Will The Real Victim Please Stand Up?
This is a response to some of the claims raised by Saifullah and Ghoniem
on the issue of sacrifice of Abraham and the identity of the son commanded
to be sacrificed. We recommend that our readers also read the article
Abraham and the Child of Sacrifice
- Isaac or Ishmael? on this very issue that documents early Islamic
traditions supporting the view that it was Isaac who was commanded to be
sacrificed.
Let us begin our examination of the claims put forth by the authors.
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
It is well known to Muslims, Christians and Jews that Abraham(P) was ordered to sacrifice his son and he was willing to do so but God gave him a sheep to sacrifice instead of his cherished progeny. So far, everybody agrees. However, Jews and Christians say that the sacrificed was Isaac(P) -"Abraham's only son", whereas according to the Islamic tradition the sacrificed is Ishmael(P). The opposition between the two versions has not bothered any side that much because in the common mind "what we think is certainly right and those who think differently are necessarily wrong". Recently, we came across an article by the Christian missionaries claiming that according to the Islamic sources themselves the sacrificed was Isaac(P) (i.e., the Judeo-Christian version of the story). In the following article, the reader will get the fruits of our research about this matter.
The most relevant passage in the Qur'ân is from verse 37:99 to verse 37:109, a passage including two different glad tidings brought to Abraham(P). Here under, we quote the verses concerning the sacrificed:
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 forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a 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 of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted (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.
A Strange Logic
The first argument put forward by those who support the Isaac-theory is that, in the Qur'ân, the name associated to glad tidings is Isaac(P) while Ishmael's(P) name was never associated to good news or glad tidings. They quote verse 37:112
"And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a Prophet - one of the righteous."
and verse 51:28
"They said, "Fear not," and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge."
Response:
Before we proceed, we would like to mention that it is not just Christians who use the preceding verses to establish the identity of the child in S. 37:99-105 as Isaac. We find that some of the earliest Muslim historians also used these verses to prove that the child was Isaac.
Some points have to be made clear in this concern:
1.It is well known that Abraham(P) got his first child in his old days (more than 80 years old). By all means, when he was given the news of his first son, Ishmael(P), the news were great and not only good.
It seems reasonable to think that the news of having his second son, Isaac(P) would be equal or less because in the first time the surprise factor has certainly increased his happiness.
Response:
The authors' beg the question since they assume the conclusion they seek to prove. They assume that the tiding of a child to be born to Abraham in 37:101 refers to Ishmael, and hence a second tiding was given to announce the birth of Isaac. Yet, the fact is that the Quran never suggests that Abraham received two announcements, one announcing the birth of Ishmael and the other announcing the birth of Isaac. One must presuppose this assertion in order to arrive at the conclusion that S. 37:101 points to Ishmael, instead of Isaac.
Furthermore, Muslim historian al-Tabari believed that the promise of S. 37:100-101 was made when Abraham was in Syria when he still had just one wife, namely Sarah. If this were the case, then the promise of a son to be born to Abraham would also extend to his only wife at the time, Sarah. In Tabari's own words:
Notice that Tabari appeals to the very same verses used by Christians to prove that the glad tidings of a son to be born to Abraham was true only of Isaac and no one else. Hence, this is not simply a Christian interpretation, but one endorsed by at least one Muslim historian. A modern Muslim commentator notes:
Ali agrees with Tabari that this promise was made in Syria and Palestine. This would imply that the promise of a child born to Abraham predates Hagar and hence could only extend to Sarah.
2.More to the point, using the same argument as the opposition, one can safely say that the sacrificed was described as forbearing and steadfast in the Qur'ân and if we search the whole Qur'ân we will find the name of Ishmael(P) associated to patience and steadfastness and not Isaac(P)!
3.Indeed verse 21:85 (in red in the picture below) reads
"And (remember) Ishmael, Idris, and Zulkifl, all (men) of constancy and patience".
Conclusion: The sacrificed is Ishmael(P) according to the opponent's own logic.
Response:
The authors' again assume the conclusion they are seeking to prove, namely that Ishmael is the forbearing child of S. 37:101. But if one assumes that S. 37:101 refers to Isaac then this proves that Isaac is indeed called a forbearing child in the Quran, and hence the authors' argument does not hold weight.
Furthermore, the expression "forbearing" is unlike the phrase "good news of a son" since the latter is limited to a specific promise made to a specific person. Yet, the term "forbearing" is a quality that is true of all of God's prophets unless the authors want to claim that other prophets like Moses and Abraham lacked patience and constancy!
Further scrutiny requires that we quote the full passage in surah 37:
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 forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a 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 of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted (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 a clear trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left 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.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to themselves.
It is very obvious that, in this passage, there are two distinct good news, the first one about a forbearing son (the one to be sacrificed) and the second one about Isaac(P). Thus, the sacrificed cannot be Isaac(P) at least not according to the Qur'ân. But, once again, the opponent avoided (willingly?) to quote the full passage and this is frequently their way of doing things. Moreover, those who support that the two news are actually the same show their incompetence with the Qur'ânic style. Such a repetition cannot be imagined nor accepted by anyone who studied the Qur'ân, God's Final Book.
Response:
It is only obvious to those who have already assumed that the sacrifice refers to Ishmael. What the authors failed to note is that certain Muslim writers in the past clearly saw Isaac as the sacrifice despite knowing full well of verses 37:112-113 that followed immediately. Hence, they saw no problem in identifying the promised child of v. 101 with Isaac, even though the latter is mentioned in v. 112 by name.
This essentially means that these Muslim writers, in the words of the authors, were demonstrating "their incompetence with the Qur'anic style" since "such a repetition cannot be imagined nor accepted by anyone who studied the Qur'an". Such assertions are absurd since these men were Muslim historians who transmitted traditions that they claimed came from either Muhammad and/or his companions who had also studied the Quran in-depth!
(See our article for the documentation that early Muslims still saw Isaac as the sacrificial child in spite of what is said in S. 37:112)
The Opinion Of Ibn Kathîr[1]
The above scan is the exegesis of verse 37:101 "So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son." Here is the translation of the above passage:
"So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son."
And this son is Ishmael(P) for he is the first son whose good news was brought to Abraham(P). He is older than Isaac according to Muslims and ahl al-kitâb (i.e., the People of the Book) too. It is even said in their Scripture that Ishmael(P) was born when Abraham(P) was 86 years old and Isaac(P) was born when Abraham(P) was 99. In their Scripture as well, God is said to have ordered Abraham(P) to sacrifice his only son and in another version his firstborn. And, at this spot, they inserted falsely the name of Isaac(P) against the text of their very Scripture. The reason they inserted Isaac(P) is that he is their father whereas Ishmael(P) is the father of the Arabs. They added Isaac(P) out of envy and brushed away "only son" by saying that Ishmael(P) and his mother had already been to Makkah. This is a mere [farfetched] explanation since we never say "only son" except to a person who hasn't got but one son. Moreover, the firstborn has got a special place [in the heart of his father] that is not
given to the following children and the order to sacrifice him is therefore a greater test. Some knowledgeable people were inclined to say that the sacrificed was Isaac(P). This was reported from some people of the salaf (i.e. people of the previous generations) and it was even reported from some Companions(R) but [this opinion] does not have any bearings from the Book (i.e., the Qur'ân) nor from the Sunnah. I think such opinion was received from the Rabbis of ahl al-Kitâb as is without evidence. Moreover, God's Book is a witness and points to the fact that it is Ishmael(P) because the glad tiding said that the son was patient and that he is the sacrificed. Only afterwards, He said: "And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous." and when the Angels brought the good news of Isaac(P) to Abraham(P) they said: " "Fear not," and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge." And the Most High said: " We gave her [Sarah] glad tidings of Isaac,
and after him, of Jacob." [11:71] meaning that in the lifetime of Abraham(P) and Sarah(P), Isaac(P) will beget a child that he will call Jacob(P) implying that Isaac(P) will have a progeny. We have already explained why it is not possible that Isaac(P) be sacrificed while still a child i.e.,. because God promised them [Abraham and Sarah] that he will have a progeny. On the other hand, Ishmael(P) was described as forbearing and he fits that description.
[Note that many commentators including Ibn Kathîr believe that "forbearing" does not fit a child, it can at least describe teenagers for they are old enough to be described as such.]
We have already addressed the meaning of "only son" in relation to Isaac in our paper, so we will not comment on it here. We would like to point the following portion from Ibn Kathir:
Ibn Kathir admits that traditions reported on the authority of the Companions as well as from the salaf claimed that Isaac was the child of sacrifice. This means that during Ibn Kathir's time there was disagreement over the identity of the sacrificial child, with some like Ibn Kathir arguing that it was Ishmael, while others claimed it was Isaac. This is precisely the point of our original article, namely that the Quran's lack of clarity over this issue led Muslims of the past to disagree over the identity of the sacrificial child.
So far the authors have not refuted the problem, but served to reinforce it by citing authorities that disagree with one another.
In a nutshell, the great Qur'ânic commentator Ibn Kathîr adds to our first three arguments two new ones:
according to the Bible, the sacrificed is said to be Abraham's(P) only son (or his firstborn in some versions), which cannot fit Isaac(P); according to the Qur'ân, the good news of Isaac(P) said that he would have a progeny and consequently God cannot order Abraham(P) to sacrifice Isaac(P) before the promise is fulfilled.
Again, according to the Qur'ân, the sacrificed cannot be Isaac.
Response:
In a nutshell, the commentator Ibn Kathir has added nothing substantial that has not been addressed already in our article. Furthermore, here is Tabari's comment on the last assertion that Isaac could not be sacrificed since he was promised progeny:
Hence, we have two prominent Muslim authorities arguing and refuting each other.
The Opinion of Ulum al-Hadîth
As a matter of fact, there was a debate between Muslim scholars whether the sacrificed was Isaac(P) or Ishmael(P). But the critical study of the reports allows us to drive safe conclusions. Here is the opinion of a scholar of the Science of Hadîth:
The truth is that the reports stating that the Sacrificed is Isaac are part of the Isrâ'îliyyât due to the People of the Book, it was transmitted by those who converted among them like Ka'b al-Ahbâr and it was conveyed [from the converts] by some Companions and Followers (tâbicûn) as sign of trust. Later, the scholars who came after them were fooled by such reports and supported that the Sacrificed was Isaac(P). Every book of exegesis (tafsîr) or biography or even history would mention the argument that took place among the salaf. However, some [of those books] would follow the argument by outlining the truth and others wouldn't add any commentary either by conviction or surrender [to these reports].[2]
Response:
We allude to the so-called "Israiliyyat" literature later on in this paper. Suffice it to say, the above quotation reinforces the point that Muslims from early on were not unanimous over this issue.
And further:
The truth is that the Sacrificed is Ishmael(P). This is supported by the Qur'ânic verses and reports from the Companions and Followers and reports rated Marfu by approval of the Prophet [i.e., when something is said in the presence of the Prophet(P) and he does not oppose it then we consider that it is correct but it does not amount to Sahih which is, by the way, what the Prophet(P) himself said.]
No wonder that many Companions and Followers and the later scholars of [Qur'ân] and hadîth among which we enumerate great Companions and poles of knowledge like: Alî, Ibn Umar, Abû Hurayrah, Abû Tufayl, Saîd Ibn Jubayr, Mujâhid, Ash-Sha'by, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad Ibn Ka'b al-Qardhy, Saîd Ibn al-Musayyab, Abû Jafar Muhammad al-Bâqir, Abû Sâlih, ar-Rabî' Ibn Anas, Abû 'Amr Ibn al-Alâ' and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others and it is one version and the strongest from the reports of Ibn Abbâs.:
Response:
Let us see if Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Abbas and some of the others agree with what is claimed in the above citation:
"The account naming Isaac comes down to us through Abu Kurayb- Zayd b. al-Hubab- al-Hasan b. Dinar- 'Ali b. Zayd b. Jud'an- al-Hasan- al-Ahnaf b. Qays- al-'Abbas b. 'Abd al-Muttalib- THE PROPHET in a conversation in which he said, ‘Then we ransomed him with a tremendous victim.' And he also said, ‘He is Isaac.'" (Tabari, pp. 82-83)
According to al-Husayn b. Yazid al-Tahhan - Ibn Idris - Dawud b. Abi Hind - 'Ikrimah - Ibn 'Abbas: The one whom Abraham was ordered to sacrifice was Isaac. (Ibid., p. 84)
According to Ya'qub - Ibn 'Ulayyah - Dawud - 'Ikrimah - Ibn 'Abbas: The victim was Isaac. (Ibid.)
According to Ibn Humayd - Salamah - Muhammad b. Ishaq- 'Abdallah b. Abi Bakr - Muhammad b. Muslim al-Zuri - Abu Sufyan b. al-'Ala' b. Jariyah al-Thaqafi, the confederate of Banu Zuhrah - Abu Hurayrah - Ka'b al-Ahbar: The son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice was Isaac. (Ibid.)
According to Musa b. Harun - 'Amr b. Hammad - Asbat - al-Suddi - Abu Malik and Abu Salih - Ibn 'Abbas and Murrah al-Hamdani - Ibn Mas'ud and some of the companions of the Prophet: Abraham was instructed in a dream to "carry out your promise that if God granted you a son by Sarah you would sacrifice him." (Ibid., p. 86)
And,
These sources contradict the authors' claims since the preceding passages clearly prove that men such as Umar al-Khattab, Ibn Masud and Ibn Abbas agreed with the Holy Bible on this issue. In fact, one tradition claims that Muhammad himself agreed that it was Isaac.
Yet, as Tabari stated, there are traditions that he records which were supposedly passed down from Ibn Abbas and others that claim it was Ishmael instead. (Ibid., pp. 86-89)
All this just adds to the confusion surrounding the identity of the sacrificial child.
In Zâd al-Ma'âd by Ibn al-Qayyim: It is the correct opinion according to the knowledgeable among the Companions and Followers and later generations. This opinions was famous among the Arabs before the advent of Islam and it was transmitted from generation to generation in tawâtur and it was also mentioned in the poetry of Umayyah Ibn Abî as-Salt.[3]
Response:
Again, certain traditions cited on the authority of the Companions and their followers disagree with the above claim. The fact that we find two conflicting sets of traditions with both claiming to come from the Companions and their followers while at the same time contradicting each other over the identity of the sacrificial child further confuses matters.
The Opinion Of Judeo-Christian Scholars & Islamic Viewpoint
The Encyclopaedia Judaica says:
In the tale of binding (surah 37:99-110) Muhammad identified the son who was to be sacrificed as Ishmael and, indeed, the opinion of the traditionalists were also divided on this subject. It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from the Qurayza tribe, and another Jewish scholar, who converted to Islam, told that Caliph Omar Ibn Abd al-Azîz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail was the one who was bound, but that they concealed this out of jealousy. The Muslim legend also adds details of Hajar (Hagar), the mother of Ismail. After Abraham drove her and her son out, she wandered between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwa (in the vicinity of Mecca) in search for water. At that time the waters of the spring Zemzem began to flow. Her acts became the basis for the hallowed custom of Muslims during the Hajj.[4]
The testimony of the former Jew as mentioned hadîth literature as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Judaica reads:
Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael(P)] is reported by Ibn Ishâq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that Umar Ibn Abd al-Azîz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., Umar] asked him: which son did Abraham(P) sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael(P). By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'[5]
The Oxford Companion To The Bible echoes the same position as the Encyclopaedia Judaica.
In Muslim tradition, the Arabs trace their ancestry back to Abraham through Ishmael. Because Ishmael was circumcised (Gen. 17:25), so are most Muslims. And, analogous to Paul's reversal of the figures of Isaac and Ishmael (Gal. 4:24-26), Muslim tradition makes Ishmael rather than Isaac the son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice.[6]
It is quite clear from the statement of Judeo-Christian scholars what the Muslim position is about the person who was sacrificed by Abraham(P).
Response:
Let us carefully note what the Encyclopedia Judaica actually states:
Far from agreeing that Ishmael was the victim, the Encyclopedia clearly points out that Muslim tradition was not unanimous on this issue. Furthermore, Tabari also records the story of the Jew who claimed it was Ishmael, yet with an added twist:
This tradition affirms that even during the time of Umar's reign, Muslims were still disagreeing over the sacrificial son's identity, i.e. Umar's statement to Qurazi, "but I do not think it is as you say."
Secondly, if the authors accept the premise that Jews such as Kab al-Ahbar could pollute Islamic traditions so early on during the life of the Companions, what makes the authors' think that this Jewish convert's testimony is more reliable? Since the authors believe that it was possible for Jewish converts like Kab to pollute traditions and deceive the Muslims into thinking it was Isaac, then it is just as possible that this Jew was also lying about what the Jews really believed in order to please his Arab leaders.
Finally, why would Umar need to go and ask a Jew for the identity of the sacrificial son if the Quran clearly taught that the child to be sacrificed was Ishmael? Does this not prove that the Quran is vague and does not conclusively identify the son who was to be sacrificed? If the Quran really was clear on this issue, as the authors would have us believe, then why would a Muslim need a Jew to tell him who that child was?
Further Evidence From Hadîth Literature
The following says:
Some reports and traditions from the Companions and Followers state that the Sacrificed is Ishmael(P). Narrated by al-Hâkim in Al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Jarîr [at-Tabarî] in his commentary with its isnâd, and others that Abdullâh Ibn Sacîd as-Sâbihy said: "We were at Mu'âwiyah's reception and the people started discussing [the story of] Ishmael and Isaac(P) and which one was the sacrificed. Some said Ishmael and some said Isaac(P). Mu'âwiyah said: I am the expert you need; We were at the Prophet's(P) when a bedouin came to him saying "O Prophet of God, I have left the pasture dry and the life hard, the children died and the wealth is gone, so give me [something] of what God has bestowed on you, O Son of the two sacrificed." The Prophet(P) smiled and did not blame/criticize what he said. The people asked: Who are the two sacrificed O Commander of the believers? He replied: When Abdul Muttalib was ordered to dig Zamzam he vowed to sacrifice one of his sons i f God helps him with his mission [i.e., Zamzam]. When he achieved the mission, he cast lots on his children, there were ten of them. The choice fell on Abdullâh so he decided to sacrifice him but the child's uncles, Banu Makhzuum, opposed the sacrifice and said satisfy your Lord and ransom your son. So, he ransomed him with a hundred camels. Mu'âwiyah said: this is one [of the two Sacrificed] the other is Ishmael(P)."
This report is regarded as Marfu.[6]
There is another report according to which the Prophet(P) is believed to have said: "I am the son of the two Sacrificed". The authenticity of this report is very controversial so we will not use it as evidence especially when the above report is correct enough and suffices to our study.
Response:
Here are some other traditions which seem to suggest just the opposite:
Narrated Kuraib:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet slept till he snored and then prayed (or probably lay till his breath sounds were heard and then got up and prayed)." Ibn 'Abbas added: "I stayed overnight in the house of my aunt, Maimuna, the Prophet slept for a part of the night, (See Fateh-al-Bari page 249, Vol. 1), and late in the night, he got up and performed ablution from a hanging water skin, a light (perfect) ablution and stood up for the prayer. I, too, performed a similar ablution, then I went and stood on his left. He drew me to his right and prayed as much as Allah wished, and again lay and slept till his breath sounds were heard. Later on the Mua'dhdhin (callmaker for the prayer) came to him and informed him that it was time for Prayer. The Prophet went with him for the prayer without performing a new ablution." (Sufyan said to 'Amr that some people said, "The eyes of Allah's Apostle sleep but his heart does not sleep." 'Amr replied, "I heard 'Ubaid bin 'Umar saying that the dreams of Prophets were Divine Inspiration, and then he recited the verse: 'I (Abraham) see in a dream, (O MY SON) that I offer you in sacrifice (to Allah)." (37.102) (See Hadith No. 183). (Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 140)
This tradition mentions Abraham's sacrifice, yet does not identify who the son was. In fact, the following hadith makes it highly improbable for Ishmael to be the one commanded to be sacrificed:
The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka'ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque.
During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water. So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael's mother followed him saying, "O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?" She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her. Then she asked him, "Has Allah ordered you to do so?" He said, "Yes." She said, "Then He will not neglect us," and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka'ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.' (14.37) Ishmael's mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times."
The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it."
The Prophet added, "May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael's mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth." The Prophet further added, "Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, 'Don't be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.' The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada'. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it.
They said, 'This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.' They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water)." The Prophet added, "Ishmael's mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, 'Do you allow us to stay with you?" She replied, 'Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.' They agreed to that." The Prophet further said, "Ishmael's mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.
After Ishmael's mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael's marriage in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael's wife about him, she replied, 'He has gone in search of our livelihood.' Then he asked her about their way of living and their condition, and she replied, 'We are living in misery; we are living in hardship and destitution,' complaining to him. He said, 'When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).' When Ishmael came, he seemed to have felt something unusual, so he asked his wife, 'Has anyone visited you?' She replied, 'Yes, an old man of so-and-so description came and asked me about you and I informed him, and he asked about our state of living, and I told him that we were living in a hardship and poverty.' On that Ishmael said, 'Did he advise you anything?' She replied, 'Yes, he told me to convey his salutation to you and to tell you to change the threshold of your gate.' Ishmael said, 'It was my father, and he has ordered me to divorce you. Go back to your family.' So, Ishmael divorced her and married another woman from amongst them (i.e. Jurhum).
Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished and called on them again but did not find Ishmael. So he came to Ishmael's wife and asked her about Ishmael. She said, 'He has gone in search of our livelihood.' Abraham asked her, 'How are you getting on?' asking her about their sustenance and living. She replied, 'We are prosperous and well-off (i.e. we have everything in abundance).' Then she thanked Allah' Abraham said, 'What kind of food do you eat?' She said. 'Meat.' He said, 'What do you drink?' She said, 'Water." He said, "O Allah! Bless their meat and water." The Prophet added, "At that time they did not have grain, and if they had grain, he would have also invoked Allah to bless it." The Prophet added, "If somebody has only these two things as his sustenance, his health and disposition will be badly affected, unless he lives in Mecca." The Prophet added," Then Abraham said Ishmael's wife, "When your husband comes, give my regards to him and tell him that he should keep firm the threshold of his gate.'
When Ishmael came back, he asked his wife, 'Did anyone call on you?' She replied, 'Yes, a good-looking old man came to me,' so she praised him and added. 'He asked about you, and I informed him, and he asked about our livelihood and I told him that we were in a good condition' Ishmael asked her, 'Did he give you any piece of advice?' She said, 'Yes, he told me to give his regards to you and ordered that you should keep firm the threshold of your gate.' On that Ishmael said, 'It was my father, and you are the threshold (of the gate). He has ordered me to keep you with me.'
Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished, and called on them afterwards. He saw Ishmael under a tree near Zamzam, sharpening his arrows. When he saw Abraham, he rose up to welcome him (and they greeted each other as a father does with his son or a son does with his father). Abraham said, 'O Ishmael! Allah has given me an order.' Ishmael said, 'Do what your Lord has ordered you to do.' Abraham asked, 'Will you help me?' Ishmael said, 'I will help you.' Abraham said, Allah has ordered me to build a house here,' pointing to a hillock higher than the land surrounding it." The Prophet added, "Then they raised the foundations of the House (i.e. the Ka'ba). Ishmael brought the stones and Abraham was building, and when the walls became high, Ishmael brought this stone and put it for Abraham who stood over it and carried on building, while Ishmael was handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, 'O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.' The Prophet added, "Then both of them went on building and going round the Ka'ba saying: O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." (2.127). (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583)
We notice that according to this source Abraham left Hagar in Mecca when Ishmael was still suckling. He later returned after Hagar had died and Ishmael had been married. Abraham's comments led Ishmael to divorce his wife, causing him to marry a second time. Abraham returned once again, this time blessing Ishmael's second wife. Abraham returned a third time in order to build the Kaba with the help of Ishmael. Yet, interestingly no mention is made of Ishmael being offered up as a sacrifice.
Other traditions claim that Ishmael was actually a child when he and Abraham built the Kaba:
"According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- al-Hassan b. 'Umarah- Simak b. Harb- Khalid b. 'Ar'arah- 'Ali b. Abi Talib: When God commanded Abraham to build the House and to call on humanity to perform the pilgrimage, he left Syria with his son Ishmael and Ishmael's mother Hagar. With him God sent the Sakinah, a wind which has the power of speech. Abraham followed it wherever it led him until it had led him to Mecca. When it came to the place of the House, it spun round and round and said to Abraham, 'Build on me! Build on me! Build on me!' Abraham laid the foundations and raised the House, working with Ishmael, until they came to the cornerstone. Abraham said to Ishmael, 'O my little son! Find me a stone which I can put here as a sign to the people.' He brought a stone, but Abraham did not like it and said, 'Look for another one.' Ishmael went to look, but when he came back a cornerstone had already been brought and Abraham had put it in place. He asked, 'O my father! Who brought you the stone?' Abraham replied, 'One who did not entrust me to you, O my son!'" (Ibid, p. 71)
If these traditions are true, then using the logic employed by Ibn Kathir, this actually proves that Ishmael could not have been the one commanded to be sacrificed. The reason why becomes evident in light of the following Quranic passage:
According to this passage, Abraham and Ishmael's prayer that a prophet would arise from their seed who would guide the people to God's path took place after the building of the Kaba. Using the logic of Ibn Kathir mentioned earlier by the authors in their rebuttal, namely that Isaac could not have been sacrificed since he was promised to have seed, this would mean that Ishmael could not have been offered up as a sacrifice as well. According to Ibn Kathir's reasoning, we would have to argue that since Ishmael had prayed for righteous seed and a messenger to arise from his offspring, God would not command him afterwards to be sacrificed.
Hence, to paraphrase Ibn Kathir's words, "We have already explained why it is not possible that Ishmael(P) be sacrificed while still a child i.e., because Abraham and Ishmael had prayed to have progeny."
Furthermore, Ibn Kathir indirectly admits that the sacrifice was to take place while Abraham's son was still a child. If one accepts the traditions in Bukhari as reliable, this would make it impossible for Ishmael to be the child of sacrifice. According to Bukhari, Abraham left Ishmael while the latter was still suckling and did not see Ishmael again until the latter had already grown into a young adult and had been married twice. Ishmael was anything but a child when Abraham saw his son again to build the Kaba.
Hence, no matter what set of traditions one accepts we are left with irreconcilable problems that make it difficult for Ishmael to be the child of sacrifice.
Finally, the authors allude to Tabari and his comments on what Muawiya claimed. Yet, the authors forgot to include the fact that Tabari also mentioned that the traditions were not unanimous over this issue:
Interestingly, Tabari claims that the Quran itself proves that the child of sacrifice was Isaac!
Conclusion
According to the Qur'ân, the sacrificed cannot be Isaac(P). According to authentic Islamic tradition, the sacrificed is Ishmael(P). The Muslim scholars have solved this case a long time ago and, very early in the history of Islam, the popular Islamic tradition has integrated the fact that Ishmael(P) was the sacrificed.
Response:
The Quran makes no such claim, but is vague on this issue. This has led prominent Muslims of the past to disagree over the identity of the sacrificial child. Furthermore, the authentic traditions are not unanimous on this issue either, with some traditions arguing for Ishmael and others arguing for Isaac. Finally, contrary to the assertions made by the authors, the early Muslim scholars did not solve this issue, but continued to disagree with each other on this matter.
Saifullah & Ghoniem:
Concerning the claim of 'world-renowned commentary of Yusuf Ali', any Muslim with a basic knowledge of Qur'ânic commentary would have a good laugh. The 'commentary' in the translation of the Qur'ân by Yusuf Alî is just about good enough to be qualified as 'footnotes'. And of course, the commentary on the Qur'ân contains much more than these footnotes. Secondly, the statement
It is obvious that the claim that the son was Ishmael is not according to the Qur'ân!
is a rather foolish and reflects colossal ignorance on the part of the critic who has no idea about how the Qur'ânic exegesis is carried out.
Response:
The authors can laugh at Yusuf Ali's comments if they so choose, but the fact is Ali was honest enough to admit the following:
It is not Ali's opinion that concerns us, but rather Ali's acknowledgment that Muslim tradition is not unanimous on this issue, something that the authors have tried to rebut with the flimsiest of evidence and assertions.
Let the Christian missionaries study the Qur'ân thoroughly before calling upon ghosts that will frighten nobody but themselves. Indeed, the Biblical version of the story: "sacrifice your only son, Isaac" or "sacrifice your firstborn son, Isaac" is an enigma they must live with.
Response:
Some of us have studied both the Holy Bible and the Quran and have found the Quran lacking. The Holy Bible is vastly superior to the Quran since the former is the word of God while the latter is not.
Saifullah was not finished. The following is Saifullah's comments made about my article that appeared on SRI on November 19, 1999:
OmarAziz@aol.com wrote:
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
Mr. Sam Shamoun's polemic regarding the child of sacrifice is amazing. He selectively quotes 37:101-106 to prove that the Quran points to Isaac, but conveniently ignores the two or three verses that follows,
>37:107-112, which clearly rules ou Isaac. You can read it at: >http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm
Most of what Omar Aziz had mentioned is already dealt with at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/MusTrad/sacrifice.html
Well, apart from his selective quotation, there are other problems too. The material which he has taken is from al-Tabari's Tarikh. Al-Tabari in the introduction to his book says:
"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us." Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, 1997, Volume I, Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), pp. 13.
Thus, al-Tabari faithfully displayed these accounts in the exact manner through which he received them. Can he then be held liable if any objectionable accounts should arise? To translate this into laymen's terms, al-Tabari has simply refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical criticism. Therefore, any spurious accounts are not to be attributed to him. To say that al-Tabari said such and such about who was the son of sacrifice (here Isaac!), amounts to deception.
In fact, the above statement of al-Tabari has been a source of severe criticism (or welcomed!) by some Muslims and Orientalists depending upon how one views the above statements.
Response:
Since I already addressed Tabari's citation in another article, we will just make several observations here. Saifullah fails to inform his readers that when it is convenient, he will use Tabari to prove a particular point that he is making. In certain places, Saifullah cites Tabari as an authority. For example, Saifullah provides an example of a fabricated tradition that circulated during the time of Umar:
When we read footnote 82, we discover the following:
"82.see Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Manar al-Munif fi 'l- Sahih wa 'l-Dacif (ed. A.F. Abû Ghuddah, Lahore, 1402/1982), pp. 102-105 for a fuller discussion. Ibn al-Qayyim mentions more than ten clear indications of the forgery of the document, which the Jews repeatedly attempted to use to deceive the Muslims over the centuries, but each time a scholar of Hadîth intervened to point out the forgery - such incidents occurred with Ibn Jarîr al-Tabarî (d. 310), al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî (d. 463) and Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728), who spat on the document as it was unfolded from beneath its silken covers." (http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Hadith/Ulum/aape.html)
Saifullah includes Tabari as one who had been aware that the document circulated by the Jews was an obvious forgery. Yet, how would Tabari have known this if he were simply recording traditions uncritically? Furthermore, notice that Saifullah in this citation lists Tabari as "a scholar of Hadith", contradicting the very point that he tries to establish. Saifullah cites Tabari again:
Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the Azîz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self.
The interpretation of Almighty's words "Ladies said in the City:
"The wife of the Azîz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self" is that the women started speaking about Joseph and the wife of al-Azîz in the City of Egypt and their news spread widely. And they [the women] said "The wife of the Azîz is seeking to seduce fatâhâ", fatâhâ meaning her slave: [reference] 14650 - Ibn Humayd told us that Salamah told us reporting from Ibn Ishâq said: and the news spread widely in the town and the women spoke about their story and they said "The wife of the Azîz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self" refering to her slave. As for al-Azîz, it means the King [al-Malik] in the Arabic tongue. For instance, Abu Dâwuud said [in his poetry]:
durratun ghâsa calayhâ tâjirun
jaliyat cinda cazizin yawma tall
A pearl for which a merchant dived
sparkled at cazizin when he came
meaning by al-Azîz the King [whom he was praising], it is derived from cizzah meaning power and might.
In this quotation, at-Tabarî understands the word al-Azîz as king, which gives the same impression of a mighty person, and not a personal name as claimed by the missionaries. He even reminds us that it is derived from the same root as cizzah which means might and power. Again, the whole point is that the Aziz is a powerful man in Egypt, which is an important detail of Joseph's(P) story. As a matter of fact, this will be the only reason for the imprisonment of Joseph(P), however innocent he was. Interestingly, in his commentary on verse 12:51, Ibn Jarîr at-Tabarî states a report that mentions the name of Joseph's(P) owner:
[reference] 14843 - Ibn Humayd told us that Salamah told us reporting from Ibn Ishâq said: "Râîl the wife of the al-Azîz, Itfîr said "Now is the truth manifest (to all) it was I who sought to seduce him from his (true) self: He is indeed of those who are true" in what he said about his innocence.
So, not only did at-Tabarî understand al-Azîz as the title of Joseph's owner but he also reported that his name was Itfîr. And it does not take much imagination to compare Itfîr and Potiphar, the name given in the Bible. In light of the fact that the al-Azîz mentioned the Qur'ân is but a title, this last report turns out to be the final nail in the coffin of the missionaries' claim. (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aziz.html)
And again:
Various accounts with very similar narrations are quoted in the commentaries of al-Qurtubî and at-Tabarî.[2] From the latter, we quote the following:
Muhammad Ibn Sad told me: My father told me: My uncle told me that his father reported from his own father who reported that Ibn Abbâs commented on "falyawma nunajjîka bibadanika litakûna liman khalfaka 'âyah" that God saved Pharaoh from the sea for the sake of the Children of Israel so that they looked at him after he was drowned. If one asked why say "bibadanika" and whether it would be possible for Pharaoh to be saved without his body so that one needs to specify "bibadanika". It would be said that Pharaoh could be saved as a body without life/soul meaning lifeless. please read this for more information.
And again:
A report conveyed by 'Ikrimah in the commentary of at-Tabarî about verse 6:93 says that,
'Abdullah Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh converted back to Islam before the conquest of Mecca by the Prophet(P). [10]
It seems that Saifullah will use Tabari when it is convenient to do so, but toss Tabari out the window when the historian disagrees with Saifullah.
Another point that Saifullah tried to bring out against the authenticity of Tabari's material is his purported usage of Jewish sources that were fused in with the Muslim traditions. Hence, Saifullah attempts to show that Tabari's material is questionable and must not be taken uncritically. Yet, Tabari was well aware of Jewish sources being included in Islamic traditions:
Tabari concludes with Kab's reaction:
"Ikrimah said: I got up with the individuals who were told the story, and we went to Ka'b and informed him about Ibn 'Abbas' emotional outburst at (hearing) his story and about the story Ibn 'Abbas had reported on the authority of the Messenger of God. Ka'b got up with us, and we went to Ibn 'Abbas. Ka'b said: I have learned about your emotional outburst at my story. I am asking God for forgiveness and I repent. I have told the story on the basis of a well-worn book that has passed through many hands. I do not know what alterations made by the Jews it may have contained. Now you have told a story on the basis of a new book recently revealed by the Merciful One and on the authority of the lord and best of the prophets. I would like you to tell it to me so that I can retain it in my memory as told on your authority. When I have been told it, it will replace my original story." (Ibid., pp. 243-244)
This presumes the fact that Tabari must have been aware that there were traditions that had been "polluted" by the Jews. He cites an example of such "pollution" and then proceeds to expose it on the authority of Ibn Abbas! This does not prove, however, that Tabari was able to prevent any Jewish sources from "polluting" the traditions handed down to him, or that he was able to detect every hadith that had been effected by these Jewish sources. All it proves is that Tabari was aware of the so-called "Israiliyyat" literature.
Secondly, Tabari wasn't merely transmitting traditions he had heard, but also argued in favor of the sacrificial child being Isaac:
"As for the above-mentioned proof from the Quran that it really was Isaac, it is God's word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, 'I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.' This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham's vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him. The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, 'And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob', and 'Then he became fearful of them'. They said. 'Fear not!' and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her f ace, and cried, 'A barren old woman'. Thus, wherever the Quran mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God's words 'So we gave him tidings of a gentle son', as it is true of all such references in the Quran." (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. II, Prophets and Patriarchs, trans. William M. Brenner [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], p. 89).
How could Tabari prove from the Quran that the child of sacrifice was Isaac if the Quran conclusively proves that the victim could only have been Ishmael?
Finally, Saifullah does not apply his criteria consistently. In this article, Saifullah cites the hadith collection of Wahb b. Munabbih to prove that there were early records of Islamic traditions. Yet, Saifullah conveniently fails to mention that Wahb also included material from the Jews, leading some prominent Muslims to doubt Wahb's credibility as a compiler of hadith:
"What disfigured our literary heritage, especially the field of expounding the Quran (Tafsir) were the Israi'liyat that crept into it, and disturbed its order. This started, regretfully, VERY EARLY, that is, SINCE THE TIME OF THE COMPANIONS LIKE K'AB AL-AHBAR AND WAHB IBN MUNABBEH, AND OTHERS WHO WERE COVERTED TO ISLAM FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK [i.e. Jews and Christians] The infiltration of the Isra'iliyat was small at the beginning, then it began to increase, unintentionally. THIS GAVE WAY TO PLOTTING, SCHEMING AND INTENTIONAL CONSPIRACY.
"Because the Jews were defeated militarily by the Muslims and wanting to resist by using another weapon-an intellectual one-they slipped into the Isra'iliyat and, WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD, THE MUSLIM BOOKS WERE FULL OF IT." (Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi, Thaqafat al-Da'iah, Mu'saasat al-Resalah [Beirut, 1979], p. 41)
These statements not only cast doubt on Wahb's credibility but the entire hadith collection. Dr. Qaradawi admits that the Jews polluted the Islamic traditions from the very start. Hence, if Saifullah is to remain consistent he must toss out both Wahb and Tabari together.
>For the Muslims, it doesn't make much of a difference if it was Isaac
>or Ismail, since both are revered and are considered prophets. However,
>it makes all the difference to the Jews, who are trapped in a severe
>chosen complex, that they alter the truth in their scriptures.
I think that is the best answer which anyone would give.
Response:
This hardly needs a comment. It is the classical ad hominem, following the principle, "if you have no proper arguments to support your case, question the integrity and character of the opponent." Having to use this device speaks more loudly about the author than about the one whom he tries to insult. That Saifullah considers this the best possible answer is, sad to say, no surprise to those who know his style.
In the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ forever. Amen.
Responses to Islamic Awareness
Answering Islam Home Page