It
is clear from the Quran Ismail As was the chosen Son to be sacrificed not Ishaq
As. Christians on the other hand insist,
the Quran makes no explicit mention on which son was taken to be sacrificed?
So from that they conclude it may have been Ishaq As as their "Torah"
claims.
This
is a false understanding of the Quran. Just because Allah Swt didn't mention
the name of the son who was to be sacrificed doesn't mean it could have been
Ishaq As.
This
false understanding and claim by Christians can be dismantled by following
verses from the Quran
-------------
Indeed
Our messengers came to Abraham, bearing glad tidings. They greeted him with
'peace', and Abraham answered back to them 'peace', and hurriedly brought to
them a roasted calf.
When
he perceived that their hands could not reach it, he mistrusted them, and felt
afraid of them. They
said: 'Do not be afraid. We have been sent to the people of Lot.
And
Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the
good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob.
She
said: 'Woe is me! Shall I bear a child now that I am an old woman and my
husband is well advanced in years. This is indeed strange!'
They
said: 'Do you wonder at Allah's decree? Allah's mercy and His blessings be upon
you, O people of the house. Surely, He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.' (Surah 11:69-73)
Here's
the evidence that Ishaq As was not the son who was to be sacrificed. Surah Hud tells us about the Angels who came
to visit Abraham Pbuh and tell him about the outcome of the people of Lot Pbuh.
In Verse 71 we are told that the Angels gave glad tidings to Sarah the wife of
Abraham Pbuh by informing her that she will give birth to a son, Ishaq and
after Ishaq of Yaqub Pbut i.e. Ishaq Pbuh will be the father of Yaqub Pbuh.
"And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob."
This
is clear proof that Ishaq As was not the chosen son to be sacrificed. If Ishaq
As was the chosen son to be sacrificied, then Abraham Pbuh could of easily
responded by saying "did you not decree Ishaq would also have a son called
Yaqub?" "how then could he be sacrificed when he would see his son as
decreed?" Makes no sense. The Quran makes is clear that Ishaq As would
have a son called Yaqub As, thus Ishaq As was not the son to be sacrificed.
Instead
it was the older son Ismail As who was the chosen son to be sacrificed. And
just for the record
The earliest manuscripts for
the Tanack are the DSS, dating back roughly 200bc. Although we have no complete
full manuscripts for the DSS, what we have are fragments of the scrolls. What’s
fascinating is the most disputed topic on who was chosen to be sacrificed
Ismael or Isaac (pbut) is not found as part of the fragments from DSS. What we
have starts from “Genesis 22:13-15”, when you read Genesis 22 you’ll find the
name of the son in verse 2,3,6,7 and 9, whereas the DSS fragment starts from
verses 13-15, so in no way the name of the child is found.
The Masoretic text was compiled
during the 10th century contradicting much of earlier manuscripts such as the
Septuagint and Samaritan. It’s possible the name was changed from Ismael to
Isaac for obvious reason. If there is no early sources to look back into, and
all we have are corrupted received text such as the Masoretic, then this
dispute certainly cannot go in the favour of Jews or Christians.
