Did Abraham go to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael?

[ralphinal]

It is pretty clear to me that this was changed to give Ishmael a more prominent place in salvation history, but the plain fact which I cannot overlook is the fact all the Scriptures, Prophets and Messiah came through Isaac and the Jacob (Israel). Thus the Promises God had in mind for Salvation history could not have been through Ishmael who was off the radar for thousands of years.

If that is the case, that it was changed to give Ishmael a more prominant role for the Arabic readers, it begs the question, at least to me, if the Koran is as much a political mechination that could be the seed to unify a people as much as it is a religious text? IN other words, was it created as a rallying cry to unify and became a religious text as a result?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If that is the case, that it was changed to give Ishmael a more prominant role for the Arabic readers, it begs the question, at least to me, if the Koran is as much a political mechination that could be the seed to unify a people as much as it is a religious text? IN other words, was it created as a rallying cry to unify and became a religious text as a result?

This was NOT a political tool, as if human institution could even rise to such success, as Christians we are required to believe this was a result of divine inspiration, but not from above (2 Cor 11:13f; 1 Jn 2:22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7).

 

[ralphinal]

This was NOT a political tool, as if human institution could even rise to such success, as Christians we are required to believe this was a result of divine inspiration, but not from above (2 Cor 11:13f; 1 Jn 2:22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7).

Must the two things be mututally exclusive?

 

[inJESUS]

1. And he said (after his rescue from the fire): “Verily, I am going to my Lord. He will guide me!”
   Abraham left his native country

 

[planten]

I quoted your scholar before who said that when Abraham uttered these words, Hagar was not in the picture yet. There was only Sarah and that the glad tidings refer always to Isaac in Quran, never to Ishmael. so on what basis are you saying Ishmael and Hagar?

Yes, Muslim scholars, some of them felt that it was Issac who was sacrificed. But they are not infallible. There are thousands of them. Not all said that it was Issac who was sacrificed.

Even now we may find some people who do not know the reality. You say Hagar was not in the picture. Which picture?? Do you mean bible or Quran? The Quran reports about the glad tidings of the first born (verse 37:101 and also about the glad tidings for the second son (issac) in verse 37:112.
In verse 37:102, Ismail says to his father Abraham ’ God willing you will find me as one of the patient ones". That means he agreed to be sacrificed. Note the word “saabireen” in the verse.

Now go to verse 21:85. There you will find the report about Ishmael and Idrees and zal Kifl. Allah says “they were all patient” ( Again the word 'saabireen" is used.

when Ishmael was old enough to walk with Abraham, he was with his mother Hagar in a different, distant place, never to see Abraham until he got married.

That is correct. He (Ishmael) was with his mother and father (Abraham) in Arabia. The incident of the sacrifice took place in Makkah, not in kana’an.

what is so great about a ram?

Why don’t you answer your own tradition and scholars?

Ram is there in both cases, in bible mentioned clearly. But in Quran it is not mentioned clearly. The only thing is that in bible, Abraham did not tell Issac what he was going to do. Issac kept on asking about the animal for sacrifice. Abraham did not tell him what was the mission. He said, “It will be provided.”

 

[swariffin]

inJESUS;3121480:

Yes, Muslim scholars, some of them felt that it was Issac who was sacrificed. But they are not infallible. There are thousands of them. Not all said that it was Issac who was sacrificed.

"

Dear Planten,

Could you please make your posting in larger font-size. Your font size is too small for my old eyes. Otherwise, I will find you and charge you for a new glasses. Just kidding… brother Keep on posting.

 

[De_Maria]

This is the relevant verse from the Qur’an:

Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!” … Al-Qur’an, 037.102

And so, we see that the son who’s life was to be sacrificed was old enough to work and also to speak words of support and reassurance to his father who was commanded by God to kill him.

If we are to accept the relevant verses from the Bible as was pointed out in my previous post, does this indicate that the one who was to be sacrificed to be still an infant OR a 13 year old boy?

Isaac was old enough to walk and talk and work at the time of the sacrifice:

Genesis 22
6 And he took the wood for the holocaust, and laid it upon Isaac his son: and he himself carried in his hands fire and a sword. And as they two went on together,
7 Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, saith he, fire and wood: where is the victim for the holocaust?

Which of course, leads up to this most beautiful of prophecies:

8 And Abraham said:** God will provide himself a victim** for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[inJESUS]

Yes, Muslim scholars, some of them felt that it was Issac who was sacrificed. But they are not infallible. There are thousands of them. Not all said that it was Issac who was sacrificed. indeed, the Quran was too confusing that different scholars refuted each others, each basing his explanation on Muhammad’s words!..the companions are known to have adopted the Isaac interpretation…do you think the sahaba must have been wrong as well?
in light of all this, how can you be sure it was Ishmael, and worse yet claim the Jews corrupted it, without Jesus or His disciples mentioning it?

Even now we may find some people who do not know the reality. You say Hagar was not in the picture. Which picture?? Do you mean bible or Quran?

refer to my quotation. When God promised Abraham, there was only Sarah…Abraham did not receive this promise while sitting with Sarah’s maidervant!

That is correct. He (Ishmael) was with his mother and father (Abraham) in Arabia. The incident of the sacrifice took place in Makkah, not in kana’an.

the hadith says Abraham saw Ishmael after he got married…the Quran says the son was of the age of running…when Ishmael was in the age of runnig, he was not with Abraham, and did not see him for years to come.

Ram is there in both cases, in bible mentioned clearly. But in Quran it is not mentioned clearly.

in the Bible it is clear that Moses said God will provide the LAMB yet what God provided was a RAM. The Lamb came when John uttered : this is the Lamb of God (Jesus)…this is why this is important because the sacrifice foshadowed was that of a GREAT sacrifice indeed. But why does the Quran call a ram GREAT?what is so great about a ram?

 

[zerinus]

indeed, the Quran was too confusing that different scholars refuted each others, each basing his explanation on Muhammad’s words!..the companions are known to have adopted the Isaac interpretation…do you think the sahaba must have been wrong as well?

in light of all this, how can you be sure it was Ishmael, and worse yet claim the Jews corrupted it, without Jesus or His disciples mentioning it?

Thank you inJESUS for your interesting and well-researched comments in this thread. As I had previously mentioned in another post, I believe that Islam and has been changed form its original teachings. Even the Koran itself was changed. This is what I had said in another post:

I believe that the Koran was changed. I believe all the signs indicate that Islam was originally a Christ-centred religion. But it was later changed in order to set it apart from historical Christianity, and turn it into a completely unique religion. The earliest rulers of Islam (after Mohamed) felt that that change was needed in order to strengthen their political position in a predominantly Christian world; therefore they made that change. I am strongly of the opinion that that is the case. There are some telltale signs in the history of early Islam that point in that direction.

I believe that this is true; and all the things that you have pointed out here are indications pointing to that direction.

Moslems usually like to take pride in their belief that the Koran has not changed! But that is not true. The current edition of the Koran was edited and compiled by a committee consisting of the first four Khalifs; and after they had created their “standard edition,” they ordered all other copies of the Koran, and the fragments from which they had made their compilation, to be destroyed! Why would they want to do that, if they had nothing to hide?

There are many signs indicating that Islam was originally a Christ-centred religion. For example, the al-Mahdi doctrine is essentially a Messianic concept; and they even believe that it is Christ who will return and rule, not Mohamed or any other Moslem figure! They have only made some cosmetic and unconvincing changes to it (without any clear authoritative source) in order to give it an Islamic flavour. But the actual theology of it is as confusing and unclear as the question of who was sacrificed, Ishmael or Isaac, which you have very well researched and described.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Moslems usually like to take pride in their belief that the Koran has not changed! But that is not true. The current edition of the Koran was edited and compiled by a committee consisting of the first four Khalifs; and after they had created their “standard edition,” they ordered all other copies of the Koran, and the fragments from which they had made their compilation, to be destroyed!

Wow, just like mormons changing the book of mormon!

Oops, I mean “translating” it better.

Robert

 

[zerinus]

Wow, just like mormons changing the book of mormon!

Oops, I mean “translating” it better.

Robert

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

zerinus

 

[Valke2]

Let’s not forget that being the first born was not exactly considered f"best in show" in the book of Genesis.

Cain was born before Able.
Ishmael was born before Isaac.
Esau was born before Jacob.
Joseph’s brothers (most of them) were born before Joseph
Aaron was born before Moses. (I know its in Exodus, but you get the point).

 

[planten]

Let’s not forget that being the first born was not exactly considered f"best in show" in the book of Genesis.

Cain was born before Able.
Ishmael was born before Isaac.
Esau was born before Jacob.
Joseph’s brothers (most of them) were born before Joseph
Aaron was born before Moses. (I know its in Exodus, but you get the point).

Yes, good points, very good points. But I would rather exclude Esau from the list who was cheated. His father had marked him for the blessings. (Not sacrifice)
About others, say Cain, Joseph, Aaron, it is to note that there is no offer as a sacrifice. If we read the bible OT, we find that every where it is written to bring the first born for the sacrifice. That rule of first born applies for the sacrifice. And Aaron or Joseph or jacob or Esau were not going to be presented for sacrifice. Can you please see that point?

 

[zerinus]

Yes, good points, very good points. But I would rather exclude Esau from the list who was cheated. His father had marked him for the blessings.

Actually that is not right. Esau was never approved by God, nor by his parents, because his actions were not right before them. When his mother was pregnant with him, God told her that she had twins in her womb, and that “the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]” (Genesis 25:23). Later on, Esau “despised his birthright,” and sold his birthright to Jacob for a “mess of potage” (Genesis 25:31–33; Hebrews 12:16). Therefore the birthright was no longer his. It had been passed on to Jacob by Esau’s own unrighteous choice.

Esau was not “cheated” of anything. He lost his birthright to Jacob through his own voluntary decision. He was no longer the “firstborn”. Later on God said through the prophets that He had “loved Jacob” but “hated Esau” (Malachi 1:2–3; Romans 9:13).

About others, say Cain, Joseph, Aaron, it is to note that there is no offer as a sacrifice. If we read the bible OT, we find that every where it is written to bring the first born for the sacrifice. That rule of first born applies for the sacrifice. And Aaron or Joseph or jacob or Esau were not going to be presented for sacrifice. Can you please see that point?

Whether they were going to be presented for sacrifice or not is not an issue here. The main point is that whenever the literal “firstborn” transgressed, or proved himself unworthy, or for some other reason was not favored by God, the right of the firstborn was taken away from him and transferred to the younger brother. For example, Reuben was the literal “firstborn” of Jacob; but because he committed some sins, that right was taken away from him and transferred to Joseph, who then inherited the right of the firstborn, and became the true firstborn (1 Chronicles 5:1). The same thing happened between Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was indeed the literal “firstborn,” but for reasons best known to Himself, God chose Isaac above Ishmael to inherit the right of the firstborn:

Genesis 21:

12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That means that the right of the firstborn had been transferred from Ishmael to Isaac. Ishmael was no longer the “firstborn,” Isaac was.

zerinus

 

[De_Maria]

**
The bible says that it was Issac who was sacrificed. Quran does not say so. …

That is the sequence of events as described in the Quran. Without naming any one, it tells us that it was the first born son who was sacrificed. That was Ishmael. Ishmael was also the promised son, as per verse 101 of Quran and also as per the bible OT. He was the promised son.
**

According to your dissertation, the Quran contradicts the Bible. Now we have ascertained in these discussions that:

1. There is no evidence that Mohammed actually spoke to an Angel or to Allah
2. That Uthman burned the original Quran and the substituted a new one which was put together by a committee.
3. The Muslims who claim the Bible is corrupt are contradicting the Quran.
4. And they have no evidence of another Bible which predates the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures and also preaches Islam.

So why should we believe the Quran over the Bible?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Christians need to make up their minds here.

If you accept that this hadith is true,

We don’t accept the hadith as true. We present it as an example of yet another contradiction in your own religion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[meedo]

I have come across a few references in here that Muslims believe Abraham did NOT go to sacrifice Isaac, but rather Ishmael.

Is this true?

If it is then we have a clear problem before us because the historical/Scriptural testimony of BOTH Jews and Christians is that it was Isaac.

Hello,

Yes Muslims believe it was Ishmael who was about to be sacrificed. This is not mentioned in teh QWuran itself but in the authenticated Tradition of the Prophet Muhammed .

Actually, historically, it can be traced only to the arabs and not the jews that they have celebrated the survival of Abrahams son from sacrifice. Even going back before the times of the Moses . Christianity or Islam.

This anual celebration is called the Hajj. Arabs sacrificeat that season to commemorate the survival of Abrahams son from sacrifice.

Now if that was Isac it would be the jews who are celebrating . but its actually the arabs . The jews have many many celebrations of events, and it would be logical they would celebrate this fi it was related to them .

Logically and historically ( not quoting scriptures) it is Ishmael.

salam

 

[inJESUS]

Actually, historically, it can be traced only to the arabs and not the jews that they have celebrated the survival of Abrahams son from sacrifice. Even going back before the times of the Moses . Christianity or Islam.

hello Meedo,

actually Jews do celebrate it:

As the Day of Remembrance, **Rosh Hashanah ** (Jewish Holy day) recalls the story of Isaac’s near-sacrifice, which Jewish tradition states occurred on the first of Tishri. In this biblical account, God commanded Isaac’s father, Abraham, to sacrifice his only son as an offering. Abraham accepts God’s command, builds an altar, and prepares to sacrifice his son to prove his obedience and faith in God. At the very last minute, an angel conveying God’s wishes stopped Abraham from killing Isaac, and pointed out a ram caught by its horns in a nearby bush. The angel told Abraham to sacrifice the ram in place of Isaac – Abraham had passed God’s test.

As a result, God blessed Abraham. This story is recalled on Rosh Hashanah to remind Jews that submission before God is the way to attain God’s mercy, and the truly righteous do not question God’s will. They do as God commands and are rewarded for their faith.

Now if that was Isac it would be the jews who are celebrating . but its actually the arabs . The jews have many many celebrations of events, and it would be logical they would celebrate this fi it was related to them

 

[planten]

Actually that is not right. Esau was never approved by God, nor by his parents, because his actions were not right before them. When his mother was pregnant with him, God told her that she had twins in her womb, and that “the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]” (Genesis 25:23). Later on, Esau “despised his birthright,” and sold his birthright to Jacob for a “mess of potage” (Genesis 25:31–33; Hebrews 12:16). Therefore the birthright was no longer his. It had been passed on to Jacob by Esau’s own unrighteous choice.

Esau was not “cheated” of anything. He lost his birthright to Jacob through his own voluntary decision. He was no longer the “firstborn”. Later on God said through the prophets that He had “loved Jacob” but “hated Esau” (Malachi 1:2–3; Romans 9:13).

Whether they were going to be presented for sacrifice or not is not an issue here. The main point is that whenever the literal “firstborn” transgressed, or proved himself unworthy, or for some other reason was not favored by God, the right of the firstborn was taken away from him and transferred to the younger brother. For example, Reuben was the literal “firstborn” of Jacob; but because he committed some sins, that right was taken away from him and transferred to Joseph, who then inherited the right of the firstborn, and became the true firstborn (1 Chronicles 5:1). The same thing happened between Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was indeed the literal “firstborn,” but for reasons best known to Himself, God chose Isaac above Ishmael to inherit the right of the firstborn:

Genesis 21:

12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That means that the right of the firstborn had been transferred from Ishmael to Isaac. Ishmael was no longer the “firstborn,” Isaac was.

zerinus

**You have tried to present some points. Agreed. You have justified the act of cheating somehow in the bible OT. It is not difficult to do that. Bible as it stands now is clear that Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac.

But we Muslims have our own version of that important event. I doubt if the Jews or the christians celebrate that event of sacrifice every year world wide. So that is the end of it. The christians want everything good for themselves and do not want to admit that there is any one else also getting the blessings of the universal One God.

That is the blessings for Issac and no blessings for Ishmael. That Ishmael was disinherited. That their God is the only true God and nobody else has got any God. That only Jesus is sinless. All the other prophets are also sinful or sinners. Who will believe such ideas !!

The problem in the above post is not about the blessings. You have given it to Issac and denied it to Ishamel. But the topic is not about blessings. It is about sacrifice. I had presented the events described in the Quran in this thread that it was the first born Ishamel who was made ready for the sacrifice. That is very clear. Issac was not even born then.

The birth of Issac was due to the sacrifice of Ishamel by Abraham. God was pleased with Abraham and granted him another son from a barren wife. Had Sarai not offered Hagar to Abraham as a wife, Ishmael would not have been born. If Abraham had not pleased God by sacrificing Ishmael at the altar then Issac would not have been born. That is the understanding of the Muslims.
We have noted some serious weakness in the bible OT passage related to these events.**

 

[inJESUS]

But we Muslims have our own version of that important event. I doubt if the Jews or the christians celebrate that event of sacrifice every year world wide.