I
- Status
R
ralphinal
Guest
Back to the OP
Islam: No name given by Koran, Muslim Scholars determine it to be Ishmael
Judaism/Christianity: By name in the Bible, it was Isaac.
Now, it is important because tracing the covenant through Isaac means that Jesus was born into the group through which a savior was promised. What is the advantage of Ishmael being the sacrafice? I hope I am wrong, but it seems to be to give a level of pride to a group of people. It seems to give some people a reason to gloat over those they do not like.
A real question is if the Koran means Ishmael and the Bible says Isaac, which one did God get wrong?
Islam: No name given by Koran, Muslim Scholars determine it to be Ishmael
Judaism/Christianity: By name in the Bible, it was Isaac.
Now, it is important because tracing the covenant through Isaac means that Jesus was born into the group through which a savior was promised. What is the advantage of Ishmael being the sacrafice? I hope I am wrong, but it seems to be to give a level of pride to a group of people. It seems to give some people a reason to gloat over those they do not like.
A real question is if the Koran means Ishmael and the Bible says Isaac, which one did God get wrong?
P
planten
Guest
**Will you please modify the last line of your question so as not to ascribe anything wrong from God?? Please change your question to: Ishmael or Issac, which one did we (you or I) get wrong?? God cannot make a mistake and give wrong information to any one. Do you agree.?
Then some suitable reply may be (I say, may be) provided to your modified question. Rest assured that God did not do anything wrong. It is either the bible or the Quran, i.e. men working on them. I am not so interested about the covenant. There was covenent about Issac, no doubt and they had the lot of prophets.
They (children of Issac/Jacob) were promised. But remember that the promises carry some conditions. If the people do not fulfil the conditions then the promise is not fulfilled. The promised bounty is withheld.**
R
Reuben_J
Guest
To make the long story short –
Quran does not specifically say Ishmael.
The Bible says it was Isaac.
There are contradicting Islamic traditions on who actually was put up for sacrifice.
In the Bible it was clear that Isaac was the one.
Many times Muslims mentality of proving whether a belief is true or not, it must be stated catergorically in the scriptures. Example, if you believe that Jesus is God, where does in the Bible that Jesus says “worship me”?
Now, since Ishmael is not mentioned as the would-be son for sacrifice in the Quran but Isaac was mentioned in the Bible, the conclusion should be Isaac. I think this would make everybody happy.
Ishmael was not mentioned in the Quran.
Isaac was mentioned in the Bible. If we choose Isaac, it will fit Muslims logic and Christians too will have no problem since they believe that son was Isaac.
Reuben
Quran does not specifically say Ishmael.
The Bible says it was Isaac.
There are contradicting Islamic traditions on who actually was put up for sacrifice.
In the Bible it was clear that Isaac was the one.
Many times Muslims mentality of proving whether a belief is true or not, it must be stated catergorically in the scriptures. Example, if you believe that Jesus is God, where does in the Bible that Jesus says “worship me”?
Now, since Ishmael is not mentioned as the would-be son for sacrifice in the Quran but Isaac was mentioned in the Bible, the conclusion should be Isaac. I think this would make everybody happy.
Ishmael was not mentioned in the Quran.
Isaac was mentioned in the Bible. If we choose Isaac, it will fit Muslims logic and Christians too will have no problem since they believe that son was Isaac.
Reuben
P
planten
Guest
Yes, O.K. If you are all happy with that, it will be very good. We need not discuss this matter any more. But is it a good decision. It brings the topic back to where it was started.To make the long story short –
Quran does not specifically say Ishmael.
The Bible says it was Isaac.
There are contradicting Islamic traditions on who actually was put up for sacrifice.
In the Bible it was clear that Isaac was the one.
Many times Muslims mentality of proving whether a belief is true or not, it must be stated catergorically in the scriptures. Example, if you believe that Jesus is God, where does in the Bible that Jesus says “worship me”?
Now, since Ishmael is not mentioned as the would-be son for sacrifice in the Quran but Isaac was mentioned in the Bible, the conclusion should be Isaac. I think this would make everybody happy.
Ishmael was not mentioned in the Quran.
Isaac was mentioned in the Bible. If we choose Isaac, it will fit Muslims logic and Christians too will have no problem since they believe that son was Isaac.
Reuben
I should say that the matter may be left un-resolved. We have listened to some arguments in favor of Issac and the christians have heard some arguments from the Muslims in favor of Ishmael. Jesus did not speak any word about it.
. Nobody has really moved away from their original stand. So that is it, means “As you were”.
I
inJESUS
Guest
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I beg to differ brother.
Yes, much have been discussed as to “did Abraham go to sacrifice Isaac or Ishamel?” (the thread topic).
From what has been discussed and like I said in my previous post, the only logical conclusion would be that the boy was Isaac.
Just kidding.
I don’t mean to force it on you.
God bless.
R
ralphinal
Guest
That gets to the concept of inspiration. God is not able to make mistakes. Ever. At all. In any way, shape or form. If you accept that He insured that, at least at the time of writing, He prevented the Holy Books from having any errors, then the problem must come in later.
The Koran does not name Ishmael. Therefore, there may be no conflict. The fact that many Muslims proclaim it to be Ishmael, however, does present one. If neither book has been altered, then they are teaching error and call into question any teachings that they have. If one of the Books has been tampered with, then some man altered the God’s teachings, and God allowed it to happen.
P
planten
Guest
Thanks for not forcing on me. Quran without naming Ishmael or Issac has explained the whole truth. Sacrifice has been observed in Makkah and all over the world since the time of Abraham. The Jews and the christians do not observe it. so good-bye to that matter of Issac being the sacrificed son.I beg to differ brother.
Yes, much have been discussed as to “did Abraham go to sacrifice Isaac or Ishamel?” (the thread topic).
From what has been discussed and like I said in my previous post, the only logical conclusion would be that the boy was Isaac.
Just kidding.
I don’t mean to force it on you.
God bless.
It is not possible that just because the name of Issac is written in the bible then the answer is Issac. The name of ISSAC does not fit in the bible. Just having the name there cannot decide the matter. Any one can write the name there.
Sacrifice is always of the first born and abraham knew all about it. Issac was not the only son and never the only son. He was number two. Abraham prayed for a son. That was when he had no son. It cannot be that he had a son Ishmael and he would pray (complain) to Allah to give him a son. That is not possible.
The incident of the sacrifice had occurred long before Issac was born. In bible, it is said that Abraham took his son (Issac) and took wood and went for the sacrifice. The son kept on asking about the lamb ( sacrificial animal) but Abraham did not tell what he was going to do. He only said it will be provided. Was that not a lie?/ from Abraham to keep his son in dark and without the son’s knowledge he was going to kill him in the way of Allah. That is not possible.
And how did Abraham know before hand that animal will be provided on the mountain?? It means he knew that Issac will not be sacrificed. Another animal will be provided in Issac’s place. That is all a funny way of doing things in a hurry.
The problem is that the name of Issac was specially inserted in the bible by the JEWS or the christians before the Quran was revealed. Had they done it after the revealtion of Quran then they would have done a better and good job of it. But they did not know what would happen and what type of questions will be raised. So some one did what he did.
We have proved it by the text of the quran that Abraham prayed for the grant of a son when he had no son. He was given the good news of son. That was a promised son Ishmael. And we have described the incident of the sacrifice in detail from the text of the Quran. There is no mistake. (chapter 37 verses 83 onward to 112)
Moreover,our prophet Muhammad has described the incident in detail in Hadith. Our prophet has said that the son who was made ready for sacrifice was Ishamel. Your prophet (Jesus) knew nothing about it and he did not talk about it. So your case is closed and cannot be authentic. Thanks for discussing this matter again and again.
P
planten
Guest
Sorry to disagree. Book has been altered and it is written in Quran that "the christians write the book with their own hands and then say that it is from God. But it is not from God’. That is not the case of Quran at all. Please do not keep both bible and quran at the same level as far as the maintenance of the word is concerned.
So whatever has been done with the bible, we are not responsible for that. That is your business to look after and believe as you like. I have no objection. If there was no alteration or addition in the bible then name of Issac would not have been their for sacrifice. He (Issac) was a promised son and Abraham was told that Issac will live to be a prophet and he will have children. A covenat is also mentioned in the bible about Issac. That was told to Abraham before the birth of Issac.
If Issac was to live as a prophet and have children and under a covenant as fortold by God then how could God tell Abraham to kill Issac on the altar. That would have been (and is) a conflicting order. Our Quran chapter 37 verses 83 to 112 are very clear on this subject. Thanks for discussing. Issac had the blessings and so did Ishmael, both in separate area and separate fields. Only the children of Ishmael never became slaves boys and slave girls to any other (foriegn) people…
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
Ishmael was already sent away in Genesis 21:14, while the binding takes place in Genesis 22:2. So Isaac really was Abraham’s only son that was with him by then.
Ishmael is also never mentioned in this entire chapter of the Quran, only Isaac and Abraham are blessed.
It makes no sense at all to assume that Genesis was scrambled and that the Quran is really talking about Ishmael when his name isn’t mentioned once in Chapter 37.
It makes all sense to assume that the Muslim Ishmael tradition is simply incorrect.
Ishmael is also never mentioned in this entire chapter of the Quran, only Isaac and Abraham are blessed.
It makes no sense at all to assume that Genesis was scrambled and that the Quran is really talking about Ishmael when his name isn’t mentioned once in Chapter 37.
It makes all sense to assume that the Muslim Ishmael tradition is simply incorrect.
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
This just means Abraham had great faith God would fulfill the covenant promise no matter what.
R
ralphinal
Guest
FoA, that is exactly the point that we are trying to make. Thank you for condensing it into a simple, well-written post.
M
MHalsey
Guest
Ahh, but you’re forgetting the formidable logic of the Muslim apologist, which goes something like this:
We know the Quran is the incorruptible word of Allah received by Muhammad. Neither Isaac or Ishmael are specifically mentioned on this subject. We also know the Christians and Jews corrupted the Bible even though we can’t prove it. Therefore, Ishmael must have been the one sacrificed.
There’s more to it, but after reading this entire thread, that’s pretty much what I get out of it.
I
inJESUS
Guest
I
inJESUS
Guest
Sorry to disagree. Book has been altered and it is written in Quran that "the christians write the book with their own hands and then say that it is from God. But it is not from God’.
not to teach your own book, but the Quran was talking about Jews, not Christians, and SOME Jews not all Jews…and he did not say they corrupted the text in their hand, but said they write and claim it is from God, this might very well refer to the tradition written by the Jews, not the Bible itself. Muhammad simply confirmed and asked the Jews to ABIDE by their book , things that do not fit a corrupt book
P
planten
Guest
God is not like that and Abraham also would be surprised at such an order. If I believe what you say then there is no need to deny anything however bad or impossible. The discussion has to be rational / logical. We cannot pass off everything that is wrong as a miracle.
I am not worried about the covenant problem. That has nothing to do with the sacrifice. Perhaps we Muslims will have to look into that covenant business too. There may be many flaws in that too. Because God is making covenant with the children of Abraham, an everlasting covenant and the condition for that was the circumcision. Ishmael was also circumcised.
That cannot be a good condition that so much blessing should be attached with the circumcision only. There must have been some higher demand from God. But as the bible goes, God made a COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM about his children. Then later on God rememberd that the covenant was to be only for Issac and family. Do you see the mistake had been corrected by some one in the bible, or some one made a big mistake there.
That is limiting the blessing to a particular family and forgetting the rest of the world. That cannot be from the God of all humanity. We will look into the covenant too. But presently we are discussing about the son who was sacrificed. God having told Abarham that Issac will live long to have children and they will be blessed and that he will be a prophet. After that God will not tell Abraham to sacrifice that son.
So in the matter of the sacrifice, only the name of Issac has been inserted into bible without considering many aspects of the case. Issac was not even born when the incident of sacrifice took place. The birth of Issac to Sarai and Abram was the result of the sacrifice of Ishmael by Abraham. God was happy with Abraham and gave him another son through the barren wife sarai.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Isaac’s sacrifice foreshadows Jesus sacrifice on the Cross. Notice that Jesus always mentions Isaac and never mentions Ishmael. If Jesus’ sacrifice were forehadowed by Ishmael’s sacrifice, then Jesus would have to mention Ishmael.
Sincerely,
De Maria
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
“God having told Abraham that Issac will live long to have children and they will be blessed and that he will be a prophet. After that God will not tell Abraham to sacrifice that son.”
Seems your argument is saying, God could not have told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because God made promises about Isaac, so it must have been Ishmael instead.
But it doesn’t hold up because God made promises for Ishmael too, so either way in Genesis 22:2 God is asking Abraham to sacrifice a son for which promises have been made.
Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
That’s why Abraham would have had to have great faith to believe God would follow through with His promises no matter what.
“That cannot be a good condition that so much blessing should be attached with the circumcision only. There must have been some higher demand from God.”
Well there is, accepting Jesus as Melchizedek who delivers that blessing through Abraham to Isaac, who is also represented by Jesus as a Jew, who then brings Ishmael home as a Gentile and grafts him in to the family of Abraham in the New Covenant.
That’s why more Muslims need to read the Bible, they are believing in all the prophets and Jesus and everything but don’t really understand why they were here, other than to say to believe in God. You can’t really interpret the Quran correctly unless you interpret the Bible correctly.
M
MHalsey
Guest
I’m sure Abraham was surprised, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Only in your mind. Your problem is you cannot see how God is testing Abraham’s faith. All you see is logic. Logic is not faith.
As were all the male servants of his household, not just Abraham and Ishmael. Also, God tells Abraham that the covenant will be maintained in Isaac. He doesn’t ever say the covenant is *only *with Isaac.
First of all, the circumcision is the sign of the covenant, not the covenant itself. God did not *later *remember. He told Abraham that it would be with Isaac from the beginning. Sorry, no mistake here. Only in your flawed reasoning. You simply cannot prove your “theory” that the Bible had been corrected.
Again, this is a test of faith. And as such, it makes the covenant that much more meaningful.
Also, as someone else pointed out, you can say the same about the promise for Ishmael, so this argument falls flat.
This is something you simply cannot prove. For it to be true, at least three chapters of Genesis would have had to be rewritten. There is pure nonsense.
- Status