Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? - Eid Al Adha

[Wakas]

peace ibn_a,

Thanks for clarifying, however you have again misrepresented the example in this verse. Let me re-quote what I said in my previous reply to you:

I would correct your example with the following:

exchange A with B...

A = him (whom the him refers to is unclear, but for sake of argument let's say it's the son which is the most common understanding)
B = mighty/great sacrifice (i.e. the mighty/great deed Abraham did, by separating from his son), this is what was left in place of his son

Please pay close attention to what A is.

1) the command was executed ----> no need for fidya.

2) the command was not executed ---->  need fidya.

Normally I may agree with your observation, because its common use is as you argue, but the usage in 37:107 is unique if we pay careful attention to the Arabic:

"We exchanged him with a great sacrifice"

The parts in bold above nullify your argument. The use of "We" clearly shows God was the source of the exchange NOT the person/Abraham. This is different to the other usage of fidya (where it is the person doing fidya), and the use of "him" clarifies what was exchanged, leaving little room for movement when it comes to the interpretation.

[Wakas]

peace jkhan,

Brother Waqas...

Pls without fail in sha Allah at your convenient time, answer to me why you have chosen Ish'aq in connection with this story and not Ismail... Further why after Yakub grandson and a question mark? in your article

I think if we solve who in fact was involved in this story Ismail or ish'ak and further who in fact Ibrahim did settle in the valley near God's (bait)? Ish'ak or Ismail or none of them but beyond them... Then in sha Allah undeniably can deduce what took place,  slaughter / separation / etc....
Better find out how many sons Ibrahim had according to only Quran? And who was first and second, etc...?

Further in your article You did say that Ibrahim sons never lived together but 2:132 says otherwise....

Based on the evidence I consider Isaac to be the son in question in "the sacrifice son" story. This would make it a self contained story, and compliments 12:6. I discussed this previously also: https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602123.msg273816#msg273816

You may be interested to know that majority of early Traditional scholars also considered it Isaac, and it was only later that they apparently changed their mind to Ishmael.

I'm not sure if determining which son it was would allow us to determine the meaning of the story more accurately but I guess it's possible.

I put a ? over Jacob as grandson as I wasn't sure what relation he is to Abraham exactly, in terms of Quranic evidence. If you or anyone else has evidence please share.


2:132 does not say they lived together. "bani" means descendants/progeny not just one's own direct children, but can also include grandchildren etc etc. The verse does not state Abraham told them all together, and the latter part of the verse can be attributed to Jacob, unless you have evidence to the contrary, proving it was Abraham who said it.


Also, you never responded to how your understanding fails the Arabic. Do you have an update to share?

[huruf]

peace jkhan,

Based on the evidence I consider Isaac to be the son in question in "the sacrifice son" story. This would make it a self contained story, and compliments 12:6. I discussed this previously also: https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602123.msg273816#msg273816

You may be interested to know that majority of early Traditional scholars also considered it Isaac, and it was only later that they apparently changed their mind to Ishmael.

37.102: The son says, Do as your are commanded you will find me "min al sabiriin (of the patient)

21.85 . And (remember) Isma'il, Idris, and Zul-kifl, all (men) min as-sabiriin

No such mention is there concerning Ishaq.

Also it relates the whole event of the "sacrifice" and it is only after the whole event is related, right after it says: and We gave him the good news of Ishaq.

Agreed there is not date, but nonetheless very awkward.

Salaam

[Wakas]

peace huruf,

I mention both those points in the thread I linked to above.

21.85 . And (remember) Isma'il, Idris, and Zul-kifl, all (men) min as-sabiriin

No such mention is there concerning Ishaq

Are you implying only those mentioned are of as-sabiriin? Of course not.

Also it relates the whole event of the "sacrifice" and it is only after the whole event is related, right after it says: and We gave him the good news of Ishaq.

Agreed there is not date, but nonetheless very awkward.

That's what I used to think but as mentioned in the above thread a possible, and in my view likely, explanation is that the good news given was of Isaac's prophethood. This makes sense because:

1) everywhere else in Quran when it says "We gave/give good tidings..." it always tells us what the good news was.
2) everywhere else it mentions giving good news of a child it states that, i.e. good news is a son/child.
3) AFAIK they are not born a prophet, they become one later (I'd be interested to know if Quran says otherwise)
4) it could be argued it seems awkward to introduce Isaac's prophethood at the end of this unrelated story, then end the segment on Abraham, but if we take my leaving scenario it makes sense because it may be elaborating upon the reward Abraham was given, i.e. his son that he left became a prophet.


In any case it is not conclusive, and as I said I don't really see how knowing whom the son was can prove the story one way or the other. If anyone knows how it can, please share.

[huruf]

I think it is obvious, and identifying the fact that explicitly is said min as- sabiriin. It does not mean other people are not sabiriin, but if it said of some and not of others it is because that says something significant, otherwise why is it said, to fill up space? It is mark of Isma'il to be min al sabiriin.

Good traits are said of many people and prophets, it does not mean that they have the monopoly of those good traits, but rather that they are particularly excellent in those, it is descriptive of them.

On the other hand, it does not matter what is announced for Ishaq, the point is that it seems that it is starting off with somebody else, changing the subject it is talking about.

Salaam

[jkhan]

Peace....
I will definitely prove that it is Ismail in sha Allah if I am on the right track... ... Unfortunately I am stuck these days with work... This subject cannot be replied with memory of Quran but with clear research.... But I only answer for now grandson etc?....
Yakub is not Ibrahim's biological son... By verse 2:133 it, proves...
Since yakub's sons said we serve your God of your (Abaika-fathers) and chronologically stated Ibrahim Ismail and Ish'ak.... If yakub was brother of Ismail and ish'ak this verse nullifies it.... Further it is reinstated by 14:39 by Ibrahim claiming that he has two, sons...
Further nowhere in Quran gives a hint any relatives of Ibrahim between ish'ak and yakub... That proves yakub grandson...
Then comes another proof it says 11:71 with a promise from God to Ibrahim's wife after ish'ak, yakub...
We know yakub is not the son of her, it is a clear indication yakub is grandson and that also yakub should be born within her life time.. Since it was promised by God to give... If it is promised then she should see what is promised to her...
Further she was old and till the glad tiding of child came she was barren 51:29...so it shows Ismail is not her son undeniably... Coz her first child was ish'ak and promised of a grandson yakub... No connection of Ismail... It shows Ibrahim had another wife... Was it after this old age or before? In fact before..
I will respond soon... Before Friday in sha Allah..
BTW I read the previous link waqas... Why didn't you respond to the last question of brother Mazhar... You can't deny the chronology of 2:136 and 2:133 these are intentionally placed orders.. Not like simply putting messengers names... Yakub's sons were witnessing to follow and says their ancestors in right order... What else you want...
In 14:39 Ibrahim claimed he Got two sons in his OLD age... It may not mean that he got both of his sons in old age... Coz only one wife had ish'ak as we saw above.. About other wife and old age story is not stated by Allah.. Further Ibrahim would have thanked Allah for having two sons when he is old by side of him... It also shows they both were together with Ibrahim...
Further in chapter 37 it doesn't seems Ibrahim was old when he was given a glad tidings... He was put in fire and leaving ...if you read 37:83 onwards carefully you get it... (remember his people called him young before puting in fire)
I know those who hold SEPRATION won't agree to any of my comment above...
But simply answer who is Ibrahim's other wife after very old age being given a glad tiding to already to his existing wife, and still marry another woman after to have Ismail after ish'ak...? So that's worthy stated in Quran than previous wife (mother of ish'ak)... Mother of Ismail worthy stated since Ibrahim is further older in age if Ismail born later...
Pls be precise in answers...

[jkhan]

Peace...
Thank you for 3 members privately emailing n stating that Ismail is the only option after reading my previous  thread and mainly pointing out the typo...so, I request  Pls correct the sentence "that proves ish'ak grandson " to be read as "that proves yakub grandson " in my previous thread....

[Wakas]

I have edited it for you.

I find it interesting you claim proving it and those that messaged you said it can only be Ishmael when Traditional scholars have been debating it for centuries with no conclusion. I guess you must have spotted something they missed.

And I already answered Mazhar in the thread, assuming you have read it. Just like Mazhar you conveniently ignore the example I provided to the contrary AND my point in reply2.

I request that you team up with others and create your own thread (or you can post on the thread I linked to which discusses the chronological order) with the strongest Quranic arguments you can fathom for the order in which Abraham had children. I look forward to such a work.

[huruf]

2.133
Nay, but you [yourselves, O children of Israel,] bear witness that when death was approaching Jacob, he said unto his sons: "Whom will you worship after I am gone?" They answered: "We will worship thy God, the God of thy forefathers Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, the One God; and unto Him we surrender ourselves." (133)
2.136
Say: "We believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and, their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus; and that which has been vouchsafed to all the [other] prophets by their Sustainer: we make no distinction between any of them. And it is unto Him that we surrender ourselves." (136)

2.140
"Do you claim that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants were `Jews' or `Christians'?" Say: "Do you know more than God does? And who could be more wicked than he who suppresses a testimony given to him by God? Yet God is not unmindful of what you do. (140)

3.84
Say: "We believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed by their Sustainer unto Moses and Jesus and all the [other] prophets: we make no distinction between any of them. And unto Him do we surrender ourselves." (84)

4.163
BEHOLD, We have inspired thee [O Prophet] just as We inspired Noah and all the prophets after him - as We inspired Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants, including Jesus and Job, and Jonah, and Aaron, and Solomon; and as We vouchsafed unto David a book of divine wisdom; (163)
14.39:
"All praise is due to God, who has bestowed upon me, in my old age, Ishmael and Isaac! Behold, my Sustainer hears indeed all prayer:

Every time here is a mention in which both sons are mentioned and others also are mentionned, the hronological order seems to be observed, and there always comes Ismail, then Ishaq.

I am not  impressed at all by the sayings of the "majority of early Traditional scholars", right after the triumph of the prophetic mission of Muhammad, many of those scholars from the mosaic and christians fields flocked to "islam" and submerged it in their, indeed, traditional views, so all the good for placing higher their own preferred ones, although of course no need for it, prophetic revelation is above all those petty idiocies of descent and so on.
So in fact , I think we ar emuch better served if we do stick to Qur'an and let the scholars with their traditions rest in peace.

In those ayas I have quoted, a hint might e given that no chronological order is kept by simply putting Ibrahim after any of those that came after, so we would know that no chronological order is meant. But that is not so. So indeed, Ismail was already there when Ishaq came. And in this case the bible gives the truth, they must have had a different mother, which in the bible, conveniently the first one, the mother of Ismail is insignificant, while the mother of Ishaq is not.

As to those that were giftted to Ibrahim in old age, it could be understood that both of them did not come before, but that one might already have been there, and the two were only in his old age. That is, the gift of the first one was not withdrawn when he got the second one in his old age.

All the more reason for taking the events in sura 37 chronologically. One of the sons was already grown up when he got the second, and the second was the announced after the "sacrifice" event was concluded. May be indeed, the "sacrifice" was separation, Ismail would fulfil his mission at a different distination from Ibrahim, and the "exchange" got by Ibrahim for that sacrifice was the new boy, who was announced as a prophet, just like the first.

Also the narration in sura 37 is clearly chronological. It starts with Nuh and then goes on to Ibrahim and how he is in disagreement with his people and prays for a child and then leaves to go somewhere else. Chronollogy is observed throughout.

And the "min as-sabiriin part" is diagnostic if htere were at all any need for it. Two only mentions of that expresion in the whole of Qur'an one for Idriis, dhul kifl and Ismail, and another one in the "sacrifice" event. Means nothing?

Salaam   

.
 

[ibn_a]

Salaam,

peace ibn_a,

Thanks for clarifying, however you have again misrepresented the example in this verse. Let me re-quote what I said in my previous reply to you:



Quote

    I would correct your example with the following:

    exchange A with B...

    A = him (whom the him refers to is unclear, but for sake of argument let's say it's the son which is the most common understanding)
    B = mighty/great sacrifice (i.e. the mighty/great deed Abraham did, by separating from his son), this is what was left in place of his son



Please pay close attention to what A is.

Normally I may agree with your observation, because its common use is as you argue, but the usage in 37:107 is unique if we pay careful attention to the Arabic:

"We exchanged him with a great sacrifice"

The parts in bold above nullify your argument. The use of "We" clearly shows God was the source of the exchange NOT the person/Abraham. This is different to the other usage of fidya (where it is the person doing fidya), and the use of "him" clarifies what was exchanged, leaving little room for movement when it comes to the interpretation.

Peace Wakas,

Thanks for the precision, from 37:107 "Wa fadaynahu bi dhibhin atheem"  we know that God is the source of the fidya/exchange, no issue here.The issue is about what was exchanged with him Isaac/Ismael. 

"We exchanged him with a great sacrifice "

Thus, in your "Abraham leaving scenario interpetation":

WE/God    exchanged    him Isaac/Ismael    for/with    a great/mighty sacrifice (i.e. the mighty/great deed Abraham did, by separating from his son), this is what was left in place of his son.

In the " Abraham leaving scenario interpetation ", I do not see what God gave to Abraham in exchange for (leaving) Isaac/Ismael.

The sacrifice was done by Abraham when he left Isaac/Ismael , that is why I said it would suffice to say it is was a mighty sacrifice, there would bee no need to use the word fidya.

And as you said it was a great/mighty sacrifice for both,  Abraham and Isaac/Ismael, in the " Abraham leaving scenario interpetation ", however, there is no reference to the sacrifice made by Isaac/Ismael.

....
Having said all of the above, it is not definitive that the dream was from God (as it is not explicitly stated), but there is certainly evidence implicating it was as outlined above. There is one weakness in my view and that is the use of "dhib'hin/sacrifice" (root: Dh-B-H) in 37:107.
Dh-B-Ḥ carries the meanings:
a) to split something,
b) to slit someone's/something's throat
c) to strangle someone/something.
The reason for the weakness is that this root is used twice in this story (once as a verb in "I am sacrificing you" in 37:102, and then as a noun "exchanged him with a great sacrifice" in 37:107, and this word is always used to mean a literal slaughter/sacrifice/kill in Quran. The first use in 37:102 can be easily explained away as this is what he literally saw in his dream, so to take the literal meaning in 37:102 makes sense, but to take it literally in 37:107 is problematic because the "great sacrifice" in 37:107 was not a literal slaughter/sacrifice/kill. However, it should be noted that the noun form "dhib'bin" in 37:107 is only used once in the entire Quran.
My view is that this is a play on words to emphasise the significance/severity of this deed, i.e. Abraham was giving up his son, never to see him again, thus it is as if his son was sacrificed, lost to him forever. It is interesting to note the core meaning of the root seems to be "to split something".
I have noted The Quran use play on words before but I never noted down the instances for future reference. Some that come to mind are Chapter 111, and the use of "cast" in 20:70. If anyone knows of other possible examples please let me know.
...
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.html

By your own standard (no offence intended), shouldn't there be in the Quran at least one meaning of DBH that could support your interpretation of 37:107  before you conclude?

You resolve this issue by saying: "that this is a play on words to emphasise the significance/severity of this deed ... ". is this strong enough to validate your interpretation?




والله اعلم
Allah knows best.