|
Despite the assertion of the Torah
(Genesis, Ch 22), this author is convinced, because of the evidence in
hand, that Abraham had in fact offered his son Ismail and not Isaac to
Allah the Almighty.
First Argument: The abode of Abraham and Ismail
It is apparent from the context that
when Abraham left to offer his son, he was accompanied by Ismail and not
Isaac. It was Ismail who was residing with his father. Those who tampered
with the text to introduce Isaac's name failed to comprehend this fact
and this shows that Isaac's name is indeed a later addition.
Bible affirms that after the incident
Abraham returned to Beersaba which shows that Abraham was already dwelling
at Beersaba. This is explicitly stated in Chapter 21. And this is indeed
the truth. Beersaba is the place where Ismail lived with his mother. This
fact is further underlined when the Torah relates the event of separation
of Ismail and his mother from Isaac and his mother:
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took
bread and a skin of water and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and
the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in
the wilderness of Beersheva ... So God was with the lad and he grew and
dwelt in the wilderness. (Genesis, 21:14-19)
This passage refers to `wilderness' and
`wilderness of Beersheba' because Beersheba was an uninhabited wasteland.
Abraham had to bore seven wells and plant trees in it and hence its name.
(Beersheba means `seven wells'). This discussion leads to the following
conclusions:
1. Ismail and her mother Hagar dwelt
in Beersheba.
2. This place was away from the abode
of Isaac and his mother.
3. Abraham also lived here because
it was from this place that he left for the sacrifice and then returned,
after the sacrifice.
The abode of Sarah was at a distance
from this Beersheba; that is why Abraham had to undertake a journey when
he heard of Sarah's death:
So Sarah died in Kirjath Arba (that is Hebron)
in the land of Canaan, and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep
for her. (Genesis, 23:2)
This shows that on the day Abraham proceeded
to sacrifice his son, he took Ismail with him who was residing with him
in Beersheba and not Isaac who was living with Sarah far away in Canaan.
This is subject to the presumption that Isaac was born by that time, as
claimed by the Jews. Otherwise, we believe that Isaac was not even born
by that time. Isaac was born after the event of sacrifice as we will show
later on.
From the details of the event, it
is evident that the son offered in sacrifice was left there by Abraham
and was allowed to settle and reside beside the altar. This fact is further
confirmed by the words uttered by Abraham on the occasion of the birth
of Isaac:`Oh, that Ishmael might live before you.(ie remain in the service
of Lord's House)', (Genesis 17:18). We have clarified earlier that the
phrase, `before the Lord' means `in the service of the house of the Lord'.
The Holy Quran also verifies this statement:
Abraham said: Lord I have settled some of my
offspring in a barren valley near Your Sacred House, so that they may observe
true worship. (14:37)
Now who is referred to as the one `living
near the Sacred House of God (Ka'aba)'? He is definitely Ismail, as both
the Christians and Muslims agree that Isaac continued to reside in Canaan
along with his mother. For himself, Abraham selected a place midway between
the abodes of Isaac and Ismail so that he may see his sons frequently and
at the same time remain close to the Holy Ka'aba. That is why when he died,
both his sons were with him.
And his sons Isaac and Ismail buried him." (Genesis,
25:9)
Second Argument: Ismail was the only son of his father
We have observed earlier that Abraham
had been desired by the God to sacrifice his only son (Genesis, Ch 22).
Clearly, the only son was Ismail because he was fourteen years older than
Isaac:
Abram was eighty six years old when Hagar bore
Ismail to Abram. (Genesis, 16:16)
Now Abram was one hundred years old when his
son Isaac was born to him." (Genesis 21:5)
It flows from these two verses that a)
Ismail was Abraham's only son till such time that Isaac was born, and b)
he was this only son whom Abraham sacrificed even before Isaac was born
because after that Ismail could no more be referred to as the only son.
Both these conclusions are sufficient
evidence from the Old Testament that Abraham offered Ismail in sacrifice.
Here it becomes so evident that it gets impossible to be denied. But the
Jews and Christians have argued that Ismail had been sent away and Abraham
was only left with Isaac, and in a way Isaac became the only son with Abraham
at that time. Thus Genesis records him to be the only son, in a figurative
sense only. This interpretation is not sustainable because:
a) In fact, Isaac and not Ismail had
been sent away. Ismail was actually living with his parents in Beersaba.
b) The figurative interpretation of
`the only son' is very far-fetched. The phrase `only son' is used for the
son who does not share his parents' love and affection with any other siblings.
Actually, it must have been `your
first born son' in Genesis Ch 22 which appears to have been changed over
to `your only son'. The change must have been brought about with the motive
to exclude Ismail but instead it went to prove that Ismail was sacrificed
even before Isaac was born.
Third Argument: Ismail was his father's beloved son
In Chapter 22, the son to be offered
to God was referred to as `your only son whom you love'. This also goes
to show that Ismail is meant here because the Old Testament on more than
one occasion indicates that Abraham doted on Ismail. Abraham specially
prayed to God for him:
But Abram said: Lord God what will you give me
seeing I go childless and the heir on my house is Eliezer of Damascus ?"
Then Abram said: Look You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in
my house is my heir! And behold the word of the Lord came to him saying:
This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body
shall be your heir. (Genesis, 15:2-4)
That is why when he bore the son, he named
him Ishmael which meant Lord has heard your affliction. It is quite imaginable
that Ismail must be his father's favourite and blue eyed son. Let us imagine
an old man who has no offspring and feels dejected on this account, beseeches
God for an offspring and when he is blessed with a son at an advanced age,
names him Ismail which means God has heard the affliction. Then keeps him
pressed to his bosom for thirteen long years. He is all he can pin his
hopes on for his old age, and sees no chances for another child. In these
circumstances, it can be well imagined how the father would dote on his
only son!
Then again when Lord the God promises
the birth of another son (Isaac) to Abraham, he utters words which further
bring out his special feelings for Ismail. It appears that after the birth
of Ismail he is so indebted to God that he is not harbouring any more desires.
Then Abram fell on his knees and laughed, and
said in his heart: shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years
old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child ? And Abraham
said to God: Oh , that Ishmael might live before you! (Genesis 17:17-18)
These feelings are pronounced by Abraham
when God is breaking to him the good news of another son. The words, `might
live before you' betray a love that is difficult to fathom. The affection
is welling in a fashion that it is difficult for him to conceal it even
before God.
Another instance also illustrates
Abraham's love for Ismail. When Sarah wishes to cast out Ismail and his
mother and intends to disinherit Ismail, Abraham finds it very displeasing:
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,
whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore, she said to Abraham:
Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall
not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac. And the matter was very displeasing
in Abraham's sight becausof his son. (Genesis 21:9-11)
Fourth Argument: The incident occurred at Marwah
which is situated by the Ka`ba
We have read that when Abraham set
out for the sacrifice: `On the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw
the place afar off', (Genesis 22:4). The Jews deem this place to be the
Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, while Christians consider it to be the place
where Christ was crucified. But their own authorities maintain that this
idea has no foundation. We quote their differences on this point from J.
W. Colenso a biblical scholar. He has summarized the varied viewpoints
and then summed up by recording his findings, thereby acknowledging the
extent of changes introduced in the Scripture by human hands. He has pointed
out that the place Muriah has been referred to in the Old Testament on
four different occasions, and every time it is rendered differently in
different versions by the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible.
|
|
Septuagint
|
Hebrew Bible
|
|
Genesis 22:2
|
high land
|
the land of Mureh
|
|
Genesis 12:6
|
high terebinth tree
|
the plain of Mureh
|
|
Deuteronomy 11:30
|
beside the high terebinth
|
beside the plain of Mureh
|
|
Judges 7:1
|
by the hill of Mureh
|
by the hill of Mureh
|
Then even the various translations
of the Septuagint do not agree. The Septuagint reads Genesis 22:2 as "high
land" whereas Aquila puts it as "prominent land" and Symmachus as "The
land of the Vision" 1.
Moreover, as we shall see later, not only is it interpreted differently
but is also transcribed in more than one renditions when it comes to writing
it in Hebrew. J. W. Colenso has contested the claim that Moriah is the
hill on which Solomon's Temple now stands in Jerusalem on the strength
of the following proofs:
1. The word Moriah has nowhere been
used for the Temple. In the words of Colenso: `The word is not mentioned
in any book of the Old Testament which in chronology is later than Solomon's
book.2 The hill on which
Solomon erected the temple is always recalled as Zion in the books of the
Prophets and Psalms. The word Moriah is never used for the Temple.'
2. The characteristics of Moriah do
not agree with those of the site of Temple.
We find the second statement notably
cogent. Colinso reasons that the Torah asserts that the place was conspicuous
from a distance to which Abraham lifted his eyes, whereas there is no such
place at the site of the Temple which suits this description. It is interesting
to note that when Mount of the Temple is approached from the east through
the Valley of the son of Hinnom, one has to look downhill to behold it,
hence the pointlessness of `lifting the eyes' in Genesis 22. Colinso has
also drawn strength from an excerpt by Stanley:
"In the morning Abraham set out from the camp
heading for the place indicated by the Lord. The Jews claim it was a place
in Jerusalem on the Hill of Moriah, but I do not agree. The Christians
insist it was located near the Church of the Holy Tomb. But this idea is
even more flimsy. Muslims believe that it was a place in Mecca on Mount
Arafat. This view sounds even more odd and baseless. It would be very plausible
to look for this place on Mount Gerizim. Its topography also resembles
that of an altar."
It is out of ignorance that this author
has ascribed to Muslims, the view of placing the scene of this historic
sacrifice on Mount Arafat. To my knowledge no Muslim holds this opinion.
As goes for Mount Gerizim, it is believed to be the site of the Altar in
question, by the Samaritans, a Jewish sect, which proclaims a different
Torah and has more affinity with the Christians than any other Jewish sect
could have.
We have dilated on these views only
to show that there are wide differences about determining the exact location
of Moreh, the site of the Great Sacrifice. A section of biblical scholars
has eliminated the name altogether, substituting it with "high terebinths"
or "prominent land" or "the land of vision" in subsequent translations.
Others have preserved the name but have corrupted the text by adopting
the different pronunciations of Moreh, Muriah and Moriah. This is the same
age old ruse of jumbling up fact and fiction which has been lamented by
the Quran:
"O you People of the Scripture! Why do you confound
truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the Truth?" (3:71)
The correct word is undoubtedly Marwah
(the famous hill near Ka'aba in Mecca) and not Moriah or Moreh. The word
means shining smooth stone and is precedented frequently in pre-Islamic
Arabic poetry.
Now the Hebrew word Moreh is derived
either from Yara (fear or wonder) or Yarah (archery or moistening)3.
Had the original word been Moreh, as the existing text suggests, the biblical
translators would have preferred these meanings instead of "prominent land"
or "land of vision". The scribes of Pentateuch appear to have found it
originally in the form Marwah but being the proper name of an unknown place
situated far away in Arabia, it was difficult for them to translate it.
Incidentally, there was a similar Hebrew word Marah which is derived from
Ra'ah (Vision). The scribes mistook Marwah for Marah and in their effort
to make the word meaningful to their predominantly Hebrew readers, translated
it "Vision" and "Prominent". When the translations became canonized with
the passage of time, the original word was lost or confused and the Biblical
scholars ended up with the word Moreh or Moriah.
In translations or versions where
the name of the place has not been translated and the original name appears
to have been preserved, the various extant forms of the word still suggest
that it must have been Marwah.
The confusion was spawned by the fact
that the classical Hebrew script had no indications of vowels. These were
introduced later. In the absence of an oral tradition of transmission where
people would commit the text to memory, the original accents and pronunciations
could not be preserved. Consequently, the erroneous insertion of vowels
sometimes completely changed the form of words and opened a floodgate of
textual corruption. The word in question would have been originally written
devoid of vowels but of course with a definite pronunciation. It suffered
transformation later when vowels were added.4
Let us study this transformation in
some detail. This transformation took three forms.
|
Original Form
|
Changed Form
|
Possible Pronunciation
|
|
Marwah
|
Muryah
|
Muriyyah
|
|
|
Mooriyah
|
Mooriyaah
|
|
|
Mooreh
|
Mooreh
|
The mechanism by which these changes
came around needs to be considered. In the first case, the word Marwah
was converted to Muryah. This is because the Arabic letter "w" is usually
converted into Hebrew letter "y" (Yodh); for example Jol was turned into
Jyl, Khoh into Khyh. This fact becomes more transparent when we find that
in all roots which are common in Arabic and Hebrew, the Arabic "w" is changed
to the Hebrew "y", for instance we may note the change from Walo to Waly.
It is still more evident when a root which is common in Arabic and Hebrew
begins with "w", such as the conversion of Arabic Walad to Hebrew Yalad,
Ward to Yarad, Waqr to Yaqar and Wa'az to Ya'az. This shifting of syllables
occurred either because of the convenience it offered in pronouncing the
word, or because of the similarity in the way Hebrew alphabets "Waw" and
"Yodh" are written.
The second change from Marwah to Moriyah
occurred because they presumed that the letter "Mem" carried a vowel (sounding
like Hebrew letter "Waw" or English letter O) and carried the presumption
too far by replacing the vowel with letter "Waw". This is not unusual in
Hebrew and we have other examples such as the transformation of Y'tar to
Yotar.
In the third case, the word Marwah
(Arabic M'rwah) got converted into Morah (Hebrew Mwrah) when letters "Res"
(English letter R) and "Waw" were allowed to exchange their places. Either
it was in consonance with their habit of making like changes in Arabic
words (such as their adoption of Jar'w as J'wr, Hafi as Yahaf, Alo as Ya'al,
Kahal as Kalah) or because of the close resemblance between letters "Res"
and "Waw" in Hebrew script. The latter probability is always there, particularly
when the scribes deliberately intend to corrupt the text. There are many
occasions when the Biblical scribhave actually thrived on this confusion
because of similarity in written form of these letters. For instance they
changed B'r's into Bos.
It remains to be seen where this venue
of the Great Sacrifice is actually located. The Jews consider it to be
the place in Jerusalem where the Temple is situated. Christians place it
at the Church of Holy Tomb. These claims have been sufficiently rebutted
by their own intellectuals. As far as Stanley's claim of identifying Moreh
with Mount Gerizim is concerned, it is only based on conjecture. The mountain
assumes the form of a table like plateau which strikingly resembles the
shape of an altar. This led Stanley to believe that the altar referred
to, in Genesis, must be Mount Gerizim. But unfortunately there are no compelling
reasons to believe it. Also there is hardly anyone in the West who is for
Stanley in his unique finding and scholars are hesitant to receive it.
We hold that this is exactly the same
place in the Arabian Peninsula where the Children of Ismail have lived
since earliest times and which has always been known as Marwah. The Book
of Judges states:
Then Jerubbaal (that is Gideon) and all the people
who were with him rose early and encamped beside the well of Harod so that
the camp of the Midianites was on the north side of them by the hill of
Moreh in the valley. (Judges, 7:1)
This illustrates that the Hill of Moreh
was situated by the side of the Midianite camp and it is an established
fact that by Midianites the Old Testament means the Arabs. The word is
commonly used for the Arabs. Jewish scriptures are quite loud on it that
Midianites were in fact the children of Ismail. George Sale, who has to
his credit the first English version of the Holy Quran, states:
Midian was one of the cities of Hijaz (Arabia).
It was situated in the south east of Sinai on Red Sea. Doubtlessly, this
is the same place which is referred to by Ptolemy as Modiana.
The Old Testament further asserts:
Then the men of Israel said to Gideon: Rule over
us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered
us from the hand of Midian.
But Gideon said to them: I will not rule over you; the
Lord shall rule over you. Then Gideon said to them: I would like to make
a request of you, that each of you would give me the ear-rings from his
plunder. For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites."
(Judges 8:22-23)
"And they sat down to eat a meal. Then they lifted
their eyes and looked and there was a company of Ishmaelites, coming from
Gilead with their camel, bearing spices, balm, and myrrh on their way to
carry them on to Egypt. So Judah said to his brothers: What profit is there
if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come and let us sell him
to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother
and our flesh. And his brothers listened. Then Midianite traders passed
by; so the brothers pulled Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and
sold him to the Ishmailites for twenty shekels of silver. And they took
Joseph to Egypt." (Genesis, 37:25-28)
Thus Moreh was a place in the abode of
Midianites and Midianites is only another name for Ismaelites, and Midian
is a town situated in Arabia on the coast of Red Sea. We have also shown
that Moreh is in fact the corrupted form of Marwah and there is no place
in Palestine or Syria with the name of Moreh. The Jews introduced the name
Moreh in their scriptures and tried to identify more than one spots with
it, a contention which they could not get accepted even by their own authorities.
This leaves the argument that Moreh is actually Mount Jerusalem, devoid
of any
strength.5
There are other reasons to believe
that Marwah is actually a hill in Arabia, the land of Children of Ismail.
In fact, it is one of the places with which the Arabs were quite familiar
and it was the center of their religious rites on the occasion of Haj wherein
it was mandatory to rally around it. That is why when the name Marwah is
mentioned in the Quran, the details of its geographical location were deemed
unnecessary. It has been indicated that it is one of the Signs of God and
that the People of the Book tried to conceal it by textual interpolations
although Allah had elaborately explained it. The detail of these statements
of the Quran will appear in the second chapter.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sws), while
watching the animals waiting to be sacrificed by Marwah, is reported to
have pointed at Marwah and said: `This is The Altar and all roads to Mecca
are altars.' On another occasion, he is reported to have said that Mina
is also an altar. Here we must note that the Prophet Peace be upon him
declares Marwah to be "The Altar" (with a definite article), whereas the
other places are referred to as "altars" (with indefinite article) which
reduces them to the status of merely being one of the many altars.
The Holy Quran illustrates this fact
from another angle. Referring to the animals brought for offering on Haj
it observes:
"In the end, their place of offering is near
the ancient house [The Ka'aba]." (22:33)
"... the offering brought to the Ka'aba." (5:95)
This means that the animals brought for
the offering should reach Ka'aba, because The Altar is situated near the
"ancient house" which was raised in the beginning for this purpose.
"The first house (of worship) ever to be built
was that at Bekka, a blessed place and a beacon for nations." (3:96)
Now Marwah is situated beside Holy Ka'aba
and it is The Altar. However with the passage of time as the followers
of Islam spread through the world, the ambit of The Altar was also expanded
around it. The Muslims and People of the Book concur that The Altar of
Abraham was in the proximity of the Baitullah (House of Allah) which the
Bible terms as Bethel (House of the Lord):
"Abraham passed through the land to the place
of Shechem as far as Moreh and the Canaanites were then in the land. Then
the Lord appeared to Abram and said: To your descendants I will give this
land. And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.
And he moved from there to the Mountain east of Bethel ( House of Lord)
and he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; there
he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord."(Genesis,
12:6-8)
Other details of the incident as stated in the
Old Testament, also conform to the surroundings of Marwah and do not agree
with the location of Mount Jerusalem, which is called erroneously as Moreh,
Moriyah or Muriyah by the Jews. A comparison of all statements shows that
Abraham, in fact, came from the East, left both his slaves on a hill nearby,
and zealously marched to Marwah with his only son, Ismail. And as indicated
in Genesis 12:1-8, Abraham lived somewhere around Safa. On this occasion
the Torah relates yet another version of Abraham's journey to Moreh but
the incident of the great sacrifice is not mentioned. (Gen 12:6)
These are the reasons which have given
birth to the age old traditions and religious rites and customs among the
Arabian tribe of Ismail which have survived to our times6;
and such traditional remnants are conspicuously absent in respect of Mount
Jerusalem.
(Translated by Nadir Aqeel)
|