ما شاء الله

جزاكم الله خير

I have a question please. On what do you base your claim that Ismael was the child of sacrifice? As I understand the Quran does not identify the child by name. Is it accurate enough to go by the assumptions of some muslims that it was Ishmael? Or should you think if the Quran was indeed meant to confirm the previous scriptures and not to contradict them, then given that the child if not named in the Quran it could as well be referring to Isaac... Thus confirming the scriptures. Or is it acceptable to go with a version according to Muslim tradition that does not raise other uncomfortable points for you. You can't really just accuse the Jews of changing the scriptures for no reason. Why would they need to change the name from Ishmael to Isaac? What would they have to gain by doing so?

There are other points on other issues that could do with clarification. However, I do not think you would be interested, given that your target audience I'm assuming to be Christians who you would wish to convert to Islam for whatever reason, I think you need to check what Christians actually understand from many of the issues you raise. Otherwise the hard work you have spent on your article with fall on stony ground. If your target audience is your fellow muslims then no doubt they will congratulate you on a job well done. It depends on what the aims and objectives are I guess. :)

Peace to you.

Sorry for the late replies as I am very busy nowadays, actually Ishmael being the sacrificed son is mentioned by name in the Sunna, as for the Quran, although it wasn't mentioned that the sacrificed son is Ishmael, but the context is clearly talking about the action of sacrifice then it moves to the birth of Isaac, and it's well known that Ishmael is older than Isaac:
99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
https://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/37.htm
The Jews of course wanted to have the honor of being the sons of Isaac, that's why they corrupted that verse.

explain please.. Is the Sunna the word of God as the Quran claims to be? If not it is only the opinion of men and as you say the words of men can't be trusted in the Bible as accurately relaying Gods word then why should the word of men in the Sunna be an exception to this rule?

The fact that Ishmael is older makes no difference. The Bible is quite clear that Isaac was the child of promise. Gods covenant was through Isaac. God made a promise for Ishmael but the covenant was through Isaac.

99.

He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

I fail to see purely on the belief alone that because Ishmael was the elder it must have referred to him and not Isaac. Ishmael was born through Hagar.. Abrahams wife's Sarah slave. God promised Abraham that Sarah would bear a child and he was to be called Isaac and he would be the child of promise. It was only through Sarah's doubting Gods promise that Ishmael was born at all. I wonder if she could have seen the implications of her doubt would she have been so hasty.. Or would she, as she should have done trusted in God.

You do of course have proof of this statement.

Peace

Well, as for your question concerning the Sunna, we consider it as a revelation from God to Prophet Muhammad so hr is not talking from himself and that's why the Quran ordered us to follow and obey him.
Regarding Ishmael being older this is a proof from the Quran that the sacrificed son is Ishmael as the story of sacrifice was mentioned then the event afterwards was Abraham being blessed with Isaac, you asked me about the Quran I gave you evidence from the Quran, as for the Bible, although it tells that it was Isaac, the story regarding the age of Ishmael is inconsistent giving an indication that a manipulation in the scriptures occurred which is explained in detail in the article you're supposed to ask me about. As for Ishmael being the son of the maid, well he was actually blessed and promised with a great nation which is actually a prophecy of Islam as you can see my article of blessing of Ishmael

Greetings M.Khaled, if you put equal importance on the Sunna as the Quran then that is fine by me. From my personal perspective I see that the Quran itself should be the greater authority in all matters. On that basis the Quran is not clear in regards to which child was the child of promise which has left muslims with the predicament of having to join the dots themselves. But you cannot change the truth of Gods word or intentions.

I do not recall you inviting me personally to read your article so I was not aware that I was supposed to ask you about it, but since you bring it up then I have questions on this issue.

Why did you not quote the section in Genesis pertaining to this matter in full? Instead of taking a line here or there that you feel may back up your position. Is this fair or intellectually honest? If I were to use the Quran out of context I'm sure I would be censured for it. You see my point I hope. If you give the section more consideration you will see it is quite clear it refers to Isaac and not Ishmael.

Genesis 15:27
15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”


17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”


19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.


23 On that very day 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. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that very day. 27 And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.

you are right that God promised Ishmael that he would fruitful and be the father of nations.. Which all came to pass. However, the child of the covenant promise was to be Isaac. I am not sure what inconsistencies you find that lead you to believe the Jews of the time would have had cause to change the names. For what? The honour of being the sons of Isaac? They must then have known at that time the nature of the "honour"would bring them in the future. That seems rather far fetched. Was the Quran sent down in chronological order? It does not seem to be arranged chronologically to me, but then I am no expert and do not claim to be. Whereas the Bible is chronological and we see and understand why Ishmael was first born, why Isaac was the child of promise. Ishmael was born in the normal way, at Sarah's behest.. Not Gods. The birth of Isaac was considered to be miraculous given the advanced age of both his parents.. That was at Gods behest.

Why is it important for muslims that it should be Ishmael? Are you trying to make the facts fit Gods truth or mans opinion?

Peace

Hi Pandora,
Well, for me I see that the Quran is clear concerning that the offered son is Ishmael when we look at its context in the right way, your concern that the Quran is not chronologically in order is regarding the whole Quran, but we are talking here about the order inside one story not through the whole Quran, which is represented in about 15 verses talking about the story of Abraham when he faced his people in Ur Cheldan then he had a son and the story of sacrifice occurred then he had Isaac, for sure the story of sacrifice is pointing to Ishmael as Isaac wasn't born yet. As for your question regarding the Sunna, if the hadith was proven to be true from the Isnad, then it is taken as the Quran. The difference between the Quran and the Sunna is the same as the difference between general constitution and detailed law. Both are important.

Actually I quoted the Christian arguments you gave below and answered them:
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seedafter thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. Gen 17:11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
So it clearly tells that the sign of this covenant is circumcision, this covenant is everlasting and that the one who don’t circumcise breaks God’s covenant, which Muslims already do while according to Christians , Paul cancelled circumcision.
Other might say that the covenant is with Isaac only as it says:
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Well, this was in the beginning, then it was transferred to Ishmael’s descendants, and that’s what is told in the New Testament when Jesus said to the Jews that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from them:
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Calling Ishmael as a fruitful, and have a great nation is very clear in praising him, otherwise, if God knew that a false prophet came from his descendants where a great nation followed him, why did He describe this nation as great?
Besides the Bible tells in another part:
Gen 12:3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
We Muslims bless Abraham everyday in our prayer. At the end of every prayer, a Muslim must say:
“All the compliments, prayers and good things are due to Allah; peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon you. Peace be on us and on the true pious devotees of Allah. I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. O Allah! send your Salat (Blessings, Graces, Honors and Mercy) on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Salat on Abraham and the family of Abraham. O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Blessings on Abraham and the family of Abraham. You are Praiseworthy, Most Gracious.”
So if Muslims bless Abraham, the Bible says that God blesses who bless him, how come that the followers of a false prophet be blessed?

You are free to see what you wish in the Quran as it is your respected Holy Book. However, the Bible gives a different account and it is abundantly clear Isaac was always the child of promise.. And it was through Isaac that Gods covenant is passed. It is also very clear why it had to be Isaac. Maybe we should discuss the various covenants sometime... Because I am not sure God ever did make a covenant with the Muslims.. Rather muslims see themselves grafted onto the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael. You have your own reasons to prefer it to be Ishmael I think.. Even though the Quran itself does not confirm this fact by naming the child of sacrifice. On a matter of such importance do you not think Allah would have given a definitive answer to this question? Given the implications. I really see this exercise as yet another way to negate Jesus.
I bow to your knowledge in regards to the Quran and Sunna.



Yes.. But read it carefully...this refers to Abraham and his direct descendants through the covenant. This circumcision never applied to Gentiles... Who were later grafted on to the spiritual family of Abraham through Jesus. So it had nothing to do with Paul cancelling circumcision. Besides which muslims have already broken this covenant.. I don't believe the Quran actually says anything about boys being circumcised on the eighth day .. Which is a covenant condition. It's not just the fact that a male is circumcised but it should be done on the eighth day. Or maybe you feel you can make adjustments accordingly to Gods Covenant?
God said of Ishmael in the Bible... “A wild donkey of a man, and his hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand against him, and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers.” .... Did God see Ishmael as a suitable candidate to carry His covenant? It does not seem so.

Other might say that the covenant is with Isaac only as it says:

Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Well, this was in the beginning, then it was transferred to Ishmael’s descendants, and that’s what is told in the New Testament when Jesus said to the Jews that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from them:
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Calling Ishmael as a fruitful, and have a great nation is very clear in praising him, otherwise, if God knew that a false prophet came from his descendants where a great nation followed him, why did He describe this nation as great?
Besides the Bible tells in another part:
Gen 12:3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

It was never transferred to Ishmael or his descendants. This is wishful thinking on your parts. You cannot take your misunderstanding of Matthew 21:43 as proof of this. This parable referred to Jesus. The Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews but here Jesus teaches that it is His followers that shall inherit that Kingdom... Not the muslims.. the bringing forth of fruits is in connection to the parable Jesus is the cornerstone in this verse. The fact that God promised Ishmael would be fruitful is coincidental.. When referred to Ishmael the meaning was fruitful and multiply in numbers.

We Muslims bless Abraham everyday in our prayer. At the end of every prayer, a Muslim must say:

“All the compliments, prayers and good things are due to Allah; peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon you. Peace be on us and on the true pious devotees of Allah. I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. O Allah! send your Salat (Blessings, Graces, Honors and Mercy) on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Salat on Abraham and the family of Abraham. O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent Your Blessings on Abraham and the family of Abraham. You are Praiseworthy, Most Gracious.”
So if Muslims bless Abraham, the Bible says that God blesses who bless him, how come that the followers of a false prophet be blessed?

Its good that you bless Abraham I'm sure God will look with kindness on that fact. However that still does not have any baring on the fact that Ishmael was not the child of promise.. It was always Isaac.

Peace.

Especially when I see that the Bible is dealing with Ishmael who is 16 years old as baby and I see a clear inconsistency as expressed here, you haven't addressed this till now by the way:
https://jesus-is-muslim.net/corruptio...-son-to-isaac/

Well, if the circumcision was never applied to the Gentiles, then on what basis that the Gentiles were preached? Either they have the covenant of Isaac, or that they have nothing to do with it. In Islam, circumcision is not for just for the Arabs but for the whole people, and we are talking about the concept of circumcision not the full details, otherwise Abraham was circumcised at 80 years old. Besides, Jesus said in Matthew 21:43 that the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from the Jews and given to a nation working with it's fruits. If this nation were the Christians, then actually Paul stopped working with any fruits either circumcision or anything else as he considered faith only is enough. And if you considered the everlasting covenant shall be in the seed of Abraham, then Jesus says that it shall be taken away from the sons of Isaac, you can gesture who are the other sons of Abraham, the stone which was rejected "and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers" ;)
A coincidence? Ok, let's go to Isaiah 42
Isa 42:11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit; let the inhabitants of Sela sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.
Why especially Kedar and Sela? Actually Kedar was the eldest son of Ishmael, Sela is a mountain in Medina (See here), and it was mentioned in hadiths as this for example.. Coincidence, isn't it? You may say that the Bible’s dictionary tells that it is Petra. Well there may be more than one Sela as Seir for example:
H8165
say-eer’
Formed like H8163; rough; Seir, a mountain of Idumaea and its aboriginal occupants, also one in Palestine: – Seir.(Strong’s dictionary)

M.Khaled, your article is quite long... I did not realise I am expected to address everything!!! :) how do you arrive at the conclusion the Bible portrays Ishmael as a baby? He is clearly at least 16 possibly 17. Look at the verse in question...

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 woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”


11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”


14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba.


15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she began to sob.


17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”

Point 1 Abraham and Hagar never married.. On that basis Isaac was at that time Abrahams only legitimate son. Although Ishmael was still of Abrahams seed. The child of promise according to God was through the union of Abraham and Sarah. The Quran does not deny this.. And it does not confirm Hagar's standing.

Point 2 Abraham was clearly distressed at being asked to send them away, as he was obviously fond of Ishmael. Yet he bowed to Sarah's demands because firstly Hagar had no other claim on him but as Sarah's maid servant.. And secondly God reassured Abraham that he should not be distressed about it. God had other plans for Ishmael.

Point 3 the food and water was put on Hagar's shoulders and she and Ishmael were sent off. Now, I know you feel that some translations may imply that Ishmael was also put on Hagar's shoulders as well as the food and water. Now she may have been strong but to carry food and water was task enough without carrying the weight of a 16 year old.. Even if boys of that age may have been smaller in stature then.. It was still a big ask.. There are many pointers as to why this was not likely.. No woman would ever have carried a child on her shoulders. Maybe on her hip or more likely on her back as children are still carried thus today. Tho not 16 year olds.. ;) be honest.. How many women do you see carrying their children around on there shoulder?

Point 4.. Put the boy under bushes.. Not out of the question.. She could have suggested he sit there out of the sun, or even pushed him under the bushes. Mothers will always put their children's needs first.

Point 5. God recognises Hagar's distress and tells her to lift up the boy and take him by the hand ... To pull him up from his sitting position from under the bushes? Well.. Take one by the hand seems a reasonable way to achieve this.
Then we have God repeating the promise He made to Abraham that he would bless Ishmael and make him into a great nation. It ought to be said that there is nothing to suggest that Abraham had shared this knowledge with Hagar before sending them both away. Another reason to suppose Hagar did not share the status of a wife... But as His wife's maidservant Abraham did not feel obliged to give any explanation of his actions.
If you don't mind I will address your other points raised in your post later.... :)
Peace

[/QUOTE]

Jesus fulfilled the need for circumcision, followers of Christ are grafted to the Abrahamic covenant.. Spiritually.. Through the redeeming work of Jesus. At the risk of repeating myself..Circumcision on the eighth day was a mark of the covenant for direct descendants of Abraham. This was what God ordained.. The requirement was this should be done on the eighth day. How can you just apply the concept of circumcision but not uphold the conditions? If muslims are part of the abrahamic covenant then the conditions laid down by God of the covenant should be followed to the letter. Muslims do not uphold this part of the covenant as circumcision is done at any time. In fact I don't even think it's a requirement upon muslims in the Quran .. Is it? You didn't answer that bit. Is it a condition in the Quran or is it Sunnah? By denying the work of Jesus you exclude yourself from being "spiritually grafted" as with Christians. I'm really not sure where muslims stand on this issue, and I don't think the Quran is clear on this very important point. Gods covenants are of great importance and many were made between God and His people, some conditional some unconditional. The final one being eternal.. That being the covenant of grace through Christ.

Jesus, as the Seed of Abraham. God’s promises in the Abrahamic Covenant find fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus, Until His coming, the promises could never achieve their full realisation. When Mary learned she would bear the Jesus the Messiah, she praised God for giving help to...."his servant, Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever" (Luke 1:54-55) Zackarias the priest, and father of John the Baptist, likewise tied Jesus’ birth to the Abrahamic promises providing "the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he swore to our father, Abraham" (Luke 1:72-73). Paul confirmed that Jesus came to fulfil the Abrahamic promises, not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles....Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (Abraham), And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy (Rom. 15:8-9).


The New Testament expands the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant to include both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul stated that the seed of Abraham consists of all believers.. "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise". The blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are available to everyone in the gospel of the Jesus Christ. In fact, the Abrahamic Covenant is actually the gospel in Advance! The good news...or gospel...consists of God providing the blessing of justification to Gentiles who believe in Jesus, who is the seed of Abraham, so in Christ we are all the spiritual "seed of Abraham"

Well, we are saved by faith, faith and by the grace of God. Our good works alone are not sufficient but being saved by faith alone does not mean that good works are not required of a person.. They are, it's a fundamental belief that in order to have any hope of salvation we should treat others as we would wish to be treated, love our neighbours and enemies alike and forgive those who trespass against us. In short, our good works follow from the example of Jesus...the man and His teachings. It's a given. But salvation is a gift from God and that comes by Gods grace, our faith in the person and teachings of Jesus is what builds the bridge towards that goal. To put ones faith in good deeds alone I cannot see how that could work. How does one ever know if ones good deeds are enough? To balance ones good deeds against sin one also has to fully understand how God views sin.. That is all sin big and small. If God is Holy then all sin is an affront to that Holiness. Can we measure that?

Jesus never said the covenant would be taken away from Isaac. The only one who can remove a covenant is the author of that covenant. The author of the abrahamic covenant was God. Am I to understand you are implying Jesus status as equal to God the Father if you see Jesus has the power to remove a covenant and bestow it on another? Dangerous ground you tread.. Even Christians would not say this was something in the remit of Jesus..but purely for God alone.

I'll address the Isaiah question in another post. By quoting Isaiah do you accept his words as a prophet of God? I mean is Isaiah a prophet in Islam?

Peace.

The case is that the event when he went away with Hagar is actually before he was 16, the writer of the Bible just rearranged the paragraph telling that Isaac was born and he became 16 to be before the rest of the chapter just before the sacrifice event to say that Isaac was the one who was sacrificed when actually Isaac hasn't yet been born when the sacrifice event occurred.

Well, you still gave no justification on what putting Ishmael on her shoulders mean. As for your question, actually I see you have no point about it because actually when mothers carry children, the child's head is most probably on her shoulders. not necessarily that his legs are standing on her shoulders.

Are you sure you really see these justifications logic? I don't think so, Actually putting is not like leaving, and lifting is not as helping one standing up. In addition that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders. I think that any guy looking at these without motivation to justify his belief will never think this is a 16 year old guy but actually a baby.

Spiritually?? Actually these are same as excuses of some ignorant Muslims who don't pray, they say we spiritually pray. Actually if God made a covenant, then people should abide to it, spiritual excuses have no meaning.

Well, We as Muslims have the same concept of circumcission whether it is in the eighth day or not. I see that's enough especially when you actually don't circumcise at all nor did Jesus tell you not to circumcise or stop working with the Old Testament except for some issues but it was actually Paul who negated circumcission and the law, so Jesus has nothing with you not to circumcise, and you are trying to explain this with no single quote from Jesus but all from Paul, you are not actually following Jesus but Paul.
This means that since Jesus couldn't remove from the covenant because only the author of the covenant is the one who could do that, and since the author of the covenant is God, then Jesus is not God. Well said

For me no, he is just telling what God said not that he is the one who removes or not.
Well, Islam didn't mention the names of all prophets as in Sura 40:79 below, but it seems he was.
78. We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods.

Hello M.Khaled, sorry I don't have a lot of time to spare this evening but would just like to address a couple of points if I may... I will continue another time.

What case are you trying to make here? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Ishmael was younger than 16 when they were sent away...and someone rearranged the sequence of events to show the sacrifice happened before the birth of Isaac ergo .. It must be Ishmael as the child of promise? On that basis then the covenant was with Ishmael all along and there was no need for Jesus or God to transfer the covenant to Ishmael at all????!!!!!

Question is why? For what reason would the Jews have to rearrange the verses in favour of Isaac over Ishmael? And why did they not think to remove all other verses that referred to the covenant with ?? May one ask where do you get your evidence for this remarkable hypothesis? It's not the Quran.. Because I don't believe the Quran ever names Ishmael.. And is silent on which child it was. It's not the Bible.. For obvious reasons.. Another question why is it essential to you to believe it was Ishmael?

The food and water skin was put on Hagar's shoulders other than the fact that Ishmael was a strapping lad of 16+ years then I just think the likely impossibility of Hagar.. A woman.. And although as a slave was no doubt no stranger to hard work and lifting heavy objects. I still think carrying a 16 year old.. And food.. And water.. On her shoulders is quite a big ask. I know I could not carry a 16 year old lad very far... Shoulders or not! I think that is justification enough.. It's called common sense. You are splitting hairs here when you say such as.. The child's head resting on ones shoulder is akin to carrying a child on ones shoulder.. If the child's head is resting on a mothers shoulder she would be carrying the child on her hip or back. Except if the child was 16.. Then his head would likely be at a higher level than her shoulder.. Even if she could physically carry him on her hip or back. Standing on her shoulders!!!!! What are we now? Acrobats!!!

I'm still not seeing this Abraham putting Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders as a going concern.. Think of the logistics... Abraham already of advanced years.. He was 100 when Isaac was born, Ishmael and Hagar were sent away after Isaac was weaned.. That's usually about 2 or so.. So you've got an old guy of 102 lifting a 16 year old onto the shoulders of a woman. I can see he could place the food and water on Hagar's shoulders and I can see him handing over Ishmael to her care and I can see him sending them off. Seems logical to me.

Maybe you do not place the same importance on spirituality as Christians do.

having the concept of something is not the same as following as set down.

That is your twisting and wilful misunderstanding of what I said. I forgive you that because you don't understand how Christians see the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Jesus is subordinate to God the Father and does nothing but not by the will of the Father. Which is to say .. If Jesus did transfer the covenant... Which He didn't... It would be Gods will. As God the Father authored the covenant then God the Father has the power to transfer it.. If He wished.. But He didn't.. And the covenant went with Isaac and through his descendants until it came to fulfilment in Jesus.

We'll agree to disagree on this point. :)

I think I see what you mean... Though it strikes me as odd, as Isaiah is considered a prophet of some importance in the Bible... And I believe muslims use Isaiah to claim Mohammed is the suffering servant mentioned rather than Jesus. Yet Isaiah does not get a mention in the Quran by name.

Anyway.. Time is short and I have a lot of stuff and things to do..

blessings to you. :)

No problem take your time, I also may not have much spare time as well.

Sacrifice is not necessarily the covenant, we believe actually that Prophets before Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) were from Isaac's seed and no prophet from Ishmael's seed before Prophet Muhammad and that God chosen the people of Israel in the beginning, we as Muslims already acknowledge that, but this is other than the point of the offered son.
Well, this was an honor to Ishmael, and they tried to show him in a bad way. May be they couldn't have removed everything that honors him, but through the evidence I see here, I find it clear that they tried to do so, and the point regarding the age of Ishmael here is a remarkable evidence, and in the Quran it's clear that the event of offering was before the birth of Isaac. So, it is not the point that I find it essential, but I see this is more clear through the Quran and the manipulation regarding Ishmael's age in the Bible.

So you are just answering yourself, this means that either you are denying what the Bible says, or that Ishmael wasn't actually 16 years old. Well done.

Well, actually that's not what the Bible says, the Bible says :"Put Ishmael on her shoulders, she put him near the tree, she lifts him up". Ishmael is totally silent except for crying, these are all indications that he is not a 16 year old guy, but a baby. A 16 year old guy is old enough in our age, only 2 other years and he is no more a minor, these are not the actions of Ishmael in the chapter in question.
Exactly, Jesus is subordinate to God, not equal to God as phil 2:5 says. Simply becaus he is not God.

Actually it is not only Isaiah which is foretelling Prophet Muhammad, the Quran generally tells us the stories of the prophets that we might need in our life and the morals of the stories rather than just chronology.
Take your time and have a nice day. :)