Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nad_M

Jewish Perspective On Ishmael/isaac Sacrifice

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salaam/Shalom

I would like to have the opinion of our Jewish friends on the obvious display of tribal prejudice by the Bani Israil towards their brethren of Bani Ismail regarding God's order to Abraham(as) to sacrifice his only son.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his "only son"(Gen22:2,12) meaning he had no son other than the one to be sacrified. According to the Bible, Ismail was 14 years older than Isaac so the "only son" couldnt be Isaac. A firstborn holds a special place in parent's hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son,making God's test highly meaningful.

God granted Abraham's wish of a son, whom he named Ishmael meaning 'God hears' showing how much he wished & loved this firstborn. In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love",this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's 1st reaction to God announcing Isaac's future birth is "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" and when Sarah wanted Ismail & Hagar be sent away Abraham was reluctant Gen21:9-11.

Abraham asks God that Ishmael "might live before thee"(Gen17:18) which applies in bible terminology to anything offered for God or anyone dedicated for His service (Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26 and throughout Leviticus).

The sanctity of the firstborn(human or else) is recurant in the bible Gen4:4, Numbers8:17-18, Exod13:1-2.

In Gen17:1-19 After anouncing Isaac's futur birth, God promises to establish through his line "an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him", so how could He demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. The jews may argue that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made before his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and then the promise was made, meaning it happened after the event of the sacrifice.

The corruption becomes even more laughable, and the prejudice of the jewish scribes more exposed when we look at the denigration and cursing of Ismail(as) and his descendants in Gen16:12 "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 live to the east of all his brothers"

Edited by Nad_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, and the Qur'an only speaks of B'nei Yisrael in glowing terms?

The Quran constantly reminds the favors showered upon the Bani Israil and their constant turning away from the right path, despite all that.

Moses(as) himself, in the Bible addresses them in harsh terms, when they went back to idol worship as soon as he turned his back and after God had split a sea for them:

Deut31:25-29

"Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them. 29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you."

Here Moses is predicting how corrupt his nation will be after he dies. And this statement parallels with the Quran where only the Jews who "alter words from their places"4:46 or "distort the Book with their tongues"3:78 are critisized. The Quran also rejects the false notion of chosenness and exclusivity towards any nation. And here too the, it parallels with Moses' prophecy of a new Prophet from among the Bani Israil's brethren, who shall speak the words put in his mouth by God Himself Deut18:18-19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Quran also rejects the false notion of chosenness and exclusivity towards any nation. And here too the, it parallels with Moses' prophecy of a new Prophet from among the Bani Israil's brethren, who shall speak the words put in his mouth by God Himself Deut18:18-19.

It's been a while since I had to dig up the ayah, but there's an ayah that confirms the "closeness" between B'nei Yisrael and G-d.

However, there is no notion of "exclusivity" in the Torah -- that would be the propaganda that's taught Muslims and not the Torah that's taught Jews. In numerous places we're told -- by Divine commadn -- not to mistreat strangers, etc. That Jews have historically been "closer" to G-d is ... historical. When B'nei Yishmael were pagans, B'nei Yisrael were mostly not.

FINALLY, the only reason the Qur'an doesn't speak of the cruelty, injustice and general sin of the Ummah is because all religious texts (except ours ...) are completed before the religion grows and matures. By having a "Seal of the Prophecy" there is not Nabi al-Ummah (or whatever that would be in Arabic) to say "Lo! Do not say those who blow up people will have 72 virgins, for they will receive a severe chastisement!" Which probably explains why Islam is now thoroughly stuck in the 10th or 11th century CE when killing people over religious differences reached its peak in the region.

Matthew to Revelations, and Al-Fatihah to An-Nas, were written before the adherents were able to start putting the words in those texts into practice. In contrast, Genesis to Malachi (that's the KJV ordering, and since I seem to be the only Yid around these days ...) covers well over a millenia, warts and all. If Christians weren't sitting around waiting on Jesus to come back, and Muslims weren't waiting for Al Medhi to come out of ocultation, perhaps you'd both have some prophets who could chastise you for the millions of people murdered in the names of your gods, the injustices perpetrated, the bigotry routinely taught, and so on down the line. How convenient that Islam shut G-d's mouth by declare Muhammed is the "Seal of the Prophets".

And for anyone following along who wonder why I believe Judaism is true and both Islam and Christianity are false, it's that we know what prophecy is good for and why it will never be "Sealed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The corruption becomes even more laughable, and the prejudice of the jewish scribes more exposed when we look at the denigration and cursing of Ismail(as) and his descendants in Gen16:12 "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 live to the east of all his brothers"

I actually think Moshe got this one right, based on the current state of affairs in the Middle East.

How many years was it between the time Muhammed died and Karbala? Who killed Bibi Fatimah? How many B'nei Yishmael have died at the hands of the brothers -- Sunni versus Shi'a, and so on?

Denial is not a river in Egypt. Calling that verse "corruption" won't make all the violence in that region cease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually think Moshe got this one right, based on the current state of affairs in the Middle East.

Gen16:12 in the Masoretic Text describes Ismail(as) as a "wild donkey", the Septuagint just says "wild man"

The NIV translates "He will be a wild donkey of a man" the KJV "he will be a wild man"

Then regarding the part which caught your attention the NIV translates "he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" and the KJV "he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren".

Now leaving aside the problem of authenticity, i will address what you pointed regarding Ismail's descendants being aggressive and in constant war with their brothers:

Since Ismail's descendants preached monotheism in an environement surrounded by a violent, bloody and inhumane paganism, since they attacked the idols in Mecca which made the city the center of pagan worship of Arabia and brought with it polytheist pilgrims, trade and made the city prosper, did you think the Arab pagans would accept this movement which was threatening the economical, social and religious foundations of the city? The Prophet did not engage in any confrontation with them during 13 years, and when he led wars later, they were all defensive.

Would you call Moses(as) a wild donkey because he wiped out 3000 calf worshipers? or because he exterminated the Hittites, Girga[Edited Out]es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites?

And regarding Muslim countries being at war today, please dont watch fox news too much. Its obvious who started the mess in Iraq or Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is no notion of "exclusivity" in the Torah -- that would be the propaganda that's taught Muslims and not the Torah that's taught Jews.

So God's covenant was not placed exclusively with Isaac? The Bani Israil are not chosen by their God "to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" Deut7:6? which carries with it the responsibility of being the sole "light for the Gentiles" Isa42:6?

Which probably explains why Islam is now thoroughly stuck in the 10th or 11th century CE when killing people over religious differences reached its peak in the region.

Islam does not kill anyone, people kill people.

When the Prophet entered Mecca triumphantly 23 years after the first revelation, and the whole peninsula was under his command as God promised him in the beginning, he answeredthe soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, who came to the him in submission, knowing they would be slain as in their logic they would have executed the Muslims had they been in their position, Muhammad(sas) uttered what Prophet Joseph had said to his brothers 12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful". He continued "Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah (pre-Islam) be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)." With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans.

Matthew to Revelations, and Al-Fatihah to An-Nas, were written before the adherents were able to start putting the words in those texts into practice.

Muhammad(sas) practiced every single thing he preached, almost all verses relating to law came in context and/or after an incident, gradually over 23 years. His message was clear and understood by his followers otherwise how could the hundreds of moraly deprived, lawless and proud arab tribes accept his message and follow his example.

After him came the cycle of Imamah, they are the physical (same bloodline) as well as spiritual heirs of the last prophet. Their task is not to promulgate new laws, rather it is to interpret, safeguard and implement the divine laws of the Prophet.

People always go astray, no matter how much guidance they receive. Remember the 3000 Jews who Moses(as) wiped out when they turned back to idol worship when he turned his back and after God had just displayed all His miracles to them.

we know what prophecy is good for and why it will never be "Sealed".

Truth has reached its final form with Muhammad(sas), God sent a continuous line of Prophets until the objective of the initiation of the sacred line of prophethood was fully attained with Muhammad(sas) thus, the institution was finally sealed. We are now living in the period where all objections have been clearly answered and preserved in the final reminder, the Quran.

Edited by Nad_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And regarding Muslim countries being at war today, please dont watch fox news too much. Its obvious who started the mess in Iraq or Israel.

The Jews or Americans are responsible for Karbala?!? Jews are responsible for all the persecutions of Shi'a by Sunni for the last millenia or so?

Wow -- I knew hatred of the Jews was a bigtime sport for you guys, but didn't realize it was that bigtime.

Welcome to my list of "irrational Muslims to be ignored."

The number 1 problem in the Islamic world -- instead of accepting responsibility for the problems your sects and schisms create, you run off and blame Jews. Well, guess what: the person on the other end of the gun, or wearing the explosive vest, or taking bribes, or showing favoritism to his tribe or sect, or stealing your national wealth -- He's a Muslim, not a Jew. You guys either chased off or murdered all the Jews in your countries years ago. Learn to accept responsibility for yourself. Something Islam should have learned 1400+ years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow -- I knew hatred of the Jews was a bigtime sport for you guys, but didn't realize it was that bigtime.

Welcome to my list of "irrational Muslims to be ignored."

This is certainly not what i meant with my post, your paranoia is as baseless as the hate mongers you are referring to.

I wasnt talking about the sunni/shia wars, i was talking about the current mess in Iraq started by the americans who keep arming street thugs to fight their war. Im not saying these Iraqis are not to blame, but im pointing you to the fact that many exetrnal and internal factors have to be considered when analyzing a conflict, its not black and white. And by the way, what happened to "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him" how do you reconcile this with "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone"

PS: i would appreciate your input on my description of the Jewish conception of sin in the thread "god is not man" as well as the refutation of Isaiah53 being a prophecy for Jesus

Edited by Nad_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather talk about the propensity of Arabs, as well as Muslims in general, for blaming everyone else. I've read idle conversations amongst Muslims, and Christians to a lesser extent, where every single problem in the world today is somehow the fault of "the Jews".

The conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with "the Jews". It has squat to do with Zionists, or Americas support of the Zionists, or anything involving Zionists or Zionism. Iraq happened because George Bush is insecure in his masculinity and a lot of people were just plain fed up with maintaining the "No Fly" zones, and the fact that Saddam had a few Scud missiles lying around.

As for your request, we've been down that road a million times. A brother already explained it well enough that I don't see any reason to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam/Shalom

I would like to have the opinion of our Jewish friends on the obvious display of tribal prejudice by the Bani Israil towards their brethren of Bani Ismail regarding God's order to Abraham(as) to sacrifice his only son.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his "only son"(Gen22:2,12) meaning he had no son other than the one to be sacrified. According to the Bible, Ismail was 14 years older than Isaac so the "only son" couldnt be Isaac.

Hello Nad. I don't think it would unreasonable for Abraham to say "my only son" because Ishmael had been sent away and only Isaac remained. Or, quite possibly, Abraham could have been saying how unique Isaac was, just as Jesus said, " For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only, or begotten, Son...." The greek is monogenes and means "unique, one of a kind." Perhaps Abraham viewed Isaac in a similar manner. But the former I would think is more reasonable or acceptable.

A firstborn holds a special place in parent's hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son, making God's test highly meaningful.

God granted Abraham's wish of a son, whom he named Ishmael meaning 'God hears' showing how much he wished & loved this firstborn.

This is true. Abraham loved Ishmael, but listened to Sarah who insisted he be sent away with Hagar. It would seem that Ishmael did not fit the description of a "righteous son" because he described by God as a "wild man" whose hand would be against "every man." The term "he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren" is not a peaceful annotation. Some versions say he will live to the east of his brethren, while others say that he will "live in hostility" to his them." (NIV, NASB)

In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love",this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's 1st reaction to God announcing Isaac's future birth is "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" and when Sarah wanted Ismail & Hagar be sent away Abraham was reluctant Gen21:9-11.

Abraham asks God that Ishmael "might live before thee"(Gen17:18) which applies in bible terminology to anything offered for God or anyone dedicated for His service (Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26 and throughout Leviticus).

The sanctity of the firstborn(human or else) is recurant in the bible Gen4:4, Numbers8:17-18, Exod13:1-2.

I'm not so sure that necessarily applies in the case of Abraham. The rights of the first born show up under the Torah, which obviously had not been given in Abraham's day. When Abraham said that he hoped Ishmael would live before God I think he was praying to God that He would not abandon him. That is just my opinion. Or perhaps he was praying that Ishmael would live in a godly manner the rest of his life. There's no question this statement reflected Abraham's love and concern for Ishmael.

In Gen17:1-19 After anouncing Isaac's futur birth, God promises to establish through his line "an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him", so how could He demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless.

I think that, even though Abraham knew that Isaac would have many descendants, he was willing to obey God and sacrifice him. Abraham believed that after he was sacrificed, God would raise him from the dead. I think this is what he ment when he said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Gen. 22:5) By saying, "We will come back to you," he must have understood that God would raise up Isaac and the two of them would return to his servants. It doesn't say that Abraham and Isaac went to the place to worship, returned to his servants and then went to the place of sacrifice. I think the whole Abraham/Isaac affair foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus. When Isaac asked where the lamb was, Abraham said that God would provide for himself the lamb (Gen. 22:8). God didn't provide a lamb that day on Moriah, but did provide Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). I believe Abraham, a prophet, was foretelling of this sacrifice.

Peace

Edited by Daystar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daystar,

You really, really need to read the Torah for comprehension.

After Sarah talked Abraham into sending Hagar away, G-d told her to go back, which she did. Yishmael and Hagar lived with Abraham and Sarah until after Yitzhack was born. Yishmael wasn't sent away the second time until later, by which time he would have been approaching marriageable age in that era (mid to late teens was common).

Here's the exchange between G-d and Abraham --

Gen 17:18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

Gen 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him.

Gen 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.

G-d says "I have heard you", not "I'm sorry, but I'm going to ignore your request that he be abandoned, and bless him instead. Just to mess with your head."

But there is more --

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

So, neither Abraham nor G-d are up to this "Abandon Yishmael" thing you've got against B'nei Yishmael ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ariella

I discussed this topic with 2 highly learned Jews and they offered me a very interesting perspective:

Apparently, from the Jewish perspective, God never ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son.

What He said was:

וְלֶךְ לְךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה

"and go forth to the land of Moriah; bring him up there for an elevation-offering (olah).."

v'ha-aleyhu (bring him up) is the same root as l'olah (for an elevation-offering)

So it doesn't actually say Abraham is to take Isaac, slaughter him and burn him. The actual command was for Abraham to bring Isaac up for a normal offering, not to offer Isaac himself. Abraham apparently took the initiative himself of putting Isaac on the altar to see if God would fulfill his promise of covenant with his son. this twists the whole event around and makes it look like Abraham was the one testing God..they still didnt answer me on this point but i think this is the only conclusion we can draw.

They made a second point to solve the problem of the "only son":

According to oral Jewish tradition, the "only son" is not to be taken literally as Abraham's biological, firstborn. They quoted he Talmud which records Gen22:2 as being a compact version of an exchange between God and Abraham:

"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.” "

So this solves the problem from the Jewish perspective but for Christians, the problem remains as they dont recognize Jewish oral tradition as authoritative and translate Gen22 as an order to sacrifice Isaac.

From the Muslim point of view, the answer is not that satisfying neither, unless we can prove the inerrancy of both the Torah and the oral traditions.

On a side note:

All Jewish sources i found on the net say God did in fact order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but i have to say i trust more the linguistic analysis provided above. So my question to you, are there different Jewish opinions on this matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting discussion.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...I&artid=277

When Sarah saw Ishmael mocking her son Isaac, his brother, younger by fourteen years, she insisted that Abraham cast out Ishmael and his slave-mother.
Abraham endeavored to bring up Ishmael in righteousness; to train him in the laws of hospitality Abraham gave him the calf to prepare (Gen. R. xlviii. 14; comp. Gen. xviii. 7). But according to divine prediction Ishmael remained a savage. The ambiguous expression in Gen. xxi. 9 (see Hagar) is interpreted by some rabbis as meaning that Ishmael had been idolatrous; by others, that he had turned his bow against Isaac. According to the interpretation of Simeon b. Yoḥai, Ishmael mocked those who maintained that Isaac would be Abraham's chief heir, and said that as he (Ishmael) was the first-born son he would receive two-thirds of the inheritance (Tosef., Sotah, v. 12, vi. 6; Pirḳe R. El. xxx.; Gen. R. liii. 15). Upon seeing the danger to Isaac, Sarah, who had till then been attached to Ishmael (Josephus, "Ant." i. 12, § 3), insisted that Abraham cast out Ishmael. Abraham was obliged to put him on Hagar's shoulders, because he fell sick under the spell of the evil eye cast upon him by Sarah (Gen. R. liii. 17).

Ishmael, left under a shrub by his despairing mother, prayed to God to take his soul and not permit him to suffer the torments of a slow death (comp. Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxi. 15). God then commanded the angel to show Hagar the well which was created on Friday in the week of Creation, in the twilight (comp. Ab. v. 6), and which afterward accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness (Pirḳe R. El. xxx.). But this was protested against by the angels, who said: "Why should Ishmael have water, since his descendants will destroy the Israelites by thirst?" (comp. Yer. Ta'an. iv. 8; Lam. R. ii. 2). God replied: "But now he is innocent, and I judge him according to what he is now" (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; Gen. R. l.c.; et al.). Ishmael married a Moabitess named 'Adishah or 'Aishah (variants "'Ashiyah" and "'Aifah," Arabic names; Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxi. 21; Pirḳe R. El. l.c.); or, according to "Sefer ha-Yashar" (Wayera), an Egyptian named Meribah or Merisah. He had four sons and one daughter. Ishmael meanwhile grew so skilful in archery that he became the master of all the bowmen (Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxi. 20; Gen.R. liii. 20). Afterward Abraham went to see Ishmael, and, according to his promise to Sarah, stopped at his son's tent without alighting from his camel. Ishmael was not within; his wife refused Abraham food, and beat her children and cursed her husband within Abraham's hearing. Abraham thereupon asked her to tell Ishmael when he returned that an old man had asked that he change the peg of the tent. Ishmael understood that it was his father, took the hint, and drove away his wife. He then married another woman, named Faṭimah (Peḳimah; Targ. pseudo-Jonathan l.c.), who, when three years later Abraham came again to see his son, received him kindly; therefore Abraham asked her to tell Ishmael that the peg was good.

Ishmael then went to Canaan and settled with his father (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; "Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.). This statement agrees with that of Baba Batra (16a)—that Ishmael became a penitent during the lifetime of Abraham. He who sees Ishmael in a dream will have his prayer answered by God (Ber. 56a).

Bibliography: Beer, Leben Abraham's nach Auffassung der Jüdischen Sage, pp. 49 et seq., Leipsic, 1859.S. M. Sel.

Wow they really hate Ishmael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So my question to you, are there different Jewish opinions on this matter?

There is a lot of disagreement in Jewish communities on Torah interpretations, even among the same sects

The common phrase "two jews, three opinions" was coined precisely because of this.

Daystar,

You really, really need to read the Torah for comprehension.

psshhhhhh

what makes you think he doesn't

where else do you think he finds fathers, son and holy spirit in the Torah :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather talk about the propensity of Arabs, as well as Muslims in general, for blaming everyone else. I've read idle conversations amongst Muslims, and Christians to a lesser extent, where every single problem in the world today is somehow the fault of "the Jews".

The conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with "the Jews". It has squat to do with Zionists, or Americas support of the Zionists, or anything involving Zionists or Zionism. Iraq happened because George Bush is insecure in his masculinity and a lot of people were just plain fed up with maintaining the "No Fly" zones, and the fact that Saddam had a few Scud missiles lying around.

As for your request, we've been down that road a million times. A brother already explained it well enough that I don't see any reason to do so.

If anyone thinks that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with oil and expanding America's power in the area (with help from pro-Israeli lobbyists) then either one is naive or foolish. It is also no secret that Israel (a nation with a terrible human rights record like all mideast countries) is lobbying suport for an attack on Iran.

Now, you want to point out the "wild ass" or "wild man" tidbit? You are employing Christian tactics of using tidbits to force your own interpretation. I want to remind you that it was Jethro who, an Arab, worshiped God and taught Moses (as) before Moses (as) was called to preach. Also, Muslims did alot for Jews, to start with we let you back into Jerusalem etc... Shall I point out what God in the Tanakh says about Jews, and we can all play the tidbit game?

I had respect for you Ariella but your tirades remind me of these born-agains and salafi/wahhabis.

By the way, we shia believe that both Imam Al Mahdi (as) and Nabi Isa (as) will return, and they will. We do not need a secularist race-nationalist, another HErzl, to lead us.

I know many Muslims blame Jews but do you want to know when the pogroms against Jews in the Islamic world happened? In 1948. Guess why?

I agre Muslims are in large part to blame for their problems, but the West, the former Soviet Union, and now China are trying to cut the world in their image. Muslims, like Jews in the Makkabean and Roman period, are the only real area of resistance to the emerging world order. I do not blame Jews for our problems and I think it best if the House of Abraham (as) stops destroying itself with Western weoponry and ideologies.

Hello Nad. I don't think it would unreasonable for Abraham to say "my only son" because Ishmael had been sent away and only Isaac remained. Or, quite possibly, Abraham could have been saying how unique Isaac was, just as Jesus said, " For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only, or begotten, Son...." The greek is monogenes and means "unique, one of a kind." Perhaps Abraham viewed Isaac in a similar manner. But the former I would think is more reasonable or acceptable.

This is true. Abraham loved Ishmael, but listened to Sarah who insisted he be sent away with Hagar. It would seem that Ishmael did not fit the description of a "righteous son" because he described by God as a "wild man" whose hand would be against "every man." The term "he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren" is not a peaceful annotation. Some versions say he will live to the east of his brethren, while others say that he will "live in hostility" to his them." (NIV, NASB)

I'm not so sure that necessarily applies in the case of Abraham. The rights of the first born show up under the Torah, which obviously had not been given in Abraham's day. When Abraham said that he hoped Ishmael would live before God I think he was praying to God that He would not abandon him. That is just my opinion. Or perhaps he was praying that Ishmael would live in a godly manner the rest of his life. There's no question this statement reflected Abraham's love and concern for Ishmael.

I think that, even though Abraham knew that Isaac would have many descendants, he was willing to obey God and sacrifice him. Abraham believed that after he was sacrificed, God would raise him from the dead. I think this is what he ment when he said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Gen. 22:5) By saying, "We will come back to you," he must have understood that God would raise up Isaac and the two of them would return to his servants. It doesn't say that Abraham and Isaac went to the place to worship, returned to his servants and then went to the place of sacrifice. I think the whole Abraham/Isaac affair foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus. When Isaac asked where the lamb was, Abraham said that God would provide for himself the lamb (Gen. 22:8). God didn't provide a lamb that day on Moriah, but did provide Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). I believe Abraham, a prophet, was foretelling of this sacrifice.

Peace

Dear God just when you think it is safe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2008 at 1:16 AM, Nad_M said:

Salaam/Shalom

I would like to have the opinion of our Jewish friends on the obvious display of tribal prejudice by the Bani Israil towards their brethren of Bani Ismail regarding God's order to Abraham(as) to sacrifice his only son.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his "only son"(Gen22:2,12) meaning he had no son other than the one to be sacrified. According to the Bible, Ismail was 14 years older than Isaac so the "only son" couldnt be Isaac. A firstborn holds a special place in parent's hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son,making God's test highly meaningful.

God granted Abraham's wish of a son, whom he named Ishmael meaning 'God hears' showing how much he wished & loved this firstborn. In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love",this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's 1st reaction to God announcing Isaac's future birth is "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" and when Sarah wanted Ismail & Hagar be sent away Abraham was reluctant Gen21:9-11.

Abraham asks God that Ishmael "might live before thee"(Gen17:18) which applies in bible terminology to anything offered for God or anyone dedicated for His service (Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26 and throughout Leviticus).

The sanctity of the firstborn(human or else) is recurant in the bible Gen4:4, Numbers8:17-18, Exod13:1-2.

In Gen17:1-19 After anouncing Isaac's futur birth, God promises to establish through his line "an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him", so how could He demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. The jews may argue that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made before his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and then the promise was made, meaning it happened after the event of the sacrifice.

The corruption becomes even more laughable, and the prejudice of the jewish scribes more exposed when we look at the denigration and cursing of Ismail(as) and his descendants in Gen16:12 "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 live to the east of all his brothers"

The Text itself is not corrupted; when originally penned, there were no written vowels. The vowels were introduced into the Text by the Masoretes around the 5-10th centuries ACE. By that time, there was lots of animosity toward the Arabs. The verse read so:

והוא יהיה פרא אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל־פני כל־אחיו ישׁכן

The Masoretes pointed the Text as:

וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם יָדֹ֣ו בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בֹּ֑ו וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן׃

However, the Samaritan Text had it vocalized differently. In the Samaritan Text of Torah, it said of Ishmael,

והוא יהיה פרה אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל־פני כל־אחיו ישׁכן

"he shall be a fruitful [פֹּרֶה- PoReH] man, his hand would be with all and the hand of everyone would be with him; and he shall dwell in the presence of his brethren."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/07/2017 at 3:45 PM, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

The Text itself is not corrupted; when originally penned, there were no written vowels. The vowels were introduced into the Text by the Masoretes around the 5-10th centuries ACE. By that time, there was lots of animosity toward the Arabs. The verse read so:

והוא יהיה פרא אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל־פני כל־אחיו ישׁכן

The Masoretes pointed the Text as:

וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם יָדֹ֣ו בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בֹּ֑ו וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן׃

However, the Samaritan Text had it vocalized differently. In the Samaritan Text of Torah, it said of Ishmael,

והוא יהיה פרה אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל־פני כל־אחיו ישׁכן

"he shall be a fruitful [פֹּרֶה- PoReH] man, his hand would be with all and the hand of everyone would be with him; and he shall dwell in the presence of his brethren."

 

Very nice Yaqoov 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/07/2017 at 3:45 PM, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

The Text itself is not corrupted; when originally penned, there were no written vowels. The vowels were introduced into the Text by the Masoretes around the 5-10th centuries ACE. By that time, there was lots of animosity toward the Arabs. The verse read so:

והוא יהיה פרא אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל־פני כל־אחיו ישׁכן

The Masoretes pointed the Text as:

וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם יָדֹ֣ו בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בֹּ֑ו וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן׃

However, the Samaritan Text had it vocalized differently. In the Samaritan Text of Torah, it said of Ishmael,

והוא יהיה פרה אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל־פני כל־אחיו ישׁכן

"he shall be a fruitful [פֹּרֶה- PoReH] man, his hand would be with all and the hand of everyone would be with him; and he shall dwell in the presence of his brethren."

 

Yaqoov is there a samaritans translation of the Torah? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Yaaqov,

Achi, I might be a little dense here, but is there a translation along with it? My Ivrit is pretty decent, but translation helps a little when I come across an unfamiliar word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • There is a popular saying: "Knowledge without deed is nothing". This saying applies to some of the things but according to my speculation doesn't work for everything. For example, if ilm is: "Allah is 1" and the practical deed one might say is to "avoid shirk". Now, I truly believe and I gain knowledge. How about proton, neutron and electron revolve around nucleus? And proton has other particles in it etc. What could be the deed of this knowledge? Is it just information, then schools and university are mostly focusing on learning information rather than the true knowledge?
    • Hypothetically they can, but it seems more likely that they will slow access to sites that don't pay a ransom, not cut them off entirely. 
    • This reminds  me the following  hadith:  Ali ul Ma'a ul haq wal haq ma'a Ali Imam Ali is with haq and haq is with Ali As.  Ali ul Ma'a ul Quran wal Quran ma'a Ali. Imam Ali is with quran and quran  is with Ali As.  (This also provides the evidence for the hadith thaqlayn.) wasalam
    • Yes i own a car and i drive as well .   Its necessity in this part of the world ...... Positive : Ease your movement  Negative : Normally i dont swear at all .but while driving i swear every minute ......:))
×