The Son of the Sacrificed: Isaac or Ishmael

The Truth About Abraham and his SON Ishmael, Peace be upon Them

1)  First, let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)”  Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.

  the Qur'an by considering the passages Surah 37:99-107, Surah 51:24-25,28-30 and Surah 37:109-113. 

According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Quran 37:99-107, the sacrificed son was Ishmael and not Isaac. 

According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir Volume 8, Page 272, Abraham was able to visit Ishmael and Hagar thru the Buraq very quickly. 

2)  Next let us analysis at why and what age Allah (SWT) commanded Abraham (PBUH) to take Ishmael and Hagar to settle in Arabia (Paran)

“Was Ishmael and Hagar sent to the desert before or after the birth of Isaac? If we were to accept the Biblical version, we would encounter a number of inconsistencies and contradictions. It is clear from the story in Gen. 21:14-19 that Ishmael was a little baby at that time. For example according to Gen. 16:16 Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. And according to Gen. 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born. According to Gen. 21:8-19 the incident took place after Isaac was weaned. Biblical scholars tell us the child was probably weaned at about the age of three. Thus, it follows that when Hagar and Ishmael were taken away Ishmael was a full-grown teenager, seventeen years old. However, the profile of Ishmael in Gen 21:14-19 is a small baby and not a full-grown teenager. Why?

Genesis 21:14-21

14 Early next morning Abraham took some food and a full water-skin and gave them to Hagar. He set the child on her shoulder and sent her away, and she wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was finished, she thrust the child under a bush, 16 then went and sat down some way off, about a bowshot distant. How can I watch the child die? she said, and sat there, weeping bitterly. 17 God heard the child crying, and the angel of God called from heaven to Hagar, What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid: God has heard the child crying where you laid him. 18 Go, lift the child and hold him in your arms, because I shall make of him a great nation.19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well full of water; she went to it, filled the water-skin, and gave the child a drink. 20 God was with the child as he grew up. He lived in the wilderness of Paran and became an archer; 21 and his mother got him a wife from Egypt. (The Revised English Bible)

1^st) First, the original Hebrew for Gen. 21:14 is " and put the bread and water on her shoulder AND the boy." Anyone fluent in Hebrew can confirm this! This reading is still rendered in the Revised English Bible; however, other Bible publishers possibly aware of the discrepancy decided to translate the verse slightly different; however, we can see their trick! How would a mother carry a seventeen-year-old teenager on her shoulder? Certainly he was probably strong enough to carry his mother. Ishmael must have been a baby!

2^nd) Second, in Gen 21:15 we are told that Hagar put the child under one of the bushes. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

3^rd) Third, in Gen 21:16 we are told that Hagar sat away so she did not have to see the child die before her eyes. Is this the profile of a husky seventeen-year-old teenager who probably was capable of being worried about his mother dying before his eyes? Or is it obviously a profile of a small helpless baby? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

4^th) According to Gen 21:17-18, the angels told Hagar lift the child and hold him in your arms. Is a seventeen-year-old man the object of being lifted up and held in one's arms by a woman while CRYING? Or is it the reference of a small child. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

5^th) According to Gen 21:19 we are told that Hagar filled the bottle with water and gave the child a drink. One would expect a seventeen year old to bring water to his mother instead. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

6^th) According to Gen 21:14 Abraham puts the food and water on Hagar's shoulder. Why doesn't the strong husky seventeen-year old Ishmael offer to carry the food and water? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

7^th) According to Gen 21:20-21?? Ishmael grew up, became an archer and got married. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

The above analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that while the Bible contains some truths as explained earlier, there is also evidence of human additions, deletions and interpolations which only a subsequent authentic revelation could clear. The Islamic version of the story is fully consistent and coherent from A to Z; Ishmael was a baby and Isaac was not born yet when this incident took place. This proves that the real reason behind their settlement in Arabia (Paran) was not the dictation, jealousy, ego or sense of racial superiority on the part of Sarah. It was rather God's plan, pure and simple!” (From:  http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/nice201.htm).

Of course let us remember the Corrupted bibles own statement; “ ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

As we can clearly see the Jews tampered with their scripture, and some of the jewish scribes were obviously racist towards Ishmael and believe the jews were the only true human beings (just like the racist zionist jews of today) although we  ALL come from the SAME person, Adam!

3)  Proof that Ishmael (PBUH) was the child who was to be sacrificed by Abraham (PBUH).

“SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM'S ONLY SON: ISHMAEL OR ISAAC?”

“The following quotes are taken from the Bible.

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love,_______, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

The important question is who was this only son of Abraham that was offered for sacrifice? Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? The Bible writers have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham? Bible scholars explain thatanomaly by putting forward the following two arguments.

            The first argument is that after the birth of Isaac, Ishmael lost his status of being a son of Abraham, since he was not born of a wife of Abraham but born to a handmaid of Abraham's wife. However, this argument is false because Hagar was a wife of Abraham otherwise the Lord would not have used the word wife in the following verse.

 Genesis 16:3  So after Abraham had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.

Moreover, Jews and Christians contend that only Isaac, the one that was born to Sarai was a son. However the biblical passage below tells us that Ishmael never lost his status as a son, not even after the birth of Isaac. If Ishmael had lost the status, the Lord would not have used the word sons in the following verse.

            Genesis 25:9 Then his sons Isaac and Ishmael, buried him (Abraham) in the cave of Machpelah.

            A second argument presented is that because Ishmael was born to a handmaid he would qualify as a seed or a descendant of Abraham, but not as a son. This argument is nullified because prevailing Nuzi Laws of marriage (exhibit A) tell us that such marriage contracts were legal in the days of Abraham and the child born of a handmaid or slave-girl would have the same status as one born to the wife, even if the wife had a child of her own later. There can be no doubt concerning the validity of the Nuzi laws of marriage. For example, when one traces the maternal side of the children of Israel, Genesis tells us that Jacob (later called Israel Gen 32:28) had four wives. He married Leah (Gen 29:22-23), Rachel (Gen 29:28), a slave-girl Bilhah (Gen 30:4), and another slave-girl Zilpah (Gen 30:9). From these four wives came the twelve Children of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi,Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naptali, Gad and Asher (Gen 35:23-26 & 1 Chronicles 2:1-2). All twelve of these children make up the Israelites and are all referred as a combined group, see (Exodus 1:1-9). Four of the twelve children (Gad, Dan, Naphtali and Asher) were sons of the slave-girls. Thus, it follows that about one third of all Israelis are children of slave-girls! Will a third of all Jews stand up and say they are illegitimate? Moreover, further evidence that the Bible clearly includes the slave-children as part of the combined group of Israelis is the Bible's tracking of their genealogy in (1 Chronicles 5:18; 1 Chronicles 7:12, 13, 30). Moreover, we are told that the children of Asher were leading princes.

            1 Chronicles 7:40 "All these were descendants of Asher, heads of families, picked men of ability, leading princes."

Consequently, the entire Abrahamic family tree is tracked in 1 Chronicles, including Abraham's children from his first wife Hagar (1 Chronicles 1:29), his second wife Sarah (1 Chronicles 1:34) and his third wife Keturah (1 Chronicles 1:32 - see family tree at main web page).

Moreover, there is a very similar incident in the Bible (Ruth 1-4). In this story a child born to a handmaid is indeed recognized as a son. For example, Boaz, a landowner of Bethlehem, meets a handmaid named Ruth(Ruth 3:9) and marries her. Ruth was a young widow and a handmaid of Moabite descent (Ruth 1:4); the Moabite people were descendants of an act of incest by Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:36-37). Boaz and Ruth latter had a son named Obed. Later on, Obed became the founder of the royal line of Israel (Ruth 4:17-22), an ancestor of both king David and of the great prophet Jesus. If the son of a maidservant of questionable heritage could have the honor of being the progenitor and forbearer of the most important lines of descent for both Jews and Christians, then why cannot Ishmael, a son of a handmaid, be offered by his father for a burnt offering as his only son? Moreover, this argument cannot be correct because if it were, Sarah would have never said. (Gen 16:2) The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her. Abraham agreed. It is certain that Sarah and Abraham knew the law and did not want to waste their time during their old age building an illegitimate family that would serve them no good!

            So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

There is, however, one tradition that seemingly was given primacy over all others to come to the current Muslim conviction: "Umar b. Abd-Al-Aizi asked a Jew converted to Islam about the difference of opinion and he answered: ``The 'dhabhi' is Ismail; the Jews know this also, but they are jealous of you, they say it was Issac.''" (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p.175)

            "It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy. (All this, From:  http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/nice201.htm)”.