Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? - Eid Al Adha
-
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 2132 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 126. 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.
2132 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?
-
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 126. 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
-
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
- everywhere else in Quran when it says "We gave/give good tidings..." it always tells us what the good news was.
- everywhere else it mentions giving good news of a child it states that, i.e. good news is a son/child.
- AFAIK they are not born a prophet, they become one later (I'd be interested to know if Quran says otherwise)
- 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.
-
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
-
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 2133 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 1439 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 1171 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 5129...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 2136 and 2133 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 1439 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 3783 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... -
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.... -
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.
-
2.133
Nay, but you 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 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 wereJews' orChristians'?" 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 prophets we make no distinction between any of them. And unto Him do we surrender ourselves." (84)4.163
BEHOLD, We have inspired thee 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 prayerEvery 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
.
-
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 sonPlease 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 37107 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 37107 "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 37107.
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 37102, and then as a noun "exchanged him with a great sacrifice" in 37107, and this word is always used to mean a literal slaughter/sacrifice/kill in Quran. The first use in 37102 can be easily explained away as this is what he literally saw in his dream, so to take the literal meaning in 37102 makes sense, but to take it literally in 37107 is problematic because the "great sacrifice" in 37107 was not a literal slaughter/sacrifice/kill. However, it should be noted that the noun form "dhib'bin" in 37107 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 2070. If anyone knows of other possible examples please let me know.
...
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.htmlBy 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 37107 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. -
peace all,
Iyyaka,
You said this "First, the Arabs of that time used it in expressions that did not necessarily refer to a sacrifice of being."
I am asking you for evidence.
I will ask bro uq about the source he got it from if that will satisfy you.Salam Wakas,
Point 1
Sorry i didn't find the reference but here the expression i have noticedذَبَحَتْہُ الْعَبْرَة (zabahatul abrah) tears choked him.
Point 2
you quoted- 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.
Did u look at my previous post about the meaning of the root T-L-L or you ignore them ?
Peace
- T-L-L carries the meanings
-
peace ibn_a,
No offence taken. In fact, I like the way you present the counter argument.
You seem to have a wording preference for fidya, if so, fair enough. If you're claiming it cannot be a fidya then that is a different matter. If it is the latter I have not seen you present sufficient Quranic evidence for this stance.
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 37107 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?
The noun dhib'hin is only used once in Quran. I consider my take on it strong enough to allow for the possibility. I never said anywhere that my interpretation is validated by this or any other point. Please pay careful attention to my words.
As I said on this thread, I considered the various options, and found the view presented in my article to be the most cogent (i.e. has the least number of issues). If you disagree please let us know your view so we can weigh them up.
-
Peace...
Anyone is welcome to prove that Is’haq was the first son of Ibrahim… And Second Son was Ismail… My reply # 125 coupled with responses given by Mazhar and Huruf (which I read so meticulously) has much concrete support for Ismail to be the First Son of Ibrahim….
Prove that Is’haq was the first son within quran or negate my question in reply # 125 with logic and quran…If anyone claim that Ibrahim did marry in very old age again even after God’s glad tidings of Is’haq and after that Yaqub (grandson) then it is irrational thought concocting against Ibrahim…for which there is no support.. Coz.. the message was not only to the old wife of Ibrahim but also to Ibrahim himself…so, there is no point of God’s Messengers revealing the message saying Glad tidings of Is’haq and after that Yaqub while Ismail is still pending before grandson’s glad tiding.. That proves Ismail is first….That suits if Ismail was born well before and to another wife
If those who claim that separation took place and not slaughtering according to verse 37100 -113 then, first prove who the son is…. If the son who involved in slaughter story was Ismail to be precise then it is very convenient to prove to anyone who is thorough in quran that it was not SEPARATION….That’s why Waqas knowingly commented that it is not impossible… his comment “”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.””
Brother Waqas, pls don’t drag the scholars into this subject… I never hate scholars and I never follow them either… I have no time to trace what they did for centuries or millennium and what they followed and what their source (quran or hadith), PhDs etc.. … while I have loads of thing to learn in quran for my verification and salvation….and my guide is Allah though I don’t know current Arabic how to speak it… But I guess I have not failed the Arabic of quran which I don’t need to speak, but only to understand it if God (Author) backs me…who is better than the author?
To wind up, I only request those who hold the view of SEPARATION in this topic which Waqas initiated to find out who is Ibrahim’s first son if not possible who the son involved in Slaughter story…I myself and those who probably claim Ismail to be the elder son, I guess have given more than enough conclusive evidences with clarity if you read carefully what we have written….
But those who claim Is’haq the one involved in this famous story has not given any tangible evidence to substantiate it rather claiming separation merely not knowing who the son was…
My key point in future to prove is…. Did Allah ever choose any messenger who is very very old in age to carry out his messages and actions while neglecting the messenger’s youth…. Impossible..simply impossible and meaningless….we don’t see that in quran…God may guide us...
-
peace jkhan,
As I suggested before
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.
You said
If those who claim that separation took place and not slaughtering according to verse 37100 -113 then, first prove who the son is…. If the son who involved in slaughter story was Ismail to be precise then it is very convenient to prove to anyone who is thorough in quran that it was not SEPARATION….
Please provide the evidence/logic for your claim in bold.
You said
That’s why Waqas knowingly commented that it is not impossible
Unlike others, I try not to use absolutist language, or claim my arguments are "conclusive" etc. I am very careful about my wording. Of course to the outsider/reader things can appear different to what they are see the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
peace jkhan,
2132 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.
Peace Waqas….
You were asking evidence for 2132 when I said Ibrahim’s sons lived together to get the message of Ibrahim as stated in 2132…. I know (Banee) not own sons….I guess you claim as most of the others, the statement could be even from Yakub…. But I researched and my mind lean towards Ibrahim only…
First.. Ibrahim is mentioned in the verse beginning as he Enjoined..
2132 “And Abraham INSTRUCTED/ENJOINED his sons and Jacob, , "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion(Deen), so do not die except while you are Muslims."
Second, in the Banee (there could be Ismail, is’haq and their sons + Specially Yakub since he could be the first Messenger of grandson so God specified Yakub)… it is not the direct speech of Ibrahim but God says Ibrahim instructed and God added Yakub and highlighted to make us know in that group Yakub also was present..
Then the direct speech comes from Ibrahim as “O my sons” which include all his sons and grand, if great grand in case…But point here what is the statement…. “ …. Indeed, Allah has CHOSEN (ASTHAFA)….” This word is so crucial …. In my view and deep understanding, this cannot be said by Yakub.. coz.. Yakub is not the initiator of this DEEN, but Ibrahim…everything came to Ibrahim and what Yakub has to do is to spread and preach…. Yakub is not in a position to say his sons (all) that Allah has CHOSEN as if it has come to him in the first place…CHOSEN could only be said by IBRAHIM… coz it was given to Ibrahim and the DEEN was chosen with it’s complete manner from Ibrahim..That’s why Ibrahim said Allah has Chosen.. If you refer all CHOSEN words in quran you will get a hint..
Yakub’s statement comes later in the next verse 2133 with word “Or”… that’s so manifest, that yakub has not said the both statement..…Analyze it and let me know.. even anyone pls.. -
Peace everyone ....
This thread is just additional comments.... Hope would be useful...
I don't prefer the translation of forefathers merely for (Aabaai) but simply fathers(brothers of fathers as well ) ... Be one's own father or grand or great and beyond with extra word of awwaleen.... Same to Banee as sons, could be own son or grand or great... And on n on... Correct me... Coz I find in 1238 Yousuf mentions Ibrahim Is'haq and Yakub as Aabaai...in fact Yakub is not his forefather... But father... If otherwise prove pls..
Did you notice strangely why Yousuf omitted Ismail in Aabaai list in 1238....at the same time, 2133 Yakub was very old and nearing death and sons (banee) told including Ismail as their Aabaai.... Doesn't it prove that in that banee group, grand sons of Ismail also could have been with sons and grand sons of yakub since he was so old near to die... . It indicates Ismail's sons not prophets or highlighted by Allah while Is'haq and his son yakub and then Yousuf and decendants are much emphasized...
Does it hint that Ismail was born to a slave woman much earlier as history of Arabs or Christians or Jews? But Allah gave priority in giving even at later age Is'haq to his genuine wife.. Allah does distinguish even in marriage,etc pure freeman and slaves.. Doesn't He? ...wouldn't there be difference in that society while having a child to someone's own wife and of those slaves who are married to masters... It will..... I think it makes sense... Not to judge the quality of a person but status in society that existed that goes long way in accepting a prophet in such corrupted societies... .. For whatever the reasons(if not slave) Allah continued with one wife's (the one mentioned in Quran) children prohpet after prophet while no mention of anything of Ismail's decendants... Though Ibrahim solicited in one of the duas 2128 while he was with Ismail..(to solicit for offspring by Ibrahim, Ismail should have been married probably while raising the first house).. Don't think Ibrahim had shown difference to his two sons but God has clearly preferred the old wife and her kids... Having to talk with angels itself a blessing on her when they came with glad tiding... . Mentioning of her itself in Quran also a sign..
Yousuf omitted Ismail in (123 with knowledge and rightly.... coz.. Ismail is not in that chronology... Perfectly said by Yousuf... Which is Ibrahim <Is'haq <Yakub they were Yousuf's Great, grand and father respectively...Ismail was only Yousuf's forefther but not direct. When their own people say chronologically it is dependable that too by a prophet.. .. Like in 2133, 1439etc...but if God says in His own in different way that is something else which need research.... For example Davud after Sulaiman.... What is hidden in them we still need to dig... But as Mazhar n Huruf pointed out whenever Ismail and Is'haq is mentioned side by side, always Ismail appears first... That's not by mistake or by chance ... Also whenever Ibrahim Ismail Is'haq Yakub and decendants are mentioned that also in order...
In addition to that, matter of sabireen. If specifically stated only to one group of messengers then it must have particular meaning why... God doesn't need to extra praise few of the messengers if they don't have that quality extraordinarily abundantly. For example... Was musa sabireen though musa himself claim? We find he failed with his teacher and musa killed a person and threw the tablet etc... Clearly he was not sabireen but he would have been in most of his life. But to label and give a unique merit by God Himself, does he deserve? No. But whoever given by God deserved... Ismail in fact sabireen to obey his father and face the slaughter need extra patience.... without cross questioning anything from Ibrahim ... Every detailed prophets in Quran you would find not sabireen at least in one occasion.. If we research.. Including Ibrahim...May Allah guide n bless us to understand His book...
-
Peace Waqas….
You were asking evidence for 2132 when I said Ibrahim’s sons lived together to get the message of Ibrahim as stated in 2132…. I know (Banee) not own sons….I guess you claim as most of the others, the statement could be even from Yakub…. But I researched and my mind lean towards Ibrahim only…
First.. Ibrahim is mentioned in the verse beginning as he Enjoined..
2132 “And Abraham INSTRUCTED/ENJOINED his sons and Jacob, , "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion(Deen), so do not die except while you are Muslims."
Second, in the Banee (there could be Ismail, is’haq and their sons + Specially Yakub since he could be the first Messenger of grandson so God specified Yakub)… it is not the direct speech of Ibrahim but God says Ibrahim instructed and God added Yakub and highlighted to make us know in that group Yakub also was present..
Then the direct speech comes from Ibrahim as “O my sons” which include all his sons and grand, if great grand in case…But point here what is the statement…. “ …. Indeed, Allah has CHOSEN (ASTHAFA)….” This word is so crucial …. In my view and deep understanding, this cannot be said by Yakub.. coz.. Yakub is not the initiator of this DEEN, but Ibrahim…everything came to Ibrahim and what Yakub has to do is to spread and preach…. Yakub is not in a position to say his sons (all) that Allah has CHOSEN as if it has come to him in the first place…CHOSEN could only be said by IBRAHIM… coz it was given to Ibrahim and the DEEN was chosen with it’s complete manner from Ibrahim..That’s why Ibrahim said Allah has Chosen.. If you refer all CHOSEN words in quran you will get a hint..
Yakub’s statement comes later in the next verse 2133 with word “Or”… that’s so manifest, that yakub has not said the both statement..…Analyze it and let me know.. even anyone pls..وَوَصَّىٰ بِـهَآ إِبْرَٟهِـۦمُ بَنِيهِ وَيَعْقُوبُ
And Iebra'heim and likewise Ya'qoob bound his Sons with this legacy.
يَٟبَنِىَّ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱصْطَفَىٰ لَـكُـمُ ٱلدِّينَ
"O my sons! Allah the Exalted has graciously chosen the Constitution-Code of Conduct for you people.
فَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنتُـم مُّسْلِمُونَ .2132١٣٢
Therefore, you should not die except being conscious followers of Code-Islam submission to the discipline establishing state of peace, security, tranquillity, harmony and dynamic balance for all."
The First sentence is compound sentence with conjunct waw and relates to two different time frames, the object being same on two occasions.
The pronoun is red word is singular, masculine, third person. Succinctness in Qur'an is par excellence. This first part of compound sentence reveals the information that Ibrahim alahissalm had two sons and one grand son of such age who can be given an advice, before his death. -
//Did you notice strangely why Yousuf omitted Ismail in Aabaai list in 1238....at the same time, 2133 Yakub was very old and nearing death and sons (banee) told including Ismail as their Aabaai..//
وَٱتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ ءَابَآءِ ىٓ إِبْرَٟهِيـمَ وَإِسْحَٟقَ وَيَعْقُوبَۚ
He has mentioned only fathers by genetic line.
Earlier also 126 reference is by genetic relationship
وَيُتِـمُّ نِعْمَتَهُۥ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَـىٰ ءَالِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَآ أَتَمَّهَا عَلَـىٰٓ أَبَوَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ إِبْرَٟهِيـمَ وَإِسْحَٟقَۚ
And will complete His blessing upon you and the family/followers of Ya'qoob like He had completed upon your two forefathers , early on, Iebra'heim and Ies'hauq
-
Peace....
One email message pointed me out a good indication in verse 2140 regarding chronology...
While prophets names are mentioned according seniority, still Jews and Christian are mentioned in chronological order... While those prophets were neither Jew or Christians as per 367.& 2140 so that also in order... Such as No Jews/christians then Jew and then Christian.... That proves Ismail was, before Is'haq with such precise chronology... -
That proves Ismail was, before Is'haq with such precise chronology...
lol@proves
Let me help you out. Study and confirm the following, if able
EVERY time prophets are mentioned it is ALWAYS in chronological* order
*we don't really know chronological order for certain but we can get a rough ideaAs I mentioned in the thread I linked to, if one can confirm that then that is a decent argument for chronology. It would not "prove" it however.
-
Salaam,
peace ibn_a,
No offence taken. In fact, I like the way you present the counter argument.
You seem to have a wording preference for fidya, if so, fair enough. If you're claiming it cannot be a fidya then that is a different matter. If it is the latter I have not seen you present sufficient Quranic evidence for this stance.
...
Peace Wakas,
- Thanks for your constructive criticism, I will try to explain my view of what I underlined in the quote.
The verses concerning fidya in the Quran
Tranlation Muhammad Asad.
- other opinions.
----- fidya to free captives -----
285 And yet, it is you who slay one another and drive some of your own people from their homelands, aiding one another against them in sin and hatred; but if they come to you as captives, you ransom them - although the very driving them away has been made unlawful to you!. Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, commitment to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do474 NOW WHEN you meet those who are bent on denying the truth, smite their necks* until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; but thereafter either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted thus . And had God so willed, He could indeed punish them ; but so as to test you by means of one another. And as for those who are slain in God’s cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste
- l-riqābi* can also mean captives.
----- fidya to free onself from commandments/recommandations, for valid reason -----
2184 during a certain number of days. But whoever of you is ill, or on a journey, number of other days; and it is incumbent upon those who can afford it* to make sacrifice by feeding a needy person. And whoever does more good than he is bound to do does good unto himself thereby; for to fast is to do good unto yourselves - if you but knew it.
yuteeqoonahu can also mean hardship/difficulty/not have the strength for it.2196 AND PERFORM the pilgrimage and the pious visit in honour of God; and if you are held back, give instead whatever offering you can easily afford. And do not shave your heads until the offering has been sacrificed; but he from among you who is ill or suffers from an ailment of the head shall redeem himself by fasting, or alms, or act of worship. And if you are hale and secure, then he who takes advantage of a pious visit before the pilgrimage shall give whatever offering he can easily afford; whereas he who cannot afford it shall fast for three days during the pilgrimage and for seven days after your return that is, ten full . All this relates to him who does not live near the Inviolable House of Worship. And remain conscious of God, and know that God is severe in retribution.
----- fidya to free herself from her husband -----
2229 A divorce may be twice, whereupon the marriage must either be resumed in fairness or dissolved in a goodly manner. And it is not lawful for you to take back anything of what you have ever given to your wives unless both have cause to fear that they may not be able to keep within the bounds set by God hence, if you have cause to fear that the two may not be able to keep within the bounds set by God, there shall be no sin upon either of them for what the wife may give up in order to free herself. These are the bounds set by God; do not, then, transgress them for they who transgress the bounds set by God-it is they, they who are evildoers!----- fidya to free oneself from punishment/suffering -----
391 Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth and die as deniers of the truth - not all the gold on earth could ever be their ransom. It is they for whom grievous suffering is in store; and they shall have none to succour them.536 Verily, if those who are bent on denying the truth had all that is on earth, and twice as much, to offer as ransom from suffering on the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them for grievous suffering awaits them.
1054 And all human beings that have been doing evil's would surely, if they possessed all that is on earth, offer it as ransom ; and when they see the suffering , they will be unable to express their remorse. But judgment will be passed on them in all equity; and they will not be wronged.
1318 of those who have responded to their Sustainer with a goodly response, and of those who did not respond to Him. if they possessed all that is on earth, and twice as much, they would surely offer it as ransom a most evil reckoning awaits them, and their goal is hell and how evil a resting-place!
3947 But if those who are bent on evildoing possessed all that is on earth, and twice as much, they would surely offer it as ransom from the awful suffering on the Day of Resurrection for, something with which they had not reckoned before will have been made obvious to them by God;
57 15 “And so, no ransom shall be accepted today from you, and neither from those who were bent on denying the truth. Your goal is the fire it is your refuge - and how evil a journey’s end!”
7011 though they may be in one another's sight everyone who was lost in sin will on that Day but desire to ransom himself from suffering at the price of his own children,
7012 and of his spouse, and of his brother,
7013 and of all the kinsfolk who ever sheltered him,
7014 and of whoever lives on earth, all of them - so that he could but save himself.----- fidya for ?? ----- in " the Abraham leaving scenario interpetation "
37107 And We ransomed him with a tremendous sacrifice,
If I missed something or made errors, please someone add or correct.
-In my view, fidya seems to be related to something negative, i.e. concerns people wo are in need for someone to do fidya for them (or need to do fidya for themselves), because they are in a situation (mentally and/or physically) in which they prefer not to be.
The fidya restores/improves the situation (mentally and/or physically) in which they were.
From the " Abraham leaving scenario interpetation ", I understand that you relate fidya to something positive (or am I wrong?).
You say that " God exchanged 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."والله اعلم
Allah knows best.peace ibn_a,
....
The noun dhib'hin is only used once in Quran. I consider my take on it strong enough to allow for the possibility. I never said anywhere that my interpretation is validated by this or any other point. Please pay careful attention to my words.As I said on this thread, I considered the various options, and found the view presented in my article to be the most cogent (i.e. has the least number of issues). If you disagree please let us know your view so we can weigh them up.
Consider my posts concerning your article more as feedback and as questions to better understand the reason for your interpretation.
