Ishmael and Isaac in the Bible: A
Response to a Christian’s Objections, Part Seven
This article is a continuation of our discussion with a
Christian from the IslamiCity Discussion
Forum
on the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Biblical story of Ishmael and
Isaac. In his new reply, the Christian
started as usual, by resorting to personal attacks. We will be ignoring such parts of his reply
and concentrate on the parts where he still at least tries to offer some sort
of substantive rebuttal.
He states:
“The Koran is the first Holy book for
Muslims. However, it is the Koran that is very vague and omits any promises
giving to Ishmael through Abraham, not the Bible. Muslims claim Muhammad as a
descendant of Ishmael. The scriptures on the other hand are very clear on who
will carry on Abraham’s legacy and who will fight against it.”
We
have already dealt with this issue.
There is no need to repeat what has already been stated. However, we can add that the Quran does not
state that Allah (swt) made promises with certain people, while neglecting
others, as the Bible claims. Moreover,
if the Christian could be bothered to do some honest research, he would know
that the Quran does indeed state that Allah (swt) made a covenant with Ibrahim
and Ishmael, just as He made a covenant with Isaac (peace be upon them):
“Remember We made the House a place of
assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a
place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael, that they should
sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or
bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).”[1]
Next, he stated:
“In his first blog “The Islamic story”
Ishmael name IS NOT MENTIONED as a child of sacrifice by Abraham in both the
Bible and the Koran. So what is the Muslim community’s opinion since no name is
mentioned? It is divided so they blame the Bible for allegedly being corrupted.
But, why isn’t it clear in the Koran since it is clear in the Bible that Isaac
was the ‘only son’ of ABRAHAM and SARAH
and that Ishmael was disowned and dismissed also making Isaac the only son in
his household and of sacrifice? Are Muslims trying to guess and distract this
account away? Does it take the emotional whim of Islamic commentators to write
the wrong of the Koran for leaving it out? THIS IS A MAJOR BLONDER [sic]! After
providing conclusive evidence of Islamic scholars saying that it was indeed
Isaac, what was the response?”
In
this incoherent diatribe, we can see a not too infrequent aspect of Christian
apologetics, namely the mindless repetition of poor arguments and an inability
to admit that one is mistaken. We showed
in our previous responses that the context of the Quranic story proves that the
child of sacrifice was Ishmael (peace be upon him). The Christian never responded. We showed that the traditions that the
Christian plagiarized were deceptively quoted and that the same scholars who
related traditions about Isaac also related separate traditions about Ishmael (peace
be upon them). We also showed that the
traditions about Isaac can be traced back to one specific individual, who
relied on Jewish and Christian traditions.
The Christian never responded. We
pointed out the contradictions in the Biblical story. The Christian has either tried to avoid these
contradictions and or has offered absurd and unsupported theories.
Next, the Christian stated (emphasis
in the original):
“He say’s [sic] a vast majority. Well,
faith minded people all over the world find it amazing that Muhammad or the
Koran had not stated it, only the commentators who came after the messenger!
Did the angel recite to them as well? This is his first blog and his first line
defense to disprove the “Biblical Story’ of Isaac being the only
son of Abraham by Sarah and the only son in
Abraham’s household to be offered up.”
As
we have already stated several times, it is not a problem for Muslims whether
Ishmael was the child of sacrifice or Isaac (peace be upon them). The Christian seems unable to understand
this. What he also fails to realize is
that pontificating on what the Quran says does nothing to eliminate the
contradictions in the Bible, which is the main issue here.
To further prove our assertion that
it has been the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars that the child of
sacrifice was Ishmael (peace be upon him), let us quote the famous commentator
Ibn Kathir (emphasis ours):
“Sa`id
bin Jubayr, `Amir Ash-Sha`bi, Yusuf bin Mihran, Mujahid, `Ata' and others reported from Ibn `Abbas that it was Isma`il,
peace be upon him. Ibn Jarir
narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "The one who was ransomed was Isma`il,
peace be upon him. The Jews claimed that it was Ishaq, but the Jews lied.'' It
was reported that Ibn `Umar said,
"The sacrifice was Isma`il.'' Ibn
Abi Najih said, narrating from Mujahid, "It was Isma`il, peace be upon
him.'' This was also the view of Yusuf
bin Mihran. Ash-Sha`bi said,
"It was Isma`il, peace be upon him, and I saw the horns of the ram in the
Ka`bah.'' Muhammad bin Ishaq
reported from Al-Hasan bin Dinar and
`Amr bin `Ubayd from Al-Hasan Al-Basri that he did not doubt
that the one of the two sons Ibrahim was commanded to sacrifice was Isma`il,
peace be upon him. Ibn Ishaq said, "I heard Muhammad bin Ka`b Al-Qurazi say, `The one whom Allah commanded
Ibrahim to sacrifice of his two sons was Isma`il.' We find this in the Book of
Allah, because when Allah finishes the story of the one of the two sons of
Ibrahim who was to be sacrificed, He then says: (And We gave him the glad
tidings of Ishaq -- a Prophet from the righteous)…”[2]
As
we can see, the traditions regarding Ishmael (peace be upon him) are numerous. In fact, even in Tabari’s history, they are
more numerous than those regarding Isaac.
Tabari mentions that 23 scholars named Ishmael as the child of
sacrifice, while 16 named Isaac (peace be upon them all).[3]
However, what is most important is what the
Quran itself says. The Christian has yet
to respond to our proofs from the Quran that show clearly that the child was
Ishmael (peace be upon him). Instead, in
an unprofessional and ranting fashion, he plagiarizes material from deceptive
missionaries who don’t even provide all the information.
Next, the Christian attempted to
respond to our original article, where we stated that the ahadith state that Ishmael (peace be upon him) was a very young
child when he was sent out with his mother into the desert. He stated:
“The Hadiths, why wasn’t the Koran
clear on? So, another source outside has to be used because of the Koran
manipulation of the Biblical account, not having any time frame or location as
does the Bible.”
Notice
the attempt to distract from the main issue.
What does it matter to the Christian which Islamic source is used? Muslims rely on the Quran and the authentic
ahadith. The Christian’s personal
opinions are irrelevant.
In any case, we have presented
evidence that the Bible contradicts itself on the age of Ishmael when he was
sent out with his mother. Unable to
refute this evidence, the Christian has since been avoiding this subject like
the plague, until now. Let us see if he
has any practical response to make. He
stated:
“Right
from the start how do we know Ishmael was already a teenager?
Gen 17:24, 25 Abraham was 99 years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.
And Ish′ma·el his son was 13 years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin
circumcised.
What happened five years after that?
Let’s do the math.
Gen 21:8, 9 Now the child grew and was weaned, and Abraham prepared a big feast on the
day that Isaac was weaned. But Sarah kept
noticing that the son of Ha′gar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham,
was mocking Isaac
In providing the detail, Ishmael was
nineteen yrs. old! The Koran conveniently left out these important details.
But, why is a nineteen yr. old young man bullying his little brother? We can began
to see exactly why Hagar and Ishmael was legally dismissed and disowned
personally by Elohim, leaving Isaac as the “only son” left behind with his natural
parents Abraham and Sarah.”
As
can be seen from this disappointing response, the Christian simply repeated
what we have already stated. It is
obvious that we can calculate Ishmael’s age based on the Genesis story. But that’s not the problem! The problem is that while Ishmael is
supposedly a teenager, the text refers to him as a child! The Christian originally attempted to respond
to the linguistic difficulties concerning the word “hay-ye-led”. We showed irrefutable evidence that the word
means nothing else than a “young child”.
Has the Christian already forgotten?
Moreover, the above claims made by
the Christian are rife with inaccuracies and deception. He tries to make Ishmael even older than he
was supposed to be. Now he claims that
Ishmael was 19 years old, even though the chronology of the story does not
allow this. As we will shortly see, the
motive for the Christian’s deception is obvious. But first, let us check the Christian’s
math. Genesis 17 does tell us that the
“Covenant of Circumcision” was made when Abraham was 99 years old. This would make Ishmael 13 years old at the
time, since he was born when Abraham was 86 years old.[4] Up to this point, the Christian’s math is
correct. However, the rest of it is
pathetically skewed. The Christian
claimed that the event of Hagar and Ishmael’s exile occurred five years
later. We have to ask how the Christian
came to this conclusion. The text clear
states that Isaac was born when Abraham 100 years old.[5] It also states that when Isaac was weaned,
which occurs when a child is two years old, Hagar and Ishmael were sent
out. Hence, Abraham was 102 years old. So, yes, let do the math to determine
Ishmael’s age (represented by x):
102 – 86 = x, x = 16.
Hence,
Ishmael was at most 16 years old, not 19 years old! Since we have to assume that the Christian
has enough education to do simple math, then the only conclusion as to how he
bungled the math is that it was a deliberate act of deception. By making Ishmael even older, the Christian
can make his case that Ishmael’s alleged “mocking” of the baby Isaac made
Ishmael culpable, since a 19-year old would be held accountable for his
actions. But, as we just showed, Ishmael
was only 16 years old. Even if we
acknowledge that a 16-year old would be held accountable for his actions, how does
Ishmael’s mocking justify his exile from the family and being cut-off by God? As we pointed out in Part 6, the so-called
“chosen” ones, like Isaac and Jacob, exhibited shameful behavior, including
cowardice, deception and blackmail! As
has become customary with our Christian critic, he completely ignored this
point and did not respond to it.
Moreover, if Ishmael was 16 years
old, then why he described as “hay-ye-led”, which means “young child”? How can a supposedly “inspired” text have
such obvious contradictions (obvious at least to those with eyes to see)?
Next, the Christian stated:
“Because the Koran intentionally
omitted these details to promote Islam and Muhammad as its messenger. Does the
koran say Ishmael was the son that was going to be sacrificed? Of course not it
changed the whole story around and left things out. Surely that would have
given the koran’s account some sort of credibility, at least to start off with
but it doesn’t. So, to distract its followers from knowing the truth, let’s
distort the Genesis account by changing the names and say the Bible is corrupted.
Why? Base on the Ahmed Deedat syndrome, here it is once again . . .”
Again,
we see nothing more than childish rants.
The Christian has yet to respond to the evidence we showed from the
Quran that Ishmael (peace be upon him) was indeed the child of sacrifice. Instead of responding to the evidence, he
rants about disagreements among some scholars and completely ignores the fact
that the majority opinion is that it was Ishmael. He also fails to understand that the problem
is not with the Quran. The problem is
with the Bible, and he has done an incredibly poor job at defending the book he
calls “scripture”.
The Christian then stated:
“The
Bible as I have shown above shows Ishmael to be a teenager (Gen 17:24, 25) Why
does the Koran need Islamic sources to prove that he was not a teenager, was it
recited to Muhammad or to them? Is it because the Koran lacks sufficient
logical evidence? Because of your lack of research this and your remaining
blogs went downhill from there. How does he conclude this blog?”
It
is ironic that the Christian accuses us of not doing enough research, yet as we
have seen thus far, the Christian’s own “research” has been limited to
plagiarism and Google searches. On the
other hand, we have provided evidence from scholarly sources which completely
debunk the Genesis story and expose the contradictions within it. For it is not simply the Islamic sources
which show that Ishmael was not a teenager (but a very young child), when he
sent out with his mother, it is the Bible itself. The Bible contradicts itself by claiming that
Ishmael was 16-years old (not 19), but then describing him as a young
child. The reason for this discrepancy
is due to the editing of the Genesis story, and we have provided evidence for
this.
Next, he stated:
“Contradictions according to who, the
Hadiths? All I can say is ignorance is bliss, especially since the Koran is a
book for Muslims and Muhammad is its [messenger.] Yet it is silent on the most
fundamental teachings of Abraham inheritance to a promised miracle son. But, it
does draws attention to the way Islamic commentators defend their beliefs. They
take a narcissistic approach, if it’s not spelled out in a way they think it
should be spelled out or explained in the Koran or Hadith the Bible is wrong.
Here’s another example . . .”
Indeed,
ignorance certainly is bliss, and the Christian has exhibited an abhorrent
amount of ignorance. Of course, personal
attacks will do nothing to remove the contradictions and inconsistencies in the
Bible.
The Christian then stated:
“And for this reason it is false? This
is pretty much the same approach as Ahmed Deedat and other would be debaters
and apologetics. As you can see, they have a very, very, very strong sense of
personal preference on how verses in the Bible are supposed to be written since
they disagree with it. How self-centered and self-indulgent is that approach to
the Holy Scriptures? Yet, the Koran has failed and fallen short on the account
of Abraham promises and blessings through Isaac, Jacob and eventually Jesus,
the promised seed and messiah. Obviously, this would be the first and foremost
mistake of anyone whose faith is based on a shaky foundation as the Koran and
those who supposedly were used by Allah to establish it.
This brings us to the phrase that was
used; “common sense.” Since Muslims grossly MIS-Understand and thus in turn
MIS-Interpret the term ‘only son’ it is in their
altered ego the scriptures are corrupted. Let us go into it further by
discussing Isaac’s unique position and why he is singled out not only in the Bible but believe it or not also in the
Koran.”
This
was in response to our point that the phrase “only son” does not mean “only son
through Sarah”, which is what the Christian was claiming using nothing but his
own opinions. Instead of offering a
reasoned response, the Christian again childishly went off on a tirade, coming
back to Sheik Ahmed Deedat! Why is he so
obsessed with Deedat? And how do his
childish rants do any justice to the Bible?
If this is the best he can offer in terms of a reasoned response, we
invite some other Christian to take his place since he is doing a horrible job
of defending your Bible.
Notice that the Christian has yet to
provide any support for his claim. The
best he can do to support his own opinion is to say that it is “common
sense”. Contrary to his opinion, common
sense would dictate that the phrase “only son” is contradictory and makes no
sense whatsoever since Abraham had two sons.
The Christian wants to take a leap of faith to protect the Bible by
theorizing that the phrase “only son” actually meant “only son through Sarah”,
even though we pointed out how completely unnecessary it would have been to say
that to Abraham. Surely, Abraham already
knew that he only had one son through Sarah and did not need to be reminded!
He then stated:
“In the
scriptures a conversation was addressed to Abraham that a promised child would
be born to Sarah through a miracle birth; let’s examine both the Bible and
Koran to see who the promised son was; not sons of Abraham but the promised SON
of Abraham.
Gen. 17:15, 16 Then God said to Abraham: “As for your wife Sar′ai, you must not call her
Sar′ai, because Sarah will become her name. I will bless her
and also give you a [son] by her; I will bless her and she will become nations;
kings of peoples will come from her.” Gen 18: 9-15
Compare Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113,
51:24-30.
Perhaps someone can tell me where
Ishmael is singled out as a promised son and born through a miracle birth?
Isaac’s and Isaac’s descendants would
inherit an inheritance that was given to Abraham; Ishmael would not receive any
of the inheritance given to Abraham. Gen 13:14-18 15:18-21 28:13, 14!”
Here
we see the pettiness of the Christian’s theology. Apparently, in his mind, if God made a
promise about a child’s birth, this somehow made that child more superior to
others. But as we have pointed out, the
Quranic view is not petty. The Quranic
view is very clear:
“Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and
the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the
Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets
from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we
bow to Allah (in Islam)."”[6]
“We have sent thee inspiration, as We
sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham,
Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon,
and to David We gave the Psalms.”[7]
Moreover,
as we previously showed, Ishmael’s birth was no less important, as he was born
when Allah (swt) answered Ibrahim’s prayer for a son. This can be deduced from the meaning of the
name “Ishmael”, as Yusuf Ali noted in his commentary on Surah As-Saffat:
“The boy thus born was, according to
Muslim tradition, the first-born son of Abraham, viz., Ismail. The name itself
is from the root Samia, to hear, because Allah had heard Abraham's prayer
(verse 100).””[8]
Ishmael
(peace be upon him) was also greatly praised, as were all the prophets
(including Isaac):
“And Ishmael and Elisha, and Jonas, and
Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:”[9]
“And commemorate Ishmael, Elisha, and
Zul-Kifl: Each of them was of the Company of the Good.”[10]
In
addition, the Quran points to Ibrahim’s (peace be upon him) prayer of thanks to
Allah (swt) for granting him both his sons:
“"Praise be to Allah, Who hath granted
unto me in old age Ishmael and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He, the Hearer of
Prayer!”[11]
Next, the Christian stated:
“Perhaps someone can tell me where in
the Koran is Ishmael and his descendants primarily singled out and lined up for
future blessings? How did Ishmael handle this rejection? The animosity Ishmael
had toward Isaac was handed down to his descendants; even to the extent of
hating the God of Abraham in Psalms 83:2, 5-6. Muhammad claims to be a
descendant of Ishmael. If I were you I would read this!”
So,
the Christian finally acknowledged that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a descendant
of Ishmael. Notice that he did not admit
that his original contention that Muhammad (peace be upon him) never claimed to
be Ishmael’s descendant was based on plagiarized material, nor did he admit
that he was mistaken. This is an example
of the vanity of some Christian apologists.
Anyway, he asked where in the Quran it
is stated that “Ishmael and his descendants primarily singled out and lined up
for future blessings”. First, we have to
ask why someone who has obviously never read the Quran asking such silly
questions, as if he knows something Muslims do not. Second, we have to ask whether he has
carefully read our previous responses to him or whether he has a very short
memory. The reason we ask is because
this question has already been answered in a previous response. In Part 4, we referred to the
Quran’s views on prophethood and Ibrahim and Ishmael’s prayer for a prophet to
be sent to their people. Furthermore,
Islamic teachings state that Allah (swt) chooses the righteous, regardless of
their ancestry or their race, unlike the Bible which states that God chose
Isaac and Jacob, despite their abhorrent sins, while leaving out the Gentile
Ishmael for allegedly mocking Isaac.
The Christian then stated (emphasis
in the original):
“Furthermore, the blessings that were
given to Isaac were because of the promise by Elohim to Abraham and Sarah. As I
explained earlier, because of Ishmael’s bullying Isaac Ishmael and Hagar was
force to leave, being legally
dismissed and disowned from the family and legally dismissed from ALL
of Abraham’s inheritance, thus the term ‘only son’ would also be applied here.
In fact, when this statement was first uttered in Genesis 22:2, it was AFTER
Ishmael was DISOWNED, BANNED and no longer legally part of the family. The
Koran agrees with this fact as well because Ishmael’s only return was to bury
his father. There is no record of Ishmael being buried in the cave of
Machpelah, the place of burial for Abraham and Isaac, along with their wives.”
We
already refuted this nonsensical argument in Part 3. In addition, we denounce the Christian for
insulting God by describing Him as a petty deity who chooses liars and
deceivers on the one hand (the Biblical Isaac and Jacob) while “legally
dismissing” others for much smaller crimes (Ishmael’s alleged “bullying” of
Isaac). As Thomas Paine wrote (referring
to the Old Testament):
“When we contemplate the immensity of
that Being, who directs and governs the incomprehensible whole, of which the utmost ken of human sight can discover but a
part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God.”[12]
Next, he stated regarding the
disagreement among Muslim scholars (emphasis in the original):
“SO THEY TO WERE UNDECIDED, confused.
But, of course to save face and having an emotional attachment to their belief
rather than the TRUTH it seems they said both! Now, that’s contradictory to say
the least. But, that is the stand islamispeace has taken, it really doesn’t
matter. Well, according to this scripture
it does, read Psalms 83:2, 5-6”
We
can notice again the sly attempt to avoid admitting that he was mistaken due to
his shameless plagiarism, and now making a new argument based on twisted
logic. Originally, the Christian had
appealed to those scholars who believed that Isaac (peace be upon him) was the child
of sacrifice, arguing that Tabari had mentioned many traditions which named
Isaac. Only now when he finally realizes
that his poor research has betrayed him does he reformulate his argument. Does he realize or admit (as we previously
showed) that the traditions naming Isaac are based on unreliable sources? No. Does
he acknowledge that the majority of scholars believed the child was
Ishmael? No.
The irony is that right after
acknowledging that the very same scholars who related traditions about Isaac
also related traditions about Ishmael, the Christian hilariously appeals to the
same exact traditions about Isaac (taken no doubt from the same plagiarized
source)! He stated:
“Instead,
of promoting TRUTH once again the fence is being straddled because of an
emotional attachment to Islam. What are the sentiments of other Islamic
scholars that also said it was Isaac?
According to Abu Kurayb - Ibn Yaman -
Isra'il - Jabir - Ibn Sabit: He was
Isaac.
According to Kurayb - Ibn Yaman -
Sufyan - Abu Sinan al-Shaybani - Ibn Abi al-Hudhayl: The victim was Isaac.
According to Abu Kurayb - Sufyan b.
'Uqbah - Hmaza al-Zayyat - Abu Ishaq - Abu Maysarah: Joseph told the king to
his face, "You wish to eat with me when I, by God, am Joseph son of Jacob
the prophet of God, son of Isaac the victim of
God, son of Abraham the friend of God."
According to Musa b. Harun - 'Amr b.
Hammad - Asbat - al-Suddi - Abu Malik and Abu Salih - Ibn 'Abbas and Murrah
al-Hamdani - Ibn Mas'ud and some of the companions of the Prophet: Abraham was
instructed in a dream to "carry out your promise that if God granted you a son by Sarah you would sacrifice
him."
According to Ya'qub - Husahym -
Zakariya' and Shu'bah - Abu Ishaq - Masruq: When God said, "The We
ransomed him with a tremendous victim," that was Isaac.
The great Muslim
commentator al-Baidawi also believed that the child of sacrifice was Isaac. In
his comments on S. 12:46, al-Baidawi states:
As He perfected it formerly on thy
fathers:
by appointing them as messengers. Some say (that God perfected his blessing) on
Abraham by taking him as a ‘friend’ (khalil) and by saving him from the
fire (into which the unbelievers had cast him), and (he perfected it) on Isaac
by
delivering him from the sacrifice and by ransoming him with a great victim (for
the sacrifice) ... (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and Its
Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], p. 107; bold italic emphasis
ours)
The nature of the Islamic traditions
regarding the Sacrifice suggests that those locating the act in Syria and
assuming Isaac to have been the intended victim WERE THE EARLIEST. The pre-Islamic
association of Abraham with Mecca, however, naturally encouraged the growth of
counter traditions positing the location of the Sacrifice in the sacred Islamic
center. The fact that many traditions treating the first Abrahamic
Pilgrimage exclude any mention of the Sacrifice lends credence to the view that
the connection between the Abrahamic Sacrifice and the pre-Islamic pilgrimage
sacrifice was a late (Islamic) development… (P. 149; capital and underline
emphasis ours)
Further, the Bible's superiority is
once again demonstrated by virtue of the fact that it even mentions the site
where these events took place, Mt. Moriah, the future site of the Solomonic
Temple (cf. Gen. 22:2; 2 Chron. 3:1); whereas with the Quran we are not given
even the slightest hint as to where this sacrifice was to take place. This has
also caused controversy and confusion amongst Muslim scholars as they
desperately try to figure this problem out.
I guess common sense isn’t so common
these days after all. Let me now stress what was told to Hagar regarding her
son although he would become a nation of people
Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man. His hand will be against everyone, and
everyone’s hand will be against him, and he will dwell opposite all his
brothers.” (I’ll
get into that later)
What was told Sarah? Genesis 17:16 I will bless her and also give you a son by her; I will bless her and she
will become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
I stated in the outset, they need
Ishmael to be the child of sacrifice instead of Isaac. Case and point . . .”
So,
after he was called out for plagiarism, what does the Christian do? Well, he plagiarizes of course! Instead of doing honest research, the
Christian continues to deceive himself by blindly copying from deceptive
missionaries whose bias on the subject has already been exposed.
But if we are talking about the “earliest”
traditions, then why does the Christian ignore Ibn Ishaq? According to Reuven Firestone:
“According to Ibn Ishaq’s tradition,
Abraham commenced with the sacrifice of Ishmael on one of his daylong journeys from
Syria to Mecca on the supernatural steed, Buraq.”[13]
Firestone
also makes an interesting observation on the traditions about Isaac, which he
concludes were probably the “earliest”.
He states:
“The nature of the Islamic traditions
regarding the Sacrifice suggests that those locating the act in Syria and
assuming Isaac to have been the intended victim were earliest. Early Muslims naturally turned to Biblicists
for information regarding legends found both in the Quran and the Bible, and the
traditions they learned that followed the biblical orientation of the Sacrifice
in Syria clearly derived from a Biblicist milieu.”[14]
This confirms what we have already
stated. The traditions about Isaac were
not based on any authentic statements going back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him) but were rather derived from Biblical sources. It was for this reason that these traditions
were later rejected.[15]
Moreover, most of the traditions
that Tabari mentioned put the sacrifice in Mecca, which contradicts the belief
that the child was Isaac since he was never in Mecca, especially since Tabari’s
personal view was that the sacrifice occurred in Syria.[16] Firestone observes:
“Most of al-Tabari’s traditions,
however, place the location of the Sacrifice in the area of Mecca.”[17]
Finally,
he notes that the Ishmael traditions were widely accepted even before Tabari:
“The battle between the two kinds of
exegesis was probably won by the Mecca-Ishmael school even before the time of
al-Tabari…”[18]
The
Christian’s blind plagiarism has betrayed him again.
Next, the Christian stated (emphasis
in the original):
“We ALL saw the verses in the
scriptures and what we both said about ‘only son’ but ultimately it’s what
Elohim said and did in behalf of Isaac, nothing to do with faith. That in turn
left Muslims still guessing and hoping that it was an error in the scriptures.
This guessing has also caused them to believe that Elohim is a tribal God when
in fact he’s not.”
So
the Christian once again reverts to circular reasoning and special pleading,
and that is all he really can do. He has
no proof for his assertion that “only son” really meant “only son through Sarah”,
so to “prove” his argument, he claims that “it’s what Elohim said…” that
matters. But we don’t know what Elohim
said, do we? That is what we are trying
to figure out! In fact, from the evidence
we have already seen, even the Biblicists did not agree as to “what Elohim said…” Case in point: the textual differences in the
Aqedah as found in 4Q225 and the Septuagint.
The Christian then attempted to respond
to our critique of the Bible’s depiction of a tribal god. He stated (emphasis in the original):
“It was
through Abraham that Elohim said that ALL nations on the earth would be blessed
through the promised seed. However, the promise was first made to Abraham, but
ALL will benefit. We are ALL children of Abraham. So you’re incorrect again by
saying ‘He’s just the God of Israel exclusively, the scriptures shows he is
not.
Gen 12: 1-3 And Jehovah said to A′bram: “Go out from your land and away from your
relatives and from the house of your father to the land that I will show
you. I will make you a great nation, and
I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you will become a
blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who calls down
evil on you, and all the families of the ground will certainly be blessed by
means of you.
Why to Abraham? It’s what we have been
discussing all along, because Abraham did not withhold his son. Gen 22:15-18.”
The
Christian offered a typical argument, completely oblivious to the
contradictions therein. First of all,
our critique was precisely regarding the special “chosen” status of Abraham’s “children”
through Isaac and Jacob only. We take
offense at the claim of a god who choses people from a particular race only
(and choosing liars and deceivers as well).
Second, we have to question how all people are the “children of Abraham”. Are the Chinese and Japanese the “children of
Abraham”? How could they be if they
never even heard of Abraham until only quite recently? The Bible limits God’s chosen people to the
Israelites only, so the rest of the world was left out. This is the very definition of a tribal
deity.
Further evidence for this can be found in the Biblical story
of the Exodus. As Louay Fatoohi astutely
observes (emphasis in the original):
“The exclusive expressions ‘the God of Israel’
and the ‘God of the Hebrews’ are in complete contrast to how Moses described
God to the Egyptian monarch in the Qur’an, calling Him the Lord of everything and everyone and the Lord of all peoples, including
Pharaoh and his people….”[19]
If
we are all the “children of Abraham”, then why was the Biblical Moses so
adamant on making God and the Israelites so closely linked? Why didn’t he describe God to be the “God of
all”? Why didn’t he attempt to convert
Pharaoh? Instead, the Bible claims that
God sent Moses to force Pharaoh to liberate the Israelites and nothing more.[20] In contrast, the Quran states that Musa
(peace be upon him) not only went to liberate the Israelites but to convert the
Egyptians. In fact, it relates the
beautiful stories of the magicians, the wife of Pharaoh and another unnamed
Egyptian who believed in Musa (peace be upon him) and accepted his
message. These people rejected the pagan
gods of Egypt and became monotheists.
The Christian then stated:
“Back to the subject at hand; in an
effort to impress himself he brings attention to a quote in the Akedah-the
binding of Isaac. Why did he do that, it only shows beyond the shadow of doubt
that Abraham’s role was a fore gleam of what would happen centuries later, who
he was about to sacrifice, and what it portrayed in the Gospel, read it for
yourself. Here is a taste “ we understand the Akedah as a foreshadowing of the
ultimate sacrifice…God’s son to make salvation to all who believe John 3:16 - “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so
that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have
everlasting life.
Need I say more, I believe! I BELIEVE!!!! Do you? As you can see he is unable
to use the Koran to add credibility to his argument because the Koran keeps
everyone guessing which is what the objective is. No wonder the Muslim
community is in the dark, undecided and divided on this matter.”
So
now, he resorts to linking Isaac’s sacrifice to that of Jesus. Of course, such an argument is rife with
contradictions as well. First and
foremost, as Jews will readily point out:
“The Christian will say that God
sacrificed His own son just as Abraham would have sacrificed his own son, had
God allowed the act to be completed. But Abraham was sacrificing his son
to God [to] show him that he loved God more than the love he had for his son,
something that even God acknowledged in the text…”[21]
Another
contradiction in comparing the sacrifice of Isaac and that of Jesus is that the
latter does not count as a legitimate sacrifice according to Jewish law:
“One of the reasons that the analogy of
Jesus being a sacrifice for sins breaks down (and there are very many reasons
why it doesn’t work) is that a sacrifice has to be offered on the altar – on
the Temple mount, but Jesus was crucified, according to the New Testament, on
Golgotha. Golgotha is not only outside the Temple mount, according to
some reckonings it was outside the city walls – it wasn’t even in Jerusalem!”[22]
So,
the Christian may proudly state that he “believes”, but we would point out that
blind belief will only lead to damnation.
Next, the Christian stated in
response to the evidence of 4Q225 and canonicity of Genesis (emphasis in the
original):
“Genesis,
YES, you’re so called reliable
sources like Aqedah, Jubilees and
Pseudojubiless, definitely NOT! Re-check your history. These books are almost
last on the food chain.”
In
his incoherent ramblings, he does not even realize the utter foolishness of his
remarks. He fails to realize that the “Aqedah”
is the name given to the story of Isaac’s sacrifice. It is not the name of a non-canonical book! We urge the Christian to think before he
writes.
Furthermore, we can note once again
how the Christian completely ignored all the evidence presented. He has nothing to say regarding the
differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. He tries to deny the significance of 4Q225,
which was an edited version of the Genesis story. Lastly, he ignores the plain fact that even
his so-called “canonical” sources quoted from the “non-canonical” books and
considered them to be scripture. Case in
point: Jude 1:14 and the Book of Enoch!
The Christian can ignore the evidence all he likes, but they will not go
away. They will remain a thorn in the
side of Christendom.
Next, he stated (emphasis in the
original):
“The Ethiopian
Orthodox Church and by Ethiopian Jews or the Church of Rome do NOT determine
what is canonical and what is not. Jubilees which is called a lesser genesis is a RE-WRITING of
Genesis and Exodus, you have to do better than that to discredit the account of
Abraham. You are really, really looking pretty desperate now. The Book of
Jubilees along with your other reliable sources as you know FAILED the
standards of the “Canon of the Scriptures” There goes your Pseudepigrapha
writings up in smoke. But, it does speak negatively about your in-depth
research and how thorough you are in disproving your imagined contradictions
and discrepancies.”
We
can note here the self-contradictions in the Christian’s replies and an
absolute refusal to admit the facts. In
his previous response, he made the following claim:
“…in an even more desperate attempt he
uses Jewish apocalyptic literature. Apocryphal and
Pseudepigrapha (literally meaning ‘falsely attributed writings’) books that
were never accepted as canonical as his
primary reference tool.”
In
response to this inaccurate statement, we pointed out that the Book of Jubilees
is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and of Ethiopian
Jews. In response, he again resorted to
special pleading, claiming that the views of the different churches do not “determine
what is canonical and what is not”.
Well, perhaps the Christian can enlighten us as to what does determine what is canonical and
what is not?
Furthermore, the Christian keeps
running from the plain fact that even his “canonical” sources quote from
non-canonical books as “scripture”. Let
us quote a few examples from one of our previous articles[23]:
1. The
Book of Jude (a canonical book) makes reference to the book of Enoch (an
apocryphal book). Jude 1:14-15 states:
“Enoch, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands
of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the
ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant
words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
2. John
7:38 quotes an unknown source and refers to it as “scripture”:
“Whoever believes in me, as Scripture
has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”
3. Luke
11:49 quotes God from an unknown source:
“Because of this, God in his wisdom
said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and
others they will persecute.’”
4. James 4:5 quotes an unknown source and refers to it as “scripture”:
“Or do you think Scripture says without
reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?”
Why
does his scripture have so many contradictions?
These contradictions are plain to anyone who has eyes to see. They are not “imagined”. Only the Christian’s views are imagined.
The Christian then stated:
“Unlike the Koran, many of the Bible writers confirm the
authenticity of Genesis within its pages, even centuries later. The best
example of this is that of ‘El Shaddai’ himself and Jesus Christ.
Genesis 26: 24 That
night YHWH appeared to him (Isaac) and said: “I am the God of your father
Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will bless you and multiply
your offspring on account of Abraham my servant.”
Luke 24:44 He
(Jesus) then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was
yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in
the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Hebrews 11:17 By
faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had
gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son
As you can see,
there is no need to use outside material to confirm or support the word of
YHWH, archeology and secular history does a good job in doing that on its own.
But when it comes to the Koran not only does the account of Abraham lacks
clarity and conviction, the references that Islam uses to support its argument
against the Bible were
never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part
of it today.”
The
irony in the Christian’s statement is self-evident. The examples we provided above serve to
completely demolish his appeal to canonical scripture. We await a reasoned response as to why the
books he regards as “canonical” quote non-canonical books as “scripture”. Ignorance truly must be bliss.
To close this rebuttal, let us once
again list all the issues which the Christian keeps ignoring:
- The meaning of the Hebrew word “hay-ye-led” is
“child”.
- The status of Hagar as a legitimate wife of
Abraham.
- The absence of the story of Ishmael’s birth in the Dead Sea
scroll 4Q225 (a clear attempt to eliminate the contradictory nature of the
Biblical story).
- The promise/covenant with Isaac was made before Ishmael and
Hagar were sent out but after the “covenant of circumcision”.
- The status of Ishmael as a legitimate son of Abraham and a
member of his household even after the exile and at the time of the
sacrifice.
- The Masoretic text of Genesis 22 is contradicted by the
Septuagint and other translations.
- The evidence from the Quran and authentic ahadith show that
the child of sacrifice was Ishmael (peace be upon him).
- God chose Isaac and Jacob, even though both exhibited
shameful behavior. Isaac exhibited cowardice
and deceit while Jacob exhibited blackmail and deceit. In contrast, Ishmael was supposedly “left out”
because he mocked Isaac.
- The
canonical books of the Bible quote from non-canonical sources as scripture.
And Allah knows best!
[1] Surah Al-Baqarah,
2:125.
[6] Surah Al-Baqara, 2:136
(Yusuf Ali Translation).
[7] Surah An-Nisa, 4:163.
[9] Surah Al-Anaam, 6:86.
[11] Surah Ibrahim, 14:39
[12] “The Age of Reason”,
Ed. Moncure Daniel Conway, p. 32.
[13] “Journeys in Holy Lands:
The Evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis”, p. 145.
[17] Ibid., p. 145. Ironically, a tradition related by al-Qummi
claimed that the sacrifice took place in Mina but that the child was Isaac
since he had made the pilgrimage with Sarah!
[19] “The Mystery of Israel
in Ancient Egypt: The Exodus in the Qur’an, the Old Testament, Archaeological
Finds, and Historical Sources”, p. 75.