Abraham took Hagar and his son Ishmael to a place near the Ka’abah; he left them under a tree at the site of Zamzam. No one lived in Makkah at that time, yet Abraham made them sit there, left them with some food, and a small water-skin. Thereafter he set out towards home. Ishmael's mother followed him saying: 'O Abraham! Where are you going! There is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything to take pleasure in.'


She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her. Then she asked him: 'Has Allah ordered you to do so?' He said: 'Yes.' She said, 'Then He will not neglect us.'


Abraham proceeded onwards, and upon reaching a hill where they could not see him, he faced the Ka’abah and invoked Allah saying: (Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your Sacred House. Our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them and provide for them from the fruits that they might be grateful.) The Noble Quran (14:37)


Hagar suckled Ishmael and drank from the water she had. When the water finished, she and her child became very thirsty, she eyed her child in agony while he cried. So she rushed to the nearest hillock, which was the hillock of as-Safa, she stood there and looked intensely hoping she might see someone, but she could not see anyone. She then descended and once she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress, until she reached the hillock of al-Marwa. She gazed attentively, hoping to see someone, but she could not. She repeated this seven times.


The Prophet Muhammad (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) said, 'This is the origin of the tradition of “ As-Sa'y ” (walking and running) between the hillocks of as-Safa and al-Marwah. When Ishmael's mother reached al-Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she calmed herself and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?' And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam tapping the earth with its wing till water gushed from that place. Hagar quickly contained the water by making a barrier around it. She filled her water-skin.


The Prophet Muhammad (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) added, 'May Allah bestow mercy on Ishmael's mother! Had she let the Zamzam flow without trying to control it or had she not scooped from that water to fill her


6


water skin, Zamzam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.' (Bukhari)


“As-Sa'y” between the two hillocks of as-Safa and al-Marwah. The distance between as-Safa and al-Marwah is approximately 450 meters.


The well of water mentioned in Genesis 21:19 is still present and is known as called Zamzam.


The Well of Zamzam


Abraham (Ibrahim) visited Hagar and Ishmael from time to time. Once, he stayed away from them for a period of time, and upon returning he saw Ishmael shooting arrows near the well of Zamzam. When he saw him, he embraced him the way a father would embrace his son - and said:


7


'O Ishmael, Allah has commanded me to build a House here.'


Together they erected the walls of the House of Allah. Ishmael gathered the rocks, and Abraham set them. After the walls were a bit high, he placed a stone where he stood, and Abraham (Ibrahim) and his son supplicated to Allah saying:


'O Allah accept from us, for indeed You are All-Hearing and All-Seeing.'


Muslims all over the world face the Ka’abah during their prayers; it is the first House of Allah.


Allah says:


(Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was at bakkah [i.e. Makkah] - blessed and a guidance for the worlds.) The Noble Quran (3:96)


It is a symbol of Muslim's unity. Muslims face the Ka’abah with their hearts and bodies.


Allah (May He be Exalted) says:


(So wherever you might turn, there is the Face of Allah (and He is High above, over His Throne).) The Noble Quran (2:115)


When the Muslims circumambulate around the House, they are not worshipping


8


it, for they worship Allah alone.


Allah (May He be Exalted) says:


(Let them worship the Lord of this House, Who has fed them [saving them] from hunger and made them safe from fear.) The Noble Quran (106:3-4)


The Black Stone


After Abraham finished erecting the Ka’abah, one rock was missing (in order to complete the Ka’abah) so he asked Ishmael to look for a rock. He searched and upon returning he found that his father had placed a rock. So he asked his father:


'O father where did you get this rock from?' He said: 'Gabriel brought it to me from the Heavens.'


And they completed the erection of the Ka’abah. When this rock was sent down from the heavens, it was whiter than milk. The Prophet Muhammad (May Peace and Blessings be upon him) said:


'The Black Stone was sent down from the heavens whiter than milk and it was blackened by the sins of man.' (Tirmidthi)


The Station of Ibrahim (Abraham)


The Prophet Muhammad (May Peace and Blessings be upon him) said:


'The Yemeni corner and Station of Ibrahim are two precious stones from Jannah (Heavenly Gardens), and had it not been that Allah removed their light,


9


they would have enlightened all that was between the east and the west.' (Ibn Hibban)


The Station of Ibrahim is the rock upon which Ibrahim stood while erecting the Ka’abah. His son Ishmael helped him erect it, by passing him the rocks.


The Station of Ibrahim (Abraham)


One of the miracles of Prophet Ibrahim was that the rock he stood on while building the Ka’abah turned soft and his feet sank in it. Until today, one can see the impressions of the feet of Ibrahim on that rock.


During Hajj, Muslims were taught by the Prophet Muhammad (May Peace and Blessings be upon him) himself, to stone 3 pillars, each at a distance from one another. These pillars represent Satan who tried to mislead Abraham from performing the sacrifice. Abraham did not give in to the evil whispers of Satan and pelted him with pebbles.


N.B. Isaac was never in Makkah, and thus could not have possibly been the son whom Abraham was taking for the sacrifice. The only son of Abraham who was in Makkah was Ishmael and thus logic only proves that it was Ishmael who was taken for the sacrifice and Satan tried to mislead Abraham.


10


In this research I will summarize the dialogues between Christians (C) and Muslims (M) regarding who was the Sacrificial Son ? and other related matters!.


C: In Genesis 22 it is mentioned very clearly that Isaac was to be sacrificed.


22:1 Some time after these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am!” Abraham replied. 22:2 God said, “Take your son – your only son, whom you love, Isaac – and go to the land of Moriah Offer him up there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you.”


M: As the verses show, Abraham was told to sacrifice his ONLY son to God, and Ishmael did not die before Abraham, therefore the only son that these verses are referring to is Ishmael and NOT Isaac. Everyone knows that Ishmael was born before Isaac, therefore Ishmael would have been called the only son and not Isaac since Ishmael was Abraham’s first child.


As you see there is a problem, the text wrongly puts the name Isaac which does leave a person confused, it seems the author who wrote this story could not keep track of Abraham's children and forgot about Ishmael! Or what is most likely is that the Jewish scribe corrupted the text and inserted the name Isaac because it is a known fact that the Jewish nation look to Ishmael and his descendents with disgrace, therefore they simply put the name Isaac to make it seem that all blessings were for them and very little for Ishmael.


There is no way around this issue but to accept that the text should actually say Ishmael and not Isaac, some have tried to excuse this problem by saying Isaac was called Abraham's only son because Ishmael was casted away.


What a strange logic is that? Just because you send your son away means he is


11


not counted as your son? So if your son went to another country for work, and 13 years later you give birth to another son does the first son get discounted and counted as a bastard child? Off course not! Indeed this response given by some Jewish and Christians scholars is not only ridicules but it is insulting! Because they are labelling Ishmael as a bastard!


The answer depends on which Bible one is referring to. If we are referring to the Bible which the Christians have then yes it mentions Isaac by name. If we are talking about the actual revelations of God, then it does not mention Isaac.


Human intervention which is rooted in the history of the Bible caused the change of name.


The Hebrew word used for only is ‘yachiyd’ (pronounced: yaw-kheed) which as defined by “Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions” means ‘only, one, solitary, unique and only begotten son’. This without a doubt proves that the Bible is referring to the only begotten son and only Ishmael held this status of being the only begotten son of Abraham till the time Isaac was born. Note that the verse tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son and thus refers to Ishmael. If it would have told Sarah to sacrifice her only son then the Christian stand of it being Isaac could have held some ground.


Of course the Christians or the Jews will not accept that and state that Hagar was never a wife to Abraham and was just to cohabit with him.


C: But Hagar is not Abrahma’s wife , she was just to cohabit with him


M: Let’s analyze the verse first which is related to the issue of the relationship between Hagar and Abraham:


And Sara, Abram's wife, took her slave-girl, Hagar, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife – [Genesis 16:3]


Note the verse says that Hagar was given to Abraham to be his wife.


The Hebrew word used there is “'ishsha^h” which is pronounced as ‘ish-shaw’.


This word has been defined by “Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions” as the following:


1) Woman, wife, female


12


1a) woman (opposite of man)


1b) wife (woman married to a man)


1c) female (of animals)


1d) each, every (pronoun)


So we can see that this word means “wife” in the literal sense and not in any other sense that the Christian missionaries would like people to believe. Hence their claim that Hagar was not married to Abraham and thus Ishmael was a bastard crumbles down.


Let us now take a look at “Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible” and see what this famous commentator of the Bible has to say regarding the relationship of Abraham and Hagar:


We have here the marriage of Abram to Hagar, who was his secondary wife. Herein, though some excuse may be made for him, he cannot be justified, for from the beginning it was not so; and, when it was so, it seems to have proceeded from an irregular desire to build up families for the speedier peopling of the world and the church.


Or let’s look at “Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible” which states:


And Sara, Abram’s wife, took Hagar - and gave her to her husband - to be his wife - There are instances of Hindo women, when barren, consenting to their husbands marrying a second wife for the sake of children; and second marriages on this account, without consent, are very common.


This pretty much sums up what the relationship was between Hagar and Abraham. Truly she was his legitimate wife and thus Ishmael was a legitimate son. Ishmael without a doubt was the first born son of Abraham and the only son who held the position of being the “only begotten son” for many years till Isaac was born. So it becomes obvious that the insertion of the name Isaac in Genesis 22:2 is indeed the works of human intervention.


It is also important to note that while certain Christian missionaries wish to claim that Hagar was just a concubine, there is not even one instance in the entire Old Testament where this word “'ishsha^h” is used to mean a concubine. This is conjecture by certain Christian missionaries who have become helpless and thus need to use deception to save their face.


13


C: I still don’t believe that Hagar was a legitimate wife of Abraham


M: To answer your comment let us see the Relationship between Abraham and Sarah from another direction!


Generally Christians claim that according to the Bible Sarah was Abraham’s wife. However the biblical side of the story shows a different aspect to it as well. In Genesis Chapter 12, Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt and there Abraham feared that the Egyptians will kill him if they found out that Sarah was his wife. So he tells Sarah to tell them that she is his sister. Here we see that Abraham feared for his life and thus opted to lie regarding this.


Christians might claim that he lied because he feared for his life and for argument’s sake we will be gracious enough not to make this an issue. However the strange part happens later on when Sarah was taken into the Pharaoh’s house and Jehovah sent a plague in the house of the Pharaoh and it affected the Pharaoh as well. Pharaoh then asks Abraham why he did not tell him that she was his wife. Anyways the Pharaoh lets them go and they leave the place.


A similar incident is seen in Genesis Chapter 20 where due to the same reasons as in Chapter 12, Abraham says that Sarah is his sister. Abimelech took Sarah and that night he had a dream to return Sarah to Abraham for she is his wife otherwise Abimelech will die. Abimelech asks the same question to Abraham and Abraham gives the reason that he feared his life. But in addition to that he adds further:


And yet she really is my sister, daughter of my father; only not daughter of my mother. And she became my wife. – [Genesis 20:12]


Abraham explained that Sarah was his half sister. Would that not make Isaac a child born out of incest? The Christian missionaries spend time calling Ishmael an illegitimate son when the relationship as described by the Bible is legitimate but they conveniently do not inform their readers about the relationship between Abraham and Sarah as described by the Bible itself. If Ishmael is not counted as a ‘real son’ to Abraham because the missionaries say that the relationship between Abraham and Hagar was illegitimate then Isaac cannot be counted as a ‘real son’ either as he was born out of incest according to the biblical sources.


Now some missionaries might claim that this was lawful at that time by the Law of God. If it was lawful, then if we accept for a minute their wild theory that Hagar was only for the purpose to reproduce with, then why is it so hard


14


for them to accept that at that time this could be a legitimate relationship by the Law of God at that time?


However as we have seen, Hagar was a legitimate wife of Abraham thus destroying the missionary argument that Ishmael cannot be the first born. Ishmael was indeed the first born and undeniably the one who was the sacrificial son.


C: But still I believe that Ishmael was an illegitimate son


M: That is what the Jews and the Christians say, but not what the Bible states. How could such a great prophet as Abraham have an illegal wife and a son out of wedlock!


Genesis 16:3: "... and [Sarah] gave her [Hager] to her husband Abram to be his wife." If the marriage was legal, how could their offspring be illegal? Is a marriage between two foreigners, a Chaldean and an Egyptian, not more legal than a marriage between a man with a daughter of his father? Whether it was a lie of Abraham or not, it is stated in Genesis 20:12: "And yet indeed she [Sarah] is my sister, she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."


The name Ishmael was also chosen by Allah Himself: Genesis 16:11: "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction."' Ishmael means "God hears."


The author who did write the Bible get confused with himself, because the author also discussed the funeral of Abraham, and what a surprise in the funeral of Abraham the author calls Ishmael a son! :


And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre; 10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife. (Genesis 25:9-10)


M: Where in the Bible is it written that Ishmael was an illegitimate son?


C: No where! well… but I am still confused regarding the identity of the sacrificed son.


M: As I mentioned before, It is mentioned "your only son …Isaac." Shouldn't


15


it be "your only son… Ishmael," when Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac had not even been born? When Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons. Because of chauvinism, the name of Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22. But God has preserved the word "only" to show us what it should have been. The words "I will multiply thy seed" in Genesis 22:17 was applied earlier to Ishmael in Genesis 16:10. Was not the whole of Genesis 22 applicable to Ishmael then? "I will make him a great nation" has been repeated twice for Ishmael in Genesis 17:20 and Genesis 16:10: "And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude."'


Genesis 17:20: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."


Genesis 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."


Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."


C: Can you prove that the Jews changed the name of Ishmael to Isaac because of chauvinism?


M: The Encyclopaedia Judaica says:


It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from the Qurayza tribe, and another Jewish scholar, who converted to Islam, told that Caliph Omar Ibn 'Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail was the one who was bound, but that they concealed this out of jealousy. The Muslim legend also adds details of Hajar, the mother of Ismail. After Abraham drove her and her son out, she wandered between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwa (in the vicinity of Mecca) in search for water. At that time the waters of the spring Zemzem began to flow. Her acts became the basis for the hallowed custom of Muslims during the Hajj.


Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, pp. 82 (Under 'Ishmael').


The testimony of the former Jew as mentioned hadith literature as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Judaica reads:


16


Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael ] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz] asked him: which son did Abraham sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael. By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'


C: God said "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." The exact location of Moriah is currently a matter of big debate , so where is the location of Moriah?


M: As explained in my introduction there are the two hillocks which Hagar the mother of Ishmael ran between and stood upon while searching for provisions and water; Safa and Marwah hillocks and they are near the Ka’abah , and it is obvious that the word Marwah was changed in the Bible to be Moriah.


Al-Marwah hillock in Makkah


C: What is your evidences that the word Marwah was changed in the Bible to be Moriah.?


M: I 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


17


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 he 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. 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


18


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). 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


19


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.


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


20


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


21


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 Ishmaelites, 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.


There are other reasons to believe that Marwah is actually a hill in Arabia, the land of Children of Ishmael. 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 (PBUH), 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 Noble Qur’an illustrates this fact from another angle. Referring to the animals brought for offering on the Pilgrimage (Al-Hajj) it observes:


"In the end, their place of offering is near the ancient house [The Ka'aba]." The Noble Qur’an (22:33)


"... the offering brought to the Ka'aba." The Noble Qur’an (5:95)


22


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." The Noble Qur’an (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, Ishmail. 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 Ishmael which have survived to our times; and such traditional remnants are conspicuously absent in respect of Mount Jerusalem.


C: Do you have more evidences that the sacrificial incident occurred at Marwah hillock which is situated near Ka`bah in Makkah ?


M: If we search in the explanation (Tafseer) of the Noble Quran for Surah 37


23


(Assafat) Ayah verse 102


Then, when (the son) reached with his father (Abraham) As-Sa’y السعي , he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (the son) said: "O my father! do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one practising Patience and Constancy!"


Here the word As-Sa'y السعي has different meanings: it could mean that the son reached the age of :


1- Doing serious work


2-walking and running


3-The Puberty age (Adulthood).


In my opinion the word As-Sa'y السعي as I explained before in the Historical background ” is the place between the two hillocks of as-Safa and al-Marwah This place is near the Ka’bah and is called As-Sa'y السعي and is between the two hillocks of as-Safa and al-Marwah , so the verse in the Bible should read as follows: "Take your son, your only son, whom you love, and go to the region of Marwah. Sacrifice him there...


Apart from the rituals of Hajj, which in many ways are reminiscent of the incident of the great sacrifice and indicative of the fact that it took place at Marwah (Mecca), the famous Muslim Commentator of the Quran, Hafiz Ibni Katheer has yet another interesting incident to relate. He reports that according to reliable historical record the horns of the ram that Abraham offered in lieu of Ismail were preserved in the Holy Ka'aba and were religiously handed down till the days of Abdullah Bin Zubair, that is around 692 AD. When Hajjaj besieged the holy city and destroyed a part of Holy Ka'aba, these horns were also lost forever. Ibni Abbaas and She'ibi are reported to have affirmed


24


that they had seen the horns. (Ibni Katheer: Commentary on the Holy Quran)


C: Why you are considering that Ishmael was his father's beloved son?


M: Abraham named his son Ishmael which as I mentioned meant Lord has heard your affliction. It is quite imaginable that Ishmael 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 Ishmael 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 Ishmael. It appears that after the birth of Ishmael, Abraham 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 Ishmael. When Sarah wishes to cast out Ishmael and his mother and intends to disinherit Ishmael, 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 because of his son." (Genesis 21:9-11)


25


C: O.K. what about the location of the Mount of Paran, we and Jews believe that that Paran is south of Sinai in Egypt; "He said: 'The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.' (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)"


M: As its is obvious from the following old map drawn by hand in 1685 in Paris, that the position of Mount of Paran (Pharan) is North of Medina and Makkah.


Ref: ANCIENT ARAB - ANCIENNE ARABIE P:183 - DE L’ASIE FIGURE LXXIX.


26


See the location of Paran (Pharanite) Mountains in an old map drawn by hand in 1685 in Paris. ANCIENT ARAB - ANCIENNE ARABIE P:183 - DE L’ASIE FIGURE LXXIX.


C: We as Christians believe that “God tested Abraham” by sacrificing his son Isaac.


M: A test is when you think that you will lose your loved one and then have to decide between choosing your loved one or the command of God.


You say that “God tested Abraham” and yet we know from [Genesis 22:7-8] that Abraham told Isaac that God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering. So Abraham knew that Isaac wont be sacrificed. Isn’t that odd? And yet it says this is a test for him? If that’s considered a test then anyone would be able to pass such a test!.


“And Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’ And he said, ‘Here am


27


I, my son.’ He said, ‘Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’


Abraham said, ‘God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together.” – [Genesis 22:7-8]


Now even if Abraham knew, like you say, that God was to give him an offspring through Isaac, then when asked by Isaac he should have been honest to him and said something like “I have been commanded to sacrifice you but I know that I am to receive an offspring from you hence I firmly believe that God will not let you die or will raise you once you die”. Or something along those lines. There was no logical reason for Abraham to lie. So as you say he was clinging on to this positive hope, he should have told the truth.


Further if Abraham did know about the promise of an offspring and firmly believed that God does not back down from his promises then this would not have been a test. Because if you know that God will not let you lose your loved one, then this not a test. It is not only the Islamic dogma that the Bible got corrupted over time; it is a historical fact which unbiased biblical scholars do not even deny. The only thing in the Bible is that the verse has Isaac mentioned.


If for a moment we blot out that name and read the whole story, we can never come to a conclusion that it was definitely Isaac who was to be sacrificed.


As you will notice, there is not a single place where I said “because the Bible contradicts the Quran in the case of the sacrificial son hence the Biblical story is incorrect.”


C: Then where are the rights of Isaac?.


M: Now you are speaking about the rights of Isaac, please don’t forget The rights of the firstborn as stated in the Bible.


Deuteronomy 21:15-17:


28


If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.


Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose the prophet Muhammad (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) as the seal of the prophets.


C: It seems to be a difference of opinion among some Muslims scholars such as Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi as to which son of Abraham was supposed to be sacrificed. There were some who held the opinion that it was Isaac who was to be sacrificed by Abraham. This view of theirs coincided with the one presented in the Bible.


M: Certain Christian missionaries, when they found out about this difference of opinion, have tried to play this up to prove that it was indeed Isaac who was sacrificed even according to Islam and that the sacrifice of Ishmael is just a tale created by the Muslims later on. They also conclude that because the sacrificial son is not mentioned by name in the Quran and that the place of sacrifice is not mentioned by name hence the Bible is.superior. It is a fact that there seems to be a difference of opinion among people but this difference of opinion does not prove that the Quran is not a Word of God nor does it even remotely prove that the Bible is superior to the Quran.


C: But if some Muslims scholars agree that Isaac was indeed the one who was the sacrificial son, this makes the Bible superior in any way.


M: Muslims believe that some parts of the Word of God exists in the Bible hence if this information is correct in the Bible it makes no difference to the historical evidence and the Quranic stand that the Bible has been corrupted over time and that the Quran acts as a guardian over the Bible.


lets analyze the two stories as in the Bible and the Quran and see which of the two is indeed superior in essence. We will take a look at the conversation


29


between the father and the son as seen in the Bible and the Quran just before the sacrifice:


“And Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’ And he said, ‘Here am I, my son.’ He said, ‘Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’


Abraham said, ‘God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together.” – [Genesis 22:7-8]


Notice in the above verses that Abraham lied to his son regarding the sacrifice saying that God will provide the lamb for the sacrifice. This means that this story does not set for us the best moral example. Did Abraham know that Isaac would rebel or run away if he would tell him that it is him who is to be sacrificed? Was Isaac not going to submit himself to the Will of God? Some Christians might argue that according to these verses Abraham already knew that God will provide the lamb hence he was not telling a lie. The problem then is that if Abraham knew that God would replace Isaac with a lamb then how does this serve to be a test for Abraham. Let’s not forget that in Genesis 22:1 it states that this was a test for Abraham.


Here is the story as seen in the Quran regarding the conversation between the father and the son:


“Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: ‘O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!’


(The son) said: ‘O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!’” – [Quran 37:102]


We find Abraham telling his son truthfully that he is to be sacrificed and wishes to also know his opinion. The son is found to be as much a person who submits to the Will of God as Abraham and tells his father that he is willing to be obedient to the command of God and will be patient and forbearing.


A comparison indeed shows which revelation is superior. This in itself is sufficient to shake the foundations of the Christian missionary conclusion that because Bible mentions the name and Quran does not hence Bible is superior – A conclusion that is at best amusing.


C: Let me Quote from Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn