Tag Archives: Abraham

KESEMPURNAAN QURAN ATAS KITAB SUCI AGAMA SAMAWI

Posted on by
Reply

Dialog teologis (interfaith dialogue) merupakan bentuk dialog yang lebih banyak melibatkan para ahli. Tujuan utama dialog teologis ini lebih menekankan pada kajian teks-teks suc agama-agama, dan bukan sekedar pendalaman iman terhadap Quran semata, tetapi juga memahami bagaimana relasi Quran dengan kitab-kitab sebelumnya. Dialog teologis sekarang ini begitu masif disuarakan dan digelar di berbagai komunitas keagamaan di negara-negara Eropa, Amerika, Timur Tengah dan Afrika. Prof. Idris as-Salawy, penulis buku “Manuscrits Arabes en Occident Musalman” المخطوطات العربية في الغرب الاسلامية (Marocco, Dar al-Baidha’: Muassasah al-Malik ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, 1990), serta Prof. Raymond Farrin, seorang muallaf dan juga sebagai Associate Professor of Arabic Studies di the American University of Kuwait telah menulis buku “Structure and Quranic Interpretation: A Study of Symmetry and Coherence in Islam’s Holy Text” (Oregon: White Cloud Press, 2014). Kedua buku tersebut penting sebagai bacaan, terutama untuk memahami relasi teks Quran dengan teks-teks kitab agama-agama. Begitu juga karya Prof. Ahmad Shahlan, seorang professor di bidang Semitic Studies di Marocco yang berjudul قضايا من اصول موسى الى البابا بنديكت XVI (Rabat: Mathba’ah al-Risalah, 2016), buku ini sangat pemting utk membaca teks-teks Semit.

Menurut saya ada 3 ranah/bidang dialog teologis yang perlu kita suarakan di bumi Indonesia ini.

  1. Dar al-Taqrib bayn al-madzahib al-Islamiyah (Islamic Studies)
  2. Dar al-Taqrib bayn al-Adyan al-Samiyah (Semitic Studies)
  3. Dar al-Taqrib bayn al-Adyan al-Samawiyah (Aryo-Semitic Studies)

Dalam konteks dialog teologis ini saya akan menjelaskan relasi teks suci agama-agama bertradisi Semit dan Arya. Menurut saya, tidak ada pembedaan dikotomis antara sebutan “agama-agama langit” dan “agama-agama bumi”, sebab semua agama yang ada di muka bumi saat ini asal-usulnya pasti berasal dari langit. Islam datang untuk meluruskan, mengoreksi dan menyempurnakannya melalui kitab suci Quran, sebagaimana yang tersirat dalam teks Qs. al-Baqarah 2:106.

Kitab suci semua agama bukanlah sebuah teks sakral yang berdiri sendiri. Namun, kitab suci semua agama menegaskan semacam mata rantai yang menyadarkan kita tentang adanya konsep “One Word Many Versions” sesuai konteks zamannya. Dengan demikian, semua kitab suci ada semacam “common heritage” sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam kitab-kitab suci, dan Quran telah mengkonfirmasikannya. Misalnya, Mazmur 37:29[1] tertulis demikian:

צדיקים יירשו ארץ וישכנו לעד עליה. תהלים 37:29

“Orang-orang benar mewarisi bumi dan mereka akan tinggal selama-lamanya di bumi” (Tehilim 37:29).

Kitab suci Quran juga menyebutkan ayat yang sejajar, yang meneguhkan pernyataan kitab Mazmur dan sekaligus mengkonfirmasinya, yakni berkaitan dengan keberadaan orang-orang benar, atau pun orang-orang saleh. Qs. Al-Anbiya 21:105 menyebutkan demikian:

ولقد كتبنا في الزبور من بعد الذكر ان الارض يرثها عبادى الصلحون

Ayat ini sekaligus menegaskan bahwa hanya orang-orang saleh saja yang disebut “as-Shalikhun” (الصلحون) yang memiliki karakter kenabian. Itulah sebabnya ayat yang berkaitan dengan “orang-orang saleh” ternyata terletak pada Qs. Al-Anbiya’ (lit. “para Nabi”).

Pages: 1 2 3 4

QURBAN ABRAHAM DALAM KITAB TAFSIR: Meluruskan Kesalahpahaman Kristen

Posted on by
1

Berkaitan dengan kitab tafsir dalam tradisi Islam, memang ada dua jenis kitab tentang tafsir. Pertama, kitab yang berisi kumpulan riwayat-riwayat penafsiran yang disandarkan kepada seorang tokoh. Misalnya, kitab tafsir Ibnu Abbas yang berjudul “Tanwir Al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas” (تفسير المقباس من تفسير ابن عباس). Kitab ini berisi kumpulan riwayat-riwayat tafsir yang dinisbahkan kepada Ibnu Abbas. Ibnu Abbas bukanlah penulis kitab tersebut, tetapi orang lain yang bernama Al-Fairuzabadi yang mengkompilasi atau yang mengumpulkan riwayat-riwayat yang dinisbahkan kepada Ibnu Abbas dari beberapa kitab untuk kemudian dikumpulkan menjadi satu kitab. Kedua, kitab yang berisi penafsiran seorang tokoh. Dalam hal ini misalnya, Tafsir ath-Thabari, kitab ini ditulis oleh Imam ath-Thabari sendiri. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, kitab ini ditulis oleh Imam Jalaluddin as-Suyuthi dan Imam Jalaluddin al-Mahally. Begitu juga kitab Tafsir Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy, ditulis oleh Al-Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy, dan kitab tafsir ini ternyata sezaman dengan kitab Tafsir ath-Thabari.

Tafsir Muqatil bin Sulaiman ini memang ditulis oleh Muqatil sendiri. Isinya bukan kumpulan riwayat-riwayat tafsir Muqatil yang dikumpulkan oleh orang lain. Kitab tafsir Muqatil bin Sulaiman yang disebut oleh Bambang Noersena dan kemudian diklaim sebagai kitab tafsir yang tertua, maka hal ini perlu dikritisi. Tafsir Muqatil bin Sulaiman memang menyebut nama Ishaq yang akan dijadikan qurban. Namun, apakah kitab tafsir Muqatil bin Sulaiman merupakan kitab tafsir yang tertua? Apakah kitab-kitab tafsir era sezaman dengan Muqatil bin Sulaiman tidak ada satu pun yang menyebut nama Ishmael? Ini merupakan dua hal yang berbeda.

Muqatil bin Sulaiman (w. 150 H./ 767 M) yang diklaim sebagai ahli tafsir paling awal yang karya utuh kitab tafsirnya masih ada hingga kini, memang secara tegas menyebut Ishaq sebagai “dzabih”, anak yang disembelih oleh Abraham. Namun pada zamannya, Muqatil bin Sulaiman ternyata dikenal sebagai sosok yang diragukan kredibilatasnya oleh banyak pihak, terutama oleh para ulama Ahli Tafsir dan para ulama Ahlul Hadits. Ulama Ahlul Hadits khususnya, semuanya mengatakan bahwa Muqatil bin Sulaiman itu dianggap tidak tsiqah, dan celaan berupa “jarh” senantiasa dialamatkan kepadanya, misalnya Imam Asy’ari menyatakan bahwa Muqatil bin Sulaiman itu seorang mujassimah. Bahkan, Imam adz-Dzahabi men-jarh Muqatil bin Sulaiman karena dia banyak menukil riwayat-riwayat Israiliyat dari kaum Ahlul Kitab ketika menafsirkan ayat Quran, yang narasinya tak sepenuhnya bisa diverifikasi validitas datanya, meskipun menurutnya dianggap sesuai dengan kitab suci Yahudi dan Nasrani. Saya belum menemukan sebuah pernyataan dari para ulama Ahlul Hadits yang men-ta’dil Muqatil bin Sulaiman, tetapi semuanya justru men-jarh Muqatil bin Sulaiman.

Fakta historis justru berbicara lain, mufassir generasi awal, Ibnu Juraij misalnya, ternyata menyebut Ishmael sebagai “dzabih”, anak yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Tafsir Ibn Juraij justru statusnya lebih otoritarif jika dibandingkan dengan kitab Tafsir Muqatil bin Sulaiman (w. 150 H./767 M).

Siapakah Ibn Juraij? Ibn Juraij adalah salah seorang perawi hadits dari Imam Bukhari, sebagaimana yang tercatat dalam kitab Shahih-nya. Ibn Juraij dilahirkan pada tahun 80 H., dan meninggal pada tahun 150 H., tepatnya pada usia 150 tahun. Lihat Ibn Sa’ad, Thabaqat, vol 5, hlm. 361-362; Al-Bukhari, Tarikh Al-Awsath, vol. 3/1, hlm. 522-423; Ibn al-Nadzim, Fihrist, hlm. 316; Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, Jarh wa at-Ta’dil, vol. 2/2, hlm. 356-359. Ibnu Hajar al-Asqalani, Tahdzib at-Tahdzib, vol 6, hlm. 402-406. Nama lengkapnya adalah Abdul Malik bin Abdul ‘Aziz bin Juraij. Integritasnya (‘adalah) diakui oleh para kritikus hadits. Keterpercayaannya (dhabth) juga terekam dalam “kutub al-Rijal”. Ali bin Al-Madini (dari Yahya bin Said) berkata bahwa Ibn Juraij lebih terpercaya (atsbat) daripada Malik tentang Nafi’. Ibnu Juraij dalam pandangan Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal adalah orang yang paling terpercaya tentang riwayat dari ‘Atha’. Lihat Al-Baghdadi, Taeikh Baghdad, vol. 10, hlm. 402. Ahmad (dari Abd ar-Razzaq) berkata: “Saya tidak melihat satu orang pun yang shalatnya lebih baik dari pada shalatnya Ibn Juraij. Lihat Al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 10, hlm. 403.

Menurut catatan Imam Al-Bukhari dalam karyanya kitab Tarikh al-Awsath, Ibnu Juraij wafat pada tahun 150 H (767 M), dan kredibiltas Ibnu Juraij sangat diakui ke-ta’dil-annya di kalangan ulama Ahlul Hadits di zamannya, hingga zaman Imam Al-Bukhari. Para ulama Ahlul Hadits ternyata berbeda pandangan mengenai kredibilitas keduanya. Meskipun demikian, Muqatil bin Sulaiman dan Ibnu Juraij keduanya hidup di zaman yang sama. Kini, kompilator riwayat tafsir Ibn Juraij adalah Ali Hasan Abd al-Ghaniy, diterbitkan tahun 1992. Menariknya, Tafsir Ibn Juraij ini justru menyebut nama Ishmael sebagai sang putera yang akan dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Sejak terbitnya Tafsir Ibnu Juraij yang diterima melalui jalur Hasan bin Muhammad al-Za’farani dari Hajjaj al-Mishshishi, maka klaim otoritas kekunoan kitab Tafsir Muqatil Ibn Sulaiman justru invalid dan dipertanyakan keabsahannya. Bila pada era Muqatil bin Sulaiman dan Ibnu Juraij ternyata ditemukan keragaman pendapat mengenai nama sang putera yang di-qurban-kan oleh Abraham, maka klaim Bambang Noersena tentang adanya wacana tunggal yang hanya merujuk pada nama Ishaq yang muncul pada era awal, maka klaim tersebut menjadi batal. Kini, kitab Tafsir Ibn Juraij juga sudah ditahqiq oleh Dr. ‘Abdurrahman bin Hasan Qa’id, cetakan Dar al-Kamal al-Muttahidah. Oleh karena itu, buku ini sekaligus merupakan bantahan akurat terkait wacana tunggal yang dipaksakan, yakni menggiring opini hanya merujuk pada nama Ishaq saja.

Begitu juga klaim Bambang Noersena berkaitan dengan kekunoan kitab Tafsir ath-Thabari yang dalam kitab tafsir ini disebutkan validitas nama Ishaq sebagai putera yang dijadikan qurban. Menurut Bambang Noersena, kitab tafsir yang berjudul جامع البيان في تاويل القران (Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an) karya Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir ath-Thabari adalah kitab tafsir tertua. Klaim ini sebenarnya sangat tidak benar. Klaim kekunoan kitab tafsir karya Imam ath-Thabari (224 – 310 H) ini justru terbantahkan dengan keberadaan kitab tafsir yang lain, yakni kitab تفسير كتاب الله العزيز (Tafsir Kitabillah al-‘Aziz) karya Imam Hud bin Muhakkam al-Huwwari al-‘Ibadi (200 – 280 H). Kitab tafsir ini merupakan kitab tafsir lengkap pertama dan tertua, dan tokoh mufassir ini hidup sezaman dengan Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir ath-Thabari (224 – 310 H). Al-Imam Hud bin Muhakkam al-Huwwari al-‘Ibadi umurnya lebih tua 24 tahun dibanding al-Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir ath-Thabari, dan Al-Imam Hud bin Muhakkam al-Huwwari al-‘Ibadi wafat pada tahun 280 H., sedangkan al-Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir ath-Thabari wafat pada tahun 310 H. Ini merupakan fakta bahwa Al-Imam Hud bin Muhakkam al-Huwwari al-‘Ibadi paling lambat telah merampungkan penulisan karya kitab tafsirnya sekitar 30 tahun sebelum wafatnya Imam ath-Thabari. Menariknya, dalam kitab tafsirnya tersebut, setelah menyebutkan beberapa perbedaan riwayat hadits mengenai siapa yang menjadi “dzabih” maka Imam al-Huwwari lebih menguatkan pandangan bahwa sebenarnya memang Ishmael yang diqurbankan oleh Abraham. Dengan demikian, pada era Abad ke-3 H., wacana tentang nama sang putera yang akan menjadi qurban Abraham justru pendapat yang dominan merujuk kepada Ishmael, bukan Ishaq. Dalam kitab tafsirnya, hlm. 457, beliau berkata:

واحقهم ان يكون اسماعيل هو الذي امرهم بذبحه وهو اوفق لما في القران.

Selain itu, klaim Bambang Noersena terkait kekunoan kitab tafsir karya Imam ath-Thabari itu juga tidak benar, dan justru terbantahkan dengan keberadaan kitab tafsir karya Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy. Kitab Tafsir Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy adalah kitab tafsir yang keberadaannya sezaman dengan kitab Tafsir ath-Thabari, dan di dalam ulasannya tersebut ternyata Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy (854 – 938 M) justru menguatkan nama Ishmael yang dijadikan qurban dengan menyandarkan pandangannya pada pendapat ayahnya, yakni Abu Hatim al-Razy. Dengan pengutipan pendapat yang dikutip oleh Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razy yang mengacu pada pandangan ayahnya sendiri, yaitu Abu Hatim, tentu saja ini merupakan bukti “interne evidenti” bahwa pada masa sebelum era ath-Thabari sudah ada wacana dominan yang menyebut Ishmael sebagai qurban Abraham. Hal ini sekaligus sebagai bukti adanya wacana yang lebih kuno dari pada pandangan yang diwacanakan oleh Imam ath-Thabari pada masanya. Menariknya, demi menyuguhkan adanya wacana yang lebih kuno tersebut, maka pada kitab tafsirnya itu ternyata Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy merujuk pada perawi-perawi utama, yakni, Ali bin Abi Thalib, Abu Hurairah dan Ibnu Umar.

Sejak era awal pembukuan (tadwin) kitab hadits dan kitab tafsir, nama Ishmael memang lebih diterima secara valid dibanding nama Ishaq. Indikasi ini dapat dicermati melalui banyaknya riwayat hadits yang menyebut Ishmael sebagai anak yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham, dan bukan Ishaq. Banyaknya riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishmael, yang tidak sebanding dengan riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishaq, hal ini merupakan fakta bahwa penafsiran tentang “dzabih” yang disematkan kepada Ishaq justru merupakan pendapat minoritas, dan bukan pendapat mayoritas. Adanya kesaksian jumlah hadits yang melimpah, yang mengarah kepada Ishmael sebagai sang “dzabih”, justru semakin membuktikan akurasi dan validitas datanya. Apalagi, riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishaq ternyata “matan” haditsnya menyebutkan nama Sarah dan nama Abraham yang latar/ setting peristiwa qurban itu justru berada di wilayah Mina (Saudi Arabia), dan bukan di wilayah Palestina. Ini jelas narasi teks haditsnya tak bisa diverifikasi dari kajian ilmu “sanad” hadits, tetapi berdasarkan kajian ilmu “matan” hadits ternyata akurasi dan validitas datanya ahistoris.

Pada abad ke-10 M., Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy (854 – 938 M) serta Imam ath-Thabari (839 – 932 M) terlibat semacam “perdebatan akademik” terkait kontroversi penafsiran tentang sang “dzabih” (anak yang dijadikan qurban). Imam ath-Thabari usianya memang lebih tua 15 tahun dibanding Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy, dan Imam ath-Thabari faktanya wafat lebih awal 6 tahun sebelum wafatnya Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy. Kedua ahli tafsir yang sezaman ini mewakili wacana perdebatan akademik berbasis informasi riwayat hadits terkait sang putera yang akan dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Pada abad ke-10 M., jumlah riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishmael dan pro-Ishaq sebagai qurban Abraham memang cukup banyak, meskipun jumlah riwayat haditsnya sebenarnya tidak berimbang. Imam ath-Thabari telah mendata beragam pendapat para ulama Salaf terkait mengenai sosok yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Dalam karya magnum opusnya, “Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an”, Imam ath-Thabari mencatat 17 riwayat hadits yang mengidentifikasi Ishaq sebagai sosok yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Sebaliknya, Imam ath-Thabari justru mencatat adanya 24 riwayat hadits yang mengidentifikasi Ishmael sebagai “dzabih” (anak yang dijadikan qurban). Meskipun riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishaq dan riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishmael kenyataannya tidak seimbang, Imam ath-Thabari ternyata memilih pendapat yang mengakui Ishaq sebagai sosok yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Dia berkata: “awla al-qawlain bi al-shawab” (pendapat yang paling mendekati kebenaran di antara keduanya). Dalam hal ini, Imam ath-Thabari tidak bisa memverifikasi validitas riwayat hadits tersebut berdasarkan kajian ilmu hadits, sehingga pertimbangan Imam ath-Thabari memilih Ishaq sebagai “dzabih” didasarkan bukan pada keakuratan periwayatan hadits, tetapi Imam ath-Thabari justru ber-hujjah dengan merujuk pada makna tektual ayat (‘ala dzahir al-tanzil) sebagaimana yang termaktub pada bunyi ayat QS. ash-Shaffat 37:112 yang menyebut secara literal nama Ishaq tersebut. Dengan demikian, kenyataannya Imam ath-Thabari berargumentasi bukan berdasar pada nalar kritik hadits, meskipun rincian redaksional hadits-hadits yang disajikan begitu banyak kutipannya dalam kitab tafsirnya. Bila Imam ath-Thabari penyimpulannya merujuk pada redaksional “dzahir ayat”, maka Imam Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy penyimpulannya merujuk pada kesaksian mayoritas jumlah riwayat hadits, dan analisisnya juga merujuk pada ketidakakuratan redaksional “matan hadits” yang mengandung kecacatan “setting” (latar) peristiwa qurban, sehingga beliau menyimpulkan bahwa yang dijadikan qurban adalah Ishmael. Selain itu, riwayat hadits yang dikutip oleh Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razy ialah pandangan ayahnya sendiri, yaitu Abu Hatim al-Razy, yang tentu saja lebih dahulu ada, atau lebih kuno daripada pandangan Imam ath-Thabari. Meskipun keduanya ada perbedaan pendapat, tetapi keduanya hidup sezaman, dan manuskrip Tafsir ath-Thabari serta manuskrip Tafsir Ibnu Abi Hatim al-Razy juga benar-benar sezaman. Meskipun keduanya merupakan kitab tafsir kuno, hal ini tidak ada kaitannya dengan kriteria kekunoaan suatu manuskrip dalam ranah otentisitas suatu karya. Dengan demikian, klaim Bambang Noersena dengan berdasar pada kekunoan Tafsir ath-Thabari demi mendukung opininya, maka hal ini tidak dapat dipertanggunjawabkan validitasnya.

Ada 2 kemungkinan berkaitan dengan data yang sedang saya bahas ini, yakni untuk membincang agenda di balik wacana anggitan Bambang Noersena, pendiri Institute for Syriac Christian Studies (ISCS), yang kini nama organisasinya telah diubah menjadi Institute for Syriac Cultural Studies (ISCS) agar tampilan gerakan misinya terkesan lebih “soft.”

  1. Bambang Noersena sebenarnya mengetahui data-data tersebut, tetapi seolah-olah dia tidak mengetahuinya, dan menganggap seolah-olah data-data tersebut tidak pernah ada.
  2. Bambang Noersena memang benar-benar tidak mengetahui adanya data-data tersebut, sehingga dia mengklaim bahwa Tafsir Muqatil bin Sulaiman dan Tafsir ath-Thabari sebagai 2 kitab tafsir yang paling tua dalam literatur Islam.

Dalam hal ini, Bambang Noersena tidak memiliki kepentingan apapun terhadap interpretasi ttg siapa sebenarnya yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham sebagai “dzabih” dalam literatur Islam. Justru hal ini akan menjadi bias bila Bambang Noersena ikut campur terlalu dalam, terutama utk menentukan validitas status hadits-hadits tersebut. Baginya, yang penting adanya bukti terkait hadits-hadits yang menyatakan bahwa yang diqurbankan oleh Abraham itu merujuk pada nama Ishaq. Itu poin pentingnya, dan tidak perlu membahas validitas hadits-nya. Namun, bila wacana itu berkaitan dengan interpretasi tunggal tentang siapa yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham sebagai “dzabih” pada generasi awal Islam, maka ini perlu pembuktian, dan saya telah membuktikannya.

Pada abad ke-14 M., perdebatan akademik mengenai riwayat hadits tersebut berdasar pada nalar kritik hadits semakin mengalami kemapanan. Hal ini kemudian dikuatkan dengan kajian riwayat hadits secara akademik yang lebih ketat dan mendalam pada era Imam Ibnu Katsir (w. 774 H./ 1374 M), penulis تفشير القران العظيم (Tafsir Al-Qur’an al-‘Adzim) yang menyeleksi validitas hadits berdasar pada originalitas sumber periwayatannya, yakni berdasar pada kajian “sanad” hadits dan kajian “matan” hadits. Kajian “sanad” hadits yang dimaksud bukan hanya mengenai ketersambungan mata rantai penyampaian suatu riwayat hadits, tetapi hal ini juga menyangkut kredibilitas para perawi dan sumber awal suatu riwayat. Dalam konteks ini, riwayat yang menyatakan bahwa Ishaq yang di-qurban-kan ternyata mayoritas bersumber dari Ka’ab al-Akhbar. Jadi, pandangan ini ternyata bersumber dari Ka’ab Akhbar sendiri, dan bukan langsung dari Nabi SAW. Bila sanad hadits tersebut bersumber dari sahabat (Ka’ab Akhbar), dan bukan dari Nabi SAW, maka (dari segi sumber riwayat) riwayat termasuk ke dalam jenis riwayat “mauquf” dan tidak jelas asalnya, alias invalid.

Semua riwayat hadits yang pro-Ishaq diverifikasi terkait akurasi dan validitas data haditsnya berdasarkan “externe evidenti” dan “interne evidenti”, terutama hadits yang sumber utamanya berasal dari riwayat Ka’ab al-Ahbar. Menurut Imam Ibnu Kathir (w. 774 H./ 1373 M), murid Ibnu Taimiyah (w. 726 H./ 1328 M), semua riwayat hadits yang berasal dari Ka’ab al-Ahbar terkait hadits “qurban Abraham” ternyata ber-“setting” di wilayah Mina, Saudi Arabia. Ini menurutnya, narasi hadits yang disajikan itu setelah diverifikasi ternyata cacat matan haditsnya, sebab Sarah tidak pernah berada di wilayah Mina, Saudi Arabia, Sarah selamanya berada di Palestina, dan ini dianggap ahistoris, “kidzb wa buhtan” (bohong dan dusta) oleh Imam Ibnu Katsir. Melalui karya Imam Ibnu Katsir di zamannya inilah akhirnya wacana “dzabih” lebih populer merujuk pada nama Ishmael yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Kepakaran Ibnu Katsir dalam hal kritik hadits ini kemudian menjadikan hadits pro-Ishmael sebagai pijakan pandangan dan pemahaman ortodoksi terkait Ishmael sebagai “dzabihu-Llah”, sang domba Allah yang disembelih.

Berkaitan dengan hadits-hadits yang kontroversial tentang nama sang “dzabih” , yakni sang putera yang akan diqurbankan oleh Abraham, maka hal itu merupakan berdebatan internal umat Islam sendiri, sebagaimana berkaitan dengan nas yang termaktub dalam teks Torah versi Masorah dan versi Samaritan yang kontroversial tentang nama “maqam”, yakni lokasi sakral tatkala sang putera akan diqurbankan oleh Abraham, maka hal itu juga merupakan perdebatan internal bagi umat yang berpegang pada kitab suci Torah, yakni antara umat Yahudi dengan umat Samaritan, dan sekaligus perdebatan antara umat Samaritan dan umat Kristen.

QURBAN ABRAHAM DALAM HADITS DAN MIDRASH RABBAH

Posted on by
Reply
BAMBANG NOORSENA: ISMAIL YANG DIKURBANKAN

Kitab Hadits merupakan kitab sumber otoritas kedua setelah Quran dalam ajaran agama Islam, sebagaimana kitab Midrash Rabbah sebagai תורה שבעל-פה (Torah she be ‘alphe) merupakan kitab sumber otoritas kedua setelah kitab Chumash sebagai תורה שבכתב (Torah she bichtav) dalam agama Yahudi. Teks matan hadits versi Islam yang berkaitan dengan siapa yang akan dijadikan qurban memang disebutkan adanya 2 versi penyebutan nama, sebagaimana teks midrash agada versi Yahudi juga menyebutkan adanya 2 versi tentang usia sang putera, saat dia akan dijadikan qurban. Bahkan, ada 2 versi kitab Chumash (Torah she bichtav) yang menyebutkan adanya 2 versi nama lokasi atau tempat qurban yang berbeda, sebagaimana yang disebutkan antara versi teks kitab Torah Samaritan dan versi teks kitab Torah Masoret (Masorah).

Jadi, berkaitan dengan identitas nama sang putera yang dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham menurut teks matan hadits, memang ada 2 versi yakni disebutkan nama Ishmael dan nama Ishaq. Meskipun dalam kitab Chumash (Torah she bichtav) tertulis nama Ishaq, tetapi dalam teks midrash agada (Torah she be ‘alphe) ternyata juga disebutkan adanya 2 versi usia Ishaq saat dijadikan qurban, yakni usia 37 tahun dan usia 5 tahun. Bahkan, Torah she bichtav (the Chumash) menyebutkan adanya 2 versi nama lokasi atau nama tempat yang berbeda saat Ishaq akan dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham, yakni tanah Moreh dan tanah Moriah. Dengan kata lain, sebagaimana yang termaktub pada teks versi hadits, yang pertama menyebutkan nama Ishmael, dan yang kedua menyebutkan nama Ishaq. Jadi hadits menyebutkan tentang siapa yang akan dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham memang berbeda-beda, sebagaimana adanya kontroversi tentang umur (usia) Ishaq saat dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham juga berbeda-beda, dan bahkan identitas nama lokasi atau nama tempat saat Ishaq akan dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham juga berbeda-beda. Perbedaan mengenai identitas nama sang putera, keakuratan usia dan identitas nama lokasi terkait peristiwa qurban memang merupakan 3 hal yang amat kontroversial dalam teks kitab Hadits, kitab Chumash (Torah she bichtav) dan kitab Midrash Rabbah (Torah she be ‘alphe). Hal inilah yang tidak dipahami atau sengaja tidak diuraikan oleh Bambang Noersena dalam paparannya.

Bambang Noorsena memang sengaja “menyerang” atau mempersoalkan sisi perbedaan teks matan hadits terkait dengan qurban, sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam kitab Hadits, tetapi Bambang Noersena sengaja “tidak menyerang” atau tidak mempersoalkan sisi perbedaan teks midrash agada terkait dengan qurban, sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Midrash Rabbah. Bahkan, Bambang Noersena juga “tidak menyerang” atau tidak mempersoalkan sisi perbedaan teks Chumash (Torah she bichtav) terkait perbedaan qurban. Anda bisa melihat perbedaan teks Sefer Bereshit 22:2 antara teks Torah versi Masorah (Masoret) dan teks Torah versi Samaritan; versi pertama menyebut מריה (Moriah), sedangkan versi kedua menyebut מרה (Moreh). Perbedaan penulisan mengacu pada kata/ term מרה (Mem – Resh – Hey) dan term מריה (Mem – Resh – Yod – Hey). Perbedaan penulisan itu ternyata mengacu hanya pada 1 huruf saja, yakni huruf י (Yod). Namun, perbedaan itu bukan sekedar perbedaan dialek dalam tuturan, atau pun perbedaan ortografi dalam penulisan, tetapi justru perbedaan penggunaan huruf י (Yod) tersebut mengacu pada perbedaan makna dan wilayah geografis yang dimaksud. Torah versi Masorah menyebut מריה (Moriah) merujuk pada lokasi sakral di bukit Zion, di kota Yerusalem, wilayah Israel bagian selatan; sedangkan Torah versi Samaria menyebut מרה (Moreh) merujuk pada lokasi sakral di bukit Gerizim, di kota Nablus, wilayah Israel bagian utara. Keberadaan bukit Gerizim ini termaktub dalam Torah versi Samaria dan Torah versi Masorah, dan penyebutan nama kota Nablus di kawasan Moreh tersebut juga termaktub dalam Targum Aravit (Judeo-Arabic Targum), yakni sebuah Targum dan Tafsir tertua versi bhs Arab dalam tradisi agama Yahudi, sebuah karya “magnus opus” dari Rabbenu Saadia Gaon (Rasag). Padahal kota Sikhem dalam teks aslinya yang berbahasa Ibrani justru tertulis עיר שכם (‘ir Shechem), lit. “kota Sikhem.” Meskipun demikian, penyebutan kota Nablus itu merupakan bentuk Arabisasi dari nama kuno kota dari bhs Ibrani, yang disebut kota Sikhem. Lihatlah Targum Aravit karya Rasag, khususnya Sefer Bereshit 33:18 tertulis:

ת'ם ודכ'ל יעקוב סאלמא אלי קריה נאבלס אלתי פי אלבלד כנעאן

“tsumma dakhala Ya’kub saliman ila qaryah Nablus allati fi al-balad Kan’an.” (Kemudian Yakub memasuki dengan selamat menuju ke kota Nablus), see J. Derenbourg. Tafsir al-Tawrah bi Al-‘Arabiyyah: Version Arabe du Pentateuque de R. Saadia ben Iosef Al-Fayyoumi (Paris: Ernest Leroux, Editeour, 1893), pp. 54-55

Abu Al-Hasan Ishaq ash-Shuri, adalah seorang Kahin (Imam) dari agama Israel Samaritan, pemimpin tertinggi kaum Samaria. Abu Al-Hasan Ishaq ash-Shuri telah menerjemahkan kitab suci Torah Samaritan dari bahasa Ibrani ke bahasa Arab. Menurutnya, sebutan kota Nablus merupakan nama Arab dari kota Sechem versi teks Torah Samaritan. Lihat Sefer Bereshit 33:18 teksnya tertulis demikian.

جاء يعقوب سالما الى مدينة نابلس التي في ارض كنعان

“ja-a Ya’kub saliman ila madinah Nablus allati fi ardhi Kan’an.” (Yakub telah datang dengan aman menuju ke kota Nablus yang terletak di tanah Kanaan), see Al-Kahin as-Samiri Abu Al-Hasan Ishaq ash-Shuri. At-Tawrah as-Samiriyyah: Tarjamah min Al-‘Ibraniyyah ila Al-‘Arabiyyah (Al-Qahirah: Dar Al-Jil, 2007), p.68

Dengan demikian, nama kota Sechem dalam bahasa Ibrani memiliki nama Arab dengan sebutan Nablus. Hal ini bukanlah sebuah kesalahan terjemahan yang fatal dari sebuah interpretasi gegabah dari Rabbenu Saadia Gaon. Penyebutan versi Arab tersebut pasti merupakan ingatan kolektif yang diakui bersama yang berasal dari tradisi kaum Yahudi dan kaum Samaria. Bahkan, Imam tertinggi kaum Samaria juga telah memahami nama kota itu dengan sebutan yang sama. Bukti tekstual ini merupakan fakta yang tidak bisa dibantah oleh siapapun.

Kota שכם (Shechem) di kawasan מרה (Moreh) ini bukan hanya dikenal di zaman Yakub, tetapi kota שכם (Shechem) di kawasan מרה (Moreh) ini justru telah dikenal oleh Abraham sejak awal kedatangannya di wilayah Kanaan. Silakan Anda cermati teks Sefer Bereshit 12:6. Menariknya, Rabbenu Saadia Gaon dan Al-Kahin Abu Al-Hasan Ishaq ash-Shuri ternyata sama-sama menerjemahkan sebutan kota Shechem dengan nama Arabnya, yakni kota Nablus. Rabbi Saadia Gaon menerjemahkan demikian.

פטאף אברם פי אלבלד אלי מוצ'ע נאבלוס ואלי מרג' ממרה ואלכנעאני חיניד' כאן מקימא פי אלבלד

“fathafa Abram fi al-balad ila mawdhi’i Nablus wa ila marji mi-Moreh wa al-Kan’ani khinaidzin kana muqiman fi al-balad.” (Abram berjalan melalui negeri itu sampai ke suatu tempat dekat Sikhem, yakni pohon terbantin di Moreh. Waktu itu orang Kanaan diam di negeri itu), see J. Derenbourg. Tafsir al-Tawrah bi Al-‘Arabiyyah. Version Arabe du Pentateuque (Paris: Ernest Leroux, Editeur, 1893), p. 19

Bila dalam kitab Hadits, perbedaan teks merujuk pada perbedaan nama sang putera yang akan dijadikan qurban, justru dalam kitab Chumash (Torah she be bichtav), perbedaan teks merujuk pada perbedaan nama “maqam” atau lokasi atau nama tempat yang akan dijadikan qurban. Mengapa dalam konteks ini Bambang Noersena tidak berbicara secara fair? Bukankah perbedaan nama “maqam” atau nama lokasi tempat qurban lebih substansial utk diperdebatkan atau pun dikritisi dibanding perbedaan nama sang putera Abraham yang akan dijadikan qurban? Perbedaan nama “maqam” tempat qurban Abraham justru menjadi pemicu dan menjadi sebab perbedaan qiblat sebagai arah sembahyang antara kaum Samaria dan kaum Yahudi, dan sekaligus menjadi penyebab perbedaan tempat pelaksanaan qurban sembelihan perayaan Paskah antara kaum Yahudi dan kaum Samaria. Bukankah mereka sama-sama merujuk pada kitab suci yang sama yakni kitab Torah? Bukankah konsekuensi perbedaan nama “maqam” ini lebih fatal dibanding perbedaan nama sang putera Abraham yang akan menjadi qurban? Umat Islam sejak dulu hingga kini memiliki qiblat yang sama, berhaji di tempat yang sama, dan ber-qurban di hari yang sama, dan merujuk pada kitab suci Quran yang sama, meskipun dalam hadits ada penyebutan nama putera Abraham yang berbeda sebagai sang putera yang akan dijadikan qurban. Dengan demikian, hal ini semakin jelas. Umat Islam mentradisikan ibadah qurban di tempat yang sama meskipun nama putera Abraham yang di-qurban-kan disebutkan nama yang berbeda. Sebaliknya, umat Israel mentradisikan ibadah qurban di tempat yang berbeda karena nama “maqam” tempat qurban Abraham disebutkan nama yang berbeda pula, meskipun nama putera Abraham yang di-qurban-kan itu disebutkan nama yang sama. Inilah fakta yang tidak dapat dipungkiri oleh siapapun. Bukankah kitab suci Chumash merupakan bagian dari kitab suci Perjanjian Lama (the Old Testament) bagi agama Kristiani? Mengapa perbedaan teks mengenai identitas nama lokasi atau nama tempat qurban Abraham antara kitab suci Perjanjian Lama dengan kitab suci Chumash (Torah Samaritan) tidak dibedah secara adil dalam pembahasannya kepada publik? Kejujuran merupakan modal intelektual yang niscaya sebagai seorang akademisi.

Ulasan Rabbi Bachya ben Asher dalam Tafsir-nya מדרש רבינו בחיי על חמשה חומשי תורה (Midrash Rabbenu Bachya ‘al Chamisha Chumshe Torah) menjelaskan bahwa tatkala dijadikan qurban, Ishaq telah berusia 37 tahun, dan saat itu dia disebut sebagai הנער (ha-na’ar). Meskipun berdasarkan narasi teks midrash agada ditemukan adanya perbedaan usia tatkala Ishaq dijadikan qurban, tetapi Rabbi Bachya melalui proses selektif, justru lebih condong memilih teks midrash agada yang menjelaskan adanya penyebutan usia Ishaq tatkala dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham, yaitu usia 37 tahun, dibanding usia 5 tahun. Rabbi Bachya dalam hal ini lebih condong pada nas yang termaktub dalam teks Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 56:11, dan Rabbi Bachya juga merujuk pada kitab tafsir tertua berbahasa Ibrani atas kitab Bereshit, ditulis oleh Rabbi Eliezer pada Abad ke-1, dan karyanya kemudian dikenal dengan judul Pirke Rabbi Eliezer. Silakan Anda memeriksa kitab Pirke Rabbi Eliezer pasal 31 (Yerushlayim: Eschol, hlm. קד).

בן שבע ושלשים שנה היה יצחק בלכתו אל הר המוריה

“Ben sheba’ u-sheloshim shanah hayah Yitzhaq belachto el har ha-Moriyyah …. “

“Sang putera yakni Ishaq telah berusia 37 tahun tatkala dia pergi ke puncak gunung Moria …”

Sebaliknya, Rabbi Ibn Ezra dalam kitab tafsirnya atas kitab Torah sangatlah menarik. Dia justru menolak otoritas kedua narasi dari teks midrash agada terkait usia Ishaq tatkala dia dijadikan qurban oleh Abraham. Rabbi Ibn Ezra mengatakan:

“Our sages, of blessed memory, say that Isaac was 37 years old at the time of binding. If this be a tradition, we will accept it. However, from a strictly logical point of view it is unacceptable. If Isaac was an adult at that time, then his piety should have been revealed in Scripture and his reward should be double that of his father for willingly having submitted himself to be sacrificed. Yet Scripture says nothing concerning Isaac’s great self-sacrifice. Others say that Isaac was 5 years old at the time of his binding. This, too, is unacceptable, since Isaac carried the wood for the sacrificial pyre. A child of five would be unable to carry that much wood. It thus appears logical to assume that Isaac was close to 13 years old and that Abraham overpowered him and bound him against his will. Proof of this can be seen from the fact that Abraham hid his intention from Isaac and told him, “God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son (Bereshit 22:8). Abraham knew that if he said: “You are to be the burnt-offering,” Isaac would quite possibly have fled”, see Bereshit 22:4

Dengan demikian, penjelasan teks midrash agada terkait versi usia Ishaq 37 tahun atau pun versi usia Ishaq 5 tahun, keduanya ternyata ditolak oleh Ibn Ezra sebagai teks midrash agada yang shahih. Dia mengatakan bahwa anak yang akan dijadikan qurban itu pasti usia 13 tahun dan ini terkait dengan nalar yang valid. Faktanya, semua kitab Miqraot Gedolot le-Chumash, pasti memuat Tafsir Rashi dan Tafsir Ibn Ezra, dan kitab Tafsir Ibn Ezra ini dijadikan rujukan otoritatif oleh semua komunitas Yahudi Aschenazim. Bahkan, komunitas Yahudi Sephardim menganggap kitab Tafsir Ibn Ezra sebagai kitab tafsir yang otoritatif dan kitab ini juga dianggap sebagai kitab tafsir tertua atas kitab Chumash (Torah she bichtav), tentu saja berdampingan dengan kitab Tafsir Rasag. Bagi kaum Yahudi Aschenazim, mereka merujuk pada kitab Tafsir Rashi dan kitab Tafsir Ibn Ezra, sedangkan bagi komunitas Yahudi Sephardim, mereka merujuk pada kitab Tafsir Rasag dan kitab Tafsir Ibn Ezra. Dengan demikian, kitab Tafsir Ibn Ezra memiliki posisi amat penting dalam pemikiran Rabbinik bagi semua komunitas Yahudi.

Ada hal yang sangat menarik berkaitan dengan pentingnya usia 5 tahun dan usia 13 tahun dalam tradisi Yahudi, sehingga signifikansi usia tersebut termaktub dalam kitab Torah (Bible), kitab Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, dan kitab Talmud. Dalam kitab Talmud disebutkan demikian:

“Jehudah ben Tama used to say: “At the age of 5 one is ready to study the Bible, at 10 to study the Mishnah, at 13 to observe the Commandments (Mitzvoth), at 15 to study the Talmud, at 18 to get married, at 20 to start earning a livelihood, at 30 to enter into one’s full strength, at 40 to show discernment, at 50 to give counsel, at 60 to start feeling old, at 70 to turn white, at 80 for travail and trouble, at 90 for senility; and at 100 … for death”, see Lewis Browne. The Wisdom of Israel: An Anthology (New York: the Modern Library, 1945), p. 184

Sefer Bereshit 17:25-26 menyebutkan demikian:

“Dan Ishmael, anaknya, berumur 13 tahun ketika dikerat kulit khatannya. Pada hari itu juga Abraham dan Ishmael, anaknya, disunat.”

Kitab Sefer Bereshit 17:25 menyatakan bahwa Ishmael mendapatkan ברית מילה (B’rit Milah) melalui kewajiban sunat saat dia berumur 13 tahun, dan pada saat usia 13 tahun itulah Ishmael mulai disebut sebagai “son of the Commandments” yang dalam bahasa Ibrani disebut בר מצוה (bar Mitzvah), yang menunjukkan usia kematangan keagamaan sang putera. Dalam agama Yahudi mengenal adanya 613 mitzvoth, dan dalam Sefer Hachinuch, mitzvoth urutan yang ke-2 adalah kewajiban bersunat, yakni מצות מילה (mitzvoth Milah). Dalam konteks ini, Ishmael disunat oleh Abraham dengan tangannya sendiri, sesuai kesaksian nas kitab suci (Sefer Bereshit 17:23). Jadi usia 13 tahun bukanlah usia yang tidak memiliki makna apapun, tapi justru ketepatan usia 13 tahun bagi Ishmael merupakan usia “penanda” yang sangat signifikan menurut midrash halacha, sebagaimana penjelasan yang termaktub dalam kitab Talmud.

Dalam teks Sefer Bereshit (Genesis) 18:7 juga disebutkan nas yang demikian:

“Lalu berlarilah Abraham kepada lembu sapinya, dia mengambil seekor anak lembu yang empuk dan baik dagingnya dan diserahkan kepada bujangnya , lalu orang ini segera mengolahnya.”

Istilah “bujangnya” dalam versi Alkitab terjemahan bahasa Indonesia terkait teks Sefer Bereshit 18:7 memang bermasalah. Alkitab versi berbahasa Ibrani, teks aslinya tertulis אל הנער (el ha-na’ar). Rashi menjelaskan זה ישמעעאל (zeh Yishmael), lit. “ini adalah Ishmael”, לחנכו במצות (le hannecho be mitzvoth), lit. “Instruct him in performance of religious Commandments.” Rashi dalam hal ini mengutip teks midrash agada yang shahih, sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 48:13. Dalam hal ini, mengapa Rashi dalam penjelasannya mengaitkan Ishmael dengan mitzvoth (commandments)? Apakah ini juga terkait dengan penanda usia Ishmael yang saat itu berumur 13 tahun, yang disebut sebagai “bar-mitzvah”? Silakan Anda merenungkannya. Menariknya lagi, berdasarkan pada nas Sefer Bereshit 18:7 tersebut, Rasag (Rabbi Saadia Gaon) juga memahami frase אל הנער (el ha-na’ar) dalam bahasa Ibrani tersebut diterjemahkan menjadi אלי אלג’לאם (ila al-ghulam), sebagaimana yang tertulis dalam Targum Aravit-nya, yakni Judeo-Arabic Targum. Mengapa Rasag menyebut dengan sebutan אלג’לאם (al-ghulam) terkait ayat yang termaktub dalam Sefer Bereshit 18:7 tersebut? Ini merupakan fakta tekstual bahwa Rasag memang benar-benar memahami sosok yang dimaksud pada ayat ini memang merujuk kepada Ishmael – bukan kepada yang lain – meskipun teks bahasa Ibraninya menyebut dengan istilah הנער (ha-na’ar). Rasag juga pasti telah membaca dua kitab utama dalam tradisi agama Yahudi, yakni kitab Midrash Bereshit Rabbah dan kitab Pirke Rabbi Eliezer yang menjelaskan siapa sebenarnya הנער (ha-na’ar) yang dimaksud pada ayat tersebut. Fakta membuktikan bahwa kitab Midrash Bereshit Rabbah dan kitab Pirke Rabbi Eliezer justru menegaskan nama Ishmael. Itulah sebabnya, Rabbi Saadia Gaon menggunakan istilah אלג’לאם (al-ghulam), yang bermakna “sang putra” (sang anak) pada teks Sefer Bereshit 18:7. Dengan demikian, Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbenu Saadia Gaon, Rashi, dan Rabbenu Ibnu Ezra semuanya telah sepakat mengenai sosok yang dimaksud pada ayat Sefer Bereshit 18:7 ternyata mengacu kepada Ishmael, dan bukan kepada anak yang lain, apalagi mengacu kepada orang lain. Itulah sebabnya Abraham tidak menyembelihnya sendiri anak lembu tersebut, tetapi menyerahkannya kepada Ishmael, sang puteranya sendiri, utk menyembelihnya. Hal ini bertujuan agar Ishmael dapat melaksanakan mitzvoth ke-5 dari antara 613 mitzvoth, yakni kewajiban מצות שחיטת (mitzvoth Sechithot), menyembelih binatang sebagai seorang Suchat sesuai aturan hukum.

Selain itu, ada hal yang lebih penting lagi terkait dengan qurban Abraham, yang menurut saya sangat serius utk diperbincangkan dalam ranah lintas iman. Pada Sefer Bereshit 22:3 ternyata Abraham membawa 2 bujangnya. Siapakah yang dimaksud kedua bujang Abraham tersebut? Kitab utama dalam tradisi agama Yahudi, yakni kitab Midrash Bereshit Rabbah dan kitab Tafsir Rabbi Eliezer ternyata menyebut 2 nama, yakni Eliezer dan Ishmael. Ringkasnya, kitab Tafsir Rabbi Eliezer sebagai kitab tafsir tertua dalam tradisi agama Yahudi, ternyata menyebutkan nama Ishmael sebagai sosok yang juga dibawa serta oleh Abraham untuk melaksanakan perintah qurban tersebut. Menariknya, Rabbi Saadia Gaon ben Yosef menerjemahkan ג’לאמיה (ghulamayhi), lit. “dua anaknya.” Ini merupakan fakta penting yang tidak dapat ditolak oleh akademisi manapun bahwa istilah “bujang” pada versi Alkitab terjemahan bahasa Indonesia yang merujuk pada nas Sefer Bereshit 22:3 itu justru mengacu kepada Ishmael yang disebut sebagai “ghulam” (anak) oleh Rabbenu Saadia Gaon. Jadi, Ishmael adalah pribadi istimewa yang juga terlibat dalam peristiwa qurban Abraham tersebut. Menariknya, Rabbenu Saadia Gaon menyebut Ishaq dengan sebutan אבנה (ibnahu), lit. “anaknya”, bukan dengan sebutan ג’לאמה (ghulamahu), lit. “anaknya”, lihat Targum Aravit 22:3. Yang lebih menarik lagi, QS. ash-Shaffat 37:2 ayatnya berbunyi:

فبشرنه بغلام حليم

“maka Kami berikan kabar gembira kepadanya atas kelahiran ghulam (anak) yang penyantun.”

Dengan demikian, Tafsir Rasag atas teks Bereshit 22:3 yang menyebut dengan sebutan ג’לאם (ghulam) kepada Ishmael, ternyata ada kesejajaran dengan sebutan غلام (ghulam) yang merujuk kepada anak yang akan dijadikan sebagai qurban oleh Abraham menurut teks Quran, lihat QS. ash-Shaffat 37:2.

Dengan demikian, jika Rabbi Ibn Ezra lebih condong pada batasan usia 13 tahun tatkala sang putera dijadikan qurban, ini merupakan indikasi kuat bahwa peristiwa qurban itu sebenarnya tertuju kepada Ishmael saat usianya mencapai usia bar Mitzvah, yakni usia 13 tahun; dan peristiwa ini pasti terjadi sebelum Ishaq dilahirkan. Ketepatan usia sebagai “bar Mitzvah” sangat penting bila dikaitkan dengan peristiwa qurban, karena Ishmael disuruh Abraham menyembelih anak lembu ternyata Ishmael saat itu juga berumur 13 tahun, dan sesuai catatan kitab suci, saat itu Ishaq faktanya belum dilahirkan (Sefer Bereshit 18:7-15.

1. Ishmael disunat usia 13 tahun.
2. Ishmael disembelih usia 13 tahun.
3. Ishmael menyembelih usia 13 tahun.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn juga menyebutkan batas minimal usia بلغ (balagha) itu 13 tahun, dan pada usia 13 tahun inilah sang putera akan dijadikan qurban. Hal itu sebagaimana pembahasan QS. ash-Shaffat 37:102 yang memuat penafsiran ayat فلما بلغ معه السعي (fa lamma balagha ma’ahu as-sa’ya), khususnya membahas makna kata بلغ (balagha): قيل سبع سنين وقيل ثلاث عشرة سنة (qila sab’a sinin wa qila stalasta ‘ashrah shanah), lit. “dikatakan: 27 tahun dan 13 tahun.” Jadi, pengertian بلغ (balagha) dalam Tafsir al-Jalalayn itu ada yang merujuk pada batas usia 13 tahun, dan ada juga yang merujuk pada batas usia 27 tahun.

Berkaitan dengan hadits-hadits yang kontroversial tentang nama sang “dzabih” , yakni sang putera yang akan diqurbankan oleh Abraham, maka hal itu merupakan berdebatan internal umat Islam sendiri, sebagaimana berkaitan dengan nas yang termaktub dalam teks Torah versi Masorah dan versi Samaritan yang kontroversial tentang nama “maqam”, yakni lokasi sakral tatkala sang putera akan diqurbankan oleh Abraham, maka hal itu juga merupakan perdebatan internal bagi umat yang berpegang pada kitab suci Torah, yakni antara umat Yahudi dengan umat Samaritan, dan sekaligus perdebatan antara umat Samaritan dan umat Kristen. Selain itu, berkaitan dengan peristiwa qurban Abraham, memang ada ikhtilaf antara teks kitab suci Torah dengan teks kitab suci Quran. Menurut teks Quran, peristiwa qurban Abraham itu terjadi sebelum Ishaq dilahirkan, sesuai nas QS. ash-Shaffat 37:102-111, sedangkan berita gembira tentang kelahiran Ishaq diceritakan pada ayat QS. ash-Shaffat 37:112. Sebaliknya, menurut teks Torah, peristiwa qurban Abraham itu terjadi setelah kelahiran Ishaq, sesuai nas Sefer Bereshit 21:1-7; Sefer Bereshit 22:1-18. Namun, ada pertanyaan yang sulit terjawab:

1. Bukankah perintah qurban itu diwahyukan oleh TUHAN kepada Abraham tatkala ia berada di Bersyeba, wilayah negeri orang Filistin? Sefer Bereshit 21:33-34

2. Hagar dan Ishmael berada di Bersyeba, wilayah kawasan Paran. Sefer Bereshit 21:14

3. Bukankah setelah pelaksanaan qurban tersebut Abraham kembali lagi ke Bersyeba dan tinggal di Bersyeba? Sefer Bereshit 22:19.

4. Bukankah Abraham selama hidupnya tidak pernah berada di Bersyeba, kecuali saat sebelum dan setelah peristiwa perintah qurban?

5. Bukankah selama hidupnya Sarah tidak pernah berada di Bersyeba?

6. Sarah akhirnya meninggal di Kiryat Arba, kota Hebron, wilayah negeri orang Kanaan, dan Abraham datang dan meratapinya di sana. Sefer Bereshit 23:1-2. Jadi, Sarah meninggal dunia di Hebron, dan Abraham datang meratapinya di sana. Kita tentu akan bertanya. Pertama, Abraham datang darimana? Kedua, mengapa Sarah meninggal?

Pertama, Rashi menjelaskan: ויבו אברהם (vay-yavo Avraham), lit. “and Abraham came”, מבאר שבע (mib-Beer-sheva’), lit. “from Beer-sheba” לספד לשקה ולבכתה (li sephod le Sarah we livkotah), lit. “to eulogize Sarah and to bewail her. Penjelasan Rashi ini menegaskan bahwa Abraham datang dari Bersyeba menuju ke Hebron.

Kedua, Rashi menjelaskan: ונסמכה שרה לעקדת יצחק (we nismechah mitat Sarah le’aqdat Yitzhaq), “Sarah’s death is juxtaposed with the binding of Isaac.” Penjelasan Rashi ini juga menegaskan bahwa Sarah tidak pernah berada di Bersyeba, tempat Hagar dan Ishmael. Dan Sarah meninggal akibat “berita tentang perintah qurban” tsb. Itu artinya, saat turun perintah qurban, Abraham sedang berada di Bersyeba dan Sarah tidak bersama-sama dengan Abraham di Bersyeba. Dan, setelah melaksanakan perintah qurban itu, Abraham ternyata tidak kembali ke Hebron, tetapi justru kembali ke Bersyeba. Bukankah Sarah tidak sedang berada di Bersyeba? Siapa yang sedang berada di Bersyeba? Abraham kembali ke Hebron dari Bersyeba justru tatkala Sarah meninggal dunia.

Dengan demikian, siapakah sebenarnya sang putera yang diqurbankan oleh Abraham? Silakan Anda menjawab sendiri.

HAGAR THE PRINCESS

Posted on by
Reply

The gematria of the Hebrew name ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451; it is equal to that of both Hebrew names אברם (Abram), 243 dan הגר (Hagar) 208. Thus, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, the same as that of אברם והגר (Abram ve Hagar), 451. Abraham is the father of Ishmael, Hagar is the mother of Ishmael. Hagar bore Ishmael for Abraham. Meanwhile, the gematria of the Hebrew name הגר (Hagar) is 208, the same as that of the title of Abram as אב המון (av hamon), 208; the phrase literally means “a father of a multitude” see Sefer Bereshit 17:4-5. Amazingly, the Arabic name اسمعيل (Isma’il) appears 12 times in the Holy Quran. It means that the Quran also confirms the gematria of Ishmael in the Torah. In the Sefer Bereshit (Genesis) 17:20, LORD said to Abraham: 

ולישמעאל שמעתיך הנה אתו במאד מאד שנים עשר נשיאם יולד ונתתיו לגוי גדול: 
u-le Yishma'el shema'ticha hinneh berachti oto ve hifreiti oto ve hirbeiti oto be-meod meod sheneim 'ashar nesi'im yolid le goy gadol. 
"But regarding Ishmael I have heard you, I have blessed him, made him fruitful and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation." 

Interestingly, based on the verse, three keywords textually appear in one sentence: ישמעאל (Yishmael), במאד מאד (be-meod meod), and שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), and the readers have to understand it most attentively. The gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, and the gematria of במאד מאד (be-meod meod) is 92. Thus, the gematria of ישמעאל (451), lit. “Yishmael” and the gematria of במאד מאד (92), lit. “most exceedingly” totally is 543 (5 + 4 + 3 = 12), the same as that of the term שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), lit. “twelve.” Also, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, and the gematria of מחמד (Muhammad), lit. “most preciously” is 92, thus both names have a value 543 (5 + 4 + 3 = 12), the same of that of the term שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), lit. “twelve.” Indeed, the Torah has a link with the Quran in the light of gematria about Ishmael.

The first, the name of ישמעאל (Yishmael) directly refers to the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), lit. “most exceedingly” which has a relation to the phrase שנים עשר נשיאם (sheneim ‘ashar nesi’im), lit. “the twelve princes.” The second, the name of ישמעאל (Yishmael) indirectly refers to the name מחמד (Muhammad), lit. “most preciously” which has a relation to the phrase שנים עשר נשיאם (sheneim ‘ashar nesi’im), lit. “the twelve princes.”

Based on the Sefer Bereshit 17:20, the gematria of the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), lit. “most exceedingly” is 92, the same as that of the next phrase לגוי גדול (le goy gadol), 92; and this phrase literally means “to be a great nation.” Amazingly, both phrases directly refer to the same, the offspring of ישמעאל (Yishmael). The gematria of ישמעאל – במאד מאד (Yishmael – be meod meod), is 543, it is equal to that of ישמעאל – לגוי גדול (Yishmael – le goy gadol); and both phrases have a relation to the phrase שנים עשר נשיאם (sheneim ‘ashar nesi’im), lit. “the twelve princes.” Similarly, the gematria of the phrase לגוי גדול (le goy gadol) is 92; and this phrase literally means “to be a great nation.”

Gematria of Ishmael in the Torah & Quran (PART I)

Posted on by
Reply

The phrase הרבה ארבה את זרעך (harbah arbeh et zar’ech/zar’echa), “I will greatly increase your offspring” appears twice in the Masoretic text: (i) Sefer Bereshit 16:10, it refers to the seed of Hagar, the wife of Abraham (ii) Sefer Bereshit 22:17, it refers to the seed of Abraham, the husband of Hagar. Similarly, the gematria of this phrase is equal, 1,118. This phrase consists of four Hebrew words: הרבה (harbah) 212; ארבה (arbeh) 208; את (et) 401 and זרעך (zar’ech/zar’echa) 297. Amazingly, the gematria of the promise ארבה (arbeh), “I will increase” in both verses is equal to that of הגר (Hagar), 208. Similarly, the phrase אב המון (av hamon), lit. “father of a multitude” which the phrase refers to Abraham, in fact, this appears twice in the Tanach (Sefer Bereshit 17:4-5), and the gematria of this phrase אב המון (av hamon) is also 208 (2 + 0 + 8 = 10), the same as that of הגר (Hagar), 208 (2 + 0 + 8 = 10), the same as that of ישמעאל (Yishmael), 451 (4 + 5 + 1 = 10).

Meanwhile, the promise of the LORD about Ishmael, it also appears twice in the Tanach: (i) the promise of God to Hagar, and there are two words to express the promise: הרבה (harbah) and פרא (pere) in the Sefer Bereshit 16:10-12, (ii) the promise of God to Abraham, and there are also two words to express the promise: הפריתי (hifreiti) and הרביתי (hirbeiti) in the Sefer Bereshit 17:20.

The Hebrew words הרבה (harbah) and הרביתי (hirbeiti) or רבו (rebu) have the same root, and the root of the verbs is רבה (rabah). Similarly, the Hebrew words פרא (pere) and הפריתי (hifreiti) or פרו (peru) have the same root, and the root of the words is פרה (parah). Based on the Sefer Bereshit 1:22 Rashi explains the word פרו (peru), lit. “be fruitful” as being of the same root as פרי (peri), “a fruit.” Thus, פרו (peru) means “bring forth fruit”, and the root of the verb פרו (peru) is פרה (parah) [1].

Interestingly, the Hebrew word רבה (rabah) is used to state “shall multiply” for man and all animals, but the Hebrew word פרה (parah) is only used to state “shall be fruitful” for man and the fish per se, not all animals, or even to the wilderness animals. Regarding the fish and man, the verse uses a double expression of increase, פרו ורבו (peru u-rebu), “be fruitful and multiply, whereas regarding the fowl only one expression, ירב, “it shall multiply”, is used. Regarding the birds, the Torah does not state “shall be fruitful and multiply, for that expression is only applicable to man and to fish whose sustenance is easily accessible and they are therefore free to be fruitful and multiply. But as for birds and also animals and beasts, by contrast, sustenance is not that easily accessible to them, and hence they are not as free to reproduce [2].  Ishmael is a man, not an animal, so that why the text uses the root of the word פרא (pere), derived from the verb פרה (parah). Obviously, the Hebrew linguists know that the verb פרה (parah) is only applied to a man, not to the desert animals. Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Mecklenburg also confirms that both terms פרא (pere) and יפריא (yafriya) are derived from the same root. Therefore Hagar really knew this as a good prediction of God in the future. It indicates that the phrase פרא אדם (pere adam) in the Sefer Bereshit 16:12 is really to mean as a positive atribute, not as a negative one. It is a good news, not as a bad news for Hagar; because Ishmael will be a fruitful man (fertile of man), not as the wild-ass of man.

Amazingly, the phrase ויקראת שמו (ve yeqarat shemo), lit. “and you shall call his name” appears twice in the Tanach: (i) ויקראת שמו ישמעאל (ve yeqarat shemo Yishma’el), “and you shall call his name Ishmael” (Genesis 16:11); (ii) ויקראת שמו עמנואל (ve yeqarat shemo ‘Immanu’el), “and you shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). This similarity of expression indicates that God elected both to reveal Himself through the heavenly names; and this teaches us that both are the heavenly names from God Himself, and both are God’s salvation in the light of heaven. Obviously, Ishmael and Immanuel are great men, and only for Ishmael and Immanuel, the phrase appears twice in the Tanach.

Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Meclenburg said [3]:

“the Hebrew phrase פרא אדם (pere adam), most commentators view this as an unpleasant prediction for Hagar, understanding it as a prediction that Ishmael would be violent and corrupt. I believe they are wrong! How could the angel foretell this part of the future to Hagar? We do not find these kinds of predictions anywhere! Moreover, how would this inspire her to return to the home of Abram? The angel meant to tell her something to make her change her mind about returning ….. We have a similar meaning of that word in Hosea 13:15, בין אחים יפריא, “he will flourish between reeds” etc. The word describes “bearing fruit.” I have found a similar explanation in the Zohar page 192 on Parshat Balak. In other words, the angel informed Hagar that her son would be fruitful and would multiply just as the LORD foretold Abraham in Sefer Bereshit 17:20, “I have blessed him and I have made him fruitful, and I will increase him very much and make him into a great nation. All of this include in the term פרא אדם (pere adam).

Rebecca Abrahamson already wrote an article on “More on Ishmael-Isaac.” She says that the Jewish male is circumcised on the eighth day of life, and that the Muslim boy at thirteen years old. This is in parallel to the different roles of Isaac and Ishmael – Isaac is a tent dweller, sheltered, “tamim” in Hebrew, meaning “innocent”, “unaware of worldly affairs.” Isaac never knew what it meant to be out in the world, then to undergo a change. The Muslim is expected to proselytize, to bring the word of God to the whole world, to be global, “his hand on everything” – in Hebrew phrase יד בכל (yado be chol), see Sefer Bereshit (Genesis) 16:12. So it makes sense that the Muslim has a sense of being uncircumcised, then making a change to a higher ground, for that is what he needs to bring to the world, a knowledge of how to uplift it. The role of the children of Israel is to dwell in tents, sheltered, jealously preserving the integrity of Torah. A bit snobby, perhaps. If Isaac and Ishmael work in harmony, Isaac would not have to try to be mighty, he would be able to concentrate on Torah learning. Ishmael would draw from that learning and bring it into the world, in a global fashion. There will be more authentic Torah learning, and the authentic spreading of the word of God. When Isaac and Ishmael work in true harmony.

Amazingly, the Samaritan text of the Torah, Sefer Bereshit 16:12 also confirms the phrase פרה אדם (pore adam), lit. “fruitful man”, and the term פרה at the verse is really derived from the verb פרה (parah). Sefer Bereshit 16:12

והוא יהיה פרה אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל פני כל אחיו ישכן

“Ve hu yihyeh pore adam yado be kol ve yad kol bo ve ‘al phenai kol achaiv yishkon” [4] .

“He will be fertile of man. His hand will be with everyone. And everyone’s hand will be with him. And he will live among all his brothers” [5]. 

Ishmael will be פרה אדם (pere adam), lit. “a fruitful man” and יד בכל (yado be chol), lit. “his hand on everything.” And the gematria of his name is 451. Gematria is numerical value in Hebrew Torah. Every Hebrew letter has a numerical equivalent called it גימטריא (gematria). Interestingly, the gematria of the Hebrew name ישמעאל (Yishmael) is in fact 451; it is equal to that of both Hebrew names אברם (Abram), 243 dan הגר (Hagar) 208. Obviously, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, the same as that of אברם והגר (Abram ve Hagar), 451. Abraham is the father of Ishmael, Hagar is the mother of Ishmael. Hagar bore Ishmael for Abraham.

Moreover, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) has a numerical equivalent with the gematria of הגר (Hagar). The gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, and the gematria of הגר (Hagar) is 208. What does it mean in the light of numerical value? The numerical value of Yishmael is 451 (4 + 5 + 1 = 10); it is the same as that of the numerical value of Hagar, 208 ( 2 + 0 + 8 = 10). Interestingly, the numerical value of אברם (Abram) is 243 (2 + 4 + 3 = 9). What does it mean as the promise of God in the future? The numerical value of Abram (9), Hagar (10) and Yishmael (10) is totally 29, and this teaches us about the gematria of their offspring, במאד מאד (be-meod meod), 92, it is the same as that of the gematria of מחמד (Muhammad), 92. So, the numerical value of Abram, Hagar and Yishmael is totally 29, and this can be rearranged to the gematria of their offspring, 92. Also, the word בהבראם (behibar’am), lit. “when they were created” in the Sefer Bereshit 2:4 has the same episteme. The letters of this word בהבראם can be rearranged to spell באברהם (be Abraham), “with Abraham”, for it was in Abraham’s merit that the heavens and the earth were created (Bereshit Rabbah 12:9) [6]. 

However, the phrase הרבה ארבה את זרעך (harbah arbeh et zar’ech/zar’echa), “I will greatly increase your offspring” appears twice in the Tanach: (i) Sefer Bereshit 16:10, it refers to the seed of Hagar, the wife of Abraham (ii) Sefer Bereshit 22:17, it refers to the seed of Abraham, the husband of Hagar. The gematria of twice this phrase is equal, 1,118 (1 + 1 + 1 + 8 = 11). This phrase can be considered equivalent to the gematria of the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), lit. “most exceedingly”, 92 (9 + 2 = 11), the same as that of the gematria of מחמד (Muhammad), “most preciously”, 92 (9 + 2 = 11). The phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), lit. “most exceedingly” also appears twice in the Sefer Bereshit (Bereshit 17:6; Bereshit 17:20). Interestingly, the numerical value of the gematria of Abram is 243 (2 + 4 + 3 = 9), the numerical value of the gematria of Hagar is 802 (8 + 0 + 2 = 10) and the numerical value of the gematria of Ishmael is 451 (4 + 5 + 1 = 10). Thus, the numerical value of the three names totally is 29 (2 + 9 = 11).

Meanwhile, the Hebrew name הגר (Hagar), the wife of Abraham appears 12 times in the Torah; and Ishmael bore 12 sons, see Sefer Bereshit 25:13-16. Amazingly, the Arabic name Isma’il also appears 12 times in the Quran. It means that the Quran also confirms the gematria of Ishmael. Indeed, the Torah has a link with the Quran. It is really amazing

 

  Hagar in the Torah Ishmael in the Quran
1  Sefer Bereshit 16: 1  Al-Baqarah 2: 125
2  Sefer Bereshit 16: 3  Al-Baqarah 2: 127
3  Sefer Bereshit 16: 4  Al-Baqarah 2: 133
4  Sefer Bereshit 16: 8  Al-Baqarah 2: 136
5  Sefer Bereshit 16: 15a  Al-Baqarah 2: 140
6  Sefer Bereshit 16: 15b  Ali Imran 3: 84
7  Sefer Bereshit 16: 16  An-Nisa’ 4: 163
8  Sefer Bereshit 21: 9  Al-An’am 6: 86
9  Sefer Bereshit 21: 14  Ibrahim 14: 39
10  Sefer Bereshit 21: 17a  Maryam 19: 54
11  Sefer Bereshit 21: 17b  Al-Anbiya’ 21: 85
12  Sefer Bereshit 25: 12  Shaad 38: 48

CONCLUSION

The gematria of the Hebrew name ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451; it is equal to that of both Hebrew names אברם (Abram), 243 dan הגר (Hagar) 208. Thus, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, the same as that of אברם והגר (Abram ve Hagar), 451. Abraham is the father of Ishmael, Hagar is the mother of Ishmael. Hagar bore Ishmael for Abraham. Meanwhile, the gematria of the Hebrew name הגר (Hagar) is 208, the same as that of the title of Abram as אב המון (av hamon), 208; the phrase literally means “a father of a multitude” see Sefer Bereshit 17:4-5. Amazingly, the Arabic name اسمعيل (Isma’il) appears 12 times in the Holy Quran. It means that the Quran also confirms the gematria of Ishmael in the Torah. In the Sefer Bereshit (Genesis) 17:20, LORD said to Abraham:

ולישמעאל שמעתיך הנה אתו במאד מאד שנים עשר נשיאם יולד ונתתיו לגוי גדול:

u-le Yishma’el shema’ticha hinneh berachti oto ve hifreiti oto ve hirbeiti oto be-meod meod sheneim ‘ashar nesi’im yolid le goy gadol.

“But regarding Ishmael I have heard you, I have blessed him, made him fruitful and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation.”

Interestingly, based on the verse, three keywords textually appear in one sentence: ישמעאל (Yishmael), במאד מאד (be-meod meod), and שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), and the readers have to understand it most attentively. The gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, and the gematria of במאד מאד (be-meod meod) is 92. Thus, the gematria of ישמעאל (451), lit. “Yishmael” and the gematria of במאד מאד (92), lit. “most exceedingly” totally is 543 (5 + 4 + 3 = 12), the same as that of the term שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), lit. “twelve.” Also, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, and the gematria of מחמד (Muhammad), lit. “most preciously” is 92, thus both names have a value 543 (5 + 4 + 3 = 12), the same of that of the term שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), lit. “twelve.” The first, the name of ישמעאל (Yishmael) directly refers to the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), lit. “most exceedingly” which has a relation to the phrase שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), lit. “the twelve.” The second, the name of ישמעאל (Yishmael) indirectly refers to the name מחמד (Muhammad), lit. “most preciously” which has a relation to the phrase שנים עשר (sheneim ‘ashar), lit. “the twelve.” Furthermore, based on the Sefer Bereshit 17:20, the gematria of the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), lit. “most exceedingly” is 92, the same as that of the next phrase לגוי גדול (le goy gadol), 92; and this phrase literally means “to be a great nation.” Amazingly, both phrases directly refer to the same, the offspring of ישמעאל (Yishmael). The gematria of ישמעאל – במאד מאד (Yishmael – be meod meod), is 543, it is equal to that of ישמעאל – לגוי גדול (Yishmael – le goy gadol); and both phrases have a relation to the phrase שנים עשר נשיאם (sheneim ‘ashar nesi’im), lit. “the twelve princes.” Indeed, the Torah has a link with the Quran in the light of gematria about Ishmael, because he is the righteous man. Sefer Bereshit 25:17

ואלה שני היי ישמעאל מאת שנה ושלשים שנה ושבע שנים ויגוע וימת ויאסף אל עמיו :

Ve elleh shenei chayye Yishma’el meat shanah u-sheloshim shanah ve sheva’ shanim vay-yigva’ vay-yamat vay-yeasef el ‘ammaiv (Sefer Bereshit 25:17).

“These were the years of Ishmael’s life: a hundred years and thirty years and seven years, and he expired and he died, and was brought in to his people.”

Based on the text, Rashi in “Parashas Chayei Sarah, Sefer Bereshit 24:17 he explains that the Hebrew phrase: vay-yigva’ (ויגוע), is to refer to Ishmael as the righteous, ישמעאל הצדיק (Yishma’el ha-Tzadiq), lit. “Ishmael the Righteous”, because Ishmael himself is one of the righteous men, Tzadiqim (צדיקים). Rashi said: ויגוע (vay-yigva’) lit. “and he expired” – lo ne’emrah gevi’ah elle be-tzadiqim (לא נאמרה גויעה אלא בצדיקים), lit. “expiring is not stated in Scripture except regarding the righteous [7]. 

The Talmud Bavli also explains: “Three things were created on the basis of the name of the Holy One, צדיקים (tzadiqim), lit. “the Righteous”, המשיח (ha-Moshiach), lit. “the Messiah”, וירושלים (ve Yerushalayim), lit. “and Jerusalem (Talmud Bavli, masechet Baba Bathra 75b). ישמעאל (Yishmael) is the righteous, as well as the Messiah, both were created on the basis of the name of the LORD. And the name of Ishmael was called by his name before he was created.

ששה נקראו בשמותן עד שלא נולדו. ואלו הן יצחק, וישמעאל, ומשה רבנו, ושלמה, ויאשיהו, ושמו של משיח

Shishshah niqreu bi-shemotan ‘ad shello noladu, ve ellu hen, Yitzhaq, ve Yishma’el, u-Moshe Rabbenu, u-Shlomoh, ve Yoshiyyahu, u-shemo shel ha-Moshiach

Six peoples were called by their names before they were begotten, and they are Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and the name of King Messiah [8].

 

 

Footnotes:

  1. See Sampson A. Isseroff. An Introduction to Rashi’s Grammatical explanations in the Book of Genesis (USA: the Torah Education Dep’t of the World Zionist Organization, 1985), p.6
  2. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash. Bereshit. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2013), pp. 21-22.
  3. See Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Meclenburg. ha-Ketav ve ha-Kabbalah. Torah Commentary (USA – Jerusalem: Lamba Publisher, 2001), pp. 217-218.
  4. See Mark Shoulson. Torah Girsah Yehudit ve Girsah Shomronit behashuvah. The Torah: Jewish and Samaritan Versions Compared (New Jersey, USA: Evercype, 2008), p. 37
  5. See Benyamin Tsedaka. The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah. First English Translation Compared with the Samaretic Version (Grand Rapids, Michigan-Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013), p.34
  6. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Baal ha-Turim Chumash (Brooklyn, New York: Masorah Publications, Ltd., 2013), p. 29
  7. See Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg. Phirush Rashi. Bereishis/Genesis. The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary, Translated, Annotated and Ellucidated (Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1999), p.269.
  8. See Rav Eliezer. Pirke de Rav Eliezer ‘im be-Ur hab-Bayit hag-Gadol (Yerushalayim: Eshkol, 1965), p. 108

Torah’s Hidden Message: Muhammad ﷺ and Jesus (ع) in the Light of Gematria (Part II)

Posted on by
Reply

The phrase הרבה ארבה את זרעך (harbah arbeh et zar’ech/zar’echa), “I will greatly increase your offspring” appears twice in the Masoretic text: (i) Sefer Bereshit 16:10, it refers to the seed of Hagar, the wife of Abraham (ii) Sefer Bereshit 22:17, it refers to the seed of Abraham, the husband of Hagar.

Similarly, the gematria of this phrase is equal, 1.118. This phrase consists of four Hebrew words: הרבה (harbah) 212; ארבה (arbeh) 208; את (et) 401 and זרעך (zar’ech/zar’echa) 297. Amazingly, the gematria of the promise ארבה (arbeh), “I will increase” in both verses is equal to that of הגר (Hagar), 208. Similarly, the phrase אב המון (av hamon), lit. “father of a multitude” which the phrase refers to Abraham, in fact, this appears twice in the Tanach (Sefer Bereshit 17:4-5), and the gematria of this phrase אב המון (av hamon) is also 208, the same as that of הגר (Hagar), 208.

Meanwhile, the promise of the LORD about Ishmael, it also appears twice in the Tanach: (i) the promise of God to Hagar, and there are two words to express the promise: הרבה (harbah) and פרא (pere) in the Sefer Bereshit 16:10-12, (ii) the promise of God to Abraham, and there are also two words to express the promise: הפריתי (hifreiti) and הרביתי (hirbeiti) in the Sefer Bereshit 17:20.

The Hebrew words הרבה (harbah) and הרביתי (hirbeiti) or רבו (rebu) have the same root, and the root of the verbs is רבה (rabah). Similarly, the Hebrew words פרא (pere) and הפריתי (hifreiti) or פרו (peru) have the same root, and the root of the words is פרה (parah). Based on the Sefer Bereshit 1:22 Rashi explains the word פרו (peru), lit. “be fruitful” as being of the same root as פרי (peri), “a fruit.” Thus, פרו (peru) means “bring forth fruit”, and the root of the verb פרו (peru) is פרה (parah) [1].

Interestingly, the Hebrew word רבה (rabah) is used to state “shall multiply” for man and all animals, but the Hebrew word פרה (parah) is only used to state “shall be fruitful” for man and the fish per se, not all animals, or even to the wilderness animals. Regarding the fish and man, the verse uses a double expression of increase, פרו ורבו (peru u-rebu), “be fruitful and multiply, whereas regarding the fowl only one expression, ירב, “it shall multiply”, is used. Regarding the birds, the Torah does not state “shall be fruitful and multiply, for that expression is only applicable to man and to fish whose sustenance is easily accessible and they are therefore free to be fruitful and multiply. But as for birds and also animals and beasts, by contrast, sustenance is not that easily accessible to them, and hence they are not as free to reproduce [2].

Ishmael is a man, not an animal, so that why the text uses the root of the word פרא (pere), derived from the verb פרה (parah). Obviously, the Hebrew linguists know that the verb פרה (parah) is only applied to a man, not to the desert animals. Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Mecklenburg also confirms that both terms פרא (pere) and יפריא (yafriya) are derived from the same root. Therefore Hagar really knew this as a good prediction of God in the future. It indicates that the phrase פרא אדם (pere adam) in the Sefer Bereshit 16:12 is really to mean as a positive atribute, not as a negative one. It is a good news, not as a bad news for Hagar; because Ishmael will be a fruitful man (fertile of man), not as the wild-ass of man.

Amazingly, the phrase ויקראת שמו (ve yeqarat shemo), lit. “and you shall call his name” appears twice in the Tanach: (i) ויקראת שמו ישמעאל (ve yeqarat shemo Yishma’el), “and you shall call his name Ishmael” (Genesis 16:11); (ii) ויקראת שמו עמנואל (ve yeqarat shemo ‘Immanu’el), “and you shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). This teaches us that both are the heavenly names from God, and both are God’s salvation in the light of heaven. Obviously, Ishmael and Immanuel are good men, and only for Ishmael and Immanuel, the phrase appears twice in the Tanach.

Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Meclenburg said:

“the Hebrew phrase פרא אדם (pere adam), most commentators view this as an unpleasant prediction for Hagar, understanding it as a prediction that Ishmael would be violent and corrupt. I believe they are wrong! How could the angel foretell this part of the future to Hagar? We do not find these kinds of predictions anywhere! Moreover, how would this inspire her to return to the home of Abram? The angel meant to tell her something to make her change her mind about returning ….. We have a similar meaning of that word in Hosea 13:15, בין אחים יפריא, “he will flourish between reeds” etc. The word describes “bearing fruit.” I have found a similar explanation in the Zohar page 192 on Parshat Balak. In other words, the angel informed Hagar that her son would be fruitful and would multiply just as the LORD foretold Abraham in Sefer Bereshit 17:20, “I have blessed him and I have made him fruitful, and I will increase him very much and make him into a great nation. All of this include in the term פרא אדם (pere adam)”[3]

Amazingly, the Samaritan text of the Torah, Sefer Bereshit 16:12 also confirms the phrase פרה אדם (para adam), lit. “fruitful man”, and the term פרה at the verse is really derived from the verb פרה (parah). Sefer Bereshit 16:12

והוא יהיה פרה אדם ידו בכל ויד כל בו ועל פני כל אחיו ישכן

“Ve hu yihyeh parah adam yado be kol ve yad kol bo ve ‘al phenai kol achaiv yishkon“[4]

“He will be fertile of man. His hand will be with everyone. And everyone’s hand will be with him. And he will live among all his brothers” [5]

Ishmael will be פרה אדם (para adam), lit. “a fruitful man.” And the gematria of his name is 451. Gematria is numerical value in Hebrew Torah. Every Hebrew letter has a numerical equivalent called it גימטריא (gematria). Interestingly, the gematria of the Hebrew name ישמעאל (Yishmael) is in fact 451; it is equal to that of both Hebrew names אברם (Abram), 243 dan הגר (Hagar) 208. Obviously, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, the same as that of אברם והגר (Abram ve Hagar), 451. Abraham is the father of Ishmael, Hagar is the mother of Ishmael. Hagar bore Ishmael for Abraham.

Moreover, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) has a numerical equivalent with the gematria of הגר (Hagar). The gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, and the gematria of הגר (Hagar) is 208. What does it mean in the light of numerical value? The numerical value of Yishmael is 451 (4 + 5 + 1 = 10); it is the same as that of the numerical value of Hagar, 208 ( 2 + 0 + 8 = 10). Interestingly, the numerical value of אברם (Abram) is 243 (2 + 4 + 3 = 9). What does it mean as the promise of God in the future? The numerical value of Abram (9), Hagar (10) and Yishmael (10) is totally 29, and this teaches us about the gematria of their offspring, במאד מאד (be-meod meod), 92, it is the same as that of the gematria of מחמד (Muhammad), 92. So, the numerical value of Abram, Hagar and Yishmael is totally 29, and this can be rearranged to the gematria of their offspring, 92. Also, the word בהבראם (behibar’am), lit. “when they were created” in the Sefer Bereshit 2:4 has the same episteme. The letters of this word בהבראם can be rearranged to spell באברהם (be Abraham), “with Abraham”, for it was in Abraham’s merit that the heavens and the earth were created (Bereshit Rabbah 12:9) [6].

Meanwhile, the Hebrew name הגר (Hagar), the wife of Abraham appears 12 times in the Torah; and Ishmael bore 12 sons, see Sefer Bereshit 25:13-16. Amazingly, the Arabic name Isma’il also appears 12 times in the Quran. It means that the Quran also confirms the gematria of Ishmael. Indeed, the Torah has a link with the Quran.

Hagar in the Torah Ishmael in the Quran
1  Sefer Bereshit 16: 1  Al-Baqarah 2: 125
2  Sefer Bereshit 16: 3  Al-Baqarah 2: 127
3  Sefer Bereshit 16: 4  Al-Baqarah 2: 133
4  Sefer Bereshit 16: 8  Al-Baqarah 2: 136
5  Sefer Bereshit 16: 15a  Al-Baqarah 2: 140
6  Sefer Bereshit 16: 15b  Ali Imran 3: 84
7  Sefer Bereshit 16: 16  An-Nisa’ 4: 163
8  Sefer Bereshit 21: 9  Al-An’am 6: 86
9  Sefer Bereshit 21: 14  Ibrahim 14: 39
10  Sefer Bereshit 21: 17a  Maryam 19: 54
11  Sefer Bereshit 21: 17b  Al-Anbiya’ 21: 85
12  Sefer Bereshit 25: 12  Shaad 38: 48

Footnotes:

  1. See Sampson A. Isseroff. An Introduction to Rashi’s Grammatical explanations in the Book of Genesis (USA: the Torah Education Dep’t of the World Zionist Organization, 1985), p.6
  2. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash. Bereshit. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2013), pp. 21-22.
  3. See Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Meclenburg. ha-Ketav ve ha-Kabbalah. Torah Commentary (USA – Jerusalem: Lamba Publisher, 2001), pp. 217-218.
  4. See Mark Shoulson. Torah Girsah Yehudit ve Girsah Shomronit behashuvah. The Torah: Jewish and Samaritan Versions Compared (New Jersey, USA: Evercype, 2008), p. 37
  5. See Benyamin Tsedaka. The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah. First English Translation Compared with the Samaretic Version (Grand Rapids, Michigan-Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013), p.34
  6. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Baal ha-Turim Chumash (Brooklyn, New York: Masorah Publications, Ltd., 2013), p. 29

The Binding of Isaac or Ishmael? (Part 4)

Posted on by
Reply

Tafsir Nizam Al Qur'an

This is the last part of a 4 part article from Qur’anic Exegesis ‘Nizam-ul-Qur’an’ (نظام القرآن), written by a gifted Qur’anic Scholar from Indian Sub-Continent Sheikh Hamiduddin Farahis ( 1863-1930 AD) aguing that prophet Ismail (pbuh) as was sacrificed.

(Adaptation to English from Arabic by  Nadir Aqeel Ansari)

 

Reflections

 

Fifth Argument: Only Ismail deserved to be selected for the offering

The Torah states it explicitly that Ismail was the firstborn son of Abraham and it has been the established divine commandment of the law, from the days of Adam to those of Moses, that only the firstborn son can be offered. Nothing could override the superiority of being the firstborn. How can we imagine that Abraham, who was desired by God to be a perfect subject of God in all respects, would flout the oldest dictate of the divine law, in a matter which was meant to help him excel in spiritual perfection? How could he desist from offering his firstborn to God ? How could he offer Isaac

When Isaac was neither his firstborn nor his favorite son ? Recall that Ismail was born to him in response to his prayers to God, and when the second son Isaac was born, Abraham indicated that he was quite contended with his firstborn son, Ismail. Can we think of it even for a moment that Abraham could offer something to God which was not the best and the most beloved? We know that an offering is required to be the best thing out of the available ones.

Sixth Argument: Isaac was to be multiplied Exceedingly’ and hence could not be offered in his boyhood

God promised to `multiply Isaac exceedingly’ when the good news of his birth was announced to Abraham. Whereas God’s pomise to `multiply Ismail exceedingly’ was conveyed to Abraham either after the promise to Isaac or at the same time, i.e. after the Great Sacrifice took place.

`And when Abram was ninety years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, `I am almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My convenant between you and me, and will multiply you exceedingly.’… The God said to Abraham, `As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai but Sarah shall be her name and I will bless her and also give you a son by her; then I will bless her and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her.’…. Then God said: Now Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac.’ (Genesis 17:1-19)

Is it pausible that God announce promise of `exceeding multiplication’ to Isaac and at the same time ask Abraham to offer him to Allah? Particularly when we know that on the occasion of the Great Sacrifice, Isaac was only a boy and had not married. He married when `Abraham was old and advanced in age.’ (Genesis 24:1) and Isacc was forty years old when he took Rebecca as wife (Genesis 25:20). And he had children when Abraham had died.

`And it came to pass, after the death of Abraham, ýýthat God blessed his son Isaac.’ (Genesis 25:11)

Also, Abraham died at the age of 175 years (Genesis 25:7). Bible also records that when Jacob was born to Rebecca, Isaac was 60 years odl (Genesis 25:27). It means that when Jacob was born, Abraham was alive (160 years old) because when Isaac was born, Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:6). Even if we overlook the contradication between Genesis 25:11 and the above conclusion, we cannot fial to appreciate that Isaac had children at a very later age whereas the Bible and the Qur’an agree that the son offered as the Great Sacrifice was only a young boy. Therefore, it would be very difficult to carry the argument that Abraham offered Isaac after Isaac had been blessed with children.

Obviously the son could not be Isaac because if he was wanted by God as an offering in his boyhood, God’s promise that Isaac would be `multiplied exceedingly’ would have been rendered meaningless.

It may be asserted that Abraham knew beforehand that though he was offering Isaac, his son would come out alive and he would have descendants in a large number. In that case we would ask that if Abraham knew that the son he was offering to God would not die and would not only live but multiply exceedingly, how could it be termed it trial and a test of his loyalty to God ?

The Jews may still argue that the objection mentioned above valids against Muslim viewpoint as well. If Ismail were offered by Abraham, it would also have constituted an anomaly because God had also promised him a large progeny. Therefore, Ismail could have been sacrified in his boyhood. This analogy with Isaac’s case is not acceptable because of the following reasons:

  1. The promise of `exceeding multiplication’ of descendants to Isaac was made by God even before Isaac was born whereas in case of Ismail it was probably announced by God after the incident of the Great Sacrifice.
  2. In case of Ismail, the promise was made to Hagar while the command to offer him was addressed to Abraham. Whereas in Isaac’s case, the promise was made to Abraham and the order to offer him was also addressed to Abraham.
  3. In case of Isaac, the Jew believe that he was promised an `exceeding multiplication’ even before he was born, but when he was only a boy and had not married or had any children yet, Abraham was asked to sacrifice him.
Seventh Argument: The incident of Great Sacrifice occurred before Isaac’s birth

We have already shown that since the `only  son’ was offered for sacrifice and Ismail was the elder son (he was 14 years older than Isaac), it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that Ismail was offered as the Great Sacrifice. But at the same time the phrase `only son’ goes to prove that Isaac was not even born at that time. Had he born, it would have been more appropriate to use the phrase `firstborn’ instead of `only son’.

Here we would contend that not only Isaac was born after the Great Sacrifice had been offered, but his birth was actually one of the blessings that flowed from the Great Sacrifice.

There are other noteworthy facts which need to be noted in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis and which relate to the promise of `exceeding multiplication’ of the progeny of Isaac and Ismail. We also feel sure that they also point to the Great Sacrifice. The most important aspect is that they relate to some of the events of the time, which has assisted us in resolving issues that are closely related with our subject.

In this chapter Abraham is asked to submit to God in totality. At this time he is 99 years old and Isaac is not born yet. Around this time, the command of circumcision is ordained. That is why Abraham and Ismail carry out this command the same day. Ismail was then 13 years old. And God announced an everlasting covenant to Abraham and declared circumcision the emblem of this everlasting covenant and his progeny. Then God promised `exceeding multiplication’ of progeny to Ismail and also heralded the birth of Isaac and `exceeding multiplication’ of his progeny. If the contents of this chapter are kept in mind, it becomes less difficult to understand what we have to contend.

We are unable to understand how the unusual divine acts of command for complete submission and tidings of great blessings and making an everlasting covenant could be the result of a paltry ritual of circumcision. The day of announcing the desirability of circumcision cannot be the occasion of these grand promises. We believe that there was a mention of something much more grand, for which these everlasting and far reaching commandments were given. This point was deleted by the Jews. There can be only one plausible answer. It was God’s command to offer Ismail. When Abraham came out of this test honorably, he was blessed with the news of another son. However, the fact was concealed and later on obliterated from the text by the Jews. This also explains our eariler argument that Isaac’s birth was nothing more than one of the blessings that came upon Abraham as a result of the Great Sacrifice.

This evidence is further corroborated by the other details related to the Great Sacrifice, such as the conclusion that Abraham was blessed because he did not refuse his sons life to please God. We also need to appreciate the fact that the son who was offered to God had not been blessed with the good news of `exceeding multiplication’ till he succeeded in this trial; hence God’s words:

`And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, `By myself have I sworn, says the Lord, for because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son your only son, that in blessing I will bless you and in multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice.’ (Genesis 22:15-18)

This shows that the blessings showered upon Ismail, the trials faced by Abraham and Abraham’s complete submission and making an everlasting covenant form the same chain of events of the same occasion. This is the occasion when Abraham is given the good news of Isaac. One should imagine how could Isaac be offered as the Great Sacrifice when he was not even born !

The good news of Isaac’s birth is itself sufficient testimony that his birth was the result and fruit of Abraham’s total submission before the will of God which he demonstrated by offering his only son. The real spirit of the Great Sacrifice was to dedicate Ismail to God. Abraham is only fulfiling this prophecy when he says, `O that Ismail might live before you.’ The meaning of the phrase `before God’ has adequately been explained in the beginning of this tract.

Ismail was thirteen years old on the eve of the Great Sacrifice. This is the best and the most important age of one’s childhood. And childhood is adorned by all the qualities of head and heart, the beauties of body, and purities of mind and soul, the child becomes priceless and its value boundless. These years must have been the beginning of his maturity and sensibility. He would have started to attract the immense love and deep affection of his father. He must have begun to assist his father in the errands with all his beauty, upbrinning and etiquette. Who can question the fact that he loved his son and cared for him even more than he cared for himself. No doubt, offering such a dear son to God was a great trial since Abraham came out of this trial with honour, he was blessed with the eternal honour of an everlasting covenant and many other bounties. It was not because of carrying out the ritual of circumcision, which would rendered the whole thing meaningless. Indeed, those who, out of prejudice, intentionally want to avoid truth get fatelly trapped in the mire of such erroneous beliefs.

Eighth Argument: Ismail was God’s offering

Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had; and while he was still living he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the country of the east. This is the sum of the years of Abrahm’s life which he lived: one hundred and seventy-five years. Then Abrahm breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah. (Genesis 25:5-9)

Two conclusions can safely be deduced from these verses of the Old Testament.

First, that Abraham had not sent Isaac or Ismail away from himself to far off places because they kept visiting him and attended his burial. This proximity and intimacy was not granted to the sons of his concubines.

Second, Ismail was not bequeathed any property as Isaac, nor was he given any gifts as the sons of Abraham’s concubines.

It is quite difficult to explain how Abraham could deprive his firstborn son of inheritence, a son who continued to look after him till his death, particularly when the status of the firstborn son could not be stripped of by any means.

This discrepancy can only be resolved by presuming that Ismail had been offerred and dedicated to God. And as we have shown earlier, according to the Torah, a person offered to God had no right of inheritance. (Deutronomy 10:8-9 and 18:1-3)

Ninth Argument : Before the Lord

There are several indications in the Torah which show that Ismail was dedicated to God for his service and was an offering to God. An illuminating evidence is the prayer of Abraham on the occasion of Isaac’s birth:

`Oh that Ismail might live before you.’ (Genesis 17:18)

The words `before you’ show that Ismail had been devoted to the worship of God and the service of `His house’. Otherwise only the prayer `Oh that Ismail might live’ could have sufficed. We showed earlier that the phrase `before the Lord’ means ones dedication to God and presence in and service to the Bait El (House of Lord). This is what forms the cornerstone of the concept of Ismail being sacrificed and offered to God.

====

The Binding of Isaac or Ishmael? (Part 3)

Posted on by
Reply

Tafsir Nizam Al Qur'an

This is the third part of a 4 part article from Qur’anic Exegesis ‘Nizam-ul-Qur’an’ (نظام القرآن), written by a gifted Qur’anic Scholar from Indian Sub-Continent Sheikh Hamiduddin Farahis ( 1863-1930 AD) aguing that prophet Ismail (pbuh) as was sacrificed.

(Adaptation to English from Arabic by  Nadir Aqeel Ansari)

 

 

 

Reflections

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:

  1. In fact, Isaac and not Ismail had been sent away. Ismail was actually living with his parents in Beersaba.
  2. 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 times; and such traditional remnants are conspicuously absent in respect of Mount Jerusalem.

(To be Continued)