ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY

The Abrahamic Covenant and the Promise of the Land

Azahari Hassim

The Abrahamic covenant has long been a cornerstone of theological discussion among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. While the Judeo-Christian tradition identifies Isaac as the covenant’s primary heir, a significant body of Islamic scholarship maintains that the covenant’s fulfillment comes through Ishmael—the forefather of the Prophet Muhammad.

This interpretation emphasizes two core elements: the inheritance of the land stretching from the River of Egypt (commonly identified with the Nile) to the great River Euphrates, and the universal blessing promised through Abraham’s seed, understood to be ultimately realized in Muhammad and the religion of Islam, regarded as the restored faith of Abraham.

1. The Promise of the Land

In the Book of Genesis (15:18), God promises Abraham:

“To your seed I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”

Islamic scholars who hold the Ishmaelite fulfillment view interpret this promise as pertaining to Ishmael’s descendants, not Isaac’s. They point out that Ishmael, as Abraham’s firstborn, was blessed by God (Genesis 17:20) to become a “great nation.”

They argue that this “land promise” finds its historic expression in the geographic spread of Islamic civilization—from North Africa, along the Nile, across the Arabian Peninsula, and extending toward regions near the Euphrates. This territorial reality, they contend, is not coincidental but rather a visible sign of the covenant’s realization through Ishmael’s lineage.

2. Blessing to All Nations

In Genesis 12:3 and 22:18, God declares that through Abraham’s seed “all nations of the earth will be blessed.”
Islamic interpretation sees this ultimate blessing embodied in Muhammad, a direct descendant of Ishmael, whose mission was not confined to a single people but extended universally. The Qur’an echoes this in Surah Al-Anbiya (21:107):

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to all beings.”

From this perspective, Islam is not a new religion but the restoration of the original monotheism of Abraham—free from the tribal exclusivity sometimes associated with later Israelite identity. The faith’s global spread, moral code, and unifying message are seen as the fulfillment of God’s promise of universal blessing.

3. The Sacrifice of Ishmael

The question of which son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice lies at the heart of this theological divergence. The Qur’an (Surah As-Saffat 37:99–113) narrates the event without initially naming the son, but the sequence of verses places the announcement of Isaac’s birth after the sacrifice episode, implying that Ishmael was the son offered.
Proponents assert that Ishmael’s role in this trial signifies divine confirmation of his status as the covenant’s chosen heir. They maintain that the shift to Isaac in the Hebrew scriptures represents a later alteration by Israelite scribes to bolster their own national claim to covenantal blessings.

4. Scriptural Alterations and Covenant Identity

Those who uphold the Ishmaelite view argue that ancient Israelite scribes re-framed certain historical narratives to affirm Israel’s unique claim to God’s promises. In their understanding, the Torah’s emphasis on Isaac as the covenantal son serves to align the covenant with the Israelite nation, while the Qur’an restores the original truth of Ishmael’s role.

5. The Sinai Covenant: A Separate Agreement

The Sinai covenant—delivered centuries after Abraham—was made specifically with the Israelites. It outlined a detailed legal and moral framework, binding the Israelite community to God through laws and rituals. Unlike the Abrahamic covenant, which Islamic scholarship sees as global and unconditional, the Sinai covenant is conditional, requiring obedience to maintain divine favor.
This distinction reinforces the view that the land and universal blessing promises belong not to the Sinai covenant but to the Abrahamic covenant, and therefore—according to this interpretation—to the descendants of Ishmael.

Conclusion

Within this interpretive framework, the followers of Muhammad are seen as the true inheritors of Abraham’s covenant, heirs to the divine promise of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, and the bearers of the universal blessing foretold millennia ago. Islam, as the restored religion of Abraham, reaffirms the original monotheism, the inclusive message to all nations, and the geographic destiny that was set forth in God’s ancient promise.

Far from being a mere theological debate, this understanding shapes how millions perceive history, identity, and divine purpose—viewing the spread of Islam not as a historical accident, but as the direct unfolding of God’s covenant with Abraham through Ishmael.

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 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.

Islam and the True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant: Ishmael, the Sacrificed Son

As one journeys through the sacred scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths, a profound theme emerges: God’s covenant with His chosen servants. In Islam, this covenant begins not at Mount Sinai with Moses, but much earlier—with Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام), the father of nations.

Unlike the Jewish and Christian traditions, which uphold Isaac as the central heir, Islam presents a compelling counter-narrative: it was Ishmael (Ismail عليه السلام)—the elder son—who was destined for sacrifice, and through whom the universal covenant was fulfilled.

The Abrahamic Covenant: A Universal Trust

According to the Qur’an, Allah made a sacred covenant with Abraham, declaring him a leader of mankind:

“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

This exchange sets the tone for an ethical and faith-based covenant, not one bound by ethnicity or tribal lineage. Abraham, in his submission to God, was promised leadership, guidance, and progeny who would uphold monotheism.

But what is often overlooked in Judeo-Christian retellings is the chronology and context of this divine pledge. When the covenant was established, Ishmael was the only son alive, having been circumcised alongside Abraham as a sign of this sacred pact (cf. Genesis 17:23–26). Isaac had not yet been born. The Qur’an emphasizes this continuity through Abraham’s prayer for a prophet from among his descendants:

“Our Lord, send among them a messenger from themselves…”

— Qur’an 2:129

Muslim scholars understand this to be a prophecy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, a direct descendant of Ishmael, thus reaffirming Ishmael’s centrality to the covenant.

The Sacrifice: Ishmael, Not Isaac

Perhaps the most emotionally stirring moment in Abraham’s life is the divine command to sacrifice his beloved son. The Qur’an recounts this story in Surah Aṣ-Ṣāffāt (37:100–113), but not once does it name the son. Yet all contextual clues point to Ishmael:

“So We gave him good news of a forbearing boy.”

(37:101)

When the boy was old enough to walk with his father, Abraham said,

“O my son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you…”

(37:102)

This boy is obedient, submitting to the will of God without hesitation. Later in the passage, Isaac is mentioned separately, in a different context (37:112), indicating that he is not the son being referred to earlier.

Thus, from an Islamic viewpoint, it was Ishmael who was offered in sacrifice, not Isaac. The act was not merely a test of faith, but the ultimate sign of Abraham and Ishmael’s joint submission (Islam) to God. It also spiritually consecrated Ishmael as the heir to the Abrahamic covenant.

Circumcision: The Forgotten Proof of Ishmael’s Precedence

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant—circumcision—was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael, as recorded in the Bible:

❝That very day Abraham was circumcised… and his son Ishmael was thirteen years old.❞

(Genesis 17:24–25)

This took place before Isaac’s birth (Genesis 17:21, 21:2), indicating that Ishmael was the only son included in the covenant at that critical moment.

In Islam, actions carry covenantal weight. Ishmael’s circumcision is not a mere detail—it is a sacred sign of his full inclusion and precedence.

The Sinai Covenant: Conditional and Revoked

Generations after Abraham, the Israelites entered into another covenant at Mount Sinai during the time of Moses (Mūsā عليه السلام). This Sinai Covenant, detailed in both the Torah and the Qur’an, involved the giving of divine law (Torah) and required strict adherence to God’s commandments.

But this covenant was conditional. The Qur’an frequently reminds the Children of Israel of their repeated breaches:

“And [recall] when We took your covenant… but you turned away after that.”

— Qur’an 2:63

“Because of their breaking the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard.”

— Qur’an 5:13

From the Islamic standpoint, the Israelites violated their trust with God through disobedience, distortion of scripture, and rejection of prophets. As a result, the Sinai covenant—while once valid—was revoked, and divine favor passed on to a broader, inclusive community centered around Islam.

Islam: The Final Fulfillment of the Covenant

In contrast to the ethnically bound covenant at Sinai, the Abrahamic covenant is universal and eternal, and its completion is found in the revelation of the Qur’an and the Prophethood of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

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

— Qur’an 5:3

Islam presents itself not as a new religion, but as the restoration of Abraham’s original monotheism. It honors all previous prophets, acknowledges their scriptures in original form, but firmly asserts that the final covenant is through the message of Islam.

Conclusion: The Line of Ishmael Vindicated

In summary, the Islamic narrative realigns the story of divine covenants:

• The Abrahamic Covenant was first given to Abraham and Ishmael, rooted in faith, obedience, and universality.

• The Sinai Covenant, later made with the Israelites, was limited, legalistic, and ultimately broken.

• The final covenant, embodied in Islam, reaffirms the legacy of Ishmael, vindicates Abraham’s prayer, and brings the universal message of submission to God back to the forefront of human history.

Thus, from the Islamic perspective, Ishmael was not only the son who was offered, but also the true heir of Abraham’s mission—culminating in the birth of an Ummah, an Islamic nation, and a prophet of Islam, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, who would carry the covenant to all of humanity

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.

Contents

Home

Dajjal on the Throne of Solomon: A Subtle Revelation in Surah Ṣād

Azahari Hassim

In Islamic eschatology, there is a frequently repeated claim—that Dajjal, the great deceiver of the end times, is not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an. However, a closer examination of Surah Ṣād (38:34–35) reveals a symbolic yet profound allusion. The verse describes a moment when Prophet Solomon (Sulayman عليه السلام) saw a body placed upon his throne—a scene which some scholars have understood as a reference to Dajjal himself.

This figure is not just any individual, but the “Messiah” awaited by the Jewish people, promised as the “Son of David” (Ben David), who according to their belief will rule with a dominion even greater than that of Solomon. This verse, therefore, serves as an answer to those who claim that the Qur’an never mentions Dajjal.

The Qur’anic Verses: Surah Ṣād 38:34–35

“And We certainly tested Solomon, and placed upon his throne a body; then he turned in repentance (to Allah).”
He said, ‘My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom that will never be possessed by anyone after me. Indeed, You are the Bestower.’”

These verses describe a great trial that befell Solomon—a body (جَسَدًا) placed upon his throne. This word is key, as it carries the meaning of a body without a soul, or an artificial entity. Classical interpretations have suggested that it might have been a child or a devil, but in modern eschatological readings, this jasad has been interpreted as Dajjal.

Dajjal as the “Body” on the Throne

An Attempted Usurpation by a Deceiver

The term jasad implies something incomplete—an outward form without the spirit. This fits well with the descriptions of Dajjal in the hadiths:
• An imitator
• A performer of counterfeit miracles
• A false claimant to divinity

He does not possess the prophetic spirit, yet he has the ability to mislead masses through power and deception. When this body was placed upon Solomon’s throne, it was as if it was posing as the rightful king—but in reality, it was the ultimate fraud.

Solomon’s Prayer: A Strange but Significant Request

After witnessing this event, Solomon immediately prayed:

“Grant me a kingdom that will never be possessed by anyone after me.”

Why would he request a dominion that cannot be replicated? This suggests that he had just seen an alarming imitation—an impostor who almost took over his rule.

His prayer reflects that what he had witnessed was not a mere loss of power, but a prefiguration of a great end-times trial—symbolized in the body on the throne, a prototype of the Dajjal to come.

Dajjal and the “Son of David” Concept

The Jewish Expectation of the Messiah

In Jewish tradition, they await a savior known as Messiah ben David—a king from the line of David who will:

• Restore the kingdom of Israel
• Rule the entire world
• Rebuild the Temple of Solomon
• Re-establish Israel’s theocratic rule

Today, many Jews believe that this Messiah will usher in a new golden age for Israel.
However, in Islam, the true Messiah is Jesus (Eesā عليه السلام)—not the political “Son of David” they anticipate.

Dajjal as the “False Messiah”

Prophetic hadiths describe Dajjal as al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl—“the False Messiah”—because he will appear claiming to be the promised Messiah and will mislead many into following him.

It is therefore highly likely that the political Messiah awaited by many Jews is none other than Dajjal himself—appearing with extraordinary powers, posing as the rightful heir to the thrones of David and Solomon, but in truth, he is nothing more than an empty shell full of deceit.

Scholarly Perspectives in Islamic Eschatology

Classical Tafsīr
• al-Ṭabarī and al-Qurṭubī interpret jasad as either Solomon’s child or a jinn who tried to impersonate him.

Modern Eschatological View
• Scholars like Sheikh Imran N. Hosein interpret the jasad on Solomon’s throne as an early manifestation of Dajjal—a symbolic foreshadowing of the same deception that will recur in the end times.

Conclusion

Surah Ṣād 38:34–35 is far more than a simple story of Solomon’s trial—it is a layered allegory pointing to the danger of Dajjal, depicted as a body—an imitator of prophethood and kingship—who appears to mislead mankind.

This verse directly challenges the claim that the Qur’an makes no mention of Dajjal. In reality, Dajjal is indeed referenced—but symbolically, shown to Solomon, and rejected through Solomon’s prayer that his true dominion would never again be imitated by Dajjal.

Thus, for those who reflect deeply upon the Qur’an, the warning of Dajjal is not absent—it is hidden in plain sight, awaiting understanding from those who ponder with their hearts.

“Indeed, this is a reminder; so whoever wills—let him take a path to his Lord.”
(Surah al-Insān, 76:29)

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

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

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

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

Is Muhammad the messiah whom Jews were waiting for according to the Islamic belief?

The answere is indirectly yes based on Surah 2, verse 89. How is their argument articulated from an Islamic perspective?

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

The verse reads:

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

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

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

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

🕍 The Third Temple: Symbol of the Future Jewish Messiah

The vision of the Third Temple (Beit HaMikdash HaShlishi) stands as one of the most profound symbols in Jewish eschatology. In Jewish tradition, this future sanctuary will not be merely a reconstruction of ancient stone walls—it will be the spiritual epicenter of a redeemed world under the rule of the long-awaited Messiah ben David.

⸻

✡️ The Temple as the Messiah’s Throne

Jewish prophecy describes the Third Temple as the place where the Messiah will reign in peace and justice. The Book of Ezekiel (Chapters 40–48) offers an elaborate vision of its design, portraying it as a divine blueprint from heaven. In rabbinic thought, the Messiah will not just inaugurate the Temple—he will transform it into a beacon of God’s presence for all nations.

Symbolically, the Temple is:

• The Seat of Righteous Rule – representing divine law and justice.
• The Center of Worship – where offerings, prayer, and song unite heaven and earth.
• A Sign of Covenant Fulfillment – confirming God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

⸻

🔥 The Eternal Flame – God’s Everlasting Presence

In both the First and Second Temples, the Menorah burned continually, representing the eternal presence of God (Shekhinah). In the Third Temple, this light will shine under the Messiah’s guidance, symbolizing:

• Spiritual Illumination – truth revealed to all humanity.
• Continuity of Faith – unbroken from ancient times to the messianic age.
• Victory over Darkness – the triumph of righteousness over evil.

⸻

📜 The Ark of the Covenant – Lost but Awaited

The Ark, missing since the Babylonian destruction, is expected by some Jewish traditions to return in the messianic era. In the Third Temple, it will:

• Serve as the divine throne on earth.
• Testify to the Torah as eternal law.
• Seal the covenant between God and His people forever.

⸻

🏺 The Water Flowing from the Temple – Healing the Nations

Ezekiel’s prophecy speaks of a river flowing from beneath the Temple, bringing life to the Dead Sea and healing to the land. Under the Messiah’s reign, this symbolizes:

• Spiritual Renewal – a cleansing of hearts and societies.
• Universal Blessing – God’s abundance shared beyond Israel’s borders.
• Restoration of Creation – harmony between humanity and nature.

⸻

🌍 The Temple Mount – Meeting Point of Heaven and Earth

For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place on earth. In the messianic vision, it becomes the ultimate spiritual capital of the world:

• A House of Prayer for All Nations (Isaiah 56:7).
• The center of global peace under the Messiah’s leadership.
• A permanent dwelling of God’s glory among humanity.

⸻

🕊 Closing Reflection

The Third Temple is not just an architectural dream—it is the embodiment of a future age of peace, justice, and divine presence. In Jewish eschatology, it will stand as the crown of the Messiah’s mission, uniting heaven and earth in perfect harmony.

As the prophets foretell, when the Messiah comes, the world will be transformed: swords into plowshares, enmity into brotherhood, and Jerusalem into the radiant heart of God’s kingdom on earth.

What is a considerable obstacle to the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem?

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

Here are some specific challenges related to this:

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

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

Contents

Home

Islam and the True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant: Ishmael, the Sacrificed Son

Azahari Hassim

The Abrahamic Covenant: A Universal Trust

According to the Qur’an, Allah made a sacred covenant with Abraham, declaring him a leader of mankind:

“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

“Our Lord, send among them a messenger from themselves…”

— Qur’an 2:129

Muslim scholars understand this to be a prophecy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, a direct descendant of Ishmael, thus reaffirming Ishmael’s centrality to the covenant.

The Sacrifice: Ishmael, Not Isaac

“So We gave him good news of a forbearing boy.”

(37:101)

When the boy was old enough to walk with his father, Abraham said,

“O my son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you…”

(37:102)

Circumcision: The Forgotten Proof of Ishmael’s Precedence

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant—circumcision—was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael, as recorded in the Bible:

❝That very day Abraham was circumcised… and his son Ishmael was thirteen years old.❞

(Genesis 17:24–25)

This took place before Isaac’s birth (Genesis 17:21, 21:2), indicating that Ishmael was the only son included in the covenant at that critical moment.

In Islam, actions carry covenantal weight. Ishmael’s circumcision is not a mere detail—it is a sacred sign of his full inclusion and precedence.

The Sinai Covenant: Conditional and Revoked

But this covenant was conditional. The Qur’an frequently reminds the Children of Israel of their repeated breaches:

“And [recall] when We took your covenant… but you turned away after that.”

— Qur’an 2:63

“Because of their breaking the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard.”

— Qur’an 5:13

Islam: The Final Fulfillment of the Covenant

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

— Qur’an 5:3

Conclusion: The Line of Ishmael Vindicated

In summary, the Islamic narrative realigns the story of divine covenants:

• The Abrahamic Covenant was first given to Abraham and Ishmael, rooted in faith, obedience, and universality.

• The Sinai Covenant, later made with the Israelites, was limited, legalistic, and ultimately broken.

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

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

2. Islamic Continuity: Inheriting the Abrahamic Legacy

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:

4. The Ark of the Covenant: Significance and Loss

5. Universality of the Abrahamic Covenant in 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

Conclusion

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

The Meaning of Isaac’s Name

Isaac as a Symbol of Fulfillment and Closure

Ishmael as the Son of Trial

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)

Pre-Islamic Arab Tradition

Conclusion

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.

Had Ishmael’s Role in the Torah been altered? Islamic Insights on Biblical Texts

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

The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.
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.

Contents

Home

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

Azahari Hassim

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

2. Islamic Continuity: Inheriting the Abrahamic Legacy

3. The Role of Sacred Relics

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

4. The Ark of the Covenant: Significance and Loss

5. Universality of the Abrahamic Covenant in 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

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.

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):

“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.

Abrahamic covenant and Islam

Islam is considered a restored religion of Abraham, based on the perspective that both Judaism and Christianity have deviated from his original teachings.

Adherents of Islam assert that Judaism has altered the command regarding the sacrifice of Abraham’s son, holding that the son in question was Ishmael rather than Isaac.

Furthermore, they contend that Christianity has diverged from the tenet of monotheism by introducing the concept of the Trinity and modifying the practice of circumcision.
Therefore, from the Islamic viewpoint, Islam embodies the authentic restoration of the teachings of Abraham as presented in the Quran.

Was the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac?

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

Ishmael and the Covenant

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.
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.
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

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.
Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran does not name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition identifies him as Ishmael. This is supported by the timeline in the Quran, which implies that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred following the sacrifice event, suggesting that Ishmael was the probable candidate.

In conclusion, the perspective that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the true heir to the Abrahamic covenant is rooted in the belief that Ishmael, as the firstborn, was the original recipient of God’s promises. This view is supported by interpretations of Islamic tradition and arguments regarding scriptural alterations. While this belief contrasts with the traditional Judeo-Christian view that Isaac was the chosen heir, it highlights the diverse understandings and interpretations of Abrahamic history within different religious traditions.

Did Moses and Abraham know that the temple would be built in Jerusalem?

The Bible does not explicitly state that Moses and Abraham knew about the future construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, both figures are significant in the Jewish tradition regarding the covenant with God and the eventual establishment of a central place of worship.

Abraham: He is often associated with the land of Canaan, which includes Jerusalem. The biblical narrative highlights that he established altars and worshiped God in various locations, symbolizing a connection to the land that would later become significant in Jewish history.
Moses: He led the Israelites out of Egypt and received the Law at Mount Sinai. His connection to the Tabernacle, a mobile sanctuary, is significant, as it laid the groundwork for central worship in the future. The establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem is often viewed as a fulfillment of the promise of a permanent dwelling place for God, but there is no direct indication that Moses was aware of the future Temple.

In Jewish tradition, the idea of a Temple in Jerusalem is connected to prophecies and promises made later in the biblical narrative, particularly during the time of King David and Solomon. Therefore, while Moses and Abraham played crucial roles in the religious history of the Israelites, there is no definitive evidence that Moses and Abraham had knowledge of the Temple’s future construction.

Did Moses and Abraham know that the temple would be built in Jerusalem?

Abraham: He is often associated with the land of Canaan, which includes Jerusalem. The biblical narrative highlights that he established altars and worshiped God in various locations, symbolizing a connection to the land that would later become significant in Jewish history.
Moses: He led the Israelites out of Egypt and received the Law at Mount Sinai. His connection to the Tabernacle, a mobile sanctuary, is significant, as it laid the groundwork for central worship in the future. The establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem is often viewed as a fulfillment of the promise of a permanent dwelling place for God, but there is no direct indication that Moses was aware of the future Temple.

The pilgrimage to Mecca, known as Hajj, is one of the Five Pillars of Islam and is a religious duty that every Muslim must undertake at least once in their lifetime, provided they have the means to do so. Hajj takes place annually during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah and involves a series of rituals performed over several days.

How is Abraham linked to the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca in Islam?

In Islam, Abraham is deeply connected to the Kaaba in Mecca, which is regarded as the House of God. According to Islamic tradition:

Construction of the Kaaba: It is believed that Abraham, along with his son Ishmael, was instructed by God to build the Kaaba as a place of worship. The Kaaba is considered the first house of worship dedicated to the monotheistic belief in one God.
Covenant and Submission: Abraham is viewed as a key figure in Islam for his unwavering submission to God’s will and his role as a prophet. His dedication to monotheism is foundational to Islamic beliefs.
Pilgrimage (Hajj): The Kaaba is the focal point of the Hajj pilgrimage, one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Muslims from around the world perform rituals around the Kaaba, commemorating the actions of Abraham and Ishmael.
Significance of the Black Stone: The Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad), set into the corner of the Kaaba, is said to have been given to Abraham by the angel Gabriel. It is revered by Muslims as a sacred object.

Overall, Abraham’s legacy as a prophet and the father of monotheism links him to the Kaaba (House of God), reinforcing the importance of the site in Islamic faith and practice.

Contents

Home

The holy land of the Bible in the Quran

Azahari Hassim

The holy land of the Bible in the Quran

The concept of a Holy Land holds deep spiritual and historical significance in the Abrahamic traditions. While the Bible frequently refers to a promised land granted to the descendants of Abraham, the Quran also affirms the sanctity of this region, particularly the area known in classical Islamic sources as Sham—a historical-geographical term encompassing modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine. This land, and especially Jerusalem and its surroundings, is repeatedly described in the Quran as blessed (مبارك) and holy (مقدسة).

This article explores how the Quran references this sacred territory, aligning it with the prophetic legacy shared with earlier scriptures. Through key verses and classical interpretations, it becomes evident that the Quran not only acknowledges the holiness of this land but also embeds it deeply in the Islamic worldview, connecting it to both historical prophets and future eschatological events, such as the return of Jesus. The following verses highlight the Quranic portrayal of the Holy Land, revealing its enduring importance in Islamic theology and its profound link to divine purpose throughout time.

1. Surah Al-Isra (17:1): “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa is located in Jerusalem, within the region of Sham. The phrase “whose surroundings We have blessed” ( الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ ) is widely interpreted by classical and contemporary scholars to refer to the land of Sham, encompassing Palestine and its neighboring areas. This verse highlights the spiritual and historical significance of Sham as a land of divine blessing.

2. Surah Al-Anbiya (21:71):

“And We delivered him [Abraham] and Lot to the land which We had blessed for the worlds.”

Scholars such as Ibn Kathir state that “the land which We had blessed” ( الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا) refers to the region of Greater Syria (Ash-Sham), including Palestine. This verse connects the land of Sham to the legacy of the prophets and emphasizes its status as a land of blessings.

3. Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:21):

“O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back and become losers.”

The “Holy Land” ( الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ ) mentioned here is interpreted by many commentators as referring to the region of Sham, particularly Palestine. This verse recounts the command given to the Children of Israel to enter the blessed land in the time of Moses.

4. Surah Al-Anbiya (21:105):

“And We have already written in the Book [of Psalms] after the [previous] mention that the land will be inherited by My righteous servants.”

This verse refers to Allah’s divine decree that the righteous servants will inherit the land ( أَنَّ ٱلْأَرْضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِيَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحُونَ ). Many classical commentators, including Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi, link this verse eschatologically to the end times, when Jesus will return, defeat the Dajjal (Antichrist), and lead a just era after the destruction of Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’juj).

In this context, “the land” is understood to be the Holy Land—again, referring to Sham, and especially Palestine—as the center of this final phase of divine justice and peace. The verse reflects not only the historical sanctity of the land but also its prophetic future in Islamic eschatology.

Together, these verses—supported by classical tafsir, hadith, and eschatological traditions—establish the Quranic foundation for the sacred and blessed status of Sham in Islamic theology. The land of Sham is not only a place of prophetic history but also of divinely-ordained future events, making it uniquely revered across time.

Abrahamic Covenant: Analyzing the Perspective of Fulfillment Through Ishmael

There is a belief among Islamic scholars that the Abrahamic covenant, fulfilled through Ishmael instead of Isaac, entails the promise of the land from the Nile River to the great river of Euphrates, along with the blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed.

Those who hold this view argue that God asked Abraham to offer Ishmael, not Isaac. They also contend that the ancient Israelite scribes altered their scriptures.
In contrast, the Israelites are bound by the Sinai covenant, which highlights communal responsibilities and accountability to God and to each other as part of the agreement between God and the Israelites. What is the articulation of their argument?

The argument that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac involves several key points articulated by those who support this view. Here is a summary and analysis of their arguments:

1. Promise of the Land:

Proponents of this view argue that the promise of the land extending from the Nile River to the Euphrates, as mentioned in Genesis 15, verse 18, was intended for the descendants of Ishmael. They believe that this geographic expanse aligns with the territories historically associated with Islam and Muhammad, who was a descendant of Ishmael.

2. Blessing to All Nations:

They interpret the promise of blessings to all nations through Abraham’s seed (Genesis 12, verse 3, and Genesis 22, verse 18) as being fulfilled through Muhammad (Surah 21, verse 107) which reads:

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as a mercy for the unto all beings.”

They argue that Islam, preached by Muhammad, has had a significant historical and cultural impact on a global scale, thus fulfilling the promise of being a blessing to all nations.

3. Sacrifice of Ishmael:

This argument hinges on the belief that God asked Abraham to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice, rather than Isaac. This is primarily based on Islamic tradition found in the Quran (Surah 37, verses 99 to 113), which states that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, and many Muslims believe this son was Ishmael. They argue that this narrative was the original one, which was later altered by Israelite scribes to place Isaac in the position of the sacrificial son.

4. Scriptural Alterations:

Supporters of this view contend that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to reflect Isaac as the chosen son who was to be sacrificed and through whom the covenant would be fulfilled. They believe that these alterations were made to establish and legitimize the Israelite claim to the covenantal promises.

Sinai Covenant Context

The Sinai covenant, distinct from the Abrahamic covenant, focuses on the relationship between God and the Israelites, emphasizing communal responsibilities and accountability. This covenant, given at Mount Sinai, includes the Ten Commandments and a detailed code of laws that govern the moral, religious, and social conduct of the Israelite community. The Sinai covenant underscores the idea that the Israelites are to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests, dedicated to serving God and adhering to His commandments.

Articulation of Their Argument

Those who argue for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael articulate their position by highlighting these key points:

Historical and Geographic Claims: They argue that the promise of the land and blessings align more closely with the historical and geographic realities of Ishmael’s descendants rather than those of Isaac.
Islamic Tradition: They cite Islamic scripture and tradition, which they believe preserves the original account of the sacrifice involving Ishmael, rather than Isaac. This account is viewed as being more authentic and less altered than the Hebrew Bible’s version.
Critical View of Scripture: They take a critical view of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that it underwent alterations by Israelite scribes to support their theological and political claims. They argue that these changes were made to establish a narrative that centers on Isaac and his descendants as the primary inheritors of God’s covenant with Abraham.
Fulfillment Through Ishmael’s Lineage: They believe that the widespread influence and significance of Ishmael’s descendants fulfill the covenantal promises more broadly and inclusively, aligning with the idea of being a blessing to all nations.

In summary, the viewpoint that the Abrahamic covenant is realized through Ishmael instead of Isaac is based on scriptural interpretations, historical context, and theological perspectives. This stands in contrast to the conventional interpretation of the covenant, which is linked to Isaac’s descendants, and underscores notable distinctions between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants.

Holy Land of Palestine and Islamic Caliphate

Holy Quran Surah 21, verse71 reads:

.‎وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ وَلُوطًا إِلَى الْأَرْضِ الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا لِلْعَالَمِينَ

And We rescued Abraham and Lot to the land which We have blessed for the whole world.

From the Quranic perspective, some believe any attempt to secularise the Holy Land of Palestine rather than establish it through an Islamic caliphate would incur divine disasters. After all, Surah 21, verse 71, of the Quran references the Holy Land of Palestine as a blessing to the whole world, especially the Muslim world. How is this argument articulated?

The argument as mentioned is based on the interpretation of Surah 21, verse 71 of the Holy Quran. According to this interpretation, the verse refers to the rescue of Abraham and Lot and their settlement in a blessed land. Some believe that this blessed land mentioned in the verse is the Holy Land of Palestine.

From this perspective, it is argued that the Holy Land of Palestine is not just a geographical region, but a sacred land with spiritual significance. It is believed to have been blessed by Allah, and therefore, it is seen as a land that should be governed by Islamic principles and established as an Islamic caliphate.

Those who hold this viewpoint argue that any attempt to secularize or separate the Holy Land from its Islamic identity would go against divine will and result in negative consequences. They believe that only through the establishment of an Islamic caliphate can the true potential and blessings of the Holy Land be realized for the benefit of the Muslim world and humanity as a whole.

It’s important to note that interpretations of religious texts can vary among individuals and scholars. Different perspectives exist on the issue of the Holy Land and its governance, and it is a topic of ongoing debate and discussion within the Muslim community.

The Holy Land of Palestine and Muhammad the Prophet of Islam

The Prophet said:

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ تَوَكَّلَ لِي بِالشَّامِ وَأَهْلِهِ.

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Home

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

Azahari Hassim

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

The Meaning of Isaac’s Name

Isaac as a Symbol of Fulfillment and Closure

Ishmael as the Son of Trial

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)

Pre-Islamic Arab Tradition

Conclusion

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 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.

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.

Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant

Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members

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.

Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views

Summary of the Articulation

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

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

2. Islamic Continuity: Inheriting the Abrahamic Legacy

3. The Role of Sacred Relics

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

4. The Ark of the Covenant: Significance and Loss

5. Universality of the Abrahamic Covenant in 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

Conclusion

Two covenants: Abrahamic and Sinai covenants from an Islamic perspective

Genesis 49, verse 10, reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVENANT

The word used to describe the agreements made between God and the Jewish people. Tradition says that God made several covenants. The Torah tells of the covenant God makes with Abraham, promising him that he will be the patriarch of a great nation. In return, Abraham agrees that every male will be circumcised as a sign of this covenant.

This ancient rite is still practiced today; Jewish males are circumcised in a ceremony known as brit milah, or “the covenant of circumcision.” God also makes a covenant with Moses as he prepares to receive the Ten Commandments. God tells Moses: “If you obey me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be treasured among all the peoples.”

Many scholars regard acceptance of the teachings of the Ten Commandments as an example of the Israelites’ covenantal relationship with God. God also made a covenant with Noah, a non-Jew, after the Great Flood, giving him the Noahide Laws and promising never again to destroy the world. God created the rainbow as a sign of this covenant.

Contents

Home

The Jealousy of Rabbis: A Verse from the Quran and a Prophecy from the Bible

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Ishmael and the House of God

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”:

3. Theological Framework:

4. Textual Connections:

Genesis 22:18: Muhammad, the Hajj, and Differing Interpretations Across Abrahamic Faiths

Did Muhammad, through the Hajj ritual, fulfill the prophecy mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18?

The verse you are referring to, Genesis 22, verse 18, reads: “And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” This promise is made to Abraham after he demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice his son (Isaac, according to the Bible; Ishmael, according to Islamic tradition).

Many Jewish and Christian theologians interpret the “offspring” (or “seed”) mentioned in this verse as a reference to the line of descendants that would lead to the Jewish people, and by extension, to Jesus Christ in Christian theology. Through this lineage, blessings would be conferred to all nations.

In Islamic theology, however, the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, is often interpreted as referring to Ishmael, the son who was nearly sacrificed according to Islamic tradition. Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad, as a direct descendant of Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy, as it is through him that all nations are blessed with the message of Islam.

The lineage of Prophet Muhammad through Ishmael is considered important in Islamic belief because the near-sacrifice event, believed to involve Ishmael instead of Isaac, is central to the Abrahamic covenant. Muslims believe that the final and complete message of God to humanity, Islam, came through this prophetic lineage.

The Hajj ritual, which commemorates events in the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, can be seen by Muslims as a testament to the fulfillment of this prophecy. Every year, followers of Islam globally gather in Mecca to take part in the Hajj pilgrimage, commemorating the tradition of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son Ishmael.

It symbolizes the universality of the blessings promised to Abraham’s descendants. For many Muslims, this pilgrimage is a manifestation of the blessings through Ishmael’s lineage, culminating in Muhammad and the global reach of Islam.

However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, especially among Jewish and Christian theologians, who typically see the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, as referring to Isaac’s line, ultimately leading to the people of Israel and, in Christian theology, to Jesus Christ. Interpretations of scripture are deeply influenced by religious, theological, and cultural perspectives.

In summary, while some Muslims assert that Muhammad, as a descendant of Ishmael, fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 22, verse 18, through the message of Islam and rituals like the Hajj, this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology. It reflects the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the son nearly sacrificed and that Muhammad, as Ishmael’s descendant, brings blessings to all nations. This view is not shared by all Abrahamic faiths.

Contents

Home

Why Does the Quran Frequently Mention Abraham Alongside His Son Isaac and Grandson Jacob?

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

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”:

3. Theological Framework:

4. Textual Connections:

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.

Islamic Views on the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants in Relation to Heritage and Relics

There is no specific Abrahamic relic that has been preserved through Jewish generations, similar to the Kaaba, the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) and the Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim) in Islam. The sole significant artifact associated with Jewish heritage is the Ark of the Covenant.

However, it is important to note that the Ark can be traced back to Moses rather than Abraham and was lost during the destruction of the First Temple. Consequently, Islamic scholars maintain that the Israelites were bound by the Sinai Covenant, while Muslims are considered to be under the Abrahamic Covenant. How does their argument go?

The argument presented by Islamic scholars regarding the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant is based on several theological and historical points. To understand their perspective, let’s break down the key elements:

Abrahamic Covenant vs. Sinai Covenant: The Abrahamic Covenant is believed to be the original covenant between God and Abraham, which includes promises of land, descendants, and blessings.
The Sinai Covenant, also known as the Mosaic Covenant, was established between God and the Israelites through Moses at Mount Sinai.
Islamic view on continuity: Islamic scholars argue that Muslims are the true inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant, which they consider to be universal and eternal.
They contend that the Sinai Covenant was specific to the Israelites and was temporary or conditional.
Lack of physical relics: The absence of a specific Abrahamic relic in Jewish tradition, comparable to the Kaaba, the Black Stone, or the Station of Abraham in Islam, is seen by some Islamic scholars as significant.
They argue that this absence might indicate a break in the direct line of Abrahamic heritage.
The Ark of the Covenant: While the Ark of the Covenant is a significant artifact in Jewish history, it is associated with Moses rather than Abraham.
Its loss during the destruction of the First Temple is sometimes interpreted by Islamic scholars as a symbolic end to the Sinai Covenant.
Islamic claim to Abrahamic heritage: Islamic scholars often emphasize the direct lineage of Muhammad to Abraham through Ishmael.
They argue that Islam represents a restoration of the original Abrahamic monotheism, unencumbered by later additions or alterations.
Universality vs. particularity: The Islamic view often presents the Abrahamic Covenant as universal, meant for all of humanity.
In contrast, they view the Sinai Covenant as particular to the Israelites and not binding on all people.
Supersessionism: Some Islamic interpretations incorporate a form of supersessionism, suggesting that Islam supersedes earlier revelations and covenants.

It’s important to note that this argument represents a specific Islamic perspective and is not universally accepted outside of Islamic scholarship. Jewish and Christian traditions have their own interpretations of these covenants and their ongoing relevance. The topic of covenants and their applicability is a complex theological issue with various interpretations across different faith traditions.

The Covenant of Abraham: A Comparison Between the Bible and the Quran

According to biblical scripture, it is recorded that God established a covenant with Abraham through his son Isaac, rather than his firstborn Ishmael. Conversely, the Quran presents a different perspective by indicating that the covenant was made with Ishmael instead of Isaac. How does the Quran describe this?

Surah 2, verses 124 to 125 of the Quran read:

“And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”
“And We made the House a focal point for the people, and a sanctuary. Use the shrine of Abraham as a place of prayer. And We commissioned Abraham and Ishmael, “Sanctify My House for those who circle around it, and those who seclude themselves in it, and those who kneel and prostrate.”

The phrase “And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words,” presented in verse 124, is understood by Quranic commentators to refer to the tests and commands that God imparted to Abraham. These included leaving his family in a barren land, sacrificing his son Ishmael, rebuilding the Kaaba (House of God), and instituting the rite of circumcision.

The Quran clearly states in Surah 2, verse 124 that God made a covenant with Abraham through his son Ishmael, not Isaac. The covenant was established prior to the birth of Isaac, who is regarded as a divine gift to Abraham and Sarah, a result of Abraham’s readiness to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice.

In this context, Ishmael is understood as a son dedicated to God, whereas Isaac is considered a son of blessing for Abraham and Sarah. This contradicts the Biblical account which portrays Isaac as the son who was to inherit the covenant from Abraham.

According to the Quran and Islamic tradition, the Biblical account was distorted to diminish Ishmael’s status as Abraham’s heir in favor of Isaac. This alteration is thought to stem from the bias of Jewish scribes toward the Israelite lineage.

The Quran asserts that it rectifies this distortion by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the original divine covenant. Additionally, the divine selection of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets before the advent of Islam is seen as a preparation for the arrival of Muhammad, the final Prophet.

Contents

Home

The Fulfillment of Prophecy: The Jewish Rabbi’s Admiration for Islam’s Sacrificial Legacy

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:

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.

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.

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.

Isaiah 60:7 and the Christian Belief in Jesus’ Sacrificial Atonement

Some scholars argue that Isaiah 60, verse 7, which predicts the restoration of animal sacrifices, contradicts the Christian belief in the sacrificial death of Jesus as the ultimate atonement for humanity’s sins. According to this Christian perspective, Jesus’ sacrifice negates the necessity for the Old Testament sacrifices. What is the basis of the arguments presented by these scholars?

Isaiah 60, verse 7, states:

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you; the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you; they shall come up with acceptance on my altar, and I will beautify my glorious house.”

This verse has prompted debates among scholars, particularly regarding its implications for the Christian belief in Jesus’ sacrificial death as the ultimate atonement for humanity’s sins. Here’s the basis of their argument:

1. Literal Interpretation of the Prophecy

Some scholars argue that Isaiah 60, verse 7, predicts a literal restoration of Old Testament animal sacrifices. This interpretation suggests a future scenario where temple rituals, including offerings, are reintroduced. For Christians who believe Jesus’ death was the ultimate and final atonement for sin (Hebrews 10, verses 10 to 18), this interpretation seems contradictory, as it implies that these sacrifices in Isaiah retain some salvific value.

2. Theological Implications

If Isaiah 60, verse 7, indeed prophesies the reinstatement of animal sacrifices, it raises questions about the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice. Central to Christian theology is the belief that Jesus’ crucifixion fulfilled and replaced the sacrificial system outlined in the Old Testament (Matthew 5, verse 17; John 19, verse 30). Any reintroduction of sacrifices could imply that Jesus’ atonement was incomplete, directly challenging key doctrines of salvation and the New Covenant.

3. Symbolic vs. Literal:

Many Christian scholars interpret Isaiah 60, verse 7 symbolically rather than literally. They argue that the reference to sacrifices and altars is metaphorical, symbolizing worship, devotion, and the gathering of nations to God. In this view, the verse does not predict a literal return to Old Testament sacrificial practices but reflects the restoration and glorification of God’s people in a spiritual sense.

4. Eschatological Considerations

For Christians, eschatological theology plays a critical role in understanding Isaiah 60, verse 7. Some argue that if this prophecy is taken literally, it contradicts the belief that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were the ultimate and final means of atonement. This creates tension between a literal interpretation of the verse and the Christian doctrine of salvation.

5. Comparative Religious Perspective: Eid al-Adha

Interestingly, some Islamic scholars view the prophecy of Isaiah 60, verse 7, as aligning more closely with Islamic traditions, particularly the celebration of Eid al-Adha (the Feast of Sacrifice). This festival commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael in obedience to God and involves the offering of animals as part of worship. From this perspective, the prophecy of Isaiah 60, verse 7, reflects a continuation of sacrificial practices consistent with Islamic beliefs, contrasting with the Christian claim that Jesus’ death replaced all sacrifices.

Conclusion

The interpretation of Isaiah 60, verse 7, presents a theological challenge, particularly for Christian doctrines concerning the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrificial death. A literal understanding of the verse raises questions about the necessity and effectiveness of Jesus’ crucifixion as the final and complete sacrifice for sin.

However, alternative interpretations—such as symbolic readings or eschatological frameworks—allow many Christians to reconcile this passage with their beliefs. Meanwhile, comparative religious perspectives, such as those from Islam, offer alternative understandings that highlight the complexity and depth of this biblical prophecy.

Contents

Home

Reexamining the Abrahamic Covenant: Ishmael’s Primacy in Islamic Tradition

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

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

Ishmael and the Covenant.

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.
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.
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.

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.
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

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

4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members

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.

6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views

Summary of the Articulation

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

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

Some people think that Ishmael, when sent away by Abraham in the Torah, was just a young child, not a teenager, based on the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20. They point out that the Hebrew word “yelid” is used for both Ishmael and baby Moses (Exodus 2, verse 6). How do they explain this argument?

The argument is articulated by pointing out the use of the Hebrew word “yelid” in both Genesis 21, verses 14 to 15, and Exodus 2, verse 6. In these verses, “yelid” is used to describe both Ishmael and infant Moses. Supporters of the argument claim that since “yelid” is used to describe Moses when he was an infant, it should also be understood to mean that Ishmael was still a young child in Genesis 21, verse 20.

Additionally, the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20, is interpreted by some to imply that Ishmael was still in the process of growing and developing, suggesting a younger age. They argue that if Ishmael were already a teenager or older, it would not be necessary to mention his growth.

It should be noted, however, that interpretations of biblical texts can vary, and different scholars or readers may have different understandings of the intended meaning.

Why are the statements about Abraham wanting to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22, verse 2, and verse 16 problematic? In one case, the son is referred to as “the only,” while in the other, the name of the son is not mentioned.

The story of Abraham being tested to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22 has raised some interpretative questions and concerns among readers. Specifically, the statements as mentioned in verses 2 and 16 are problematic for a couple of reasons.

First, in Genesis 22, verse 2, when God calls Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac is described as “your only son.” However, this raises a discrepancy because at that point, Abraham already had an older son named Ishmael, born to Hagar. Ishmael was not mentioned in this context, leading to confusion regarding why Isaac was referred to as the “only” son. This linguistic inconsistency has led some scholars to suggest that the story might have been composed independently from other narratives that mention Ishmael.

Secondly, in Genesis 22, verse 16, after Abraham successfully passes the test and God intervenes by providing a ram as a substitute sacrifice, God blesses Abraham and says, “because you have not withheld your son, your only son.” This repetition of “your only son” raises another concern since Isaac’s name is not mentioned. It seems that the narrative originally presents the unnamed and only son of Abraham, alluding to Ishmael who lived as Abraham’s only son for almost 14 years before Isaac was born.

These discrepancies may be due to several factors, such as different sources or traditions being woven together, intentional theological messaging, or even potential editorial modifications over time. Scholars have examined these issues and proposed various explanations to reconcile the inconsistencies, but it remains a topic of debate and interpretation.

Ultimately, the problematic nature of these statements arises from the textual and narrative intricacies within the story, which have led to questions about authorship, redaction, and theological implications.

Contents

Home