Muslims: Abraham and Isaac or Ismael on the mountain sacrifice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fabio_rocha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fabio_rocha

Guest
I’ve heard that Muslims has in their holy book the mountain sacrifice story that involves Abraham and Ismael, not Isaac. Is this true?
 
Some say it, some even (bafflingly so) go so far as to say the bible says Ishmael was the child of promise who was to be sacrificed. I’m not joking by the way.
 
Well… not really true…

The Quran is silent on the name.

But the claim is made that it was Ismael.
 
jakasaki said:
Well… not really true…

The Quran is silent on the name.

But the claim is made that it was Ismael.
Click to expand...
The Qur’an being silent is very telling imo. Jews and Christians have nothing to gain from each other by accepting it was Ishmael. After all it is Scripture.

MJ
 
Well Martin ~

I believe it is claimed that since Ismael is the “first” born of Abraham, Islam believes that Ismael was to be sacrificed, and that the Biblical text had been changed to name Isaac.
 
jakasaki said:
Well Martin ~

I believe it is claimed that since Ismael is the “first” born of Abraham, Islam believes that Ismael was to be sacrificed, and that the Biblical text had been changed to name Isaac.
Click to expand...
Trouble is Jakasaki then why doesnt Quran say so? First born son?

MJ
 
The Qur’an says to read the Torah and nothing in it suggests that Ishmael is more important. And as stated, the Qur’an is silent on the issue.

Genesis 17: 19But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year." 22When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.

God does not lie when He says it is an everlasting covenant for the descendants of Isaac. Isaac is more important and his descendants received the covenant, although the descendants of Ishmael are blessed too.
 
jakasaki said:
Well Martin ~

I believe it is claimed that since Ismael is the “first” born of Abraham, Islam believes that Ismael was to be sacrificed, and that the Biblical text had been changed to name Isaac.
Click to expand...
You know I just made a pathetic error. Shame on me sheesh!:o I meant Jews and Christians don’t gain any mutual advantage by accepting Scripture that Isaac was the one taken for sacrifice. Infact the interpretation is the biggest factor where Isaac is replaced by the ram. Jews and Christians have a serious rift for the importance of the episode itself (which I will not dwell here ).

Thus Islam’s claim that the Biblical factor was changed has no merit. The Qur’an keeps the whole thing vague leaving dubious gaps. As I understand the Hadiths explain it was Ishmael probably because the Qur’ans sequence of Hagar being sent off and the timings of the birth of Ishmael and Isaac is a mixed bag.

MJ
 
fabio_rocha said:
I’ve heard that Muslims has in their holy book the mountain sacrifice story that involves Abraham and Ismael, not Isaac. Is this true?
Click to expand...
The Quran did not mention the name, but some commentaries for some Muslim scholars mentioned Ismael.
 
Yes, most muslims have interpreted that that son who was with Abraham was Ishmael [peace be upon them], but the Qur’an doesn’t mention by name which son it was. It’s narrated in surah 37:100-110 and since the story of Ishmael and Hagar are mentioned just a few verses prior, people have generally interpreted that the son who was going to be sacrificed was Ishmael [peace be on them].

Theologically, it doesn’t matter to us muslims whether it was Isaac or Ishmael [peace be upon them], because the lesson in the story of the sacrifice would be the same either way. However, to christians, it’s incredibly important to believe that it was Isaac [peace be upon him] who was about to be sacrificed, because they believe that it’s an illustration of what was yet to come; God sacrificing his only son (on the cross). Paul also gives his take on it in the book of Galatians.
 
drac16 said:
Yes, most muslims have interpreted that that son who was with Abraham was Ishmael [peace be upon them], but the Qur’an doesn’t mention by name which son it was. It’s narrated in surah 37:100-110 and since the story of Ishmael and Hagar are mentioned just a few verses prior, people have generally interpreted that the son who was going to be sacrificed was Ishmael [peace be on them].

Theologically, it doesn’t matter to us muslims whether it was Isaac or Ishmael [peace be upon them], because the lesson in the story of the sacrifice would be the same either way. However, to christians, it’s incredibly important to believe that it was Isaac [peace be upon him] who was about to be sacrificed,
Click to expand...
because they believe that it’s an illustration of what was yet to come; God sacrificing his only son (on the cross). Paul also gives his take on it in the book of Galatians.

My dear friend. I respect you as a person and child of God and I understand this is what you have been taught. As far as the OP question goes you have answered to the best of your sincerity.

That said you need to answer why Muslims believe that the Scriptures have been tampered with. Can you elaborate on that point. What does Judaism and Christianity gain if this allegation has merit.

Theologically Truth is imperative. It should matter. Christians accepting Isaac is part and parcel of scripture and not about just the connection with Jesus.

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
My dear friend. I respect you as a person and child of God and I understand this is what you have been taught. As far as the OP question goes you have answered to the best of your sincerity.

That said you need to answer why Muslims believe that the Scriptures have been tampered with. Can you elaborate on that point. What does Judaism and Christianity gain if this allegation has merit.

Theologically Truth is imperative. It should matter. Christians accepting Isaac is part and parcel of scripture and not about just the connection with Jesus.

MJ
Click to expand...
Well, thank you for your kind words. However, my understanding is not just based on what some have told me, it’s also based on what I myself have read, analyzed and prayed about.

The question about scripture corruption really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I don’t necessarily believe that jews knew that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed, but chose to lie about it and put Isaac [peace be upon them] in that event instead. There are some muslims who believe that, but I personally don’t subscribe to it.

Muslims believe that the prior books of revelation [the Torah, Psalms, Gospel, etc.] were only meant for a specific people and a specific time period, so God didn’t find it necessary to preserve them. What would a scribe gain by manipulating scripture? he’d have his understanding of a given text become the accepted, official truth. Lots of people would lie to try to legitimize their doctrines and, indeed, the Bible even testifies to this in 2Thessalonians chapter 2.
 
drac16 said:
Well, thank you for your kind words. However, my understanding is not just based on what some have told me, it’s also based on what I myself have read, analyzed and prayed about.

The question about scripture corruption really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I don’t necessarily believe that jews knew that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed, but chose to lie about it and put Isaac [peace be upon them] in that event instead. There are some muslims who believe that, but I personally don’t subscribe to it.

Muslims believe that the prior books of revelation [the Torah, Psalms, Gospel, etc.] were only meant for a specific people and a specific time period, so God didn’t find it necessary to preserve them. What would a scribe gain by manipulating scripture? he’d have his understanding of a given text become the accepted, official truth. Lots of people would lie to try to legitimize their doctrines and, indeed, the Bible even testifies to this in 2Thessalonians chapter 2.
Click to expand...
Its good you don’t subscribe to corruption of scripture. However what is in 2 Thessalonians 2 is related to this subject matter? I find it peculiar to use this. Kindly explain what you are trying to say.

Besides it is this St.Paul the one who also spoke to the Galatians-

Galatians 4: 28 It is we, brethren, that are children of the promise, as Isaac was. 29 Now, as then, the son who was born in the course of nature persecutes the son whose birth is a spiritual birth. 30 But what does our passage in scripture say? Rid thyself of the slave and her son; it cannot be that the son of a slave should divide the inheritance with the son of a free woman. 31 You see, then, brethren, that we are sons of the free woman, not of the slave; such is the freedom Christ has won for us.

MJ
 
It is interesting to note that the first person to pose that the Bible must be corrupt did not come around until the year 1064, 400 years after the death of Muhammad. Ibn-Khazem knew that Allah commands Muslims to read the Gospel which is ironic because it’s illegal to hand out Bibles to pedestrians in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But anyways, let’s look at what Ibn-Khazem had to say:

“Since the Quran must be true it
must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But
Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the
present text must have been falsified by the Christians after
the time of Muhammad.”

Notice how even Ibn-Khazem, the first person to claim corruption admitted that it must have been after the time of Muhammad. Now that we know this is not true Muslims claim that it was corrupt prior to Muhammads time. Again, the issue here is that Allah commands Muslims to read the Gospel. Just saying… It’s quite interesting.
 
dronald said:
It is interesting to note that the first person to pose that the Bible must be corrupt did not come around until the year 1064, 400 years after the death of Muhammad. Ibn-Khazem knew that Allah commands Muslims to read the Gospel which is ironic because it’s illegal to hand out Bibles to pedestrians in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But anyways, let’s look at what Ibn-Khazem had to say:

“Since the Quran must be true it
must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But
Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the
present text must have been falsified by the Christians after
the time of Muhammad.”

Notice how even Ibn-Khazem, the first person to claim corruption admitted that it must have been after the time of Muhammad. Now that we know this is not true Muslims claim that it was corrupt prior to Muhammads time. Again, the issue here is that Allah commands Muslims to read the Gospel. Just saying… It’s quite interesting.
Click to expand...
I’m still looking for earliest Islamic writings that show any sort of allegation that
Christians have altered the message of Christ. This is the minimum step to consider Islam’s claims…

Im off to Eucharistic Adoration…Today being Feast of Corpus Christi :highprayer:

Shalom:)

MJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top