In Bukhari we could see............
i asked for references mentioning Ismail by name.“Ibrahim said: ....... (37:99-110)
Actually truely speaking, according to bible, "The Only Son" was Ismail as he was born of Ibraheem's "seed"(sperm), while Isaac was born of "promise". Isaac was just a miracle & Ibraheem's sperm might even have nothing to do with Isaac's birth, coz Sarrah was barren & 83 years old.
"After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you’." (Genesis 22:1-2, R.S.V.).
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son ..." (Hebrews 11:17, R.S.V.).
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up his son Isaac upon the altar?" (James 2:21, R.S.V.).
Quran:5:13 But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.Muslims believe that scribes later corrupted the original reading from Ishmael to Isaac.
True..... But the "promised" doesn't mean he was the ONLY child that was Ibraheems.... It means that he was born as a result of a "promise"(Miracle), while Ismail was born of actual "Seed" of ibraheem.Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with (cf. Genesis 17:15-21; Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30). Ishmael was never a promised child.
False.... & based on mis-interpretations..........God promised that it would be Isaac's descendants who would inherit the land given to Abraham. (Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21, 28:13-14). Ishmael had no part in the inheritance
God promised that it would be Isaac's descendants who would inherit the land given to Abraham
' For some centuries there was a debate among Muslim scholars, some saying it was Isaac whom Abraham was preparing to sacrifice, and others saying that it was Ishmael. It wasn't until centuries later that it became a fixed belief among Muslims that Ishmael was the subject of the story found in the Qu'ran (37:83-113). It is important to note, however, that the Qu'ran does not explicitely say that the son concerned was Ishmael.'
Perhaps you misread - the verses quoted by brother Banu_Hashim don't mention Ismaeel by name.Although the verses Banu_Hashim quoted three posts down do mention Ishmael by name, my on-line version (The Meaning of the Holy Qu'ran by Abdullah Yusufali) does not.
Personally, I don't think I've ever heard a scholar claim that it was Ishaaq who was to be sacrificed. Your book says, "It wasn't until centuries later that it became a fixed belief among Muslims that Ishmael was the subject of the story found in the Qu'ran", yet we find numerous reports from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and early scholars saying in no uncertain terms that it was Ismaeel who was sacrificed. In one of the famous commentaries of these verses, it quotes such reports:I was going to ask whether the above statement was correct, and whether anybody could explain how Islamic scholars finally came to the conclusion that the boy in question is indeed Ishmael.
No, I don't believe you are correct in thinking this.This thread has adressed my questions partially already, and from sur's and Civilsed's posts I understand that Muslims may have had to refer to the Bible to find the answer to the question of which son Abraham was willing to sacrifice.
Am I correct in thinking so?
If so, this leaves me with another question of how comfortable are Muslims with the concept of using the Bible (a 'corrupted book') to look for information which the Qu'ran doesn't provide?
Surely that's something which is only done as a last resort (i.e. when Qu'ran and hadiths don't offer a certain a piece of information), and which is done with the greatest of care?
^^ Melikes it!It is permissible to quote Judaeo-Christian narratives if they do not contradict any verses of the Qur'an or (authentic) hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) - (although one can quote them to explain their falsehood). However, such narrations cannot be used as a source of knowledge because their authenticity is unknown. None of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used these narrations as sources of knowledge. This is because the Qur'an is explicit that the Jews and the Christians tampered with their respective scriptures and changed the divine revelation. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain which facts they added and which are still intact.
.... Rather than having to look into another scripture to find answers for the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the criterion for judging what is correct in those scriptures.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.