I heard somewhere that Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael and that Ishmael was to be sacrificed in place of Isaac by Abraham in Sacred Scripture. I believe that it was Abraham’s “one and only son” Isaac whom God would use to bring Abraham many offspring that was to be sacrificed. That has been the tradition of the Christians and the Jews for literally thousands of years before the prophet Muhammed (whom I don’t consider I prophet, my sincerest apologies to my Muslim readers.) I don’t see any reason to believe otherwise other than to lay claim to Abraham’s promise that his offspring should occupy the Holy Land. Are Arabs really of Semitic origin? Can they trace their ancestory to Abraham? That would make sense as to why they occupy Egypt and Syria. It was promised that Ishmael would become a great and powerful ruler if I’m not mistaken.
Yes, the Arabs are of Semitic origin, they are descendants of Shem. Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham, and this is why Muslims believe what they do. However, God chose Isaac to be the one through whom God’s promise to Abraham would proceed.
Nevertheless, It is important to remember that God told Abraham that Ishmael would become a ‘great nation’. Also, God sent an angel to Hagar and her son when they were in the wilderness. Now, if I were to believe that an angel appeared to Muhammad, I would tend to believe it was the same angel that was sent to minister to Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness two thousand years prior.
The other interesting story regarding Muhammad is that his wife brought Muhammad to her cousin, (Muhammad’s uncle). Muhammads’ uncle was a Christian Jew, or a Christian who knew how to read and write in Hebrew. He was translating the Christian gospel into Hebrew at the time. Muhammad’s uncle was of great encouragement to him, when Muhammad in great fear had told him of the angel that appeared to him. Unfortunately, Muhammad’s uncle died shortly thereafter, and Muhammad’s ‘revelations’ ceased for a time. If Muhammad’s uncle had live longer, maybe the Koran would have been written somewhat differently.
It is my desire to understand the monotheistic faiths without promoting discord. One can be truthful without being one-sided. It calls for an openess in hearing what another believes and respecting those who disagree with us, and who desire to live peaceably with us.
As far as I’m aware, the uncle to whom you refer to, Waraka ibn Nawfal, only confirmed the Prophethood of Muhammad from what he knew of the Scriptures. There were few to no Christians and certainly no major seats of Christianity in Makkah itself and the Jewish population in Madinah was both small and their religious practice rudimentary. 87 of the Qur’an’s 114 surahs were revealed in Makkah, and only 27 in Madinah. So explain how, with close to no access to Christian or Jewish scriptures, the Qur’an could be copied from any Jewish/Christian sources when the grand majority of it was revealed in an environment fre from Christians?
I certainly will not debate with you regarding whether or not Muhammad was influenced by Jews or Christians in the understanding of his revelations. However, since his wife placed some sort of confidence in her cousin, Waraka ibn Nawfal, who can say what sort of conversations might have taken place between Muhuammad and his uncle, if his uncle had lived longer? It does seem puzzling that these revelations ceased for a time after his uncle’s death. A hypothetical, what if Waraja ibn Nawfal had been praying for his nephew, Muhammad prior to the revelations?
Interestingly one of the things that ibn Nawfal was reported to have said to Muhammad (s.) was ''Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly." Unfortuately he was an old man and died some weeks after he confirmed Muhammad (saw) as a prophet.
As to why revelations stopped for a short time, that is a question I can’t unfortunately answer.
The Quran’s versions of Bible stories are typical of those that would be found in a community that calls itself Christian, yet most of the population being illiterate, relies on word-of-mouth and local legends to develop their religion. There is evidence of a lot of pseudo-Christian influence and stories that didn’t make it into the Gospels, such as Jesus talking as a baby, making birds out of clay and turning them to life, etc. These apocryphal tales were common among less-educated Christians. Muhammad just repeated them as he heard them.
Not all Arabs are descendants of Ishmael :rolleyes:, for example I’m an Arab but not a descendant of Ishmael, so my hand will not be against anyone ;).
Waraka ibn Nawfal is not Khadija’s cousin nor Muhammed’s uncle!!!, he is only a far relative to them.
Properly he waited for another replacement to craft the Quranic verses for him…
Bringing people back to life, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind…well these serve mankind. But Clay birds to real birds?
Then again there is that talking donkey from book of Numbers…well that one is another story:p
Why not :), JESUS can do that, beside birds are beautiful creatures, if JESUS did that then it would have been for the benefit of humans (as some sort of miracles to convince people).
It was not a dead bird that came to life. Personally I think we should deny things like this. Jesus is not a magician.
If we are to believe that Muslims are Ishmaelites and therefore are part of salvation history then we got a real problem. If an angel did show up to Mohammed, then the angel lied about which son Abraham sacrificed and presented the inversion of Christianity as the truth. Islam and Christianity cannot both be called true, because either Jesus died for our sins or did not. Even the Dead Sea scrolls debunk the claim that Jews and Christians corrupted scripture.
And if Muslims are not Ishmaelites, where are they?
I disagree with you here, I do not think we should deny anything, JESUS can do whatever he wants, remember in (John 9:6) JESUS created eyes for the blind man from the mud…
That is part of an apocryphal scripture declared to be not inspired by God. There were many tales like that, including one where Jesus killed one of His playmates
Who said that Muslims are part of salvation because they are Ishmaelites!!!
Muslims are part of the salvation because “they acknowledge the one Creator” similar to Abraham faith when he was alive, NOT because they are Ishmael descendant or not…
Muslims profess to believe in Abraham’s faith; so thus they can be part of salvation. They just don’t have the fulness of Truth…I think millions of them sincerely don’t realize that they don’t have the fullness of Truth but they sure have a belief there is one God and that He is Almighty and Merciful.
In the Quran it doesn’t state the name of the son, thus the Angel probably didn’t bring that up. However, clearly Ishmael was indeed a son of Abraham but not the child of promise.
One thing is sure to me at least is that Islam is somewhat a revisionist religion.
Now that is a total blasphemy, and no one should even read such tales, because JESUS in the toughest times healed His enemy ear (Matthew 26:51).
This is also something I wanted to get at. The complete “Gospel” from where the clay birds matter and this killing of his playmate come from were Rejected by the earlier Councils in the first place. We must be grateful to the Holy Spirit that guided the Godly men who made the decision.
Okay I agree with you, I reject that Gospel, and all the tales on it, but I will not reject the “idea” itself of JESUS creating live birds form the clay…
P.S., That clay birds tale is in Quran also.
There were a lot of crazy tales circulating so it is possible that Mohammed heard it once.