FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Abraham and the Child of Sacrifice - Isaac or Ishmael?

 


palavra
Quote:
"After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you’." (Genesis 22:1-2)


we-muslims- believe most probably it was Ishmael not Isaac.
we know Isaac was the second son of Ibrahim."only son" could be true for only Ishmael.

i checked some web sites that tell "only son " refers to Isaac.We shouldn't take it grammatically.But they didn't convince me.
HereticMonkey
Depends on how you look at "only". Although there is no question that Ishmael was the older son, there is the issue that Ishmael and his mother were disinherited. Also, Ishmael would have been the bastard son (not slighting Islam, but rather noting that Isaac was born of his wife whereas Ishmael wasn't). As Jewish inheritance is matrilineal (ie, from the mother), Ishmael would not have counted as a son as far as inheritance was considered.

Ergo, Isaac would have been the only son as far as inheritance is considered and the verse is correct...

HM
Coen
palavra wrote:
we-muslims- believe most probably it was Ishmael not Isaac.
we know Isaac was the second son of Ibrahim."only son" could be true for only Ishmael.

i checked some web sites that tell "only son " refers to Isaac.We shouldn't take it grammatically.But they didn't convince me.

I would be doubting the entire story, not only the fact who was the son that is being referred to.
palavra
HereticMonkey wrote:
Depends on how you look at "only". Although there is no question that Ishmael was the older son, there is the issue that Ishmael and his mother were disinherited. Also, Ishmael would have been the bastard son (not slighting Islam, but rather noting that Isaac was born of his wife whereas Ishmael wasn't). As Jewish inheritance is matrilineal (ie, from the mother), Ishmael would not have counted as a son as far as inheritance was considered.

Ergo, Isaac would have been the only son as far as inheritance is considered and the verse is correct...

HM


--Abraham was before the jewish nation.I think in his time there was no maternal inheritance.

--is there anyting in bible about disinheritance of Ishmail and his mother ?

--isn't it a kind of racism?
pampoon
Yes, there is. I don't have my bible on me right now, but I know that somewhere it says that Sarah was worried that Ishmael would take Isaac's birthright and told Abraham to send both Ishmael and Hagar away (disinheriting them).

God bless,
pampoon
HereticMonkey
Coen wrote:

I would be doubting the entire story, not only the fact who was the son that is being referred to.


Would you mind elaborating a bit...?

HM
HereticMonkey
palavra wrote:

--Abraham was before the jewish nation.I think in his time there was no maternal inheritance.

Not by much...and even then, the Tribe of Jews would have established the rights of inheritance for the Nation to come...

[quote]--is there anyting in bible about disinheritance of Ishmail and his mother ?
Yep....

Quote:
--isn't it a kind of racism?

How?

HM
loyal
Peace be upon you all.

It was Ishmael who was sacrificed, not Isaac. My reasoning comes from the study of Genesis. (Note: if anyone responds to my post, i will be unable to respond until the weekend).

First of all, why did Hagar and her son Ishmael leave?
After Isaac was born, Sarah saw that Ishmael had mocked Isaac. So, she got jealous and didn't want Ishmael to be heir with her son.
Genesis 21:8-10:
8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."

from site at bottom of post with modifications wrote:

If you calculate the ages, you'll see that Isaac is about two years old when he was weaned,
Ishmael was sixteen years old. This is because Abraham was eighty six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael and one hundred years old when Isaac was born, according to Genesis 16:16: "And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram" and Genesis 21:5: "And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him." Genesis 21:8-10 thus contradicts Genesis 21:14-21, where Ishmael was portrayed as a baby put on the shoulder of his mother, called "lad" and "child," when both left Sarah: "And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child ...'Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in shine hand ..."' This is the profile of a baby, not of a teenager. So Ishmael and his mother Hagar left Sarah long before Isaac was born. According to the Islamic version, Abraham took Ishmael and Hagar and made a new settlement in Makkah, called Paran in the Bible (Genesis 21:21), because of a divine instruction given to Abraham as a part of God's plan. Hagar ran seven times between two hills, Safa and Marwa, looking for water. This is the origin of one of the rituals that is performed during the pilgrimage to Makkah. The well of water mentioned in Genesis 21:19 is still present and is known as called Zamzam. Both Abraham and Ishmael later built the Ka'bah in Makkah. The spot where Abraham used to perform prayers near the Ka'bah is still present and is known as the Maqam Ibrahim, i.e., the Station of Abraham. During the pilgrimage, pilgrims in Makkah and Muslims all over the world commemorate the offering of Abraham and Ishmael by slaughtering cattle.

Some will say that "it says Isaac was sacrificed, not Ishmael".
The Islamic version states that the covenant between God, Abraham, and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed. On the very same day, Abraham, Ishmael, and all the men of Abraham's household were circumcised. At that time, Isaac had not even born: 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. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

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." So when the covenant was made and sealed (circumcision and sacrifice) Abraham was ninety nine and Ishmael was thirteen. Isaac was born a year later, when Abraham was one hundred years old.

The descendants of Ishmael, Prophet Muhammad including all Muslims, remain faithful until today to this covenant of circumcision. In their five daily prayers, Muslims include the praise of Abraham and his descendants with the praise of Muhammad and his descendants.

Some might say "in Genesis 22 it is mentioned that Isaac was to be sacrificed".

I know, but you will see the contradiction there. It is mentioned "thine only son Isaac." Shouldn't it be "thine only son Ishmael," when Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac had not even been born? When Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons.

The words "I will multiply thy seed" in Genesis 22:17 was applied earlier to Ishmael in Genesis 16:10. Was not the whole of Genesis 22 applicable to Ishmael then? "I will make him a great nation" has been repeated twice for Ishmael in Genesis 17:20 and Genesis 21:18, and never applied to Isaac at all.

You might say "The Jews and Christians maintain that Isaac was superior to Ishmael".

But, they can say that if they want to, but the Bible does not support this claim: Genesis 15:4: "And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him [Abraham], saying: 'This [Eliezer of Damascus] shall not be shine heir, but he that shall come forth out of shine own bowels shall be shine heir."' So Ishmael was also Abraham's heir.

Genesis 16:10: "And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. "'

Genesis 17:20: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."

Genesis 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."

Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."

Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hash, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hash: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose Muhammad as the seal of the prophets.

Some might say claim that Ishmael was an illegitimate son.

That is what they say, but not what the Bible states. How could such a great prophet as Abraham have an illegal wife and a son out of wedlock!

Genesis 16:3: "... and [Sarah] gave her [Hager] to her husband Abram to be his wife." If the marriage was legal, how could their offspring be illegal? Is a marriage between two foreigners, a Chaldean and an Egyptian, not more legal than a marriage between a man with a daughter of his father? Whether it was a lie of Abraham or not, it is stated in Genesis 20:12: "And yet indeed she [Sarah] is my sister, she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

The name Ishmael was also chosen by Allah Himself: Genesis 16:11: "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction."' Ishmael means "God hears."

M. Long before both Ishmael and Isaac were born, Allah made a covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15:18: "... saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." Doesn't the greater part of Arabia lie between the Nile and the Euphrates, where all the descendants of Ishmael settled at a later date?

Some might say: "But the covenant was made with Isaac, according to Genesis 17:21: "But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this time in the next year.""

Does this exclude Ishmael? Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael? Nowhere.


http://www.cambridgemuslims.info/Islam/CMD.htm#Both%20Ishmael%20and%20Isaac%20Were%20Blessed

may God bless you all.
HereticMonkey
No offense, but there is little in the way of substance there...

loyal wrote:

Some will say that "it says Isaac was sacrificed, not Ishmael".

Admittedly the circumcision was a sacrifice, but when Christians and Jews refer to the sacrifice, we refer to when Isaac was led up the mountain by Abraham, bound, and almost sacrificed, but replaced.

Quote:
Some might say "in Genesis 22 it is mentioned that Isaac was to be sacrificed".

I know, but you will see the contradiction there. It is mentioned "thine only son Isaac." Shouldn't it be "thine only son Ishmael," when Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac had not even been born? When Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons.

Except that, as already mentioned, Abraham had already disowned Ishmael. As such, Ishmael was not considered his son.

Quote:
The words "I will multiply thy seed" in Genesis 22:17 was applied earlier to Ishmael in Genesis 16:10. Was not the whole of Genesis 22 applicable to Ishmael then? "I will make him a great nation" has been repeated twice for Ishmael in Genesis 17:20 and Genesis 21:18, and never applied to Isaac at all.

Relevance? Not trying to be a jerk, but wouldn't the Moslems be considered a great nation? And why would they need to be the only such?

Quote:
You might say "The Jews and Christians maintain that Isaac was superior to Ishmael".

I think someone is hate-mongering here! Not only does The Bible not support this claim, but neither does either Jewish or Christian, at least not that I'm aware of.

Quote:
Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hash, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hash: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose Muhammad as the seal of the prophets.

Too bad that this doesn't apply to Ishmael. Hagar was not a wife of Abraham; she was a bondswoman, or servant. As such, she was his property, to be used as he pretty much wished (The Bible does put restrictions on what can be done to servants to slaves).

Quote:
Some might say claim that Ishmael was an illegitimate son.

Which would seem to be a legitimate claim. But not necessarily one that has all of the connotations you would think it does...

Quote:
That is what they say, but not what the Bible states. How could such a great prophet as Abraham have an illegal wife and a son out of wedlock!

It happened. Just because Sarah gave her to Abraham as his wife, doesn't mean that he would have accepted that. I would also point out that it's interesting that you're pointing out that an incestuous relationship is better than being an illegitimate child; wouldn't that be contradictory? Especially given how commonplace it was (mainly due to rules of inheritance at the time).

The name Ishmael was also chosen by Allah Himself: Genesis 16:11: "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction."' Ishmael means "God hears."

Quote:
Long before both Ishmael and Isaac were born, Allah made a covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15:18: "... saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." Doesn't the greater part of Arabia lie between the Nile and the Euphrates, where all the descendants of Ishmael settled at a later date?

Relevance? It's not hard to see that a covenant had been made and that Ishmael would still be blessed (as per the circumcision), but I'm not seeing how it makes it relevant to his being the sacrifice or not...

Quote:
Some might say: "But the covenant was made with Isaac, according to Genesis 17:21: "But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this time in the next year.""

Gee, and most people would just go, "Oops." Obviously God had other plans. Ishmael going off and forming his own nation, apparently.

Quote:
Does this exclude Ishmael? Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael? Nowhere.

And, in fact, a covenant had been made, apparently. It simply wasn't the same one made with Isaac...

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk; it's just interesting that the basics are off a bit. But I'm used to that from Fundamentalist Christians...

HM
Coen
HereticMonkey wrote:
Coen wrote:

I would be doubting the entire story, not only the fact who was the son that is being referred to.


Would you mind elaborating a bit...?

HM

I am having trouble with believing anything that is said in the bible as the bible has some great contradictions in it on very vital points. Therefor, I do not believe anything, or hardly anything, that is written in the bible as to be historically accurate or true. As of that I do not believe that god could have spoken to anyone so I don't believe the entire story thus my reply that I would doubt the story rather then the facts in it as they are most likely to be false or not accurate to say the least.
aames_prov356
Quote:
Quote:
You might say "The Jews and Christians maintain that Isaac was superior to Ishmael".

I think someone is hate-mongering here! Not only does The Bible not support this claim, but neither does either Jewish or Christian, at least not that I'm aware of.


It isn't that Christians hate Ishamael, it is that he was an illegitament child. Abraham was not married to Haggar, Ishmaels mother, and thus could not even be an heir in the first place. However, Sarah was worried that he would try to lay claim to Isaacs inheritance.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.