|
"answering-islam.org" adopts DECEPTION / LIE?
IS THE SUBSTITUTION OF NAME "ISHMAEL" WITH "ISAAC" WITHIN THE BIBLICAL TEXT A MATTER OF GREAT CONSEQUENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS? At the end of this long debate one may question; What difference does it really make whether prophet Abraham took Ishmael or Isaac with him for the sacrificial offering? Why should a Christian scholar argue tooth and nail to prove that 1 billion plus Muslims, who year after year honour Isma'il at the great annual feast of sacrifice called Eid al-Adha, are honouring the wrong person? Please read below the texts from the Bible and you will surprised. Chapter 22 from the Book of Genesis begins with God's Command for Abraham to take his ONLY SON and offer him as an offering. After Abraham had gone through the ritual and passed the Test (wherein a ram was provided in place of his son), God made the following PROMISE which was to consequence ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH, in the future. (KJV) Gen. 22 : 15-18 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only {son}: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which {is} upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.Please read carefully what Paul writes in his Epistle to the Galatians: (KJV) Gal. 3 : 15-22 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though {it be} but a man's covenant, yet {if it be} confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, {that} the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance {be} of the law, {it is} no more of promise: but God gave {it} to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then {serveth} the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; {and it was} ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not {a mediator} of one, but God is one. {Is} the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.This conclusion drawn by Paul is only applied to Jesus if Isaac was the who had accompanied Abraham. As seen earlier, it was the eldest son Ishmael (the ONLY SON), that had accompanied Abraham and hence the God's Promise rightfully applies to prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Here is the revealed verse from the Glorious Quran that CONFIRMS this: "We have sent thee (Muhammad) not, but as a mercy for all creatures." 21 : 107 Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.Al-Hamdulillah (Praise Be To Allah), who has REVEALED THE TRUTH. INJECTS... "(the sacrifice)"? Please
visit the web site:
by Critic Sam Shamoun I have copied and pasted the following from Sam's Deceptive Article: Even more amazing is the fact that the Quran never mentions the name of the sacrificial child; amazing indeed considering how overzealous some Muslims have been in their attempts to prove that Ishmael, not Isaac, was that son:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMENTS: Yes, the AMBIGUITY is there PROVIDED one STOPS reading further and closes the Revealed Book at the verse number 106 as the Christian Critic Sam Shamoun has done. There is NO AMBIGUITY if one continues reading up to the verse number 113. As a matter of fact the SECTION 3 of Surah 37 begins with the verse number 75 and ends with the verse number 113. THE READERS WILL HAVE NO DOUBT AS TO WHY THE CRITIC HAS STOPPED AT VERSE 106 ONCE THEY READ THE FOLLOWING: Verse 100:
Abraham prays to Allah for a righteous son.
VERSE NO. 112: (NOT MENTIONED BY SAM) reads: "And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous."VERSE NO. 113 (NOT MENTIONED BY SAM) reads: "We blessed him and Isaac; But of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to themselves."The end of Section Three of the Surah 37. ANY ONE READING ALL THE ABOVE VERSES CAN TELL
YOU THAT THE COMMAND FROM ALLAH FOR THE SACRIFICE CAME BEFORE
ISAAC WAS BORN AND WHEN ISHMAEL WAS OF
The Bible records that Ishmael the Eldest Son
was born when Abraham was 86 years old. Fourteen years later Isaac was
born. (Gen. 16:16 and 21:5).
I once again reproduce what the Critic Sam Shamoun has written: The ambiguity of the text has left many Islamic scholars guessing as to whether the child was Isaac or Ishmael. Yusef Ali makes a note of this in his commentary:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMENTS: Here is the text of the verse number 37:101 "So We gave him the good news (n. 4096) of a forbearing son (n. 4097)". PLEASE NOTE:
In Abdullah
Yusuf Ali's commentary number 4096 the INJECTED
MY QUESTION TO SAM:
MORE TEXT TO BE ADDED SOON
REBUTTAL FROM SAM SHAMOUN Sam Shamoun has e-mailed to me a copy of his
eleven page long REBUTTAL to the above article, which he has placed on
his web site answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/mehB11_0.htm
Yet, interestingly, Akbarally fails to comment at all on the fact that Muslims themselves disagreed, and some continue to disagree, over the issue of whether Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Ishmael or Isaac. .Surprisingly, Sam Shamoun has jumped the gun. He seems to be over zealous and too agitated in rebutting my article that is not even complete. How could he have failed to read "MORE TEXT TO BE ADDED SOON" which is printed in large and capital types, at the end of my article, is beyond me. Sam: My friendly advise to you is please hold
your horses and allow me complete my article. FYI, I am a 72 years old
simple shop-keeper running a seven days a week retail store. Every night
I have several mails to answer.
However, I have noticed in his "Rebuttal" the following admission which does clear the most important fundamental issue that had roused me to write this article. He writes: Response: MORE TEXTS.... Mr. Sam Shamoun writes in his original article: Thus, Muslims believe that scribes later corrupted the original reading from Ishmael to Isaac. This idea stems from the Muslim misunderstanding of the phrase, "Only son", in reference to Isaac, since the title is used to affirm Isaac's unique status, a status based on the following:THE QUR'AN DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PRESENTED FACT FROM THE BIBLE... BIBLE:
GLORIOUS QUR'AN:
Sura 37:112 and 113... "And We gave him the
good news of Isaac - a prophet - one of the righteous. We blessed him and
Isaac: But of their progeny are (some) that do right and (some) that obviously
do wrong, to themselves."
I AM SORRY TO ADD.. that Sam Shamoun's claim that the Qur'an agrees
with the Bible is FALSE, DECEPTIVE and MISLEADING.
FURTHERMORE, Sam writes: Ishmael was never a promised child. IF, making of a Covenant by God, within the Bible, makes Isaac a "promised child", then how about making of a Covenant by Allah, within the Qur'an, with Ishmael? Does it not make Ishmael a "promised child"??? Here is a verse from the Glorious Qur'an: Remember We made the house a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We Covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round or use it as a retreat or bow or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). Sura 2:125Finally, here is what we as Muslims believe: Say: "We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes and in (Books) given to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."Mr. Sam Shamoun wrote in his original article: Isaac was conceived miraculously to Sarah when the latter was old and barren, with the Quran likewise agreeing (cf. Genesis 17:15-17, 18:9-15, 21:1-7; Sura 11:69-73, 51:24-30). Ishmael was conceived in the normal process of sexual reproduction.NONE of the above quoted verses from the Bible or the Quran recognize, substantiate or attest to the fact that there was an "absence of sex" between Abraham and his wife Sarah, in the birth of their son Isaac. NOWHERE in the Bible or the Quran it is written
that Ishmael, who was "conceived in the normal process of sexual reproduction"
between Abraham and his wife Hagar, was disqualified or had lost his status
for being the eldest son of Abraham, because of that process.
Sam Shamoun: WHERE
in the Bible or the Quran it is written that the
Mr. Sam Shamoun writes in his original article: God promised that it would be Isaac's descendants who would inherit the land given to Abraham. (Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21, 28:13-14). Ishmael had no part in the inheritance and promise given to Isaac through Abraham.THE BIBLICAL FACTS: When God promised the land to prophet Abraham,
his name was Abram.
In other words, Isaac was not even born when
the land was promised by God.
The land was promised by God was to the seeds
of Abram, (see K.J.V.),
Genesis chapter 28 deals with God's promise to Jacob. Mr. Sam Shamoun: CAN YOU DENY the above biblical facts or prove that Ishmael was not the seed of Abram or God had gone back on HIS promise??
Sam Shamoun wrote in his article: (To emphasize certain portions
I have
Al-Tabari, considered to be one of the premiere Islamic historians, lists the divergent views held amongst the Muslim umma (community) in regards to this very issue: "The earliest sages of our Prophet's nation disagree about which of Abraham's two sons it was that he was commanded to sacrifice. Some say it was Isaac, while others say it was Ishmael. Both views are supported by statements related on the authority of the Messenger of God. If both groups of statements were equally sound, then - since they both came from the Prophet - only the Quran could serve as proof that the account naming Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two." (2: p. 32).Are these the words of the Prophet of Islam? Sam wrote, quoting Al-Tabari:
By writing the above, Al-Tabari could have meant; (only!) some views were in the favour of Isaac while, views of others (rest!) were in favour of Ishmael. Sam wrote;
Sam writes, quoting Al-Tabari:
I did not see in any of the above quotes that
"the expressed view"
Any one who has read the biography of the prophet and his companions would uphold that it is totally inconceivable that IF, I repeat IF, the prophet of Islam had mentioned the name of Ishmael AS WELL AS of Isaac, as being offered for sacrifice, and that the companions of the prophet who had heard both the names would keep their silence, and would not seek the clarification!!! THE ABOVE FACTS PROVE THE EXPRESSED VIEWS ARE NOT OF THE PROPHET OF ISLAM BUT *COULD BE* OF INDIVIDUALS. WHAT SAM SHAMOUN HAS "QUOTED" ABOVE (IN
THE NAME OF AL-TABARI) DOES NOT COME FROM
A BOOK BY AL-TABARI,
BUT FROM A BOOK ON AL-TABARI.
This evident, if one was very particular to note that at the end of the
quotes appear, e.g.; (2 : p. 32), (2 : pp.
82-86).
2. Al-Tabari,
The History of
al-Tabari,
Vol. II, Prophets and Patriarchs (trans. William
M. Brenner), State University of New York Press,
NOTE: It
is surprising that a translator
would call the prolific writer Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir, a scholar
born in Tabaristan in northern Iran, "Al-Tabari"
and not "At-Tabari"!
What to believe and what not to believe? Sam Shamoun writes (the italics are his, the color scheme is mine): Finally, Tabari himself: "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.Notes: 1. It is surprising that Sam does not quote the actual passage of the Quran nor does he indicate which verse(s) of Quran has the "proof from the Quran" that Tabari is alleged to have admitted. 2. In absence of the specific passage from
the Quran the second part of the sentence which reads "that
it really was Isaac" could be a reference
by Tabari to the same passage which Sam had quoted earlier in his article.
To
3. If the Muslim scholars like Tabari had the proof from the Quranthat it really was Isaac, who was offered for Sacrifice (which Sam wants his readers to understand), then Sam should in all fairness and honesty withdraw his under mentioned self-contradictory statement and the erroneous claim that is tagged to it. The differing views held amongst the Muslims as to the identity of the child only proves that the Bible is truly authoritative and reliable since what the Quran does not clarify, the Bible corrects and addresses, leaving no guesswork for scholars to work through.Sam had better get down from the fence and decide: Are there proofs from the Quran that;
it really was Isaac? Or,
"INJECTIONS" to Yusuf Ali's Commentary... Sam Shamoun quotes Abdullah Yusuf Ali's commentary # 4099: "At what stage in Abraham's history did this occur? ... It was obviously after his arrival in the Land of Canaan and after Ishmael had given up years of discretion. Was it before or after the building of the Kabah ...?There are no data on which this question can be answered. But we may suppose it was before that event, and that event may itself have been commemorative."Sam's comment to the commentary: As Ali states, there is no data, especially from the pre-Islamic period or archaeology, which confirms the fact that either Abraham or Ishmael were ever in Mecca, let alone support the notion that Abraham instituted the rites of the pilgrimage.My Comments: Yusuf Ali has simply stated, there
is
no data to answer the question; if the sacrifice
had taken place before or after
the
building of the Kabah. As usual Sam has
INJECTED
his own agenda and written:
Better Substantiate The Claims Or Withdraw... Sam writes: Further, as was noted, Islamic scholarship strongly disagrees and much confusion still exists over the identity of the son, with some arguing for Isaac and others for Ishmael.Sam wrote in his rebuttal: Akbarally attempts to question my integrity hoping that others will not take my article seriously.Sam, you have given me enough reasons to raise that same question over and over again. I now anxiously look forward to your providing the documented written evidences to substantiate your claim that there is a strong disagreement among the Islamic scholars of the present era, as to who was offered for sacrifice. And, the Islamic Ummah and/or the Scholars are still confused on this issue. Since you have mentioned Yusuf Ali's commentaries in your article I would earnestly suggest to you and also to the readers, to please read Yusuf Ali's translation of verses 19 : 54-55 and his Commentaries Nos. 2506 and 2507. Akbarally Meherally
Here is what Sam writes: RESPONDING TO AKBARALLY'S DECEPTION CHARGE Mr. Meherally attempts to rebut other aspects of my article, yet as we shall see, falls way short of doing so. Let us proceed to his arguments. Mr. Sam Shamoun writes in his original article: Thus, Muslims believe that scribes later corrupted the original reading from Ishmael to Isaac. This idea stems from the Muslim misunderstanding of the phrase, "Only son", in reference to Isaac, since the title is used to affirm Isaac's unique status, a status based on the following: Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with (cf. Genesis 17:15-21; Sura 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30). Ishmael was never a promised child. THE QUR'AN DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PRESENTED FACT... Here is the promise from the Book of Genesis Chapter 17: God said; "I will establish My Covenant with him (Isaac) as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him." (verse 19). "But My Covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (verse 21). Mr. Meherally again attacks a strawman, since I NEVER said that the Quran mentions God making a covenant with Isaac. The fact that you made this inference from my citation of Genesis 17:15-21 is your problem. Please read what I actually did say, instead of assuming what you think I meant to say. My Response to the "strawman" ploy: Here is what Sam wrote: Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with (cf. Genesis 17:15-21; Sura 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30). Ishmael was never a promised child.Sam never said "Quran mentions", instead he wrote "Quran agrees with", which carries far greater emphasis than what he claims he did not write. Sam writes that I (Akbarally), made an inference to the God's Covenant with Isaac, from his own citation of Genesis 17:15-12, and that is my problem. Sam wants us to completely
ignore the fact he had asked his readers to
Here is the entire text of GENESIS 17:15-21 : (KJV) And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah {shall} her name be}. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be {a mother} of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall {a child} be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, {and} with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. Before we go any further let us examine what is a "covenant" in the biblical term. The term "covenant" appears three times for Isaac, in the text cited by Sam. Here is the dictionary meaning of the word "covenant" from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe © 1998. cov-e-nant (kuv nnt) n. [[OFr, agreement, orig., prp. of covenir < L convenire: see CONVENE]] 1 a binding and solemn agreement to do or keep from doing a specified thing; compact 2 an agreement among members of a church to defend and maintain its doctrines, polity, and faith 3 [C-] an agreement of Presbyterians in Scotland in 1638 to oppose episcopacy: also called National Covenant 4 [C-] an agreement between the parliaments of Scotland and England in 1643 to extend and preserve Presbyterianism: also called Solemn League and Covenant 5 Law a) a formal, sealed contract b) a clause of such a contract c) a suit for damages for violation of such a contractI have in my article quoted the texts from the above citation, which speaks of "God's Covenant" (the promise made by God), that were made for Isaac. Here are the complete texts from the QUR'AN: (Translation by Yusuf Ali) Sura 11:69-73 There came Our Messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said "Peace!" He answered "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf. But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal) he felt some mistrust of them and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: we have been sent against the people of Lut." And his wife was standing (there) and she laughed: but We gave her glad tidings of Isaac and after him of Jacob. She said: "Alas for me! Shall I bear a child seeing I am an old woman and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!" They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you O ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise full of all glory!" Sura 37:112-113 And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet one of the Righteous. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right and (some) that obviously do wrong to their own souls. Sura 51:24-30 Has the story reached thee of the honored guests of Abraham? Behold they entered His presence and said: "Peace!" He said "Peace!" (and thought "these seem) unusual people." Then he turned quickly to his household brought out a fatted calf. And placed it before them... He said "Will ye not eat?" (When they did not eat) He conceived a fear of them. They said "Fear not" and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge. But his wife came forward (laughing) aloud: she smote her forehead and said: "a barren old woman!" They said "Even so has thy Lord spoken: and He is full of Wisdom and Knowledge." In the above mentioned texts from the Qur'an there is no mention of God's Covenant (the promise made by God), that "agrees" with the one that we have seen in the Biblical Text. If Sam wanted his readers to compare ONLY the "Good News" of Isaac's Birth, which is in the Qur'an, then why did Sam include the verses 19-20 and 21 within his citation that speak of "God's Covenant"? He could have excluded these three verses. Plain and simple. I have not created any strawman. Sam himself
has cited the biblical texts WHICH MENTIONED GOD'S COVENANT (PROMISE) FOR
ISAAC.
Would it not be better if you Sam, simply admit
the fact that it was erroneous on your part to include the verses 19 to
21, since these three verses
Sam's entire thrust is upon "God's
promise" for Isaac who was to be born
There are nearly 25
million Jews (the so called descendants of
Isaac), upon this earth, whereas the number for those who have entered
Islam - a great nation
established by the descendant of Ishmael, prophet Muhammad upon the authority
of God's Revelations - is nearly 1.2 billion.
This conclusively proves that Islam is the Great Nation that was PROMISED
to Abraham through Ishmael. Unfortunately, Sam simply brushes aside this
GREAT PROMISE for a GREAT NATION and keeps on harping; "Ishmael
was never a promised
child". Hence, Ishmael was not fit for the
offering.
IF GOD'S PROMISE FOR THE BIRTH OF A CHILD NEXT YEAR WAS "GREATER", THAN GOD'S PROMISE FOR THE BIRTH OF "GREAT NATION" IN THE YEARS TO COME, WAS "THE GREATEST". THIS APPARENT REALITY CAN ONLY BE DENIED BY THOSE WHOSE EYES, EARS AND HEART ARE SEALED WITH PRIDE. I can only pray, May Allah open
their eyes, ears and heart to admit
Sam Shamoun writes: I used Genesis 17:15-21 to demonstrate the point that God's promises about Isaac, WHICH INCLUDED MAKING A COVENANT WITH HIM BUT WAS NOT LIMITED TO JUST THAT ASPECT, did not include Ishmael at all. Amazingly, you twisted the citation and quoted only a part of it, leaving out the very part that was essential in establishing Isaac's preeminence over Ishmael:My response to the above: The gist of Sam's thrust is that his essential purpose in citing Genesis 17:15-21 was to establish Isaac's preeminence over Ishmael. Out of God's several promises, within the cited texts, I faithfully quoted the God's Covenants as they do appear in the Bible. There was not distortion or twist in it. However, I did not quote the not so important promises. I now thank Sam Shamoun for his passionate objection to the above omission. If he had not disputed, I would not have quoted the entire text from Genesis 17:15-21. Praise Be To Allah, in quoting the entire text, I discovered God's promises for Ishmael, as well. As demonstrated earlier, these promises by God for Ishmael have established who has the preeminence in the eyes of God. If Sam refuses to see this greater preeminence of Ishmael over Isaac which is so apparent, within the text cited by him, then that is Sam's own problem. Dr. Jamal Badawai... Sam Shamoun writes: BTW, we are still waiting for an acknowledgment from Meherally on his misquotation of Badawi. Should we assume that since Meherally has failed to comment thus far on this fact that he was deliberately trying to deceive and mislead his readers?My response to the above: Here goes the story. One day I was surfing
the website "answering-islam".
Here is my question to Sam: IF my error of
mixing up the authorship of a "statement" appearing on the Internet is
viewed by you as a deliberate attempt on my part to "deceive and mislead"
my Internet readers then
IN THE OLD TESTAMENTS: In the Authorized King James Version, until
1976
In nearly all the Revised Versions of the King
James Version:
Could Prophet Moses have written in his Book, the followings? "The Israelites wept for Moses in the plains
of Moab thirty days;
"Never since has there arisen a prophet in
Israel like Moses,
IN THE NEW TESTAMENTS In the Authorized King James Versions, until
as late as 1976,
In nearly all the Revised Versions of the recent
dates
The authorship of Hebrews now belongs to a
pseudo
author
THE HOLY DECEPTION:
In 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Paul has specifically mentioned that "every
letter of mine (his)" will bear a special
kind of greeting in his own hand. This Signature of Paul, which do appear
on all the other Letters was missing on The Letter to The Hebrews. In spite
of that fact, the Authorized King James Version clearly stated;
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
it is in the Book of Hebrews one finds the doctrine of The Blood of Christ
continually
taking away the sins.... (Hebrews 9:18-26).
"Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus' death as atonement for sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted after or because of the cross." 'For Christ's Sake' p. 75.And, yet Sam speaks of "Holy Bible's superiority over the Quran" !!! SAM SHAMOUN DEMANDS AN EXPLANATION Sam writes: Meherally proceeds:THE EXPLANATIONS: I wish, Sam Shamoun who has taken upon himself the formidable task
of
Explanation No. 1: Anyone who reads the FIRST word and the LAST part of the verse 3:84 with full faith (which obviously is lacking within the person who demands the explanation), would clearly understand that this Command from Allah of making no distinction between one and another among them is made by Allah to those who bow their will to Allah willingly, with the unconditional full faith. It is the naivety of Sam that expects that a Muslim should peruse and follow what Allah prefers for Himself to do rather than to bow down to the Will of Allah and obey what has been Commanded by Him. FYI, Muslims do not imitate Allah. The Prophet of Islam is the best of example for a Muslim. Hence, it the lack of understanding on your part as to what is Islam has prompted you to quote the verses that you have quoted in your rebuttal. Explanation No. 2: Here is a Translation by M. M. Pickthall. This will make it easy to understand Explanation No. 2. The verse number is 3:85 in his translation: Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.One would notice that the opening sentence continues and ends with a period (.) after the phrase "from their Lord". The entire sentence is thus speaking of the various REVELATIONS that came to these Prophets from their Lord. One can see that the verse is for making no distinction between any of the REVELATIONS from Allah. The phrase "any of them" applies to the REVELATIONS. Since the Author of all the enumerated REVELATIONS is Allah Alone, then anyone who bows his/her will to Allah cannot obviously make any distinction between one and another of Allah's REVELATIONS. This is an alternate explanation. In the even that this one is set aside or rejected, the earlier Explanation No. 1 remains valid and holds ground firmly. Notes:
Finally, In the above verse there is nothing
that could be directly applied to
AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE BY GOD IN THE BIBLE MADE CONDITIONAL BY SAM In his original article Sam Shamoun wrote: When God promised the land to prophet Abraham,
his name was Abram.
Here Akbarally is actually being deceptive. Notice that in my article I cited Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21 and 28:13-14. Let us read what these verses actually say and then proceed to expose Meherally's strawman and red herring arguments: The above Declaration, as recorded in Genesis 13:14-18, is the First and Foremost Promise for the Land in the Bible. The Land is given by God to Abram and to Abram's offspring. The verse also tell us that the God's promise was everlastingly valid and applicable forever. There was no Condition or Restriction attached by God to the above Promise. Having noticed that the Promise of God was unrestricted and applicable to **ALL** the offspring of Abram, Sam strays from his original mission of quoting the cited verses. Instead he keeps on ADDING irrelevant verses from totally different part of the history of Abraham as well as from the history of Jacob, Moses and the Israelis to make it a Conditional One. 1. Sam ADDS verses from Genesis 15 : 12 to 17 in his rebuttal, which are not mentioned in the originally cited verses, as if they were in the same context, but they are not. The narration of the promise starts from 17ff. Sam then writes: According to this promise, the ones who were to inherit the land of Canaan were the very ones that were to first serve as slaves in a foreign land for four generations. The only seed who ever served as slaves for four generations were the Israelites in Egypt, never the Ishmaelites:Comment: There was no mention of the "Land of Canaan" or "The only seed who ever served as slaves" in the First and Foremost Promise of God which was forever and unconditional. The issues raised have no relevance to that Promise. 2. Sam then ADDS verses from Exodus 3:6, 7-8 in his rebuttal, which relates to the history of Jacob when God makes a promise to Jacob and has no relevance. 3. Sam then ADDS verses from Deuteronomy 4:37-38 in his rebuttal, which relates to the history of Moses, when God brings Moses and his people out of Egypt and has no relevance. 4. Sam then ADDS verses from Deuteronomy 9:4-5 in his rebuttal, which relates to the history of Israelis when they are about to cross the Jordan and has no relevance. Finally, Sam decides, it is enough of the Smoke Screen and Stops. Sam turns around and goes back to the First and Foremost Unconditional Promise and writes: Furthermore, not only did the promise of inheritance precede the birth of Isaac it also preceded Ishmael's birth as well! This means that Meherally' point that the promise of inheriting the land was given before Isaac's birth proves absolutely nothing since it is not the timing of the promise that is important. Rather, what matters is the identity of Abraham's children whom God promised would inherit the land, an identity revealed in the Holy Bible as the nation of Israel.MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: DOES THIS NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE, IN SPITE OF YOUR DECEPTIVE TACTICS, THAT THE LAND THAT WAS GIVEN TO ABRAM IN THE BEGINNING, BELONGED TO **ALL** THE DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM AND NOT TO ISAAC ALONE ? PLEASE ADMIT YOU HAVE LOST THE
BATTLE AND ALLAH'S TRUTH HAS SURVIVED.
IS THIS FROM A PRESENT ERA? Earlier in my rebuttal to Sam Shamoun, this is what I wrote: Better Substantiate The Claims Or Withdraw... Sam writes: Further, as was noted, Islamic scholarship strongly disagrees and much confusion still exists over the identity of the son, with some arguing for Isaac and others for Ishmael.Sam wrote in his rebuttal: Akbarally attempts to question my integrity hoping that others will not take my article seriously.Sam, you have given me enough reasons to raise that same question over and over again. I now anxiously look forward to your providing the documented written evidences to substantiate your claim that there is a strong disagreement among the Islamic scholars of the present era, as to who was offered for sacrifice. And, the Islamic Ummah and/or the Scholars are still confused on this issue. To the above, Sam responded as under: Response: There is actually no need for me to present many since one will suffice: "THE QUR'AN DID NOT MENTION THE NAME OF THE SACRIFICIAL SON, AND HENCE MUSLIM HISTORIANS DISAGREE IN THIS REGARD." (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad [North American Trust Publications, USA. 1976], p. 25) My response to the above is: 1. SURPRISINGLY it does not sound unrealistic to Sam Shamoun that ONE solitary evidence does NOT make up for the "Islamic scholarship". Sam writes "one will suffice" but fails to justify or give the reasons thereof. 2. The cited text by Sam is from the English translation of Late Dr. Haykal's book in Arabic. The translation was published in 1976. BUT, Dr. Haykal's original work was published in the early 1930's, when most of the readers were not yet born. Hence, this isolated observation of the 1930's does not qualify as an opinion of the Islamic scholarship of the present era. 3. The above quote is the LAST SENTENCE of a paragraph. The OPENING SENTENCE from that same paragraph reads: "Historians of this period disagree on the matter of Ibrahim's sacrifice of Isma'il." If one keeps reading further the author has quoted from a book written much earlier. Hence, "this period" could probably mean a period much earlier than his own period. 4. THIS
IS INTERESTING... Quoting from at-Tabari's work Sam wrote:
"When Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac, Satan said 'By God! If I cannot deceive the people of Abraham with this, I shall never be able to do it.' So when Abraham went out with Isaac to sacrifice him, Satan visited Abraham's wife, Sarah, in the shape of a man whom Abraham's people knew, and asked her, 'Where is Abraham going so early with Isaac?' She said, 'He went off early on some errand.' Satan said, 'No, by God! That is not the reason he left so early.' Sarah asked, 'Then what is the reason?' He said, 'He took him out early to sacrifice him.'" (the narration continues as published earlier in this article). Here is a quote from Dr. Haykal's book. It appears on the same page number 25 from which Sam has quoted the LAST SENTENCE. The sub-title given by the author reads; The Historians' Version. "Satan took the guise of a man, came to Isma'il's mother and said: "Do you know where Ibrahim is taking your son?" She answered: "Yes they both went to collect some wood." Satan said: "By God, he did not take him except to sacrifice him." (the narration continues identifying Isma'ilas the one who accompanied Ibrahim). Conclusion: Such enigmatic narrations have no bearing upon the Realities that are to be found in the Revealed Scriptures. 5. Here is The Truth from Dr. Haykal's book that should certainly act as the "Last Straw". Within the same paragraph from which Sam has quoted the text we find the following. Probably, Sam would not like his readers to EXAMINE the following as coming from Dr. Haykal's own work: "In his book Qisas al Anbiya', Shaykh 'Abd al Wahab al Najjar concluded that the sacrificial son was Ismai'l. His evidence was drawn from the Qur'an itself where the sacrificial son is described as being Ibrahim's unique son, which could only be Ismai'l, and only as long as Ishaq was not yet born."6. Since the above conclusion is drawn from the Qur'an itself, one can say it with confidence that any narration or conclusion drawn by a Muslim scholar that does not concur and disputes the above cited conclusion, then it cannot be considered and should not regarded as the "Islamic Point Of View". One may even question author's understanding. Allah alone knows the Truth. "And whose word can be Truer than Allah's?" 4 : 87Al-Hamdulillah, I rest my case. I highly recommend the readers to visit the following website by
To visit the Home Page or to read other articles by the author, click: INDEX 
Please send your comments to author
Akbarally Meherally at webmaster9@mostmerciful.com
|
||