Where is the Evidence?

Here is a perfect example of the Ahmed Deedat (A Muslim Debater) syndrome. That is, to discredit the Bible if it is not in harmony with the Koran and to take things out of context.  The subject at hand is whether the term �only son� was appropriately used when God used it in reference to Isaac, the only son of Abraham and Sarah. A term in which Muslims vehemently need to deny tooth and nail and I�ll explain why later. First let me say, Christians believe whole heartedly that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it has been preserved by God over the centuries. Muslims feel that the Koran was transmitted to Muhammad through an angel, much later identified as Gabriel and that it too has been preserved by Allah.

However, to believe Muhammad, one would need to accept Ishmael. Why? Because Muslims claim that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and that God�s promise to Ishmael was that he would become a nation. But, little do they know that�s all he would become, a nation of people, nothing more, nothing less. Not a nation of Kings and certainly not of prophets. So for a Muslim, Ishmael is the key to Abraham which the connection to Muhammad is allegedly made, although Muhammad himself never claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael. But, for argument sake let�s say that he was, Ishmael and other descendants of Abraham would never be an heir to the throne of David, why? Because the promise of a Kingdom was made only to Isaac and his line of descendants which the Messiah Jesus Christ would come through. So you can see why it�s imperative that Muslims claim Ishmael as the �only child� of sacrifice and not Isaac. Muslims thus say it was Ishmael that was about to be offered up as a sacrifice and not Isaac, another account that is taken out of context by the Deedat syndrome in order to fit the Koran�s account of Abraham and Hagar rather than Abraham and Sarah. How did Isaac come to be Abraham�s and Sarah �only son?� I�m getting to it but you must read it in its full context!  

Genesis 21:10 reads So she said to Abraham: �Drive out this slave girl and her son, for the son of this slave girl is not going to be an heir along with my son, with Isaac!�

Right from the start Ishmael displayed bad traits and had to be driven away. Was her request backed up by the God of Abraham? Yes!

Genesis 21:12 Then God said to Abraham: �Do not be displeased by what Sarah is saying to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her, for what will be called your offspring/seed will be through Isaac. So the Bible�s view is that Abraham�s seed for blessing all mankind would come through Isaac, not Ishmael.

But why did God favor Sarah and not Hagar?

Genesis 17:19 To this God said: �Sarah your wife is indeed bearing you a son, and you must call his name Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for a covenant to time indefinite to his seed after him. God himself laid down the LAW for an everlasting covenant with Sarah�s son Isaac! What about Ishmael? As promised he would still be fruitful and become a nation of people.

Genesis 17:20 But as regards Ish′ma�el I have heard you. Look! I will bless him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him very, very much.

But again, God is laying down the LAW for Israel and not for Islam by repeating it.

Genesis 17:21 However, my covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.

Although this fact is plain and simple and repeated by Abraham�s God over and over again, it cannot be true according to Muslims, why? Because the covenant is with Isaac and not with Ishmael, The Ahmed Deedat syndrome in effect.

Why in Genesis 22:2 did God say �Take, please, your son, your only son?� Because, here, Isaac was the only son of Sarah and the only son remaining in Abraham�s household at the time that God spoke these words. Qur�an translator Ali admits that �Muslim tradition . . . is not unanimous on this point. Even Some Moslem writers agree with the Biblical account that Isaac was the prospective sacrifice. The Qur�an itself highlights another aspect of Jesus� activity that further helps us to identify him as the promised seed through whom blessings would come to mankind. At Sura 5:113 we read: �Then will God say: �O Jesus the son of Mary! . . . thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My [God�s] leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. . . . thou didst show them [the Israelites] the Clear Signs.��

No wonder the Koran never specifies the boy by name in Sura 37:101, 102, it would have caused more of a division within Islam. It would have been a perfect opportunity to mention Ishmael by name in this account but it doesn�t. It is obvious that Muslims so badly need Ishmael and his offspring to claim �heir� to the everlasting covenant that was promised to Isaac and his offspring. This is key in order for Muslims to claim Muhammad as an descendant/messenger/prophet of Ishmael although Muhammad himself never made the claim. But, as you can see it was after Ishmael and Hagar was dismissed from the scene all together the scriptures appropriately used the term �only son� not before they were dismissed as islamispeace link alleges. It also must be emphasized that the Bible mentions Isaac by name several times but the Koran leaves out Ishmael name all together in regards to which son Abraham was going to sacrifice.

To sum this up, the Koran or Muhammad never, ever mentions Ishmael as the [child] of sacrifice. And the Koran and Muhammad never, ever mention himself as a descendant of Ishmael. Why would the Koran and Muhammad leave these very important items out, which would confirm and validate Islam�s messenger Muhammad? Simply, because he was not an heir to an everlasting covenant, only Isaac, the �only� son of Abraham and Sarah.