Muhammad 3 – Muhammad P Abrahamic Tree 03 Attempts To Exclude Ishmael
Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Muhammad
File Size: 7.05MB
Once again to stem focus, today's program is shala will be our third in our series Muhammad, peace be upon him, the last messenger of God through segments on Muhammad and the Abrahamic family tree. I'm your hostess admission here once again, from St. Mary's University is that the Jehovah SOS electronic
to put people back in perspective about a summary of last week's program a quick summary.
First of all, the entire program was about the prophecies about the advent of Prophet Muhammad.
In the context of the Bible, that is specifically the book of Genesis.
We continued the discussion of the well, which was shown to Heather and we said that in all likelihood, perceive the world. Samson
indicated that the 84th summer visiting in verses four through six, it speaks about bacta, specifically within the semonin as NACA,
and then we moved on to discuss the origin of the word itself and where it came from. And we found that on the basis of both ancient
Arabic sources, as well as biblical sources also, that but in all likelihood, is a reference to a specific place not to an allegorical place, as some people have mentioned before. And that is,
subsequent to that we began to discuss the story of Hagar and Ishmael, and how they came to live in Makkah, Rebecca, we mentioned that from the systemic standpoint, and the basis of indirect evidence from the Quran, as well as historical evidence is well known about the history of the Hudson, Fishman Knights.
And we refer also to some biblical sources that seem to corroborate the same kind of conclusions.
Towards the very end of the program, it was indicated that that prophecy alone, based on Genesis,
the prophecy of blessing, the children of Abraham are blessing all the nations of the earth, through the seeds of Abraham isn't itself sufficient to show the common ground between not only Muslims and Christians, Muslims, Christians and Jews, because it is well known at the end that the stylight prophet all came from the descendants of Isaac and Prophet Muhammad came from the descent of Ishmael. So that seemed to show how the promise of God
came to pass capacity was perfect. To give it in his program, we have touched upon why
some of these practices that you mentioned are not accepted by Jewish and Christian scholars. Did you have anything more than that? We're running out of time? Yes, absolutely. We even didn't touch at all on the discussion in any sufficient way of those objections, perhaps, if we have enough time to discuss them clearly, so that they will no confusion.
Let me at this dude with,
let's say, four or 544 of these common objections. The first one
is that Ishmael should be separated from Isaac because Isaac was the legitimate son, or Isaac advantage.
A typical typical of that objective setting of that objection, is the interpreters Bible, Volume One, Page Six or five, that Ishmael should be separated from the negative sun either.
What I wonder here is,
one should the question of legitimacy of Ishmael be raised at all in the Bible,
the Bible itself in the book of Genesis chapter two,
to verse Genie describes Hagar as a wife to Abraham, his second wife, but the wife, polygamy was a common practice among the Israelite prophets. She was a second wife, but she was alive.
When the question of legitimacy fits
into the Bible itself calls prophets Ishmael as a scene of Abraham, reference, the book of Genesis, chapter 16, verse 15, Chapter 21, verse two, at least,
to the question of separation, and legitimacy, actually should not be raised. It's not appropriate metric space, I believe.
It is sometimes argued that Isaac was the son of Sarah, the free woman, while Ishmael was the son of hated the slave woman.
Well, if this kind of objection,
were to be raised by white supremacists, if it comes from some specific parts in the world were oppressed, it is a common practice, one could probably understand this attitudes,
discrimination between the children of the same fathers.
But what makes you curious is how could that objection be raised by people who are religious and sincerely particularly
people who, in their own moral and religious values believe in God, and believe in the equality of human beings before that?
What is even more strange is that according to the Bible itself,
the status and the owner of the first born child does not change because of the status of his mothers.
This is found, for example, in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 21, verses 15 through 17.
And from reading the interpreter's Bible, one can easily discern that this law of Deuteronomy, even though it is attributed to Moses
had its roots from ancient traditions among the sidelights and throughout the Bible, that basic tradition of the double honor for the first time out the status of the first time has already been maintained, even before Moses, for example, on the interpreters violence, Volume Two and page 461. It says that, quote, however,
the know of the first goal, had ancient sanction, instant sending, and so long as it was accepted, Justice demanded that mere favoritism not be allowed to decline the eldest son of his rights. I only wish that the writers of the interpretation Boban. Remember that when they were writing, Volume One, and trying to raise questions about the legitimacy of British mine, and limits the term legitimacy to it Isaac alone.
The third objection
is that only Isaac was the son of promise. And they say, look, if you read the Bible in Genesis 17, two, it's the first but the covenant would be with Isaac. In chapter 21, verse 12, it says in Isaiah Shan Shan dicey, the call.
Now this objection I find, also contrary to the biblical texts itself, for a number of reasons, at least for the first reason is that God's promise to bless the nations of the earth, to Abraham and his children
is genuine, and applies does not limited to one branch of his family tree than the other. This is quite easily seen in the book of Genesis chapter three, verse three.
You can see it even after the verse of mine and before the birth of Isaiah, as we find in Genesis 17, verse four.
So there is no reason to say that the subject of God's promise was a matter of either or either this branch or that branch. The promise was quite clear and was quite genuine and applies to all the children of Abraham.
Third reason is that to say that the covenant will be only in the seeds of anxiety does not mean necessarily the distance to the exclusion of
mine or other branches of the public.
Hey, family G, so long as there is evidence that they were also included in that divine promise.
Now, to say also that
the covenant will be moved as an everlasting with Isaiah, again does not exclude them. Because it could also mean notice determine if our lesson sometimes is not used literally.
For example, in Isaiah when he describes is the one to come as everlasting father's,
sister, Mohammad, an allegorical nesting of everlasting Father of all of the prophets or chief of the prophets, or whoever, some Christian theologians, interpreted to refer to Jesus, this reference, nobody said that Jesus is, is the Father Himself within months, on the earth, you know. So again, it shows that there is some go to Communion was for a long, long time to come, and Muslim would have no problem with that. Because, yes, for centuries, prophets route was explicitly in the descendants of Isaac but doesn't mean exclusion of the others at all.
On the other hand, whenever there is any covenant, the covenant also has conditions that go with it. And anyone who breaks the conditions of the covenant cannot expect the other side to keep that commitment that's only normal.
And the Bible itself is full of examples. It shows that the Israelites, in many occasions, have already broken that covenant with God. So if God decides to move the three of Prophet fluid or to endow the other branch and fulfill his promise to the other branch of the Abrahamic family tree, that's not really a breaking of the covenant, because the covenant was broken already, by the Israelites, in the last episode of breaking that covenant, of course, was the rejection of the last prophet, Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him.
The first reason is that the Bible, even in its present form, contains more than one text, implicit and explicit, very clear, that that also will specifically bless. additional examples of this are numerous one, first of all, began typing. The news of the forthcoming verse of Ishmael was conveyed by the angel of God, as we find in Genesis 1611, which reminds us, that the angel of God also giving the black table to me or the birth of Jesus, so that was something important some of an something going on or destroyed. Punishment to
that the name is nine itself, was chosen by God and communicated through the engine, which means that God chose that name for him. That's another aspect of owner's Fishman three,
the very meaning of the term, Ishmael comes from Hebrew Ishmael, which means God hears, whether interpreted as God, he hears the affliction and the prayer of hilger, as the Bible say, or Muslim understanding that God heard the prayers of Abraham, descendants
in this spot where he plays Hagar and Ishmael, a prophet from alignment has been since that's Prophet Muhammad. In both cases, it is another aspect of honor. A fourth example is that the symbol of covenant with God's among best satellites, has been set concision, and Fishman, according to the Bible, you're circumcised, you find that in Genesis chapter 17, especially then verses 22, through 27. A phrase
fifth reason is that, in spite of the fact that Jesus based upon himself, was a good Jew, are good with starlight, he was circumcised, you will know that that practice was stopped after him, because of the prompting or the ideas of Paul. But it was again revised, and wouldn't be the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him as the grandchild of Ishmael, the grandchild of Abraham, and that is again, an indication or a symbol of the revival of the true covenant with God, six. What is more important even is that there are clear and explicit statements in the Bible, which shows conclusively that the divine blessings of the nations of the earth does include Ishmael and his
descendants. Let me give you a couple of them just to clarify the book of Genesis chapter 21, verse 13, describing how the engine was still
Is conveying benefits to Hedren.
And it says, I will make him an edition, because he is your is your offspring that he was promised to be a nation.
In Genesis, the same chapter 21, verse 18, it says, For I will make him a great nation, I will make you a growth nation. That great nation was not even used in the Bible to refer to Island. It was used in the book of Exodus to refer to Moses.
Our first text in the Bible is that when Abraham was afraid, that the blessed timing of the birth of his second son Isaac, might mean that he was afraid that this might mean that he entered child, Ishmael has lost favor with God, and find that the Bible clarified that he will also be blessed. In Genesis chapter 17, verse 21, when Abraham was seeing or adjusting guide, all that Ishmael might live in that in by sight, that response came, I will bless him, and make him fruitful, and multiply him exceedingly. Notice here's the six tiers the term bless him, room, dad, or his emissary, the engine speaks about blessing. It means not just this in terms of finances, but blessing in the
spiritual sense in the spiritual leadership also. And let's assume again, when the verse in the Bible 1721, in Genesis says that, I will multiply him exceedingly. We all know that the children of Ishmael before Islam would not really multiplied that exceedingly. It was only after then, that not only the Arabs who came from the descendants of Ishmael, the those who consider themselves the spiritual descendants of Ishmael, but Muslims, only Muslims all over the world, they consider themselves spiritual descendants of Ishmael, regardless of lineage, constitute Afghanistan, crises and major parts of the world population today, the present, one out of every five human beings will
leave 1 billion, which is approximately the same number of all Christian sects put together, even though it's done, quote, unquote, is about 600 years younger, in one sense than, than Christianity. The fourth objection is that some people say that if we were to broaden our understanding of the term seeds of Abraham, why not include also the descendants of cateura, his third wife?
From the extended standpoint, let it be, why not? Why not? It is not a matter of either or, and he stated earlier is that all the nations of the earth who are not excluded, we're not saying that one should be at the expense of the other. But on the other hand, who among the descendants of the Torah, became as prominent as Moses, Jesus on 100 became yours, we know that maybe among the Israelites, probably, profit job might have belonged to this group. So there is no difficulty with that. But in any case, we do not say that the children of cateura should be removed from that divine promise, but all we're saying is that the Bible seem to be much more explicit and clear. And it
speaks about the blessing of Isaac,
and the blessing of Fishman also.
In other words, we're really talking here about two major branches, not excluding others, but two major branches of a tree to great nations with one
another, I've noticed on more than one occasion, in your talk that you've used the term, the Bible in its present form. Is there a meaning for that, or, or not? Well, yes, there's definitely a reason behind that. Part of that reason was discussed towards the end of the previous series, about the question as to whether all the Bible, each and every word is exclusively the Word of God, or does it consume the Word of God? alongside with some additions, editorial words, and expressions, opinions and interpretations of the author's word, its various books. But the other reason which may perhaps relate more directly to this particular topic on the prophecies is that we should not forget that
the authors of the various books of the Old Testaments were Islam, Israelites and you don't need the history you need to just check the
binding to realize that their attitude was to look down upon their ishmaelites. Brothers, even though they are their cousins,
that they used to think that they are superior to the ishmaelites and superior to everybody else in the world,
all nations, this is a question which is recognized not only by historians or by Muslims, quote, unquote, it has been recognized by biblical scholars among the Christian brethren also, I'll give an example in the foot documentation for that interpreters Bible body on one, page 575. And I read directly, because many Israelites did not want a God, who would be equally the gods of all nations on Earth.
They did not want one who would be impartial holiness, they wanted a God who would be partial to them. So we read in Deuteronomy, of demands for a complete extermination of non native people of Palestine. And actually, in the interpreters Bible, they give as reference to that, the book of Deuteronomy, chapter seven, verse two, also the same book determinate chapters 20, verses 10 through 17, a person can check that on his own. If this was the understanding of the Christian authors of the interpreter's Bible.
What's in the surprising? Why are they doing exactly the same thing as the Israelites have done? When the issue comes to the blessing of Ishmael and his descendants, or reference to Prophet Muhammad, even Muslims, walls can be applied or inserted the biblical text in the same fair
and consistent way, and one should be continued, with the same longstanding erroneous tradition of belittling the ishmaelites in their descendants, including Prophet Muhammad, and putting down their importance, this is rather difficult for one to understand
it cannot be explained in terms of our reaction to the position of Muslims, it must use the waves, for example, that's not sure if Muslims were
belligerent towards the
biggest satellite profits back then, or if they believe that blessing of mine is at the expense of Isaac, do not recognize either one possibly could understand the cooking demonstration highlights as a reaction to this. But as indicated, in numerous occasions, listen, how old expects you veneration to all prophets, all excited prophets, Isaiah, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, all of them. So it's very difficult to understand the attitude that still exists among
It's a bit OEM, there's one more question about his smile that keeps on coming up. Now, was she the son of sacrifice? Or was it Isaac, and the I get interested to know how the chronic and the biblical versions of this particular issue different? Okay, first of all, let me indicate, in a nutshell
that it is commonly believed, among our Jewish and Christian Brethren, that the son of sacrifice, that's when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son who didn't serve Him and the last one.
The son of sacrifice they believed was either the Muslim version is that it is
I think it would only be fair to challenge both of us. It says, What is your documentation? Number one, first of all, to to see if there's any
irreconcilability, or any inconsistency in the position of one side or the other?
As far as the standard version?
is definitely there's no question about that. One can easily affairs to the surah number 37, in the Quran, of soft fat, with the name of the surah from verses 101 to 115. And I emphasize here the approach of going directly to the Quran, because it's quite possible that you find in Muslim literature, some erroneous understanding or interpretation because I am definitely is much more sophisticated than the ideas of any interpreters.
in that section of the Quran, Chapter 57. We're sort of assuming. It describes how God has given deciding to
to Abraham have
A birth of William and Helene, that a child or a son who would be able to carry suffering is going to be someone who can fall bear.
And then it says that when that child grew up, I didn't identify the target. But you'll find that soon, when that child grew up,
his father Abraham told him that I see in the gene that I am sacrificing you, doesn't answer my father, do what you're ordained, you will find me by God's will, among those who forbear and persevere. And then it goes on to describe how
Abraham took his son Ishmael, and that the moment when he was just about to sacrifice him, that God sent around a big round to substitute for Ishmael. So that was assembled that God is not interested in the blood of humans at all.
You know, it's not the blood jewelry. So just the sort of reward or the test of faith that Prophet Abraham passed with Atlas.
But it's continued has been, and you'll find that as a result, or after that incidents, by way of rewarding Abraham, as we find in verse 120. In the same sort of,
it seems, Robert Shatner, who just happened to be in Minnesota, and we gave him the glad tidings of the birth of Isaiah, the prophet among guides, it's basically the point, it's the sequence of events ensures that the son of sacrifice most definitely was Fishman.
And when he succeeded, he was given the glad tidings of the forthcoming birth
No, in addition to this, referring to the Quran, we find that in Islamic traditions also, that
arise that has been going on even before Islam, and still remains until this very big
is the slaughtering of animals on Google, the feast of sacrifice in Minot, which is close to Makkah outside of Napa.
And this is done, as it's well known, historically, as a commemoration of the story of Abraham and Ishmael, and the willingness of Ishmael to accept to sacrifice himself. It's done every year.
Now, as far as the biblical version
To start with, the Bible acknowledges also that Ishmael was born first, as we indicated before that when Isaac was born, his name was already about 14 years old, which means
that the only son for Abraham for 14 years has been Isaac. And this is clearly the sermon from Genesis 1616 and 21.
On the other hand, we that's the fascinating thing. In the book of Genesis, chapter 21, verse two, it says that God commanded Abraham to take his only son, Isaac, how could Isaac be the only son, Ishmael was already there for 14 years, the only one who was the only son for 14 years definitely was Fishman unified, one cannot sell now, the essence here is our exact being the only sign of promise because you have already given ample evidence that the promise included both is
that of course it is an important question relates to the previous one.
Is it possible that I that the term I read was a later edition? Is it possible that the original text was Ishmael take your own son Ishmael? And some editors replaced? Isaac? We have discussed that the answer to the previous question that the biblical scholars admit that lots of editing has taken place, especially when purports to show the superiority of their silence.
But in any case, I just gave two answers as honestly as it could. But that does not mean at all. But that being the son of sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael belittle the other one, because it is split, according to all of them, but the fact is that it is no question since they were such brilliant. Thank you all once again for joining us on this time and focus. As always, your questions and comments would be appreciated our phone number
on your screen. A lot of us you
focus so much