Analyze Jesus and Muhammad in Abrahamic faiths through the concept of "Seed" in Genesis 22:18

Certain individuals argue that the reference to the "seed" in Genesis 22, verse 18, does not pertain to Jesus due to his words in Matthew 15, verse 24. Instead, they point to Muhammad based on Surah 21, verse 107. How is their argument articulated?

The argument that the "seed" mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18, refers to Muhammad rather than Jesus is articulated by contrasting biblical and Quranic texts. Here's how the argument is structured:

Genesis 22, verse 18, states, "And through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice". The Hebrew word used for "offspring" or "seed" is “zera”, which can be a collective singular noun, implying it could refer to a single individual or a group.

In Matthew 15, verse 24, Jesus says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". This statement is interpreted by some to mean that Jesus' mission was primarily focused on the Israelites and not on all nations directly. This interpretation is used to argue that Jesus was not the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 22, verse 18, which speaks of a blessing to "all nations".

Surah 21, verse 107 of the Quran states, "And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds". This verse is interpreted to mean that Muhammad's mission was universal, extending to all of humanity, which aligns with the promise in Genesis 22, verse 18, about blessing all nations.

The proponents of this view argue that since Jesus explicitly stated his mission was to the Israelites, he does not fulfill the universal aspect of the blessing promised in Genesis 22, verse 18.

In contrast, Muhammad is described in the Quran as a mercy to all worlds, which they believe aligns more closely with the promise of a blessing to all nations. Therefore, they conclude that the "seed" in Genesis 22, verse 18, refers to Muhammad rather than Jesus.

This argument hinges on the interpretation of Jesus' mission scope in the New Testament and the universal mission attributed to Muhammad in the Quran.

Genesis 22:18

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

There are some scholars who believe the prophethood of Muhammad is related to Abraham's near sacrifice of Ishmael. Therefore, Muslims commemorate Eid ul-Adha or the Feast of Sacrifice. How is this argument articulated?

The argument that the prophethood of Muhammad is related to Abraham's near sacrifice of Ishmael is based on the Islamic tradition that Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Ishmael, not Isaac as mentioned in the Bible.

This event is seen as a test of Abraham's faith and obedience to God, and Ishmael's willingness to be sacrificed is seen as a demonstration of his own faith and submission to God's will.

In Islamic theology, this event is considered a precursor to the prophethood of Muhammad, who is seen as a descendant of Ishmael. The story of Abraham's sacrifice is commemorated by Muslims during the Eid al-Adha, or the Feast of Sacrifice, which is one of the most important Islamic holidays.

The argument is articulated as follows:

1. Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Ishmael, as mentioned in the Quran (Surah 37: 100 to 108).

2. Ishmael was willing to be sacrificed, demonstrating his faith and submission to God's will.

3. This event is seen as a test of Abraham's faith and obedience to God.

4. The prophethood of Muhammad is related to this event, as he is a descendant of Ishmael.

5. The story of Abraham's sacrifice is commemorated by Muslims during the Eid al-Adha, which is a celebration of Abraham's faith and obedience to God.

Therefore, the prophethood of Muhammad is seen as a continuation of the legacy of Abraham and Ishmael, and the story of Abraham's sacrifice is seen as a precursor to the prophethood of Muhammad.

The Unnamed Son of Abraham's Sacrifice in the Quran

In the Quran, the specific name of the son to be sacrificed by Abraham is not mentioned. Thus it signifies that the name of Isaac in Genesis 22, verse 2, is nothing but a scribal interpolation. What is the explanation for this argument?

The argument that the Quran's omission of the specific name of the son to be sacrificed by Abraham signifies that the name of Isaac in Genesis 22, verse 2, is a scribal interpolation is a viewpoint held by some scholars, but it is not universally accepted within the field of biblical studies or Islamic theology. This argument is based on textual and historical analysis and often arises in discussions about the relationship between the Quran and the Bible.

Here's a brief overview of the argument:

1. Quranic account: In the Quran, the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is mentioned in Surah As Saffat (Chapter 37), but the specific name of the son is not provided. This omission has led some scholars to argue that the Quran intentionally avoids naming the son to prevent any confusion or dispute regarding the identity of the son.

2. Biblical account: In the Book of Genesis (Genesis 22, verse 2), the son to be sacrificed is identified as Isaac. This is a well-known account in both Jewish and Christian traditions.

3. Argument: Some scholars propose that the Quranic omission of the son's name suggests that the original, unaltered biblical account did not specify the son's name, and the name Isaac was added later through scribal interpolation in the biblical text.

4. Quranic Interpretation:
The Quranic narrative does not explicitly name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition and many Muslim scholars have historically identified him as Ishmael. This belief is supported by the chronological events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac's birth was made after the account of sacrifice, suggesting that Ishmael was the likely candidate for sacrifice.

It's important to note that this argument is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate among scholars regarding the relationship between the Quran and the Bible. Islamic tradition generally does not delve into such textual criticism but rather focuses on the theological and moral aspects of the story.

Interpolation in the Torah from an Islamic viewpoint

Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael's story:

1. The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham's house.

2. Abraham's son, who was offered as a sacrifice.

Some Islamic scholars suspect that the scribes tampered with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah. It is argued that Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, may have been added later because Ishmael and Hagar had already left Abraham's house long before Isaac was born, with Ishmael being an infant according to Islamic tradition.

Similarly, some question whether Genesis 22, verse 2, could refer to Ishmael, since Isaac had never been Abraham's only son, whereas Ishmael had been for fourteen years before Isaac was born. How is this Islamic viewpoint presented?

The Islamic perspective on the stories of Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac, as presented in the Torah, differs significantly from the Jewish and Christian narratives. These differences have led some Islamic scholars to question the authenticity of certain Biblical passages, suggesting possible later additions or alterations.

In the Islamic tradition, Hagar and Ishmael's story is seen through a different lens compared to the Biblical account. According to Islamic belief, Ishmael was an infant when he and his mother Hagar were left in the desert, which contrasts with the Biblical narrative where Ishmael is depicted as a young boy during this event. Some Islamic scholars argue that certain verses in Genesis, such as Genesis 21:9-10, might have been added later, as they imply that Ishmael was older and capable of mocking Isaac, which would not align with the Islamic timeline where Ishmael had already left before Isaac's birth.

The question of who was the intended son of sacrifice is another point of divergence. In the Quran, it is generally believed that Ishmael was the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, whereas the Bible identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice. This discrepancy has led some Islamic scholars to suggest that Genesis 22, verse 2, which refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only son," might be inaccurate, as Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn and was his only son for fourteen years before Isaac's birth. The argument is that the description of Isaac as the "only son" could have been a later addition to emphasize Isaac's significance in the Jewish tradition.

Islamic narratives emphasize the significance of Ishmael and his descendants, linking them to the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic tradition holds that Abraham and Ishmael together built the Kaaba in Mecca, a central element in Islamic faith, which is not mentioned in the Bible. The Quran and Islamic teachings often highlight the spiritual and prophetic roles of both Ishmael and Isaac, but with a focus on Ishmael's role in the lineage leading to Islam.

Conclusion

The Islamic viewpoint on the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah is characterized by skepticism towards the authenticity of certain verses. Islamic scholars argue that the timeline and events described in the Torah may have been altered, and that Ishmael may have been the son referred to in Genesis 22:2 instead of Isaac.

The Symbolism of Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice)

What is Eid al-Adha?

Eid al-Adha is the “Feast of the Sacrifice,” commemorating Abraham’s devotion to God, when he intended to sacrifice his son and God provided a lamb to sacrifice instead. It follows the Hajj rituals for pilgrims in Mecca, but is celebrated by all Muslims.

Certain scholars contend that Eid Al Adha in Islam suggests a scribal interpolation in the Torah concerning the son intended for near sacrifice, positing that it is Ishmael rather than Isaac. How is their argument articulated?

Some Islamic scholars argue that Eid al-Adha in Islam points to a scribal interpolation in the Torah regarding which son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. Their argument for scribal interpolation is articulated as follows:

Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. This belief forms the basis for the celebration of Eid al-Adha, one of the most important festivals in Islam.

Scholars who support this view present several arguments:

1. Primacy of Ishmael: They argue that Ishmael, being Abraham's firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant and thus the logical choice for such a significant test of faith.

2. Quranic Account: The Quran's narrative of the sacrifice does not explicitly name the son, but contextual evidence and Islamic tradition point to Ishmael. This interpretation stems from the chronological events presented in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac's birth occurred after the narrative of the sacrifice, thereby suggesting that Ishmael was the son mentioned in that context.

3. Historical Context: These scholars suggest that ancient Israelite scribes may have altered the original text to emphasize Isaac's role, shifting the focus away from Ishmael to establish a stronger theological foundation for Israelite claims.

4. Geographical Inconsistencies: They point out that the biblical account mentions Mount Moriah, while Islamic tradition places the event near Mecca, where Ishmael and Hagar settled.

5. Linguistic Analysis: Some argue that careful examination of the original Hebrew text reveals inconsistencies that suggest later editing.

If this interpretation is accepted, it would have significant implications:

It would challenge the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.
It would support the Islamic view of Ishmael as a central figure in the Abrahamic narrative.
It would reinforce the Islamic belief in the Quran as a correction to earlier scriptures.