Was it Ismael or Issaq to be sacrificed by Ibrahim (PBU)?
- Thread starter BigAk
- Start date
Salaam Aleykom brother. from Islamic sources we know it was Ismail(as) and if one reads between the lines of the Old Testament one sees that it has to be. The bible states "Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only begotten son" and at no time was Isaac(as) the "only begotten son" of Ibrahim(as). It becomes clear even from the Bible that it was Ismail, but those who reject it, especially Christians, do so out of prejudices. They try to completely ignore Ismail(as) as a legit son and first born of Ibrahim. The authors of the books in the Old testament deliberetly changed it to Isaac when they knew it was not the case, but they still contradicted themselves in the end.
q8penpals
Junior Member
Assalam aliekum
Just as a side point...since the attempt to sacrifice a son in order follow God's command is the major component of this history, would it really matter which son it was? I mean, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham was willing to do it because God told him to.
I guess being a convert it seems like the lesson we should learn from the story is more important than which son it was (and it is one of those arguments that is going to go on and on with Non-Muslims since they believe they are right, and we believe we are right).
Am I missing something that the particular son that was to be sacrificed is a major part of the story? To me, it just seems like whether Abraham was to sacrifice his first son, or second, first son by his wife, or first son by servant - does it matter? He was willing to kill his own child to prove his faith in God.
Please enlighten me if the specific son to be sacrificed really makes the huge of a difference and that is why it is worth discussing with a non-Muslim. I am not trying to be argumentative, I really do want to know.
Lana
Just as a side point...since the attempt to sacrifice a son in order follow God's command is the major component of this history, would it really matter which son it was? I mean, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham was willing to do it because God told him to.
I guess being a convert it seems like the lesson we should learn from the story is more important than which son it was (and it is one of those arguments that is going to go on and on with Non-Muslims since they believe they are right, and we believe we are right).
Am I missing something that the particular son that was to be sacrificed is a major part of the story? To me, it just seems like whether Abraham was to sacrifice his first son, or second, first son by his wife, or first son by servant - does it matter? He was willing to kill his own child to prove his faith in God.
Please enlighten me if the specific son to be sacrificed really makes the huge of a difference and that is why it is worth discussing with a non-Muslim. I am not trying to be argumentative, I really do want to know.
Lana
muthmainnah
Junior Member
dear sister Lana, I think the specific son to be sacrificed really makes the huge of a difference, because Ismael (alaihissalam) is our prophet Muhammad's (salallahu alaihi wassalam) great grandfather. Our prophet salallahu alaihi wassalam once said "I am the son of two people who were going to be sacrificed (i.e. Abdullah bin abdul Muthallib and Ismail alaihissalam).
Tabassum07
Smile for Allah
When was his father about to be sacrificed?
nyerekareem
abdur-rahman
:salam2:
in the bible it states that isaac was to be sacrificed. it does say in the bible that he was to sacrifice his only son. HERE'S THE CONTROVERSY:
the child that IBRAHIM (AS) had with Hajar in biblical times was considered illegitmate because he wasn't married to her. however he was married to SARAH ( REBECCAH ) which in biblical understanding Isaac was the legitimate one and worthy to be sacrificed.
it is this story that led jewish people into believing that they are the better bunch of human beings. you see, jewish lineage comes from the mother not the father. in other words if your mother isn't jewish you can't be jewish; even if your father is jewish. this is where the exclusivity came from.
the reason why the quran is correct in it's interpretation is because ALLAH SWT would never had made Ismaeel to be illegitamate. Ismaeel was the firstborn, and we all know that ALLAH SWT knows how to count. jews have used this lineage and story to build up hype about themselves. but the quran has revealed their trickery.
in the bible it states that isaac was to be sacrificed. it does say in the bible that he was to sacrifice his only son. HERE'S THE CONTROVERSY:
the child that IBRAHIM (AS) had with Hajar in biblical times was considered illegitmate because he wasn't married to her. however he was married to SARAH ( REBECCAH ) which in biblical understanding Isaac was the legitimate one and worthy to be sacrificed.
it is this story that led jewish people into believing that they are the better bunch of human beings. you see, jewish lineage comes from the mother not the father. in other words if your mother isn't jewish you can't be jewish; even if your father is jewish. this is where the exclusivity came from.
the reason why the quran is correct in it's interpretation is because ALLAH SWT would never had made Ismaeel to be illegitamate. Ismaeel was the firstborn, and we all know that ALLAH SWT knows how to count. jews have used this lineage and story to build up hype about themselves. but the quran has revealed their trickery.
ShyHijabi
Junior Member
Salaam,
Sister Lana, I have to agree with you. However, the Jews do use the idea that is was Isaac (peace be upon him) as a means to state they are "chosen" and thus making everyone else "not chosen." So it can be quite controversial.
Someone correct me if I am wrong...but I thought Ibrahim's (peace be upon him) faith revealed by his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael (peace be upon him) was rewarded by granting a child to Sarah. No?
Sister Lana, I have to agree with you. However, the Jews do use the idea that is was Isaac (peace be upon him) as a means to state they are "chosen" and thus making everyone else "not chosen." So it can be quite controversial.
Someone correct me if I am wrong...but I thought Ibrahim's (peace be upon him) faith revealed by his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael (peace be upon him) was rewarded by granting a child to Sarah. No?
Lana... You bring up an excellent point... I am on your side in the sense that it does not matter which son it is. We muslims believe in all the prophets and love them equally.
There is really no point for argument here.
.
:salam2:
.
Munawar
Striving for Paradise
:salam2:
I may agree with sister Lana on a philosophical level. But the thing is, we also have to know the facts too. And the fact is that the son who was sacrifices WAS Ismaeel (AS), it cannot be Ishaaq (AS).
Why? Well... here are 2 reasons:
1. We all know that during Hajj we do Jamaraat (the Stoning of the 3 shaytaans). This represents the 3 attempts made by shytaan to misguide Abraheem (AS) and his son so that they abandon this sacrifice.
Now who was there in Makkah at that time? It was not Ishaq (AS) but Ismaeel (AS).
2. Also it was a great test of Ibrahem (AS) because at that time he had only one son, Ismaeel (AS), so his sacrifice was a much greater test for Ibraheem (AS). This would not have been the case if this was Ishaaq (AS).
And I believe that we need to know which son of Ibaheem was in this story, because, this was not just the test of the father but also the test of the son as well, and we need to acknoledge it too that who was that person.
I may agree with sister Lana on a philosophical level. But the thing is, we also have to know the facts too. And the fact is that the son who was sacrifices WAS Ismaeel (AS), it cannot be Ishaaq (AS).
Why? Well... here are 2 reasons:
1. We all know that during Hajj we do Jamaraat (the Stoning of the 3 shaytaans). This represents the 3 attempts made by shytaan to misguide Abraheem (AS) and his son so that they abandon this sacrifice.
Now who was there in Makkah at that time? It was not Ishaq (AS) but Ismaeel (AS).
2. Also it was a great test of Ibrahem (AS) because at that time he had only one son, Ismaeel (AS), so his sacrifice was a much greater test for Ibraheem (AS). This would not have been the case if this was Ishaaq (AS).
And I believe that we need to know which son of Ibaheem was in this story, because, this was not just the test of the father but also the test of the son as well, and we need to acknoledge it too that who was that person.
gazkour
Junior Member
"After Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Abram's wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife"
New American Standard Bible. Genesis 3:16
The point is that as Sarai could not conceive ,she herself chose Hagar for her husband, so why she would do something ilegitimate as this? What some historians say is that this practice was normal and legitimate, that's why she did it in he first place!
Genesis 17:16-20 (New American Standard Bible)
16"I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."
17Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
18And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"
19But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20"As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
As we see here, even in the Bible is clear that Ismael was the first son and that God blessed both Isaac and Ismael equally without disregarding the son of the 'slave'.
So clearly the christians that say that the covenant and blessings that God gave were just refering to the "legal" son and not to Ismael, should read their Bible carefully!
They should also read :
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (New American Standard Bible)
15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
16then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.
17"But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
At the time, the right of the firstborn was crucial, meaning this that the first borns were the "most loved" or appreciated ,if you will; so according to this, the logic is that God would have asked Abraham to sacrifice his first born(Ismael) and not Isaac. Indeed the Bible states thcat God ask Abraham for his only son to be sacrificed (Ismael, right?) but as one more of the BIG CONTRADICTIONS it says instead:
Genesis 22:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac(???), and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
May Allah guide us all.
Assalamo alikom wa rahmato Allah wa narakato.
New American Standard Bible. Genesis 3:16
The point is that as Sarai could not conceive ,she herself chose Hagar for her husband, so why she would do something ilegitimate as this? What some historians say is that this practice was normal and legitimate, that's why she did it in he first place!
Genesis 17:16-20 (New American Standard Bible)
16"I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."
17Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
18And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"
19But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20"As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
As we see here, even in the Bible is clear that Ismael was the first son and that God blessed both Isaac and Ismael equally without disregarding the son of the 'slave'.
So clearly the christians that say that the covenant and blessings that God gave were just refering to the "legal" son and not to Ismael, should read their Bible carefully!
They should also read :
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (New American Standard Bible)
15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
16then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.
17"But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
At the time, the right of the firstborn was crucial, meaning this that the first borns were the "most loved" or appreciated ,if you will; so according to this, the logic is that God would have asked Abraham to sacrifice his first born(Ismael) and not Isaac. Indeed the Bible states thcat God ask Abraham for his only son to be sacrificed (Ismael, right?) but as one more of the BIG CONTRADICTIONS it says instead:
Genesis 22:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac(???), and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
May Allah guide us all.
Assalamo alikom wa rahmato Allah wa narakato.
Achmat_Samsodien
Junior Member
:salam2:
Brother the ruler of Egypt wasn't Nimrood (Nimrod)
Nimrod ruled in Harran think that Canaan in english. This is the Hadith you speak of: