THE TRAGEDY OF MUSLIMS

THE TRAGEDY OF MUSLIMS

If you are a Muslim, we earnestly encourage you to read this article carefully. Your endeavor to read through this article may be one of the most important undertakings in your life. Our purpose for writing this article is to sincerely alert Muslims of the tragic consequences that all those who submit to the religion of Islam will ultimately encounter. Our call for concern has to do with your salvation. It is our genuine desire to prevent Muslims from becoming victims of a serious tragedy regarding their eternal salvation. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to know the truth about Islam. You can avert the tragedy. It all depends very much on your response to the facts provided here. If for some reason you are skeptical about what we have just stated, please read the rest of the article to prove us wrong.

Islam stands and falls on the person of Muhammad. The validity of Islam is very much dependent on the reliability of Muhammad. Therefore, we will start with the Prophet of Islam. Muslims strongly believe that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael. But, nowhere in the Qur’an does it say that Ishmael was the predecessor of the Arabic race. Neither does the Qur’an claim that Ishmael was a forefather of Muhammad. The Qur’anic evidences go against any ties of lineage between Ishmael and Muhammad. In fact, there is no correlation whatsoever between Ishmael and Muhammad. What is vital for Muslims to understand is the claim that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael contradicts the teachings of the Qur’an. Knowing the truth on this matter is crucial for the outworking of your eternal salvation. Read on to find out why.

In order to determine whether Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael or not, it is absolutely essential to consider four vital facts which the Qur’an reveals on this matter. And an all-inclusive study of these four vital facts is absolutely a must to establish the truth. This article will accomplish just that for the benefit of sincere Muslims. Consider now the evidences from your own Islamic sources.

FACT NUMBER ONE

The Qur’an clearly testifies that no Messengers or Prophets were ever sent to the Arabs before the time of Muhammad:

Surah 28:46-47: Nor were you present on the side of Mount Sinai when We called out to Moses. But you too have been sent as an act of grace from your Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no Warner has come before, so that they may take heed and may not say, if a disaster should befall them as a result of what they have done with their own hands, ‘Lord, if only You had sent us a messenger, we might have followed Your message and become believers.’ (Abdel Haleem)

Surah 32:3: Or do they say, “He (Muhammad) has invented it?” Nay! It is the truth from your Lord that you may warn a people to whom no Warner has come before you, that they may follow the right direction. (H. S. Aziz)

Surah 34:44: And We have not given them (Arabs) any Books (Scripture) which they read, nor did We send to them before you a Warner. (H. S. Aziz)

Surah 36:2-6: I call to witness the Qur’an, custodian of all laws, That you are indeed one of those sent on a path that is straight, A revelation from the mighty, ever-merciful God, That you may warn a people whose ancestors had never been warned, who are therefore heedless. (H. S. Aziz)

FACT NUMBER TWO

Yet at the same instance, the Qur’an testifies that Ishmael was a Messenger and a Prophet of Allah:

Surah 19:54: And remember Ishmael in the Book. Truly, he had been one who is sincere in his promise, and he had been a Messenger, a Prophet. (Laleh Bakhtiar)

FACT NUMBER THREE

The Qur’an repeatedly testifies that the Arabs, who were forefathers of Muhammad, never received any Scriptures of Allah before the time of Muhammad:

Surah 6:157: Or lest ye should say: If the Scripture had been revealed unto us, we surely had been better guided than are they. Now hath there come unto you a clear proof from your Lord, a guidance and a mercy. (Pickthall)

Surah 11:49: This is of the tidings of the Unseen which We inspire in thee (Muhammad). Thou thyself knewest it not, nor did thy folk know it before this. Then have patience. Lo! the sequel is for those who ward off (evil). (Pickthall)

Surah 34:44: And We have not given them (Arabs) any Books (Scripture) which they read, nor did We send to them before you a Warner. (H. S. Aziz)

Surah 62:2: He it is who has sent a Messenger among those who had never before received a Scripture – to convey unto them His Messages. (Shabbir Ahmed)

FACT NUMBER FOUR

On the other hand, the Qur’an clearly states that Ishmael was given the Scriptures of Allah:

Surah 6:86-89: And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot… These are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. (Pickthall)

Surah 4:163: We have sent revelations to you as We sent revelations to Noah and the prophets who came after him; and We sent revelations to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob, and their offspring, and to Jesus and Job, and to Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and to David We gave the Book of Psalms. (Ahmed Ali)

Surah 3:84: 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. (Pickthall)

Strongly related to the above facts is the admission in the Qur’an itself that prior to the time of Muhammad only two groups of people–the Jews and the Christians–received the Scriptures of Allah. No other national groups are named in the Qur’an as ever receiving the Scriptures of Allah. It is essential for Muslims to understand this vital fact in the Qur’an.

Surah 6:155-156: And this (Qur’an) is a Book which We have revealed full of blessings. So now follow it and fear Allah persistently so that you are shown mercy. The Qur’an has been revealed lest you should say: ‘The heavenly Book was only sent down before us to the two communities (the Jews and the Christians), and undoubtedly, we were unaware of their reading and teaching.’ (Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri)

Further substantiating this fact, the Qur’an recognizes only three Books by name as the revealed Books of Allah before the time of Islam. They are the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel. That is why only the Jews and the Christians are recognized as the “People of the Scripture” or as the “People of the Book” in the Qur’an. Not even the Muslims are recognized as such.

Surah 5:68: Say (O Muhammad) “O People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! You have nothing as regards till you act according to the Torah and the Gospel. (Hilali-Khan)

As such, the Scripture which was given to Ishmael cannot be for the guidance of the Arabs. And as we have noted, this fact is supported by numerous Qur’anic verses which state explicitly that the Arabs were not given any Scriptures before the time of Muhammad. The Arabic Qur’an which was revealed at the time of Muhammad is the only Scripture that was given to the Arabs. Prior to this they had none.

Surah 32:3: Or say they: “He (Muhammad) has fabricated it?” Nay, it is the truth from your Lord, that you may warn a people to whom no Warner has come before you (O Muhammad), in order that they may be guided. (Hilali-Khan)

All the above facts are based on the primary source of Islam itself–the Qur’an. What essential truth can Muslims learn when we piece all these facts together?

THE MUSLIM DILEMMA

The above Qur’anic verses clearly state that no Scriptures were given to the ancestors of Muhammad. Yet at the same instance, the Qur’an reveals that the Prophet Ishmael was given the Scriptures of Allah. Logically, if the Prophet Ishmael was truly an ancestor of Muhammad, then this would mean that the ancestors of Muhammad had already received the Scriptures of Allah before the time of Muhammad. Thus, for the Qur’an to be true, the Prophet Ishmael simply cannot be an ancestor of Muhammad as claimed by the Muslims. How are Muslims going to reconcile the claim in the Qur’an that no Scriptures were given to the ancestors of Muhammad with the verses which state that the Prophet Ishmael was given the Scriptures of Allah if the Prophet Ishmael was truly an ancestor of Muhammad? With no Scriptures to prove the blood relationship between the Prophet Ishmael and Muhammad, how can Muslims then assume that Muhammad was a descendant of the Prophet Ishmael?

Furthermore, the Qur’an also states that no Prophets were sent to the ancestors of Muhammad. Yet, the Qur’an clearly states that Ishmael was a Prophet of Allah. For Muhammad to be a descendant of the Prophet Ishmael, the Prophet Ishmael must be an ancestor of Muhammad. This would then mean that an ancestor of Muhammad was already serving as Prophet of Allah. In other words, a Prophet of Allah was already living amidst the ancestors of Muhammad. Thus, it would be a gross error for the Qur’an to state that no Prophets were sent to the ancestors of Muhammad. However, since the Qur’an states positively that no Prophets were sent to the ancestors of Muhammad, this proves that the Prophet Ishmael could not have lived or set foot in Arabia as Muslims claims. Otherwise, this would mean that a Prophet had already been sent to the Arabs by Allah. The only possibility for Muslims to now accept the Qur’an as true is to acknowledge the fact that Muhammad simply cannot be a descendant of the Prophet Ishmael. Muslims who challenge this fact will be proving the Qur’an wrong.

Al-Tabari, the renowned Muslim scholar and historian recognizes the fact that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was an Egyptian. (See Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. II, Prophets and Patriarchs, translation from Arabic by William M. Brenner, pp. 62-63) Abraham, the father of Ishmael was not an Arab. And neither was his mother. Can a father who is a Hebrew and a mother who is an Egyptian produce an Arab son? Therefore, Ishmael cannot be an Arab. As such, Muhammad cannot be a direct descendant of Ishmael. In the Bible, the Prophet Abraham is clearly identified as a Hebrew.

Genesis 14:13: After that a man who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew.

Abraham was known as Abram until God changed his name to Abraham. (Genesis 17:5) And the Bible clearly states that Abraham was a Hebrew. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the terms “Hebrews” and “Israelites” describe the same people. It explains that they were called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and subsequently they were called Israelites after the conquest. If the Hebrews were Arabs then they would not be Hebrews would they? Since Ishmael was the first-born son of Abraham, he simply cannot be someone other than a Hebrew like his father. Muhammad has to be a Hebrew in order for Muslims to claim he was a descendent of Ishmael.

Indicating their nomadic lifestyle, the Qur’an refers to the Arabs as the “wandering Arabs” in Surah 33:20. And the Qur’an also distinctively identifies them as “Quraish” in Surah 106:1. But the Arabs were never identified, even once, as the “Children of Ishmael” or as the “Children of Abraham.” In fact, it is the style of the Qur’an to draw clear connections of lineage if at all there exists one. You will surprised at the number of times the term “Children of Israel” (Arabic: Bani Israel) is mentioned in the Qur’an with reference to the Israelites. However, there is no “Bani Ishmael” in the Qur’an with reference to the Arabs. This is truly an important observation which Muslims must not fail to take into consideration. The Muslim argument that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael is not based on historical evidences.

Even if Muslims ignore all these evidences and blindly insist that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, it still does not change the fact that Muhammad is not qualified as a true prophet of God. Why do we say that? It is because the Qur’an itself disqualifies him as a prophet of the true God. Addressing the Prophet Abraham, Allah clearly testifies in the Qur’an that the “Prophethood” will thereafter continue through the “lineage” of Isaac and Jacob–not Ishmael. Two different translations of Surah 29:27 are provided below:

And (as for Abraham), We bestowed upon him Isaac and (Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused Prophethood and Revelation to continue among his offspring. (Asad)

And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed. (Pickthall)

It is vital for Muslims to take note of the fact that with the inauguration of the “Prophethood” with Abraham, Surah 29:27 goes on to state that the Prophethood will thereafter continue through the “lineage” of Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, the Prophethood will be established uniquely through the seeds of Isaac and Jacob. In other words, the office of the Prophethood would be entrusted only to Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. This means that anyone claiming to be a Prophet of the true God must be born in the “Prophetic Race.” They must be born in the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If Allah intended to include Ishmael, his name would be placed before Isaac as he was older than Isaac by about fourteen years. But as it can be noted, Surah 29:27 completely omits any reference to Ishmael. This raises some vital questions: Why was the name of Ishmael left out completely at the most significant time when the lineage of the Prophethood was revealed in the Qur’an? Why was Ishmael totally ignored if he was as important as Muslims claim him to be? Thus, the Qur’an itself teaches that the Prophethood will be established exclusively through the lineage of Isaac–not Ishmael. Muslims have to choose between the Qur’an and Muhammad. If Muhammad was truly a prophet of God then the Qur’an is false. If the Qur’an is true, Muhammad simply cannot be a prophet of the true God. For further evidence on this subject, please click the following link: SURAH 3:81 – AN INDISPUTABLE ERROR IN THE QUR’AN

Now we have come to the most important part of this article. This is where the issue of salvation comes to the fore. This is where Muslims must decide regarding the outcome of their eternal salvation.

DID ABRAHAM AND ISHMAEL BUILD THE KA’BA?

The Qur’an states explicitly that the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael built the sacred House of Allah:

Surah 2:125-127: We made the House a resort and a sanctuary for people, saying, ‘Take the spot where Abraham stood as your place of prayer.’ We commanded Abraham and Ishmael: ‘Purify My House for those who walk round it, those who stay there, and those who bow and prostrate themselves in worship.’ Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this land secure and provide with produce those of its people who believe in God and the Last Day.’ God said, ‘As for those who disbelieve, I will grant them enjoyment for a short while and then subject them to the torment of the Fire- an evil destination.’ As Abraham and Ishmael built up the foundations of the House they prayed, ‘Our Lord, accept this from us. You are the All Hearing, the All Knowing. (Abdel Haleem)

Though the location of the “House of Allah” is not stated in the above or any other verses of the Qur’an, all Muslims without exception insist that it refers to the “Ka’ba” in Mecca. Some translators have gone to the extent of inserting the word “Mecca” in parenthesis even though it does not appear in the original Arabic Qur’an. How could the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael build the Ka’ba in Mecca when the Qur’an clearly admits that no Prophets were sent to the Arabs before the time of Muhammad? Since Muslims insists that the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael built the Ka’ba in Mecca, then this assumption comes at a great cost to the Muslims. They have to now either accept that there is a serious contradiction in the Qur’an or accept the fact that the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael could not have build the Ka’ba in Mecca.

As we have noted, numerous Qur’anic verses clearly testify that no Prophets were sent to the Arabs prior to the time of Muhammad. This simply means that the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael could not have set foot in Arabia. Therefore, it is obvious that they could not have built the Ka’ba. Since the Ka’ba was already in existence before the time of Muhammad and since no Prophets of the true God were ever sent to the Arabs before the time of Muhammad, it leads us to one very obvious conclusion. Only the local pagan Arabs could have laid the foundation of the Ka’ba. Only they could have built the Ka’ba. That the Ka’ba was indeed a pagan shrine before the coming of Islam is recognized in numerous authentic sources of Islam itself.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 658:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Masud: The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka’ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: “Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished.”

When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he destroyed all the idols of the Ka’ba with the exception of the preeminent idol–the Black Stone. The Ka’ba which is known in Arabic as “Baitullah” means “House of Allah.” Muslims will do well to ask themselves the following thought provoking questions:

If the Ka’ba was originally the House of Allah, how did it become a Pagan Temple housing 360 idols? How could a House of God turn into a Temple of Pagan Idols?

Exactly when did Allah allow this change to take place?

How did the most sacred place for the Worship of Allah become a place for the Worship of Idols? How is it possible for this corruption to occur in the first place?

Why was Allah powerless to prevent the demonizing of his most sacred shrine through idolatry?

What theological reason is there for Allah to permit his original House of Worship to become a Pagan Temple?

The late Dr. Taha Husayn, a prominent professor of Arabic literature in Egypt, recognized that the information recorded in the Qur’an regarding the construction of the Ka’ba at the hands of Abraham and Ishmael is historically impossible. And he gave the following reason why it is not possible:

“The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons” (Quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170).

In other words, the Ka’ba did not and could not have existed at the time of Abraham. Furthermore, Islamic sources themselves reveal that the early Muslims prayed facing Jerusalem while the Pagans prayed facing the Ka’ba. If the Ka’ba was really built by Abraham and Ishmael, then why did the early Muslims spend more than a decade praying towards Jerusalem?

IDOLATRY IN ISLAM

Islam retained many of the rites and rituals that had been prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula. While Muhammad destroyed the rest of the idols at the conquest of Mecca, he left the Black Stone untouched. Why? It was simply due to his deep-rooted reverence for the Black Stone which was brought on by years of submission to the pagan practice of stone worship.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 661:

Narrated by Abu Raja Al-Utaridi: We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter, but if we could not get a stone then we would collect some earth (i.e. soil) and then bring a sheep and milk that sheep over it, and perform the Tawaf (circumnavigation) around it.

Today Muslims perform the Tawaf (circumnavigation) around the Black Stone. Muhammad not only left the Black Stone untouched to represent Islam but he also expressed deep emotional attachment to it.

Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2916:

Suwaid b. Ghafala reported: I saw Umar (Allah be pleased with him) kissing the Stone and clinging to it and saying: I saw Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having great love for you. This Hadith has been narrated on the authority of Sufyin with the same chain of transmitters (and the words are): “That he (‘Umar) said: But I saw Abu’l-Qasim (way peace be upon him) having great love for you.”

Muhammad is also known as Abu’l-Qasim to his Companions.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 675:

Narrated by Zaid bin Aslam: From his father who said: “Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, ‘By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching and kissing you, I would never have touched and kissed you.’ Then he kissed it.”

Therefore, the single most important reason for the kissing of the Black Stone in Islam is that Muhammad did it. He thereby set the example for Muslims to follow. The Black Stone which was sacred to the Pagans became sacred to the Muslims. The Black Stone which was venerated by the Pagans became the focus of the Muslim pilgrimage. The Black Stone which had been an object of worship before the time of Muhammad became the central shrine of Islam. Muslims today touch and kiss the Black Stone with reverence during the Hajj. The kiss that the pious Muslims bestow on the Black Stone is a survival of an age old pagan practice which was common in ancient Arabia. Muslims are kissing the same Black Stone which the Pagans were kissing before.

In his book, “The Life of Muhammad,” the Egyptian writer, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, whose works is based on the scholarly manuscripts of Ibn Hisham, admitted to the following facts:

In fact, the Arabs venerated these stones so much that not only did they worship the Black Stone in the Ka’bah, but also they would take one of the stones of the Ka’bah as a holy object in their travels, praying to it and asking it to bless every move they made. (p. 30)

Here we find another prominent Muslim scholar who candidly testifies that the Black Stone was indeed worshipped by the Pagans before the coming of Islam. The fact that many of the rituals performed during the Hajj are connected to pagan worship shows that Islam was conceived in idolatry. Such practices are consistent with pre-Islamic pagan rituals involving the Ka’ba. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would never send a Black Stone to entice his worshippers to practice idolatry. If God forbids even the bowing towards the glorious sun that he himself had created, do you think he will command his worshippers to bow towards a dead Black Stone? While Christians can clearly see this as absolute idolatry, Islam is blind to this abomination. The Holy Bible clearly states:

Deuteronomy 4:19: “You must not raise your eyes to the heavens and indeed see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the heavens, and actually get seduced and bow down to them.”

Of course, Muslims will strongly deny that the Black Stone is an idol. And they will insist that their prayers are actually directed towards Allah alone. However, in actual practice, the Black Stone is treated with the same reverence that the Pagans show to their idols. A Muslim’s denial of his idolatrous worship of the Black Stone can be likened to that of a man who pleads innocence for his adulterous affair by claiming that he was only thinking of his wife while committing the illicit sexual act. The justification for the veneration of a dead stone–especially to the extent of bowing down and kissing it–can only be identified with the primitive pagan practice of idolatry than with the true spirit of monotheistic worship. It is idolatry–pure and simple. All Muslims are idolaters.

Sheikh Sha’rawi, one of Egypt’s renowned scholars admitted that the practice of kissing the Black Stone by Muslims is an expression of worship:

“The kissing of the meteorite is a firm practice in Islamic law because Muhammad did it. You must not ask about the wisdom behind that because this rite is an expression of worship in spite of the obscurity of its wisdom.” (Sheikh Sha’rawi, Legal Opinions, pt. 3, p. 167, Muslim)

Additionally, Muhammad taught that the Black Stone will testify favorably on the “Day Of Judgment” in behalf of those who touched or kissed it. Islam also teaches that the sins of those who touch or kiss the Black Stone would be forgiven on Judgment Day.

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 961; Ibn Maajah, 2944:

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said concerning the Stone: “By Allah, Allah will bring it forth on the Day of Resurrection, and it will have two eyes with which it will see and a tongue with which it will speak, and it will testify in favour of those who touched it in sincerity.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 959:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) says: “Touching them both (the Black Stone and al-Rukn al-Yamani) is an expiation for sins.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 877, Ahmad, 2792:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

“When the Black Stone came down from Paradise, it was whiter than milk, but the sins of the sons of Adam made it black.”

Thus, it is dishonest to say that the Black Stone is just a focal point for Muslims to direct their prayers for the sake of unity. In reality, it means much more than Muslims are willing to admit. Is it not idolatrous to believe that the sins of the Muslims can be forgiven simply by touching and kissing a mere stone? Since Muslims strongly reject the atoning value of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, why do these very same Muslims believe that a dead stone can achieve the very objective that they deny Jesus could accomplish.

All Muslims are required to bow towards the Black Stone every day, whenever they pray. They are forbidden to face any other object or direction. For Muslims to face any other direction would be a violation of the commandment of Allah in the Qur’an. The commandment of Allah clearly states:

Surah 2:144: “Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction.”

Thus, according to the teachings of the Qur’an, Muslims cannot pray to Allah without facing the Black Stone. When a Muslim makes the Hajj, or runs between the hills, or bestows a kiss on the Black Stone, he is performing the rituals of the Pagans. And these rituals are deeply rooted in pagan superstition. And Muhammad sanctioned and incorporated these pagan practices into Islam. Thus, the poison remains the same, only the labels were deceitfully changed by Islam. Consequently, paganism became an integral part of Islam. Consider now the following additional evidence:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 23:

Narrated By ‘Asim bin Sulaiman: I asked Anas bin Malik about Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca). Anas replied, “We used to consider (i.e. going around) them a custom of the Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance, so when Islam came, we gave up going around them. Then Allah revealed, ‘Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah. So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj of the House of Allah or perform the Umra to ambulate (Tawaf) between them.’” (Surah 2:158) [End of Quote]

Surah 2:158: “Lo! (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwah are among the indications of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House of Allah or visiteth it, to go around them as the pagan custom is.” (Pickthall)

How can the very same two mountains that were sacred to the Pagans suddenly become the “Symbols of Allah” after the Muslim conquest of Mecca? Moreover, how is it that the very same pagan ritual of running between the two hills is also retained in Islam? Islam is the only religion where after kissing a stone, its devotees pick up stones to stone a stone representing the Devil.

There are far too many similarities between Islam and paganism for sincere Muslims to ignore. Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would never incorporate the pagan practices of the nations into his divine arrangement for pure worship. He would never permit the pagan practices of the nations to become an integral part of the sacred services of his worshippers:

2 Corinthians 6:14-17: Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness. Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God. Just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among them, and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” “Therefore get out from among them and separate yourselves. Quit touching the unclean thing and I will take you in,” says Jehovah.

Centuries before the arrival of Islam, Jehovah God lovingly warned the Israelites of a devious snare of Satan which Islam failed to avoid. Regarding this subtle snare of Satan, the Holy Bible strongly warned the descendants of Abraham to shun the evil practice of idolatry in all its various forms:

Leviticus 26:1: “Do not make for yourselves worthless idols. You must not erect for yourselves a carved statue or a sacred pillar and you must not put a stone as a sacred showpiece in your land to bow down toward it. I am Jehovah your God.”

Can any warning be clearer than this? Either it is acceptable to bow towards a stone or it is not. Both cannot be true. This is a very serious matter because it demonstrates that either Allah or Jehovah is the true God. Not both! The eternal salvation of every single Muslim lies in the hands of only one of them.

Think carefully! Will the true God encourage his worshippers to continue in the same sin of idolatry of the Pagans? Avoiding the idolatrous practices of Islam is an important step towards true worship. However, leaving false worship is only part of the solution. For a full recovery, false worship should be replaced with true worship. That is why it is vital not only to shun idolatry:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

But also to earnestly search for the true God:

Isaiah 55:6: Search for Jehovah while he may be found. Call to him while he is near.

Taking this decisive step will save you from the Tragedy of Islam.

<<<<<< STEALTH TEAM MEGIDDO >>>>>>

Deuteronomy 18:18 – Was Muhammad A Prophet Like Moses?

DEUTERONOMY 18:18 – WAS MUHAMMAD A PROPHET LIKE MOSES?

Was Muhammad a prophet like Moses? The answer to this question is essential for Muslims since many Islamic scholars claim that the coming of Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. If Muslims really value their eternal salvation, they should investigate this claim honestly in the light of both the Bible and the Qur’an. There are many vital theological reasons why Muhammad simply cannot be the prophet whose coming is prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:18. We encourage Muslims to read this article carefully and to seriously consider the evidences provided here. Before we proceed any further, let’s read Deuteronomy 18:18 along with the surrounding verses to understand the full significance of this verse. Under inspiration, Moses proclaimed the following prophetic message to the Israelites:

Deuteronomy 18:17-19: Then Jehovah said to me: ‘What they have said is good. I will raise up for them from among their brothers a prophet like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. Indeed, I will require an account from the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name.

Muslims apply this prophecy to Muhammad. But let us analyze the words of Deuteronomy 18:18 carefully. God said:

I will raise up for them from among their brothers a prophet like you.

Notice the following vital facts:

One: God was speaking to the Israelites through Moses.

Two: Therefore, the expression, “I will raise up for them” clearly indicates that the prophet will be raised up for the Israelites.

Three: By testifying that the prophet will be raised up “from among their brothers,” the prophecy clearly confirms that the prophet would be raised up from among the Israelites. He would be a natural Israelite.

While Muslims often quote Deuteronomy 18:18, it must be noted that it is in Deuteronomy 18:15 where the prophecy of the coming of the prophet like Moses is first introduced in the Scriptures. It is important to consider Deuteronomy 18:15 because it interprets the meaning of Deuteronomy 18:18 in clear terms for us:

Deuteronomy 18:15: Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him.

In Deuteronomy 18:15 God informs the Israelites through Moses that a prophet will be raised up “from among your brothers.” Since God is speaking to the Israelites, the expression “from among your brothers” can only mean from among the Israelites. Supporting evidence to confirm the absolute accuracy of this conclusion can be found by comparing a similar expression used in the Bible just a few verses earlier:

Deuteronomy 17:15: In that case, you should without fail appoint a king whom Jehovah your God chooses. You should appoint a king from among your brothers. You are forbidden to appoint over yourself a foreigner who is not your brother.

We now have solid evidence to prove that the phrase “from among your brothers” simply means from among their fellow-Israelites. In keeping in line with the command to “appoint a king from among your brothers,” God chose Saul from among the Israelite tribes as the first king over Israel. (1 Samuel 9:15-10:24) And every subsequent king thereafter came from the sons of Israel. They were all chosen exclusively from the nation of Israel. From Saul (the first king) to Zedekiah (the last king), they were all natural Israelites. As it can be seen, the term “brothers” clearly refers to the Israelites. Why would God now raise up a prophet from among the Arabs in violation of his own prophetic pronouncement? As such, Muhammad does not qualify. He was not an Israelite and neither was he sent to the Israelites.

In fact, we do not have to guess as to who God had in mind to fulfill the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18. Centuries before Muhammad was even born, the Bible specifically applied this prophecy to Jesus when he came to the earth as the Messiah:

Acts 3:19-23: “Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, so that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah himself and he may send the Messiah appointed for you, Jesus. Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old. In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. Indeed, anyone who does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.’

And Jesus himself stated:

John 5:46: In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Carefully consider how Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled the essential details of this prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18. Jesus was an Israelite. He was born into the very nation that was given the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 under the Law Covenant:

Galatians 4:4: But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under Law.

In Deuteronomy 18:18 God also stated: “I will put my words in his mouth.” Thus, the prophet will not speak on own originality but only the words that God will command him to speak. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy to the letter:

John 5:30: I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

John 7:16: Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.”

John 8:28: Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

John 12:49: For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.

Clearly, Jehovah God spoke through the mouth of Jesus. As the Scriptures reveal, Jesus did not speak on his own initiative. He spoke the divine message of God just as the Father taught him. Even when he was challenged by Satan, rather than speaking on his own originality to answer those challenges, Jesus quoted the inspired Word of God. (Matthew 4:1-10) But there is more! For Jesus to be a prophet like Moses there should be similarities between them. When we look at the similarities between Moses and Jesus, they are truly remarkable. In addition to the fact that both Moses and Jesus were Hebrews, there are many outstanding similarities between them which will truly astound an honest seeker of truth. We will now look at some of these similarities:

In infancy both Moses and Jesus were delivered from death and escaped the indiscriminate slaughter ordered by the respective rulers of their time. (Exodus 1:22; 2:1-10; Matthew 2:13-18)
Both Moses and Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights at the start of their careers as the representatives of Jehovah. (Exodus 34:28; Matthew 4:2)
God commanded Moses to slaughter the Passover Lamb for the salvation of Israel’s firstborn. (Exodus 12:1-13) Jesus became the sacrificial Passover Lamb for the salvation of mankind. (1 Corinthians 5:7; John 1:29-30, 35)
Moses turned water into blood. (Exodus 7:14-20) Jesus turned water into wine. (John 2:1-11)
Both Moses and Jesus were involved when Israel was fed miraculously. During Moses’ career as the prophet of God, Jehovah miraculously provided food for the Israelites. (Exodus 16:11-36) Similarly, on two occasions, Jesus miraculously fed multitudes with food. (Matthew 14:14-21; 15:32-38)
Both Moses and Jesus exercised control over the seas. Moses controlled the waters of the Red Sea by parting the waters. (Exodus 14:21-29) Jesus controlled the waters of the Sea of Galilee by calming the violent waves. (Mark 4:35-41)
Both came in the name of Jehovah. Jesus’ name itself means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” (Exodus 3:13-16; Matthew 1:21; John 5:43)
Both Moses and Jesus “declared the name of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 32:3; John 17:6, 26)
Both displayed exceptional meekness and humility. (Numbers 12:3; Matthew 11:28-30)
Both Moses and Jesus mediated covenants. Moses was mediator of the Law covenant. Jesus was Mediator of the New covenant. (Exodus 19:3-9; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15)
Judging was committed to both Moses and Jesus Christ. Moses served as judge and lawgiver to Israel. (Exodus 18:13; Malachi 4:4) Jesus also serves as judge and provided laws and commandments. (John 13:34;15:10-12; Galatians 6:2) Jesus himself said: “The Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:22-23)
Both had the most convincing credentials to show that they were sent by God. Both were empowered with many astounding miracles. (Exodus 14:21-31; Psalms 78:12-54; Matthew 11:5; Mark 5:38-43; Luke 7:11-15, 18-23) Miracles served a special purpose in connection with Jesus. God foretold that the promised Messiah would be “a prophet like Moses.” Since Moses performed miracles to prove that God was backing him up, the Jews expected that the Messiah would do likewise. As a result, when persons saw the signs Jesus performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” (John 6:14)

There are still many more similarities but the above examples are sufficient to prove our point. There is no question that God faithfully carried out his promise to raise up a prophet like Moses. The words of Deuteronomy 18:18 were accurately fulfilled in the life and experiences of Jesus Christ. Muhammad simply does not fit the equation. In harmony with the Bible, the Qur’an also acknowledges that both Moses and Jesus performed many outstanding miracles. (Surah 7:113-122; Surah 17:101; Surah 3:49; Surah 2:87) Yet, the Qur’an admits that Muhammad did not and could not perform a single miracle:

Surah 10:20: They (unbelievers) say, “Why has his Lord not given him some miracles to support his claim of being His Messenger?” Say “The knowledge of the unseen certainly belongs to God. Wait and I too shall be waiting with you. (M. Sarwar)

Surah 13:7: The unbelievers say, “Why has God not sent him, (Muhammad), some miracles.” Muhammad, you are only a warner. For every nation there is a guide. (M. Sarwar)

Surah 29:50: And they say: Why are not signs sent down upon him from his Lord? Say: The signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner. (Shakir)

Additionally, the Qur’an makes a very insightful proclamation which Muslims in particular should take note of. It proclaims that to know about the miracles of God, one should go to the Holy Bible:

Surah 20:133: “They say: ‘Why does he not bring us a sign (proof) from his Lord?’ Has there not come to them the proof of that which is written in the former Scriptures, i.e. the Torah and Gospel.” (Hilali-Khan)

This is a clear admission in the Qur’an that Muhammad could not perform a single miracle. Otherwise, Allah would not evade the demands of the unbelievers for Muhammad to perform a miracle and direct them to the miracles recorded in the Holy Bible. We can quote many more verses from the Qur’an to prove Muhammad’s inability to perform miracles. Can Muhammad truly qualify as a prophet like Moses when he could not perform miracles like Moses? Moreover, both Moses and Jesus had power over the demons. Moses overpowered the demonic powers of the sorcerers of Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:8-12; Exodus 8:16-19; See also Surah 7:113-122) And Jesus also exercised great power over the demons by casting them out. (Mark 5:1-13) However, Islamic sources themselves testify that Muhammad came under the spell of sorcery.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490:

Narrated By ‘Aisha: Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he invoked (Allah) for a long period and then said, “I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream) and sat, one by my head and the other by my feet. One of them asked the other, ‘What is the ailment of this man?’ The other replied, ‘He has been bewitched.’ The first asked, ‘Who has bewitched him?’ The other replied, ‘Lubaid bin Al-A’sam.’ The first one asked, ‘What material has he used?’ The other replied, ‘A comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.’ The first asked, ‘Where is that?’ The other replied, ‘It is in the well of Dharwan.’

So, the Prophet went out towards the well and then returned and said to me on his return, “Its date-palms (the date-palms near the well) are like the heads of the devils.” I asked, “Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?” He said, “No, for I have been cured by Allah and I am afraid that this action may spread evil amongst the people.” Later on the well was filled up with earth.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:

Narrated By ‘Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect).”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 89:

Narrated By ‘Aisha: The Prophet continued for such-and-such period imagining that he has slept (had sexual relations) with his wives, and in fact he did not. One day he said, to me, “O ‘Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him. There came to me two men, one of them sat near my feet and the other near my head. The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), ‘What is wrong with this man? The latter replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Ali ibn Ahmad Al-Wahidi, Q. 113-114:

The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, fell ill for a period of six month, during which the hair of his head fell off; he imagined that he slept with his wives when he did not, and was withering away without knowing the reason. As he was one day sleeping, he saw two angels coming to him. One of them sat at his head and the other at his feet. The angel who sat at his head asked: ‘What is wrong with the man?’ The second angel responded: ‘A spell of black magic was cast on him’. (Source: Altafsir.com) (Only the relevant quote is cited here)

Understanding the damaging effect that this affair has on Islam, Muslims try to do some damage-control by saying that Allah cured Muhammad from the Jewish spell. Do they really have any reason for optimism? A true prophet of God is not even supposed to fall victim to sorcery in the first place. No prophets of the true God ever came under the spell of sorcery. The Bible clearly says that the servants of the true God will not come under demonic control such as sorcery or magic because of the protection of Jehovah over them:

Numbers 23:23: “There is no sorcery against Jacob. Nor any magic that can harm Israel.”

While both Moses and Jesus had power over the demons, Muhammad fell victim to sorcery. Muhammad could not defeat what both Moses and Jesus defeated. How can Muhammad then be a prophet like Moses?

If you are a Muslim, we encourage you to read the following segment of this article carefully. It may save you from the path leading to destruction. For Muhammad to be a prophet like Moses his teachings must be in harmony with the teachings of Moses. The teachings of Muhammad should not contradict any of the divine truths which God revealed to Moses. We understand perfectly well that needs and exigencies do indeed change with time. And God would wisely provide guidance for his people according to the needs and exigencies of the time they live in. Therefore, the progressive revelations of God would reflect those changes. But this would have absolutely no bearing on the teachings that involve the divine nature and attributes of God. God remains the same. And the inter-relationship between God and his faithful worshippers would also remain the same.

Malachi 3:6: “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.”

This is where the teachings of Muhammad disqualify him. Now consider how the God of Moses reveals his relationship with the Jews and the Christians to whom he gave the Torah and the Gospel.

Deuteronomy 14:1: “You are sons of Jehovah your God.

Of course, no Jews would understand this to mean that they are sons in a physical carnal sense in their relationship with God. They are his sons in a purely spiritual sense. Jehovah’s relationship with the Israelites during the time of Moses is further highlighted in the following verses:

Exodus 4:22-23: You must say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Israel is my son, my firstborn. I say to you, send my son away so that he may serve me.

Even the Jews at the time of Jesus viewed God as their Father:

John 8:39-41: Jesus said to them: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You are doing the works of your father.” They said to him: “We were not born from immorality; we have one Father, God.”

Now, let’s look at the Christian’s position on this issue. How was the relationship between the Christians and their God defined in the Bible?

Romans 1:7: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:14-16: For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!” The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.

In all the above verses, we could see that God is a Father to his worshippers–the Jews and the Christians. In fact, he is a Father to all those who turn to him in true worship. Contradicting these profound teachings of the God of Moses, Muhammad was inspired to deny God as a Father to anyone:

Surah 5:18: And both the Jews and the Christians say, “We are God’s children, and His beloved ones.” Say: “Why, then, does He cause you to suffer for your sins? Nay, you are but human beings of His creating.” (Asad)

In violation to the teachings of the God of Moses, the Qur’an wrongly assumes that humans cannot become the children of God through an intimate spiritual relationship with Him. Can Allah then be the God of Moses? Can Muhammad then be a prophet like Moses when he contradicts the teachings of Moses? The teachings of the Qur’an are so base and animalistic in its nature that it dares to raise questions such as absurd as this:

Surah 6:101: “How can He have a son when He hath no consort?”

The Qur’an asks how God can have a son when he has no consort. Observe carefully how Islam attributes the carnal and physical traits of humans to God in this Qur’anic verse. No consideration whatsoever is given for the divinely infinite nature of the holiness of God. Just because men on earth cannot have sons unless they cohabit with their wives, so the Qur’an blasphemously concludes that God, too, cannot have a son unless he cohabits with a wife. Try to comprehend for a moment the absurdity of the question which is raised in the above Qur’anic verse. According to the absurd logic of the Qur’an, even though God Almighty was able to create the vast universe and every living being in it out of nothing, he is unable to produce a son for himself without a wife. Furthermore, how is it possible for Mary to have a son without a husband? Is it not through outworking of the limitless power of God?

Muhammad could not see beyond the carnal. He could not see beyond the temporal or the physical. The reason for Muhammad’s utter failure to see the blasphemous nature of this verse in the Qur’an is explained for us in the Holy Bible:

1 Corinthians 2:14: But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.

It may surprise you to learn that the words “spiritual” and “spirituality” cannot be found in the entire Qur’an. Can a book that does not contain the word “spiritual” or “spirituality” comprehend the deep
“spiritual” things of God? Can such a book lead you to salvation?

In contrast to Muhammad, the true Prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 always addresses God as his Father. Unlike Muhammad, Jesus taught his followers to address God as their Father:

Matthew 6:9-13: “You must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And let us not be put into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’

Muhammad simply cannot be a prophet like Moses. His teachings contradict the teachings of Moses. There are many more reasons why Muhammad does not qualify as the prophet whose coming is prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:18. The important fact that Muslims fail to realize is that this prophecy has already been fulfilled by Jesus Christ when he was sent to mankind by his Father, Jehovah God.

When God established the Law Covenant with the nation of Israel through Moses as the mediator, the family roots of this chosen mediator were already grounded in true worship of the God of Abraham. The same divine standard was established when Jesus was chosen as the mediator of the New Covenant. Jesus, too, came from a devout family who were already worshippers of the true God. Both the families of Moses and Jesus were all worshippers of the God of Abraham. But as for Muhammad, his parents and grand-parents and all his relatives were pagans.

From infancy, both Moses and Jesus knew the true God. But, as for Muhammad, he grew up as a pagan. And he remained a pagan until his alleged calling as a prophet of Allah at the age of forty. Until then, he belonged to the pagan religion of his parents and his parents’ parents. This fact is substantiated by the following Qur’anic verses:

Surah 12:3: We narrate to you the best of narratives, by Our revealing to you this Qur’an, though before this you were certainly one of those who did not know. (Shakir)

Surah 42:52: “And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee: thou knewest not before what was Revelation, and what was Faith; but We have made the Qur’an a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our servants as We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the Straight Way.” (Yusuf Ali)

Muslims will find it extremely difficult to acknowledge the fact that Muhammad was a pagan. However, the great scholars of Islam recognize this fact regarding Muhammad’s pagan origin. Renowned Arab scholar and historian, Hisham ibn al-Kalbi (737 C.E. – 819 C.E.) disclosed this truth about Muhammad on page 17 of his esteemed work known as “Kitab al-Asnam” (The Book of Idols).

‘We have been told that the Apostle of Allah once mentioned al-Uzza saying, “I have offered a white sheep to al-‘Uzza, while I was a follower of the religion of my people.”’

Al-‘Uzza was one of the female deities worshipped by the Quraysh pagans. Muhammad who belonged to this tribe was once a worshipper of this pagan idol. And he made sacrifices to this pagan idol. Muhammad’s roots began in paganism. Muslims should ponder deeply on these vital evidences regarding their Prophet. The evidences presented here from sources of Islam itself prove that Muhammad cannot be a prophet of the true God. God would not choose his final prophet from a pagan source. And this would automatically disqualify Islam as a religion of the true God.

It is absolutely important for Muslims to know that the Qur’an itself disqualifies Muhammad as a prophet of the true God. The Qur’an clearly teaches that the Prophetic line will be established through Isaac. In others words, all prophets of the true God will be through the lineage of Isaac.

Surah 29:27: And (as for Abraham), We bestowed upon him Isaac and (Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused Prophethood and Revelation to continue among his offspring. (Asad)

And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed. (Pickthall)

It is vital for Muslims to take note of the fact that with the establishment of the “Prophethood” with Abraham, Surah 29:27 goes on to state that the Prophethood will thereafter continue through the “lineage” of Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, the Prophethood will be established uniquely through the seeds of Isaac and Jacob. In other words, the office of the Prophethood would be entrusted only to Isaac, Jacob and their Descendants. This means that anyone claiming to be a Prophet of the true God must be born in the “Prophetic Race.” They must be born in the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

If Allah intended to include Ishmael, his name would be placed before Isaac as he was older than Isaac by about fourteen years. But as it can be noted, Surah 29:27 completely omits any reference to Ishmael. This raises some vital questions: Why was the name of Ishmael left out completely at the most significant time when the lineage of the Prophethood was revealed in the Qur’an? Why was Ishmael totally ignored if he was as important as Muslims claim him to be? Thus, the Qur’an clearly teaches that the Prophethood will be established exclusively through the lineage of Isaac–not Ishmael. Since Muslims claim that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, this automatically disqualifies him as a prophet of the true God. Therefore, Muhammad cannot be the prophet prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:18. For an in-depth discussion on this subject, please click the following link: THE QUR’AN DISQUALIFIES THE PROPHETHOOD OF MUHAMMAD

It is vital for Muslims to note that nowhere does the Qur’an state that the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 applies to Muhammad. However, the New Testament Scriptures of the Holy Bible state explicitly that the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to Jesus Christ:

Acts 3:19-23: “Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, so that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah himself and he may send the Messiah appointed for you, Jesus. Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old. In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. Indeed, anyone who does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.’

Muslims must decide between vagueness and clarity. Muslims must decide between Muhammad and Jesus Christ.

<<<<<< STEALTH TEAM MEGIDDO >>>>>>

TRAGEDY AT MECCA – A WAKE UP CALL FOR MUSLIMS

TRAGEDY AT MECCA – A WAKE UP CALL FOR MUSLIMS

A series of tragedies rocked the recent Hajj Pilgrimage. More than a thousand pilgrims lost their lives during this most sacred occasion in Islam. Sadly, Muslims are taught to accept every single tragedy as the predetermined will of Allah. It is vital for Muslims to contemplate deeply on the root cause of the problems affecting their observation of the Hajj. But Muslims need to analyze this issue primarily from a spiritual perspective.

The purpose of this article is to earnestly facilitate the Muslims from becoming victims of a far more serious calamity regarding their faith. Even though you may find the beginning of this article unrelated to the recent tragedy at Mecca, it will become absolutely clear by the time you complete reading it. Your commitment to read through this article may be one of the most important undertakings in your life. This article may save you yet from a far greater catastrophe than the tragedy at Mecca. A catastrophe that you and every single Muslim will eventually encounter.

Muslims strongly believe that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael. However, it may surprise them to learn that this claim contradicts the Qur’an. Nowhere in the Qur’an does it say that Ishmael was the progenitor of the Arabs. Neither does the Qur’an claim that Ishmael was a forefather of Muhammad. The Qur’anic evidences go against any ties of lineage between Ishmael and the forefathers of Muhammad. Consider now the evidences from Islamic sources carefully.

The Qur’an repeatedly states that the forefathers of Muhammad never received any Scriptures of Allah before the time of Muhammad:

Surah 6:157: Or lest ye should say: If the Scripture had been revealed unto us, we surely had been better guided than are they. Now hath there come unto you a clear proof from your Lord, a guidance and a mercy. (Pickthall)

Surah 11:49: This narration is of the accounts of the Unseen that We reveal to you. Neither you nor your people knew them before this. So observe patience. Surely, it is the God-fearing with whom it ends well. (Tahir-ul-Qadri)

Surah 34:44: And We have not given them (Arabs) any Books (Scripture) which they read, nor did We send to them before you a Warner. (H. S. Aziz)

Surah 62:2: He it is who has sent a Messenger among those who had never before received a Scripture – to convey unto them His Messages. (Shabbir Ahmed)

And the Qur’an also testifies clearly that no Prophets or Messengers were sent to the Arabs before the time of Muhammad:

Surah 28:46-47: Nor were you present on the side of Mount Sinai when We called out to Moses. But you too have been sent as an act of grace from your Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no Warner has come before, so that they may take heed and may not say, if a disaster should befall them as a result of what they have done with their own hands, ‘Lord, if only You had sent us a messenger, we might have followed Your message and become believers.’ (Abdel Haleem)

Surah 32:3: Or do they say, “He (Muhammad) has invented it?” Nay! It is the truth from your Lord that you may warn a people to whom no Warner has come before you, that they may follow the right direction. (H. S. Aziz)

Surah 34:44: And We have not given them (Arabs) any Books (Scripture) which they read, nor did We send to them before you a Warner. (H. S. Aziz)

Surah 36:2-6: I call to witness the Qur’an, custodian of all laws, That you are indeed one of those sent on a path that is straight, A revelation from the mighty, ever-merciful God, That you may warn a people whose ancestors had never been warned, who are therefore heedless. (H. S. Aziz)

Yet, the Qur’an clearly states that Ishmael was given the Scriptures of Allah:

Surah 6:86-89: And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot… These are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. (Pickthall)

Surah 4:163: We have sent revelations to you as We sent revelations to Noah and the prophets who came after him; and We sent revelations to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob, and their offspring, and to Jesus and Job, and to Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and to David We gave the Book of Psalms. (Ahmed Ali)

And the Qur’an also states that Ishmael was a Prophet of Allah:

Surah 19:54: And remember Ishmael in the Book. Truly, he had been one who is sincere in his promise, and he had been a Messenger, a Prophet. (Laleh Bakhtiar)

How are we to reconcile the Qur’anic verses which state that no Scriptures were given to the Arabic ancestors of Muhammad with the claim in the Qur’an that Prophet Ishmael was given the Scriptures? This is only possible if Prophet Ishmael was not an ancestor of Muhammad. And how are we going to reconcile the Qur’anic verses which state that no Prophets were sent to the Arabic ancestors of Muhammad with the claim in the Qur’an that Ishmael was a Prophet? Again, this is only possible if Prophet Ishmael was not an ancestor of Muhammad. If Muhammad’s forefathers were really descendants of Prophet Ishmael, then it would be an error for the Qur’an to state implicitly that no Prophets were sent to the forefathers of Muhammad who were Arabs. In the Bible, Prophet Abraham is clearly identified as a Hebrew:

Genesis 14:13: After that a man who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew.

Abraham was known as Abram until God changed his name to Abraham. (Genesis 17:5) Since Ishmael was the first-born son of Abraham, he simply cannot be someone other than a Hebrew like his father. Muhammad has to be a Hebrew in order for Muslims to claim he was a descendent of Ishmael. Muslims who challenge this fact will be proving the Qur’an wrong.

The Qur’an refers to the Arabs as the “wandering Arabs” (Surah 33:20) indicating their nomadic lifestyle. And the Qur’an distinctively identifies them as “Quraish” (Surah 106:1). But the Arabs were never identified, even once, as the “Children of Ishmael” or as the “Children of Abraham.” In fact, it is the style of the Qur’an to draw clear connections of lineage, if at all there exists one. You will surprised how many times the term “Children of Israel” (Arabic: Bani Israel) is mentioned in the Qur’an. However, there is no “Bani Ishmael” in the Qur’an with reference to the Arabs. This is truly an important observation which Muslims must not fail to take into consideration.

The Qur’an also states that Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael built the sacred House of Allah:

Surah 2:127: As Abraham and Ishmael built up the foundations of the House they prayed, ‘Our Lord, accept this from us. You are the All Hearing, the All Knowing. (Abdel Haleem)

It is important to note that the original Arabic verse in the Qur’an does not state the geographical location of the “House” that Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael supposedly built. Modern translators add the term “Mecca” or “Ka’ba” in parenthesis to allege it was built in Mecca. However, these words do not appear in the original Arabic. Even if Muslims were to insist that the “House” which was built by Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael is truly sited in Mecca, then this assumption only multiplies the error of the Qur’an. How could Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael build the “House” in Mecca when the Qur’an clearly admits that no Prophets were sent to the Arabs before the time of Muhammad? Ironically, the Christian position that Abraham and Ishmael could not have set foot in Mecca is both supported and at the same time denied in the Qur’an. As such, the Qur’an is inaccurate in at least one instance. The Word of God cannot be partially correct. It has to be either all or nothing.

But the problem for Islam does not stop here. Since numerous Qur’anic verses attest to the fact that the Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael were not sent to Arabia, then this simply means that they could not have built the Ka’ba. The Qur’an’s admission that no Prophets of the true God were sent to the Arabs proves that the Ka’ba could not have been built by the worshippers of the true God. As such, only the local Arab pagans could have laid the foundation of the Ka’ba. That the Ka’ba was indeed a pagan shrine before the coming of Islam is recognized in numerous authentic sources of Islam itself.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 658:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Masud: The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka’ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: “Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished.”

When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he destroyed all the idols of the Ka’ba with the exception of the preeminent idol – the Black Stone. The Ka’ba which is known as “Baitullah” in Arabic means “House of Allah.” Muslims will do well to ask themselves the following thought provoking questions:

How did the House of Allah become a Pagan Temple housing 360 idols?
How can a House of God develop into a Temple of Pagan Idols?
Exactly when did this change take place?
How did the most sacred place for the Worship of Allah become a place for the Worship of Idols?
How is it possible for this corruption take place?
Why was Allah powerless to prevent the demonizing of his most sacred shrine here on earth?
What theological reason is there for Allah to permit his original House of Worship to become a Pagan Temple?

The late Dr. Taha Husayn, a prominent professor of Arabic literature in Egypt, recognized that the information recorded in the Qur’an pertaining to the construction of Ka’ba at the hands of Abraham and Ishmael is not historically established. And he stated the following:

“The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons” (Quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170).

THE PAGAN BLACK STONE

As we have noted, Muhammad destroyed the rest of the idols at the conquest of Mecca but left the preeminent idol of the Ka’ba untouched. Why? It was simply due to his deep-rooted reverence brought on by years of submission to the pagan practice of stone worship. He not only left the Black Stone safe and sound to represent Islam but he was also emotionally attached to it.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 675:

Narrated by Zaid bin Aslam: From his father who said: “Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, ‘By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching and kissing you, I would never have touched and kissed you.’ Then he kissed it.”

Thus, the single most important reason for kissing the Black Stone in Islam is that Muhammad did it. The Black Stone that was sacred to the pagans became sacred to the Muslims. And today Muslims revere it. The kiss that the pious Muslim pilgrims bestow on the Black Stone is a survival of an age old pagan practice, which was common in ancient Arabia. The Black Stone which was venerated by the Arab pagans became the focus of the Muslim pilgrimage. The Black Stone which had been an object of worship for centuries before the time of Muhammad became the central shrine of Islam. Muslims today touch and kiss the Black Stone during the Hajj.

In his book, “The Life of Muhammad,” the Egyptian writer, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, who relies heavily on the scholarly works of Ibn Hisham, admitted to the following facts:

In fact, the Arabs venerated these stones so much that not only did they worship the black stone in the Ka’bah, but also they would take one of the stones of the Ka’bah as a holy object in their travels, praying to it and asking it to bless every move they made. (p. 30)

Here is another admission by Muslim scholars that the Black Stone was venerated by the Pagans before the coming of Islam. The fact that many of the rituals performed during the Hajj are connected to pagan worship shows that Islam was conceived in idolatry. Such practices are consistent with pre-Islamic pagan rituals involving the Ka’ba. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would never send a Black Stone to entice his followers to commit idolatry. If God forbids even the bowing towards the glorious sun that he himself had created, do you think he will command his worshippers to bow towards a dead Black Stone? While Christians can clearly see this as absolute idolatry, Islam is blind to this abomination. The Holy Bible clearly states:

Deuteronomy 4:19: “You must not raise your eyes to the heavens and indeed see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the heavens, and actually get seduced and bow down to them.”

Though Muslims deny that the Black Stone is an idol and insist that their prayers are actually directed towards Allah alone, in actual practice, the Black Stone is treated with the same reverence that the Pagans show to their idols. Islam’s denial of its idolatrous worship of the Black Stone can be likened to that of a man who pleads innocence for his adulterous act by saying that he was only thinking of his wife while performing the illicit sexual act. The justification for the veneration of a dead stone – especially to the extent of bowing down and kissing it – can only be identified with a primitive pagan idolatry practice than with the true spirit of monotheistic worship.

Additionally, Muhammad taught that the Black Stone will testify favorably on the “Day Of Judgment” in behalf of those who touched or kissed it. Islam also teaches that the sins those who touch or kiss the Black Stone would be forgiven on Judgment Day.

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 961; Ibn Maajah, 2944:

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said concerning the Stone: “By Allah, Allah will bring it forth on the Day of Resurrection, and it will have two eyes with which it will see and a tongue with which it will speak, and it will testify in favour of those who touched it in sincerity.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 959:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:

“Touching them both (the Black Stone and al-Rukn al-Yamani) is an expiation for sins.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 877; Ahmad, 2792:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

“When the Black Stone came down from Paradise, it was whiter than milk, but the sins of the sons of Adam made it black.”

Thus, it is dishonest for Muslims to say that the Black Stone is just a focal point for them to direct their prayers for the sake of unity. In reality, it means much more than Muslims are willing to admit. Is it not idolatrous to believe that sins can be forgiven by touching and kissing a mere stone? While Muslims strongly reject the atoning value of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, yet these very same Muslims are willing to believe that a dead stone can achieve the very objective that they deny Jesus could accomplish.

All Muslims are required to bow towards the Black Stone everyday, whenever they pray. They are forbidden to face any other object or direction. For Muslims to face any other direction would be a violation of the commandment of Allah. Allah’s commandment clearly states:

Surah 2:144: “Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction.”

Thus, according to the teachings of the Qur’an, Muslims cannot pray to Allah without facing the Black Stone. When a Muslim makes the Hajj, or runs between the hills, or bestows a kiss on the Black Stone, he is performing the rituals of the pagans – rituals that are deeply rooted in pagan superstition. And Muhammad sanctioned and incorporated these pagan practices into Islam. Thus, the poison remains the same, only the labels are deceitfully changed by Allah and Muhammad. Accordingly, paganism became an integral part of Islam. Consider now the following additional evidence:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 23:

Narrated By ‘Asim bin Sulaiman: I asked Anas bin Malik about Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca). Anas replied, “We used to consider (i.e. going around) them a custom of the Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance, so when Islam came, we gave up going around them. Then Allah revealed, ‘Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah. So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj of the House of Allah or perform the Umra to ambulate (Tawaf) between them.’” (Surah 2:158) [End of Quote]

Surah 2:158: “Lo! (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwah are among the indications of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House (of Allah) or visiteth it, to go around them (as the pagan custom is).” (Pickthall)

How can the very same two mountains that were sacred to the Pagans suddenly become the “Symbols of Allah” after the Muslim conquest of Mecca? Moreover, how is it that the very same pagan ritual of running between the two hills is also retained in Islam? Islam is the only religion where after kissing a stone, its devotees pick up stones to stone a stone representing the Devil.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17: Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness. Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God. Just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among them, and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” “Therefore get out from among them and separate yourselves. Quit touching the unclean thing and I will take you in,” says Jehovah.

Centuries before the arrival of Islam, Jehovah God lovingly warned the Israelites of a devious snare of Satan which Islam failed to see. Regarding this subtle snare of Satan, the Holy Bible strongly warned the descendants of Abraham to shun the evil practice of idolatry in its various forms:

Leviticus 26:1: “Do not make for yourselves worthless idols. You must not erect for yourselves a carved statue or a sacred pillar and you must not put a stone as a sacred showpiece in your land to bow down toward it. I am Jehovah your God.”

Can any warning be clearer than this? Either it is acceptable to bow towards a stone or it is not. Both cannot be true. This is a very serious matter because it demonstrates that either Allah or Jehovah is the true God. Not both! The eternal salvation of every single Muslim lies in the hands of only one of them.

Think very carefully! Will the true God encourage his worshippers to continue in the same sin of idolatry of the pagans? Avoiding the pagan rituals of the Hajj is an important first step towards the direction of true worship. Taking this decisive step will certainly save you from the tragedies of the Hajj – both physically and spiritually. However, leaving falsehood is only part of the solution. For a full recovery, falsehood should be replaced with true worship. That is why it is important not only to shun idolatry:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

But also to earnestly search for the true God:

Isaiah 55:6: Search for Jehovah while he may be found. Call to him while he is near.

For more information on the pagan origin of the Ka’ba, please click to read the following article: THE PAGAN ROOTS OF IDOLATRY IN ISLAM

<<<<<< STEALTH TEAM MEGIDDO >>>>>>

SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM – WAS IT ISAAC OR ISHMAEL?

SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM – WAS IT ISAAC OR ISHMAEL?

This article is crucial for both Muslims and Christians. This article serves as a decimating factor. It decimates the lies in order for the truth to triumph. It makes a decision based on evidences to reveal wherein lies the truth. Is it in Islam or Christianity? Two opposing system of values cannot be equally true. One or the other has to be. This article is not written as an intellectual exercise in some mind games to amuse ourselves nor is it written for the purpose of criticizing the other for the joy of criticizing. No, it is written for the sole purpose of earnestly securing our salvation – our eternal salvation. If you are Muslim, please read this article objectively with an unbiased mind. This could be one the most important decisions that you ever made in your life. This could be your first step in the right direction in the pursuit of salvation – your salvation. If you believe you have unshakable faith in Islam, then we dare you to read this article right through to the end. We dare you on the basis of love.

Jews, Christians and Muslims agree that Abraham was a righteous man with outstanding faith. This is clearly seen in Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only begotten son. All three religions do not dispute this fact. While Jews and Christians are unified on the identity of the sacrificial child, Islam disagrees. The Holy Bible clearly identifies the sacrificial child as Isaac.

Genesis 22:1-2: Now after these things it came about that the true God put Abraham to the test. Accordingly he said to him: “Abraham!” And Abraham replied: “Here I am!” And God went on to say: “Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you.”

Muslims say that the sacrificial son was Ishmael. The idea that Ishmael was the sacrificial son is based mainly on the Muslim misunderstanding of the phrase “only son” in the Genesis account. They assert that since Abraham was asked to offer his only son, it has to be Ishmael since he was the only son of Abraham for fourteen years. As such, they claim that it would be impossible for Isaac to be addressed as the only son of Abraham. Is their claim true?

But before we get to the bottom of this misunderstanding of Muslims and touch on the issue of the identity of the sacrificial son, it must be emphasized that no matter who the son was that Abraham offered as a sacrifice, Muslims are in error. They are in error if it was Isaac. And they are still in error if it was Ishmael. In fact, Muslims will do well if they did not raise this issue in the first place. It is a lose, lose situation for Muslims. Why do we say that? Carefully consider the shaky position of the Muslims when they challenge the authority of the Holy Bible regarding the identity of the sacrificial son.

THE MUSLIM DILEMMA

The sacrificial account of Abraham’s son is found in the Book of Genesis. Genesis is the first of the five Books of Moses which are collectively known as the Torah. Let us now see what the Qur’an testifies about the Torah:

Surah 5:44: “Lo! We did reveal theTorah, wherein is guidance and a light.” (Pickthall)

Surah 5:68: Say (O Muhammad SAW) “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! You have nothing as regards guidance till you act according to the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel).”(Hilali-Khan)

The Qur’an clearly testifies that the Torah was revealed by Allah. According to the Qur’an, the Torah is the inspired “Word of Allah.” And the Qur’an also commands Jews and Christians to abide by the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel. It tells them: “You have nothing as regards guidance till you act according to the Torah and the Gospel.”

Well, what do Christians find when they obey this commandment of Allah to follow the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel? The Torah distinctively identifies Isaac as the sacrificial son offered by Abraham. The sacrificial choice of God is clearly identified as Isaac.

To counter this clear identity of Isaac as the sacrificial son in the Torah, Muslims came up with the blasphemous allegation that the Torah and the Gospel in our present Bible are not the originals but are corruptions of the originals. Without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate their claim, they say that some Jewish scribes changed the original reading from Ishmael to Isaac in the Torah. The change was supposedly carried out to glorify their Jewish heritage through Isaac. Well, let us see what Allah has to say on this matter. The Qur’an testifies:

Surah 10:64: “None can change the Words of Allah. This is indeed the Supreme Triumph.” (Pickthall)

“No change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.” (Yusuf Ali)

The Qur’an itself testifies: “None can change the Words of Allah.” And since the Qur’an acknowledges that the Torah and the Gospel are the “Words of Allah,” it would require a denial of the Qur’an itself to believe that they have been changed through corruption. If the claim of corruption by Muslims is true, then Allah must be a lying impostor for making false claims to the contrary in the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an becomes a lie for teaching that the Words of Allah cannot be changed.

If Muslims truly believe that the Qur’an is the Word of Allah, then it is mandatory for them to accept as true that according to the Qur’an it is impossible for anyone to change the Torah or the Gospel. This means the sacrificial son has to be Isaac as the Torah clearly testifies. On the other hand, if Muslims choose to believe that the Torah have been changed through corruption and the sacrificial son was actually Ishmael, then Muslims must also accept as true that Allah is a lying impostor and the Qur’an is a lie. Muslims do not have the luxury to believe that the Bible has become corrupted without first conceding that Allah lied in the Qur’an.

The only possibility for the sacrificial son to be Ishmael is for the “Words of Allah” to be changed in the Torah. Muslims cannot have it both ways. They cannot maintain their sacred belief that the “Words of Allah” will remain unchanged for all eternity and at the same instance believe that the Jews changed the Torah. Muslims are taught to believe that Ishmael was the sacrificial son. Therefore, they are in error if sacrificial son was Isaac. And it has to be Isaac if the Qur’an is to be believed when it says: “None can change the Words of Allah.” And Muslims are still in error if it was Ishmael because it shows that they are actually worshipping a false deity who deceitfully told them that “None can change the Words of Allah” when in reality, the Jews changed the Torah. They changed the name of Ishmael to Isaac in the Torah.

It will be impossible for Muslims to believe that Ishmael was sacrificial son without denying the teachings of Allah in the Qur’an. It will be impossible for Muslims to believe it was Ishmael without accepting as true that the Jews changed the name from Ishmael to Isaac in the Book of Allah. Therefore, the only option left for Muslims to hold on to their cherished assumption that it was Ishmael is to accept that the Jews changed the unchangeable Scriptures of Allah. Thus, no matter who the son was, Muslims are in error. In fact, for Muslims to believe that it was Ishmael is the greater error because it means that they must now accept as true that Allah is a lying impostor. Period.

Muslims should stop spreading lies about the Holy Bible. It will be beneficial for them to seriously consider the stern warning that Allah gives to all those who spread such lies about the integrity of the Holy Bible:

Surah 40:70-72: Those who gave the lie to this Book and all the Books which We had sent with Our Messengers shall soon come to know the Truth when fetters and chains shall be on their necks, and they shall be dragged into boiling water, and cast into the Fire. (Maududi)

It is advisable for Muslims to heed this warning. If Muslims are serious about Allah, then they must also take his warning seriously.

Of course, we do not believe that the Torah or the Gospel was inspired by Allah as the Qur’an claims. The true inspiration behind the Torah and the Gospel is none other than Jehovah – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Our reason for using the Qur’an to substantiate our argument is not because we believe in it but because Muslims believe in it. We used the Qur’an to prove to Muslims that their own sacred book not only confirms the integrity of the Holy Bible but it also proves their claim that the sacrificial son was Ishmael, is erroneous.

We are assured by Jehovah, blessed be his name, that to time indefinite the Holy Bible will be kept pure and it will be kept above the reach of those who intend to corrupt it:

Psalm 119:89: “Forever, O Jehovah, Your Word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”

For an in depth study on the testimonies of the Qur’an as to why the Holy Bible is not corrupted and cannot become corrupted, please read the article in the following link: THE QUR’AN CONFIRMS THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE

Is it really necessary to discuss the issue of the identity of the sacrificial son any further? The arguments presented above should be sufficient to prove our case. However, for the benefit of our readers, especially our Muslim readers, we will discuss this matter further.

It is commonly believed in the Muslim world today that when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, that son was Ishmael – the son of his slave-woman Hagar. However, finding not a single shred of evidence in the Qur’an to sustain their claim, Muslims try to deceptively use the account in the Bible to support their argument. For example, since the Bible states that God commanded Abraham to offer his “only son” as a sacrifice, Muslims argue that this could not be Isaac as he was never an only child seeing that Ishmael was born fourteen years prior to him.

However, the very verse in the Bible, which Muslims try so desperately to use to support their claim, clearly identifies Isaac by name as the sacrificial son. But Muslims deliberately exclude this vital piece of information in their argument.

Well are Muslims correct in their belief that it was Ishmael who was the one offered by Abraham to be sacrificed? We like to take on a challenge with Muslims. Since the Bible clearly identifies Isaac as the sacrificial son, can Muslims do the same by using the Qur’an only to prove that it was Ishmael? They cannot.

The arguments presented in this article are built progressively. Therefore, it is vital to read through to the end of this article to know for a certainty without a doubt who this sacrificial son of Abraham was. Was it Isaac or Ishmael?

First let us read what the Bible says about this event:

Genesis 22:1-2: Now after these things it came about that the true God put Abraham to the test. Accordingly he said to him: “Abraham!” And Abraham replied: “Here I am!” And God went on to say: “Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you.”

Genesis 22:9-13: Finally they reached the place that the true God had designated to him, and Abraham built an altar there and set the wood in order and bound Isaac his son hand and foot and put him upon the altar on top of the wood. Then Abraham put out his hand and took the slaughtering knife to kill his son. But Jehovah’s angel began calling to him out of the heavens and saying: “Abraham, Abraham!” And Abraham answered: “Here I am!” And God went on to say: “Do not put out your hand against the boy and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.” At that Abraham raised his eyes and looked and there, deep in the foreground, there was a ram caught by its horns in a thicket. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up for a burnt offering in place of his son.

For the full account of this event, please read Genesis 22:1-18. The above Biblical account of the sacrificial offering of Abraham’s son appears in just one passage in the entire Qur’an. It begins with Abraham speaking:

Surah 37:100-113: “O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!” So we gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in 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 wilt find me, if God so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!”

So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice), We called out to him, “O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For this was obviously a trial – and We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice: and We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times: “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”

Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For he was one of Our believing Servants. 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.(Yusuf Ali)

Before we analyze the above Qur’anic verses in detail, it is important to note that when we compare the Biblical account with the one in the Qur’an, we find the following omissions in the Qur’an. While the Bible clearly identifies the sacrificial son as Isaac, the Qur’an does not mention the name of the son. And while the Bible mentions the mountainous region of Moriah as the site of the sacrifice, the Qur’an does not give a slightest hint as to where this sacrifice was to take place.

The above Qur’anic verses tell us that Allah “ransomed him (Abraham’s son) with a momentous sacrifice.” Although Islam completely rejects the Biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, namely the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we observe that the doctrine of the ransom as a release from death is strongly supported in the above account in the Qur’an. The fact that the Qur’an testifies that Allah redeemed Abraham’s son by means of a substitutive sacrifice, should awaken Muslims to seriously consider the doctrine of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

As to why a “momentous sacrifice” has to be paid as a ransom by Allah for the release of Abraham’s son and how does this prefigure the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, please read the article in the following link: THE BASIS FOR THE RANSOM SACRIFICE OF JESUS IN THE QUR’AN

Let us now analyze the above Qur’anic verses carefully. Note that at the very beginning of this Qur’anic account, the “good news” or promise of a boy was given to Abraham. (Surah 37:101) The account then continues on saying that when this promised child reached the age of serious work, he accompanied his father Abraham to be offered as a sacrifice. And the account concludes with Allah saying: “And We gave him the good news of Isaac – a prophet, – one of the Righteous. We blessed him and Isaac.”

The account in the Qur’an makes it very clear that the child who was promised as “good news” to Abraham was the very child who later accompanied him to be offered as a sacrifice. And towards the end of the account, the Qur’an specifically names Isaac as the promised child. While Isaac’s name is mentioned twice in this only account of the sacrifice in the Qur’an, there is no mention of Ishmael at all. This is indeed amazing considering how overzealous some Muslims have been in their attempts to prove that the sacrificial son was Ishmael and not Isaac. Isaac is the only one named in the Qur’an as the child specifically promised to Abraham – a fact which the Qur’an agrees with the Bible.

In view of the fundamental truth that the Qur’an does not say which son was taken up to be sacrificed, is it not presumptuous for Muslims to fault the Bible’s clear statement that the son who was offered to be sacrificed was Isaac? Muslim readers of the Qur’an can only search in vain for the name of Ishmael in the entire account of Surah 37:100-113 where the story of the sacrifice is told. Therefore, no Muslim can honestly make a dogmatic statement that it was Ishmael in the light of the Qur’an’s complete silence on the actual identity of the son. In contrast, the Bible clearly identifies the son by name:

Genesis 22:2: And He went on to say: “Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you.

The hypocrisy of the Muslim claim can be seen by the fact that while they hang on desperately to the Bible’s statement that God commanded Abraham to offer his “only son,” they deliberately choose to ignore the fact that the very same verse they quote to support their claim, clearly identifies the son by name as “Isaac.” Should not it be either all or nothing? And Allah agrees. He gives the following warning to those who resort to this subtle form of deception:

Surah 2:85: “Then is it only a part of the Book that you believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? – And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what you do.” (Yusuf Ali)

This Qur’anic verse was revealed as a warning for all those who commit the grave error of accepting only parts of the inspired Scriptures while rejecting others. And as proven earlier, the Qur’an testifies to the fact that the Torah is the inspired Word of God. Besides the account in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) also positively identifies the sacrificial son of Abraham as Isaac:

Hebrews 11:17-18: “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only begotten son of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.”

James 2:21: Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

In all the passages of the Bible, it is quite plainly stated that Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar. Yet in the only passage in the Qur’an where the sacrifice is discussed, there is not a single mention of Ishmael. In fact, the Qur’an does not identify who the son was. Therefore, while there is a double testimony in the Bible that the son was Isaac, both from the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, there is no such testimony in the Qur’an that it was Ishmael.

In fact, this lack of a clear identity in the Qur’an led to wide disagreement among early Muslim commentators as to who the son was. Although for the purpose of expediency the Muslim world today unanimously acknowledges Ishmael as the sacrificial son, there was much dispute in the early days of Islam on the subject with many renowned scholars of the Qur’an accepting that it was Isaac. A Muslim writer candidly admits:

Haykal, “The Life of Muhammad,” p. 25:

The Qur’an did not mention the name of the sacrificial son, and hence Muslim historians disagree in this regard.

While acknowledging the conflicting views in Islam regarding this very issue, Al-Tabari who is considered as one of the premiere Islamic historians, gave his scholarly view on this matter.

Al-Tabari, “The History of al-Tabari,” Volume II, Prophets and Patriarchs, p. 32:

“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 Qur’an could serve as proof that the account naming Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two.”

This means that if Muslims were to undertake an impartial and honest study of the Qur’an, they would have to agree that it was Isaac who was the chosen sacrifice. As an aside, please note how the above historical account reveals that Muhammad gave conflicting views. The above account says that “both groups of statements…came from the Prophet.” As a result, Muslims became divided in their opinion as to who the son was. And Muslims are willing to stake their lives by following a man who is unsure about the revelations of God.

Well, what was Al-Tabari’s reason to conclude that the evidences point to Isaac as the sacrificial son? Let us hear from the great Scholar himself.

Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Volume II, Prophets and Patriarchs, p. 89:

“As for the above-mentioned proof from the Qur’an that it really was Isaac, it is God’s word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, ‘I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.’ This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham’s vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him.

The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, ‘And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob,’ and ‘Then he became fearful of them.’ They said. ‘Fear not!’ and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her face, and cried, ‘A barren old woman.’ Thus, wherever the Qur’an mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God’s words ‘So we gave him tidings of a gentle son’, as it is true of all such references in the Qur’an.”

Al-Tabari had valid reasons to conclude that the son was Isaac. He based his conclusions on the fact that the Qur’an “does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac.” And since the account in Surah 37:101-102 clearly states that it was the promised child who accompanied Abraham to be sacrificed, then it must surely be Isaac.

Al-Tabari also stated the following:

“That ram remained in custody with God until He let it go as Isaac’s ransom.” (The History of Al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, Volume 1, p. 310)

Let us look into an incident during the early days of Islam. This incident clarifies who it was that the early Companions of Muhammad believed to be the sacrificial son of Abraham.

Mishkat Al-Masabih, Book 14, Chapter 4, Section 3:

“Muhammad b. al-Muntashir told of a man who vowed to sacrifice himself if God rescued him from his enemy. He consulted Ibn ‘Abbas who told him to consult Masruq, and when he consulted him he replied, “Do not sacrifice yourself, for if you are a believer you will kill a believing soul, and if you are an infidel you will hasten to hell; but buy a ram and sacrifice it for the poor, for Isaac was better than you and he was ransomed with a ram.” He told Ibn ‘Abbas and he replied, “This is the decision I wanted to give you.” Razin transmitted it. (Mishkat Al-Masabih English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson, Volume I, p. 733)

Ibn Abbas was a paternal cousin of Muhammad and a great scholar of Islam. So we are not dealing here with some stage-entertaining Muslim apologists but with the testimonies of the great Muslim scholars. Scholars who not only lived during the time of Muhammad but who were also his close Companions.

Gibb and Kramers, A Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 175:

As the Qur’an verse does not state which son was to have been sacrificed, many Muslim theologians refer the intended sacrifice to Ismail. …But it may be said that the oldest tradition – al-Tha`labi expressly emphasises the ashab and tabi`un, i.e. the Companions of the Prophet and their successors from `Umar b. al-Khattab to Ka`b al-Ahbar – did not differ from the Bible on this question.

As stated above, the earlier Companions of Muhammad, including the rightly guided Caliphs such as Caliph Umar, believed that it was Isaac who was the intended sacrifice. While Islam is divided, no such disagreement has ever existed between the Jews and Christians. It is universally believed without dissent by Jews and Christians that it was Isaac. It is only in Islamic history that one finds confusion regarding the identity of the son.

Now ponder deeply on the following reasoning. If the son to be sacrificed is truly Ishmael, then the omission of the name of the son in the Qur’an is truly a strange anomaly in view of one very important factor. In fact, it is inconsistent with the qualities of an all-knowing God. Why do we say that? Muslims claim that the name of Ishmael was deliberately removed from the Bible and replaced with Isaac. If Allah is the author of the Qur’an, surely he must have known that it is emphatically taught in both the Old and the New Testament that it was Isaac who was offered as a sacrifice. As a result, this “erroneous teaching” came to be universally accepted. Since the Qur’an was revealed centuries after the completion of the Bible, surely an all-knowing Allah would have corrected the error with an equally emphatic statement in the Qur’an that it was Ishmael. Why was Ishmael’s name not mentioned at all in the sacrificial account in the Qur’an? Why did Allah remain silent?

In other words, since there is a double testimony from both the Old and the New Testament that the son was Isaac and if the Qur’an had come to clarify any previous errors as Muslims claim, it surely would have named Ishmael if he was indeed the chosen victim. In the light of the prevailing belief that it was Isaac, the omission in the Qur’an regarding the identity of the son is inexcusable if it was Ishmael.

Since Ishmael is named directly in the Qur’an in other instances such as he being Allah’s helper in the building of the Ka’ba, is it not strange that Allah omitted his name when it matters most? Is it not strange that Allah missed out on the best opportunity to correct an obvious error in the Bible? Is not the omission of Ishmael’s name in the entire Surah (the 37^th Surah in the Qur’an) all the more significant, especially when this Surah covers a number of the stories of the earlier prophets who are all specifically mentioned by name?

In fact, Surah 37 mentions many of the earlier prophets by name. Names such as Noah (Surah 37:75, 79), Abraham (Surah 37:83, 104, 109), Isaac (Surah 37:112, 113), Moses (Surah 37:114, 120), Aaron (Surah 37:114, 120), Elijah (Surah 37:123, 130), Lot (Surah 37:133) and Jonah (Surah 37:139). Therefore, the omission of the name of Ishmael in the only passage in the Qur’an where the event of the sacrifice is recorded is astonishing. It is truly astonishing if Ishmael was indeed the chosen son. In fact, in the entire Surah, you cannot find the name of Ishmael. The true fact of the matter is that Surah 37 has nothing to do with Ishmael. Surah 37:100-113 is just a repeat of the account regarding Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22.

Muslims try to come up with all kinds of excuses to prove that the sacrificial son was Ishmael. Failing to find any, they even try to divide what is otherwise a clear segment in the Qur’an on a single subject of the sacrificial offer of Abraham. For example, some Muslims argue that since “the good news of Isaac” is announced only after the account of the sacrifice, therefore the preceding account of the sacrifice must refer to another son of Abraham, namely Ishmael. In other words, Muslims are saying that while the two verses (Surah 37:112-113) which appears at the conclusion of the account refers to Isaac, the preceding twelve verses (Surah 37:100-111) is actually speaking about Ishmael.

Their argument is seriously flawed for numerous reasons. Firstly, Surah 37:100-111 does not mention the name of Ishmael at all. Additionally, the very mention of Isaac by name, immediately following the sacrifice will only serve to distort one’s understanding of the narrative that precedes it if it really did involve another son. It is hard to believe that the sacrifice refers to Ishmael when Isaac is promptly mentioned twice by name in the very verses that follow the proposed sacrifice. But there is more.

In fact, there is an unmistakable link between the phrasing of the sentences that precedes the command to sacrifice and the phrasing of the sentences that follow immediately after the command to sacrifice. Take note of the remarkable similarities in the wordings regarding the promised child that precedes the passage of the command to sacrifice with the wordings regarding the promised child immediately after the passage of the command to sacrifice. Let us analyze the Qur’anic passage to expose the fallacy of the Muslim argument.

Firstly, we noticed that immediately before the subject of the sacrifice was introduced, a son was promised to Abraham: “So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.” (Surah 37:101).

And immediately after the narration of the sacrifice, Isaac is mentioned by name as the promised child to Abraham: “We gave him the good news of Isaac.” (Surah 37:112).

Can you notice the symmetry between the two phrases? Now when we connect the two phrases together it reads as: “So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. We gave him the good news of Isaac.”

Therefore, the claim by Muslims that the stated “good news of a boy” at the beginning of the sacrificial account refers to Ishmael is deceptive. This is all the more true as the name of Ishmael appears nowhere, whereas “the good news of Isaac” is mentioned clearly by name in this account. Furthermore, “the good news of Isaac” is mentioned in three other accounts in the Qur’an while none whatsoever about Ishmael. The three other accounts can be found in Surah 11:70-71 which refers to Isaac as the promised child by name and, Surah 15:53 and Surah 51:28-29 which refers to Isaac as the promised child by clear unmistakable references. Therefore, we have four accounts in the Qur’an that speaks about Isaac as the promised child and none at all about Ishmael in the entire Qur’an.

Secondly there is also a clear symmetry between the phrase before the sacrificial account, “So when they had both submitted their wills.” (Surah 37:103) and the phrase after the sacrificial account, “We blessed him and Isaac.” (Surah 37:113).

Once again when we connect the two phrases together it reads as: “So when they had both submitted their wills. We blessed him and Isaac.”

Thus, it can clearly be seen that the Qur’an is actually speaking of only one single incident and that only one single individual (Isaac) apart from Abraham is involved in the entire account of Surah 37:100-113. It is also significant to note that there is no word in the text, such as “then” (Arabic: thumma), to denote a separation between the narration of the sacrifice and the narration of Isaac.

It can clearly be seen that the Muslim argument that Ishmael must have been the sacrificial son because the story of the sacrifice precedes the mention of Isaac is highly erroneous upon closer analysis. It should be noted that the idea that the sacrifice incident is divided into two sections is concocted by Muslims and is not based on facts. Certainly the complete omission of Ishmael’s name in the passage considerably undermines the dogmatic Muslim claim that he was the sacrificial son. We will now discuss the issue as to why Isaac is addressed as the “only son” of Abraham in the Genesis account.

WHY ISAAC IS RECOGNIZED AS THE “ONLY SON” OF ABRAHAM

Since Muslims claim that the phrase “only son” can only apply to Ishmael, it is important to explain how this phrase applies exclusively to Isaac and not to Ishmael. It is equally important to explain how Isaac can rightfully be considered as the only son of Abraham for various legitimate reasons. Both the Holy Bible and the Qur’an affirm the unique status of Isaac. Isaac was addressed as the only son of Abraham for the following reasons:

THE ONLY PROMISED CHILD OF ABRAHAM

Both the Holy Bible and the Qur’an testifies that Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham:

Genesis 17:15-21: And God went on to say to Abraham: “As for Sarai your wife, you must not call her name Sarai, because Sarah is her name. And I will bless her and also give you a son from her; and I will bless her and she shall become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” At this Abraham fell upon his face and began to laugh and to say in his heart: “Will a man a hundred years old have a child born, and will Sarah, yes, will a woman ninety years old give birth?”

After that Abraham said to the true God: “O that Ishmael might live before you!” To this God said: “Sarah your wife is indeed bearing you a son, and you must call his name Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for a covenant to time indefinite to his seed after him. But as regards Ishmael I have heard you. Look! I will bless him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him very, very much. He will certainly produce twelve chieftains, and I will make him become a great nation. However, my covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.”

And Isaac was also the only name of a promised child of Abraham that is expressly stated in the Qur’an:

Surah 11:69-71: There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, “Peace!” He answered, “Peace!” …And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. (Yusuf Ali)

Provided below is another Surah that speaks of the “glad tidings of a son.” The angels who visited Abraham and Sarah gave them the good news of a promised son. Even though the following Qur’anic verses do not mention Isaac by name, we can be very certain that this account is in fact about him because the account is actually a repeat of the same incident as the above Surah where the promised child of Abraham is identified as Isaac:

Surah 51:24-30: Has the story reached thee, of the honoured guests of Abraham? Behold, they entered his presence, and said: “Peace!” He said, “Peace!” …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.” (Yusuf Ali)

The only “barren old woman” who was given “glad tidings of a son” was Sarah. And she is described here as the wife of Abraham. Therefore, the son mentioned here can only be Isaac and no other. The Bible clearly teaches that Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham and as we can see, the Qur’an agrees with this fact. The important point for Muslims to reflect on is the fact that the Qur’an repeated mentions Isaac as the only promised child of Abraham. And as evidenced earlier, great Muslim scholars such as al-Tabari agree on this fact.

THE ONLY SON WHO WAS CONCEIVED MIRACULOUSLY

Furthermore, it was not Ishmael but Isaac who was conceived with the aid of God’s miraculous power:

Genesis 17:15-17: And God went on to say to Abraham: “As for Sarai your wife, you must not call her name Sarai, because Sarah is her name. And I will bless her and also give you a son from her; and I will bless her and she shall become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” At this Abraham fell upon his face and began to laugh and to say in his heart: “Will a man a hundred years old have a child born, and will Sarah, yes, will a woman ninety years old give birth?”

Genesis 18:11-14: And Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah had stopped having menstruation. Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?” Then Jehovah said to Abraham: “Why was it that Sarah laughed, saying, ‘Shall I really and truly give birth although I have become old?’ Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? At the appointed time I shall return to you, next year at this time, and Sarah will have a son.”

In agreement with the Bible, the Qur’an also recognizes this fact regarding God’s intervention to revitalize the dead womb of Sarah. The Qur’an states the following:

Surah 11:72-73: She said, ‘Alas for me! How am I to bear a child when I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would be a strange thing!’ They said, ‘Are you astonished at what God ordains? The grace of God and His blessings be upon you, people of this house! For He is worthy of all praise and glory.’ (Abdel Haleem)

The above verses from both the Bible and the Qur’an tell us that Sarah no longer had the ability to have children. A miracle will have to be performed in order for her to have children. Jehovah God will have to bring her womb to life again in order for her to conceive a child. And Jehovah did this by giving Sarah and Abraham the ability to conceive Isaac through his divine intervention. In contrast, Ishmael was born normally without any divine intervention.

THE ONLY LEGITIMATE SON OF ABRAHAM

Isaac was the only legitimate son of Abraham when God commanded him to make the sacrificial offering. Isaac was begotten through Sarah, the legitimate wife of Abraham. Thus, Isaac was a legitimate son of Abraham. Furthermore, the Bible reveals that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was a “maidservant” of the wife of Abraham. It was only because Sarah herself could not bear children that she said to Abraham:

Genesis 16:2-3: “Please have relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have children by means of her.” So Abram listened to what Sarai said. …Abram’s wife Sarai took her Egyptian servant Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.

The expression here is clearly intended to mean that she gave Hagar to her husband to cohabit with him and not with the intention of making her a second wife as Muslims often claim these verses imply. This fact is clearly seen by how Hagar is addressed by Abraham even after she bore him a son. When Hagar conceived Ishmael and looked in contempt upon Sarah, Abraham responded to Sarah by saying:

Genesis 16:6: “Look! Your maidservant is at your disposal. Do to her what is good in your eyes.”

And when Hagar was in the wilderness, an angel of the true God appeared to her. Notice how he addressed Hagar when he spoke to her years after she bore Abraham a son:

Genesis 16:8: “Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, just where have you come from and where are you going?”

And later this angel admonished her:

Genesis 16:9: “Return to your mistress and humble yourself under her hand.”

Notice carefully, this angel of the true God never once addressed Hagar as the wife of Abraham. He did not say return to your husband but return to your mistress. Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqát al-Kabir is one of the earliest works on the biographical literature of Islam and a valuable source of information for the students of Islamic history as well as scholars engaged in Islamic research. This Islamic source confirms that Hagar was only a servant in Abraham’s household whom Sarah gave to him solely to bear him a son:

Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 41:

Then he called Hajar who was the most trustworthy of his servants and he bestowed her (Hajar) on her (Sarah) and gave her clothes; subsequently Sarah made a gift of her (Hajar) to Ibrahim who cohabited with her and she bore Ismail who was the eldest of his children.

Quite clearly Hagar was never regarded as the wife of Abraham but only as the maidservant of Sarah. This would make Ishmael an illegitimate son of Abraham. Thus it was quite proper for God to speak of Isaac as Abraham’s only son, namely his only legitimate son through his legitimate wife Sarah.

For Muslims who claim that Hagar was legitimate wife of Abraham, we challenge them to produce a single verse from the Qur’an to back their claim. As shown above, Hagar was no more than a maidservant of Sarah. She was given to Abraham by Sarah herself for the single purpose of bearing a child for Abraham and Sarah. However, what makes the Muslim claim a preposterous lie is the complete absence of any mention of Hagar in the Qur’an – even of the slightest reference to her. It is truly astonishing how Muslims can come up with this claim. In actual fact, the entire Qur’an has no reference to Hagar whatsoever, let alone by name. Is not the complete silence about Hagar in the Qur’an, a clear testimony that the Qur’an recognizes Sarah alone as the wife of Abraham?

Surah 11:71: “And his wife was standing there, and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.”

As the son is specifically named here as Isaac, there can be little doubt as to the identity of his mother. Why did not the Qur’an say, “And one of his wives was standing there”? If Hagar had also been one of Abraham’s wives, would it not be more appropriate to say, “And one of his wives was standing there.” Or would it not be more proper to identify her as “his wife Sarah.” However, when the Qur’an purely speaks of Abraham’s wife in the singular, without any form of identification, it recognizes the fact that Abraham had only one wife and that wife was Sarah.

A very important fact to bear in mind is that when the promise of Isaac was made to Abraham and Sarah, Ishmael had already been born. Therefore, for Surah 11:71 to refer to Sarah at this point in time as Abraham’s only wife is a clear testimony that Hagar was not one of his wives. It must be remembered that there is no mention whatsoever neither by name nor by reference of Hagar in the Qur’an. This is indeed a strange omission if she was also a wife of Abraham. In fact, if a Muslim were to read through the entire Qur’an without reference to any external source, he would not be able to guess that there was another woman in Abraham’s life.

The only woman mentioned in the above Qur’anic account is described as the single wife of Abraham and she is expressly described as the mother of Isaac. If Sarah is mentioned alone as the wife of Abraham in the Qur’an and also described as such in the Bible, can there be any objection to the description of Isaac as “your only son” in Genesis 22:2? Since Sarah is the only legitimate wife of Abraham, is it not perfectly in order to describe their son Isaac as Abraham’s only son?

Additionally, since Sarah alone is mentioned in the Qur’an as the single wife of Abraham, would God announce to Abraham the birth of a righteous boy conceived through an illegitimate union with a slave woman. (Surah 37:101) This is especially true as no mention whatsoever of this woman appears in the Qur’an. The only son promised to Abraham in the Qur’an is Isaac and Surah 37:102 makes it quite plain that it was this very same promised son who was commanded to be sacrificed. Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw is that the sacrificial son has to be Isaac and no other. It is only the popular sentiment of the Muslims that it was Ishmael and that for obvious reasons. We have seen just how the promise of a son to Abraham was inextricably linked to the subsequent command to sacrifice him. Where do think these evidences point to? Do they point to Isaac or Ishmael? The answer is obvious.

THE ONLY SON WHO LIVED WITH ABRAHAM

Isaac was the only son who lived with Abraham. Many years before the event when Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah, Ishmael and his mother Hagar had already been sent away. Ishmael was no longer a member of Abraham’s household. Thus Abraham was left with Isaac as his only son.

Genesis 21:14: So Abraham got up early in the morning and took bread and a skin water bottle and gave it to Hagar, setting it upon her shoulder, and the child, and then dismissed her. And she went her way and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba.

Since the Qur’an completely omits any mention of Hagar, Muslims are in no position to dispute the above stated Biblical statement.

THE QUR’AN RECOGNIZES ISAAC AS THE ONLY SON

In fact, there are many verses in the Qur’an which prove that it only recognizes Isaac as the only unique son of Abraham. Surah 29:27 is one such verse. It is one of most significant verses in the Qur’an. It is significant because it shows from the descendants of which son of Abraham will God select to establish the Prophethood and the Scriptures.

Surah 29:27: And We bestowed upon Abraham (a son) Isaac, and (a grandson) Jacob, and caused Prophethood and Revelation to continue among his progeny. And We gave him his reward in this world, and verily, in the life to come he shall be among those who have perfected their personality. (Shabbir Ahmed)

“And We bestowed on (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! In the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous.” (Pickthall)

Why was the name of Ishmael completely left out in this Qur’anic verse? This is very significant in view of the fact that Ishmael was the older son – the firstborn. Notice the order of the genealogy in this Qur’anic verse – Abraham (Father), Isaac (Son) and Jacob (Grandson). Does not this Qur’anic verse clearly identify and recognize Isaac as the only son of Abraham? Why? Is it not because he is the only legitimate son of Abraham? Is it not because he is the only promised son who is worthy for the Prophethood and the Scripture to be established through his genealogy?

This Qur’anic verse states emphatically that the “Prophethood” and the “Scripture” will be established to only those who came from the lineage Abraham through Isaac. Thus the Qur’an itself confirms the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael. Is it not strange that Ishmael is completely disregarded in this blessed privilege of God? Why was he not recognized as the son of Abraham when it matters most. Does not this prove that it is therefore perfectly legitimate for Isaac to be addressed as the “only son” in the Holy Bible?

The message in Surah 29:27 is certainly an emphatic statement. This Qur’anic verse is very important because it establishes the identity of the sacrificial son with utmost certainty. In order to understand the importance of Surah 29:27, we must first consider the Covenant that God made with Abraham immediately after he proved faithful to the sacrificial test:

Genesis 22:15-18: And Jehovah’s angel called to Abraham a second time from the heavens, saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand on the seashore, and your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemies. And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”

Because of Abraham’s obedience, God promised to bless his off-spring. And Surah 29:27 confirms that in keeping with his promise, God blessed the nation who came through the lineage of Isaac. It emphatically states: “And We bestowed on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world.”

Centuries before the arrival of the Qur’an, the Holy Bible confirms this vital truth that God in keeping true to his Covenant with Abraham established it through the Nation of Israel – the descendents of Isaac:

Romans 9:4-5: Who, as such, are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the sacred service and the promises; to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.

And the Qur’an agrees once again with this profound truth:

Surah 45:16: And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above all peoples.” (Pickthall)

Hence, it must be concluded that the intended sacrificial victim could only have been Isaac and not Ishmael. The Qur’an confirms the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael. It may surprise Muslims to learn that in many instances where Abraham is mentioned along with his son and especially so when it stated in a genealogical manner, the name of Ishmael is completely ignored in the Qur’an. In these instances, Isaac is recognized as the only son of Abraham in the Qur’an. So not only the Bible but the Qur’an also recognizes Isaac as the only son of Abraham in many of its verses. We will now provide a few examples of such verses in the Qur’an:

Surah 6:84: We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob. Both had received Our guidance. Noah received Our guidance before Abraham and so did his descendants: David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. Thus is the reward for the righteous people. (Muhammad Sarwar)

Surah 19:49-50: When (Abraham) rejected his people and what they worshipped instead of God, We gave him Isaac and Jacob and made both of them Prophets. We granted them Our blessing and high renown. (Muhammad Sarwar)

Was not Ishmael the firstborn son of Abraham? Was he not given as a son to Abraham? Why then do the above Qur’anic verses totally discount Ishmael as one of the sons given to Abraham? Is it not ironical that these Qur’an verses completely ignore the older son of Abraham and instead mentions the younger son as the immediate son of Abraham? What is the Qur’an’s reason for doing so?

Surah 38:45-47: (Muhammad), recall Our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom possessed virtuous hands and clear visions. We gave them this pure distinction because of their continual remembrance of the Day of Judgment. In Our eyes they were of the chosen, virtuous people. (Muhammad Sarwar)

Again we notice that the Qur’an does not take Ishmael into account as one of the sons of Abraham. The younger son is mentioned once again as the immediate son of Abraham and even the name of the grandson is included but not the name of the firstborn son. Why? There are other more verses such as these in the Qur’an but the above is sufficient to prove our point.

Thus, taking all the evidences into consideration, we can see that the Muslim claim that Ishmael was the sacrificial son has no solid evidence to substantiate it. The plain statements in the Bible that it was Isaac must obviously be preferred to the Qur’an’s vague and confusing treatment of the identity of the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice.

The Qur’an’s own teaching to a large extent underlines the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael. His lineage was God’s choice for the fulfillment of his eternal promises. This leads us to the conclusion that it was Isaac who was commanded to be sacrificed as a sign of the coming sacrifice of Abraham’s greater son, Jesus Christ. The offering of Isaac served as a sign of the greater sacrifice in the person of Christ Jesus. A sacrifice which was to serve as God’s way of opening the doors of his salvation to the world of mankind. As Isaac was preferred over Ishmael, likewise Jesus Christ must be preferred over Muhammad. Jesus Christ is the true son of Abraham – the true Sacrifice of God whom Isaac prefigured.

Matthew 1:1: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.”

As stated earlier, Islamic sources themselves testify that owing to the lack of a clear identity in the Qur’an, there were disagreements among early Muslims as to who the sacrificial son was. If you, as a Muslim, still have doubts regarding the identity of the sacrificial son, then we encourage you to consider the advice given in your own sacred text:

Surah 10:94: So if you are in doubt, (O Muhammad), about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. (U. Muhammad, Sahih International)

Muhammad was commanded by Allah to consult the people “who have been reading the Scripture” that was revealed “before” him when he had doubts. Those who have been reading the Scriptures before the time of Muhammad were the Christians. They read the Holy Bible. Yes, even your Prophet was directed by Allah to seek spiritual assistance from the Christians as a means of clearing his doubts. You should do the same. And Christians will be glad to assist you. They will gladly enlighten you that it was Isaac – without a doubt.

<<<<<< STEALTH TEAM MEGGIDO >>>>>>

The Sacrificial Choice: Isaac or Ishmael?

THE SACRIFICIAL CHOICE: ISAAC OR ISHMAEL?

Jews, Christians and Muslims agree that Abraham was a righteous man with outstanding faith. This is clearly seen in Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only begotten son. All three religions do not dispute this fact. While Jews and Christians are unified on the identity of the sacrificial child, Islam disagrees. The Bible identifies the sacrificial child as Isaac. However, Muslims say that it was Ishmael.

But even before we develop our arguments on the issue of the identity of the sacrificial son, it must be emphasized that no matter who the son was that Abraham offered to be sacrificed, Muslims are still in error. They are in error if it was Isaac. And they are still in error if it was Ishmael. In fact, Muslims will do well if they did not raise this issue in the first place. It is a lose, lose situation for Muslims. Why do we say that? Carefully consider now the shaky position of the Muslims when they challenge the authority of the Bible regarding the identity of the son.

THE MUSLIM DILEMMA

The sacrificial account of Abraham’s son is found in the Book of Genesis. Genesis is one of the five Books of Moses which are collectively known as the Torah. Let us now see what the Qur’an says about the Torah:

Surah 5:44: “Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light.” (Pickthall)

Surah 5:68: Say (O Muhammad SAW) “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! You have nothing as regards guidance till you act according to the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel).” (Hilali-Khan)

The Qur’an clearly testifies that the Torah was revealed by Allah. Therefore, according to the Qur’an, the Torah is the inspired “Word of Allah.” And the Qur’an also commands Jews and Christians to abide by the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel. It tells them: “You have nothing as regards guidance till you act according to the Torah and the Gospel.”

Well, when Jews and Christians obey this commandment of Allah to follow the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel, what do they find? Both the Torah and the Gospel specifically identify Isaac as the son who was offered by Abraham as a sacrifice. The sacrificial choice was clearly identified as Isaac.

To counter this clear identity of Isaac as the sacrificial son in the Bible, Muslims came up with the outrageous allegation that the Torah and the Gospel in our present Bible are not the originals but are corruptions of the originals. They claim that in order to glorify their ancestorship through Isaac, the Jews changed the name from Ishmael to Isaac in the Torah. Well, let us see what Allah has to say on this matter. The Qur’an testifies:

Surah 10:64: “No change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.” (Yusuf Ali)

“None can change the Words of Allah. This is indeed the Supreme Triumph.” (Pickthall)

The Qur’an itself says: “None can change the Words of Allah.” And since the Qur’an teaches that the Torah and the Gospel are the “Words of Allah,” it would require a denial of the Qur’an itself to believe that they have been changed through corruption. If the claim of corruption by Muslims is true, then Allah is a lying impostor for making false claims to the contrary in the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an becomes a lie for teaching that the Words of Allah cannot be changed.

If Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the true Word of Allah, then they must also believe that according to the Qur’an it is impossible to corrupt the Torah and the Gospel. This means the sacrificial son has to be Isaac as testified in both the Torah and the Gospel. However, if the Torah and the Gospel have been changed through corruption and the sacrificial son was actually Ishmael, then Muslims must accept the fact that Allah is a liar and the Qur’an is a lie. To say that the Bible has been permitted by Allah to become corrupted is to believe that Allah lied in the Qur’an.

The Muslim position that Ishmael is the sacrificial son is possible only if the “Words of Allah” have been changed in the Torah. Muslims cannot have it both ways. They cannot believe that the “Words of Allah” cannot be changed and at the same instance believe that the Jews changed the Torah. Muslims are in error if it was Isaac because they strongly believe that Ishmael was the sacrificial son. And Muslims are still in error if it was Ishmael because it shows that they are actually worshipping a false deity. A deity who lyingly told them that “None can change the Words of Allah” when the Jews actually changed the Torah.

It will be impossible for Muslims to believe that Ishmael was the sacrificial son without denying the teachings of Allah in the Qur’an. It will be impossible for Muslims to believe it was Ishmael without accepting as true that the Jews changed the name from Ishmael to Isaac in the Book of Allah. Therefore, the only option left for Muslims to hold on to their cherished assumption that it was Ishmael is to accept that the Jews changed the unchangeable Scriptures of Allah. Thus, no matter who the son was, Muslims are in error. In fact, for Muslims to believe that it was Ishmael is the greater error because it means Allah is a lying impostor. Period.

Surah 40:70-72: Those who gave the lie to this Book and all the Books which We had sent with Our Messengers shall soon come to know the Truth when fetters and chains shall be on their necks, and they shall be dragged into boiling water, and cast into the Fire. (Maududi)

Of course, we do not believe that the Torah or the Gospel was inspired by Allah as the Qur’an claims. The true inspiration behind the Torah and the Gospel is none other than Jehovah – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, our reason for using the Qur’an is not because we believe in it but because Muslims believe in it. It was a necessary approach that had to be used to prove to Muslims that their own sacred book confirms the integrity of the Holy Bible. Ironically, the Qur’an itself proves the Muslim argument to be erroneous.

We are assured by Jehovah, blessed be his name, that to time indefinite the Holy Bible will be kept pure and it will be kept above the reach of those who intend to tarnish it:

Psalm 119:89: “Forever, O Jehovah, Your Word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”

For an in depth study as to why the Holy Bible has not become corrupted and cannot become corrupted, please read the article in the following link: THE QUR’AN CONFIRMS THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE

Actually, there is no further need to discuss this issue. However, we will do so for the benefit of our readers, especially our Muslim readers. It is commonly believed in the Muslim world today that when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, that son was Ishmael – the son of his slave-woman Hagar. However, finding not a single shred of evidence in the Qur’an to sustain their claim, Muslims try to make deceptive use of the account in the Bible to support their argument. For example, since the Bible states that God commanded Abraham to offer his only son as a sacrifice, Muslims argue that this could not be Isaac as he was never an only child seeing that Ishmael was born fourteen years prior to him. However, they deliberately exclude the fact that the very same account clearly identifies who the son was.

Well, are Muslims correct in their belief that it was Ishmael who was the one offered by Abraham to be sacrificed? We like to take on a challenge with Muslims. Since the Bible clearly identifies Isaac as the sacrificial son, can Muslims use the Qur’an only to prove that it was Ishmael?

The arguments presented in this article are built progressively. Therefore, it is vital to read through to the end of this article to know for a certainty who this sacrificial son of Abraham was. Was it Isaac or Ishmael?

First let us read what the Bible says about this event:

Genesis 22:1-14: Now after these things it came about that the true God put Abraham to the test. Accordingly he said to him: “Abraham!” And Abraham replied: “Here I am!” And God went on to say: “Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you.”

So Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his ass and took two of his attendants with him and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering. Then he rose and went on the trip to the place that the true God designated to him. It was first on the third day that Abraham raised his eyes and began to see the place from a distance. Abraham now said to his attendants: “You stay here with the ass, but I and the boy want to go on over there and worship and return to you.”

After that Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and put it upon Isaac his son and took in his hands the fire and the slaughtering knife, and both of them went on together. And Isaac began to say to Abraham his father: “My father!” In turn he said: “Here I am, my son!” So he continued: “Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” To this Abraham said: “God will provide himself the sheep for the burnt offering, my son.” And both of them walked on together.

Finally they reached the place that the true God had designated to him, and Abraham built an altar there and set the wood in order and bound Isaac his son hand and foot and put him upon the altar on top of the wood. Then Abraham put out his hand and took the slaughtering knife to kill his son. But God began calling to him out of the heavens and saying: “Abraham, Abraham!” And Abraham answered: “Here I am!” And God went on to say: “Do not put out your hand against the boy and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”

At that Abraham raised his eyes and looked and there, deep in the foreground, there was a ram caught by its horns in a thicket. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up for a burnt offering in place of his son. And Abraham began to call the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. This is why it is customarily said today: “In the mountain of Jehovah it will be provided.”

The above Biblical account of the offering of Abraham’s son as a sacrifice appears in just one passage in the entire Qur’an. Here is what the Qur’an says about the event. We will quote it in full.

SURAH 37:100-113

It begins with Abraham speaking:

Surah 37:100-113: “O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!” So we gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in 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 wilt find me, if God so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!”

So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice), We called out to him, “O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For this was obviously a trial – and We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice: and We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times: “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”

Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For he was one of Our believing Servants. 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. (Yusuf Ali)

The above Qur’anic verse tells us that Allah “ransomed him (Abraham’s son) with a momentous sacrifice.” Although Islam completely rejects the Biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, namely the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the ransom as a release from death is strongly supported in the above account in the Qur’an. The fact that the Qur’an testifies that Allah redeemed Abraham’s son by means of a substitutive sacrifice, should awaken Muslims to consider the doctrine of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus carefully. As to why a “momentous sacrifice” has to be paid as a ransom for the release of Abraham’s son and how does this prefigure the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, please click on the following link: THE BASIS FOR THE RANSOM SACRIFICE OF JESUS IN THE QUR’AN

Let us now analyze the above Qur’anic verses carefully. Note that at the very beginning of this account, the “good news” or promise of a boy was given to Abraham. (Surah 37:101) The account then continues on saying that when this promised child reached the age of serious work, he accompanied his father Abraham to be offered as a sacrifice. And the account concludes with Allah saying: “And We gave him the good news of Isaac – a prophet, – one of the Righteous. We blessed him and Isaac.”

The account in the Qur’an makes it very clear that the child who was promised as “good news” to Abraham is the very child who accompanied him to be offered as a sacrifice. And towards the end of the account, the Qur’an specifically names Isaac as the promised child. While Isaac’s name is mentioned twice in this only account of the sacrifice in the Qur’an, there is no mention of Ishmael at all. Thus, Isaac was the only one named in the Qur’an as the child specifically promised to Abraham – a fact which the Qur’an agrees with the Bible. What can we then understand from this account in the Qur’an? Where do the evidences point to? Do they point to Isaac or Ishmael? The answer is obvious.

Actually, the above Qur’anic verses are very straightforward and simple to understand but not so for Muslims. In fact, there are also other verses in the Qur’an which expressly state that the promised son was Isaac.

Surah 11:69-71: There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, “Peace!” He answered, “Peace!” …And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. (Yusuf Ali)

Though the following Qur’anic verses does not mention Isaac by name, we can be certain that this account is in fact about him because the verses are actually a repeat of the same incident as the above Surah where Isaac is identified by name:

Surah 51:24-30: Has the story reached thee, of the honoured guests of Abraham? Behold, they entered his presence, and said: “Peace!” He said, “Peace!” …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.” (Yusuf Ali)

The only “barren old woman” who was given “glad tidings of a son” was Sarah. And she is described here as the wife of Abraham. Therefore, the son mentioned here cannot be any one other than Isaac. The important point for us to reflect on is the fact that the Qur’an repeated mentions Isaac as the promised child. The Bible clearly teaches that Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham and as we can see, the Qur’an agrees with this fact.

Furthermore, it was not Ishmael but Isaac who was conceived with the aid of God’s miraculous power:

Genesis 17:15-17: And God went on to say to Abraham: “As for Sar′ai your wife, you must not call her name Sar′ai, because Sarah is her name. And I will bless her and also give you a son from her; and I will bless her and she shall become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” At this Abraham fell upon his face and began to laugh and to say in his heart: “Will a man a hundred years old have a child born, and will Sarah, yes, will a woman ninety years old give birth?”

Genesis 18:11-14: And Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah had stopped having menstruation. Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?” Then Jehovah said to Abraham: “Why was it that Sarah laughed, saying, ‘Shall I really and truly give birth although I have become old?’ Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? At the appointed time I shall return to you, next year at this time, and Sarah will have a son.”

In agreement with the Bible, the Qur’an also recognizes this fact regarding God’s intervention to revitalize Sarah and Abraham. The Qur’an states the following:

Surah 11:72-73: She said, ‘Alas for me! How am I to bear a child when I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would be a strange thing!’ They said, ‘Are you astonished at what God ordains? The grace of God and His blessings be upon you, people of this house! For He is worthy of all praise and glory.’ (Abdel Haleem)

The above verses from both the Bible and the Qur’an tell us that Sarah no longer had the ability to have children. A miracle will have to be performed in order for her to have children. Jehovah God will have to bring her womb to life again in order for her to have a child. He is the One that gave Sarah and Abraham the ability to have Isaac. In contrast, Ishmael was born normally without any divine intervention.

The Bible states plainly that Isaac who was begotten through Sarah, the legitimate wife of Abraham, was the promised child. And the Qur’an agrees with this testimony in the Bible. And since the Qur’anic narrative shows that it was the promised child who accompanied Abraham to be sacrificed, then it evident that the Qur’an recognizes Isaac as the son who was offered to be sacrificed.

The Bible reveals that Hagar (Hajira in Islam), the mother of Ishmael, was a “maidservant” of the wife of Abraham. It was only because Sarah herself could not bear children that she said to Abraham:

Genesis 16:2-3: Please, have relations with my maidservant. Perhaps I may get children from her. Then Sarai took Hagar, her Egyptian maidservant and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.

The expression here is clearly intended to mean that she gave Hagar to her husband to cohabit with him and not with the intention of making her a second wife to him as Muslims often claim these verses imply. This fact is clearly seen by how Hagar is addressed by Abraham even after she bore him a son. When Hagar conceived and looked in contempt upon Sarah, Abraham responded:

Genesis 16:6: “Look! Your maidservant is at your disposal. Do to her what is good in your eyes.”

And when Hagar was in the wilderness, an angel of the true God appeared to her. Notice how he addressed Hagar:

Genesis 16:8: “Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, just where have you come from and where are you going?”

And later this angel admonished her:

Genesis 16:9: “Return to your mistress and humble yourself under her hand.”

Notice carefully, this angel of the true God never once addressed Hagar as the wife of Abraham. Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqát al-Kabir is one of the earliest works on the biographical literature of Islam and a valuable source of information for the students of Islamic history as well as scholars engaged in research. This Islamic source confirms that Hagar was only a servant in Abraham’s household whom Sarah gave to him solely to bear him a son:

Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 41:

Then he called Hajar who was the most trustworthy of his servants and he bestowed her (Hajar) on her (Sarah) and gave her clothes; subsequently Sarah made a gift of her (Hajar) to Ibrahim who cohabited with her and she bore Ismail who was the eldest of his children.

Quite clearly Hagar was never regarded as the wife of Abraham but only as the maidservant of Sarah. Thus it was quite proper for God to speak of Isaac as Abraham’s only son, namely his only legitimate son through his wife Sarah.

Additionally, at the time when Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah, Ishmael and his mother Hagar had already been sent away many years before this event. Ishmael was no longer a member of Abraham’s household. Thus Abraham was left with Isaac as his only son.

Genesis 21:14: So Abraham got up early in the morning and took bread and a skin water bottle and gave it to Hagar, setting it upon her shoulder, and the child, and then dismissed her. And she went her way and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba.

It is actually futile for Muslims to even endeavor to fault the Bible’s clear statement that the son who was offered to be sacrificed was Isaac. They should not even attempt to do so in view of the essential fact that the Qur’an does not say which son was to be sacrificed. Every Muslim reader of the Qur’an can only search in vain for the name of Ishmael in the account in Surah 37:100-113 where the story of the sacrifice is told. No Muslim can sincerely make a dogmatic statement that it was Ishmael in the light of the Qur’an’s complete silence on the actual identity of the son.

The hypocrisy of the Muslim claim can be seen by the fact that while they desperately cling on to the Bible’s statement that God commanded Abraham to offer his only son, they deliberately choose to ignore the fact that the very same verse they quote to support their claim, clearly identifies the son by name as Isaac. It is either all or nothing.

Genesis 22:2: And He went on to say: “Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you.

Besides the account in Genesis (Old Testament), the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) also positively identify the son whom God commanded Abraham to sacrifice as Isaac. The following two Biblical verses from the Christian Greek Scriptures prove this point:

Hebrews 11:17-18: By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.”

James 2:21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

In all the passages of the Bible, it is quite plainly stated that Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar. Yet in the only passage in the Qur’an where the sacrifice is discussed, there is not a single mention of Ishmael. In fact, the Qur’an does not identify who the son was. Therefore, while there is a double testimony in the Bible, both from the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures that the son was Isaac, there is no such testimony in the Qur’an that it was Ishmael.

This lack of a clear identity in the Qur’an led to wide disagreement among Muslim commentators as to who the son was. Although for purposes of convenience today the Muslim world unanimously acknowledges Ishmael as the sacrificial son, there was much dispute in the early days of Islam on the subject with many renowned Commentators of the Qur’an accepting that it was Isaac. A Muslim writer candidly admits:

Haykal, “The Life of Muhammad,” p. 25:

The Qur’an did not mention the name of the sacrificial son, and hence Muslim historians disagree in this regard.

While acknowledging the conflicting views in Islam regarding this very issue, Al-Tabari, considered as one of the most prominent Islamic historians, gave his scholarly view on this matter.

Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Volume II, Prophets and Patriarchs p. 32:

“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 Qur’an could serve as proof that the account naming Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two.”

This means that if Muslims were to undertake an impartial and honest study of the Qur’an, they would have to agree that Isaac was the chosen sacrifice. As an aside, notice how the above historical account reveals that Muhammad gave conflicting views. The above account says that “both groups of statements…came from the Prophet.” As a result, Muslims became divided in their opinion as to who the son was. And Muslims are willing to stake their lives by following a man who is unsure about the revelations of God.

Well, what was Al-Tabari’s reason to conclude that the evidences point to Isaac as the sacrificial son? Let us hear from the great Scholar himself.

Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Volume II, Prophets and Patriarchs, p. 89:

“As for the above-mentioned proof from the Qur’an that it really was Isaac, it is God’s word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, ‘I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.’ This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham’s vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him.

The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, ‘And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob,’ and ‘Then he became fearful of them.’ They said. ‘Fear not!’ and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her face, and cried, ‘A barren old woman.’ Thus, wherever the Qur’an mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God’s words ‘So we gave him tidings of a gentle son’, as it is true of all such references in the Qur’an.”

Al-Tabari also stated the following:

“…That ram remained in custody with God until He let it go as Isaac’s ransom.” (The History of Al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, Volume 1, p. 310)

Let us look into an incident which clarifies as to who it was that the early Companions of Muhammad believed was the sacrificial son of Abraham.

Mishkat Al-Masabih, Book 14, Chapter 4, Section 3:

“Muhammad b. al-Muntashir told of a man who vowed to sacrifice himself if God rescued him from his enemy. He consulted Ibn ‘Abbas who told him to consult Masruq, and when he consulted him he replied, “Do not sacrifice yourself, for if you are a believer you will kill a believing soul, and if you are an infidel you will hasten to hell; but buy a ram and sacrifice it for the poor, for Isaac was better than you and he was ransomed with a ram.” He told Ibn ‘Abbas and he replied, “This is the decision I wanted to give you.” Razin transmitted it. (Mishkat Al-Masabih English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson, Volume I, p. 733)

Ibn Abbas was a paternal cousin of Muhammad and a great scholar of Islam. So we are dealing here with the testimonies of the great Muslim scholars who not only lived during the time of Muhammad but who were also his close Companions.

Gibb and Kramers, A Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 175:

As the Qur’an verse does not state which son was to have been sacrificed, many Muslim theologians refer the intended sacrifice to Ismail. …But it may be said that the oldest tradition – al-Tha`labi expressly emphasises the ashab and tabi`un, i.e. the Companions of the Prophet and their successors from `Umar b. al-Khattab to Ka`b al-Ahbar – did not differ from the Bible on this question.

As stated above, the earlier Companions of Muhammad, including the rightly guided Caliphs such as Caliph Umar, believed that it was Isaac who was the intended sacrifice. While Islam is divided, no such disagreement has ever existed between the Jews and Christians. It is universally believed without dissent that it was Isaac. It is only in Islamic history that one finds confusion regarding the identity of the son.

Now ponder deeply on the following important point. If the son to be sacrificed is truly Ishmael, then the omission of the name of the son in the Qur’an is truly strange in view of one very important factor. In fact, it is inconsistent with the qualities of an all-knowing God. Why do we say that? Muslims claim that the name of Ishmael was deliberately removed from the Bible and replaced with Isaac in the sacrificial account. If Allah is the author of the Qur’an, surely he must have known that it was emphatically taught in both the Old and the New Testament that it was Isaac who was offered to be sacrificed. And consequently this came to be universally accepted. Since the Qur’an was revealed centuries after the completion of the Bible, surely an all-knowing Allah would have corrected the error with an equally emphatic statement in the Qur’an that it was Ishmael. Why did Allah remain silent?

In other words, since there is a double testimony from both the Old and the New Testament that the son was Isaac and if the Qur’an had come to clarify any previous errors as Muslims claim, it would surely have named Ishmael if he was the chosen victim. In the light of the prevailing belief that it was Isaac, the omission in the Qur’an regarding the identity of the son is inexcusable if it was indeed Ishmael.

Since Ishmael is named directly in the Qur’an in other instances such as being Allah’s helper in the building of the Ka’ba, is it not strange that Allah omitted his name where it matters most? Is it not strange that Allah missed out on the best opportunity to correct an error in the Bible? Is not the omission of Ishmael’s name in the entire Surah all the more significant, especially when this Surah covers a number of the stories of the earlier prophets who are all specifically mentioned by name?

In fact, Surah 37 mentions many of the earlier prophets by name. Names such as Noah (Surah 37:75, 79), Abraham (Surah 37:83, 104, 109), Isaac (Surah 37:112, 113), Moses (Surah 37:114, 120), Aaron (Surah 37:114, 120), Elijah (Surah 37:123, 130), Lot (Surah 37:133) and Jonah (Surah 37:139). Thus, the omission of the name of Ishmael in the only passage in the Qur’an where the event of the sacrifice is recorded is astonishing. It is truly astonishing if Ishmael was indeed the son who is to be offered. In fact, in the entire Surah, you cannot find the name of Ishmael. The fact of the matter is that Surah 37 has nothing to do with Ishmael. Surah 37:100-113 is just a repeat of the account regarding Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22.

Muslims try to come up with all kinds of excuses to prove that the sacrificial son was Ishmael. They even try to divide what is otherwise a clear segment in the Qur’an on a single subject of the sacrificial offer of Abraham. For example, some Muslims argue that since “the good news of Isaac” is announced only after the account of the sacrifice, therefore the preceding account of the sacrifice must refer to another son of Abraham, namely Ishmael. In other words, Muslims are saying that while the two verses (Surah 37:112-113) which appears at the conclusion of the account refers to Isaac, the preceding twelve verses (Surah 37:100-111) is actually speaking about Ishmael.

Their argument is seriously flawed for numerous reasons. Firstly, Surah 37:100-111 does not mention the name of Ishmael at all. Additionally, the very mention of Isaac by name, immediately following the sacrifice will only serve to distort one’s understanding of the narrative that precedes it if it did involve another son. It is hard to believe that the sacrifice refers to Ishmael when Isaac is promptly mentioned twice by name in the very verses that follow the proposed sacrifice. But there is more.

Firstly, we noticed that immediately before the specific subject of the sacrifice was narrated, a son was promised to Abraham: “So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.” (Surah 37:101).

Then immediately following the narration of the sacrifice, we read that Isaac was specifically promised to Abraham by name: “We gave him the good news of Isaac.” (Surah 37:112).

Can you notice the symmetry between the above two phrases? Now when we connect the two phrases together it reads as: “So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. We gave him the good news of Isaac.”

It is important to note that nowhere in this Qur’anic passage is it ever stated that Ishmael was similarly promised to Abraham. In fact, his name is completely missing in the entire Surah. It is also vital not to forget that Isaac was specially mentioned by name as the promised child.

Secondly there is also a clear symmetry between the earlier phrase, “So when they had both submitted their wills.” (Surah 37:103) and the later phrase, “We blessed him and Isaac.” (Surah 37:113).

Once again when we connect the two phrases together it reads as: “So when they had both submitted their wills. We blessed him and Isaac.”

As Abraham and Isaac “had both submitted their wills” to God – that one should sacrifice the other – God “blessed him and Isaac.”

Thus, it can clearly be seen that the Qur’an is actually speaking of only one single incident and that only one single individual (Isaac) apart from Abraham is involved in the account in Surah 37:100-113. It is also significant to note that there is no word in the text, such as thumma (then), between the story of the sacrifice and the mention of Isaac to separate the two subject matters under discussion.

The Muslim argument that Ishmael must have been the sacrificial son because the story of the sacrifice precedes the mention of Isaac is shown to be highly erroneous upon closer analysis. It should be noted that the idea that the sacrifice incident is divided into two sections is concocted by Muslims and is not based on facts. Certainly the complete omission of Ishmael’s name in the passage considerably undermines the dogmatic Muslim claim that he was the son who was commanded to be sacrificed.

Muslims also claim that Hagar was a legitimate wife of Abraham. As shown above, Hagar was no more than a maidservant of Sarah. She was given to Abraham by Sarah herself for the single purpose of bearing a child for Abraham and Sarah. Additionally, if the Muslim claim is true, the complete absence of any mention of Hagar in the Qur’an – even of the slightest reference to her is truly mind-boggling. In actual fact, the entire Qur’an has no reference to Hagar whatsoever, let alone by name. Is not the complete silence about Hagar in the Qur’an, a clear testimony that the Qur’an recognizes Sarah alone as the wife of Abraham? Let us analyze the Qur’anic verse which we quoted earlier:

Surah 11:71: “And his wife was standing there, and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.”

As the son is specifically named here as Isaac, there can be little doubt as to the identity of his mother. Why did not the Qur’an say, “And one of his wives was standing there”? Now if Hagar had also been one of Abraham’s wives, surely the text would have said, “And one of his wives was standing there.” Either that or it would have at least identified her as “his wife Sarah.” However, when the Qur’an purely speaks of Abraham’s wife in the singular, without any form of identification, it can be seen that it clearly recognizes that Abraham had only one wife and that wife was Sarah.

When the promise of Isaac was made to Abraham and Sarah, Ishmael had already been born. Therefore, for Surah 11:71 to refer to Sarah at this point in time as Abraham’s only wife is a clear testimony that Hagar was not one of his wives. It must be remembered that there is no mention of Hagar in the Qur’an whatsoever. This is indeed a strange omission if she also was a wife of Abraham. In fact, if a Muslim were to read through the Qur’an without reference to any external source, he would not be able to guess that there was another woman in Abraham’s life.

The only woman mentioned in this Qur’anic account is described as the single wife of Abraham and she is expressly described as the mother of Isaac. If Sarah is mentioned alone as the wife of Abraham in the Qur’an and also described as such in the Bible, can there be any objection to the description of Isaac as “your only son” in Genesis 22:2? Since Sarah is the only legitimate wife of Abraham, is it not perfectly in order to describe their son Isaac as Abraham’s only son?

To recapitulate: In the Bible, the promise of God to Abraham is found in Genesis 17:19. And in the Qur’an the promise was conveyed through the angelic messengers who came to destroy the people of Lot. (Surah 11:70-71) In both cases, it is the express promise of God that a son would be born to Abraham and that the son would be Isaac. In Surah 15:53 the narrative is repeated and the promise of a son stated once again, though this time Isaac is not mentioned by name. The same goes for Surah 51:28-29 where once again the promise of a son to Abraham’s only wife is repeated. Yusuf Ali, in a footnote, identifies it to be Sarah (The Holy Qur’an, p. 1424).

Finally, as we have seen, the promise of a son to Abraham appears again at the introduction of the story of the sacrifice (Surah 37:101) and few verses later the promised son is specifically named as Isaac. (Surah 37:112) There can be no doubt that Isaac is the only son promised to Abraham in the Qur’an and he must therefore be identified as the intended sacrificial son. It must be re-emphasized that nowhere in the Qur’an is Ishmael mentioned as the child of promise.

As Sarah alone is mentioned in the Qur’an as the single wife of Abraham, it is surely too hard to believe that God would announce to him the birth of a righteous boy (Surah 37:101), by an illegitimate union with a slave woman, especially as no mention whatsoever of this woman appears in the Qur’an. The only son promised to Abraham in the Qur’an is Isaac and Surah 37:102 makes it quite plain that it was this very same promised son who was commanded to be sacrificed. Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw is that the sacrificial son is Isaac. It is only the popular sentiment of the Muslims that it was Ishmael and that for obvious reasons. We have seen just how the promise of a son to Abraham was inextricably linked to the subsequent command to sacrifice him.

There is yet another text in the Qur’an which testifies to God’s preference of Isaac over Ishmael. It is one of most significant verse in the Qur’an. It is significant because it shows from the descendants of which son of Abraham will God select to establish the Prophethood and the Scriptures.

Surah 29:27: And We bestowed upon Abraham (a son) Isaac, and (a grandson) Jacob, and caused Prophethood and Revelation to continue among his progeny. And We gave him his reward in this world, and verily, in the life to come he shall be among those who have perfected their personality. (Shabbir Ahmed)

And We bestowed on (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! In the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous. (Pickthall)

Why was Ishmael’s name completely left out in this Qur’anic verse? This is very significant in view of the fact that Ishmael was the older son. Notice the order of the genealogy in this verse – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Does not this Qur’anic verse clearly identify and recognize Isaac as the only son of Abraham? Why? Is it not because he is the only legitimate son of Abraham? This Qur’anic verse also states emphatically that the “Prophethood” and the “Scripture” will be established to only those who came from the lineage Abraham through Isaac. Thus the Qur’an itself confirms the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael. Hence it must be concluded that as the intended sacrificial victim was announced to Abraham beforehand, it could only have been Isaac and not Ishmael. Centuries before the arrival of the Qur’an, the Holy Bible confirms this truth in Romans 9:4-5:

Who, as such, are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the sacred service and the promises; to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.

And the Qur’an agrees:

Surah 45:16: And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above all peoples.” (Pickthall)

The Qur’an’s own teaching to a large extent underlines the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael and God’s choice of his line for the fulfillment of his eternal promises. This leads us to the conclusion that it was Isaac who was commanded to be sacrificed as a sign of the coming sacrifice of Abraham’s greater son, Jesus Christ, who would thereby open the doors of God’s salvation to the world. As Isaac was preferred over Ishmael, likewise Jesus Christ must be preferred over Muhammad. Jesus Christ is the true son of Abraham – the true Sacrifice of God whom Isaac prefigured.

Matthew 1:1: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.”

<<<<<< STEALTH TEAM MEGGIDO >>>>>>

THE BASIS FOR THE RANSOM SACRIFICE OF JESUS IN THE QUR’AN

THE BASIS FOR THE RANSOM SACRIFICE OF JESUS IN THE QUR’AN

Islam completely rejects the Biblical doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, namely the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yet, it may surprise many to learn that the doctrine of the ransom as a release from death can be found in the teachings of the Qur’an. The Qur’an’s clear testimony to the fact that Allah redeemed Abraham’s son by means of a Substitutive Sacrifice should awaken Muslims to reconsider their denial of the doctrine of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. The account of a substitutive sacrifice as a ransom can be found in the following Qur’anic verses:

Surah 37:101-103: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. Then, when the son reached the age of serious work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in 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 practicing Patience and Constancy!” So when they had both submitted their wills to Allah, and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead for sacrifice. (Yusuf Ali)

The Qur’anic account then continues with these significant words of Allah:

Surah 37:104-108: We called out to him “O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For this was obviously a trial- And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice: And We left this blessing for him among generations to come in later times. (Yusuf Ali)

The above Qur’anic verses reveal a very important fact. It reveals that Allah ransomed Abraham’s son by personally providing “a momentous sacrifice.” Note how this phrase is rendered in others translations of the Qur’an:

“We ransomed his son for a great sacrifice.” (Malik)

“And We ransomed him with a tremendous sacrifice.” (Asad)

“And We ransomed him with a magnificent slain (sacrifice).” (M.M. Ghali)

“And We ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.” (Maududi)

“And We ransomed him with a noble victim.” (Sale)

“We have ransomed his son with a great sacrifice.” (Sarwar)

Why is the sacrifice, which both Muslims and Christians believe to have been a ram, called “momentous” or “great” in the Qur’an. How can a mere ram be descibed as “momentous” or “great” in comparison with Abraham’s son? Is not a human far greater and more valued than a ram? A ram is a male sheep. While the Bible testifies it was Isaac who was offered as the sacrifice, Muslims have traditionally held that it was Ishmael. As to the question of which son this was, this subject is discussed in depth in the following link:

SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM – WAS IT ISAAC OR ISHMAEL?

Muslims are taught to believe that the only reason for Allah to command Abraham to sacrifice his son was to test his obedience. While it is true that it served as a test for Abraham, it was however not the primary reason. God had in mind of something far greater in importance than that. Consider this, when Abraham came close to sacrificing his son, Allah intervened and said: “O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” This proves beyond doubt that Abraham passed the test of obedience.

If Allah’s purpose was only to test Abraham’s obedience, then this raises some very important questions. Since Abraham had already passed the test successfully, why could not Allah then simply allow Abraham to take his son and leave? Why was a ransom needed to free Abraham’s son? Allah stated explicitly in the Qur’an: “We ransomed him.” The payment of a ransom is required only for someone who has to be redeemed from some sort of a captivity. Therefore, by itself, the requirement of a ransom for the son of Abraham does not make any sense at all. So what is the message that Allah wants us to understand here? To deny that God does anything without a purpose behind it amounts to a denial of God himself.

Surah 38:27: It was not without purpose that We created the heavens and the earth and everything in between. (Abdel Haleem)

If you are a Muslim who is sincerely seeking to know the truth, then ask yourself the following questions:

(1) Why in the first place must a Ransom be paid for Abraham’s son?

(2) Why was a Sacrifice required as a Ransom to free Abraham’s son?

(3) Why was it absolutely necessary for Allah to provide the ram as a Substitute Sacrificial Offering to redeem Abraham’s son?

(4) What legal obligation could there be to enforce the rule that the only justifiable way for Allah to free Abraham’s son was by Substituting another Sacrifice in his place?

(5) Allah clearly stated: “We ransomed him.” To whom did Allah pay the Ransom price to?

(6) If it is to himself, why could not Allah simply cancel the requirement of the Ransom price?

(7) As Muslims so often like to tease the Christians regarding the doctrine of the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus, are Muslims now prepared to tease Allah also of taking money from one pocket and putting it into another?

(8) Why was there still a need for Allah to provide a Ransom Sacrifice at all since Abraham had already passed the test successfully?

These are vital questions that Muslims must seek to know the answer. Only by recognizing the full implications of these questions, will Muslims be able to understand why the sacrificial death of Jesus as a ransom is absolutely necessary for the redemption of mankind from sin and death. However, the answers to the above questions cannot be found in the Qur’an. Only in the Bible we can find the answers to these vital questions. The key to finding the answers is in the word, “Ransom.” Basically, a ransom is the price paid to bring about the release of someone from captivity. It applies to someone or something that is exchanged to take the place of a person in captivity in order to secure his or her release. In this case, a ram was slain in the place of Abraham’s son to set him free. The ram served as a means to redeem Abraham’s son. This is exactly what is taught in the Biblical doctrine of substitutional sacrifice. While the principal of redemption is stated clearly in the Qur’an, it does not tell us why it was required.

The ransom price demanded is usually equal or close to the value of the person for whom the price for release is paid for. Can a mere ram be equal in value to a human? Should not the value of the ransom prise be equivalent to that of a human to take the place of Abraham’s son? While the Bible shows that the ram is only a pre-figuration of a greater sacrifice to come, the Qur’an is transfixed with the animal itself. How can it be when the substitute sacrifice is spoken of as being “greater” than the son of Abraham himself? Thus, the sacrifice points to someone “greater” than any ordinary human. Who could that be?

As a Muslim, ask yourself: “Why did Allah describe the substitutive sacrifice as “Azzim” which means “Momentous,” “Tremendous,” “Mighty” or “Great” when it was just a ram. By no means can the slaughtering of a mere ram be considered as a “momentous sacrifice” especially in comparison with Abraham’s son. The ram by itself is by no means special. Therefore, how could a mere ram be greater than a human being? It will rationally make sense to describe the sacrificial ram as such only when it goes beyond itself to represent an altogether greater sacrifice – a greater sacrifice yet to come.

It is vital for Muslims to note that the Arabic term “al-Azzim” is one of the ninety-nine names of Allah in the Qur’an. Therefore, the Arabic term “Azzim” makes it highly impossible for the sacrifice of Allah to refer to a mere ram which Abraham subsequently found and slaughtered in his son’s stead. (See Genesis 22:13).

Thus, the greatness of the sacrificial ram lies not within itself but somewhere else. The ram symbolically represented something far more significant in terms of its redeeming value. The sacrificial ram pointed to an ultimate sacrifice that was yet to come. A sacrifice that will be presented by God himself. As God is the one who ransomed Abraham’s son by providing the alternate sacrifice, it will be God who will once again prepare the greater sacrifice prefigured by the ram. Redemption was God’s arrangement, not Abraham’s. A ram was slain to redeem Abraham’s son. And that redemption required the shedding of blood.

The principle of animal life for human life as an offering to God pointed beyond itself. As God provided a ram to atone for Abraham’s son, he has likewise provided a perfect, spotless lamb to atone for the sins of all those who turn to Him in true repentance. Therefore, the ram was only a symbol of the greater sacrifice to come in the person of Christ Jesus. God’s provision of a substitute sacrifice to redeem Abraham’s son on Mount Moriah served as a demonstration of the legal basis for the redemption of mankind through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. In the Biblical account of this event, we find an interesting conversation that took place between Abraham and his son. As Abraham and his son were walking to the hill where the sacrifice is to take place, the boy notices that they had everything except an animal to sacrifice. And so he asks his father:

Genesis 22:7-8: “My father!” In turn he said: “Here I am, my son!” So he continued: “Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” To this Abraham said: “God will provide himself the sheep for the burnt offering, my son.”

Notice that both Abraham and his son considered that the appropriate animal for the sacrifice was a sheep. Under inspiration, centuries before the arrival of Jesus Christ, the prophet Isaiah prophesied about the coming Messiah and recognized him to be the sacrificial lamb/sheep:

Isaiah 53:7: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”

And Jesus came to the earth to fulfill this divine prophecy. When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him, John proclaimed:

John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

And the apostle Peter wrote under inspiration:

1 Peter 1:18-19: For you know that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were delivered from your fruitless form of conduct received by tradition from your forefathers. But it was with precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, even Christ’s.

By denying the provision of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the prophetic significance of the ransom sacrifice as a means to redeem Abraham’s son has no meaning in Islam. According to the Qur’an, Abraham was commanded to show his love for Allah in a way which Allah has never matched Abraham in return. Can this really be true? Can a man’s love for God surpass God’s love for mankind?

The Muslim festival known as Eid-ul-Adha (Festival of Sacrifice) is a commemoration of an act of love by a man for God which has no parallel in Islam. Has Allah ever done anything for mankind to match Abraham’s supreme act of love for God? Can Allah match Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own son for God? One of the great absurdities of the Eid-ul-Adha festival is that it commemorates an act of love by a man for God which has no parallel from Allah in return. In the Eid-ul-Adha commemoration we see a man showing love for God in a far more surpassing way than Allah has ever shown for man.

However, in Christianity, the sacrifice of Abraham’s son was only a foreshadowing of the supreme manifestation of God’s love that was yet to come. It was only a foreshadowing of God’s greatest act of love for mankind which he manifested through the ransom sacrifice. Abraham’s love was only a reflection of the supreme love that God was determined to show on our behalf through the gift of his only-begotten Son. Ask any Muslim this simple question: If the greatest way a man could show his love for God was by his willingness to sacrifice his son for God, what will be the greatest way God could ever show his love for us? There can only be one obvious answer to this question.

The depth of Jehovah’s love for mankind could not be manifested in a way greater than this. While Jehovah halted the sacrificial execution of Abraham’s son, he did not spare his own Son. He went right through with his love for us by giving his Son as the ultimate sacrifice to die for our sins. Can a love as great as this be surpassed?

Romans 8:32: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?”

1 John 4:10: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins.”

The Qur’an’s narration of the ram that served as a substitution for Abraham’s son should have pointed Islam towards the correct understanding of the concept of the ransom sacrifice. But it did not. Islam misses the point and fails where it matters most. It failed to see the meaning of the prophetic drama which is recorded in Genesis 22. The Qur’an restates this account in Surah 37 without understanding the full significance of its meaning. Islam failed to comprehend that the sacrificial event of Abraham is actually a prophetic drama foreshadowing the greater sacrifice of the Messiah. The failure to understand this simple truth renders this highly significant prophetic drama meaningless in Islam.

The only thing that Islam achieved from this event is the meaningless slaughter of thousands of animals annually which it claims is being done in commemoration of Abraham’s love for Allah. Do such acts by Muslims accurately reflect the love of Abraham? Muslims failed to see that it is not the slaughtering of the ram by Abraham that counted with God but rather his willingness to sacrifice his son. It is only this act by Abraham that proved his obedience and love for God.

Genesis 22:15-17: And God proceeded to call to Abraham the second time out of the heavens and to say: “‘By myself I do swear,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘that by reason of the fact that you have done this thing and you have not withheld your son, your only one, I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore.”

All sacrifices according to the Law of Moses were based upon the principle of substitutionary atonement. There is however no remission of sins through the blood of sacrificed animals. The principle of animal life for human life as an offering to God pointed beyond itself.

Hebrews 10:3-4: To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.

The animal sacrifices required under the Law of Moses were only a shadow of the realities to come. And the reality belongs to Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 10:1: “The Law of Moses is only a shadow of the good things that are to come, but it is not the actual manifestation of the realities themselves. Therefore, it can never, by means of the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, bring to perfect those who approach the Holy Place to offer them.”

The animal sacrifices served as a reminder to the people of Israel of their need for the full forgiveness of their sins. Jesus Christ – the Lamb of God – came to offer the final atonement for our sins. All those who sincerely exercise faith in this loving provision, can experience the personal forgiveness of their sins. Jesus Christ is the one true Sacrifice. Please read the following two Biblical passages carefully:

Hebrews 9:11-14: “However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?”

Hebrew 10:5-10: Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

One of the arguments that Muslims use for their rejection of the ransom as a requirement for the forgiveness of sins is that they assert that God could forgive sins without requiring anything in return. If true, why could not Allah release the son of Abraham without requiring a substitutory ransom? This proves that, in principle, the Qur’an admits that some sort of payment has to be made. A ransom is defined as the payment paid for the release of a person in captivity. Now let us look at Surah 37:107 once again.

“We have ransomed his son with a great sacrifice.” (Sarwar)

When Islam denies the provision of the ultimate ransom in the person Christ Jesus, it shows that the One who actually redeemed Abraham’s son by means of a ransom could not be Allah but Jehovah. Only Jehovah knew why Abraham had to be tested this way. The true God tested Abraham to ascertain whether he was worthy to father the nation that would birth his Son – the ultimate Sacrifice. That is why when Abraham proved beyond any doubt that he was willing to sacrifice his son, Jehovah made this profound statement in the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah):

Genesis 22:18: And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.”

And we find the fulfillment of the above prophetic promise of Jehovah in the Christian Greek Scriptures:

Galatians 3:16: Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: “And to seeds,” as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: “And to your seed,” who is Christ.

Yes! It was Jehovah’s purpose to save mankind through the seed of Abraham. Allah had no clue regarding this magnificent purpose of Jehovah. He had no clue whatsoever regarding God’s means of redeeming mankind from sin and death. In fact, Islam contradicts itself by denying the reality – the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Being illiterate, Muhammad did not have a full comprehension of God’s purpose in the outworking of mankind’s salvation. He failed to understand that the animal sacrifices that the Jews sacrificed were only a prefiguration of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As a result, Muhammad failed to understand the prophetic significance of God’s commandment to Abraham. Ironically, Muhammad taught that the sins those who touch or kiss the Black Stone of the Ka’ba would be forgiven on Judgment Day.

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 959:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:

“Touching them both (the Black Stone and al-Rukn al-Yamani) is an expiation for sins.”

While Muslims are taught to reject the atoning value of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, yet these very same Muslims are taught to believe that a dead stone can achieve the very objective that they deny Jesus could accomplish. Muslims, remember that each time you sacrifice or see an animal being sacrificed on Eid-ul-Adha, that sacrificed animal testifies to a much greater sacrifice – the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of men.

Hebrews 10:4: It is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.

John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

<<<<<< STEALTH TEAM MEGIDDO >>>>>>

	CAROLINE jEAL on QUR’AN TESTIFIES MUHAMMA…
	Popoola Temidayo on MUHAMMAD’S FABRICATED NI…
	Aerobat on Why is Allah Inferior to …
	MVH on SURAH 61:6 – WAS MUHAMMAD PROP…
	Jace Elwyn on MUHAMMAD’S FABRICATED NI…

STEALTH TEAM MEGIDDO

REVEALING THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM

Menu

Tag Archives: Ishmael

THE TRAGEDY OF MUSLIMS

Deuteronomy 18:18 – Was Muhammad A Prophet Like Moses?

TRAGEDY AT MECCA – A WAKE UP CALL FOR MUSLIMS

SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM – WAS IT ISAAC OR ISHMAEL?

The Sacrificial Choice: Isaac or Ishmael?

THE BASIS FOR THE RANSOM SACRIFICE OF JESUS IN THE QUR’AN