FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
Ishamel or Isaac almost-sacrificed?
Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:16 am    Post subject: Ishamel or Isaac almost-sacrificed?  Reply with quote

This thread will bring in FFI threads on the topic and hopefully stimulate debate. I'll paste the FFI text in here. Reason to bring it here is that at FFI, the posts too rapidly "go on the back burner" unless kept alive by new posts. Here, it's calmer. Seems to me this is a very important topic for Muslims, and I'm going to aim at getting Ahmed Bahgat to join up here. So please chime in, all and sundry!

Why is this topic important? Well, the founding of the Hebrew 'race' is based on Abraham fathering a "son of the promise", as Paul puts it in Bible's Romans Chapters 4 and 9. In Judaism, this is the foundation of the patriarchs, who are not the sons of Abraham's other children, but only the sons of Isaac. You can find this story beginning in Genesis 12, with the forecast about Isaac himself and what happens after he's born, in Genesis 18 and following. First God elected Abraham, Genesis 12; then between Genesis 12 and 17, 25 years elapse, during which Abraham has made a circuit in the land we now know as Israel, which God promised to him (see Genesis 12, 15, 17, whole chapters for context). Ok, but then where's the son to inherit it, since God promised that son years prior, but no son from Sarah has yet been born, and by Genesis 18 Abraham can no longer father children, and Sarah no longer bear them?

Then, when Isaac is a young man, able to marry but still single, God has Abraham do a strange thing: sacrifice him. Story is in Genesis 22. Why? Well, you can see Bible's answer in Romans 4, 9, James 2.

Here's the problem: Ishmael was born 14 years prior to Isaac, compare Genesis 16:16 to 17:25. Muslims contend that the Koran says Ishmael, not Isaac was almost sacrificed, and the Jamarat in the hajj is based on that premise. Ok, then why is the Koran silent about this, or even stating it was Isaac sacrificed? Because the text of Suraa 37.101-113 seems to say Isaac, not Ishmael. Naturally, a devout Muslim would want to prove his point that Koran says Ishmael, not Isaac (which of course is the exact opposite of the Bible). So, let the debate on this question.. begin!

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:15 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:18 am    Post subject: Pastes from Koran vs. Tradition link at FFI Reply with quote

This comes from the following link: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1004044 and begins the "Koran vs. Tradition" thread there.

ygalg wrote:
I open this thread not to shift Sum's thread from it's topic.

it is a continues discussion over binding of the son.

I assert that Koran is not clear, who was the binding son.
Ishmael suggested to be that binding son, is traditional claim and not textual. IntellectualWarfare12 directs me to surah 37 without pointing me to related verses and asserts that it says clearly in surah 37.
so I took his advice and start to read.
I found that the only related verses are from 100 to 113.

here are the verses:
Quote:
100 My Lord! Vouchsafe me of the righteous.

Quote:
101 So We gave him tidings of a gentle son.

Quote:
102 And when was old enough to walk with him, said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.

Quote:
103 Then, when they had both surrendered, and he had flung him down upon his face,

Quote:
104 We called unto him: O Abraham!

Quote:
105 Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.

Quote:
106 Lo! that verily was a clear test.

Quote:
107 Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim.

Quote:
108 And We left for him among the later folk

Quote:
109 Peace be unto Abraham!

Quote:
110 Thus do We reward the good.

Quote:
111 Lo! he is one of Our believing slaves.

Quote:
112 And we gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a prophet of the righteous.

Quote:
113 And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapte...pter=37&translator=4&mac=

could be Ishmael is the gentle son?? well you'll be the judge who is the binding son.

for my assertion, I stand correctly. Koran indeed does not explicitly provides the details on the issue. the claim Ishmael is the binding son, based solely on oral tradition.

could be that Koran provides an indirect detail on the binding son. look at verses highlighted in red.

your comments are welcome.

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:21 am    Post subject: Pastes from Koran vs. Tradition link from FFI, continued. Reply with quote

Next, from the following link (skipping over stuff not wholly germane):http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1005199

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hmmm, I just cornered gangsta in another thread conning red handed, I'm stil upper cutting him on that thread, he is currently on the floor after I knocked him down, in the boxing game I'm playing with him, we count to 3600 which is about an hour, i.e. he has about an hour to stand up and redeem his silly ass, while the clunting is going on that other ring, I decided to have a 45 minutes break in this ring and give brother IW2 (who is boxing with him now and already kncked him down once)

Hello IW2

the boys and girls in here are never short of parrotting, they are programmed beyond any repairs brother, however I like you new style with them, that is how they should be treated, it is proven that we are dealing with severely manipulated freaks so they deserve such treatment, here is a had for you mate:

sparky wrote:
It may be tangential here but you mention the Isaac/Ishmael thing as a possible contradiction but I can't find any explicit mention of Ishmael in relation to the sacrifice where as Isaac is mentioned just afterwards.


Indeed Ishmael was not mentioned by name, and indeed no name is mentioned about the first child, therefore the child mentioned may be Ishmael or Isaac. However not because Isaac was mentioned after it that the first unknown child mentioned has to be him, indeed what is mentioned about Isaac 100% conclude that the first child mentioned CAN NOT be Isaac as I will show everyone:

101 So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102 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 practising Patience and constancy.
103 So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him Prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104 We called out to him, O Abraham
105 Thou hast already fulfilled the vision thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106 For this was obviously a trial
107 And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108 And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109 Peace and salutation to Abraham
110 Thus indeed do We reward those who do right
111 For he was one of Our believing Servants.
112 And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet, one of the Righteous.
113 We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

[The Quran ; 37:101-113]

فَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِغُلَامٍ حَلِيمٍ (101)
فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ مَعَهُ السَّعْيَ قَالَ يَا بُنَيَّ إِنِّي أَرَى فِي الْمَنَامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ فَانظُرْ مَاذَا تَرَى قَالَ يَا أَبَتِ افْعَلْ مَا تُؤْمَرُ سَتَجِدُنِي إِن شَاء اللَّهُ مِنَ الصَّابِرِينَ (102)
فَلَمَّا أَسْلَمَا وَتَلَّهُ لِلْجَبِينِ (103)
وَنَادَيْنَاهُ أَنْ يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ (104)
قَدْ صَدَّقْتَ الرُّؤْيَا إِنَّا كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (105)
إِنَّ هَذَا لَهُوَ الْبَلَاء الْمُبِينُ (106)
وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ (107)
وَتَرَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي الْآخِرِينَ (108)
سَلَامٌ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ (109)
كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (110)
إِنَّهُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (111)
وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَقَ نَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (112)
وَبَارَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى إِسْحَقَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِهِمَا مُحْسِنٌ وَظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ مُبِينٌ (113)


-> Hmmm, we read in 37:101 that Allah gave Ibrahim the good news of a boy :”So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.”, this sounds like the first boy Ibrahim was told about, the first son he had,

-> The Quran then talked about this son for a few verses describing the dream and how the son submitted to his father will, up to this moment we can say that the son may be either Ishmael or Isaac

-> Then Allah in verse 37:112 is informing us that He gave Ibrahim ANOTHER GOOD NEWS, this is obvious from the WAW at the beginning of the verse :” وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَقَ نَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ”, And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet, one of the Righteous. “, i.e. this is a another event, i.e. another good news, i.e. his second son, and in here Allah is telling us that his name is Isaac, i.e. the first son mentioned in 37:101 is Ishmael

See everyone how the ignorant in here always resort to the Tutty Fruity Fallacy, which is to consider apples and mangos the same

Sparky, you have been electrocuted

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:26 am    Post subject: Pasting from Koran vs. Tradition at FFI, continued Reply with quote

Next, a general thought in rebuttal (again, skipping over divergent postings): http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1005465

manfred wrote:
The truth is, we have 1500 years of one version of the story of Abraham, Ismael and Isaac, then then suddenly Mohammad comes along and we get a completely new one. Not only that, the new version has an obvious agenda.

No other sources exist to corroborate Mohammad's version. If his version was even just likely to be possible, somewhere in Jewish fringe texts, perhaps, or other middle eastern texts, we should find this version. We do not.

Therefore it is apocryphal at best, to be polite.

So far we had no evidence to show, using the Quran only, that is was Ishmael who was nearly sacrificed.

We all know that this just one of the many fallacies Muslims teach,
but the point made here was: Ishmael's story is essentially an Islamic tradition emerging out of the Quranic texts, a later deduction, if you like.

Now IW keeps going on that the bible story about Ishmael talks about an infant being taken away, using dodgy translations to back this up, and by reading things into the text which are not there.

Just for a moment let's try to use some common sense. IF Ishmael was a baby, how could Sarah have complained that he should not grow up with Isaac?If Isaac was not born then, there would have been nothing to complain about. See the quote of Genesis 21:10 conveniently provided by IW.

The whole rationale in the story why Ishmael is sent away hinges on Isaac being born. Without Sarah's intervention, it would not have happened. Sarah would have no reason to intervene without having a child of her own, i.e. Isaac. And Isaac was born roughly 14 years after Ishmael, according to the text.

This means that Ishmael must have been a teenager when sent away.

Are we clear on that now? Perhaps I need to draw a picture for IW? Gee, why can some people read a text without reading into it. Next, no doubt, we are told the bible version of Noah really is a manual on ship building.

True to form with IW, whenever running out of arguments, tantrums and verbal abuse set in.

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:34 am    Post subject: Pasting from Koran vs. Tradition thread at FFI, continued Reply with quote

Next, another exchange relevant to this topic, at: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1006868

ygalg wrote:
IntellectualWarfare12 wrote:

I believe through the Quran that it was Ishmael to be sacrificed, and since I pointed out some flaws in the Biblical account, and you couldn't answer it, I need for you to shut your mouth.

Believe is the key word. Believe is not substantiation. let it be thousands of flaws in the bible. the bible precedes koran and that what counts! invalids koran in that aspect.

Quote:
You're asking me for proof that Ishmael was the sacrificed one, well I can shift the burden of proof on your neck, since the Quranic account has no holes while the Biblical account does.

no, you can't. you claim it's Ishmael. you made the positive claim. the burden of the proof is on you.

koran is not explicit for the matter, even if it point out to Ishmael.
the correct approach, is to accept the biblical side of the story.
as koran is a late edition. you need to bring an evidence that precedes the bible which indicating, Ishmael was the binding son. do you have any?

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:39 am    Post subject: Pasting from Koran vs. Tradition thread at FFI, Continued Reply with quote

Next rebuttal post on the topic, from: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1008452

manfred wrote:
IW,

I really don't know what else I can say to you about the story of Ishmael in Genesis in relation to the points you keep raising over and over again. You have had a full and detailed reply from several people, but you just ignore that and keep saying the same thing.

I am taking you back again to the point you have not answered yet, for the third time:

We are still waiting for your proof that it was Ishmael who was nearly sacrificed. So far I understand that

a) the Quran is not explicit on that but you say it is "obvious"

b) therefore it can be deduced that this is was the Quran is getting at

c) therefore it is a generally accepted idea amongst Muslims, a kind of tradition, but not a direct revelation.

d) from this is also follows that, as a deduction or inference or interpretation can be wrong, and as have no other corroborating evidence, the likelihood of Ishmael being the binding son is remote, and the Genesis account should be accepted as the more reliable. On one hand we have a much older, very clear text saying the binding son was Isaac, on the other we have a mere interpretation of a later text suggesting Ishmael, but not even explicitly stating that.


This deduction has nothing to do with whatever faith anyone follows, it is simply common sense.

Let's try an analogy.

Suppose you investigate a murder mystery.

A man is found stabbed in his own house with his own kitchen knife.

You could theorise that, as the only other person living in the house was his wife, and nobody else, and they had an argument the day before, it probably was the wife.

You don't have enough proof, but it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Both the husband's and the wife's fingerprints are found on the knife, so the theory gets quite solid.

However, then a neighbour states that he say the man's brother coming to the house the evening before and he saw this brother distinctly through his living room window stabbing the man. On further inspection, the brother's fingerprints are also on the knife, and the blood of the victim is found on the brother's clothing and in his car, and the brother confesses. Also, it turns out that the wife went to a cinema with her sister at the time of the murder and she has many witnesses to that effect.

I am sure you would have no difficulty in adjusting your first theory in that situation, and dismiss the theory that it was the wife.

If you can use common sense in this kind of questions, why is it so hard to just do the same when looking at the Quran?

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: Paste from Koran vs. Tradition thread at FFI, cont. Reply with quote

So finally I jumped in, at: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1019068

brainout wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Ahmed Bahgat wrote "Hmmm, I just cornered gangsta in another thread conning red handed, I'm stil upper cutting him on that thread, he is currently on the floor after I knocked him down, in the boxing game I'm playing with him, we count to 3600 which is about an hour, i.e. he has about an hour to stand up and redeem his silly ass, while the clunting is going on that other ring, I decided to have a 45 minutes break in this ring and give brother IW2 (who is boxing with him now and already kncked him down once)

Hello IW2

the boys and girls in here are never short of parrotting, they are programmed beyond any repairs brother, however I like you new style with them, that is how they should be treated, it is proven that we are dealing with severely manipulated freaks so they deserve such treatment, here is a had for you mate:

sparky wrote:
It may be tangential here but you mention the Isaac/Ishmael thing as a possible contradiction but I can't find any explicit mention of Ishmael in relation to the sacrifice where as Isaac is mentioned just afterwards.


Indeed Ishmael was not mentioned by name, and indeed no name is mentioned about the first child, therefore the child mentioned may be Ishmael or Isaac. However not because Isaac was mentioned after it that the first unknown child mentioned has to be him, indeed what is mentioned about Isaac 100% conclude that the first child mentioned CAN NOT be Isaac as I will show everyone:

101 So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102 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 practising Patience and constancy.
103 So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him Prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104 We called out to him, O Abraham
105 Thou hast already fulfilled the vision thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106 For this was obviously a trial
107 And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108 And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109 Peace and salutation to Abraham
110 Thus indeed do We reward those who do right
111 For he was one of Our believing Servants.
112 And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet, one of the Righteous.
113 We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

[The Quran ; 37:101-113]

فَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِغُلَامٍ حَلِيمٍ (101)
فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ مَعَهُ السَّعْيَ قَالَ يَا بُنَيَّ إِنِّي أَرَى فِي الْمَنَامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ فَانظُرْ مَاذَا تَرَى قَالَ يَا أَبَتِ افْعَلْ مَا تُؤْمَرُ سَتَجِدُنِي إِن شَاء اللَّهُ مِنَ الصَّابِرِينَ (102)
فَلَمَّا أَسْلَمَا وَتَلَّهُ لِلْجَبِينِ (103)
وَنَادَيْنَاهُ أَنْ يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ (104)
قَدْ صَدَّقْتَ الرُّؤْيَا إِنَّا كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (105)
إِنَّ هَذَا لَهُوَ الْبَلَاء الْمُبِينُ (106)
وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ (107)
وَتَرَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي الْآخِرِينَ (108)
سَلَامٌ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ (109)
كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (110)
إِنَّهُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (111)
وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَقَ نَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (112)
وَبَارَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى إِسْحَقَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِهِمَا مُحْسِنٌ وَظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ مُبِينٌ (113)


-> Hmmm, we read in 37:101 that Allah gave Ibrahim the good news of a boy :”So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.”, this sounds like the first boy Ibrahim was told about, the first son he had,

-> The Quran then talked about this son for a few verses describing the dream and how the son submitted to his father will, up to this moment we can say that the son may be either Ishmael or Isaac

-> Then Allah in verse 37:112 is informing us that He gave Ibrahim ANOTHER GOOD NEWS, this is obvious from the WAW at the beginning of the verse :” وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَقَ نَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ”, And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet, one of the Righteous. “, i.e. this is a another event, i.e. another good news, i.e. his second son, and in here Allah is telling us that his name is Isaac, i.e. the first son mentioned in 37:101 is Ishmael

See everyone how the ignorant in here always resort to the Tutty Fruity Fallacy, which is to consider apples and mangos the same

Sparky, you have been electrocuted


Wow, this is embarrassing: Koran tells you it's Isaac, not Ishmael who was sacrificed in these ayahs. I think I'll kill myself now. I've seen people misread Bible in the same way, but I really didn't expect to find it in the Koran. I wish I didn't see this.

Simple Grammar was missed, the rule of antecedence. For the text to reference Ishmael, his name MUST appear in context. A pronoun must have an antecedent. The only antecedent name is Abraham. So "him" in 112 and 113 is Abraham. The only other person mentioned in the verse is Isaac. Atop that, the rhetorical bookending from verse 101 through 113 means that 101 functions as a kind of title, and 113 is the end of the story. It's a common Biblical rhetorical bookending style, i.e., in Genesis 7:7-17, with 7:7 as the title and 8-17 as the details. I'm sure ygalg recognizes the Hebraic summary first, then detail format. You see the same thing in Genesis 1:1 (title), followed by detail, then repeated from another angle in Genesis 2. Ooops. I need to leave for awhile.


At that moment I was too shocked about the obvious reading error to say more. I've gotten over that, now.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:46 am    Post subject: Pastes from Koran vs. Tradition in FFI, continued Reply with quote

On the same link page, after I'd calmed down and witnessed some of the reaction, this is what I said:

brainout wrote:
You guys, this is basic grammar. I'm not saying it, YOUR OWN KORAN is saying it. Basic rule of grammar in ANY language is that a pronoun must have a full-noun antecedent which it references. That's true in Arabic, in Greek, Hebrew, any language all the way down to today's language.

THE TEXT SAYS ITS ISAAC. All I did was notice it. And I'm EMBARRASSED for all the Muslims who think it's Ishmael. KORAN SAYS ISAAC. Period.

Bible people make the same mistake in misreading Bible, too. People don't do their homework. It's embarrassing on us all. I wish I didn't see this. I wish I weren't a Christian, just for the moment. But I can't undo my salvation. I wish I didn't have to post this. But lie? I can't do that. Notice how this does NOT invalidate your faith in the Koran, it BUTTRESSES it, because now the Koran makes more sense!


Ok, but you fix belief like you fix a broken window. No big deal. God is perfect, we are not. Now I'll go kill myself. I hate proving a cherished belief, incorrect.


Still upset at starting up a firestorm. So the issue really didn't get threshed out.

Next, same page:
brainout wrote:
My work intrudes, so I'm only going to watch four threads, and I can't promise how often I can respond in them, so please be patient with me.

I discovered this thread by mistake. I did not want to post what I posted here. But then I'm hiding something, and God already spanks me enough, so I posted it to avoid more spanking.

Having said all that, the fact is the Koran itself says Isaac is the "son" sacrificed. It's a grammatical thing, not an interpretational question. The text clearly says that. You Arabic experts can't deny the rule of the antecedent noun for the pronoun, even if you wanted to. However, that should make you happy, not sad, because the Koran is buttressed, not knocked down, on this point. Unfortunately many imams and Muslims BELIEVE it's Ishmael not Isaac, and for them this text is maybe upsetting.

It doesn't have to be. We all make mistakes in reading our holy books. Do you know how many millions of Christians mistakenly claim that there was a Star of Bethelehem? I too was raised with that lie. Yeah, but the BIBLE says there was no star at ALL (stars don't hover over houses, k) -- and what SEEMED like a star was in Jerusalem, not Bethelehem. Text in question is Luke 2-3 and Matt2. You need the Greek to know it wasn't a star. But you don't need the Greek to know it wasn't in Bethlehem, Matt2 is plain enough in translation. As for the Greek, I already abstracted it in http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/LvS4a.htm#Star. You can bet a lot of Christians don't like that. Well, I don't want to be spanked by God more than I am already, so it's 'out there' to believe or not, research or not.

Same thing here. Ishmael was 14 years old when Isaac was born. So the chronological order is correct -- for ISAAC. Isaac was an adult when he was almost-sacrificed, Hebrew noun "na'ar" means someone of marriageable age. Which both the Koran here and the Bible, attest. I won't insult your intelligence or hijack the thread by saying where all this is covered in the Bible. Suffice it to say you can corroborate what the Koran says here, from the Bible as well. Maybe one of you would like to do that in this thread. I don't have the time.

The grammar rule on pronouns and their noun antecedents was all I wanted to post. It shocks me that we've all misread the Koran for so long. So: unless there are some other ayahs explicitly saying it was Ishmael, then it's not Ishmael, but Isaac who got almost-sacrificed, due to that simple grammar rule IN THE TEXT of the Koran itself.

Gotta run, now. Will miss you all very much!


Thread ends there, but it picks up in another thread, which I'll paste next.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:51 am    Post subject: Past from "Impressions of Islam" thread at FFI Reply with quote

In the "Impressions of Islam" thread at FFI, the topic re-emerges. Link is: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1021043

Here's where it picked up:
brainout wrote:
Sunnah says emulate Muhammed, but not God? That trashes Islam for me. So all that remains is some parts of the Koran. My impression of Islam worsens daily, what with all the vile behavior of Muslims who do not even know their own Koran, and take violent offense even at harmless cartoons which satirize a mere man, but not God. They behave like pigs and apes.

Worse, they do not even know that their own Koran specifies it was Isaac, not Ishmael who was sacrificed, in Sura 37:101-113, where 101 is "son", and the antecedent noun after 101 is Abraham, so the "him" in ayahs 112-113 is Abraham, with Isaac being next, the NAME of that "son."

Basic law of grammar, a pronoun must have an antecedent noun which it represents, and that's Abraham. Ishmael is nowhere in sight. So, then: all that Jamarat nonsense in the hajj is blasphemy, too. For it violates the Koran. Oddly, my faith in the Koran is somewhat improved by discovering its accuracy (versus the imams), in 37.101-113.

God will not be mocked by those who misuse his book.

My, this is getting worse and worse.

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:20 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:52 am    Post subject: Paste from "Impressions of Islam" thread at FFI, c Reply with quote

Then Ahmed Bahgat decided to revisit the issue on the same link page. Here's what he posted:

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello again brainout

I decided to continue on the subject of Ismael and Issaq, I can't be lazy and have to slam dunk it for good, so you may consider that I'm setting a trap for you with my previous question, I'm still planning btw, I'm telling you because my brutal honesty forces me to tell you in advance, so be careful

Now I would like to add to the above question in my last comment a couple of simple questions:

1) Does your Bible claim that the son that was about to be sacrified was Ibrahim ONLY son?

2) Does your Bible claim that the son that was about to be sacrified was Ibrahim FIRST child?

You may need to provide the Bible passages to support your reply

Cheers



_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum