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

Iyyaka

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.

huruf

Where in the text of the Qur'an is it showed that Isma'il left Ibrahim for good?

Salaam

Wakas

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.html

Quote 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...".

Iyyaka

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?

Wakas

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.

Iyyaka

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..

hawk99

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 grateful

Thank you good brother

peace

huruf

Thank you for the answers, wakas and Hawk.

Is this ocasion mentionned in the aya 14.37 is tied to the so called sacrifice?

If so formwhat would you infer that boths things are tied?

Salaam

jkhan

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....

ibn_a

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...&quot 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.

Wakas

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.

huruf,
There is no direct/explicit link from 1437 to the sacrifice story.

ibn_a,
Whilst I do understand your point when you say "B is a consequence of A and not an exchange / fidya." I think this is your interpretation, for example in 2196 we have

...whoever from among you was A or B so/then a ransom from X or Y or Z

Note the resumption/consequential particle "fa" (so/then) above.

According to your line of reasoning X/Y/Z is a consequence of A/B thus is not a fidya, when it clearly is a fidya. So, whilst I understand your point I do not consider it strong enough to conclude it is not a fidya.

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"

I would say that the story is about Abraham hence the singular "hu", similar to the very next verse which says "And We left upon him in the later generations" when we know the son is also mentioned in Quran so the son's story is also left for us (albeit not in as much detail as Abraham's). Again, whilst I understand your point, I do not consider it strong enough to conclude anything.

ibn_a

Salaam,

....
ibn_a,
Whilst I do understand your point when you say "B is a consequence of A and not an exchange / fidya." I think this is your interpretation, for example in 2196 we have

...whoever from among you was A or B so/then a ransom from X or Y or Z

Note the resumption/consequential particle "fa" (so/then) above.

According to your line of reasoning X/Y/Z is a consequence of A/B thus is not a fidya, when it clearly is a fidya. So, whilst I understand your point I do not consider it strong enough to conclude it is not a fidya.

...

Peace Wakas,

I want to clarify my view on the Abraham leaving scenario interpretation and the point you raised about 2196 if you permit.

I agree ( partially when yous say" According to your line of reasoning...&quot that in 2196 B can also be seen as a result/consequence of A, i think that the difficulty is about the fidya, I will try to explain my understanding

The Abraham leaving scenario interpretation.

Abraham was commanded through vision to leave his son

A. Abraham did leave his son.

B. it was a great/mighty sacrifice (that Abraham did by leaving his son = A), so B is
a result/consequence of what he did in A ---> no need for fidya.

I can understand the sacrifice made by Abraham ( in the leaving scenario interpretation), but do not see the fidya, and as i said previously, wouldn't it suffice to say it is/was a great/mighty sacrifice.

The point you raised about 2196

https//www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/196/default.htm

People going for hajj and umrah are commanded to do hilq al-ras.

A. they did not hilq al-ras because of marad or adtan min ras.

B. they fidya with siyam or sadaqa or nusuk, so B can also be seen as
a result/consequence of what they did not in A ---> need for fidya.

the command was executed ----> no need for fidya.
the command was not executed ----> need fidya.

I will study your article more in depth and see if i can give some useful feedback and try to answer some of the points you raised here

http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Abraham-Sacrifice-Questions.html

although requires a considerable amount of time and reflection and research in the Quran and other sources.

والله اعلم
Allah knows best.

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....

Peace...

*** only one incident took place and let's trace it ****

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.

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

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 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?

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 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

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

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.

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 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...

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....