Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? - Eid Al Adha
-
Salaam,
Peace jkhan,
If your explanation of 37107 in the sense of "saving Abraham from doing what he saw in his dream", I think that another word would be more appropriate than fadaynahu
for example ---> نجينه najjaynahu
والله اعلم
Allah knows best.Peace....... .....
Look brother.... There is a truth and that's One...
It would have been appropriate had you answered the matter we were discussing which is (Min) or (Bi) ... That was your concern so I involved... Now you skipped it and jumped to another.. Fine... Never mind...
Brother we can't alter words of Quran... First let's know that and keep reminding... God used words so let's approach meaning for it... As God says this Quran is in pure Arabic and further easy to understand.... Let's find the pure Arabic and make things easy...
To use Najjainahu.. The incident was not torture or without the willingness and acceptance of son Ismail... But both agreed and surrendered... There is nothing to SAVE.... Pls try to understand before raise questions with simple logic.. God used the perfect word... And try to fit your understanding accordingly. .. If anyone misunderstand the incident to be separation or etc other than slaughter then use logic whether SEPRATION fit for the incident.. That I negated in all my answers but I didn't receive any positive concrete response... Otherwise I would've definitely taken into, consideration. It's not such that I deny all others against my view... Coz God knows I look for guidance with clarity.... -
Salaam,
Peace....... .....
Look brother.... There is a truth and that's One...
It would have been appropriate had you answered the matter we were discussing which is (Min) or (Bi) ... That was your concern so I involved... Now you skipped it and jumped to another.. Fine... Never mind...
Brother we can't alter words of Quran... First let's know that and keep reminding... God used words so let's approach meaning for it... As God says this Quran is in pure Arabic and further easy to understand.... Let's find the pure Arabic and make things easy...
To use Najjainahu.. The incident was not torture or without the willingness and acceptance of son Ismail... But both agreed and surrendered... There is nothing to SAVE.... Pls try to understand before raise questions with simple logic.. God used the perfect word... And try to fit your understanding accordingly. .. If anyone misunderstand the incident to be separation or etc other than slaughter then use logic whether SEPRATION fit for the incident.. That I negated in all my answers but I didn't receive any positive concrete response... Otherwise I would've definitely taken into, consideration. It's not such that I deny all others against my view... Coz God knows I look for guidance with clarity....Peace jkhan,
My intention was not to skip or jump , but to add some information to my previous post, as you can see I quoted my previous post.(maybe "najjaynahu" was not a good example)
Not my intention to alter , as you said the words of God are precise.
Trying to explain that "fidya" has the sense of exchange.- An example from Lane's Lexicon ( read in context of 37107 and 2229)
http//arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/%D9%81%D8%AF%D9%8A?cat=50
b3 وَــفَدَيْــنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ means And we made an animal prepared for sacrifice to be a ransom for him, and freed him from slaughter. (T, TA.)
b4 فَدَتْ نَفْسَهَا مِنْ زَوْجِهَا and ↓ افتدت mean She gave property to her husband so that she became free from him by divorce. (Msb, TA.)
This was also said by other members
...
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.
...
...
=> "reeemed" = Ibn Faris says it means to give a thing in exchange of another, in order to save it (like a ransom), to protect it or to liberate it (as in 2184 - no siyam in exchange of feeding a poor)
...Root ف د ى needs to be studied. The instrument by which one is ransomed or released/absolved of some obligation, which may be forced one or voluntarily undertaken, it is mentioned by preposition Bi.
This Root occurs 13 times. See all ayahs
http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/(1093).htm
والله اعلم
Allah knows best. -
Salaam,
... (you will)*find me, if God willed, of the patient ones.
.....http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.html
Peace Wakas,
ستجدني ان شا الله من الصبرين ...
... satajiduni, in sha'a Allahu, mina alssabireena.
... you will find me, if God willed, of the patient ones.
- Doesn't that imply that
Abraham will experience / observe his son's patience? ( i.e. no separation?)
His son did not say for example I will be, if God willed, of the patient ones.
والله اعلم
Allah knows best. -
peace ibn_a,
- Doesn't that imply that
Abraham will experience / observe his son's patience? ( i.e. no separation?)
That's a decent point and yes it could imply that. We'd have to research all similar occurrences to be sure.
It could be argued when Abraham said goodbye and left he found his son to be patient AND he was later given news of his son as a prophet implying he was of the righteous and thus of the patient ones.
However the evidence is in favour of the following point
- The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
Let me clarify, here is structure of the Arabic ABC <future particle sa> XYZ
My view is XYZ occurs in the future, i.e. after ABC.Your view is XYZ occurs prior to ABC or XYZ occurs until ABC takes place.
Which means that if someone can come up with an explanation that fits better, bearing in mind the above, then I'm all ears. At the moment I don't see any better alternative.
-
Peace,
FM translation
37102 And when he grew enough to work with him, he said "My son, I am seeing in a dream that I am sacrificing you. What do you think?" He said "O my father, do what you are commanded / if'al ma tu/maru to do. You will find me, God willing, patient."The son of Abraham did not say to his father Do what you saw or see in your dream or do what you have been commanded / if'al ma omirta as in the following verse
3911 Say "I have been commanded / Ineee omirtu to serve God, devoting the system to Him."
37103 So when they both had submitted,wa tallahu liljabeeni.
So when they both had submitted to do what abraham is commanded, not what Abraham is seing in a dream. Abraham did not say "I have been commanded to sacrifice you".
I undestand "wa tallahu liljabeeni" as a mark of approval and total submission of Abraham and his son to what he is commanded.
37105 "You have carried out the vision." It was such that We rewarded the righteous.
37110 It is thus that We reward the righteous.
Abraham is rewarded because he has carried out the vision and he did not execute the vision, he submits himself to God, and he is a good doer / righteous
4125 And who is better in the system than the one who submits himself to God, and he is a good doer, and he follows the creed of Abraham in monotheism? And God took Abraham as a friend.
3122 And whoever submits himself completely to God, while he is righteous, indeed he has taken grasp of the strongest hold. And to God is the conclusion of all matters.
37107 And We ransomed him with a great animal sacrifice.
Abraham was rewarded by a great sacrifice instead of the sacrifice of his son in his vision. God knows the true interpretation of Abraham's vision.
God knows best.
-
Yusuf’ story is a clear example for family separation.
Years of separation between parents and beloved child -(1284-86). This also happened by God’s (the Just/Wise/Judicious) will/permission.
Unlike Abraham’s story, here it was unexpected and Yusuf was much younger compared to Abraham’s son. And the parents meet him long after his childhood & adolescence. -
Salaam,
peace ibn_a,
That's a decent point and yes it could imply that. We'd have to research all similar occurrences to be sure.
It could be argued when Abraham said goodbye and left he found his son to be patient AND he was later given news of his son as a prophet implying he was of the righteous and thus of the patient ones.
However the evidence is in favour of the following point
- The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
Let me clarify, here is structure of the Arabic ABC <future particle sa> XYZ
My view is XYZ occurs in the future, i.e. after ABC.Your view is XYZ occurs prior to ABC or XYZ occurs until ABC takes place.
Which means that if someone can come up with an explanation that fits better, bearing in mind the above, then I'm all ears. At the moment I don't see any better alternative.
boldmine
...
*Arabic "sa" is a prefixed particle (i.e. coming before the verb "find me" indicating action in the future. The obvious problem for the conventional understanding is how can one be of the patient ones after having been sacrificed/killed?
....
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.htmlPeace Wakas,
If I fully understand what you mean, I don't see an issue about "Sa" / سَ
I think that when his son said ... you will find me, if God willed, of the patient ones. / ... satajiduni, in sha'a Allahu, mina alssabireena.
has not necessarily to be after, but could refer to the moment ( if3al ma tu amru ) i.e.
when Abraham would do what he saw in his dream, and like you said in the first part of your comment...when Abraham said goodbye and left he found his son to be patient AND...
والله اعلم
Allah knows best. - The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
-
peace ibn_a,
What I said refers to AFTER (and immediately after) he had enacted the vision, hence my use of "said" not "says". Not at the moment (i.e. in the process of doing) or was about to enact. That's the difference.
All you or anyone needs to do is bring one example from the over 100 uses of "sa" in Quran that matches with whatever you/anyone takes it to mean in this Abraham story. jkhan provided one example but issue is it depends on how you interpret that story, if it is taken as is commonly taken then it fails as an example.
What I'm asking is not difficult, but it seems getting an answer to my questions is proving difficult.
-
Peace,
Thabaha / thibh / sacrifice as daraba / beat or cut off the hand have multiple meanings.
If we accept the meaning of sacrifice, there is no problem, abrahama confirmed his vision and obeys according to this verse
4125 And who is better in the system than the one who submits himself to God, and he is a good doer, and he follows the creed of Abraham in monotheism? And God took Abraham as a friend.
37106 Surely, this was an exacting test mubeen.
What does mean mubeen according the quran ?
37113 And We blessed him and Isaac. And from among their progeny, some are righteous, and some are clearly (mubeen) wicked.
Abraham's vision / clearly (mubeen) test, shows that Abraham is clearly righteous and not wicked.
37105 "You have carried out the vision." It was such that We rewarded the righteous.
The vision is a test that clarifies / bayyana / mubeen that Abraham is righteous / he is a good doer.
-
Salaam,
peace ibn_a,
What I said refers to AFTER (and immediately after) he had enacted the vision, hence my use of "said" not "says". Not at the moment (i.e. in the process of doing) or was about to enact. That's the difference.
...
...
*Arabic "sa" is a prefixed particle (i.e. coming before the verb "find me" indicating action in the future. The obvious problem for the conventional understanding is how can one be of the patient ones after having been sacrificed/killed?
....
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-Abraham-sacrifice-son.htmlPeace Wakas,
Adapted my previous comment, but still don't see an issue about "Sa" / سَ
The conventional understanding
I think that when his son said ... you will find me, if God willed, of the patient ones. / ... satajiduni, in sha'a Allahu, mina alssabireena,
refers to the MOMENT ( if3al ma tu amru i.e when Abraham would do what he saw in his dream),
and NOT AFTER if3al ma tu amru.If patience refers to AFTER, then of course there would be a problem with the conventional understanding,
but if patience refers to the MOMENT, then I dont think there is an issue.Unless the Arabic language rules don't allow that it could be understood that way ( i.e. the conventional understanding).
...
All you or anyone needs to do is bring one example from the over 100 uses of "sa" in Quran that matches with whatever you/anyone takes it to mean in this Abraham story. jkhan provided one example but issue is it depends on how you interpret that story, if it is taken as is commonly taken then it fails as an example.
What I'm asking is not difficult, but it seems getting an answer to my questions is proving difficult.
I don't know if there is an appropriate example, there could be, maybe some one knows about an example.
If there is no example, what do you think that it could mean for the Abraham leaving scenario and for the conventional understanding?والله اعلم
Allah knows best. -
peace,
Quote
I think that when his son said ... you will find me, if God willed, of the patient ones. / ... satajiduni, in sha'a Allahu, mina alssabireena,
refers to the MOMENT ( if3al ma tu amru i.e when Abraham would do what he saw in his dream),
and NOT AFTER if3al ma tu amru.if3al ma tu amru do what you order in the present,
Abraham's vision He did not say I was ordered to do. -
peace ibn_a,
What I said refers to AFTER (and immediately after) he had enacted the vision, hence my use of "said" not "says". Not at the moment (i.e. in the process of doing) or was about to enact. That's the difference.
All you or anyone needs to do is bring one example from the over 100 uses of "sa" in Quran that matches with whatever you/anyone takes it to mean in this Abraham story. jkhan provided one example but issue is it depends on how you interpret that story, if it is taken as is commonly taken then it fails as an example.
What I'm asking is not difficult, but it seems getting an answer to my questions is proving difficult.
<<<< <<< Cites 2827, which possibly works depending on how one interprets it
- 2827 means Moses would marry one of his daughters and go on to fulfill the condition set ---> does not work as a qualifying comparable example
- 2827 means Moses would fulfill the request then after that marry a daughter ---> does work
I haven't studied it in detail to see if we can glean from Quran which is meant but the flow suggests (1) is more likely.>> >>>>>
Above waqas's comment..
Peace Waqas...
In fact the flaw of verses says Musa married and seems to be fulfilled term only first part of the term that is to say 8 years.. As soon as he fulfilled the term (ajall not ajalain) he is leaving with his family (married family) fortunately God uses what Musa said in verse 2829...here the usage is in plural(aathikum, umkuthzu) that also 3 or more plural.. So it shows Musa's wife plus 2kids or more with him.. Coz they can only be Musa's family non other coz God called musa leaving after completing a term... So musa would not have married after completing the term but when they agreed initially.. Musa cannot have two more kids once completed 8 years and leave otherwise. ..
Here important thing is term agreement was only with musa and father in law not with his daughter... Musa agreed to the basic term 8 years... So he married.. Agreeing to the term is important completing or not completing is in Musa's hand and their family life...
So what you should consider is what Musa agreed with his father in law and not the time he completes.. The ACT is term agreement...
So they agreed, and marriage took place... That's the story.. So why not particle "SA' shouldn't match ... Musa didn't betray the term.. That was part of his married life in the end... Point to note is unless musa agreed the second part i.e marriage won't take place..
So act of agreeing to the requested term took place before marriage took place...
First... Agreement
Second.... MarriageIs that clear now dear brother waqas... Is your long pending particle 'Sa' issue satisfies you now? If not explain me why....
-
peace jkhan,
Thanks for clarifying however you have invalidated the example you cited and thus strengthened my argument. Let me explain
I said
Cites 2827, which possibly works depending on how one interprets it
- 2827 means Moses would marry one of his daughters and go on to fulfill the condition set ---> does not work as a qualifying comparable example
- 2827 means Moses would fulfill the request then after that marry a daughter ---> does work
Previously you never clarified which of the above two was your view, however in your above post you have now clarified your view is (1) when you said "So musa would not have married after completing the term but when they agreed initially". This is also my view.
To explain it away, you try and make the case it is about the act of agreeing, but this fails logic.
When one makes an agreement with another it is impossible to tell if the other party is righteous or not at that point, and that can only be determined if/when they stay true to what was agreed upon. Since this was an agreement with a time component then by Moses experiencing his father-in-law's behaviour/demands/actions/etc over the course of the agreement Moses will be able to determine if he was true to his word and righteous (or not)..2827 says
He said, "I wish to offer one of my two daughters for you to marry, in return for working for me for eight HaJJ; if you make them ten, it will be voluntary on your part and I do not intend to make difficulty for you. You will find me, GOD willing, righteous." -
peace jkhan,
Thanks for clarifying however you have invalidated the example you cited and thus strengthened my argument. Let me explain
I said
Previously you never clarified which of the above two was your view, however in your above post you have now clarified your view is (1) when you said "So musa would not have married after completing the term but when they agreed initially". This is also my view.To explain it away, you try and make the case it is about the act of agreeing, but this fails logic.
When one makes an agreement with another it is impossible to tell if the other party is righteous or not at that point, and that can only be determined if/when they stay true to what was agreed upon. Since this was an agreement with a time component then by Moses experiencing his father-in-law's behaviour/demands/actions/etc over the course of the agreement Moses will be able to determine if he was true to his word and righteous (or not)..2827 says
He said, "I wish to offer one of my two daughters for you to marry, in return for working for me for eight HaJJ; if you make them ten, it will be voluntary on your part and I do not intend to make difficulty for you. You will find me, GOD willing, righteous."Dear Waqas...
From your side it may be illogical... But from my side it is logical... I will explain why...
First of all I find the old man even before Musa agreed to marry a righteous person...After watering for the women... Women would have noticed the behavior of Musa and the way he talked to them...
All these stories they both would have thoroughly told the old father... That would have already impressed the old man...
No one would send his daughters to a stranger again asking to meet him for just watering... It shows the old man's quality as a person... He wanted to reward.... But he just not rewarded for musa watered.. It seems like they were in serious conversation narrating all Musa's story to him... Musa also seemed impressed about the behavior of daughters and and the old man already... Soothing words of old man saying "Don't fear you have escaped from wring doers" these are peaceful words from good people.
Musa was not a child not to understand that family... Musa would have never agreed to strangers without anyone for him to Knkw about them.. He was all alone and judged them.. He would have never agreed if he didn't find the old man and daughters as believers.. If what musa judged is right then he can expect him to be righteous... But it was old man's duty to give a word saying that you will find me righteous... That would be moral confidence boost to musa coupled with what old man stated...
Further... Daughter claimed musa as trustworthy (ameen) ..disbelievers don't need trustworthy person.. They were also looking a righteous person and they found in musa...
Don't tell me musa blindly agreed to marry coz he was in a pathetic situation... It is God who gave musa from a righteous family a righteous daughter...
Did musa say.. If I don't find you righteous I will withdraw from the term.. Musa was convinced...So for me it is meaningful that musa trusted the whole family and agreed to the old man's condition and married immediately... For this agreement they both placed God as witness ...this is a righteous act...
The confidence musa kept on old man judging him is the triguring point.. Then marriage.. I don't see any flaw in using particle "Sa"..
It doesn't take years to judge a true righteous person... Like the daughter of old man instantly told musa as Alameen (Trustworthy)...Whatever you decide this story won't change the Ibrahim's story.. Evidences are glaring fir physical sacrifice...
-
@ Waqas...
would like to add below comment for previous thread..remember the old man called himself "you will find me God will Saaliheen" it means simple law abiding good doer" = salaihin.. not a great Muththaqun... So to identify a simple law abiding good doer being a believer is within the reach of a persons simple acts if one meets and stays a few moment with him is more than enough to grasp....
-
peace jkhan,
It seems your view is based on presumptions. You nor I can change the Arabic.
Your basic claim is that the old man was already righteous and Moses already determined that hence agreed, rendering the Arabic redundant
"...you will find me, God willing, of the righteous..." (imperfect, future tense)
