lineage of Kedar and Nebaioth—has not been realized in Judaism. Instead, it is in Islam’s Ḥajj rituals, especially the ʿEid al-Aḍḥā sacrifice, that this prophecy seems to find a living expression.

Islam’s Living Sacrifice: A Fulfillment of Isaiah?

During the annual pilgrimage in Mecca, Muslims from all over the world—many of them literal descendants of Ishmael—participate in animal sacrifices in remembrance of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son (identified in Islam as Ishmael, not Isaac). These animals are offered near the Kaʿbah, the sanctuary Muslims believe was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael.

The connection becomes theologically provocative:

Kedar and Nebaioth: Represent Ishmaelite tribes, settled in the Arabian Peninsula.

Offerings accepted on the altar: The animals offered during Ḥajj are intended as acts of devotion to God, distributed to the poor in a ritual of divine acceptance.

“House of My glory”: In Islamic interpretation, this refers not to the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, but to the Kaʿbah in Mecca—revived and purified by Prophet Muhammad, a descendant of Ishmael.

This paradigm effectively transfers the axis of prophetic fulfillment from Jerusalem to Mecca, and from Temple Judaism to Islam. The Jewish rabbi, recognizing this shift, would understandably feel a mix of reverence and regret—hence his comment to ʿUmar.

Christianity and the Sacrifice: Atonement Without Altars

Christianity diverges sharply in interpreting sacrificial themes. For most Christians, Jesus’ crucifixion is understood as the once-for-all sacrifice that atones for sin, rendering animal offerings obsolete:

“We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

(Hebrews 10:10)

Thus, Isaiah 60:7, with its focus on physical offerings and ritual sacrifice, is often spiritualized or placed in an eschatological future. Some Christian theologians believe it refers to Arab conversion to Christianity in the end times, where the imagery of Kedar and Nebaioth signifies a gentile embrace of the Gospel.

Yet, the explicit association with animal sacrifice, a practice explicitly abandoned in Christian theology, remains problematic for this interpretation. Islam, by contrast, continues the sacrificial rites within a monotheistic framework that maintains Abrahamic purity and the legacy of Ishmael.

The Quranic Rebuttal: Abraham Was Neither Jew Nor Christian

The Qur’an addresses this theological contention directly in Surah Āl ʿImrān (3:67):

“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, submitting to God (a Muslim), and he was not of the polytheists.”

Islam positions itself not as a new religion but as the restoration of the pure monotheism of Abraham, inclusive of the sacrificial rites and covenantal practices once diluted or abandoned by later traditions.

Conclusion: A Verse to Be Envied

The statement of the Jewish rabbi to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb reflects a profound religious realization: Islam had fulfilled a prophecy that Jews were still awaiting. The verse in Surah 5:3, revealed during the Prophet’s final pilgrimage, proclaims the completion of divine religion and favor:

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

This stands in sharp contrast to Judaism’s waiting for the Third Temple and Christianity’s departure from sacrificial rites. Islam emerges as the living continuation of Abrahamic worship—including the role of Ishmael’s descendants—thus embodying both the form and spirit of prophetic visions such as Isaiah 60:7.

In the end, it is not merely doctrinal differences, but the embodiment of prophecy in historical and living religious practice, that made that verse in the Qur’an the object of such profound rabbinic envy.

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

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

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

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

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

The verse reads:

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

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

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

The verse reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostle Paul and the people of Kedar

Paul claimed that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. What was his connection to the people of Kedar, who were Gentiles and would enter God’s fold as predicted in Isaiah 42 verse 11 and Isaiah 60 verse 7? Kedar was the son of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arab people.

This is a very interesting question. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, meaning that he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to the non-Jewish nations. He traveled extensively throughout the Roman Empire, visiting places such as Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, and Rome. He also wrote many letters to the churches he founded or visited, which are part of the New Testament. While Paul’s ministry was mainly directed towards the Gentiles in various regions, there is no specific mention or connection between Paul and the people of Kedar in the New Testament.

The people of Kedar were a nomadic tribe of Arabs, descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. They are mentioned several times in the Old Testament as examples of the distant nations that would worship the true God. Isaiah 42 verse 11 and Isaiah 60 verse 7 are two of the prophecies that foretell the inclusion of the people of Kedar in God’s salvation plan.

The references to Kedar in Isaiah are prophecies that speak about the inclusion of Gentiles into God’s fold. These prophecies imply that people from various nations, including the descendants of Kedar, would come to worship and acknowledge God.

Although Paul’s mission was to bring the message of salvation to the Gentiles, his primary interactions were with the Greco-Roman world rather than specific Arab or Ishmaelite communities. However, there is no specific mention of Paul having a direct connection to the people of Kedar mentioned in those specific verses of Isaiah.

Search

Search

---

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

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

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

Ishmael and the Covenant.

1. Ishmael as the Firstborn: Supporters of this view argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant. They emphasize that Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant.
2. Sacrifice Narrative: They contend that the narrative of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son originally referred to Ishmael, not Isaac. This is based on the belief that ancient scriptures were altered by Israelite scribes to emphasize Isaac’s role.
3. Blessing and Land Promise: The promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations is seen as applying to Ishmael’s descendants. Islamic tradition views Ishmael as an ancestor of the Arab peoples, and thus sees the fulfillment of these promises through the Islamic Hajj and in the rise of Islamic civilization.

Scriptural Alteration Argument.

1. Scribal Changes: They argue that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to shift the focus from Ishmael to Isaac. This was done to establish a theological foundation for the Israelites’ claim to the land and their unique covenantal relationship with God.
2. Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran refers to the story of Abraham and his son, implying that Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed. This, combined with historical accounts and interpretations, is used to argue for the primacy of Ishmael in the covenantal promises.

Ishmael: The Rightful Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant – Revisiting Biblical Circumcision and Lineage

The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants. Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.

However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.

1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant

The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:

Genesis 17:9–11

“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”

Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth

The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:

Genesis 17:23–26

“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”

At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.

3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant

This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.

4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members

When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.

In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.

5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant

The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.

In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.

6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views

Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.

Summary of the Articulation

Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.

Search

Search

---

The Prophet Muhammad said,

“My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.”

This Hadith highlights Muhammad’s role as the seal of the prophets, symbolizing the completion of divine revelation in Islam.

A thematic parallel is often drawn between this Hadith and Psalm 118, verse 22, which states:

“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.”

While the Psalm is traditionally interpreted in Christian contexts as referring to the Messiah, some Islamic scholars see it as resonating with the idea of prophetic culmination.

From an Islamic perspective, this connection is understood in several ways:

1. Culmination of Monotheism: Both texts symbolize the fulfillment of a divine plan. Islam views all prophets as part of a unified mission of monotheism, with Muhammad completing this message.
2. Rejection and Vindication: The Psalm’s reference to a rejected stone becoming the cornerstone mirrors the Prophet Muhammad’s initial rejection and ultimate acceptance, emphasizing the enduring truth of his message.
3. Interfaith Resonance: Such parallels can serve as a foundation for interfaith dialogue, underscoring shared themes in Abrahamic faiths about divine mission and prophetic legacy.
4. Finality and Perfection: Just as a cornerstone or final brick is crucial to completing a structure, Muhammad’s prophethood is seen as the final piece that perfects the building of divine guidance for humanity.

While acknowledging scriptural differences, the connection between the Hadith and Psalm 118:22 can highlight the continuity and universality of God’s message across traditions—culminating, in Islamic belief, with the mission of Muhammad.

Allah says in the Quran, Surah 2 verse 89:

And when there came to them (Jews) a Book from Allah, confirming that which is with them—and earlier they would pray for victory over the pagans (through the medium of His messenger)—so when there came to them what they recognized (that is, Muhammad), they denied it. So may the curse of Allah be on the faithless!

The verse refers to the Jews who were awaiting the coming of the Messiah, as foretold in their scriptures. They used to pray for his arrival to help them triumph over their enemies. However, when Muhammad came with a message confirming their own scripture, they rejected him out of envy, since he was not from their lineage. This rejection, despite recognizing him, led to Allah’s condemnation.

Some Muslims interpret this verse as indirectly identifying Muhammad as the awaited Messiah, based on the Jews’ prior recognition of his qualities and the Quran’s confirmation of earlier revelations. This interpretation is reinforced by Surah 2, verse 146, which states that the People of the Book knew him as clearly as they knew their own sons.

Unnamed but Honored: The Quran’s Recognition of Hebrew Prophets

Some critics and scholars contend that the Quran omits reference to prominent Hebrew prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the so-called “minor prophets” of the Hebrew Bible. This observation has been a point of theological inquiry and discussion among Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

However, a closer look at the Quran—particularly Surah 45, verse 16—reveals a broader and more inclusive view of prophetic tradition that offers a nuanced response to this claim.

Surah 45, verse 16 — A Testament to the Israelite Legacy

The verse in question states:

“And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgment and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds.”

This verse serves as a general affirmation of the divine gifts bestowed upon the Children of Israel, which includes prophethood. While the Quran does not explicitly name every Hebrew prophet mentioned in the Tanakh (Old Testament), it recognizes that a multitude of prophets were sent to the Israelites, and it honors their legacy as recipients of divine wisdom, scripture, and favor.

An Inclusive View of Prophethood

The Quran mentions around 25 prophets by name, including major figures like Moses, David, Solomon, and others known from the Hebrew Bible. However, it also emphasizes that there were many more messengers sent throughout history whose names are not listed:

“And We have already sent messengers before you. Among them are those [whose stories] We have related to you, and among them are those We have not related to you…”
(Surah 40, verse 78)

This passage reinforces the idea that the Quran does not aim to list all prophets exhaustively, but rather to highlight certain figures for moral and spiritual lessons. Thus, while prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel are not mentioned by name, their existence and roles are not denied. Instead, their contributions are included in the broader recognition of prophetic tradition.

Prophets Without Borders

It is also worth noting that the Quran views all prophets as part of a single continuum of guidance sent by God to various peoples. The emphasis is on the message, not the identity of the messenger:

“Indeed, this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me.”
(Surah 23, verse 52)

This universal view transcends ethnic or historical boundaries, reinforcing the Quran’s message that divine guidance is a shared heritage of humanity, not limited to any single group.

Conclusion

While the Quran may not mention every Hebrew prophet by name, Surah 45, verse 16 affirms their collective legacy by acknowledging the divine gifts—scripture, wisdom, and prophethood—given to the Children of Israel. Through this verse and others, the Quran embraces an inclusive theology that honors the broader prophetic tradition of the Israelites. The absence of certain names is not a denial of their prophethood, but rather a reflection of the Quran’s selective and thematic focus.

In sum, Surah 45, verse 16 stands as a powerful testament to the shared spiritual lineage between Islamic and Hebrew traditions, and offers a respectful response to the theological inquiry regarding the recognition of the Hebrew prophets in the Quran.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants.

Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.

However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.

1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant

The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:

Genesis 17:9–11:

“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”

Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth

The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:

Genesis 17:23–26:

“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”

At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.

3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant

This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.

4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members

When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.

In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.

5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant

The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.

In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.

6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views

Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.

Summary of the Articulation

Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.

Hajj as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

Torah, Genesis 22 verse 18, reads:

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

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

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

1. Prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18: The verse in Genesis states:

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

Some interpret this as a prophecy that is fulfilled through the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son with Hagar. The Islamic narrative holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was offered by Abraham as a sacrifice to God. This signifies Ishmael’s importance in the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. The Hajj, as a major Islamic ritual commemorating the actions of Abraham and Ishmael, is seen as a manifestation of this blessing.

2. The Hajj and Ishmael’s Legacy: In Islamic tradition, the Hajj includes rituals that are believed to commemorate the life and trials of Abraham and his son Ishmael. The ritual of Sa’i, where pilgrims travel back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwah, is seen as a re-enactment of Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael. According to Islamic belief, the well of Zamzam originated to rescue baby Ishmael.

3. The Kaaba and Islamic Tradition: The Kaaba in Mecca, which is the focal point of the Hajj, is believed in Islamic tradition to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael as a house of worship to the one true God. This act of establishing monotheism in the region is viewed as a key part of fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham.

4. Universal Blessing and Unity of Humankind: The Hajj is seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s descendants. The gathering of millions of Muslims from diverse nations during Hajj is viewed as a symbol of this blessing and the unity of humankind under God’s guidance.

5. Continuity of Abrahamic Tradition: The Hajj is also seen as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism. This perspective posits that Islam, as the final revelation in the Abrahamic tradition, fulfills and perfects earlier revelations given to Jews and Christians.

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

Interpolation in the Torah from an Islamic viewpoint

Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael’s story:

1. The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.
2. Abraham’s son, who was offered as a sacrifice.

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

Similarly, some question whether Genesis 22, verse 2, could refer to Ishmael, since Isaac had never been Abraham’s only son, whereas Ishmael had been for fourteen years before Isaac was born. How is this Islamic viewpoint presented?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Jewish Encyclopedia (published 1901–1906) does indeed discuss the connection between the peoples of Gog and Magog and the Khazars, reflecting both medieval Jewish traditions and interpretations circulating at the time.

Key Points from the Jewish Encyclopedia

1. Biblical and Apocalyptic Origins: Gog and Magog are originally biblical figures and nations mentioned in Ezekiel (chapters 38–39) and later in apocalyptic literature. They are depicted as nations from the far north who will attack Israel in the end times.

2. Medieval Jewish Tradition: In the Middle Ages, Jewish writers and travelers often tried to identify Gog and Magog with actual peoples or nations known to them.
The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that, according to some Jewish traditions, the “barbarous nations” of the far north, particularly those beyond the Caucasus, were associated with Gog and Magog.

3. Connection to the Khazars:

The Jewish Encyclopedia specifically mentions that in some medieval Jewish sources, the Khazars—a Turkic people who established a powerful kingdom north of the Caucasus and whose ruling class converted to Judaism—were identified with the peoples of Gog and Magog.

This identification is found in the writings of Jewish travelers such as Petachiah of Regensburg and Benjamin of Tudela, who described the Khazar lands as being those of Gog and Magog.

The Encyclopedia states:

“The name [Gog and Magog] was applied to the wild peoples of the north, especially the Khazars, by the Jews of the Middle Ages…”

4. Legends and Folklore: The association was partly based on the legend that Alexander the Great had built a wall to confine the uncivilized peoples of Gog and Magog, and that the Khazars were believed to live beyond this barrier.

Summary

The Jewish Encyclopedia records that, in medieval Jewish tradition and folklore, the Khazars were sometimes identified with the apocalyptic peoples of Gog and Magog—nations expected to play a role in the events preceding the Messianic era. This connection was not based on historical or biblical evidence but rather on the geographical imagination and apocalyptic expectations of the time.

Do Gog and its allies embrace Judaism?

The interpretation you are referring to suggests that Gog, the mentioned invader in the Book of Ezekiel, represents a nation that converted to Judaism and subsequently develops an obsession with the Holy Land and Jerusalem.

It is important to note that this interpretation is not universally accepted and represents a specific perspective among certain individuals or groups.

Those who hold this viewpoint often base their argument on various passages from the Old Testament, particularly Ezekiel 38-39. They claim that Gog and its allies, portrayed as invading forces, could symbolize a nation that is intimately connected to or influenced by Judaism.

Supporters of this interpretation suggest that the nation’s conversion to Judaism might influence its territorial ambitions, particularly towards the Holy Land and Jerusalem. They argue that this conversion leads to a deep attachment to the land and a desire to possess it for religious or messianic reasons.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this specific interpretation is speculative and there are alternative explanations for the meaning and identity of Gog presented in various schools of thought. Different religious traditions and scholars may offer diverging perspectives on the subject matter.

As with any interpretive claim, it is essential to critically evaluate the evidence and consider a range of viewpoints to gain a comprehensive understanding of different perspectives on the topic.

Prophetic Parallels: The Role of Gog and Magog in Islam and Judaism and Their Implications

In the Quran, Allah provides a prophecy concerning Gog and Magog, identifying them and their allies as adversaries of Allah and the Muslims, particularly those residing in the Holy Land, the site of Muhammad’s Night Journey.

Given that the prophecy of Gog and Magog also appears in Jewish scripture, what message does this convey to the Jewish community?

The prophecy of Gog and Magog appears in both Islamic and Jewish scripture, and the message it conveys is significant to both communities. In the Jewish tradition, the prophecy is found in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the Book of Ezekiel. It describes a great apocalyptic battle involving Gog of the land of Magog, a powerful and hostile force that will invade the Holy Land.

The message of the Quran to the Jews who also have the prophecy of Gog and Magog in their scripture is that they should believe in Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, and follow the guidance of Islam, which is the final and complete revelation from Allah.
The Quran warns the Jews that they will face a severe punishment from Allah if they persist in their disbelief and corruption, and that they will be among the allies of Gog and Magog, who are the enemies of Allah and His righteous servants.
The Quran also informs the Muslims that they will be victorious over Gog and Magog, with the help of Allah, and that they will inherit the Holy Land after the destruction of Gog and Magog.

Download: The Matrix of Gog.pdf

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The figures of Gog and Magog—known in Islamic tradition as Yajuj and Majuj—are shrouded in apocalyptic mystery across Abrahamic religions.

While the Quran and Hadith literature provide limited but evocative details about them, interpretations and speculation abound. Among these is the idea that Gog and Magog may adhere to the Jewish faith and harbor a fixation on the Holy Land, especially the city of Jerusalem.

Quranic Reference and the “Town”

In Surah 21, verse 95, the Quran states:

“And there is a ban upon [the people of] a town which We destroyed: they shall not return.
Until, when Gog and Magog are let loose, and they swarm down from every mound.”

This verse has been interpreted by some exegetes and commentators to refer to Jerusalem, the “town” whose destruction and the divine decree against its reentry become symbolically significant. In this context, the town becomes central to eschatological narratives, particularly involving Gog and Magog. Their emergence is linked to the end of days and the unfolding of divine justice on earth.

Who Are Gog and Magog?

In both Islamic and Judeo-Christian texts, Gog and Magog are described as tribes or peoples of great power and corruption. In the Quran (Surah 18, verses 94 to 99), they are described as causing “mischief in the land” and being temporarily sealed off by the righteous ruler Dhul-Qarnayn, only to break free near the end of time.

In the Islamic eschatological view, their release marks a cataclysmic moment in human history—one of chaos, global strife, and ultimately, divine intervention.

The Theory: Adherents of the Jewish Faith?

One theory proposed by some interpreters and observers is that Gog and Magog might be associated with the Jewish faith. This theory is not explicitly supported by classical Islamic texts, but it arises from certain geopolitical and scriptural readings. The idea hinges on their supposed obsession with the Holy Land, particularly Jerusalem—a city central to Jewish theology, identity, and eschatology.

According to this view, the reference in Surah 21, verse 95 to a town (Jerusalem) and a divine prohibition on return could be indirectly linked to the movements or aspirations of Gog and Magog. Their “obsession” with the land may be interpreted as a reflection of a deeper theological or historical attachment, possibly rooted in Jewish claims to the area.

However, this view remains speculative and is not universally accepted. Many Islamic scholars argue that Gog and Magog are not to be identified with any specific religious group but rather represent a corrupt and destructive force, devoid of spiritual alignment and indifferent to divine guidance.

Symbolism vs. Literalism

The Quranic and Hadith portrayals of Yajuj and Majuj allow room for symbolic interpretation. Rather than focusing solely on their ethnic or religious identity, many scholars emphasize their role in divine narrative: as signs of the approaching Day of Judgment, their release into the world serves as a stark reminder of human vulnerability, the limits of power, and the necessity of divine guidance.

Thus, whether or not they adhere to a specific religion, the deeper message lies in what their emergence represents—chaos preceding divine order, falsehood before the triumph of truth.

Conclusion

While some theorists suggest that Gog and Magog may follow the Jewish faith and possess an enduring obsession with the Holy Land—particularly Jerusalem—Islamic scripture provides little direct support for such claims. Surah 21, verse 95 does refer to a town whose people are barred from return, and this is often interpreted to mean Jerusalem. Yet, the identities and motives of Gog and Magog remain deliberately vague, serving more as eschatological signs than as historical actors.

As with many elements of apocalyptic literature, the role of Gog and Magog ultimately points beyond themselves—to the divine plan, the coming of the final hour, and the unfolding of cosmic justice.

Exploring the Connection Between Gog, Magog, and the Khazars in the Jewish Encyclopedia

How does Jewish Encyclopedia make a connection between people of Gog and Magog and the Khazars?

The Jewish Encyclopedia, a comprehensive work published in the early 20th century, discusses various historical, religious, and cultural topics related to Judaism. In its entries, the encyclopedia explores the connection between Gog and Magog and the Khazars, drawing upon historical and biblical sources.

Gog and Magog are biblical figures mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation, often associated with apocalyptic prophecies and the end times. Over time, these names have been linked to various groups and regions, sometimes representing distant lands or threatening forces.

The Khazars were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who established a powerful empire in the region of the Caucasus and the Volga River between the 7th and 10th centuries. Notably, the Khazar elite and parts of their population converted to Judaism around the 8th century.

In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the connection between Gog and Magog and the Khazars is explored through the lens of medieval Jewish and Christian writings. Some medieval Jewish authors, influenced by earlier traditions and geopolitical realities, identified the Khazars with the apocalyptic figures of Gog and Magog. This association might have been bolstered by the Khazars’ geographical location on the fringes of the known world and their involvement in regional power dynamics.

It’s important to note that these connections are more interpretative and speculative rather than based on concrete historical evidence. They reflect the ways in which biblical prophecies and historical events were intertwined in the medieval imagination, often serving as a means to understand contemporary geopolitical situations through a religious and eschatological framework.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The statement that “the idea of immutability is at odds with the Christian understanding of God in relation to the Trinity” highlights a profound theological tension.

Let’s explore how this idea interacts with the scriptures of the Tanakh and the New Testament, as well as how it resonates with the Arian perspective.

1. The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s immutability—His unchanging nature—is a foundational attribute. Verses such as Malachi 3:6 (“For I the LORD do not change”) and Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind”) affirm this stability and eternal constancy. God’s steadfastness is a source of assurance for Israel, emphasizing His faithfulness to His covenantal promises.

The concept of immutability in the Tanakh does not anticipate the idea of God taking on human form or existing in multiple hypostases. Rather, God is portrayed as utterly transcendent and singular in His essence. Consequently, there is no tension within the Tanakh between immutability and any triune nature.

2. The New Testament

In the New Testament, the emergence of Christological doctrines introduces complexity. Jesus is described as the incarnate Word who shares in the divine essence, yet He experiences birth, growth, suffering, and death. These aspects of change—birth, growth, suffering, and death—appear to challenge the absolute immutability of God.

Nevertheless, the Epistle of James reaffirms the unchanging nature of God: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). This verse highlights the constancy of God’s character, reinforcing the Hebrew Bible’s teaching of divine immutability.

However, the development of the Trinity doctrine complicates this understanding. The human experiences of Jesus—His birth, life, and death—appear to introduce change within the second person of the Trinity, presenting a challenge to the classical notion of God’s unchanging nature.

3. Arian Perspective

Arius, a 4th-century presbyter, rejected the co-equality and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Arians asserted that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the immutable Father. In this view, immutability belongs solely to the Father; the Son, as a created intermediary, is capable of change and thus not truly immutable.

For Arians, the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined by Nicene orthodoxy) appeared incompatible with immutability, because it required that the Son—who was subject to birth, suffering, and death—be fully God. They argued that this compromised the changelessness of the divine essence. The Arian position thus reinforced the idea that the Trinity undermines the classical attribute of divine immutability.

The tension between divine immutability and the Trinity emerges uniquely within Christianity. While the Tanakh affirms God’s unchanging nature without invoking a triune framework, the New Testament presents a divine figure who enters time and history in the person of Jesus Christ. For Arians, this was unacceptable: true divinity, they argued, could neither suffer nor change.

The Arian controversy underscores the vital importance of upholding the scriptural affirmations of God’s constancy and absolute immutability. The radical claim that God Himself took on flesh is, from the Arian perspective, an untenable departure from these scriptural truths.

For Arians, Jesus remains distinct from the eternal and unchangeable God. The immutable Father does not enter into history or undergo change, but rather sends Jesus as the mediator between Himself and creation.

This conviction continues to resonate in theological discourse today, reminding believers to uphold the absolute transcendence and immutability of God the Father, who—unlike any creature or mediator—remains forever unchanged.

Who were the Unitarian scholars among Christians prior to the establishment of the Nicene Creed?

Prior to the formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 CE, certain Christian scholars and theologians expressed Unitarian beliefs, focusing on the singularity of God and rejecting the doctrines of the Trinity. These figures typically aligned with early theological traditions that emphasized the Father as the sole God. Some of these individuals include:

1. Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century):

Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man who was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (“Adoptionism”). He rejected the idea of Jesus being divine by nature, affirming the singularity of God, and was excommunicated for his views.

2. Paul of Samosata (3rd century):

Paul, a bishop of Antioch, was a key figure in early Christian Monarchianism, emphasizing the unity of God. He taught that Jesus was a man endowed with divine wisdom and power but not preexistent or divine in nature. His views were condemned at the Synod of Antioch (268 CE).

3. Artemon (2nd–3rd century):

Artemon is associated with a form of Monarchianism, maintaining that early Christian doctrine affirmed that Jesus was merely human and not divine. He argued that the belief in Christ’s divinity was a later development.

4. Ebionites (1st–4th centuries):

The Ebionites were an early Jewish-Christian group that rejected the divinity of Jesus and the preexistence doctrine. They viewed Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah but emphasized the absolute unity of God.

5. Photinus of Sirmium:

Photinus was a 4th-century bishop who rejected the Trinity, viewing God as a singular entity rather than three distinct persons. His beliefs conflicted with orthodox Christian teachings, particularly the Nicene Creed established in 325 AD, which affirmed the Trinitarian view. Photinus emphasized God’s unity but was eventually condemned as a heretic by the Church for opposing the established doctrine.

6. Origen (184–253 CE):

Although Origen is often considered a precursor to later Trinitarian thought, he also emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father. His theological framework left room for interpretations that leaned toward a Unitarian understanding of the supremacy of the Father.

7. Arianism and Arius (c. 250–336 CE):

Arius, though post-Nicene, was active before the council and denied the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father and therefore subordinate, aligning with a Unitarian emphasis on God’s singularity.

8. Early Jewish Christians:

Many early Jewish Christians, including those in the Nazarean and Ebionite communities, maintained strict monotheism. They rejected the idea of Jesus’ divinity and upheld the belief in God as a singular being.

These figures and groups represent diverse streams of early Christian thought that diverged from the later Trinitarian orthodoxy solidified at the Council of Nicaea. Their beliefs highlight the rich and contested theological debates of early Christianity.

Does God of Israel have a son?

The question of whether the God of Israel has a son is answered differently depending on the religious tradition—Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Here’s a summary of each perspective:

Judaism:
No, God has no son.
In Jewish theology, God is absolutely one (monotheism), indivisible, and without partners or offspring.
The concept of God having a literal or divine son is firmly rejected.
While kings like David were sometimes metaphorically called “sons of God” (Psalm 2, verse 7), this was understood in a symbolic or covenantal sense—not a divine or literal sonship.

Christianity:
Yes, God has a Son—Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten not made, and of one essence with the Father (as expressed in the Nicene Creed).
The title “Son of God” means more than a metaphor; it affirms the divinity of Jesus and his unique relationship with God the Father.
This belief is central to Christian doctrine and salvation theology.

Islam:
No, God (Allah) has no son.
The Qur’an explicitly denies that God has any children or partners:
“He begets not, nor is He begotten” (Qur’an, Surah 112, verse 3).
Calling God the “father” or claiming that He has a son is seen as a serious theological error (shirk), contradicting the core Islamic belief in the absolute oneness (tawhid) of God.

Thus, the belief that the God of Israel has a son is affirmed in Christianity, but denied in both Judaism and Islam—each for distinct theological reasons rooted in their respective scriptures and conceptions of divine unity.

The Hebrew Bible, the Trinity, and the Quran: A Brief Reflection

The Hebrew Bible, central to Jewish faith, firmly upholds the absolute oneness of God, as seen in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, when Christianity adopted these scriptures as the Old Testament, it introduced Trinitarian hermeneutics — interpreting the texts in a way that supported the belief in one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some argue this approach distorts the original monotheistic message of the Hebrew Bible.

In response to such theological developments, Islam presents the Quran as the final revelation, aimed at safeguarding God’s unity (tawhid). The Quran challenges the concept of the Trinity, reaffirming that God is singular, eternal, and without equal. Thus, while all three Abrahamic faiths deeply honor divine revelation, they differ significantly in interpreting and preserving the oneness of God.

Search

Search