Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Islam and the Qu'ran (Koran)

Author

Message

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Steven
Please find follows few comments before building my case against the OT story. Sorry for detail but it’s important please read it carefully.

Steven3 wrote:

I should have said that Genesis contains actually 3 blessings, 1 on Ishmael (Genesis 16&17), 2 on Isaac. Have you compared word for word the 3 blessings in Genesis with the 2 blessings in this Surah. Muhammed appears to me to be quoting the 2 Isaac blessings and not the 1 Ishmael blessing. Have you put the texts side-by-side and made your own comparison?

Ooh Steven you think as many Christians as if Mohamed cloned Islam and Quran from NT and OT. This completely wrong idea.This is an old theory and if you study Islam in detail you’ll find it’s impossible to be like this. (Don’t discuss it now, no need to exit from the case of Ishmael-Isaac . we might do later) [/quote]

Steven3 wrote:

Sorry, I was told Waraqa Ibn Nawfal was a Christian? I have read Islamic sources claiming Waraqa Ibn Nawfal as a pure "uncorrupted" student and teacher of the Injil? Anyway, forget Waraqa Ibn Nawfal, even so Muhammed obviously had interreaction with Arab Christians and Jews, because Muhammed says so himself in the Quran - so why when writing this Surah does he not name the son as Ishmael? Why did he leave it to Hadith to make clear? Muhammed must know he was teaching opposite to Jews and Christians so why not make the difference clear?

Belive it or not Warqa was the only Christian in Mecca. What happened is as follows:-
- When Gabriel first time appeared to Mohamed , he get very afffraid
- He told his wife about Gabriel
- She said my Cousin read/write . So Warqa was of Mohamed’s wife cousin
- he was very old man and he told him that this is the angle of GOD who appeared to all profits and take care your people will push you out of Mecca. If I’ll be alive I’ll support you with my live
again you say “so why when writing this Surah does he not name the son as Ishmael?” I know that you’re not recognizing Mohamed as a profit but what you are saying is negating the theory of clonying NT and OT. Because simply if Mohamed is not a profit it would be more benefiting (at least Steven after 1500 years will agree with Quran and I’ll not have to debate about it) for him to comply with NT and OT .
but even though he wouldn’t be able to and couldn’t do because all surrounding people (who didn’t convert to Islam at that time ) know that it’s was Ishmael not Isaac.

Steven3 wrote:

I am very interested, and I would love to see historical evidence for this please - if there is documentary evidence (papyrus or manuscript) that belief that Ishmael was the sacrifice which predates the Hadith, then you are right. The earliest Hadith which gives this commentary on the Surah, as far as I can see from the date given on the muslim website, is 120 years after Muhammed, so is not proof of what Arabs in Mecca believed before Muhammed.

Please do not misunderstand Very Happy

- I would not doubt that there are documents saying that Ishmael was father of all Arabs in Mecca (Genesis also says Ishmael is the father of many Arab nations), but I am hoping to see a document earlier than Hadith which says that Ishmael was the son nearly sacrificed.

The problem is Arabs before Islam didn’t used to write or draw their history. I myself don’t know any documents accept Hadith which is written after Islam. What I can say is that Arabs before Islam and we Mosilems should sacrifice every year to follow Abraham.
Another note about Hadith, the since of authenticating the Hadith is the best since to document any thing all over the history. Even the bibles authentication doesn’t go up to the level of Hadith. By the Way you know that these are not the Gospel of Christ. It’s Gospels according to Matt or Gospel according John and in these Gospels you find someone is telling the story of Christ go there say so it’s a story about Christ history of it ( put it aside we can discuss it later) on the other hand when we say that Hadith is 120 or even 200 years after Mohamed it means Mohamed said for example “Ishmael is the sacrifice” then X person heared it from him directly, then X told Y , Z, ,,, in that Hadith since they study the attitude of X, Y, Z,,, they say this one is trusted this is not. The result is full authenticated documented Hadith .once this Hadith is certified then it’s true that it’s said by Mohamed. I give this point detail because I feel many people are confused with Hadith.

Steven3 wrote:

That's what I understood Wink

- Hadith to muslims are like Early Christian writers like Clement or Barnabas to Christians. We do not claim they are inspired.

No No No it’s totally different story . You don’t claim Barnabas, Clement, Peter,, not because there is a since and rules then these Gospels doesn’t fulfil the standards. In fact if you study the history of these Gospels and the 4 recognized ones you’ll not find any difference in the authentication. These gospels and more than 200 or more are refused by Nicaea and other councils because it’s not compliant with Trinity ,Christ is the God, or all what have been agreed about it.
Simply Nicaea found the law and searched for Gospels that are compliant with it then others are Apocrypha.
In Hadith, People defined rules for:
- Person ( Trusted, good memory, already met the guy who claims he has listened to him
- The words , correct, doesn’t conflict with Qurran,,,
Just to let you know there are about 5 different since related to verification of People and Hadith

Steven3 wrote:

But in this case we have a problem Sad

- a major part of Muhammed's prophecy about the Arab people (the sacrifice of Ishmael) but the name of Ishmael is not found in the Quran text regarding the blessing - the son is not named, and immediately after the son is named as Isaac. So in this case the reliability of that Hadith is important, is it not?

I hope I explained it above

Steven3 wrote:

The problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael?

Ooh this is another evidence of the proficiency of Mohamed. As all profits are from Isaac descendants but Allah promised also Ishmael to have owner and proficiency. Guess who is from Ishmael descendants did it’s Mohamed Peace up on him (this is one of many eveidances from NT and OT Discuss it later)

Steven3 wrote:

But I am curious to see dated documentary evidence earlier than that Hadith that Muhammed meant Ishmael. As I said I'm not a muslim so I'm quite happy to continue discussion with 100% acceptance that the Surah does mean Ishmael, it's simply curiousity that's all. If there is no evidence earlier than the Hadith it's not a problem, but you sound as if you know there is.

Arabs didn’t document their history in writing as few few people were lettered but they used to use poems but the problem is that these poems documented only after Islam when Arabs civilization was there . so, many people doesn’t trust it. You’ll not find even one paper documents the period from Ishmael till Mohamed as far as I know.

Steven3 wrote:

No need. I'm happy to concede the point - I will accept the Hadith are right and Muhammed does mean Ishmael, then we can proceed.

Let us move to the next point.

Steven3 wrote:

My problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? Question

You said so. How can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? The answer is in your mouth and heart. Just rethink again and again I wish you could answer it yourself but I’ll help you
I respect your question. I respect your intelligence. I’ll summarize the history of Ishmael and his descendents
- Allah promised Abraham about Ishmael
- All profits good guys are from Isaac side
- Ishmaels are all ignorant they’ve offered nothing ,or noticeable achievement , really I as Arabic Moslem I never heared about even a book for this period from Ishmael till Mohamed
- After Ishmael’s died they worshiped status son, moon, many things
- The only noticeable man from Ishmael is someone 600 AD
- He pertain proficiency , he invited people to all their good in live
- The Islam shines all over the world
- Noone from Ishmael has the same position
No doubt , the promise is Mohamed the last profit, the promise to Abraham about his son Ishmael. Ooh my friend it’s very clear. “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah.” This saying means “There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah),and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.”

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem Smile

Abdelaleem wrote:

As I said, I assume that the NT quotes OT, it isn't a bad thing to quote previous books.

Irrespective, the Jews and Christians of Arabia would know that Genesis contains actually 3 blessings, 1 on Ishmael (Genesis 16&17), 2 on Isaac, and they would look at the Surah and assume (like I have assumed) that Muhammed is talking about Isaac. So if Muhammed meant Ishmael why did he not say so clearly?

Quote:

Have you compared word for word the 3 blessings in Genesis with the 2 blessings in this Surah. Muhammed appears to me to be quoting the 2 Isaac blessings and not the 1 Ishmael blessing. Have you put the texts side-by-side and made your own comparison?

(Don’t discuss it now, no need to exit from the case of Ishmael-Isaac . we might do later)

Okay, but I'd still like to know if you have done what I have done and put Genesis and Quran side by side?

Steven3 wrote:

again you say “so why when writing this Surah does he not name the son as Ishmael?” I know that you’re not recognizing Mohamed as a profit but what you are saying is negating the theory of clonying NT and OT.

No, I'm asking why when Muhammed knows that Waraqa Ibn Nawfal thinks the son is Isaac, Muhammed fails to write "Ishmael" in the text and make it clear that it is Ishmael? Waraqa Ibn Nawfal would have found this a problem yes? Muhammed spoke as a prophet to convince all people of Arabia (including pagans Christians and Jews), yes? So why does Muhammed not make clear to his audience that it is Ishmael, why not have the name "Ishmael" in the text?

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

The problem is Arabs before Islam didn’t used to write or draw their history.

Sorry, but that is just not true. It it may be true of some parts of the Arabian peninsula, but it is certainly not true for all the Arabian peninsula because the Yemenis had their own Arabic documents, as did other Arab cultures.

There are many ancient documents - both religious and historical in Syriac, which is closely related to Arabic. Were the Syrians (the main speakers of Syriac) not also Arabs descended from Ishmael? Other descendants of Ishmael spoke other languages.

Apart from Syriac, Arabian itself, is an ancient language family, and there are many South-Arabian documents prior to Islam written in Musnad المُسند

There is a brief article about ancient Arabian language
http://www.answers.com/topic/south-arabian-alphabet

It was used for writing the Yemeni Old South Arabic dialects of the Sabaean, Qatabanian, Hadrami, Minaean, Himyarite, and proto-Ge'ez (or proto-Ethiosemitic) in D`mt. The earliest inscriptions in the alphabet date to the 9th century BC in Akkele Guzay, Eritrea[1] and in the 8th century BC, found in Babylonia and in Yemen. Its mature form was reached around 500 BC, and its use continued until the 7th century AD
You will find in those Musnadi documents that Yemeni and Iraqi Arabs had a wide interest in their history.

And in the Syriac documents (that were read by Arabs in Egypt, Yemen, Iraq from 3rd-6th Century) that reference is made to those Yemeni Egyptian Iraqi and Syrian Arabs who believed in Allah, the God of Ibrahim, believing that Isaac, not Ishmael, was the son sacrificed to Allah.

Quote:

I myself don’t know any documents except Hadith which is written after Islam. What I can say is that Arabs before Islam and we Mosilems should sacrifice every year to follow Abraham.

1. you said the Hadith were not always reliable.
2. the Hadith says that the "son" is Ishmael, but the documents used by Yemeni and Syrian worshippers of Allah, God of Ibahim, before the Hadith say it is Isaac.
3. So where is the proof?

Quote:

Another note about Hadith, the since of authenticating the Hadith is the best since to document any thing all over the history. Even the bibles authentication doesn’t go up to the level of Hadith. By the Way you know that these are not the Gospel of Christ. It’s Gospels according to Matt or Gospel according John and in these Gospels you find someone is telling the story of Christ go there say so it’s a story about Christ history of it ( put it aside we can discuss it later) on the other hand when we say that Hadith is 120 or even 200 years after Mohamed it means Mohamed said for example “Ishmael is the sacrifice” then X person heared it from him directly, then X told Y , Z, ,,, in that Hadith since they study the attitude of X, Y, Z,,, they say this one is trusted this is not. The result is full authenticated documented Hadith .once this Hadith is certified then it’s true that it’s said by Mohamed. I give this point detail because I feel many people are confused with Hadith.

No problem, I accept that point. It isn't a criticism of Hadith.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

That's what I understood Wink

- Hadith to muslims are like Early Christian writers like Clement or Barnabas to Christians. We do not claim they are inspired.

No No No it’s totally different story . You don’t claim Barnabas, Clement, not because there is a since and rules then these Gospels doesn’t fulfil the standards. In fact if you study the history of these Gospels and the 4 recognized ones you’ll not find any difference in the authentication.

Well actually there is a whole set of standards for authentication, this is a separate branch of text-criticisim, called study of the canon. I have all these alternative Gospels in my bookcase and using these text-critical standards the 27 NT books still stand. But aside from text-critical there is a simple doctrinal test: The ones in the NT agree with the OT, the ones which were refused from the NT fail because they disagree with OT.

Quote:

Simply Nicaea found the law and searched for Gospels that are compliant with it then others are Apocrypha.

This isn't true - it's an argument that some Trinitarians (few) will make to avoid testing their doctrine by the Bible, but actually the NT canon is already established by 180 to all intents and purposes, Nicea was not until 325AD. See Metzger's book "the NT Canon".

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

But in this case we have a problem Sad

I hope I explained it above

Yes.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

The problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael?

Ooh this is another evidence of the proficiency of Mohamed. As all prophets are from Isaac descendants but Allah promised also Ishmael to have owner and proficiency. Guess who is from Ishmael descendants did it’s Mohamed Peace up on him (this is one of many eveidances from NT and OT Discuss it later)

We need to continue this - this doesn't convince me that the line of the promise is not Isaac-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Jesus.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

You seem to be treating all non-Saudi Arabian Arabs as if they are not Arabs. Yemenis, Iraqis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, these people are also Arabs, they are also descendants of Ishmael - and they had their history in Musnad, Syriac and other scripts.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

No need. I'm happy to concede the point - I will accept the Hadith are right and Muhammed does mean Ishmael, then we can proceed.

Let us move to the next point.

We'll try

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

My problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? Question

You said so. How can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? The answer is in your mouth and heart. Just rethink again and again I wish you could answer it yourself but I’ll help you I respect your question. I respect your intelligence. I’ll summarize the history of Ishmael and his descendents
- Allah promised Abraham about Ishmael
- All profits good guys are from Isaac side
- Ishmaels are all ignorant they’ve offered nothing ,or noticeable achievement , really I as Arabic Moslem I never heared about even a book for this period from Ishmael till Mohamed
- After Ishmael’s died they worshiped status son, moon, many things
- The only noticeable man from Ishmael is someone 600 AD
- He pertain proficiency , he invited people to all their good in live
- The Islam shines all over the world
- Noone from Ishmael has the same position
No doubt , the promise is Mohamed the last profit, the promise to Abraham about his son Ishmael. Ooh my friend it’s very clear. “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah.” This saying means “There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah),and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.”

The problem remains - if the son is Ishmael, why does the Quran not follow Ishmael's sons? In fact the sons of Ishmael are mentioned in Genesis, but are the sons of Ishmael mentioned in the Quran?
تكرم عينك
God bless you Smile

Steven

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Steven3 wrote:

Irrespective, the Jews and Christians of Arabia would know that Genesis contains actually 3 blessings, 1 on Ishmael (Genesis 16&17), 2 on Isaac, and they would look at the Surah and assume (like I have assumed) that Muhammed is talking about Isaac. So if Muhammed meant Ishmael why did he not say so clearly?

We believe that The Quran is Allah’s words. As I explained it’s understood from the context. I myself don’t know why Allah didn’t expose Ishmael’s name explicitly.

Steven3 wrote:

Okay, but I'd still like to know if you have done what I have done and put Genesis and Quran side by side?

I didn’t do it but we’ll do when we start discussing the story from the OT

Steven3 wrote:

Ooh dear, Warqa appeared in the history of Islam once, when Khadija consulted him after first time Gabriel talked to Mohamed. Also, who said that Warqa’s copy of OT at that time was including that it’s Isaac? May be his copy doesn’t say it’s Isaac!
You simulate the thing as if Mohamed was writing Quran then go to Warqa or other Christians and Jews and consult them or he should take them into account.
It’s clear that all Arabs in Mecca at that time know that it was Ishmael. Do you think him afraid to be challenged? The answer is NO as he said so and documented in Hadith during his live.
I noticed that you might understand ( correct me if I’m wrong?) that Hadith appeared after 120 years of Mohamed death. As I explained before, Hadith is what Mohamed said. What he said is an explanation or detail of the Quran during his live. So, he said it’s Ishmael when the Quran was there and every one knew what he is saying including Christians and Jews. By the way, Quran and Hadith documented all debates with Christian, Jews, and Infidels.
Also please note that Mohamed didn’t write Quran. He is not lettered. Quran was inspired to him in pieces then he tells people what he received. People write it and then he asks them to read what they wrote to verify.
Quran was inspired to Mohamed till his last day.
Another point if Mohamed as you said afraid from Warqa , other Christians and Jews, he faced them with bigger issues like Christ is not crucified as Mohamed said they didn’t crucified the Christ. Using your logic to answer your question about exposing Ishmael’s name, he has the courage to face them with crucified which is well known Christian fact.

Steven3 wrote:

Sorry, but that is just not true. It it may be true of some parts of the Arabian peninsula, but it is certainly not true for all the Arabian peninsula because the Yemenis had their own Arabic documents, as did other Arab cultures.
There are many ancient documents - both religious and historical in Syriac, which is closely related to Arabic. Were the Syrians (the main speakers of Syriac) not also Arabs descended from Ishmael? Other descendants of Ishmael spoke other languages.

Apart from Syriac, Arabian itself, is an ancient language family, and there are many South-Arabian documents prior to Islam written in Musnad المُسند

There is a brief article about ancient Arabian language
http://www.answers.com/topic/south-arabian-alphabet

It was used for writing the Yemeni Old South Arabic dialects of the Sabaean, Qatabanian, Hadrami, Minaean, Himyarite, and proto-Ge'ez (or proto-Ethiosemitic) in D`mt. The earliest inscriptions in the alphabet date to the 9th century BC in Akkele Guzay, Eritrea[1] and in the 8th century BC, found in Babylonia and in Yemen. Its mature form was reached around 500 BC, and its use continued until the 7th century AD
You will find in those Musnadi documents that Yemeni and Iraqi Arabs had a wide interest in their history.

And in the Syriac documents (that were read by Arabs in Egypt, Yemen, Iraq from 3rd-6th Century) that reference is made to those Yemeni Egyptian Iraqi and Syrian Arabs who believed in Allah, the God of Ibrahim, believing that Isaac, not Ishmael, was the son sacrificed to Allah.

First don’t assume that All Arabs are from Ishmael. Why:-
- The Arabic peninsula was not empty when Abraham took his wife and son to Mecca. Even Mecca was not there at that time
- Most of Arabs in Arabic peninsula was originally from Yemen before Ishmael exists in Mecca. It’s said that Yemen is the source of all Arabs
- Abraham’s language was not the Arabic language. Ishmael learned Arabic from Arab people who joined him and his mother Hagar in Mecca
- There were no Arabs in neither (all) Iraq nor Egypt nor Syria nor Palestine , nor (all) Jordon before Islam. Moslems who took the Arabic language to Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Iraqi. may be some of Iraq was Arabic Hira and some of Palestine was Arabic Gasasena
- Ishmael’s sons scattered in the desert , his son Kidar lived in Mecca whom Mohamed comes from
- The language used in Musnad used by Yemenis but it’s not Arabic at all
- The Syriac language is not Arabic, it’s a sister language.
From all of the above, when I said there is no written history or books from Arabs I mean Ishmael’s descendents. Anyway this is my knowledge there might be I don’t know.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

I myself don’t know any documents except Hadith which is written after Islam. What I can say is that Arabs before Islam and we Mosilems should sacrifice every year to follow Abraham.

Every Hadith is a case but this Hadith is absolute correct and belongs to Mohamed.
Before Islam there were Christians in East Africa, Yemen, Egypt, Iraqi, and Palestine.
What I can say is that the Quran is not changed since Mohamed get it from Allah. It’s as is and will be. This is not the case for OT and NT.

Steven3 wrote:

You’re right Egypt, Lebnan, Syria, all Jordon, All Iraqi only became Arabic after Islam and converted to Arabs by Islam not before.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

No need. I'm happy to concede the point - I will accept the Hadith are right and Muhammed does mean Ishmael, then we can proceed.

Let us move to the next point.

We'll try

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

My problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? Question

You said so. How can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? The answer is in your mouth and heart. Just rethink again and again I wish you could answer it yourself but I’ll help you I respect your question. I respect your intelligence. I’ll summarize the history of Ishmael and his descendents
- Allah promised Abraham about Ishmael
- All profits good guys are from Isaac side
- Ishmaels are all ignorant they’ve offered nothing ,or noticeable achievement , really I as Arabic Moslem I never heared about even a book for this period from Ishmael till Mohamed
- After Ishmael’s died they worshiped status son, moon, many things
- The only noticeable man from Ishmael is someone 600 AD
- He pertain proficiency , he invited people to all their good in live
- The Islam shines all over the world
- Noone from Ishmael has the same position
No doubt , the promise is Mohamed the last profit, the promise to Abraham about his son Ishmael. Ooh my friend it’s very clear. “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah.” This saying means “There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah),and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.”

The problem remains - if the son is Ishmael, why does the Quran not follow Ishmael's sons? In fact the sons of Ishmael are mentioned in Genesis, but are the sons of Ishmael mentioned in the Quran?

My dear, you asked a question about

Steven3 wrote:

My problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? Question

And I answered it’s Mohamed I want your opinion on the following question that I’ve answered above. Is my answer is right? I feel you avoided this question and it’s answer.
[color=”red”]Is Mohamed is the promise to Abraham about Ishmael? [color]

But you turned it to another question

Steven3 wrote:

The problem remains - if the son is Ishmael, why does the Quran not follow Ishmael's sons?

Ok I think the main point was you think that Quran agrees with OT that it’s Isaac at least I showed not. So, I’ll post my opinion about the OT story of sacrifice. But I want your opinion about the promise to Abraham about Ishmael;
Regards

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem

Abdelaleem wrote:

Steven3 wrote:

Okay, but I'd still like to know if you have done what I have done and put Genesis and Quran side by side?

I didn’t do it but we’ll do when we start discussing the story from the OT

Good that will help both of us Smile

Steven3 wrote:

Also, who said that Warqa’s copy of OT at that time was including that it’s Isaac? May be his copy doesn’t say it’s Isaac!

The evidence of my own eyes: I own a copy of the Syrian version, which is 200 years before Warqa - and it says "Isaac". If Warqa was using the Yemeni (Musnad) it would agree with the Syrian.

The Isaac account in the Syrian and Yemeni versions of the Genesis 22 (the sacrifice account) contains the name of Isaac 5 times. If the name "Ishmael" was originally there each name of "Ishmael" would have to be changed to "Isaac" 5 times in every copy of every Syriac and Musnad text.

In addition Hebrews 11, in Syriac, and Yemeni Musnad, has "Isaac".

Third, commentaries in Syrian (I do not know about Yemeni Musnad) have "Isaac".

Quote:

You simulate the thing as if Mohamed was writing Quran then go to Warqa or other Christians and Jews and consult them or he should take them into account.

Yes certainly he must - because he is either opposing them (the crucifixion) or wishing to convert them, either way he cannot ignore them. Did not Mohammed convert many Christians and Jews?

Quote:

It’s clear that all Arabs in Mecca at that time know that it was Ishmael.

It's not clear - it's unknown. You have provided no documentation from Mecca from that time. We only have documentation of Syrian Arabs and Yemeni Arabs who believed in was Isaac not Ishmael. Mecca is in the middle between Syria and Yemen, why would we think that before Mohammed they believed differently to their Arab cousins to the North and the South?

Quote:

Do you think him afraid to be challenged? The answer is NO as he said so and documented in Hadith during his live.

No, so why doesn't he mention Ishmael?

Quote:

I noticed that you might understand ( correct me if I’m wrong?) that Hadith appeared after 120 years of Mohamed death. As I explained before, Hadith is what Mohamed said.

I actually underestimated, Muhammed died 632 wheras the major Hadith are c.850, for example from Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari 809-869, and Abu al Husain 818-875, so the major Hadith comes 220 years later. But actually it isn't the lapse of time it is the question of varying opinions. But I recognize that all Hadith either are silent on the identity of the son, or say it is Ishmael. There is no Hadith which says it was Isaac.

Quote:

What he said is an explanation or detail of the Quran during his live. So, he said it’s Ishmael when the Quran was there and every one knew what he is saying including Christians and Jews.

But we have no evidence for this in the Quran that he ever said it. You believe the Hadith is reliable evidence of what happened 250 years earlier - and yes, it may be. But Hadith is only evidence of what Mohammed said, it cannot give evidence for what Syrian and Yemeni Arabs believed. Or indeed Hadith cannot say what Warqa believed. Are we agreed on this point? Smile

Quote:

By the way, Quran and Hadith documented all debates with Christian, Jews, and Infidels. Also please note that Mohamed didn’t write Quran. He is not lettered. Quran was inspired to him in pieces then he tells people what he received. People write it and then he asks them to read what they wrote to verify.

I realise that, when I say "Mohammed said" it means his disciples wrote.

Quote:

Quran was inspired to Mohamed till his last day.
Another point if Mohamed as you said afraid from Warqa , other Christians and Jews, he faced them with bigger issues like Christ is not crucified as Mohamed said they didn’t crucified the Christ. Using your logic to answer your question about exposing Ishmael’s name, he has the courage to face them with crucified which is well known Christian fact.

No, I think if Mohammed disagreed with Warqa he would certainly not be afraid and say so clearly in the Quran - which is why I doubt the Hadith. But then I am not a muslim, I do not have to accept the Hadith.

Quote:

First don’t assume that All Arabs are from Ishmael. Why:-
- The Arabic peninsula was not empty when Abraham took his wife and son to Mecca. Even Mecca was not there at that time

According to the Bible the Arabs are not all descended from Ishmael, others are descended from Abrahams third wife, Keturah. Their histories are listed in Genesis. Yet Ishmael is nominally considered the ancestor of all - even those from Keturah.

Quote:

Abraham’s language was not the Arabic language. Ishmael learned Arabic from Arab people who joined him and his mother Hagar in Mecca

Where do you find this information? Ishmael lived 2500 years before the (Gulf) Arabic language, so what he spoke would not have been Arabic.

Quote:

The language used in Musnad used by Yemenis but it’s not Arabic at all
- The Syriac language is not Arabic, it’s a sister language.

All languages have their origins and sisters. English has it's origin in Anglo-Saxon. The English of Chaucer is very different from Shakespeare. What you are describing happens in every language --- just as Gulf-Arabic and Egyptian-Arabic have grown apart during the last 1000 years. Arabic too is a language that has grown and changed, and has sisters and cousins --- just like any other. But that's not the point.

The point is Mecca did not exist as a cultural and linguistic vacuum. There must have been educated people who could read and write in the Arabian peninsula before Mohammed's day (in fact we know there were because there were these sister languages - Musnad and Syriac, and inscriptions and documents survive). The fact that a minor dialect triumphed and became the central language stream is a common phenomena - it happened with English, Greek, Latin, German - languages rise and fall as empires rise and fall. But the basic fact remains - Arabs in Mecca if they knew how to read, and if they had contact with Yemeni and Syrian descendants of Ibrahim would think Isaac was the son - because pre-Hadith documents all name Isaac.

Quote:

From all of the above, when I said there is no written history or books from Arabs I mean Ishmael’s descendents.

I was speaking of all Ibrahim's descendants - from Ishmael and Keturah as described by the book of Genesis.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

I myself don’t know any documents except Hadith which is written after Islam. What I can say is that Arabs before Islam and we Mosilems should sacrifice every year to follow Abraham.

Every Hadith is a case but this Hadith is absolute correct and belongs to Mohamed.
Before Islam there were Christians in East Africa, Yemen, Egypt, Iraqi, and Palestine.

~~~~~~~~~~~ textual criticism NT/OT content broken out into separate post ~~~~~~~~

Quote:

The problem remains - if the son is Ishmael, why does the Quran not follow Ishmael's sons? In fact the sons of Ishmael are mentioned in Genesis, but are the sons of Ishmael mentioned in the Quran?

My dear, you asked a question about

Steven3 wrote:

My problem is these prophets mentioned in the Quran are all descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael. So how can the promise to Abraham be about Ishmael? Question

And I answered it’s Mohamed I want your opinion on the following question that I’ve answered above. Is my answer is right? I feel you avoided this question and it’s answer.

I think your answer is fine. Perhaps it's my fault for not asking the question clearly, sorry Smile

. When I said "the promise" I should have said plural "the promises" because the NT speaks plural about a chain of promises Eve-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Zerubbabel-Jesus.

I meant the chain-of-promise, not just the specific one to the son Abraham sacrificed.

Quote:

[color=”red”]Is Mohamed is the promise to Abraham about Ishmael? [color]

No, because there is a chain Eve-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Zerubbabel-Jesus. Now, I think Zerubbabel is missing from this chain in the Quran (?) but Mohammed has all the others
Eve-Abraham-[son not named]-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-....-Jesus. So Mohammed himself has all the chain, of Isaac's descendants : Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-...-Jesus.

Quote:

But you turned it to another question

my mistake, I meant promises, the chain of promises. We use single "chain of promise" because we believe they are all variants or developments of the same basic promise, ending in Jesus.

Quote:

I’ll post my opinion about the OT story of sacrifice. But I want your opinion about the promise to Abraham about Ishmael;
Regards

I'd say your opinion is possible if the son-sacrificed-promise was not part of the chain of promises, but in Quran, according to Hadith, Mohammed continues with the Eve-Abraham-Ishmael-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Jesus, chain of history. So Ishmael sticks out, because the family tree is
Abraham (Hagar & Ishmael) - dead end.
Abraham (Sarah & Isaac) -Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Zerubbabel-Jesus.

This is the problem
Steven

Last edited by Steven3 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:18 am; edited 2 times in total

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

PS -

Quote:

What I can say is that the Quran is not changed since Mohamed get it from Allah. It’s as is and will be. This is not the case for OT and NT.

this is a separate issue and probably needs a separate thread.

so I moved it here

We need to move on from these issues to the actual text Smile

Arabic, Genesis 22
1 وحدث بعد هذه الامور ان الله امتحن ابراهيم. فقال له يا ابراهيم. فقال هانذا.

2 فقال خذ ابنك وحيدك الذي تحبه اسحق واذهب الى ارض المريّا واصعده هناك محرقة على احد الجبال الذي اقول لك.

3 فبكّر ابراهيم صباحا وشدّ على حماره واخذ اثنين من غلمانه معه واسحق ابنه وشقّق حطبا لمحرقة وقام وذهب الى الموضع الذي قال له الله.

4 وفي اليوم الثالث رفع ابراهيم عينيه وابصر الموضع من بعيد.

5 فقال ابراهيم لغلاميه اجلسا انتما ههنا مع الحمار. واما انا والغلام فنذهب الى هناك ونسجد ثم نرجع اليكما.

6 فاخذ ابراهيم حطب المحرقة ووضعه على اسحق ابنه واخذ بيده النار والسكين. فذهبا كلاهما معا.

7 وكلم اسحق ابراهيم اباه وقال يا ابي. فقال هانذا يا ابني. فقال هوذا النار والحطب ولكن اين الخروف للمحرقة.

8 فقال ابراهيم الله يرى له الخروف للمحرقة يا ابني. فذهبا كلاهما معا

9 فلما أتيا الى الموضع الذي قال له الله بنى هناك ابراهيم المذبح ورتب الحطب وربط اسحق ابنه ووضعه على المذبح فوق الحطب.

10 ثم مدّ ابراهيم يده واخذ السكين ليذبح ابنه.

11 فناداه ملاك الرب من السماء وقال ابراهيم ابراهيم. فقال هانذا.

12 فقال لا تمد يدك الى الغلام ولا تفعل به شيئا. لاني الآن علمت انك خائف الله فلم تمسك ابنك وحيدك عني.

13 فرفع ابراهيم عينيه ونظر واذا كبش وراءه ممسكا في الغابة بقرنيه. فذهب ابراهيم واخذ الكبش واصعده محرقة عوضا عن ابنه.

14 فدعا ابراهيم اسم ذلك الموضع يهوه يرأه. حتى انه يقال اليوم في جبل الرب يرى

15 ونادى ملاك الرب ابراهيم ثانية من السماء

16 وقال بذاتي اقسمت يقول الرب. اني من اجل انك فعلت هذا الامر ولم تمسك ابنك وحيدك

17 اباركك مباركة واكثر نسلك تكثيرا كنجوم السماء وكالرمل الذي على شاطئ البحر. ويرث نسلك باب اعدائه.

18 ويتبارك في نسلك جميع امم الارض. من اجل انك سمعت لقولي.

19 ثم رجع ابراهيم الى غلاميه. فقاموا وذهبوا معا الى بئر سبع. وسكن ابراهيم في بئر سبع

20 وحدث بعد هذه الامور ان ابراهيم أخبر وقيل له هوذا ملكة قد ولدت ايضا بنين لناحور اخيك.

21 عوصا بكره وبوزا اخاه وقموئيل ابا ارام

22 وكاسد وحزوا وفلداش ويدلاف وبتوئيل.

23 وولد بتوئيل رفقة. هؤلاء الثمانية ولدتهم ملكة لناحور اخي ابراهيم.

24 واما سرّيته واسمها رؤومة فولدت هي ايضا طابح وجاحم وتاحش ومعكة

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Also, who said that Warqa’s copy of OT at that time was including that it’s Isaac? May be his copy doesn’t say it’s Isaac!

I totally disagree with you about Warqa, why:-
- The only reference to his name is the Hadith
- You (and nobody else) don’t know what is the language and version of his books

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

You simulate the thing as if Mohamed was writing Quran then go to Warqa or other Christians and Jews and consult them or he should take them into account.

Yes certainly he must - because he is either opposing them (the crucifixion) or wishing to convert them, either way he cannot ignore them. Did not Mohammed convert many Christians and Jews?

I’ll surprise you by the fact that during Mohamed’s live few Christians and Jews converted.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

It’s clear that all Arabs in Mecca at that time know that it was Ishmael.

You insists on references I’ll forward you to the “The Encyclopaedia Judaica” It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from the Qurayza tribe, and another Jewish scholar, who converted to Islam, told that Caliph Omar Ibn 'Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail was the one who was bound, but that they concealed this out of jealousy. The Muslim legend also adds details of Hajar, the mother of Ismail. After Abraham drove her and her son out, she wandered between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwa (in the vicinity of Mecca) in search for water. At that time the waters of the spring Zemzem began to flow. Her acts became the basis for the hallowed custom of Muslims during the Hajj.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, pp. 82 (Under 'Ishmael').

Another refrence in the same encyclopedia
The testimony of the former Jew as mentioned hadith literature as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Judaica reads:

Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael (P)] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., 'Umar] asked him: which son did Abraham (P) sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael(P). By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'

=================

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Do you think him afraid to be challenged? The answer is NO as he said so and documented in Hadith during his live.

No, so why doesn't he mention Ishmael?

Allah only knows.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

I noticed that you might understand ( correct me if I’m wrong?) that Hadith appeared after 120 years of Mohamed death. As I explained before, Hadith is what Mohamed said.

People like al-Bukhari 809-869 and others, what they did is they wrote the Hadith in books. The usual way of studing at that time is by memorizing that Hadiths from mouth to mouth. No hadith said it’s Isaac.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

What he said is an explanation or detail of the Quran during his live. So, he said it’s Ishmael when the Quran was there and every one knew what he is saying including Christians and Jews.

Please note that not all the Islam is from Quran, if the Hadith is authenticated then it’s obligatory . for example how to pray is not in Quran but it’s from Hadith.
You’re absolutely right, Sure Hadith is evidence on Quran but not an evidence about Yemenis or Syriac as Mohamed didn’t tell us everything about everyone.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Again , it’s not Mohamed choice to select what should be Quran and what is not?
Another evidence that the Quran is from Allah. Allah sometimes blames Mohamed in Quran. For example 5: [67] O Apostle! proclaim the (Message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.
Allah says to Mohamed , don’t afraid from People “Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief).” i.e. don’t afraid to be killed or blamed . it’s for you Steven

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

First don’t assume that All Arabs are from Ishmael. Why:-
- The Arabic peninsula was not empty when Abraham took his wife and son to Mecca. Even Mecca was not there at that time

No No many Arabs were there in Arabic peninsula not from Abraham’s descendents. We’ve Hadith and Arabic story have been documented after Islam says that there were some people joined Hagar and her son after Allah gave them a water well. Also, the historical studies documented the oriogion of every family in the Arabic peninsula. It shows that not all of them are from Abraham. The civilization of Yemen is older the Abraham himself. Also , Abraham was from originally from Iraq.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Abraham’s language was not the Arabic language. Ishmael learned Arabic from Arab people who joined him and his mother Hagar in Mecca

Where do you find this information? Ishmael lived 2500 years before the (Gulf) Arabic language, so what he spoke would not have been Arabic.

What is the language of Hagar and her son? It’s same language as Abraham or do you think Abraham was speaking Arabic?
For sure Hagar and her son were speaking Abraham’s language which is not the Arabic. Ishmael and Hagar learnt Arabic from people living there. Also 2500 years is not enoght to drive a new language from Abraham’s language

Quote:

Language concerns

I can’t debate in this area

Steven3 wrote:

the promise chain Eve-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Zerubbabel-Jesus

Then this is the problem. You mean the chain should be continuous. According to OT there are 2 promises to Abraham one to Isaac and there is also one to Ishmael.
Jacob…. David….Moses…Jesus is the Isaac promise
Ishmael………………………Mohamed is the Ishmael’s promise

But if you say the promise should be continuous chain and say that the chain should be Eve-Abraham-Ishmael-Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Zerubbabel-Jesus because it’s not logical

What I mean Allah said in OT that he will make Ishmael a big nation. Who from Ishmael descendants has a big nation? It’s Mohamed

Or do you deny that there is promise to Ishmael to have a big nation?

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Steven3 wrote:

We need to move on from these issues to the actual text Smile

Ok let us start

Introduction:
Colter wrote in the thread the following

Colter wrote:

The second problem is that during the Babylonian captivity the Jews completely rewrote their history, they took ordinary secular history and transformed it into miraculous history, making themselves a "special race" of Gods chosen people on earth. The OT still contains fragments of truth but is basically a work of exaggerated fiction. All religions which rely on story telling suffer from this practice; fact and fiction combined to inspire men.
Colter

Thanks Colter

This is exactly what happened with the OT scripts . Someone has changed the script by one of the following way:-

--- change the sacrifice name from Ishmael to Isaac

--- or add Isaac name on the script .the original scripts doesn’t have a name (Steven just like quran)

Before we start to discuss the subject let us document the corruption in the OT from Allah’s words in the OT itself

1 - Deuteronomy 31:25-29 (New International Version)

- - - -25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : …29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made."

2- Also, Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)

- - -8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

- - -The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

As you can see, Allah himself said in the OT that there will be corruption in the OT.

What about the Book of Genesis itself:

"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known also as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book"), were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by Moses," an allusion of Ge 17. However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g., notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11). (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)"

So in reality, the book of Genesis had been tampered with by man. It had been corrupted.

Ishmael (Ismail) was the Son to be Sacrificed:

Genesis 17:24-27: "And Abraham was ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

A year later, Isaac was born and circumcised when he was eight days old: Genesis 21:4-5: "And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him."
From all of the above, we understand the following:-

--- Abraham's age when Ismail was born was 86.

--- Isaac was Abraham's second son, born of Sarah, when Abraham was 100 years of age.

--- Ishamel is the elder son of Abrham

--- Ishmael is the only son of Abraham for 13 years

So, When Allah says “Only Son” he means Ishmael.

The sacrifice story

Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
[b]

The contradiction is there. It is mentioned ", your only son, Isaac, "

The word “Only Son” is not applied on Isaac as Isaac never been the only son

So the right script should be one of the following two cases:

--- First possibility –Only son, Ishmael-- Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son,Ishmael, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."[/color]

--- Second possibility-Only son, no name--- Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son,______, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."[/color]

Comments on the 2 possibilities:-
--- First possibility ----
-------------------------Absolutely correct as Ishmael is the only son
-------------------------It’s a stretched text, it repeats the sacrifice name “the only son” and Ishmael
--- Second possibility----
-------------------------Absolutely correct as it’s said the only son whom is Ishmael ,can be understood from the context
-------------------------It’s a optimized text, it doesn’t repeat the sacrifice name. it uses one name “the only son”
------------------------ Dear Steven it’s like Quran no name as it’s understood from the context

The second possibility can be supported by Genesis 22:16

and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,

Look to the beautiful text. It says “only son” without neither Isaac nor Ishmael

It’s clear that the name of Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22 or there might be noname at all and it’s known who is the only son.
The good think that whoever imposed Isaac name in the script didn’t remove the word “Only Son” . What a good chance for us to show us how the text should be.

Then we can say that the original script of the OT says that the sacrifice is Ishmael not Isaac

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem

Abdelaleem wrote:

Steven3 wrote:

We need to move on from these issues to the actual text Smile

Ok let us start

Good!

Quote:

Introduction:
Colter wrote in the thread the following

Colter wrote:

The second problem is that during the Babylonian captivity the Jews completely rewrote their history, they took ordinary secular history and trans