Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
brainout

Ishamel or Isaac almost-sacrificed?

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!
brainout

Pastes from Koran vs. Tradition link at FFI

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.
brainout

Pastes from Koran vs. Tradition link from FFI, continued.

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 :ĒSo We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.Ē, 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 :Ē وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَقَ نَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَĒ, Ē And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet, one of the Righteous. ď, 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
brainout

Pasting from Koran vs. Tradition at FFI, continued

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.
brainout

Pasting from Koran vs. Tradition thread at FFI, continued

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?
brainout

Pasting from Koran vs. Tradition thread at FFI, Continued

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?
brainout

Paste from Koran vs. Tradition thread at FFI, cont.

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 :ĒSo We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.Ē, 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 :Ē وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَقَ نَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَĒ, Ē And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet, one of the Righteous. ď, 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.
brainout

Pastes from Koran vs. Tradition in FFI, continued

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.
brainout

Past from "Impressions of Islam" thread at FFI

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.
brainout

Paste from "Impressions of Islam" thread at FFI, c

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
brainout

This was my reply, same page:

brainout wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello brainout


I would like to ask you a question

can you please tell me (if you know), if the incident of Ibrahim wanting to slaughter his son was after destroying the people of Lut or before it?

Cheers


After Sodom and Gommorah, 20+ years, actually. Sodom and Gommorah occurred at the same time Ibraim got the announcement that Isaac would be born from Sarai. Then Abraham circumcized himself, and as a result both he and Sarai (now Sarah, renamed) could propagate children. At least 18 years after that, Isaac was almost sacrificed.

I could look up the Bible citations if you want it. The story of the almost-sacrifice of Isaac is in Genesis 22. Hebrew "na'ar" in Genesis 22:5 means a young man of MARRIAGIABLE AGE, which ties back to the Koran, imo. Isaac was not a child when this happened, but an adult, and Ishmael was 14 years older (so already married at the time). Abram was 86 years old when Ishamel was born, Genesis 16:16. 100 years old when Isaac was born (Ishmael was 13 when Abraham circumcised himself, Genesis 17:25). Again, I can furnish you with more citations on Sodom and Gomorrah (what you call the destruction of the people of Lut really isn't of his people, but of the town he lived in). And, I can provide more Bible documentation on the Ishmael-Isaac story. I'd bet money Koran doesn't contradict them. (Hadiths don't count, so don't quote them to me, sorry.)


and
brainout wrote:
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


See my last post. No, Isaac is not depicted as but the second son of Abraham. Koran doesn't say differently. Koran doesn't say the first son was sacrificed, either. You have to twist the text to get that idea.

If you want an extended Bible posting on this topic, let me know. I'm worried that too much posted on what Bible says, violates the terms of the forum.
brainout

Next, I replied at this link, and await his response: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1021127

brainout wrote:
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


See my last post. No, Isaac is not depicted as but the second son of Abraham. Koran doesn't say differently. Koran doesn't say the first son was sacrificed, either. You have to twist the text to get that idea.

If you want an extended Bible posting on this topic, let me know. I'm worried that too much posted on what Bible says, violates the terms of the forum.
AhmedBahgat

Hello brainout and all

First of all, the issue of who was to be sacrificed means nothing to me, however I canít deny that it is an issue that baffled the people since prophet Mohammed days, and he was asked about it and clearly answered the question as we know in the hearsay hadith, however I canít use the hadith as evidences, I will leave that to those who are fond of it, there are many boys and girls in here who are fond of the hadith, I wonder why they donít refer to the hadith regarding this matter?, oh yeh they select what suits them and dismiss what does not suit them, unlike me, I dismiss all hadith regardless it suits me or not. That is a big difference btw, anyway, what we must use as evidences are the Bible and the Quran, the story is mentioned in both, however the Quran didnít go into boring and repetitive details as the Bible did, just what we need to know (the moral of the story), from the Quran message regarding all the prophets, the message is clear, they should be all the same from the human perspective, i.e. it should make no difference to who was sacrificed, being Ismael or Isaac, makes no difference, this is because both of them were great prophets who were chosen by the same God to convey a specific message to their corresponding people, the story of Ibrahim son sacrifice however has nothing to do with either Ismael or Isaac, the storyís moral is only directed at Ibrahim, it was a test for his submission and he passed the test, let me show you how the Quran said as such:

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 a great 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)

-> In verse 101, we read that Ibrahim was given the good news of having a child,:So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear., this has to be the first child Ibrahim was told about, i.e. Ismael, the first son he had, that son should also be the only son he had at that time and for the next 14 years until he had Isaac, i.e. for 14 years Ibrahim had ONE and ONLY son, who was Ismael

-> Verse 102, is telling us that when that son grew enough he started working with his father : Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, and this is when Ibrahim informed his son that he has to sacrifice 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.

-> Then when Ibrahim was about to slay his son, Allah called him and told him the following: 104:We called out to him, O Abraham, 105:Thou hast already fulfilled the vision thus indeed do We reward those who do right., see, it was only for Ibrahim to believe it, and it was only an order for Ibrahim to do it, it was not an order for his son to obey his father. see what his son told him when Ibrahim informed him that he has to slay him: O my father Do as thou art commanded, i.e. it was a command from Allah to Ibrahim, not to his son., i.e. it was a test from Allah to Ibrahim not to his son For this was a great trial

-> Now here is what makes those dumb who use the Quran to prove their lie that Isaac was the one to be sacrificed look really silly, why then Allah says in 37:112 the following after the story of the son being sacrificed above: 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 in addition to the good news in 37:101, i.e. the good news of 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, it is ridiculous to suggest that Allah just told us the story of Isaac sacrifice, then He comes and say after it that Ibrahim was given the good news of Isaac, those idiots who try to manipulate the Quran to suit their lies should really get a life because their arguments hold no water and the Quran MUST expose them..

That second good news of Isaac (the second event) was sometime later when Allah sent the angles to destroy the queers:

69: And certainly Our messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. They said: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf.

70: But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lot's people.

71: And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Isaac and after Isaac of (a son's son) Yaqoub.

72: She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.

73: They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.

74: So when fear had gone away from Ibrahim and good news came to him, he began to plead with Us for Lut's people.

[The Quran ; 11:69-74]

وَلَقَدْ جَاءتْ رُسُلُنَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ بِالْبُشْرَى قَالُواْ سَلاَمًا قَالَ سَلاَمٌ فَمَا لَبِثَ أَن جَاء بِعِجْلٍ حَنِيذٍ (69)
فَلَمَّا رَأَى أَيْدِيَهُمْ لاَ تَصِلُ إِلَيْهِ نَكِرَهُمْ وَأَوْجَسَ مِنْهُمْ خِيفَةً قَالُواْ لاَ تَخَفْ إِنَّا أُرْسِلْنَا إِلَى قَوْمِ لُوطٍ (70)
وَامْرَأَتُهُ قَآئِمَةٌ فَضَحِكَتْ فَبَشَّرْنَاهَا بِإِسْحَقَ وَمِن وَرَاء إِسْحَقَ يَعْقُوبَ (71)
قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَاْ عَجُوزٌ وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ (72)
قَالُواْ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ (73)
فَلَمَّا ذَهَبَ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الرَّوْعُ وَجَاءتْهُ الْبُشْرَى يُجَادِلُنَا فِي قَوْمِ لُوطٍ (74)

-> See above And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Isaac and after Isaac of (a son's son) Yaqoub., one day I read a comment by one of the goons on FFI regarding this verse, he suggested that the verse is a joke because it didnít make sense to him that someone is informed with some good news of having a baby and that one laughs, for him itís weird, possibly he thinks that she should have cried, or how about showing no emotions, like this:

The angles: Hey Sarah, you are about to have a son named Isaac

Sarah: Ok

-> Holy crap man, I see the lowest of mentalities on FFI web site, they have been blinded by their Kufr. At least the Quran mentioned it only once that she laughed, the Bible however made a whole fuss of it as I will show you later, yet that goon who ranted about that Quran verse never mentioned that fuss which the Bible made regarding the laughs of Sarah when she heard the good news of Isaac.

-> What should be also noted from the Quran story above that when Ibrahim introduced food for the angles they didnít eat, and that caused him to freak out, because for guests to refuse to eat at their host, is considered strange, and the angles were disguised in human shape so Ibrahim was scared: and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf. 70: But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lot's people., this makes great sense because how come the angles can eat like humans?, well the Bible story told us that they ate and drank as we will see soon.

Let me now jump to the very long Bible story and see for ourselves if we can use it as evidence that the son to be sacrificed was Isaac and not Ismael

1: Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2: And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3: And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4: And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5: And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
6: But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7: And the angle of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8: And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9: And the angle of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10: And the angle of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11: And the angle of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12: And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
13: And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
14: Wherefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.
15: And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
16: And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

[Genesis; 16:1-16]

From the above we can conclude the followings:
1- Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children, Gen.16:1, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing, Gen.16:2

2- Sarah hated Hagar after Hagar conceived Ismael and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes., Gen.16:4

3- Sarah treated Hagar very bad out of jealously which made Hagar to flee: And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face., Gen.16:6, And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. Gen16:8

4- Hagar was given the good news that her seed will multiply:And the angle of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. Gen.16:10

5- Hagar was also given the good news of Ismael And the angle of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. Gen.16:11

6- Ismael and his descendents are considered the brethren of the Isaac and his descendents And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren., Gen.16:12, this passage confirms the prophecy in Deut. 18:18 that the coming messenger was from Ismael because he and his descendents are the brethren of the Jews who are the descendents of Isaac.

7- Ibrahim was 86 years old when Ismael was born: And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Gen.16:15, And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram. Gen.16:16

Letís move on to the next Genesis Chapter:

1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2: And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3: And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4: As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5: Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6: And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7: And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8: And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9: And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13: He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
15: And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16: And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17: Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18: And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19: And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20: And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21: But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
22: And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
23: And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
24: And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25: And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
26: In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
27: And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

[Genesis; 17:1-27]

From the above we can conclude the following:
1- Any Jew or Christian who is uncircumcised is considered to have broken Allah covenant: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Gen.17:10, And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. Gen.17:11, And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. Gen.17:12, He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen.17:13, And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen.17:14

2- Ibrahim was told that he will be given ANOTHER son through Sarah And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her:, Gen.17:16, can you see the words GIVE THEE A SON ALSO OF HER, i.e. the Bible admits that Isaac CAN NOT BE THE ONLY SON, IBRAHIM HAD ANOTHER SON BEFORE ISAAC.

3- Ibrahim could not believe that he can have another child due to the fact that he was very old along with Sarah Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? Gen.17:17

4: Ibrahim asked for blessings to his only son at this time, Ismael : And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! Gen.17:18

5- Ibrahim was told that his next son will be named Isaac And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant and with his seed after him. Gen.17:19, the mentioned covenant is the same covenant Allah took with any other prophet that He sent, Isaac is not unique in here, however I understand that the Jews want to make him unique to serve their low desires of making him the sacrificed son while the whole sacrifice experience was only a lesson to Ibrahim not to any of his sons.

6- Allah grants Ibrahim his wish regarding his only son at that time, Ismael: And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. Gen17:20, SEE, I will make him a great nation. i.e. The Bible clearly admits that the descendants of Ishmael (The Muslims) must be a great nation.

7- It seems that Gen.17:21 has been corrupted, this is because it violates the logic that all prophets sent have established the same covenant with Allah, however Gen 17:21 is telling us the Isaac was unique in such covenant: But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. Gen.17:21, see how the verse came after the previous verse that stated Ismael is going to be a great nation and fruitful. Ironically no covenant was mentioned BUT circumcision, and it was clearly a covenant that was taken by Ibrahim and all his descendants after him, we can also conclude from the above that Isaac was born after Sodom and Gomorrah destruction, Ismael should have been 14 years old when Isaac was born of course. And Ibrahim should have been 100 years old. Let me now jump top the Quran and show you how the same covenant was taken with all prophets that Allah sent:

7: And when We made a covenant with the prophets and with you, and with Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, son of Marium, and We made with them a strong covenant.

8: That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty.

[The Quran ; 33:7-8]

وَإِذْ أَخَذْنَا مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ مِيثَاقَهُمْ وَمِنكَ وَمِن نُّوحٍ وَإِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُم مِّيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا (7)
لِيَسْأَلَ الصَّادِقِينَ عَن صِدْقِهِمْ وَأَعَدَّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا (Cool

-> See: And when We made a covenant with the prophets and with you, and with Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and Isa,, surely Ismael must be covered under the prophets, also we were told what covenant it is which is to be truthful: That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with):, let me show you that Ismael was a great prophet:

54: And mention Ismail in the Book; surely he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet.

55: And he enjoined on his family prayer and almsgiving, and was one in whom his Lord was well pleased.

[The Quran ; 19:54-55]

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صَادِقَ الْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَّبِيًّا (54)
وَكَانَ يَأْمُرُ أَهْلَهُ بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ وَكَانَ عِندَ رَبِّهِ مَرْضِيًّا (55)

-> See And mention Ismail in the Book; surely he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet., And he enjoined on his family prayer and almsgiving, and was one in whom his Lord was well pleased. , clearly, Ismael was a great prophet who took the same covenant Isaac and all other prophets took with Allah, which is to be TRUTHFUL in what they should deliver to the people, the same covenant mentioned in 33:8, That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with) , and indeed Ismael fulfilled the covenant surely he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet. , your corrupt Bible however wants me to believe that Allah didnít take a covenant with Ismael, He just made him a powerful nation and fruitful while no covenant was taken with him rather with Isaac as your corrupt Bible writers put in your book.

Let me now go back to the Bible and continue the points concluded from the story of Ibrahim as it appeared in Genesis 17:

8- Ibrahim circumcised his only son at that time (Ismael): And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. Gen.17:23, see how it ended by as God had said unto him, i.e. circumcision according to the Bible is an order from God, yet most Christians refuse to obey that and surely they broke the covenant of Allah by refusing to be circumcised, how hypocrites they are man.

9- The corrupt Bible writers continued to bore us with too much info that leads to nothing indeed, look at this:And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Gen.17:24, And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Gen.17:25, didnít we read this already in Gen.17:23?

10- It gets more boring man, look at this: In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. Gen.17:26, didnít we read this already in Gen.17:23?

11- Mate I canít believe the amount of boredom in your Bible, sorry, see for yourself And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. Gen.17:27, didnít we read this already in Gen.17:23?

Now, it is clear that the Bible is so high on circumcision, the Quran however never mentioned it, the FFI goons on the other hand attack the Muslims that they are following Genesis 17, no wonder the true Muslims are indeed the True Christians and the True Jews, the Muslims are following their Bible and the hypocrites are not.

Letís now move on to the next Genesis chapter, this where we read about the angles who were heading to destroy the queers and visited Ibrahim and his wife Sarah to give him the good news of Isaac:

1: And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2: And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3: And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
6: And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
7: And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8: And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
9: And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
10: And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11: Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12: Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13: And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
14: Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15: Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
16: And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

[Genesis; 18:1-16]

From the above, we can conclude the following:
1- Ibrahim prepared a nice meal when he saw the angles And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. Gen.18:6, And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. Gen.18:7

2- The Bible is telling us that the angles ate form the meal, despite it makes no sense that they should eat as confirmed by the Quran in 11:70, And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. Gen.18:8, here is what the Quran said again: But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them., (The Quran ; 11:70)

3- The angles gave Ibrahim the good news of Isaac while Sarah heard it when she was at the tent door: And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Gen.18:10

4- The Bible confirms that when Sarah heard the news she laughed: Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Gen.18:11, Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? Gen.18:12

5- The Bible made a fuss of Sarahís innocent laugh (smile of wonder when she heard that she will bear a child): And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Gen.18:13, Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Gen.18:14

6- The Bible continued to make a fuss of Sarahís innocent laugh, where is that FFI goon who was mocking the Quran because it mentioned ONCE that Sarah laughed?, did he bloody read the Bible?, well here it is for him: Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh. Gen.18:15

7- The angles disguised as men headed to destroy the queers: And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. Gen.18:16

The next chapter describes to us what happened to the people of Lot, so I will skip it and jump to where Sarah conceived Isaac:

1: And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.
2: For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
3: And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.
4: And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.
5: And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
6: And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me.
7: And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age.
8: And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.
9: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
10: Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
11: And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
12: And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
13: And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
14: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
15: And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
16: And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
17: And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angle of God called Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18: Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
19: And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
20: And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
21: And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.

[Genesis; 21:1-21]

From the above we can conclude the following:
1- Sarah conceived Isaac at old age: For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. Gen.21:2, And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. Gen.21:3

2- Ibrahim circumcised Isaac at the age of 8 days as Allah commanded him: And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. Gen.21:4

3- Ibrahim was 100 years old when Isaac was born, i.e. Ismael was 14 years old And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him. Gen.21:5

4: Back to the laughing fuss again: And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. Gen.21:7, where is that FFI goon who was ranting that the Quran mentioned ONCE that Sarah laughed?

5- Isaac grew and when he was weaned, no more than 2 years old, i.e. Ismael should be about 16 years old the max, Ibrahim made a party and invited Hagar and Ismael And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. Gen.21:9,

6- When Sarah saw Hagar and her son (Ismael was just playing around), she went mad: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Gen.21:9

7- Sarah asked Ibrahim to kick Hagar and her son out of the party Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. Gen.21:10

8- Ibrahim was very upset because Ismael was his son also: And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. Gen.21:11

9- Allah comforted Ibrahim and told him that his son of the bondwoman is going to be a nation because Ismael is also his seed as Isaac is his seed: And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Gen.21:12, And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. Gen.21:13

From the next passage the corruption will be evident, it seems that the corrupt Bible writers got mixed up with the story of Hagar that happened about 13 years earlier when she was left alone by Ibrahim in the desert while having her newly born son Ismael over her shoulder, every one knows that story, and it happened when Sarah became jealous of Hagar when she delivered Ismael,

4: And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5: And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
6: But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

[Genesis ; 16:4-6]

However, from the next passage we read somehow that the story of Hagar and Ismael who suppose to be months old happened after she was kicked out of the party of Isaac weaning, Ismael suppose to be 14-16 years old at that time:

10- Ibrahim gave food and water to Hagar and Ismael and somehow Hagar carried the 14-16 years old Ismael over her shoulder and left: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. Gen.21:14, would you call a 14-16 years old teen, a child?, would a mother carry a 14-16 years old teen over her shoulder?, THE CORRUPT BIBLE HAS BEEN EXPOSED, that should be enough to slam dunk the matter in hand.

Here is the story as stated in the Bible which suppose to happen when Ismael was months old not bloody 14-16 years old:

15: And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
16: And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
17: And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angle of God called Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18: Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
19: And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
20: And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
21: And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
Gen.21:15-21

Can you see the clear corruption and confusion of the dishonest Bible writers?

From the above we can firmly conclude the following:

1- The Bible is 100% corrupt by sick humans who fear no God.

If the above is not enough that the story of Ibrahim and his sons is corrupt then let me prove it to you in the next Genesis chapter where the story of sacrifice was told:

1: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2: And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
3: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
4: Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
5: And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you,
6: And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9: And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11: And the angle of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14: And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
15: And the angle of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
19: So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.

[Genesis; 22:1-19]
-> As you can see above, 3 times the Bible is lying by calling Isaac Ibrahim only son, this is because Isaac can never be called as such, however for 14 years Ismael was Ibrahim only son, letís look at the 3 times the Bible lied to us:

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

[Genesis ; 22:2]


And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

[Genesis ; 22:12]


And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son

[Genesis ; 22:16]

This has to be a clear cut lie, how come Isaac is the only son of Ibrahim?

That should slam dunk the argument for good.

Salam
katlike

A_B:
Quote:
First of all, the issue of who was to be scarified means nothing to me,


Are you sure it means nothing to you? You certainly spent an awful lot of time proving/disproving what you claimed was a meaningless topic. I read your post, here is the trouble I had, the issue really doesn't mean a lot to me, and I am sorry I wasted the time I did. Your a pretty dishonest person. In your first statement you claim
Quote:
First of all, the issue of who was to be scarified means nothing to me,
that's really just a lie isn't it? If it's not the way the way the koran describes than your whole belief system is null and void, you spent how long writing up the post you did, yeah, we can all see how removed you are from the topic. I have nothing to gain or lose over the details of some ancient story. Nor do I really care. Spend your time here on this earth fighting over details of a story that has been written in some books, how far removed from the actual story, if the story even really happened or do what I do and worry about more important issues.
Don't claim it means nothing to you, if you spend more than 5 minutes defending it, it obviously means something to you, or are you that stupid to waste your time defending what you don't even care about? Your claim and your very, very long post really makes me doubt your whole premise and character, in the end, you have only managed to come across as a very dishonest person.

Let's cut throught all the crap, can you even prove that Abraham, Ishmal and Isaac ever really exsisted? Let alone played the parts you, and others assign to them?
All_Brains

katlike wrote:
A_B:


That's obviously to Ahmad Bahgat! the underscore suggest it's addressed to me. I believe his initials are AB, I am A_B.
All_Brains

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello brainout and all


Hello Ahmed

Welcome to my forum. Great to see you around!
brainout

To Ahmed, response re Isaac vs. Ishmael

It's hard to respond to long posts, just as it's hard to make long posts. This whole issue about Ishmael versus Isaac requires long posts, I guess. Ok, here goes:
A. Sura 37.101-113

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
Quote:
"In verse 101, we read that Ibrahim was given the good news of having a child: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. This has to be the first child Ibrahim was told about, i.e Ismael, the first son he had, that son should also be the only son he had at this time and for the next 14 years until he got Isaac, i.e. for 14 years Ibrahim had ONE and ONLY son, who was Ismael."


Ahmed, no offense but you're reading into the text, information which is not there. 101 is about the announcement of Isaac, and 102 is about Isaac reaching adulthood, not Ishmael. Here's why. Grammatically, again an antecedent of "him" and "he", is "son" in verse 101; so in 102, "he" has grown up to manhood. That "son" is Isaac, who is mentioned climactically by name in 113. Nowhere is Ishmael in view. No other son but Isaac is mentioned by name in this section.

Text is also a bookending rhetorical style, where what acts as a title for the section is embedded in the first verse of it (101), the first bookend. This is a common rhetorical style in both Hebrew and Arabic. The other bookend closes the topic (113), so the conclusion of the story is in the ending of it. So the "son" in 101 is the same "son" as in 113, the concluding, bookending section. It acts like a refrain, explaining 101. Ishmael is nowhere in sight. For the story to be about Ishmael and suddenly switch to Isaac, Ishmael's name would have to be within the verses, or just before the commencement of 101. Again, this is basic grammar about antecedents, applicable in all languages, which you can verify objectively.

Further confirmation is that 113 doesn't mention Ishmael, either. "We blessed him and Isaac", so only two individuals are in the passage, not three; so if you contend that 101 is about Ishmael, then WHY DOESN'T HE RECEIVE BLESSING, in 113? "Abraham" is the only antecedent person to the "him" in 112 and 113, and we know God blesses Abraham. See, that's your big hint grammatically that Ishmael is not in view -- his name is not in the text. To contend Ishmael is in the text, then either God snubs Abraham (which we know is not true), or Ishmael. But instead, since only Abraham and Isaac are in view, Ishmael is not being snubbed. He's just not the topic of that section.

I agree that it shouldn't matter whether it's Isaac or Ishmael, and I agree the moral of the story is about Abraham's faith. But the hajj Jamarat is based on it being Ishmael, so where do they get that? Not from the Koran here: are there other Koran verses? Koran isn't wrong, the reader is wrong. My Alim software has a commentator who also reads it wrong. So this is not to blame you, Ahmed. Bible people make this same mistake with Bible all the time, misreading the antecedent to "he" -- especially in OT Trinity verses -- or, ASSuming an antecedent which is not in the text. So it's a common mistake.

B. Sura 11.69-74


Next, you bring up Sura 11.69-74, at Mamre when the Lord made the announcement of Sodom and Gomorrah and also that of Abraham getting a son, whom the Lord names "Isaac" in honor of Sarai's polite and happy laughter, which only the Lord could hear -- "Isaac" means "he who laughs". The Koranic account of the same event is in gist, highlighting the beginning and ending of the Bible's text like bookends. Koran doesn't contradict, except in verse 70's claim that the angels disapproved the food. That's flat wrong, an insult to hospitality, especially in Middle Eastern culture. They agreed to Abram's hospitality: God would never agree to something and then say no to what He previously agreed to, when it's done as He agreed. The Lord is among them in the Bible's account, and it was to the Lord that Abram offered to fix food. So maybe the text in 11.70 needs better analysis and translation: for as it seems written, it's a blasphemous insult against God, making Him look like a liar. (I'd bet the Koran is misread there, too, but I can't tell what the problem is, in that verse.)

C. Genesis 17


Ahmed, I'm going to skip over now to how you cover the Bible account of how each Ishmael and Isaac are born, etc., stories we all know well. You need to read Genesis 17:21 in context of the previous six chapters, as well as 17:18-20, where God distinguishes between them. You need to read context to understand why Isaac is the child of the promise, NOT Ishmael. God made a specific promise to a son from Sarai only, 25 years prior, Gen12; see also Gen 15:2ff. So that predates Hagar, and is a promise to be kept via Sarai. Moses sinned when going into Hagar, only because God seemed to delay His promise (testing the couple). That's why Hagar's child didn't get that prior covenant -- but he did get a separate covenant, Gen 17:20. So if you read Genesis 12-17, you'll see the distinction clearly, even in translation; Genesis 18-22 elaborates on that covenantal difference, and even further on after Abraham's death, the difference in covenants is traced, showing how God fulfilled His promise to Isaac and then severally, to Ishmael, throughout the Old Testament. So it's not a corruption in text. The actual people lived all that time, a 2000-year old history of both peoples (2060BC through 30AD, roughly).

For as you say, and you're right -- the story here is not about whether it's Isaac or Ishmael, but about Abraham's faith. But also, about God keeping His promises to both of them.

D. Sura 19:54-55


Qu'ran's ayahs 19:54-55 are generic and unrelated to 37.101-113; what promise did Ishmael make and fulfill? Qu'ran doesn't say. By contrast, the Bible account in Genesis was around for 2000 years prior to Muhammed, and the people were there for 3000 years prior, so plenty of history exists. The history of the Ishmaelites is that they were a warlike people, busy (some tribes) in slave trading, and quarrelsome among themselves, so the "wild ass of a man" seems the more accurate history. Still, Qu'ran doesn't say what promise Ishmael is alleged to fulfill -- was it the "wild ass" prediction the angel told Hagar? I don't know, but I doubt it. Many stories are in Bible about the problems between the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Isaac, throughout the Old Testament. Then there are problems with other sons of Abraham, viz., Esau's progeny ("son" via Isaac), and the 12 sons' progeny via Abraham and Keturah (="incense"), Genesis 25. They do get a general protection, unilateral promise by God, not by Ishmael, see Genesis 12 for the first phase of the contract which Abram's later circumcision finalized. But that's a unilateral promise by God, not by Ishmael. Point is, I can't tell from Bible, what "promise" Ishmael made and fulfilled, so can't help prove what Qu'ran references. But it's not about the sacrifice made by Abraham, since that wasn't a promise, but a command by God which Abraham obeyed.

E. Circumcision (in context of Genesis 17)


Which brings up the next point: the importance of circumcision. It signifies entry into CONTRACT with God, "brith" in Bible Hebrew. So because you don't know that, you write
Quote:
"9- The corrupt Bible writes just bored us with too much info that leads to noting indeed, look at this :And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Gen.17:24, And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Gen.17:25, didnít we read this already in Gen.17:23?"


So let's review the text. Gen 17:23-27 reads as follows: New American Standard version,
Quote:
"Genesis 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him. 24 Now Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Genesis 17:26-27 26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. 27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. "


This is legal language, because a "brith" is a legal transaction. Precision, repeating the same phrase, to verify that the same thing in a subsequent sentence happened, as had been described in a prior sentence. Koran emulates this style, too. For example, Sura 55 employs lots of repetition, to show you the same question applies to each item listed. So too, that the same bookending style is in Sura 37.101-113, since it too is about the basis for Abraham being selected, proving God's favoring him valid, and proving how anyone can like Abraham, get like favor (ties back to Genesis 15:6, how Abraham was given God's Own Righteousness as a consequence of believing in the promised Savior to come from his loins).

This repetition is also useful in order to correctly pass on oral material one memorizes. It helps memorization, for it sets bookmarks so you know where a topic begins and ends.

It becomes important in writing , too: when you have to copy a book, short blocks with repeated text telling you beginnings and endings, help you easily tell if you miscopied. So here, the last time Abraham's age was mentioned in Genesis, was at Ishmael's birth, Gen16:16. Hence 17:25 is an update for the reader, confirming the prior text. So if you were copying Bible and you wrote that Ishmael was 17 years old, you'd remember 16:16 and realize you erred. Then you'd correct it. If you've ever watched someone make a copy of Bible text in a scroll, you can imagine how helpful such periodic repetitions, are. Especially, since they didn't have fonts, punctuation, or differentiation between capital and regular letters in those ancient scripts. Helps one keep track.

We have that same style today in official accounting (i.e., subtotals), and of course in prose it helps to summarize every once in awhile for a reader: "This is a story of of x" variantly phrased as the first line; then the details; then an ending "this is the summary of x", usually with the root conclusion embedded in the final line. It's the mark of good writing. You don't have to say "this is a story of", but you set the THEME of the text section by the first sentence in it, and you end the THEME of that section, by your last line. Same idea holds, in the proper writing of paragraphs. So it's an important writing tool, to end with text referencing the beginning of a section.

Hence that text in Genesis 17:25-27 is quite necessary, to close and stress the point of CONTRACT COMPLETION. Here, you want to make sure there are no errors, for it's contractural, legal, a promise to be kept and monitored for completion. Here, how one side of the contract fulfilled the terms of that contract, namely to demonstrate faith in God, by having circumcision. As my pastor puts it: every time Abraham urinated, he was reminded of God's contract. Shows God has a sense of humor, and profoundly demonstrates that our daily banal lives are not distant from Him. Not even, the pee which obviously God invented. We need never be embarrassed over anything, before God.

On a deeper level, it stresses Infinite Righteousness and Power. God is So Righteous and Powerful that even the small things are not beneath His Dignity. God doesn't need to be macho, show off, disdain what is beneath His Own Nature. Obviously that's an important point to stress, since we humans are so puny and He Made Us Small. Even Adam in perfection, was small, a nothing compared to Infinite Allah/God. So then we know that when we suffer, when we are helpless, God is not disdaining us. We all have our own crosses, and paradoxically, the greatest strength is shown when one does not fight back. It says I don't need to fight.

Moreover, the detail in these three verses tells you that the rule of circumcision as agreement of entry into the covenant, is a rule God intended for all males who believed in him, it wasn't restricted to Abraham. That's rather important, for it tells you: a) that it's not a racial or favoritism thing, b) that circumcision predates the advent of the Mosaic Law -- big point Paul makes, in Romans 4 and 9 -- so it's not about the Law, but about God's Promise; c) all Abraham's household believed in the same God.

Then God did His part of the contract with respect to Abraham: He restored Abraham's sexual ability, and that of Sarah too (she wasn't circumcised, but she believed in the promise, evidenced by her being renamed "Sarah"). Notice: there's nothing magical in circumcision. Again, circumcision is a Contract Agreement, called a "brith" (bris, in modern hebrew). That's why the detail in Genesis 17:17-27 is very important and necessary. It sets a precedent. Contract between God and man.

F. Abraham receives the Lord and Angels at Mamre, Lord announces Abram will finally get that Promised Son.


Now I skip over the material to your
Quote:
"Letís now move on to the next Genesis chapter, this where we read about the angels who were heading to destroy the queer visiting him and his wife."
I have no idea what "queer" you are talking about. No homosexuals were visiting him and his wife. Is this what you meant to type? I'm betting you didn't mean that, so I'll not respond to that sentence.

Next you go backwards in time (versus the time of circumcision), to when the Lord came to Mamre with the angels. You quote Genesis 18 in (not-good) translation. Qu'ran 11:70 is wholly out of place here, as I explained earlier. Something is wrong with the reading of the text, or the text itself. Sura 11.70 makes it look like God first accepts and then rejects hospitality. That's not true, God wouldn't say yes and then no after someone obeyed what He agreed to. (By contrast, your writing
Quote:
"despite it makes no sense that they should eat"
is an interesting rendering of Qu'ran's 11.70. That rendering doesn't make God out to be a liar, so maybe the Sura 11.70 translation, is screwed up?) Moreover, Abraham would not become afraid because they don't eat -- that's silly. And of course they did eat. So that translation makes Abraham look like a fool, too.

You misunderstand the "Laughter" meaning in Bible, when you write,
Quote:
"The Bible made a fuss of Sarah's innocent laugh.. continued to make a fuss".
Bible isn't making a fuss, it's a happy explanation of the Lord's gracious WIT in naming the child Isaac in advance of Sarai's pregnancy. Please read the account again, when you've time; Sarai's laughter was only heard by the Lord, she was being polite, Gen18:9-12, esp. verse 12's "within herself". No one heard it, she's in the tent. So to prove simultaneously His Gracious request, He says aloud what she was thinking. There's no condemnation of Sarai, but rather praise. Look: "Sarai" means "b1tch", "contentious" (euphemism). God didn't give her that name. By contrast, "Sarah", the name the Lord gives her at the circumcision of Abram, means "princess". "Issac" is a nice word also, signifies someone with a good sense of humor. So you want to reread the account over, see for yourself.

G. When Hagar was rejected, fled -- and returned to Abraham and Sarah.


Then you quote the relevant verses about how Sarah rejected Hagar, etc. When you repeat "back to the laughing fuss again" you still misread Bible, as mentioned earlier. Bible isn't condeming or fussing. It's explaining the witty origin of Isaac's name.

There's no text corruption. You're misreading Genesis 16:4-6. Or rather, you're not reading far enough. Hagar RETURNED to Sarai, see Gen16:9. So that's why Ishmael was circumcised in 17:25, she did what the angel ordered. And if you go on reading in the Old Testament past Abraham's death, you'll see that the estate is parsed out between Isaac and Ishmael, and the latter moves away, having first helped Isaac bury Abraham.



So when you write "From the above we can firmly conclude the following.. Bible is 100% corrupt" and "clearcut lie", none of those contentions are true from what you've posted. You've only proven that you're maybe tired from a long day -- understandable for anyone -- and at that moment, not reading properly. So I'll stop my post now. Please reread and think over the text again. You'll probably want to edit your post.

I'm not saying you're wrong about whether Ishmael or Isaac, but only that thus far, you need to reread the texts again. It's hard to write out this stuff in a forum. Very frustrating. Mistakes are easy to make, for any of us! Frankly, if I have to make a long post again, I'll make it as a Word.doc and just post a link to it in the forum. I spent four hours on this post -- probably you did also, in yours -- and I could have done it in one hour, in Word. Forum is great for short posts, but not for long ones.
AhmedBahgat

Quote:
First of all, the issue of who was to be scarified means nothing to me,


katlike wrote:
A_B:
Are you sure it means nothing to you?


Of course , Iím sure, however my hard work for the truth does not mean the story means anything to me, rather it means that the truth means everything to me

katlike wrote:
You certainly spent an awful lot of time proving/disproving what you claimed was a meaningless topic.


well, it was 8 hours exactly, and I learnt a lot from it, the foundation of my belief stayed the same, that who was to be sacrificed means nothing to me.


katlike wrote:
I read your post, here is the trouble I had, the issue really doesn't mean a lot to me, and I am sorry I wasted the time I did. Your a pretty dishonest person.


That is enough for me to dismiss the rest of your crap

katlike wrote:
In your first statement you claim
Quote:
First of all, the issue of who was to be scarified means nothing to me,
that's really just a lie isn't it? If it's not the way the way the koran describes than your whole belief system is null and void, you spent how long writing up the post you did, yeah, we can all see how removed you are from the topic. I have nothing to gain or lose over the details of some ancient story. Nor do I really care. Spend your time here on this earth fighting over details of a story that has been written in some books, how far removed from the actual story, if the story even really happened or do what I do and worry about more important issues.
Don't claim it means nothing to you, if you spend more than 5 minutes defending it, it obviously means something to you, or are you that stupid to waste your time defending what you don't even care about? Your claim and your very, very long post really makes me doubt your whole premise and character, in the end, you have only managed to come across as a very dishonest person.

Let's cut throught all the crap, can you even prove that Abraham, Ishmal and Isaac ever really exsisted? Let alone played the parts you, and others assign to them?


AhmedBahgat

All_Brains wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello brainout and all


Hello Ahmed

Welcome to my forum. Great to see you around!



Thanks mate
AhmedBahgat

Hello brainout

Iím sorry mate, I only edited for the typos, I accept that the Bible said that the angles convince Hagar to return to Sarah, but we were never told when was that, also the story of Hagar and Ismael at Bir Shiba was ehen Ismael was months old not bloody 14-16 years old, I believe firmly in every word that I put down and I believe firmly that I have proven my case, the main highlights are:

1) the corruption of the story of Ismael and Hagar in Bir Sheba
2) the 3 mistakes of calling Isaac the ONLY SON

now letís leave it to the public, btw I donít get involved in a ping pong game of arguing, I always try to put all what I need to say in one comment, hence my long threads

Cheers
All_Brains

Hello Ahmed and Brainout

It's very interesting to see you both discussing and comparing the bible and quran.

I think you too are very similar in the way you're interpreted the book to remove all man-made fables and nonsense.

Ahmed wants to be only a Muslim and Brainout wants to be only Christian. No Shi'ah, no Sunni, no Catholic and no Lutheran.

Great stuff guys and way to be civilised about it!
brainout

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello brainout

Iím sorry mate, I only edited for the typos, I accept that the Bible said that the angles convince Hagar to return to Sarah, but we were never told when was that, also the story of Hagar and Ismael at Bir Shiba was ehen Ismael was months old not bloody 14-16 years old, I believe firmly in every word that I put down and I believe firmly that I have proven my case, the main highlights are:

1) the corruption of the story of Ismael and Hagar in Bir Sheba
2) the 3 mistakes of calling Isaac the ONLY SON

now letís leave it to the public, btw I donít get involved in a ping pong game of arguing, I always try to put all what I need to say in one comment, hence my long threads

Cheers


Ahmed, none of your contentions are accurate, though I'm sure they were sincere, and you had a rough week. Problem is, anyone reading the texts you quote in their full context (which you leave out or were too tired to read), will see that you didn't read properly. I'm really not trying to rebut you, but rather to show why and what you misread. The issue isn't proven in what you posted. You need to re-read it and revise what you wrote. Well, after you get enough sleep. Believe me, I empathize. I re-edited my own post to you over 20 times!

Thought you'd want the opportunity to re-read and correct what you posted. But if you don't, that's fine. People will read and decide for themselves.
brainout

To katlike: Caring and not caring.

Katlike, neither Ahmed Bahgat nor I wanted to engage in this Isaac versus Ishmael debate. The point is Abraham's faithfulness, not which son was nearly-sacrificed. Both of us concluded that we are being too lazy if we don't flesh this out. You didn't see the other posts in the FFI forum on our going back-and-forth about whether we should get into the details here. I didn't paste those comments in, because our hemming and hawing wasn't germane. So I can only assure you that caring about doing one's homework is the motive, not some battle over whether our faith will be trashed if it's one or the other son of Abraham. Neither of us has a faith so fragile, as that. It was a due diligence question, not a defend-God question. God needs no defending.
AhmedBahgat

brainout wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello brainout

Iím sorry mate, I only edited for the typos, I accept that the Bible said that the angles convince Hagar to return to Sarah, but we were never told when was that, also the story of Hagar and Ismael at Bir Shiba was ehen Ismael was months old not bloody 14-16 years old, I believe firmly in every word that I put down and I believe firmly that I have proven my case, the main highlights are:

1) the corruption of the story of Ismael and Hagar in Bir Sheba
2) the 3 mistakes of calling Isaac the ONLY SON

now letís leave it to the public, btw I donít get involved in a ping pong game of arguing, I always try to put all what I need to say in one comment, hence my long threads

Cheers


Ahmed, none of your contentions are accurate, though I'm sure they were sincere, and you had a rough week. Problem is, anyone reading the texts you quote in their full context (which you leave out or were too tired to read), will see that you didn't read properly. I'm really not trying to rebut you, but rather to show why and what you misread. The issue isn't proven in what you posted. You need to re-read it and revise what you wrote. Well, after you get enough sleep. Believe me, I empathize. I re-edited my own post to you over 20 times!

Thought you'd want the opportunity to re-read and correct what you posted. But if you don't, that's fine. People will read and decide for themselves.



Hello mate

again, there will be no editing to what to I posted, I have no problem that you use your bible to porve your allegation that it was Isaac and not Ismael, however don't ever dare to use the Quran is prove such lie, the Quran is a book that is not like the Bible, everyone can see that by just looking at the story in both of them above

Cheers
brainout

All_Brains wrote:
Hello Ahmed and Brainout

It's very interesting to see you both discussing and comparing the bible and quran.

I think you too are very similar in the way you're interpreted the book to remove all man-made fables and nonsense.

Ahmed wants to be only a Muslim and Brainout wants to be only Christian. No Shi'ah, no Sunni, no Catholic and no Lutheran.

Great stuff guys and way to be civilised about it!


Thanks, All-Brains. When Ahmed and I first met in the "Proof Koran is from Iblis" thread, we both went to fisticuffs. But then I saw the care he takes with Koran, and how he's Koran only, Arabic only, and that really impresses me. I wish Christians were that passionate about the Bible. We all need to get away from the religion, the people, and "just the facts, m'am." And those "facts" for us, are our BOOKS. Smile

I've really got to do my secular work now. I've played games in delaying it, and God doesn't like that. I've been bad, k? Need to go to work. I hope not to come in much next week. Will only give short replies to any new posts, here or at FFI. Sorry! Wish I could be here and there instead!
brainout

Okay, Ahmed. I'm done, too. Enjoy!

By the way, when my email told me about new posts to the threads I'm watching at FFI, I cruised to see what other new topics there were. One is called "Ishmael", and is at: "Ishmael" thread under "Quran and Hadith" section

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but just wanted to thread in anything relevant here. Bye...
AhmedBahgat

Hello Brainout and all

I'm not done yet, I read you comment and found nothing to reply to, you may read this please:

Clearly, the Arabs outnumber the Jews. There are more than 100 million Arabs in the world, and less than 10 million Jews.

Throughout the Book of Genesis, God promises Abraham that his descendants will be of great multitude. God says that he will make Abraham a great nation (Genesis 12:2). God says that the descendants of Abraham shall be as numerous as the dust of the Earth, (Genesis 13:16), and shall be in number as the stars of the sky (Genesis 15:5). God says that Abraham will be a father to many nations (Genesis 17:4) and that his descendants will have the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:Cool. God makes similar promises about Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac. He tells Hagar that her descendants shall be a great multitude (Genesis 16:10). God tells Abraham that Sarah will be a mother of nations (Genesis 17:16). He says to Abraham that Ishmael will beget 12 princes (Genesis 17:20).

The descendants of Ishmael are of a great multitude, numbering more than 100 million today, the descendants of Isaac have waxed and waned and have been found and lost over the centuries. The descendants of Isaac only had their own kingdom for a brief period in history, and then only long after Isaac had died and many generations had passed. Before then, they were slaves in Egypt. Later, they were conquered by the Babylonians and again taken into slavery. Even when they had their own kings, some of their kings, such as Ahab and Ahaz, worshipped Ba'al and not God (1 Kings 16:32 and 2 Chronicles 28:2).

The key to the dispute comes at Genesis 22:17, when God says to Abraham: I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens and the sand that is on the seashore.

Isaac was 14 years younger than Ishmael. When Abraham took his son to be sacrificed, that son appears to have been about 13. God several times refers to Abraham's son as his only son

Did God make a mistake?? Did God not know that Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac?

If God did promise Isaac that his descendants would be in number as the dust of the Earth, as the stars in the sky, and as the sand in the seashore, this was a false promise which has not been fulfilled.

Another promise that was not fulfilled, if indeed it was made, was the promise to give Isaac all of the Land of Canaan. The Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, have occupied Canaan from that day to this. Canaan is the valley on the right and left banks of the Jordan River. Today, the Right Bank is controlled entirely by Arabs. More than 90% of the population of the Left Bank is Arab as well. The Jews only recently re-arrived as rulers of part of that area after an absence of nearly 3,000 years.

The sons of Ishmael became kings immediately. The Bible says that they lived in a land East of Egypt (Genesis 25:1Cool. It was a caravan from the tribe of Ishmael that took Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:25 and 39:1). Since Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, and since Isaac was 60 years old before his first and only sons were born, it is apparent that by the time that the 12 tribes of Israel got off to their big start, the tribes of Ishmael had long been well established.

The Bible contains many obvious errors and inconsistencies. Starting from Genesis, it first says that Enoch and his son Mathushael and his son Lamech were direct descendants of Cain along the male line (Genesis 4:1Cool. It later says that Enoch and his son Methuselah and his son Lamech were direct descendants of Seth along the male line (Genesis 5:21-25). Both could not be true, except in the unlikely event that there were two identical sets of persons with these names.

Isaac was not even capable of finding himself a wife. When Isaac was 40 years old and still unmarried, his then 140-year-old father, Abraham, sent a servant to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24). After the dutiful servant brought a wife to Isaac, it took Isaac another 20 years before he was able to make her pregnant. Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, first and last gave birth when Isaac was 60 years old and Rebecca was probably about 36 (Genesis 25:26).

Except for Isaac, none of the other patriarchs of the Bible seemed to have any trouble finding women and in conceiving children with them. Perhaps according to the corrupt Bible Isaac was a closet gay, who never came out.

By a simple substitution of the name Ishmael for the name Isaac in just four places in Genesis 22:2-7, all of the prophecies become true. As the passages would then state, the rulers and descendants of Ishmael did become the rulers and kings of the area. The descendants of Ishmael did quickly multiply and become in number as dust of the Earth, stars in the sky or sand on the seashore.

Can you please reply to this?

Cheers
brainout

Ahmed,

Your point about multitude: it's not restricted to the Arabs and physical sons of Abraham. Everyone leaving in the Exodus was included as well, and 2/3rds of them were "mixed multitude" -- not of Abraham's descendants. Again, I'm sorry, but you need to do more homework before you opine on this. Not saying you should do it, but you're not researching the meaning BIBLE provides, before you opine on what BIBLE says.

You point about "only son" -- is flat INCORRECT. Bible never says that Isaac is the only progeny of Abraham. Isaac is the only LEGITIMATE son, by Sarah, his wife. But not the only child from his loins. Again, you don't do your homework on what BIBLE means by what it says. Ishmael is prominently mentioned in detail throughout the Old Testament, his family line traced, etc. Um, so anyone reading your assertion of "only son" will understand you didn't do your homework, when they read Bible and see the story there. Are you sure you don't want to revisit the issue? Your call.

The Abrahamic covenant is to be fulfilled in Messiah, i.e., the land grant covenant. It was made conditional upon Messiah in 2 Samuel 7, to David. So it is not fulfilled yet because Messiah hasn't returned yet. Again, you've not done your BIBLE homework, and so you don't interpret what it says correctly. You have to read more -- well, you don't have to, but it's like you read a sentence or two and miss the rest of the context. Here, all the covenants are fulfilled in Messiah, why else do you think the Jews are at the Wailing Wall? The Temple doesn't get rebuilt either, until Messiah comes. That's in Daniel 9. So see: you can't just ASSume meaning until you know the full database.

No dispute on the tribes of Ishmael being older. But you infer wrongly from that, because your premise ignores most of what's said about the Abrahamic promise, i.e., back in Genesis 15, pre-Hagar, Abraham was promised that his sons would go into slavery for 400 years -- THOSE SONS are the sons of the promise God made, context is clear. So Ishmael's progeny are NOT sons of that promise, and they did NOT go into slavery for 400 years. Again, you're not doing your homework. Sorry to keep rebutting you, but what other choice do I have?

"Isaac was not even capable of finding himself a wife." Come on, Ahmed -- Isaac was a DUTIFUL son, and his father Abraham insisted on him finding her from BELIEVERS, not from the horrid Canaanites who were around. So the servant obeyed, and Isaac obeyed. To say Isaac was INCAPABLE is rude and unbecoming of you. He islam'd to his father's wishes. Sight-unseen he married Rebekah. You must be very tired, to be so rude to someone your Koran praises. The rest of your post is alike rude and provably false, so I'll stop replying here. You're tired. We all get nasty when we're tired. Sleep on it, rethink. We can always revisit this later. I won't be back here for at least a few days. Too much printing to do on a case which has to go out before December 1.
AhmedBahgat

brainout wrote:
Okay, Ahmed. I'm done, too. Enjoy!

By the way, when my email told me about new posts to the threads I'm watching at FFI, I cruised to see what other new topics there were. One is called "Ishmael", and is at: "Ishmael" thread under "Quran and Hadith" section

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but just wanted to thread in anything relevant here. Bye...



Hello mate

Yeh i have seen it too, it's nothing but crap really, so I will pass on it

Cheers
AhmedBahgat

Good morning Brainout

I would like to reply to one point only for now, I'm still reading your replies:

brainout wrote:
Ahmed,
You point about "only son" -- is flat INCORRECT. Bible never says that Isaac is the only progeny of Abraham.



Mate, please don't be desperate

God is talking to Ibrahim and said YOUR ONLY SON ISAAC, God is aware 100% that Ibrahim has another son, if a human was talking in that passage I might have given your argument some merit however Allah is talking and Allah knows well that Ismael is a legitimate son to Ibrahim, so your desperate attempt must be dismissed

brainout wrote:
Isaac is the only LEGITIMATE son, by Sarah, his wife.


Your flawed and desperate refute works for me too, Isamel is the only legitimate son by Hagar his wife, uness you think that Ismael was the son of a whore or something?

brainout wrote:
But not the only child from his loins. Again, you don't do your homework on what BIBLE means by what it says. Ishmael is prominently mentioned in detail throughout the Old Testament, his family line traced, etc. Um, so anyone reading your assertion of "only son" will understand you didn't do your homework, when they read Bible and see the story there. Are you sure you don't want to revisit the issue? Your call.


Please stop accusing me of not doing my home work, here it is again and a child should get it:

1) At one point of time Ibrahim had ONE legitimate son through his wife Hagar, that son is Ismael

2) At a second point of time Ibrahim had two legitimate sons one through his wife Hagar (Ismael) and the other through his wife Sarah (Isaac) - See last paragraph below

3) Allah said to Ibrahim (Your only Son Isaac) as alleged in Genesis

No 3 above contadicts the clear cut fact obtaned from 1 & 2 that Isaac can never be called the only son of Ibrahim, IT IS A CLEAR CUT LIE, PLEASE WAKE UP

Please note, both of should be careful calling Isaac a legitimate son of Ibrahim, this is because the corrupt Bible is telling us that Ibrahim and Sarah were half brother and sister something that I don't believe, this means accoridng to the bible allegation that Isaac is not a legitimate son rather a child through illegal relationship

Salam
brainout

Only Son means ONLY SON BY THAT MOTHER

Ahmed, "only son": your reading is flat wrong. You're reading it numerically. God has made clear from context since Genesis 12 what it means in Genesis 22. So if you want to think you're right, go ahead. Anyone reading what you post, comparing it to Bible, reading what I said to you in reply, will understand it means the only (legitimate) son by Sarai, promised to Abram long before Hagar.

None of this defames Ishmael, and still it's possible that other verses in the Koran will shed light on the topic, but not the ones you've quoted thus far. Find other ones, but first get some sleep and revisit what you've written here. We all have bad days.

On another note, Your "amazing Qu'ran" piece is a needed topic here. I'm glad you're writing it. Ooops, Norton Checkup just started on my machine. Gotta run!
brainout

Paste from Koran vs. Tradition @FFI

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1021812#1021812 is a new reply again by Ahmed Bahgat, and my reply to him.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home