Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Jews and Christians believe it was Ishaaq who Ibraahim (a.s.) was asked to sacrfice for His sake.
Whereas Muslims believe it was Ismaeel.

Ismaeel is protrayed as a care-free and stubborn child of Ibrahim in the Judo-Christian narrative whereas Ishaaq is the more obedient and moral one.

But anyway, considering that Muslims commemorate this event with the yearly ritual of sacrifice [Eid-al-Adha], whereas the Jews and Christians don’t, who has the story right ?
Who has the right over this honour ?
Why such stark discrepancy in the two narratives.

Do Jews and Christians have the right to the event because they were here first ?
Or the Muslims, because of their large scale yearly commemoration of the event ?

Or is this event just a myth, molded to suit the faithful as deemed favorable by them.

2

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Allah had promised Hazrat Ibraaheem [a.s.] that He will raise prophets from his progeny. after that and up until Hazrat Isa [a.s.], ALL the prophets came from Hazrat Ibraaheem's [a.s.] older son Hazrat IsHaaq's [a.s.] progeny while NO prophets came from Hazrat Ismaaeel's [a.s.] progeny up until our Prophet, Syedna MoHammad [s.a.w.s.].

our Nabii-e-Kareem [s.a.w.s.] was the ONLY prophet Allah sent to mankind as raHmat-ul-lil-'aalemeen from Hazrat Ismaa.eel's [a.s.] progeny.

a BIGGER sacrifice fetched a BIGGER reward from Allah.

this way, Allah's promise was fulfilled.

it makes MORE sense. doesn't it?

3

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Also, what is interesting is that in the Judo-Christian narrative, Ibrahim (a.s.) and Saara (a.s.) were unable to have children so Saara allowed Ibrahim to take her servant Haajra as his wife so he could have a child that he desired so deeply.

So in that tradition Ismaeel was the older son.

A few years later, Ishaaq was born of Saara.

So that is also reversed.

Then Saara persuaded Ibrahim to send Haajra and Ismaeel away because she was convinced that they were both jealous of Ishaaq and were bound to hurt him.

I forget the details of the Muslim narrative. I remember that Haajra and Ismaeel were sent away in the desert when Ismaeel was an infant and Haajra ran back and forth between Safa and Marwa (Sa'ee ritual during Hajj) to search for water/food for the child and Aab-e-Zam Zam sprang forward where Ismaeel hit the sand with his heels while crying of pain and hunger.

4

BTW there is a rivyat quoted by some scholars that both ismaeel and ishaaq were put through this test at two separate occasions, so both Muslims and Jews are right in their claims

5

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

O wow. That is even a newer revelation. Very interesting. That could solve the mystery while taking away from the uniqueness of the honour, so to speak.

So I assume the riviayat you speak of is a Muslim rivayat.
I wonder if there is corroboration of that from the Jewish side.

6

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

EID MUBARAK TO ALL MUSLIMS

7

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

one of the story is in correct.
Either it was ismael or ishaq.

If as an impartial person(which I cant be), I have to pick who made it up.
I would say, read stories of other prophets in bible(old testament), people of previous revelations, clearly put their own idea, about prophets.

As for who thinks what, well on the bottom of this thinking there is one truth.
What people build over a lie should not bother you.

Let them be. Give them quran. etc.
Tell them if they dont want to keep it, give to some one who wants to read it.
etc..

8

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Well, I read in a commentary that that in the Biblical texts it says that Abraham sacrificed his only son.

When parents have their 1st child, that child will be considered the "only" child until another is born. The subsequent children can never be called "only." The "only" description can only apply to the first-born or eldest child...and if that was Hazrat Ismail....then he is the one. At least this is the explanation I've read in Maududi's commentary.

9

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

So KKF mentioned that Hazrat Ishaaq was the older son.
The Christian animated short for children that I saw showed Hazrat Ismail to be born first.

So much confusion. :)

10

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Thanks and same to you.

Two and a half years and only 6 posts ?

11

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

that is because they think ismael was from non-wife woman.
Thats why no status for ismael.
There is whole funny stuff around it.

God promised to Ibrahim that he would have covenant with ismael, and would raise him a great nation.
When you ask Christian "is that nation muslims ?"
They say no.
When you ask them "then who is it"
Theh don't have answer.

Funny stuff.

12

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Yes, I think I also had read in the commentary that the reasoning provided by Christians is that the wives of Hazrat Ibrahim (AS) don't have the same status.

13

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

bhai was not in town...

14

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

For 2-1/2 years you were someplace where they still don’t have internet service. :hmmm: :slight_smile:

15

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

The Old Testament is all messed up around the story of the sacrifice ... And the interpretations by our fellow Christians and Jews even moreso ...

Argument of only son ...

We argue only son could only have been Ismail (AS), counter to that is his mother was a slave and not his wife ... Then we show verse ... Genesis 16:3 ... "Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife." And then is says ... Verse 16:15 ..."So Hagar bore Abram a son ..." In 17:23 ... Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. So clearly the covenant extended to Ishmael ... In retaliation they give Genesis 22:2 ... "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love ..."

more to come inshaAllah ...

16

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

^Woah. So, if their argument is that Hagar was a slave girl and not his wife...the verse above (16:23) negates that. How unfortunate that verses 17:23 and 22:2 contradict each other. With such contradictions, how can the reader's heart/mind be content. :/

17

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

:hehe: Exactly … there is more sister …

18

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

My analysis is that there has been some ancient scriptural patchwork taking place …

In Genesis 22:12 … “Do not lay a hand on the boy”, he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

What challenge would this be if it was done on Ishaq (AS), yes, it is difficult, but if the fear was to lose your ONLY progeny it is greater … The Bible acknowledges that Ismail (AS) was legitimate progeny …

So Ismail (AS) has been promised by God to be blessed and a great nation …

An angel of God is addressing Hagar … Gen 21:18 “Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” and in verse 20 …
“God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer.” Also in 17:20 - God is addressing Abraham … “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will surely greatly increase his numbers. He will be a father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.”

Really respectful language … right? Even in verse Gen 16:11 … “You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishamel, for the Lord has heard of your misery.” … Now contrast that all with the very next verse…

Gen 16:12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility towards all his brothers.”

I sense a bit of scribe naughtiness there !!!

Now in Genesis verse 16:13-14 … There is a curious mention of a well … prior to which in verse 16:7 is probably the first mention of it … Gen 16:13-14 “She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me, " for she said, I have now seen the One who sees me.” That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi, it is still there between Kadesh and Bered.” (The capitalisations are due to the NIV translation).

Here is a clue that the story was chopped up …

Between chapters 18,19 and 20 a separate account of Sodom and Gomorrah is taking place with Lot … then moves back to the narrative in 21 …

This is the introduction to the birth of Isaac … the news of the birth of Isaac was back in Gen 17:19 … The account of the covenant of the circumcision in book 17 should follow after the verses 21:8 through to 22:19 and here is why … That section needed to be taken out because Genesis Book 22 is the account of the test … the sacrifice … This needed to be placed after the birth of Isaac in book 21 …

But the proof that this should be earlier is found in two reasons …

21:8 through to 21:20 should clearly come just before book 17 … these reasons are:

a) The account of the well in 16:14 ties in nicely with the verse 21:19 … they both speak about the WELL
b) The story of 21:8 through to 21:20 would be absurd if it happened in that timeline.

In Genesis 17:25 it says … “and his son Ishamel was thirteen;” Now zoom to 21:8-20

**8 **And the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. **9 **But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing.a] **10 **So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” **11 **And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. **12 **But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. **13 **And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” **14 **So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
**15 **When the water in the skin was gone, she put the child under one of the bushes.**16 **Then she went and sat down opposite him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot, for she said, “Let me not look on the death of the child.” And as she sat opposite him, she lifted up her voice and wept. **17 **And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. **18 **Up! Lift up the boy, and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” **19 **Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. **20 **And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow.

Is it not absurd that Abraham put bread, water and a 13 or 14 year old in the arm of an elderly wife?
Is it not absurd that this elderly mother puts her 14 year old son under one of the bushes?
Was a 14 year old crying like a baby that God heard his voice?

This absurdity is present because Ishmael was still a baby … not 13 or 14 years of age as the current Bible reads …

Furthermore … the covenant should only make sense to come after the test … However, the Bible reads that the test came after the covenant … It is only reasonable that the gift of the covenant happens after the test has been passed …

So it make more sense to say that the TEST happened on Ishmael and not on Isaac …

Isaac was circumcised on the 8th day of his birth … however, Ishmael and Abraham were both circumcised when the covenant became apparent … Ishmael was 13 … So the test must have happened on Abraham (AS)'s only son, before the covenant …

There is more to this but I have made my point … that other point however revolves around the treatment of Hagar by Sarah as the Bible reads … blaming Hagar however portrays Sarah as a cruel person … twice … and they should link up to the same account also … So clearly the scribes here have tinkered with the chronology … to make it fit Isaac as the sacrificial son, replacing the words Ishmael with Isaac after reordering the books.

19

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

Very interesting. Thanks.

20

Re: Ishaaq or Ismaeel ?

^ You're welcome ... So who do you think was the sacrificial son?

The Qur'an has been wisely quiet about it ... The son does not matter ... The act matters ... And if we really wanted to find out we need only read the Bible carefully.