Abraham and Ishmael

[meedo]

I agree Ishmael was not illegitimate. But Torah does not say Hagar was Abraham’s wife. And I disagree that Issac was an insert. But since we are following different texts, that is no surprise. And as I said earlier, Torah makes it very clear that being born first does not entitled one to inherit the covenant. Almost every story involving two brothers has the younger brother taking what would have traditionally gone to the older.

Hello Valke2,

I read this word in Genesis,

Genesis 16
The Birth of Ishmael
1But Sarai, Abram’s wife, had no children. So Sarai took her servant, an Egyptian woman named Hagar, 2and gave her to Abram so she could bear his children. “The LORD has kept me from having any children,” Sarai said to Abram. “Go and sleep with my servant. Perhaps I can have children through her.” And Abram agreed. 3So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian servant and gave her to Abram as a wife.

Also does that mean that not all the wives of Jacob were wives, since they were servants for hsi first wife?

Here is what i found in google. It referes to such action exactly like sarah and hagar as Marriage

''Jacob loved Rachel more than anything in the world, and Leah felt hated. God opened Leah’s womb and she gave birth to four sons in succession: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. **Rachel, however, was barren, and gave Jacob her handmaid Bilhah in marriage **so she could raise children through her. Bilhah gave birth to Dan and Naphtali. Seeing that she had left off childbearing temporarily, Leah then **gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob in marriage **so she could raise more children through her. Zilpah gave birth to Gad and Asher. (According to some opinions, Bilhah and Zilpah were younger daughters of Laban). Afterwards, Leah became fertile again and gave birth to Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah. At this point, God remembered Rachel, who gave birth to Joseph. Various interpretations of biblical passages suggest that Jacob’s favoritism of Rachel over Leah passed over to their children; some commentators feel that this plays an important role in the later attempt on Joseph’s life by his half-brothers.

‘’

thanks

 

[inJESUS]

Abraham had agreed to impregnate Hagar at the request ife Sarah, even though God had told Abraham and Sarah that they would one day have their own son. Ishmael is the result of mistrusting God’'s timing and way.God’s words to Abraham in Genesis are some 2,500 years older than the creation of Quran and the NT affirms it. So when was the OT corrupt? if before Muhammad, then Allah would have said so but we find the contrary in Quran : Muhammad himself attested to the OT in his hands.:

He sent to you the book in truth **confirming what is between his hands **

‘If you [Muhammad] are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto you, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before you’

We [God] did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and light…’
So if Torah was corrupted before Muhammad, why does Allah tell Muhammad to refer to a corrupt Scripture for guidance, and why does he say of the Torah ‘wherein is guidance and light’ rather than ‘wherein there used to be before they were corrupted’?

Furthermore, the Quran itself is not clear. If Allah knew the Jews corrupted it, then why didn’t he at least mention and correct it to refute the Jews and Christians knowing that it is important ?

:tsktsk: :tsktsk:

 

[exoflare]

Genesis 16
The Birth of Ishmael
1But Sarai, Abram’s wife, had no children. So Sarai took her servant, an Egyptian woman named Hagar, 2and gave her to Abram so she could bear his children. “The LORD has kept me from having any children,” Sarai said to Abram. “Go and sleep with my servant. Perhaps I can have children through her.” And Abram agreed. 3So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian servant and gave her to Abram as a wife.

Mine says “concubine” but I guess it was corrupted, right?

 

[meedo]

Mine says “concubine” but I guess it was corrupted, right?

Well , since i got the above verse from a christian website then definetly one of them is wrong!!

 

[Valke2]

Hello Valke2,

I read this word in Genesis,

Genesis 16
The Birth of Ishmael
1But Sarai, Abram’s wife, had no children. So Sarai took her servant, an Egyptian woman named Hagar, 2and gave her to Abram so she could bear his children. “The LORD has kept me from having any children,” Sarai said to Abram. “Go and sleep with my servant. Perhaps I can have children through her.” And Abram agreed. 3So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian servant and gave her to Abram as a wife.

Also does that mean that not all the wives of Jacob were wives, since they were servants for hsi first wife?

Here is what i found in google. It referes to such action exactly like sarah and hagar as Marriage

''Jacob loved Rachel more than anything in the world, and Leah felt hated. God opened Leah’s womb and she gave birth to four sons in succession: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. **Rachel, however, was barren, and gave Jacob her handmaid Bilhah in marriage **so she could raise children through her. Bilhah gave birth to Dan and Naphtali. Seeing that she had left off childbearing temporarily, Leah then **gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob in marriage **so she could raise more children through her. Zilpah gave birth to Gad and Asher. (According to some opinions, Bilhah and Zilpah were younger daughters of Laban). Afterwards, Leah became fertile again and gave birth to Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah. At this point, God remembered Rachel, who gave birth to Joseph. Various interpretations of biblical passages suggest that Jacob’s favoritism of Rachel over Leah passed over to their children; some commentators feel that this plays an important role in the later attempt on Joseph’s life by his half-brothers.

‘’

thanks

I’m not sure which translation you are reading. In Torah, the word used most closely translates as “concubine”. The translation I happen to be reading at the moment is the JPS translation. It would make no sense to give a handmaiden the status of wife, because the whole point was that the handmaiden’s child would legally be Sarah’s (I think). If she was given the status of wife, this would not be the case.

As for Jacob, Leah and Rachel were his wives. The other two were concubines. I have read many commentaries that suggest Jacob loved Joseph more because he was the son of Rachel, yes.

Again, every translation I’ve read has Rachel giving Jacob her servant as a concubine, not wife. But either way, none of the children would be considered “illegitimate”.

 

[inJESUS]

the better translation is concubine…it’s clear from the context.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ishmael would not have been a mamzer.
A Mamzer is still a jew, but there are certain prohibitions that apply. He can only marry another mamzer, of a convert to Judaism (which is weird because converts are considered the same as other jews. Don’t know why this prohibtion is there).

Is it possible that this law is in effect to preserve any potential messianic line within Judaism?

 

[Valke2]

Is it possible that this law is in effect to preserve any potential messianic line within Judaism?

I don’t think so. If you trace the lineage of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective, he will be a descendant of Ruth (a convert) and the union of Lot and his daughters. Also, keep in mind that a Mamzer is still a Jew.

 

[Valke2]

Is it possible that this law is in effect to preserve any potential messianic line within Judaism?

I think it is more likely that the law is in effect to preserve Judaism in general and to help enforce or emphasis the importance of proper marriages.

 

[meedo]

I don’t think so. If you trace the lineage of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective, he will be a descendant of Ruth (a convert) and the union of Lot and his daughters. Also, keep in mind that a Mamzer is still a Jew.

Is this really verified or this is a guessing ? I understad that the messiah will come from Abraham and not Lot.

Would you by any chance have a Lineage tree ? Does Jesus Fulfil those stipulations above in your Quote?

Thank you for your help and (name removed by moderator)ut,

meedo

 

[Valke2]

Is this really verified or this is a guessing ? I understad that the messiah will come from Abraham and not Lot.

Would you by any chance have a Lineage tree ? Does Jesus Fulfil those stipulations above in your Quote?

Thank you for your help and (name removed by moderator)ut,

meedo

I don’t think Jesus fullfills the lineage requirements as Jews see it. We believe that the Messiah will be descended from the House of David. David’s father was Jesse (יYíšay / Yēšay), the son of Obed, son of Boaz of the tribe of Judah and Ruth the Moabite. David’s lineage is fully documented in Ruth 4:18-22 . If I recall correctly, Ruth is believed to be descended from Lot. Christians argue that Jesus is the Messiah because, among other reasons, Joseph was from the Davidnic line. But Jews say it is a biological requriement and if you are going to Argue that Joseph was not the biological father, than you can’t say Jesus met this requirement.

 

[Valke2]

I don’t think Jesus fullfills the lineage requirements as Jews see it. We believe that the Messiah will be descended from the House of David. David’s father was Jesse (יYíšay / Yēšay), the son of Obed, son of Boaz of the tribe of Judah and Ruth the Moabite. David’s lineage is fully documented in Ruth 4:18-22 . If I recall correctly, Ruth is believed to be descended from Lot. Christians argue that Jesus is the Messiah because, among other reasons, Joseph was from the Davidnic line. But Jews say it is a biological requriement and if you are going to Argue that Joseph was not the biological father, than you can’t say Jesus met this requirement.

Now I’m replying to myself . Keep in mind this is only one half the family tree. He must also be of the tribe of Judah. Judah was a son of Jacob, who was a son of Issac, who was the son of Abraham…

 

[Angelos]

As a convert to Eastern Christianity from Islam, I have a few things to say on this issue. First of all, the Quran nowhere refers to Ishmael’s birth less it should claim it was Ishmael rather than Isaac, who was offered by Abraham. We need Muslim scholars to speculate about the reasons for the accidental or intentional omission of the account of Hagar’s marriage with Abraham in Islamic scripture. Therefore, it is rather bothering for many Muslims not to find any verses in the Quran that endorse the historicity of a slave named Hagar and her marriage – or sexual union- with Abraham. As a result of Hagar’s absence from the Islamic sacred text, someone might mistakenly conclude that Ishmael was Sarah’s other son. In order to avoid such a huge mistake, the only thing Muslims are supposed to do is read the whole story in the Old Testament.

Secondly, a meticulous analysis of the accounts about Abraham in the two Meccan chapters (19 and 37) - early period of Islamic faith and scripture - supports the theory that it was Isaac, not Ishmael, whom Abraham wanted to offer to God. In the chapter named after Mary, Abraham’s story is related in two opposing periods, the first of persecution in the community of idolater ancestors, the second of a happy life with a prophetic progeny after Abraham’s decision to leave his father’s tribe. Only after Abraham determines to leave his idolatrous community and follow God’s path does God grant him children. However, the names of the children granted to Abraham are given in this chapter as “Isaac and Jacob”, with no mention of Ishmael. (19:41-50). Still, the name Ishmael is present in this chapter in the verses following a short reference to Moses and Aaron’s prophetic mission (51-53). However, the sentences stressing Ishmael’s righteousness and prophetic mission in the 54 and 55th verses by no means highlight his affiliation with Abraham. Actually, the place of Ishmael’s introduction in this chapter is misleading in that it fails to follow a chronological order and can cause one to assume that Ishmael lived after Moses and Aaron! Finally, the occurrence of the notions of Islamic prayer and almsgiving in regard to Ishmael apparently functions as the repetition of Jesus’ first speech in his cradle in the previous verses (33). If we compare this chapter with chapter 37, which is the only chapter narrating Abraham’s obedience to God’s commandment to sacrifice his son, it becomes easy to guess Quran writers primarily conformed to the Old Testament narrative about the identity of Abraham’s child being offered. Strikingly, this chapter – following the same chronological pattern of the 19th chapter – recounts Abraham’s life among his kinsmen (his father’s nation) that attempt to burn him (37: 83-98). After his miraculous salvation from the fire, Abraham decides to leave his father’s pagan nation and follow God’s path. Right at this point does God grant Abraham a child (99-101). The child Abraham attempts to sacrifice to God is the same child that is granted to him right after his settlement in a new place away from his father’s tribe. If Muslims manage to find out the parallelism between 19th and 37th chapters about the birth time of Abraham’s son, they can readily confirm the Old Testament. (Further, the narratives about Moses and Aaron in this chapter ensue that of Isaac’s as in chapter 19).

 

[Angelos]

Thirdly, the first reference to the association between Abraham and Islam in terms of the traditional rites of pilgrimage and the founder of the religion is made in the 22nd chapter of the Quran, the date of which has been disputed among the Islamic scholars. Most commentators claim that most of the verses of this chapter belong to the Mecca period whereas few of them to the Medina period. No matter what the commentators think, this chapter never brings the names of Abraham and Ishmael together, nor does it bind the construction of the Islamic temple in Mecca to Abraham. It only says Abraham is the father of the Muslim community (22:78).

Finally, the only place where we see Abraham with Ishmael in Mecca building up the Islamic temple is in the chapter entitled “Bakara” (the second chapter in the Quran), which dates back to the Medina period. The 127th verse of this chapter clearly states that Abraham and Ishmael collaborated to construct the “Beytullah” (the house of God). However, the writers of the Quran – as usual – do not condescend to tell the reader when and why Abraham went to Mecca with Ishmael, and not with Isaac. The only plausible answer is that Mohammed refers to the account present in the Old Testament to support his theory for the divine origins of Mecca and the rite of pilgrimage, striving to base one of the five pillars of his religion on the Old Testament account where God promises to make Ishmael into a great nation (Genesis 21:8-20). Actually, God’s promise to Abraham emphatically identifies Ishmael as the maidservant’s son (v. 13). In the following verse of Genesis, Abraham sends both Hagar and Ishmael away and entrusts them to the divine protection. Rather strikingly, this is where the narrative about Ishmael’s life out of Canaan serves as the verifier of the Islamic assertions related to Mecca in the hands of those writing the Quran. The first major modification the Islamic scribes make in the story of Genesis concerns Abraham’s departure with his son Ishmael, which also implies that he abandoned his other son Isaac to the protection of his mother Sarah. At this point, the omission of the name Hagar in the Quran ceases to be a flaw and begins to perfectly support the claim that Abraham left with Ishmael and preferred accompanying him rather than staying with his wife and her son Isaac, the child of the promise, basically because there was no one else to go with Ishmael.

 

[Angelos]

Unsurprisingly, Mohammed’s followers take their fiction further by searching for theological doctrines in order to replace the promise given to Abraham about Isaac with that about Ishmael. Thus, the narrative of Abraham’s offering his son Isaac to God in the Old Testament is countered by the narrative of Abraham’s building up the “Beytullah” with his other son Ishmael in the Quran. Accordingly, the story attributing the origin of Caaba to Abraham and Ishmael bears both similarities and fundamental contrasts to the story of Abraham’s offering his son in the 37th chapter of the Quran. To compare 37: 103-105 with 2: 127-128, in both Islamic versions, the father (Abraham) and son (Isaac in the former, Ishmael in the latter) emphasize the idea of submitting to God’s will – which is in accordance with what Islam means, hence the smooth transfer of the biblical figures into the Islamic monopoly – and offering something to initiate a lasting relationship with God through a significant tradition. The major contrast between these two stories in the Quran is that only the second act of offering and submission is associated with a divine promise that prophecies the advent of Mohammed bin Abdullah whilst the first one lacks such a promise or blessing. Apparently, the Islamic scribes do not only expunge and abolish the divine promise given to Abraham about Isaac’s descendants but also create a new story to link the biblical promise to the Islamic community through Ishmael’s alleged presence in the desert. Besides, the second chapter of the Quran wields several anti – Judaic & Christian statements that mirror Mohammed’s will to separate his faith from that of the Jews and Christians. In fact, it is not a coincidence that the innovation of turning one’s face to Mecca for worship rather than to Jerusalem is enforced in this chapter of the Quran (v. 144-150) only a few verses after the narrative affirming Abraham and Ishmael’s missions in Mecca. Likewise, the Islamic assertions related to the foreknowledge of Mohammed’s prophetic mission is deliberately strewn into the verses that rebuke Jews and Christians, who criticize Mohammed and his community for abruptly changing the direction of adoration (146). Again, this chapter presents Abraham and all his descendants as pure Muslims (140), but makes a quick leap from Abraham to Jacob (v. 132) after it portrays Abraham and Ishmael as Muslims surrendering to God’s will and asking God to grant the same submissive attitude to their descendants (v.128). Strangely, Isaac’s name appears only in the list of ancestors whom Jacob’s sons promise to follow as faith models (v. 133). This list is repeated in the same order in v. 136 as well as in verse 140, which is a response to those denying Abraham and his progeny’s Islamic identity. It is possible to find this famous list in another chapter of the late Medina period (3: 84). Yet it is awkward to see Jacob’s sons referring to Ishmael as their ancestors (2: 133) since Abraham had two sons with two distinct progenies, and Isaac’s place before Jacob and after Ishmael misleads one to consider Isaac Ishmael’s son rather than his brother.

Above all, the list in 2: 133 displays inconsistency with the 19th chapter, where Isaac appears as Abraham’s first son and where Ishmael seems detached from Abraham’s progeny. This inconsistency supports the theory that many verses in the Quran were shaped by Mohammed’s followers’ political agenda that distorted both the Old Testament and the Quran. In short, the Quran never relates the story of Ishmael’s birth, nor does it reiterate the biblical reference to Hagar, Ishmael’s mother most probably for the fear that Jews and Christian draw analogies between Ishmael’s mother and the Muslim community in terms of slavery. In order to eradicate every negative connotation stemming from the biblical version of the story, the Quran replaces Ishmael’s submission to Isaac in Genesis with Ishmael’s submission to God with his father Abraham. All these distortions perfectly reflect the biased and deliberate ideologies inserted into the Quran by those hating the Bible and its believers.

 

[Valke2]

As a convert to Eastern Christianity from Islam, I have a few things to say on this issue. …QUOTE]

I enjoyed your post. very informative. Thankyou.

 

[meedo]

Hello Angelos,

No offence. But your post is full of speculations and your own opinions about what the Quran should and shouldnt have been. There are some signs in your post that points that you werent a muslim in the first place. Its very known missionary tactic. Any Christian missionary would be able to write the same stuff that you just wrote. The Quran isnt a secret document you know.

You bring no news when you say that the Quran didnt specify who was the Sacrifice. But as the evidence in this thread shows , Ishmael IS the first born. He IS Abrahams son . He IS the older son. And he was the only son who could have been referred to as ‘’ Your ONLY son ‘’

God doesnt permit sexual unions unless they are lawful. And Abraham isnt a sinner . Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham in marriage just as the wife of Jacob Gave her servants to Jacob in marriage. The people of Israel are all the sons of Jacob. None of them wasnt considered a son just because he was a son of a lady that was originally servant.

Valke: Not every man who comes to yuou and call himself a former Muslim is really one. Its an old trick we muslims know so well .

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut any how,

Meedo

 

[inJESUS]

interesting info Angelos.

 

[Valke2]

Hello Angelos,

No offence. But your post is full of speculations and your own opinions about what the Quran should and shouldnt have been. There are some signs in your post that points that you werent a muslim in the first place. Its very known missionary tactic. Any Christian missionary would be able to write the same stuff that you just wrote. The Quran isnt a secret document you know.

You bring no news when you say that the Quran didnt specify who was the Sacrifice. But as the evidence in this thread shows , Ishmael IS the first born. He IS Abrahams son . He IS the older son. And he was the only son who could have been referred to as ‘’ Your ONLY son ‘’

God doesnt permit sexual unions unless they are lawful. And Abraham isnt a sinner . Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham in marriage just as the wife of Jacob Gave her servants to Jacob in marriage. The people of Israel are all the sons of Jacob. None of them wasnt considered a son just because he was a son of a lady that was originally servant.

Valke: Not every man who comes to yuou and call himself a former Muslim is really one. Its an old trick we muslims know so well .

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut any how,

Meedo

Well, I don’t see you posting anything that really disputes what he had said. I understand you believe it was Ishmael, but that is not a belief that is set forth in the Koran. It does require interpertation. And you did not address the other issues he raised. Not to mention the fact that the blessing that Issac receives is clearly from Abraham, not Abraham to Ishmael. ANd it is also clearly passed on from Issac to Jacob. So even if you could somehow interpert the language to showing that Ishmael was the son who was bound for sacrifice, it doesn’t change who the blessing was given to.

 

[inJESUS]

Every year many thousands of animals are sacrificed for Id-al-Adha. At this special time, Abraham is remembered for his humble submission in being willing to sacrifice his son at the command of Allah.
But is there a deeper meaning to this sacrifice or Muslim just imitate one incident? let’s see what Allah said Abraham, you have indeed fulfilled the vision. Thus do We reward the doers of good. Surely this is a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a **great **sacrifice.” (37:100–107)

Why did Allah consider a ram “great”??

Let’s read what is indeed the story:

7 And Isaac spoke unto Abraham his father, and said: ‘My father.’ And he said: ‘Here am I, my son.’ And he said: ‘Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?’ 8 And Abraham said: 'God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said: ‘Abraham, Abraham.’ And he said: ‘Here am I.’ 12 And he said: ‘Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou art a God-fearing man, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.’ 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.

Abraham said that God would provide a lamb for sacrifice…but what did He provide? He did not provide a lamb, but a ram .Was Abraham mistaken when he said that God would provide a lamb? No he was inspired to speak the truth but the full meaning his statement remained hidden for the lamb is to come later:
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1: 29