Abraham offers his daughters to the wrongdoers?
-
Salam Ayisha
he was not rewarded with the bull (sacrifice) of Allah. It was a ransom, this means it was a possibility to amends his fault by slaughtering and distributing the meat.
Salam peaceNowhere did I say he was rewarded with the bull sacrifice. I said he was rewarded for being prepared to sacrifice his son for God.
37.108 And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times
37.109 "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
37.110 Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
37.111 For he was one of our believing Servants.
37.112 And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.He was not being rewarded for following the devil or for refusing to sacrifice the son.
peace
-
here; peace
Abraham for refusing to hand over his son to pharoes men is taken away with the rest of the family, however his wife is left behind, ever wondered why?
Edip-Layth 287 We inspired to Moses' mother "Suckle him, and when you become fearful for him, then cast him off in the sea, and do not fear nor grieve. We will return him to you and We will make him of the messengers."
Edip-Layth 2039 "That she should cast him in the basket, and cast the basket in the sea, so the sea will place him on the shore, where an enemy of Mine and his will take him. I placed upon you a love from Me and that you shall be raised under My eye."
That is to me the ransom given to the mother , Gods promise to safeguard the boy and to make sure he will return to her as a messenger, if she decides to sacrifice him in the way of God..
Ransom = the payment one receives for handing over a person..
sacrifice = doing away with something of great worth. -
Explanation from The Quran-Islam website
First
We read in Sura 37 how Abraham had a dream in which he saw himself slaughtering his son. However, there is nothing in the Quran that says that the dream was from God
102.When he grew strong enough to work with him, he (Abraham) said, "My son, I saw in a dream that I am to slaughter you. What do you think?" He said, "O my father, do what you are commanded to do. You will find me, God willing, patient."
103.They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to slaughter him).
104.We called him "O Abraham.
105."You have believed the vision?" We thus reward the righteous.
106.That was an exacting test indeed.
107. A concession to disastrous slaughter.
108.And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
109.Peace be upon Abraham.
110.We thus reward the righteous.
111. He is one of our believing servants.Perhaps the most glaring misunderstanding is a result of the mis-interpretation of 37107. According to the traditional interpretations, largely based on a hadith point of view, it is claimed that God saved Abraham's son by substituting a sheep in his place. However, when we examine the relevant Quranic verses we find no justification or any evidence for such an understanding. When we look at 37107 we note that the verse is made of three words, they are
1- Fadaynah
2- B'Zhabh
3- Azeem1- Fadaynah The word fidya is used in the Quran to mean a concession, it does not mean sacrifice. The whole concept of sacrifice for God, or for that matter God sacrificing for the human is totally un-Quranic. To demonstrate the correct Quranic use of the word fidya, we refer to the following
".........If you are ill, or suffering a head injury, "fa fidya" (you are given a concession) by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship" 2196.
As we can see, the word "Fidya" as used in 2196 cannot mean sacrifice. This verse speaks of our rites during Hajj and specifically of obeying God's command not to shave our heads until the completion of the animal offering ritual. If we are ill or have a head injury (and we are forced to keep our heads shaved) then we are given a concession (not sacrifice) by fasting or giving to charity in place of the ritual we are not able to observe. We observe our rituals (or the given concessions) as an act of obedience to God and not as a sacrifice we give to God!
2- B'Zhabh This word means in place of a slaughter. The traditional Muslim thought depicts a sheep that God gave Abraham to slaughter in place of his son, but the Quran does not speak of any sheep or any animal being given! The only slaughter spoken of in connection to this incident is that Abraham was about to slaughter his son.
This leads us to believe that the word Zhabh in 37107 refers to the slaughter of Abraham's son which was about to take place, and not to a sheep or any other animal that is not mentioned in these verses. This fact is further supported by the fact that the word "Azhbahak" which is used in 37102 refers to the slaughtering of Abraham's son, so why should we interpret the same word in 37107 to be speaking about an imaginary animal that is never mentioned in any of these verses?
3- Azeem the word Azeem can mean any of the following great, disastrous or tragic.
When we put the three words together we find the picture totally different from the traditional interpretation of this verse. The three words together say that God made a great concession of intervening (Fidyah) to prevent the disastrous (azeem) slaughter (Zhabh) which Abraham was about to commit.The traditional interpretation that God substituted a sheep in place of Abraham's son does not really justify it being called a "great slaughrer"! What is so great about slaughtering a sheep?
But if the slaughter correctly refers to the intended slaughter of the boy then this would have indeed been a grave disastrous error on the part of Abraham.
The concession from God to prevent this slaughter was to save Abraham from sin and also to save his son from having his head chopped off. God does not normally intervene to save anyone from committing sin, so the intervention at that time was a concession from God. The reason God intervened is given in 37110-111"We thus reward the righteous. He is one of our believing servants."
This is not any different from the time when God intervened to save Joseph from committing adultery with his master's wife (1224). Once again, it was the devil who whispered to Joseph to commit the sin of adultery and not God, but God made a concession (of intervening) to save Joseph from sin. When the devil inspires any other human to commit adultery or any other sin, God does not normally intervene to save the human from sin. God gives the human the law of right and wrong and God gives the human the freedom for choosing right from wrong for himself, and this is exactly why God calls the intervention to save Abraham a concession.
Second
It is decreed very clearly in the Quran that killing an innocent believing soul is a great sin
"No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident.... " 492
"Anyone who kills a believer on purpose, his retribution is Hell, wherein he abides forever, God is angry with him, and condemns him, and has prepared for him a terrible retribution." 493Third
We also know that God never advocates sin
" ...... Say, "God never advocates sin. Are you saying about God what you do not know?" 728
If we put these 3 important facts side by side, we know that Abraham and his son was a good believer, thus killing his son would be a sin, and we know that God never advocates sin. The truth becomes clear; the dream Abraham had was not from God but from Satan.
But because Abraham was a righteous believer "We thus reward the righteous" God intervened and saved Abraham from falling for Satan's trick. God intervened when Abraham failed to correctly interpret the source of the vision. This is indicated from God's words to Abraham "Have you believed the vision?" God intervened and saved Abraham from committing a great slaughter and great sin (37107).Now let us look into the traditional Islamic interpretation of this event. What Muslim scholars claim is that God commanded Abraham to kill his son so as to test him. In other words, God wished to find out if Abraham loved his son more than he loved God! They then add that when God was assured that Abraham loved Him more than his own son, and just before Abraham slaughtered his son, God substituted a sheep in place of Ishmael to prevent the slaughter.
To expose this naive and totally irrational claim, let us consider the following analogy
Suppose you have a 10 year old son and you taught him all his life that stealing is wrong and that he should never steal any money whatever the reason may be. Now suppose that one day you wish to test your son, would you test him by commanding him to go and steal some money for you? Would you command your son to do what you taught him all his life not to do, even if you want to see how much he loves you?
Obviously not! Similarly God decreed in the Quran (and in all scripture) that killing an innocent soul is a great sin. His son was innocent and was a good believer, he committed no sin to be killed.
God would never test Abraham by commanding him to do something that has always been decreed by God to be a great sin.
This is the message in 728 God would never advocate sin.
Indeed God tests all of us, but God tests us in upholding His commandments, and not in breaking them!Moreover, the concept of sacrifices for God is a corrupt concept that has crept into the Old Testament. It is totally without any Quranic support. Nowhere in the Quran do we read of God asking us to offer sacrifices for Him.
It must be noted that the animal offering (which is one of the genuine rituals of Hajj) is not in any way connected to the dream of Abraham. The following verse confirms that the animal sacrifice is a genuine ritual of Hajj, also that this animal offering is not done 'for God', but it is done for the benefit of the people"The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by God for your own good." 2236
"Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches God. What reaches Him is your righteousness." 2237By reading the words "for your own good" and the words "Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches God. What reaches Him is your righteousness" it becomes clear that the ritual of animal offering during Hajj is not done because God is in need of sacrifice, but they are done for our own good. Such offerings, given to the poor and needy, are given to make us more righteous, and not because God is in need of any sacrifice. Plus the added benefit of feeding poor people with the meat of the sacrificed animals.
peace
-
Peace Hizbullah.
The irony is , someone will come back here and try and justify that God wanted Abraham to " slaughter his son" as a trial. Yet they claim to know who God is?
The human being is the " most argumentative " creature.
Ponder the Qoran, do not lock your minds. Free yourselves from the " bonds" and traditions of past generations!
Value God as He should be valued.
Peace.
-
Peace Hizbullah.
The irony is , someone will come back here and try and justify that God wanted Abraham to " slaughter his son" as a trial. Yet they claim to know who God is?
The human being is the " most argumentative " creature.
Ponder the Qoran, do not lock your minds. Free yourselves from the " bonds" and traditions of past generations!
Value God as He should be valued.
Peace.
Peace good logic
I concur with you
peace
-
Bold purple is from me
Explanation from The Quran-Islam website
First
We read in Sura 37 how Abraham had a dream in which he saw himself slaughtering his son. However, there is nothing in the Quran that says that the dream was from God
102.When he grew strong enough to work with him, he (Abraham) said, "My son, I saw in a dream that I am to slaughter you. What do you think?" He said, "O my father, do what you are commanded to do. You will find me, God willing, patient."
103.They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to slaughter him).
104.We called him "O Abraham.
105."You have believed the vision?" We thus reward the righteous.
106.That was an exacting test indeed.
107. A concession to disastrous slaughter.
108.And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
109.Peace be upon Abraham.
110.We thus reward the righteous.
111. He is one of our believing servants.Perhaps the most glaring misunderstanding is a result of the mis-interpretation of 37107. According to the traditional interpretations, largely based on a hadith point of view, it is claimed that God saved Abraham's son by substituting a sheep in his place.
It's 'largely based' on the Torah, Genesis 22.
However, when we examine the relevant Quranic verses we find no justification or any evidence for such an understanding. When we look at 37107 we note that the verse is made of three words, they are
1- Fadaynah
2- B'Zhabh
3- Azeem1- Fadaynah The word fidya is used in the Quran to mean a concession, it does not mean sacrifice. The whole concept of sacrifice for God, or for that matter God sacrificing for the human is totally un-Quranic. To demonstrate the correct Quranic use of the word fidya, we refer to the following
".........If you are ill, or suffering a head injury, "fa fidya" (you are given a concession) by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship" 2196.
As we can see, the word "Fidya" as used in 2196 cannot mean sacrifice. This verse speaks of our rites during Hajj and specifically of obeying God's command not to shave our heads until the completion of the animal offering ritual. If we are ill or have a head injury (and we are forced to keep our heads shaved) then we are given a concession (not sacrifice) by fasting or giving to charity in place of the ritual we are not able to observe. We observe our rituals (or the given concessions) as an act of obedience to God and not as a sacrifice we give to God!
2- B'Zhabh This word means in place of a slaughter. The traditional Muslim thought depicts a sheep that God gave Abraham to slaughter in place of his son, but the Quran does not speak of any sheep or any animal being given! The only slaughter spoken of in connection to this incident is that Abraham was about to slaughter his son.
This leads us to believe that the word Zhabh in 37107 refers to the slaughter of Abraham's son which was about to take place, and not to a sheep or any other animal that is not mentioned in these verses. This fact is further supported by the fact that the word "Azhbahak" which is used in 37102 refers to the slaughtering of Abraham's son, so why should we interpret the same word in 37107 to be speaking about an imaginary animal that is never mentioned in any of these verses?
3- Azeem the word Azeem can mean any of the following great, disastrous or tragic.
When we put the three words together we find the picture totally different from the traditional interpretation of this verse. The three words together say that God made a great concession of intervening (Fidyah) to prevent the disastrous (azeem) slaughter (Zhabh) which Abraham was about to commit.The traditional interpretation that God substituted a sheep in place of Abraham's son does not really justify it being called a "great slaughrer"! What is so great about slaughtering a sheep?
But if the slaughter correctly refers to the intended slaughter of the boy then this would have indeed been a grave disastrous error on the part of Abraham.
The concession from God to prevent this slaughter was to save Abraham from sin and also to save his son from having his head chopped off. God does not normally intervene to save anyone from committing sin, so the intervention at that time was a concession from God. The reason God intervened is given in 37110-111"We thus reward the righteous. He is one of our believing servants."
What is righteous about slaughtering your son?
This is not any different from the time when God intervened to save Joseph from committing adultery with his master's wife (1224). Once again, it was the devil who whispered to Joseph to commit the sin of adultery and not God, but God made a concession (of intervening) to save Joseph from sin. When the devil inspires any other human to commit adultery or any other sin, God does not normally intervene to save the human from sin. God gives the human the law of right and wrong and God gives the human the freedom for choosing right from wrong for himself, and this is exactly why God calls the intervention to save Abraham a concession.
where does it say anyone at all whispered to Joseph? It doesn't, Joseph had no wish/desire to be seduced at all by the woman.Second
It is decreed very clearly in the Quran that killing an innocent believing soul is a great sin
"No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident.... " 492
"Anyone who kills a believer on purpose, his retribution is Hell, wherein he abides forever, God is angry with him, and condemns him, and has prepared for him a terrible retribution." 493Third
We also know that God never advocates sin
" ...... Say, "God never advocates sin. Are you saying about God what you do not know?" 728
If we put these 3 important facts side by side, we know that Abraham and his son was a good believer, thus killing his son would be a sin, and we know that God never advocates sin. The truth becomes clear; the dream Abraham had was not from God but from Satan.
But because Abraham was a righteous believer "We thus reward the righteous" God intervened and saved Abraham from falling for Satan's trick. God intervened when Abraham failed to correctly interpret the source of the vision. This is indicated from God's words to Abraham "Have you believed the vision?" God intervened and saved Abraham from committing a great slaughter and great sin (37107).
He was WILLING to do it, they were BOTH willing. God intervened as they had proved they were willing to do this, would there be a concession and great praise for following the devil?Now let us look into the traditional Islamic interpretation of this event. What Muslim scholars claim is that God commanded Abraham to kill his son so as to test him. In other words, God wished to find out if Abraham loved his son more than he loved God! They then add that when God was assured that Abraham loved Him more than his own son, and just before Abraham slaughtered his son, God substituted a sheep in place of Ishmael to prevent the slaughter.
To expose this naive and totally irrational claim, let us consider the following analogy
Suppose you have a 10 year old son and you taught him all his life that stealing is wrong and that he should never steal any money whatever the reason may be. Now suppose that one day you wish to test your son, would you test him by commanding him to go and steal some money for you? Would you command your son to do what you taught him all his life not to do, even if you want to see how much he loves you?
Obviously not! Similarly God decreed in the Quran (and in all scripture) that killing an innocent soul is a great sin. His son was innocent and was a good believer, he committed no sin to be killed.
Not the same at all!! You seem to be missing the point that he was willing to do it.God would never test Abraham by commanding him to do something that has always been decreed by God to be a great sin.
so what is 106 talking about then? A test from the devil that he was willing to do? And God praised him for it?This is the message in 728 God would never advocate sin.
Indeed God tests all of us, but God tests us in upholding His commandments, and not in breaking them!
EXACTLY! And that was what Abraham was doing, following a command from God. The commandments as in the 10 commandments given to Moses were not with Abraham. He was following a command from God and he passed the test by being willing to sacrifice his own son for God. The verses clearly show he was willing to do this, according to your 'theory' he was willing to break a commandment and was praised for it?Moreover, the concept of sacrifices for God is a corrupt concept that has crept into the Old Testament. It is totally without any Quranic support. Nowhere in the Quran do we read of God asking us to offer sacrifices for Him.
It must be noted that the animal offering (which is one of the genuine rituals of Hajj) is not in any way connected to the dream of Abraham. The following verse confirms that the animal sacrifice is a genuine ritual of Hajj, also that this animal offering is not done 'for God', but it is done for the benefit of the people"The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by God for your own good." 2236
"Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches God. What reaches Him is your righteousness." 2237By reading the words "for your own good" and the words "Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches God. What reaches Him is your righteousness" it becomes clear that the ritual of animal offering during Hajj is not done because God is in need of sacrifice, but they are done for our own good. Such offerings, given to the poor and needy, are given to make us more righteous, and not because God is in need of any sacrifice. Plus the added benefit of feeding poor people with the meat of the sacrificed animals.
peace
Of course God is not 'in need' of sacrifice! In one sentence you're saying God doesn't want a sacrifice and in the next God decreed a sacrifice at hajj.
There is also 2.67 And remember Moses said to his people "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said "Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)!"
They didn't believe either.
No matter how you fiddle with the odd verse you cannot get away from the FACT he was ready and willing to do it. According to you he was following the devil, ready and willing to follow the devil's whisper, and God saved him from it and praised him as one of the righteous believers leaving this incident as a message for future generations, so in effect, if we follow the devil when he whispers for us to do wrong we are among the righteous?
I will leave Mazhar to go through the Arabic bits in there as I really must get on with cleaning.
peace
-
I will leave Mazhar to go through the Arabic bits in there as I really must get on with cleaning. Ayisha
Salamun alaiki,
- Father is repetitively watching a dream doing same act of sacrificing his son.
- He did not execute his dream. Were he willing to do it, he could have done it on first watch even without bringing into the notice of his son.
- Repetitive dream of same act forces him to take it seriously since the fundamentals of interpretation of dreams suggested it to be not of unconscious and passive nature.
- He places it before his son to know his perception.
- The son interprets it as Command of Allah the Exalted and expresses it in such manner indicating that the Father also had arrived to same conclusion.
- After this consensus, at that point in time, when they both had at their own, willingly agreed-accepted it as command of Allah the Exalted. Particle Fa is a conjunction indicating cause and effect. Verb is Perfect; Third person; dual; masculine; , Subject pronoun, in nominative state; Verbal Noun. For correctly perceiving text about episodes in any language, care needs to be taken for time and space indicated therein.
- It is important to note that the son did not himself lie down but father laid him down in the manner as vertebrates are sacrificed.
- That was the point in time that he hears an emergency call aimed at immediately stopping him from further action.
- Allah the Exalted tells him that he has affirmed, proven it to be exactly what he had seen in dream.
The intention of command through repetitive dreams is also indicated that it was just a manifest trial; and trial as we know is for purposes of exposure of one's sincerity, and for objects to determine their purity percentage. Actual Slaughter of son was not intended as disclosed by Allah the Exalted.
And We, in lieu thereof, asked him sacrifice a masculine mammal having become great in bone.
I do not think that an animal meant for sacrifice has any thing do with what we perceive by the word great. Its primary signification is a state when someone has become great in bone .
It is a long tradition that only adult male mammals are sacrificed as was done by Ibrahim alaihissalm. It also helps balance the population of mammals since extra males are but a problem and nuisance for female poplulation.
-
-
I think you have got this the wrong way.
Allah sets up the courts, so people are more fair to each other, don't you think!?
confused
Not the ones you were talking about and if it was a command from Him then there would be no problem, but those like you would be in trouble
would any such a person be let off by any court on earth?
And what would the court do to such a person?