What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
The Truth About Abraham and his SON Ishmael, Peace be upon Them
(He is a new convert to Islam)
1) First, let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram
had been living in
2) Next let us analysis at why and what age
Allah (SWT) commanded Abraham (PBUH) to take Ishmael and Hagar to settle in
“Was Ishmael and Hagar sent to the desert before or after the birth of Isaac? If we were to accept the Biblical version, we would encounter a number of inconsistencies and contradictions. It is clear from the story in Gen. 21:14-19 that Ishmael was a little baby at that time. For example according to Gen. 16:16 Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. And according to Gen. 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born. According to Gen. 21:8-19 the incident took place after Isaac was weaned. Biblical scholars tell us the child was probably weaned at about the age of three. Thus, it follows that when Hagar and Ishmael were taken away Ishmael was a full-grown teenager, seventeen years old. However, the profile of Ishmael in Gen 21:14-19 is a small baby and not a full-grown teenager. Why?
14 Early next morning Abraham took some food and a full water-skin
and gave them to Hagar. He set the child on her shoulder and sent her away,
and she wandered about in the wilderness of
1st) First, the original Hebrew for Gen. 21:14 is " and put the bread and water on her shoulder AND the boy." Anyone fluent in Hebrew can confirm this! This reading is still rendered in the Revised English Bible; however, other Bible publishers possibly aware of the discrepancy decided to translate the verse slightly different; however, we can see their trick! How would a mother carry a seventeen-year-old teenager on her shoulder? Certainly he was probably strong enough to carry his mother. Ishmael must have been a baby!
2nd) Second, in Gen 21:15 we are told that Hagar put the child under one of the bushes. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
3rd) Third, in Gen 21:16 we are told that Hagar sat away so she did not have to see the child die before her eyes. Is this the profile of a husky seventeen-year-old teenager who probably was capable of being worried about his mother dying before his eyes? Or is it obviously a profile of a small helpless baby? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
4th) According to Gen 21:17-18, the angels told Hagar lift the child and hold him in your arms. Is a seventeen-year-old man the object of being lifted up and held in one's arms by a woman while CRYING? Or is it the reference of a small child. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
5th) According to Gen 21:19 we are told that Hagar filled the bottle with water and gave the child a drink. One would expect a seventeen year old to bring water to his mother instead. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
6th) According to Gen 21:14 Abraham puts the food and water on Hagar's shoulder. Why doesn't the strong husky seventeen-year old Ishmael offer to carry the food and water? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
7th) According to Gen 21:20-21?? Ishmael grew up, became an archer and got married. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
The above analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that
while the Bible contains some truths as explained earlier, there is also
evidence of human additions, deletions and
interpolations which only a subsequent
authentic revelation could clear. The
Islamic version of the story is fully consistent and coherent from A to Z; Ishmael was a baby and Isaac was not born yet when this
incident took place. This proves that the real reason
behind their settlement in
Of course let us remember the Corrupted bibles own statement; “ ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”
As we can clearly see the Jews tampered with their scripture, and some of the jewish scribes were obviously racist towards Ishmael and believe the jews were the only true human beings (just like the racist zionist jews of today) although we ALL come from the SAME person, Adam!
3) Proof that Ishmael (PBUH) was the child who was to be sacrificed by Abraham (PBUH).
“The following quotes are taken from the Bible.
The Bible Genesis 22:2
"Take now your son, your only son, whom you
love,_______, and go to the
The Bible Genesis 22:12
"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
The important question is who was this only son of Abraham that was offered for sacrifice? Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? The Bible writers have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham? Bible scholars explain that anomaly by putting forward the following two arguments.
The first argument is that after the birth of Isaac, Ishmael lost his status of being a son of Abraham, since he was not born of a wife of Abraham but born to a handmaid of Abraham's wife. However, this argument is false because Hagar was a wife of Abraham otherwise the Lord would not have used the word wife in the following verse.
Genesis 16:3 So after Abraham had been living in
Moreover, Jews and Christians contend that only Isaac, the one that was born to Sarai was a son. However the biblical passage below tells us that Ishmael never lost his status as a son, not even after the birth of Isaac. If Ishmael had lost the status, the Lord would not have used the word sons in the following verse.
Genesis 25:9 Then his sons Isaac and
Ishmael, buried him (Abraham) in the
argument presented is that
because Ishmael was born to a handmaid he would qualify as a seed or a
descendant of Abraham, but not as a son. This argument is nullified because
prevailing Nuzi Laws of marriage (exhibit A) tell us that such marriage
contracts were legal in the days of Abraham and the child born of a handmaid or
slave-girl would have the same status as one born to the wife, even if the wife
had a child of her own later. There can be no doubt concerning the validity of
the Nuzi laws of marriage. For example, when one traces the maternal side of
the children of
1 Chronicles 7:40 "All these were descendants of Asher, heads of families, picked men of ability, leading princes."
Consequently, the entire Abrahamic family tree is tracked in 1 Chronicles, including Abraham's children from his first wife Hagar (1 Chronicles 1:29), his second wife Sarah (1 Chronicles 1:34) and his third wife Keturah (1 Chronicles 1:32 - see family tree at main web page).
there is a very similar incident in the Bible (Ruth 1-4). In this story a child
born to a handmaid is indeed recognized as a son. For example, Boaz, a
So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:
"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy. (All this, From: http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/nice201.htm)”.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube