[color=#006600][/color]



WHY I AM STILL DOUBTING IF THE QURAN TOLD A LIE CONCERNING ISHMAEL BEING THE SACRIFICIAL SON AND NOT ISAAC.


By Dr. Odia A. Ogbebor




My mum recently told me that sometimes your helpers could take the image of those who fight and condemn you. The only prove of your faith in God( surrendering to his will ) is to never give up the fight. Never surrender to no one's will except God. There is a future your persecutors are helping you build. Even when you think that you are down, the spirit of the Most High is there to pick you up. Just keep moving.

I remember the first time i heard about Ishmael been the sacrificial son and not Isaac from an Islamic program on television. I smiled because it was a odd to me and yet funny. I did not accept it neither did i condemn them due to the understanding that everyone wants to claim a good story to themselves. So i never bothered to know why they thought so. Atleast, there was no need to dig deep into such knowledge until now that i am being questioned in defence of my cause in proving that the muslims are also God's children and are also saved. And so, they deserve no condemnation.

I went ahead to make my research this time to provide answers to my examiners. Here is the little i have found out.

Hagar which is known as the bond woman, servant of sarah and mother of Ishmael, was the daughter of King Pharoah of Egypt. She chose to be a slave to Sarah when she saw the the wonders God worked through Abraham on her father, King Pharoah. For she said that it is better to go serve the house of Abraham than be a princess in her father's house. So it is my theory to say that the real intention of Hagar serving the house of Abraham was to get closer to his God and not to get a reward from Abraham nor to be condemned nor looked down on as an inferior or insignificant being. Though she was serving Sarah, but in truth, she was serving God. And in our path to walking closer to God, none should be condemned, nor sidelined, nor looked down on, for we all are his children.

Now we know that Abraham has been childless for several years before he had his first son, Ismael at age 86. And it was 13 years later, at the age of 99, Abraham had his second son, Isaac. But before Ishmael and Isaac was born, Abraham had someone who was like a son to him from a concubine. He is called Eliezer Dam - Meshek. Eliezer was not his biological son as far as the scripture can say and everyother available source i have seen.

Genesis 15:2-5;

But Abram said, " O lord God, what will you give me, for i continue [a] childless and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? " Then Abram said, " Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir! " And behold, the word of the Lord came to him saying, " This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body( son ) shall be your heir. "

Now, when God said i shall make one from your own body( your own son) heir to Abraham, he did not mention a particular son. And the word, Son, could have mean't just one person if he was blessed with only one son. And for the fact that nations would spring up from the seed of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are both heirs to the inheritance.

Every sincere heart would understand that the both children may become rivals concerning who takes the greater share of the inheritance. And mothers are always the architect of this act, not the fathers. This is clearly seen in the story of Esau and Jacob. Jacob luring the elder brother Esau to taking the birth right as the first born from him. Their mother was the brain behind it.

Lets look into the world of Sarah and Hagar, utilising our imagination to percieve what it could have been like.

Sarah was the first wife of Abraham, who was his half sister. So after years of trying to produce a child for Abraham and couldn't, she then asked Abraham to take in Hagar as his wife. Before now, Hagar has been serving Sarah as her maiden. At 86, Abraham had his first seed from Hagar. And he was called Ishmael. If you were to be in Abraham's shoes, wouldn't you be exceedingly happy that God has finally given you a son from your own flesh and blood? If you were foretold about the coming of Ishmael, wouldn't they call it a good-tiding? Is it not a good news?

Most Islamic critics( the christains most especially) claim that the word, good-tidings was only associated to Isaac and not Ishmael. This i cannot agree to. Who in Abraham's shoes would not be pleased and very happy on having his first child at the age of 86? And not just a child but a son. Would this not give him a relief that his kingdom has been secured in his own flesh and blood? How can this not be a good news to Abraham?

Most of the christains who criticizes who criticizes the Ishmael theory as the sacrificial son, claim that his birth wouldn't have brought any Joy to Abraham, and so does not deserve to be called a good news. Who can truly support this judgement with a sincere heart?

Here is the verse of the Quran which the present age Islamic scholars used in proving their views that Ishmael is the son to be sacrificed and not Isaac.



Surah 37:99-105


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.


There was a particular time in the old age where some muslims actually accepted the interpretation of the christains concerning the same verses in the Quran. I would not be suprised at their interpretation since my experience with most christains has proven to me that they read and take the message, even of their own scriptures too literally.

The christains who claimed that the verses was refering to Isaac used the sayings in Surah 37:112; which is;


" And we gave him the good news of Isaac- a prophet- one of the righteous. "


And also in Surah 51:28;


" They said ' fear not, ' and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge. "


Now, does it seem to you that the christains and some of the muslims who also believe in this are right concerning the Isaac theory? One is easily tempted to say yes. But lets see a further arguement of the muslims in favor of Ishmael.



" Some points have to be made clear in this concern.


1. It is well known that Abraham 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 , the news were great and
not only good. It seems reasonable to
think that the news of having his
second son, Isaac would be equal or
less because in the first time the
surprise factor has certainly increased
his happiness.

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 associated to patience and
steadfastness and not Isaac !

3. Indeed verse 21:85 reads

"And (remember) Ishmael, Idris, and
Zulkifl, all (men) of constancy and
patience ".

Conclusion: The sacrificed is Ishmael
according to the opponent's own
logic. "


Do their reasons not satisfy you? Lets see more of what they said again.




" Further scrutiny requires that we
quote the full passage in surah 37: From verse 99-105 has been given above. So we would produce only the remaining verses from 105-113, below.



" 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 . Thus, the
sacrificed cannot be Isaac 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.



Let us also look at the opinion of Ibn Kathir for further clarification with regard to the exegesis of verse 37:101;

" So we gave him the good news of a forebearing son "

Then after this, we would look at the biblical view to judge the subject matter.


Here is the translation of the above passage by Ibn Kathir.



" And this son is Ishmael
for he is the first son whose
good news was brought to
Abraham . 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 was
born when Abraham was 86
years old and Isaac was
born when Abraham was 99.
In their Scripture as well,
God is said to have ordered
Abraham to sacrifice his
only son and in another
version his firstborn. And,
at this spot, they inserted
falsely the name of Isaac
against the text of their
very Scripture. The reason
they inserted Isaac is that
he is their father whereas
Ishmael is the father of
the Arabs. They added Isaac
out of envy and brushed away
"only son" by saying that
Ishmael 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 . This
was reported from some people
of the salaf (i.e. people of
the previous generations) and
it was even reported from
some Companions 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 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 to Abraham 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
and Sarah , Isaac will
beget a child that he will
call Jacob implying that
Isaac will have a progeny.
We have already explained why
it is not possible that Isaac
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 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.]



Now lets see if their opinion have any element of truth in it, utilizing the biblical version.


Genesis 22:2;

Then he said, " Take now your son, your ONLY SON Isaac, whom you love and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which i shall tell you. "


Genesis 22:16

and said: By myself I have sworn says the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your ONLY SON-


Here are my reasoning questions to the christains.


Why will God address Isaac as the ONLY SON of Abraham? Does it mean that it wasn't God who gave Ishmael to Abraham? Or has God forgotten that Isaac is the second son of Abraham?

Or could it be that there was only one son in the life of Abraham as at when he was given the order to make such sacrifice? If you say he had one son as at then, who do you think it would have been?


Some may actually still insist that it
was because Hagar and her son has
been sent out of the house of
Abraham, that was why Isaac was
refered to as the only son. Verily I
say, no sane man can accept this.

A man who has a bastard son( child
born out of wedlock ) cannot
exclude this son from anyother that
he might give birth to within a
wedlock( marriage)
Hagar was made the second wife of
Abraham according to the
instruction of Sarah.

Genesis 16:3;

Then sarai, Abram’s wife took Hagar
her maid, the Egyptian, and gave
her to her husband Abram to be HIS
WIFE, after Abraham had dwelled 10
years in the land of canaan.
This also means that Ishmael was a
legal son of Abraham.
Ishmael had lived for 13 years
before Isaac was born. And if this is
true, do you not think that it would
have been a greater loss and pain
for Abraham to sacrifice Ishmael
when the promise of Isaac hasn’t
come?
And lets say we still claim that it
was Isaac. What is the gravity of
such a test? It would not be really
painful to Abraham since he knows
he already has a son before Isaac
that could still be his heir. So why
would God tempt him with a test
that more or less proves nothing?
Think my friend.

It could be the issue of inheritance
that would have made sarah to
suggest the departure of Hagar from
the house of Abraham. She probably
wanted to secure all the inheritance
for Isaac. Who can blame her? She
is the first wife and desires to
exercise her right.

The Egyptian blood in Hagar has
made her suffer such
condemnation. So it is obvious why
the story line would be told to favor
Isaac and not Ishmael.

I am yet to see a strong reason why
i should disbelief the Quran
concerning Ishmael been the son to
be sacrificed and not Isaac. If you
have a vivid reason to go against
this, please share it so that i can
learn about it.

NB:


1. If we say that the word, ONLY
SON actually refered to Isaac, then
its either it was his mother Sarah
that gave the story( since Isaac was
her only son and not to Abraham) or
God himself did not know what he
was talking about.

2. 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 cAbd al- c 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.

I still cannot understand why some christains think that the muslims cannot be saved, nor can they inherit the kingdom of God nor paradise without them converting to christainity. Have any of this individuals actually picked the Quran to read without only listening to what they have been told about Islam? Do you think the muslims do not also believe in Jesus? It is stated clearly in the Quran that Jesus christ was a muslim.

Here is what Muhammad said about individuals like this in the Quran. [ provide your answer to his question in the last verse. ]



Surah 2:108


Many of the people of the scripture [ Jews and Christains ] wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after the truth [ that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger ] has become manifest unto them. But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings his command. Verily, Allah is able to do all things.


Vs 111] And they say, " None shall enter paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christain. " These are their own desires. Say [ O Muhammad ], " Produce your proof if you are truthful. "

Surah 4:36


Worship God and join none with him; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer(you meet), and those slaves whom your right hands possess. Verily, God does not like such as are proud and boastful.

None of you has faith until he loves for
his brother or his neighbor what he loves
for himself.


Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 45, Grade: Sahih

By Him in whose Hand is my soul, a
servant does not believe until he loves
for his brother what he loves for himself
of goodness.

Source: Sunan al-Nasā’ī 5017,
Grade: Sahih



From this statements above, you can see that Prophet muhammad also believed in love.

A REASON WHY I DO NOT DOUBT THE PROPHETHOOD OF MUHAMMAD.







LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.


1 John 4:1-3,

Behold, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, many false prophets have gone out into the world. BY THIS YOU KNOW THE SPIRIT OF GOD. EVERY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSES THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH IS OF GOD, AND EVERY SPIRIT THAT DOES NOT CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH IS NOT OF GOD. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard was coming, and is now already in the world.


A CONFIRMATION IN THE QURAN THAT MUHAMMAD IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST JUDGING BY THE SCRIPTURE ABOVE.



Surah 3:45


When the angels said, " O mary! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a WORD from him, his name is MESSIAH, Jesus son of Mary, high honored in this world and the next(hereafter), of those who are near(stationed) to Allah.


And also, Jesus is referred to by name in the Quran fully sixteen times, as compared to only four places in the whole Quran where Muhammad is mentioned by name.


Surah 3:49,

And will make him Jesus a messanger to the children of Isreal saying: " I have come to you with a sign from your lord, that I design for you out of clay, a figure like that of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and bring the dead to life by Allah's leave. And I inform you of what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you believe.


THIS IS A CLEAR PROOF THAT MUHAMMAD BELIEVED IN JESUS CHRIST.

I would like to bring to the notice of the readers that my real name is Dr. Odia Ogbebor. You could check me up at facebook.com/hiddensimplicities or go through my blog at hiddensimplicities. so as to clarify your opinion about me. The name pastopreneur was the name i gave to myself abt few years back which i structly used for networking purposes, i.e,, as i teach entrepreneur, utilizing the scriptures to back it up. That was how that name was coined.




I AM A CHRISTAIN WHO HAVE ALSO DEVELOPED INTEREST IN ISLAM AS A RESULT OF MY DEFENCE OF ISLAM IN THE FACE OF MY CHRISTAIN BROTHERS. HERE IS A DREAM I HAD WHILE SLEEPING IN THE EARLY HOURS OF 5th of July 2016, CONCERNING A SPIRITUAL ENCOUNTER ABOUT ONE OF THE PRACTICE OF ISLAM



I do not know if i shld take it seriously or not, but it is a revelation that i am still questioning. Here it is.




In the dream, i was brought to a wide compound that has a mosque in it. It was beautiful, and the compound wasnt covered with pure sands but like stony substances. Amongst the stony substances, i discovered another substances dat looked dark and a bit reddish, but more darkened. So i asked myself,, what could this substance be?

So wen i went further into the compound, i saw two persons sitting in one of the corners of the compound. One of them appeared to me like an imam. And it was he who answered my question. But before i asked him my question, i heard him telling the other that no one preached to me abt islam, but i founded it by myself which they call the guidiance of Allah. And they were praising God.

When i saw them acting this way, i laughed within myself and said; this people do not know that i came here only to study and not to be converted to Islam. But it was no use telling them this. I also saw a friend of mine in my community who is a muslim coming close to the Imam and his collegue. And they were having a conversation about me.

But nevertheless, i went on to ask the Imam concerning what i ve seen on the ground in the compound. So told me that he would show it to me. And so directed someone to bring some for me.

When the young man brought them in a bowl, the Imam asked me to take some from it and eat. Initially, i took abt five pieces, but wen i realised it was much, i returned three and was left with two. So when i took one of it closer to my eyes as i fearfully placed one in my mouth( I was afraid due to the fact that i did not know why i was asked to eat it. Funny enough, i couldnt question them), i noticed that it was like palm fruits. I was not so comfortable eating it despite the fact that it wasnt looking scary. As i was eating it, i woke up from the sleep.

It was still in the early hours of the morning. And my curiosity of wat the palm fruit stands for in Islam drove me to search for it on google. Before now, i ve never learnt nor seen anything abt it in relation to islam.

So as i seeked for the knowledge, i realised that there is a particular palm fruit called DATE PALM FRUIT which prophet muhammad told his followers that it is more preferable to eat it immediately you break ur ramandan fasting.

And u culd imagine, this i dreamt of as the muslims are actually breaking their fasting in reality. Its baffling and questionable. Why should i ve dreamt of such wen i did not partake in the ramadam? Or was i practicing it unconsciously? I have never known before now if there was a link btw palm fruit and Islam( God bear me witness) . It was after now i discovered the importance of the palm tree to Islam. And i also learnt that, the date palm fruit, when eaten, has the power to protect u against poison and black magic. There some other thing i learnt also that got me more curious.

But still, my questions are yet to be fully answered.

PLS NOTE: I RUN A GROUP ON WHATSAPP CALLED HIDDENSIMPLICITIES. AND I HAVE LOTS OF CHRISTAINS THERE WHO CONDEMN ME ABT MY OPINIONS CONCERNING THE MUSLIMS. I AM CHRISTAIN TOO. BUT AN ENLIGHTENED ONE, NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INDOCTRINATION. SO I BESEECH ANY ONE WHO CAN JOIN ME IN MY CAUSE OF SHOULD PLEASE CONTACT ME ON WHATSAPP@ 07051065548, SO THAT I CAN ADD U UP IN THE GROUP SO AS TO INCREASE OUR VOICE OUT THERE. BELOW IS AN ARTICLE I PREPARED YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY PERSECUTORS. YOU CAN FIND MORE OF MY WRITINGS AT hiddensimplicities.

Thanks for your contribution.






WHY I AM STILL DOUBTING IF THE QURAN TOLD A LIE CONCERNING ISHMAEL BEING THE SACRIFICIAL SON AND NOT ISAAC.


By Dr. Odia A. Ogbebor




My mum recently told me that sometimes your helpers could take the image of those who fight and condemn you. The only prove of your faith in God( surrendering to his will ) is to never give up the fight. Never surrender to no one's will except God. There is a future your persecutors are helping you build. Even when you think that you are down, the spirit of the Most High is there to pick you up. Just keep moving.

I remember the first time i heard about Ishmael been the sacrificial son and not Isaac from an Islamic program on television. I smiled because it was a odd to me and yet funny. I did not accept it neither did i condemn them due to the understanding that everyone wants to claim a good story to themselves. So i never bothered to know why they thought so. Atleast, there was no need to dig deep into such knowledge until now that i am being questioned in defence of my cause in proving that the muslims are also God's children and are also saved. And so, they deserve no condemnation.

I went ahead to make my research this time to provide answers to my examiners. Here is the little i have found out.

Hagar which is known as the bond woman, servant of sarah and mother of Ishmael, was the daughter of King Pharoah of Egypt. She chose to be a slave to Sarah when she saw the the wonders God worked through Abraham on her father, King Pharoah. For she said that it is better to go serve the house of Abraham than be a princess in her father's house. So it is my theory to say that the real intention of Hagar serving the house of Abraham was to get closer to his God and not to get a reward from Abraham nor to be condemned nor looked down on as an inferior or insignificant being. Though she was serving Sarah, but in truth, she was serving God. And in our path to walking closer to God, none should be condemned, nor sidelined, nor looked down on, for we all are his children.

Now we know that Abraham has been childless for several years before he had his first son, Ismael at age 86. And it was 13 years later, at the age of 99, Abraham had his second son, Isaac. But before Ishmael and Isaac was born, Abraham had someone who was like a son to him from a concubine. He is called Eliezer Dam - Meshek. Eliezer was not his biological son as far as the scripture can say and everyother available source i have seen.

Genesis 15:2-5;

But Abram said, " O lord God, what will you give me, for i continue [a] childless and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? " Then Abram said, " Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir! " And behold, the word of the Lord came to him saying, " This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body( son ) shall be your heir. "

Now, when God said i shall make one from your own body( your own son) heir to Abraham, he did not mention a particular son. And the word, Son, could have mean't just one person if he was blessed with only one son. And for the fact that nations would spring up from the seed of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are both heirs to the inheritance.

Every sincere heart would understand that the both children may become rivals concerning who takes the greater share of the inheritance. And mothers are always the architect of this act, not the fathers. This is clearly seen in the story of Esau and Jacob. Jacob luring the elder brother Esau to taking the birth right as the first born from him. Their mother was the brain behind it.

Lets look into the world of Sarah and Hagar, utilising our imagination to percieve what it could have been like.

Sarah was the first wife of Abraham, who was his half sister. So after years of trying to produce a child for Abraham and couldn't, she then asked Abraham to take in Hagar as his wife. Before now, Hagar has been serving Sarah as her maiden. At 86, Abraham had his first seed from Hagar. And he was called Ishmael. If you were to be in Abraham's shoes, wouldn't you be exceedingly happy that God has finally given you a son from your own flesh and blood? If you were foretold about the coming of Ishmael, wouldn't they call it a good-tiding? Is it not a good news?

Most Islamic critics( the christains most especially) claim that the word, good-tidings was only associated to Isaac and not Ishmael. This i cannot agree to. Who in Abraham's shoes would not be pleased and very happy on having his first child at the age of 86? And not just a child but a son. Would this not give him a relief that his kingdom has been secured in his own flesh and blood? How can this not be a good news to Abraham?

Most of the christains who criticizes who criticizes the Ishmael theory as the sacrificial son, claim that his birth wouldn't have brought any Joy to Abraham, and so does not deserve to be called a good news. Who can truly support this judgement with a sincere heart?

Here is the verse of the Quran which the present age Islamic scholars used in proving their views that Ishmael is the son to be sacrificed and not Isaac.



Surah 37:99-105


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.


There was a particular time in the old age where some muslims actually accepted the interpretation of the christains concerning the same verses in the Quran. I would not be suprised at their interpretation since my experience with most christains has proven to me that they read and take the message, even of their own scriptures too literally.

The christains who claimed that the verses was refering to Isaac used the sayings in Surah 37:112; which is;


" And we gave him the good news of Isaac- a prophet- one of the righteous. "


And also in Surah 51:28;


" They said ' fear not, ' and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge. "


Now, does it seem to you that the christains and some of the muslims who also believe in this are right concerning the Isaac theory? One is easily tempted to say yes. But lets see a further arguement of the muslims in favor of Ishmael.



" Some points have to be made clear in this concern.


1. It is well known that Abraham 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 , the news were great and
not only good. It seems reasonable to
think that the news of having his
second son, Isaac would be equal or
less because in the first time the
surprise factor has certainly increased
his happiness.

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 associated to patience and
steadfastness and not Isaac !

3. Indeed verse 21:85 reads

"And (remember) Ishmael, Idris, and
Zulkifl, all (men) of constancy and
patience ".

Conclusion: The sacrificed is Ishmael
according to the opponent's own
logic. "


Do their reasons not satisfy you? Lets see more of what they said again.




" Further scrutiny requires that we
quote the full passage in surah 37: From verse 99-105 has been given above. So we would produce only the remaining verses from 105-113, below.



" 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 . Thus, the
sacrificed cannot be Isaac 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.



Let us also look at the opinion of Ibn Kathir for further clarification with regard to the exegesis of verse 37:101;

" So we gave him the good news of a forebearing son "

Then after this, we would look at the biblical view to judge the subject matter.


Here is the translation of the above passage by Ibn Kathir.



" And this son is Ishmael
for he is the first son whose
good news was brought to
Abraham . 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 was
born when Abraham was 86
years old and Isaac was
born when Abraham was 99.
In their Scripture as well,
God is said to have ordered
Abraham to sacrifice his
only son and in another
version his firstborn. And,
at this spot, they inserted
falsely the name of Isaac
against the text of their
very Scripture. The reason
they inserted Isaac is that
he is their father whereas
Ishmael is the father of
the Arabs. They added Isaac
out of envy and brushed away
"only son" by saying that
Ishmael 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 . This
was reported from some people
of the salaf (i.e. people of
the previous generations) and
it was even reported from
some Companions 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 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 to Abraham 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
and Sarah , Isaac will
beget a child that he will
call Jacob implying that
Isaac will have a progeny.
We have already explained why
it is not possible that Isaac
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 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.]



Now lets see if their opinion have any element of truth in it, utilizing the biblical version.


Genesis 22:2;

Then he said, " Take now your son, your ONLY SON Isaac, whom you love and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which i shall tell you. "


Genesis 22:16

and said: By myself I have sworn says the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your ONLY SON-


Here are my reasoning questions to the christains.


Why will God address Isaac as the ONLY SON of Abraham? Does it mean that it wasn't God who gave Ishmael to Abraham? Or has God forgotten that Isaac is the second son of Abraham?

Or could it be that there was only one son in the life of Abraham as at when he was given the order to make such sacrifice? If you say he had one son as at then, who do you think it would have been?


Continue reading@

/p6KAbW-1d

DOES SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE REALLY MEAN FORNICATION?



THE TRUE, UNPOPULAR REVELATION OF FORNICATION



Last week, while having a business lecture, a young man like myself walked up to me heavily disturbed with the accusations some people have laid on him, especially from his church. He has been into a serious relationship for four years now and plans on cementing it by the end of this year which makes the fifth. He told me that right from day one of his relationship, people have always accused him for having sexual intercourse with his love partner. They accused him of fornication, even when he could not see the sin of fornication in what he was doing. But nevertheless, he felt condemned and thus, always seeking for counselling. This prompted me to produce this article for those having similar challenges. And i will begin this article from the standpoint of marriage.

Marriage is a LAWFUL UNION between two partners. And its essence is to stay glued to one partner who will stand as witness to the end of your days. First of all, let me quickly bring to our reasoning faculties what a LAWFUL UNION really means.

A lawful union in its simplicity means; a union that fulfills the laws of God. But i will unveil to you one major law that 98% of marriages has failed to fulfill in today's world, making their union by LAW, to be unlawful. This may be hard on the women, but i do not write this to condemn anyone but to drive home my points.

Deut 22:28-29; " If a man finds a young woman who is a VIRGIN, who is not betrothed, and he siezes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE FOUND OUT, ' then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father, fifty shekels of silver(DOWRY) and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days ".

Now, here are my first reasoning questions drafted out from the above verses.

1. What if the man and the virgin were not found out, would the payment still occur?

2. What if we realise that our partner is not a virgin, should we still pay the dowry? Should the non-virgins be condemned to a single life to eternity?

3. If we go ahead( as it happens in today's world ) and marry a non-virgin, do we not think that we have broken the law and thus falling into fornication and adultery?

4. How then is our marriages a lawful union? Or don't you know that according to Lev 22:20-21, God said; anyone found not been a virgin in a supposed lawful union should be stoned to death?

Why are we not practicing all these today? I know some people will say that we don't live by the law anymore. I am not against this. But did Jesus Christ come to take away the law or to fulfill the law?

When we talk about sex before marriage(lawful union), people are so quick to condemn it without proper knowledge of what they condemn. They claim that it is amongst God's law not to have sexual relations before marriage. What trully beats me is; is the prohibition of sex before marriage God's law or human law? And if we say it is God's law, why don't we also conclude that we do not live by the law anymore? Why do we condemn those who have done it or are doing it, placing a burden on them which we ourselves could not carry?

How many of us can trully say that we have fulfilled all the obligations written for a lawful union? Do anyone bother you with these burdens?

And if you are among the 2% of people who were able to fulfill it, are you now by any means better than those who could not?

We are no longer judged by any law be it the one created by God or by man. The law has been fulfilled into one word - LOVE. And we all know that love covers multitude of sins. Whatever is done without love, the reality of sin takes over.

continue reading@

/p6KAbW-H

DOES SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE REALLY MEAN FORNICATION?



THE TRUE, UNPOPULAR REVELATION OF FORNICATION



Last week, while having a business lecture, a young man like myself walked up to me heavily disturbed with the accusations some people have laid on him, especially from his church. He has been into a serious relationship for four years now and plans on cementing it by the end of this year which makes the fifth. He told me that right from day one of his relationship, people have always accused him for having sexual intercourse with his love partner. They accused him of fornication, even when he could not see the sin of fornication in what he was doing. But nevertheless, he felt condemned and thus, always seeking for counselling. This prompted me to produce this article for those having similar challenges. And i will begin this article from the standpoint of marriage.

Marriage is a LAWFUL UNION between two partners. And its essence is to stay glued to one partner who will stand as witness to the end of your days. First of all, let me quickly bring to our reasoning faculties what a LAWFUL UNION really means.

A lawful union in its simplicity means; a union that fulfills the laws of God. But i will unveil to you one major law that 98% of marriages has failed to fulfill in today's world, making their union by LAW, to be unlawful. This may be hard on the women, but i do not write this to condemn anyone but to drive home my points.

Deut 22:28-29; " If a man finds a young woman who is a VIRGIN, who is not betrothed, and he siezes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE FOUND OUT, ' then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father, fifty shekels of silver(DOWRY) and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days ".

Now, here are my first reasoning questions drafted out from the above verses.

1. What if the man and the virgin were not found out, would the payment still occur?

2. What if we realise that our partner is not a virgin, should we still pay the dowry? Should the non-virgins be condemned to a single life to eternity?

3. If we go ahead( as it happens in today's world ) and marry a non-virgin, do we not think that we have broken the law and thus falling into fornication and adultery?

4. How then is our marriages a lawful union? Or don't you know that according to Lev 22:20-21, God said; anyone found not been a virgin in a supposed lawful union should be stoned to death?

Why are we not practicing all these today? I know some people will say that we don't live by the law anymore. I am not against this. But did Jesus Christ come to take away the law or to fulfill the law?

When we talk about sex before marriage(lawful union), people are so quick to condemn it without proper knowledge of what they condemn. They claim that it is amongst God's law not to have sexual relations before marriage. What trully beats me is; is the prohibition of sex before marriage God's law or human law? And if we say it is God's law, why don't we also conclude that we do not live by the law anymore? Why do we condemn those who have done it or are doing it, placing a burden on them which we ourselves could not carry?

How many of us can trully say that we have fulfilled all the obligations written for a lawful union? Do anyone bother you with these burdens?

And if you are among the 2% of people who were able to fulfill it, are you now by any means better than those who could not?

We are no longer judged by any law be it the one created by God or by man. The law has been fulfilled into one word - LOVE. And we all know that love covers multitude of sins. Whatever is done without love, the reality of sin takes over.

continue reading@

/p6KAbW-H

DOES SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE REALLY MEAN FORNICATION?



THE TRUE, UNPOPULAR REVELATION OF FORNICATION



Last week, while having a business lecture, a young man like myself walked up to me heavily disturbed with the accusations some people have laid on him, especially from his church. He has been into a serious relationship for four years now and plans on cementing it by the end of this year which makes the fifth. He told me that right from day one of his relationship, people have always accused him for having sexual intercourse with his love partner. They accused him of fornication, even when he could not see the sin of fornication in what he was doing. But nevertheless, he felt condemned and thus, always seeking for counselling. This prompted me to produce this article for those having similar challenges. And i will begin this article from the standpoint of marriage.

Marriage is a LAWFUL UNION between two partners. And its essence is to stay glued to one partner who will stand as witness to the end of your days. First of all, let me quickly bring to our reasoning faculties what a LAWFUL UNION really means.

A lawful union in its simplicity means; a union that fulfills the laws of God. But i will unveil to you one major law that 98% of marriages has failed to fulfill in today's world, making their union by LAW, to be unlawful. This may be hard on the women, but i do not write this to condemn anyone but to drive home my points.

Deut 22:28-29; " If a man finds a young woman who is a VIRGIN, who is not betrothed, and he siezes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE FOUND OUT, ' then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father, fifty shekels of silver(DOWRY) and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days ".

Now, here are my first reasoning questions drafted out from the above verses.

1. What if the man and the virgin were not found out, would the payment still occur?

2. What if we realise that our partner is not a virgin, should we still pay the dowry? Should the non-virgins be condemned to a single life to eternity?

3. If we go ahead( as it happens in today's world ) and marry a non-virgin, do we not think that we have broken the law and thus falling into fornication and adultery?

4. How then is our marriages a lawful union? Or don't you know that according to Lev 22:20-21, God said; anyone found not been a virgin in a supposed lawful union should be stoned to death?

Why are we not practicing all these today? I know some people will say that we don't live by the law anymore. I am not against this. But did Jesus Christ come to take away the law or to fulfill the law?

When we talk about sex before marriage(lawful union), people are so quick to condemn it without proper knowledge of what they condemn. They claim that it is amongst God's law not to have sexual relations before marriage. What trully beats me is; is the prohibition of sex before marriage God's law or human law? And if we say it is God's law, why don't we also conclude that we do not live by the law anymore? Why do we condemn those who have done it or are doing it, placing a burden on them which we ourselves could not carry?

How many of us can trully say that we have fulfilled all the obligations written for a lawful union? Do anyone bother you with these burdens?

And if you are among the 2% of people who were able to fulfill it, are you now by any means better than those who could not?

We are no longer judged by any law be it the one created by God or by man. The law has been fulfilled into one word - LOVE. And we all know that love covers multitude of sins. Whatever is done without love, the reality of sin takes over.

continue reading@

/p6KAbW-H