Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? - Eid Al Adha
-
'Slaughtering' has no other meaning other than take the life of another being... That's what Ibrahim saw...
Salam,
Incorrect if you mean "The triliteral root dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) = slaughtering"
First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being.
Second, let's look at what the Qur'an says about this word in (2721) " - "
2720 And he inspected the birds, then said "Why do not we see the hoopoe, is there anyone missing?"
2721 "I will punish him severely, or I will laādh'baḥannahu /kill? Him, or he should have a clear excuse."Point 1
=> Does Sulaiman, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?Point 2
=> In this short passage we have 3 choices dictated by Sulaiman
(1) punish
(2) laādh'baḥannahu/Kill?
(3) excuse
Logic would be Allah to start with the strongest punishment Kill. However, it is not the case.The only answer that remains after analyzing these 2 points is that laādh'baḥannahu does not mean to kill/slit troat BUT "to SEPARATE from him / NO longer to SERVE ..". To make a modern analogy it's like an employee who dismiss an employee for serious misconduct ..
-
Salam,
Incorrect if you mean "The triliteral root dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) = slaughtering"
First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being.
Second, let's look at what the Qur'an says about this word in (2721) " - "
2720 And he inspected the birds, then said "Why do not we see the hoopoe, is there anyone missing?"
2721 "I will punish him severely, or I will laādh'baḥannahu /kill? Him, or he should have a clear excuse."Point 1
=> Does Sulaiman, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?Point 2
=> In this short passage we have 3 choices dictated by Sulaiman
(1) punish
(2) laādh'baḥannahu/Kill?
(3) excuse
Logic would be Allah to start with the strongest punishment Kill. However, it is not the case.The only answer that remains after analyzing these 2 points is that laādh'baḥannahu does not mean to kill/slit troat BUT "to SEPARATE from him / NO longer to SERVE ..". To make a modern analogy it's like an employee who dismiss an employee for serious misconduct ..
Peace..
You rushed to answer…First of all, I responded to Mazhar based on his point which he was referring SLAUGHTER merely…. Not SEPARATION he was refering… So.. what is slaughter if not taking the life of another… You get me Dear Iyyaka..
And your point… Honestly very impressive…
Below your comment…=> Does Solomon, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?
And note the above for this verse 2721 “I will surely PUNISH him with a SEVERE punishment or SLAUGHTER him unless he brings me clear authorization."
Now, you yourself pose the your question which is “Does Solomon, who was a prophet of Allah, slaughtering the "hoopoe" just because he was late?”
Just coz HudHuda (Hoopoe) was JUST LATE, why Sulaiman should PUNISH him that also crystal clearly with (extra word-Shadeed) such a SEVERE punishment… severe punishment for an employee is firing him and not hurting him but not in sulaiman’s statement..…inside this severe punishment can be anything of HudHuda couldn’t bear (for instance… cut one wing, or sever a leg or sever wing and a leg of opposite sides or remove one eye..etc. etc.. that’s severe)…but later Sulaiman said SLAUHTER which is severe than severe punishment..(as per you SEPARATION)… Is separation SEVERE or the SEVERE PUNISHMENT? It was just a bird, Being separated from Sulaiman wont’ make any difference to it..and it was a talented one based on story… Any how the separated bird only Sulaiman was looking for with anger… shows No need permission from sulaiman to get separated…Only thing sulaiman was using his God gifted power to control them….It’s God’s wish that they serve sulaiman..
You were asking about the particle ‘SA’… … are you okay with my second example..
-
Salaam,
...
8.) please explain why Quran describes the sacrifice/dhibhin in 37107 as great/mighty/azeem?
Jkhan quotes "disastrous/great(great in the bad aspect) sacrifice", "something of unpleasant, evil oriented Azeem…Same way God absolutely delivered Abraham’s Son form a Azeem (Great) grievous Sacrifice.", "He was ransomed of a Horrible Sacrifice "Your interpretation fails according to the Arabic "exchange/ransom" means to swap A with/for B, i.e. swap son for/with something else, NOT save him from something. Simply ask yourself what was the son replaced with? Then let us know.
......
The conventional understanding claims that "the great/mighty sacrifice" refers to a sacrificial animal that was exchanged/ransomed for Abraham's son, which seems odd to me, because one may ask why the sacrificial animal is described as "great/mighty", especially in comparison to the slaughter of a son. In the Abraham leaving scenario the "great/mighty sacrifice" would refer to the great sacrifice made by leaving his beloved son, making it a self-contained explanation.
...
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.htmlPeace Wakas
Could you explain what you mean by "a self-contained explanation" and what is A and B in the "Abraham leaving scenario"?Salam,
Incorrect if you mean "The triliteral root dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) = slaughtering"
First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being.
Peace Iyyaka,
Could you share those sources please.
Sorry for this off- topic.
Other possible explanations about Solomon, jinn, shayateen, Naml, Al-Tayr, HudhudSalaam,
Possible explanations
-------1----------
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607818.msg376044#msg376044
part The jinns of Solomon.
-------2---------
from page
https//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1093®ion=E3
to page
https//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1105®ion=E3...
-------3 ---------
https//quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/sulaiman-and-the-queen-part-i/
https//quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/sulaiman-and-the-queen-part-ii/https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609105.0
jinn workers 3412-13
https//www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=1240®ion=E3&CR=
https//www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=1241®ion=E3
shayateen builders and divers 3837
shayateen held in chains 3838
https//www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=1318®ion=E3
والله اعلم
Allah knows best. -
Dear Jkhan,
I do not know if you're ironic with me or not (I quote you "Honestly very impressive ..." or it's my english which is too limited) but your speech would be more clear if you removed the "..." or make it a very moderate use.
Regardless, I just wanted to point out to you that the word does not always mean slaughtering and that the proof is in the Qur'an itself in 2721. I think you would take my arguments more seriously if you correctly translated the word "aw" in 2721 "I would surely PUNISH him with a SEVERE punishment OR SLAUGHTER him OR (not unless) he brings me clear authorization."
A remark with the word "la-uʿadhibannahu/I will surely punish him" in 2721. the root of this word refers first to the notion of PRIVATION. Punishment or torment is the consequence of this privation. So in my example with our business world in case of serious misconduct of an employee
(1) disciplinary layoff or demotion
(2) dismissal
(3) valid excuseAs for the use of "sa" I just wanted to say that he was expressing a near and not far future. Yes you are right "future is future"..
The root S-B-R expresses a duration, a prolonged action in time as in your last example with the journey of Moussa.
To translate by "patient" in English is incorrect because this word refers to a notion of "passivity" whereas SABR it refers to a connotation of activity, a commitment to remain firm in an action.Peace
-
peace ibn_a,
Could you explain what you mean by "a self-contained explanation" and what is A and B in the "Abraham leaving scenario"?
As I mentioned previously HERE the pronoun "hu" could refer to either Abraham or his son. In my understanding it doesn't seem to make a difference.
Thus, it would be either
- exchanged him (the son) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced the son with a mighty sacrifice Abraham made (by separating from his son)
- exchanged him (Abraham) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced Abraham with a mighty sacrifice the son made (by separating from his father)
Interestingly, such an event would have effected both, so each one will have experienced the above. This mighty deed was taken into account by God and he/they were rewarded as a result.
I take it as a play on words as mentioned in my article, quote
My view is that this is a play on words to emphasise the significance/severity of this event, 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".
It is a self-contained explanation because there is absolutely nothing else in the context to explain it. I'm personally not a fan of inserting things into the text to explain Quran when there is no warrant, and especially if there is a fitting explanation that does not require an insertion.
-
Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son?
New article - click HEREFeedback welcome, especially corrections. Thanks.
Salam Wakas,
In your article you translate "So when they both submitted and he (Abraham) brought** him (son) to*** his (Abraham's) forehead (or side of head)."
Fine to put in brackets what does not appear literally in the text.Question why not put in brackets the pronoun "his" (in red below)?
Indeed, It does not appear in the Quranic text.Peace
-
Peace Big brother...
Good point "Ibrahim never saw having slaughtered his son" ...
If what you claim is within the possible frame, Then Ibrahim should have told his son "I saw in dream that I was about to slaughter" And if it is about to slaughter then there is no point of command and no need of patience and worries and surrender.. .. Ibrahim should have stopped even before God called out... He shouldn't continue beyond what he saw...
In case your argument is to say Ibrahim didn't perceive what he saw and got carried away though he saw only the sword came up to his son's neck(for argument sake) .. If God didn't stop .... He would have executed beyond what he saw...
Look.. Ibrahim didn't perceive the dream was not a command of God is fair call out of his sheer belief in God..
But claiming Ibrahim didn't know what he actually saw in dream is below average call... God directly put in Quran what Ibrahim said to his son.. He said slaughtering and not "About to slaughter" or "l saw like slaughtering you"
Then your claim has meaning...
'Slaughtering' has no other meaning other than take the life of another being... That's what Ibrahim saw...There are two things called tense and aspect. If it were "about to" then verb is not used, instead active participle would have been used to make it current affair.
Both the verbs are imperfect indicative mood. It is not just ONE dream seen once. It is continuing happening. If that was not the case there was no need of prepositional phrase. It is future. that I will......
Dream conveys a concept. He sees laying down his son in the manner mammals are slaughtered. Both interpret it as sacrifice and move ahead. The moment he did that to slaughter, he gets the loud call that the dream already stands executed.
The son also uses passive verb in indicative mood. "Do that which your are being commanded" - telling slaughter your son as sacrifice, and assures him that in doing so he will find him coolly perseverant.
-
peace,
Question why not put in brackets the pronoun "his" (in red below)?
Indeed, It does not appear in the Quranic text.I wasn't sure what the implication was of the word usage, i.e. "...his forehead" and/or "...the forehead" and it didn't affect the article which option was chosen, hence the translation.
Upon reviewing it just now, it seems the latter is more accurate. I have amended the article. Thanks.
-
Salaam,
peace ibn_a,
As I mentioned previously HERE the pronoun "hu" could refer to either Abraham or his son. In my understanding it doesn't seem to make a difference.
Thus, it would be either
- exchanged him (the son) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced the son with a mighty sacrifice Abraham made (by separating from his son)
- exchanged him (Abraham) with a mighty sacrifice, i.e. replaced Abraham with a mighty sacrifice the son made (by separating from his father)
Interestingly, such an event would have effected both, so each one will have experienced the above. This mighty deed was taken into account by God and he/they were rewarded as a result.
I take it as a play on words as mentioned in my article, quote
It is a self-contained explanation because there is absolutely nothing else in the context to explain it. I'm personally not a fan of inserting things into the text to explain Quran when there is no warrant, and especially if there is a fitting explanation that does not require an insertion.
Peace Wakas,
Thanks for your explanations.
I am sorry but I don't see the difference between A and B in "your scenario".
It seems more that in "your scenario" that B is a result of A ."your scenario"
A = his son leaving to spread the message and never see his father again.
fadaynahu / exchanged / replaced with / for a mighty / great sacrifice.
B = mighty / great sacrifice = Abraham will live for the rest of his life without his son.
I think there would be no need to use the word fadaynahu / exchanged / replaced.
Wouldn't it suffice to say it is / was a great/ mighty sacrifice in "your scenario" ?والله اعلم
Allah knows best. -
peace ibn_a,
There definitely is a difference between A and B in my scenario. 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 sonI think there would be no need to use the word fadaynahu / exchanged / replaced.
Wouldn't it suffice to say it is / was a great/ mighty sacrifice in "your scenario" ?In my scenario, yes I suppose that could have been used, however I would say that since this word is associated with slaughter to say "exchanged A with B" clarifies no son-slaughter took place, i.e. worded in a way so it cannot be taken to mean a son-slaughter took place. Also use of "exchanged", it could be argued, further cements the leaving scenario interpretation.
-
peace,
I wasn't sure what the implication was of the word usage, i.e. "...his forehead" and/or "...the forehead" and it didn't affect the article which option was chosen, hence the translation.
Upon reviewing it just now, it seems the latter is more accurate. I have amended the article. Thanks.
Salam Wakas
You're welcome.
it depends In fact on whether you want to stick to the text or not and it seems to me that you have choosen a literal translation (for me it is a mandatory step, by using eventually parentheses, specially for debate).Another question Where do you find in classic dictionaries "to draw something to one's self" as possible translation of Arabic word "TaLLa" (root Ta-Lam-Lam)?
Your understanding depends on it.
Thanks. -
peace Iyyaka,
Another question Where do you find in classic dictionaries "to draw something to one's self" as possible translation of Arabic word "TaLLa" (root Ta-Lam-Lam)?
Fellow moderator uq provided the meanings, see here https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609687.msg408319#msg408319
I have never known uq to be unreliable. Also the following meaning is given in DofQ "to lay one down upon one's kin" which was also discussed in the above thread. It would be nice however to know exactly which lexicon these meanings were taken from.You previously mentioned "dhib'bin" has been used non-literally in Classical Arabic sources. Can you clarify which with quotes ideally.
peace huruf,
Where in the text of the Qur'an is it showed that Isma'il left Ibrahim for good?
Nowhere AFAIK but it seems you are assuming these verses refer to Ishmael, and that it was Ishmael who left Abraham. The evidence for a family separation is found in the article and it is fairly clear
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.htmlQuote from article
Many are not aware that at some point in the story of Abraham in Quran there was a family separation
"...I have settled SOME of my progeny in an uncultivated valley..." " i.e. they are not all in one place.
This is reinforced by the fact that Abraham and his sons Ishmael/Isaac and Jacob (grandson?) are never mentioned being together in one place. For example 2125-128 mentions Abraham and Ishmael only when working on 'al bayt' (the shelter) and in 2128 the dual form is used when Abraham asks "...make us both (i.e. Abraham and Ishmael) submissive...". -
peace Iyyaka,
Fellow moderator uq provided the meanings, see here https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609687.msg408319#msg408319
I have never known uq to be unreliable. Also the following meaning is given in DofQ "to lay one down upon one's kin" which was also discussed in the above thread. It would be nice however to know exactly which lexicon these meanings were taken from.You previously mentioned "dhib'bin" has been used non-literally in Classical Arabic sources. Can you clarify which with quotes ideally.
Salam,
Sorry i didn't find my speech ! can you send me back to the link?
-
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609687.msg408319#msg408319
Bro uq got back to me with the following
Quote
-
T-L-L carries the meanings
a) to throw someone down on their face or to wrestle them to the ground,
b) to draw something to one's self. -
DH-B-Ḥ carries the meanings
a) to split something,
b) to slit someone's/something's throat,
c) to strangle someone/something.
I couldn't find the specific meaning for T-L-L that you mentioned (i.e. lay one down upon one's kin). I also couldn't find a non-literal meaning for DH-B-Ḥ apart from the meanings I have listed above. There could be some rhetorical function that allows the words above to be used non-literally but that would have to be justified through context and through the determination of the intended meaning of the author.
-
-
Thank you for the link.
So as i understand no real evidence for "to draw something to one's self." for T-L-L meaning. And i found nothing about the brother uq or something escapes me.
You said "You previously mentioned "dhib'bin" has been used non-literally in Classical Arabic sources. Can you clarify which with quotes ideally." => Can you give me the link of my own reference ? I didn't find it..
-
Abraham did make a great sacrifice by separating from his son.
O our Lord! surely I have settled a part of my offspring in a valley
unproductive of fruit near Thy Sacred House, our Lord! that they may keep
up worship; therefore make the hearts of some people yearn towards them
and provide them with fruits; haply they may be gratefulThank you good brother
peace
-
Peace Everyone...
All I have to say the below part of the verse...
548 " ....... .... The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to DIFFER."
We as people who depend on Quran for guidance.. of course we DIFFER, including me compared with most of you, and there are who are having same approach of me as well... but we definitely differ. Differ either not knowing what is right from quran or out of God's misguidance or our arrogance to bend on what we know of quran..
Knowing quran on critical points in this forum is always dealt with differences of opinions that also with huge variety of Perception... I wonder we are responsible for what we explain or not...
I wonder how those people said, we hear and we obey without any variance of opinions...Quran never claims that people had difference of understanding of the quran, though there were Deniers.... Deniers and level of understanding is different...However, saying something totally against what God has in fact revealed is huge in my perception....i waited someone to convince me within quran to grasp what actually Ibrahim saw and did... but no one convinced me... so better remain in my understanding... Further, it seems what i wrote also not convinced anyone... So, where exactly the truth is hidden.... I wish we have a living prophet... lol whatever
BUT, some of those who understood may be knowing exact picture of what God in fact revealed in quran.... though it is hard to convince who hold different opinion to them...we all cannot be wrong... can we? one group should be right... example ... Slaughter or Separation, what ibrahim saw? or World is stationary or Spinning? etc. etc.. I wish God put everyone to the right group since we all look for guidance....
-
Salaam,
peace ibn_a,
There definitely is a difference between A and B in my scenario. 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....
Peace Wakas,
In "the leaving scenario interpretation"
Ok " difference " was not the correct word to use, what i wanted to say is that in my opinion B is a consequence of A and not an exchange / fidya.
The conventional understanding claims that "the great/mighty sacrifice" refers to a sacrificial animal that was exchanged/ransomed for Abraham's son, which seems odd to me, because one may ask why the sacrificial animal is described as "great/mighty", especially in comparison to the slaughter of a son. In the Abraham leaving scenario the "great/mighty sacrifice" would refer to the great sacrifice made by leaving his beloved son, making it a self-contained explanation.
It should be noted that the pronoun "hu" (i.e. "...exchanged him..." in 37107 is commonly taken to refer to the son, however the flow of the context suggests it refers to Abraham. In the sacrificial animal story the pronoun "hu" must refer to the son otherwise it doesn't work. In the Abraham leaving scenario it doesn't matter whom the pronoun refers to as it will work either way (i.e. separating is a mighty/great sacrifice for either Abraham or his son).http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.html
In "the leaving scenario interpretation"
As you say they were both affected by the separation, so it would be a "great/mighty sacrifice" for the son and a "great/mighty sacrifice" for his father, while the Quran refers to only one person "fadaynahu".
والله اعلم
Allah knows best.
