Fadak In History

CHAPTER FOUR: Lights from the Fatimite speech

On the day when she came to Adiy and Taym,[1]

Moved with passion, how prolonged was her weeping

Preaching people with perfect speech,

Imitating al-Mustafa,[2] as if he was the preacher.

We quote here some statements from the speech of Fatima az-Zahra’ (s) to analyze and explain them in order to understand them as they are in the world of immortality and as they are in their wonderful reality.

The greatness of the leading Prophet

“Then He caused him to pass away mercifully, willingly, desiringly and preferably. Muhammad became safe from the sufferings of this world. He was surrounded by the reverent angels and the contentment of the forgiving God, enjoying the neighborhood of the Almighty King” .

Look at this eloquent lady, how she did leave all the material ease and the sensible comfort when she wanted to praise her father’s eternal Paradise. She found in her father what sanctified him above all that. What would the value of the material pleasure whether worldly or paradisiacal be in Muhammad’s spiritual account, when no one raised the human soul to the highest level of values like he did and no one took it to its pinnacle except him? (No reformer, except him, had fed the soul with the complete divine belief, which was the aim of the minds in their mental flight and in their final round of roving for the sacred human truth, with which the conscience would rest and the soul would be comforted).[3]

He was, then, the greater educator of the soul and the unique leader, under whose banner the morals had achieved the immortal victory against the material effects in their struggle since mind had started its living with materials.

And as long as he was the hero of the battle between the morals and the materials, that hero, by whose mission the missions of the Heaven were ended, it was no wonder that he would be the center of that great world of morals. This was what Fatima wanted to say in her speech when describing the Muhammadan Paradise:“Muhammad became safe from the sufferings of this world…” Certainly he was the pivot in the worldly life and in the hereafter but he was, in the first, tired for he kept on struggling to build the fair human life in an immortal way, and in the second he became at ease for he was the pivot surrounded by the angels to offer in front of him the signs of praise and honor.

And as the Prophet was from the highest kind, so his Paradise must be like him. It was full of material ease or in fact it was full of the moral ease. Was there spiritual ease higher than to be beside the Almighty King and to gain the contentment of the Forgiving God?

Such Fatima described her father’s paradise in two sentences to clarify his fact that he was the axis connected to the origin of the light and the sun surrounded by the angels in a world of radiance.

Greatness of Imam Ali and his excellences

She said (addressing the public):

“You were on the brink of a pit of fire. You were as a drink for the drinkers, as an easy prey for the greedy, as a firebrand, from which someone took a piece hurriedly and so it would be put out in a short time. You were as foothold.[4] You used to drink from the rain water, in which animals urinated, and eat from the leaves of the trees. You were low and subservient. You were afraid of the nations around you. Then Allah saved you by Muhammad after the misfortunes and calamities he faced and after he was afflicted with the courageous men,[5] highwaymen and the insolent hypocrites of the Jews and the Christians. Whenever they kindled a fire for war, Allah put it out. Whenever the Satan’s followers revolted or a trouble came out of the polytheists the Prophet (s) sent his brother (Ali) into its flames. He would not be back until he treaded the war with his sole and put out its flames with his sword. He (Ali) tired himself out for the sake of Allah. He overworked to achieve the orders of Allah. He was the nearest to the Prophet.[6] He was the master of the guardians. He always was ready, sincere, diligent and striving while you were living in luxury, ease and safety” .[7]

How wonderful the comparison that Fatima made between the highest kind of the military quality in the world of Islam at that time and the manliness attached to the qualities of the hero and the qualified soldier was! A comparison between bravery, whose signs the Heaven and the earth announced, and it was written with the pen of eternality in the index of the human idealities and between a personality (Abu Bakr and others..) satisfied with jihad by standing in the last line of the battle and would it was satisfied with that rather than to commit the prohibited fleeing according to the law of Islam and the law of sacrifice to unite the divine government on the earth!

We have never known throughout the history of mankind a skilled military talent having so excellent effects on the life of this planet like Ali’s among all heroes’ history. Imam Ali’s situations[8] in the fields of jihad and struggle were indeed the stilt, on which the world of Islam was erected and gained its great history.

Ali was the first Muslim in the first moment of the history of prophethood when the divine voice was echoed by Muhammad’s lips.[9] Then he was the first in being zealous and the first defender, to whom the Heaven entrusted the dealing[10] with the unbelieving community.

knowledge. They both knew each other so closely.

The victory of Imam Ali in this comparison meant that he had the right to be the caliph for two reasons:

The first: he was the only soldier among all the Muslims of that time, who never separated the highest political position from the military positions.

The second: his wonderful jihad showed a great sincerity that had no way of doubt at all and a burning firebrand of faith that extinction could not find a way to it. This eternal burning firebrand and that immortal profuse sincerity were the two basic conditions for the leader, on whom the umma would depend to guard its morals and to keep its honor along the history.

A comparison between Imam Ali’s situations and the others’

If you study the life of the Prophet (s) and the history of his jihad, you will find that Ali astonished the earth and the heaven with his support to the Prophet[11] and you will find that Abu Bakr resorted to the high leadership position surrounded by many heroes of the Ansar to guard him[12] in order to be safe from the calamities of the war.

It was he (Abu Bakr) himself, who fled from the battle of Uhud[13] as did Omar[14] and left the Prophet to die at that terrible hour where the helpers became rare and the banner of the Muslims declined. Only eight persons promised the Prophet to die for him; three from the Muhajireen and five from the Ansar, whom Abu Bakr was not one of as it was mentioned by the historians.[15] In fact no one of the historians mentioned that he ever fought in that situation any kind of fighting.[16]

Why was he with the returning people if he had not fled? Was not fighting the duty at that moment where the number of the defenders was not enough to stand against the enemy, who struck the Prophet with many strikes that made him offer the prayers while sitting?

We all might know that if someone was in the middle of the battlefield, he would not be safe from death by his enemy, unless he fled or he actually defended himself in the battle. Since Abu Bakr did not do any of these two things and yet he was safe, so it would mean that an opponent stopping in front of his enemy without defending and his enemy did not kill him. Did the polytheists pitied Abu Bakr according to its light to get to the top of highness. I do not know how the companions or some of them tried to disassemble this unity and to put between these two heroes three persons (the three caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman) that they had better not to separate between Muhammad and Ali.and did not pity Muhammad, Ali, az-Zubayr, Abu Dijana and Sahl bin Hunayf?

I have no reasonable interpretation for this situation except to say that he might stand beside the Prophet and got a safe place because it was the farthest point from the danger as the Prophet was then surrounded by his sincere companions. This was not unlikely because we knew Abu Bakr’s tact. He always liked to be beside the Prophet (s) in the war because the place of the Prophet (s) was the safest where the sincerest Muslims safeguarded and defended him devotedly.

If you studied the life of Imam Ali and the life of Abu Bakr, would you find in the life of the first any kind of extinction in his sincerity or a weakness in his rush for the sacrifice or leaning on ease and comfort at the hour of the sacred war? Let you ponder again, would you find any languor? (Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued. 67:4), because he would find splendor and death defiance in the way of Allah that you would never find the like and you would find a man that falsehood would never come to, neither from before him nor from behind him. He had the readiness for eternality like his great teacher Muhammad because they were but one![17]

Then if you study the life of Abu Bakr during the Prophet’s lifetime, will you find but weakness and ineffectuality in the ideological life and in the military life? It was clear when he fled from the battle of Uhud and the battle of Hunayn[18] and it was clear from his lagging to do his duty when the Prophet ordered him to go with the army under the leadership of Ussama[19] and from his defeat at Khaybar when the Prophet (s) sent him as the leader of an army to occupy the fort of the Jews and he fled back. Then the Prophet (s) sent Omar, who did the same as his friend.[20] In that terrible situation the enthusiasm of Omar and his wonderful heroism during the peacetime, with which Islam became so strong as they claimed, evaporated. Omar went back with his fellows, one cowarding the other.[21] Then the Prophet (s) said:“Tomorrow I will give the banner to a man, whom Allah and His Messenger love and he loves Allah and His Messenger. He will not come back until he wins” .[22] The Prophet, in his speech, gave a hint to crush the feelings of the two unsuccessful leaders and a frank pride on great Ali, who loved Allah and His Messenger and Allah and His Messenger loved him.[23]

O you the two caliphs of the Muslims-or of some of the Muslims-, did your Prophet, whom you replaced, behave so? Did not you learn from him some of his lessons in jihad and suffering for the sake of Allah? Was not in your companionship with him for two decades any deterrent preventing you from doing what you did? Did not you hear the Quran, which you were entrusted with to guard and to spread its high idealities, saying: (And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day, unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company, then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be) 8:16.

You might agree with me that the important position of Abu Bakr and Omar in Islam made them above committing the prohibited fleeing, so they might have interpreted and found an excuse for their fleeing. We know that the space of interpretation was wide for the caliph Abu Bakr like when he justified the sin of Khalid bin al-Waleed when he killed a Muslim intendedly by saying:“He (Khalid) issued a fatwa but he misjudged” .[24]

We may apologize if what we have said above requires an apology, but we were obliged to mention that because the Fatimite comparison needed detailed explanations.

those soldiers, who cowarded Omar in the previous attack, victorious heroes by pouring in their souls some of his great soul effusing with enthusiasm and sincerity.

The ruling party

Fatima said:“You lurk to bring us adversities and look forward to hearing bad news (which bring misfortunes to us)” .

This speech was addressed to the ruling party, which claimed that what Fatima ascribed to her addressees, made them hasten the homage for fear of sedition to occur. Her speech was a clear accusation for this party to prepare the terrible plot and to compact the plans waiting for the suitable opportunity in order to seize the rule and to divest the Hashimite house of it.

It was shown in the previous chapters that the secret agreement between Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Obayda[25] was proved by the historical facts.

We did not have to expect material evidence more perfect than Fatima’s speech for she lived with those difficult circumstances. Certainly she perceived the events of that time really, correctly and accurately more than the researchers, who came hundreds of years later to analyze those events.

And for the right of the research, we have to record that Fatima (s) was the first-if her husband was not the first -to declare the partisan assortment of the ruling party. She accused them of political plotting then she was followed, in this thought, by some of her contemporaries like Imam Ali[2] (s) and Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan.[1]

As long as this party, which Fatima (s) confirmed its existence, Imam Ali (s) referred to and Mu’awiya glimpsed at, was controlling the rule and the fate of the umma and as long as the following ruling families, which directed all the public utilities to their interests, followed the same basis of that policy and the elements of that partisan method, which dazed the Islamic world, it is very natural that we do not see in history or at least the general history a clear image of that party, whose first partisans tried their best to color their deeds with the pure legal color, which was too far from their political colors and secret agreements.

Fatima (s) said:“Then you branded other than your camels and went to other than your drinking places. You did so and the age (of the Prophet) was still recent, the wound was still wide and not yet healed, and the Prophet was not yet buried. Did you so quickly claim the fear of sedition? Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers. By Allah, it was impregnated so wait until it bears then milk its blood…then they will perish who say false things and the successors will know what bad the earlier ones have established. Be at ease and wait relaxedly for the sedition. Rejoice at a sharp sword, general commotion and despotism, which will make your victuals so insignificant and your gathering separate. Alas for you!” [2]

If Abu Bakr and his two friends formed a party having special intents, it would be vain for us to expect that they would declare of it or announce the basic lines of their program, by which they would justify their situation on the day of the saqeefa; nevertheless there must be a justification and an interpretation!

It was clear that they hastened and longed eagerly to complete the homage to one of them and to seize the high positions in a way that it was not expected from such companions! It was supposed that they were prudent and having minds that did not think except of the benefit of Islam and did not care for keeping high positions. The possession of authority and seizing of ranks would not be the aim of Muhammad’s disciples.

The rulers felt that and perceived that their situation was somewhat odd so they wanted to patch it by claiming their keeping to the high aims and fearing for Islam from a sedition that might do away with it. What they forgot was that the patch always would expose itself and the new threads inserted in the dress would lead to show the patch. Therefore Fatima (s) declared her eternal word:“You claimed that you feared of sedition (Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers. Quran, 9:49) Yes, it was the sedition or the source of seditions definitely.

How wonderful you were O daughter of the Prophet, when you took the mask off the bitter truth and predicted for your father’s umma a terrible future, in whose sky red clouds would lighten to make rivers of blood full of skulls! How wonderful you were when reproached those persons with their bad deeds by saying: (Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers).The great sedition The political performances at that time were sedition and were the source of all seditions occurred thereafter.[1]

It was a sedition according to Fatima’s opinion-at least-because it was against the legal Islamic government, which was Ali’s right, who was the Prophet’s Aaron and was worthier to the Muslims than themselves.[2]

Among the ironies of the fate was that Omar justified his situation that he feared for sedition and he forgot that extorting the right from its legal keeper that the Prophet (s) had decided with the confession of Omar himself, was the very sedition with all meanings of sedition!

I do not know what prevented those, who feared from sedition to occur and had no greed for the rule except as much as related to the interests of Islam, from asking the Prophet about the caliph after him and asking him to appoint for them the higher authority of the Islamic government after him, where he was sick for many days and he said many times that he would leave for the better world nearly and some of his companions gathered around him asking him about how to wash him (ghusl)[1] and how to prepare the procedures of the burial?[2] Did not those, who insisted on Omar (when he was about to die) to appoint for them the caliph after him in order not to leave the umma without a ruler for fear of sedition,[3] think of asking for that from the Prophet (s)? Did they ignore the dangers of the situation in spite of that the Prophet had warned them of seditions like the dark night? But as the Prophet (s) joined his Exalted Companion, their zeal for the religion shined and their hearts were filled with fear from sedition and evil results! Do you agree with me that the Prophet had chosen for the ship the best captain and therefore no one of them asked him any question?

Let us leave this aside and try to find for them whatever excuses that may justify their actions. Those people, zealous for Islam, not only were satisfied with not asking the Prophet, but also they prevented him from saving them from the expected dangers when he wanted to write a decree, by which (the Muslims would never deviate at all).[4] Deviation did mean sedition and then there would be no sedition after that decree so did they suspect the Prophet not to be truthful?! Or did they think that they were more zealous for Islam and more able to do away with the seditions and commotions than the Prophet and the first man of Islam?

It would be better for us to ask about what the Prophet (s) had meant by seditions when he addressed those buried in the cemetery of al-Baqee’[1] in the last days of his honored life: “How lucky you are by being here! Seditions will come like pieces of dark nights” .[2]

Perhaps you might say that it referred to the sedition of the apostates. This justification would be accepted if the Prophet was afraid that the deads of al-Baqee’ would apostatize but if he was not afraid of that-as it was real-because they were good Muslims and many of them were martyrs, so why did he congratulate them for not attending those days? And definitely the Prophet (s) did not mean the Umayyad riots done by Othman and Mu’awiya[3] for they were nearly three decades after that date.

So that sedition, the Prophet (s) referred to, must be after his departure immediately and that it would concern the deads of al-Baqee’ more than the sedition of the apostates and of those, who claimed to be prophets.

Hence it was the very sedition that Fatima (s) referred to when saying: (Surely into sedition have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers).

Is it then wrong to call it the first sedition in the Islamic history after the Prophet (s) had called it sedition?

The political performances of that days were sedition from another side that they imposed on the umma a caliphate, with which no one was satisfied except a few,[4] who had no right to decide the fate of the government neither according to the Islamic laws nor according to all the civil laws.

It was the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when he came out of the saqeefa (and Omar trotting in front of him shouting until his mouth foamed) surrounded by his group (wearing San’ani[1] aprons and passing by no one unless they hit him and brought him (in front of Abu Bakr). They extended his hand to touch Abu Bakr’s hand to pay homage to him willingly or unwillingly).[2]

This showed that the rulers had carried to the Muslims a caliphate that was neither blessed by the Heaven nor accepted by the Muslims. Abu Bakr did not gain his authority by a decree from the Prophet nor by the consensus of the umma as long as Sa’d did not pay homage until Abu Bakr died and as long as the Hashimites did not pay homage until six months of Abu Bakr’s caliphate.[3]

It was said that those in power had paid homage to him and that was enough.

Did this concept not need an explanation or a reference to be concerned? Who did consider those, who had paid homage to Abu Bakr such and had given them that unlimited authority?

It was neither the umma nor the Prophet (s) because we knew that the men of the saqeefa had not followed the normal method of elections and had not permitted the Muslims to choose secondary candidates, who were considered men in power according to the traditions of that time.

It was not mentioned that the Prophet (s) had granted this wide authority to any special group.

Then how would it be granted to a few Muslims, who would control the affairs of the Muslims without their consent, in a constitutional regime like the Islamic government as they claimed?

How wonderful of the political tradition it was that the government itself would appoint those in power[1] and then it would gain its final opinion from them.

And more wonderful it was that they excluded Ali, al-Abbas and all the Hashimites, Sa’d bin Obada, az-Zubayr, Ammar, Salman, Abu Tharr, al-Miqdad and all those gifted with intellect and prudence[2] from those in power if actually there was such class in Islam that had the right of deciding exclusively.

Putting this word in the dictionary of the Islamic life paved the way for the aristocracy to appear, which was too far from the essence of Islam and its reality that was purified from caste and discrimination.

Would that great wealth, with which the sacks of Abdur Rahman bin Ouff, Talha and the likes were filled, be heaped unless those rulers adopted this ugly aristocracy, which was ill-omened for Islam, and saw that they were the high class deserving to have the millions and to control people’s rights as they liked?

They said:“The majority is the criterion of the legal government and the principle, on which the caliphate is based” .

But the holy Quran did not pay attention to the majority and did not consider it as evidence or true proof. Allah said:

(And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way) 6:116.

(And most of them are averse from the truth) 23:70.

(And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture) 10:36.

(But most of them are ignorant) 6:111.

It was mentioned in the Sunni books of Hadith that the Prophet (s) had said:“While I am (at the pond on the Day of Resurrection) a group of people will come. When I recognize them, a man will come between me and them. He will say to them: “Let us go.” I will ask:“Whereto (are you taking them)?” He will say:“To Hell.” I will say:“What for?” He will say:“They apostatized after you…” until he (the Prophet) said:“I do not think that many of them will be saved except as much as the lost livestock” .[1]

So that majority of Hell that the Prophet talked about could not be the source of the Islamic government because they would form a caliphate impressed with their own morals.

If we considered that this majority did not concern the people of Medina only, about whose eternal seats in Hell we knew from the Prophet’s tradition, and we considered the majority of the Muslims in general to be the true criterion, so we had to notice that whether Medina was the only inhabitance of the Muslims, by whom the quorum would be enough to certify the caliphate of Abu Bakr or he was not satisfied with them and he sent for all the Muslims all over the Islamic state counseling and taking their votes into account? Certainly not! Nothing of that happened. He imposed his government over the entire state forcibly and there was no way of reviewing or arguing until the hesitation in submitting to the government became an unforgivable crime.[1]

They said:“The homage could be valid if some of the Muslims paid it and undoubtedly this happened with Abu Bakr’s homage” .

This would not be acceptable by any standard of proper political thinking because those some could not control the affairs of all the umma and the fate of the umma could not be hanged by so thin thread like this. The sanctities and the high position of the umma could not be left to a government established by a group of companions, who were not recommended by the public consensus nor by a sacred decree but they just were ordinary people of the companions. We know well that: (And there are some of them who molest the Prophet and say: He is one who believes every thing that he hears) 9:61 (And there are those of them who made a covenant with Allah: If He give us out of His grace, we will certainly give alms and we will certainly be of the good. But when He gave them out of His grace, they became niggardly of it and they turned back and they withdrew. So He made hypocrisy to follow as a consequence into their hearts till the day when they shall meet Him because they failed to perform towards Allah what they had promised with Him and because they told lies 9:75-77) and among them were some, whom Allah kept knowing their bad intents and hypocrisy to Himself when saying to the Prophet (s): (and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them) 9:101.

A group that included hypocrites, liars and some, who hurt the Prophet (s) could not have the right to decide the highest position of the Islamic world or the fate of the entire umma.

Commenting on this information we say: the caliphate of Abu Bakr was not done according to a prophetic tradition or the approval of the majority or a result of direct or indirect elections. Yes, some of the Muslims tried their best to secure this caliphate, around which some people gathered and many groups of the people of Medina supported, but all those were not but some of the Muslims and the some could not represent the entire umma. The legal rule that would represent all the umma had to be approved by all the umma or by the great majority of the umma. Secondly there were among the Muslims many hypocrites, whom no one knew but Allah according to the holy Quran, and to determine that this minority, who would form the political entity of the umma, were not hypocrites would have to be according to the Quran, the prophetic traditions or the opinion of the umma.

So let Abu Bakr permit us to incline towards Fatima’s opinion partially or totally because we did not find a meaning for the sedition clearer than the dominating of one man over the umma without any legal justification and controlling all its public utilities as Abu Bakr had done in the days of his caliphate or the first months or the first weeks of his rule when Fatima did her speech.

I do not know whether the hasty despots thought about the results of their despotism and not paying any attention to those, who definitely had an opinion about the matter if they began to oppose and if the Hashimites got ready to resist the government. This thing was possible and might happen at any moment so why did not they take care of this side when they decided and got their final result in not more than an hour?

Why would we sanctify the situation more than its heroes had sanctified it? Omar exceeded in sanctifying it to a point that he ordered to kill whoever would do like the homage of Abu Bakr[1] and he himself did it.

If we regarded this speech and understood it as speech of an imam caring for the constitution of Islam, we would perceive that he found the situation of Abu Bakr and his friends in the saqeefa as sedition and corruption because killing was prohibited except for these reasons.

It was after all the source of every sedition because it made the caliphate of Allah as a fancy that the pious and the dissolute began to look forward to it as Aa’isha, who undoubtedly represented the ruling party, declared.[2] It was this sedition that paved the way for the political fancies. The parties were formed, the policies fought each other, the Muslims separated and divided so badly[3] that their great entity and glory was lost.

What would you think about this umma, which formed in a quarter of century the first state allover the world because the leader of the opposition at that time-Ali- did not activate the opposition, which would have shaken the entity and the unity of the umma?

What glory, what authority and what domination over the world the umma would have if it was not afflicted with the conflicting lovers of the rule and the drunken emirs affected with the ecstasy of authority and if it was not a field for the bloody fights, which were unequalled throughout history, and if the rulers did not exploit all the wealth of the umma for their pleasures and eases and after that they despised the values and the traditions of the umma![1]

Abu Bakr and Omar did not think beyond their own time. They imagined that their power would guard the Islamic entity, but if they thought better of their view and studied the situation prudently as Fatima (s) did, they would know the truthfulness of the warn she warned them with.

Notes

[1] Adiy was the tribe of Abu Bakr and Taym was the tribe of Omar.

[2] Muhammad (s).

[1] It was quoted from The Divine Belief in Islam by the author himself.

[1] She wanted to say that they were so low and subservient and that they were as a ready bite for the Romans, the Persians and some of the Arab tribes.

[2] The strong courageous men stood against him in the beginning of the mission.

[3] Ali was the Prophet’s cousin, son-in-law and guardian. He was to be the caliph after him. He was the most aware of the Prophet’s

[1] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.250-251.

[2] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.25, 65-66.

[3] Referring to Ali’s being a Muslim, his assisting the Prophet and his infinite readiness to sacrifice for the sake of Islam. As-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa, p.185, at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.3 p.218-219.

[4] At-Tarmithi’s Sahih, vol.8 p.596.

[1] At-Tabari mentioned in his Tareekh, vol.2 p.65-66 that when Imam Ali had killed (the keepers of the banners), the Prophet noticed some of the polytheists of Quraysh and said to Ali: “Attack them”. Ali attacked them. He scattered them and killed Amr bin Abdullah aj-Jumahi. Then the Prophet noticed another group of the polytheists of Quraysh. He said to Ali: “Attack them”. Ali attacked them. He scattered them and killed Shayba bin Malik. Gabriel said: “O messenger of Allah, this is the real support”. The Prophet said: “He is from me and I am from him”. Gabriel said: “And I am from you both”. Then a voice was heard saying: “No sword but Thulfaghar, and no youth but Ali”.

Let us think of the Prophet’s answer to notice how he raised Ali above the concept of support that required multiplicity; Muhammad and Ali, to the unity and mixture when he said: “He is from me and I am from him”. He did not want to separate Imam Ali from himself because they were a unity that did never separate. Allah had made this unity as example for the human beings to imitate and for the heroes and reformers to be guided

[1] Oyoonul Athar by ibn Sayyid an-Nass, vol.1 p.336.

[2] As it was mentioned in the books of the Shia.

[3] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.389-390.

[4] Shar Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.388 and al-Imta’ by al-Maqreezi p.132.

[5] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.389.

[1] According to the verse: (Then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and ourselves and yourselves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars). 3:61.

[1] Refer to as-Seera al-Halabiya, vol.2p.126 and refer to al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.3 p.67. Al- Bukhari mentioned that someone of those, who fought in the battle of Hunayn, had said: “The Muslims fled and I fled with them. I saw Omar among them. I said to him: What is wrong with the people? He said: it is the will of Allah. This showed that Omar was among the fleers.

[2] As-Seera al-Halabiya, vol.3 and ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, vol.2 p.248-250.

[3] Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.5 p.253, al-hakim’s Mustadrak, vol.3 p.27, Kanzul Ommal, vol.6 p.394 and at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.136.

[4] This was Ali’s description of the failed leader and the languid soldiers, who knew the weakness of each other; therefore they began to terrify the situation in order to find an excuse for their flight. Refer to at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.136.

[5] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.5 p.18, Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.5 p.353, at-Tarmithi’s Sahih, vol.5 p.596 and Muslim’s Sahih, vol.4 p.1873.

[6] It was very probable that the army, which Ali led to conquer the Jewish colony, was the same army, which fled a day ago. We understand from this the great effect of the leader on his army and the connection between their feelings and his. Ali could make

[1] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.273. Omar said to Abu Bakr: “In Khalid’s sword there is injustice. If it is not right, he deserves to be punished”. He insisted on that…Abu Bakr said: “O Omar, excuse him! He interpreted and misjudged”. Refer to Tareekh of ibn Shuhna printed on the margins of al-Kamil, vol.11 p.114.

[1] We apologize to our master Abu Obayda for mentioning his mere name without a title. It was not my mistake but the death, which took his soul before he got the caliphate that people might give him any of the titles. As for the title (the faithful), I think that he got it neither from the Prophet (s) nor from people but he got it in special occasions that had nothing to do with the official decorations!

[2] With reference to Imam Ali’s saying: “O Omar, you milk a milking that you will have a half of it! Support him today to recompense you tomorrow…”. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.6 p.11 and p.12 Abu Obayda’s saying to Imam Ali.

[1] Refer to Murooj ath-Thahab,vol.3 p.199 and Waq’at Siffeen by Nasr bin Muzahim p.119-120.

[2] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.234.

[1] As it was cleared by the saying of Omar: “The homage of Abu Bakr was a slip that Allah kept the Muslims safe from its evils”. Refer to at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.235 and it was mentioned in as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa p.36: “…and whoever does it (the homage) again must be killed”.

[2] According to the tradition of al-Ghadeer, which was narrated by one hundred and eleven companions, eighty-four of the successors and was mentioned by three hundred and fifty-three of our brothers of the Sunni authors as mentioned in the book al-Ghadeer by al-Ameeni. I would like to notice here that much of the holy Quran was not narrated by such number of narrators as those, who narrated the tradition of al-Ghsdeer. So whoever suspected this tradition, would suspect the holy Quran. The evidence proving the imamate and caliphate of Ali was so clear that had no way for doubt and suspicion. Refer to al-Muraja’at by Sayyid Abdul Hussayn Sharafuddeen and refer to as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa p.122.

[1] Washing a dead man in a special manner according to the Islamic rules.

[2] Al-Kamil fit-Tareekh by ibnul Atheer, vol.2 p.122 and as-Seera an-Nabawiya by ibn Katheer, vol.4 p.527.

[3] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.580, al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol.4 p.260.

[4] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.1 p.371 and vol.8 p.161.

[1] The graveyard of the Muslims in Medina.

[2] At-Tareekh al-Kamil by ibnul Atheer, vol.2 p.318.

[3] At-Taj aj-Jami’ lil-Ussool, vol.5 p.310.

[4] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.233.

[1] Related to Sana’a.

[2] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.1 p.74.

[3] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih (the virtues of the companions) chap.35 p.66 and chap.43 p.8.

[1] At-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.233. Abu Bakr said: “I accepted to you one of these two men; Omar and Abu Obayda (to be the caliph)… and I myself choose Abu Obayda”. Omar stood up and said (to the people in the saqeefa): “Who of you would refuse the two feet (Abu Bakr) that the Prophet had preferred?” Then Omar paid homage to Abu Bakr and then people paid homage too…the Ansar said: “We do never pay homage except to Ali”.

[2] According to the saying of ibn Abbas to Omar: “As for those gifted with intellect and intelligence they still consider him (Ali) as perfect man since Allah have raised the banner of Islam, but they consider him as being wronged and deprived of his rights”. Refer to Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.3 p.115.

[1] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.8 p.68. The lost livestock means very little.

[1] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.8 p.68.

[1] As-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa p.56.

[2] Ad-Durr al-Manthoor, vol.6 p.19.

[3] Al-Milel wen-Nihal by ash-Shahristani, vol.1 p.30-31.

[1] Murooj ath-Thahab by al-Mas’oodi, vol.3 p.214, al-Iqd al-Fareed by ibn Abd Rabbih, vol.5 p.200-202 and The Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutub.

Lecture 4: The Sacrifice of Abraham (as), What Is All the Fuss?

There is a traditional approach to the problem of the sacrifice of Abraham of one of his sons. Most commentators agree that the story represents a divine test, whereby Abraham’s faithfulness was proven. The idea is that God gave him a command to sacrifice his beloved son, and in showing himself willing to do so, he showed his extraordinary faithfulness and obedience to God. Muslims, Jews and Christians agree on this point.

The traditional point of contention is in that the Bible reports the sacrifice for Isaac (as), whereas the Qur’an reports it for Ishmael. The result has been disagreement between Muslims on one hand, and Christians and Jews on the other, on the question of which son was supposed to be sacrificed as a test of obedience.

There are a few alternative suggestions, but the most novel one I have discovered is that of Rabbi Ben-Yehuda. Rabbi Ben-Yehuda has suggested that Isaac was actually sacrificed according to the story in Genesis 22, and later resurrected to marry Rebecca. In this essay, I examine this theory in detail, and offer an anthropologically based alternative. Ben-Yehuda’s evidence is carefully weighed here and found wanting. The fact that Isaac is called Abraham’s only son suggests a different interpretation of the events altogether, one which takes into account the rite of passage as an explanation of redemption ritual for the first-born of every woman.

In The Institute of Judaic-Christian Researcher, Volume 1, November 1986, Rabbi E. Ben-Yehuda published an article entitled The Sacrifice of Isaac. The author gives only one stated purpose for the examination of this issue. “All Jewish responses have come up short before the Christian claim that the enormity of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross makes it absolutely necessary for all Jews to accept his Messianic role as well as his divinity.The following dissertation tries to show that the Jews had an incident in their history long predating the Passion which had a similar impact upon the Jewish outlook” (page 1). The only stated motive is “coming to grips” with that issue.

The point of departure is the idea that there is a weakness in Jewish faith if there is no sacrifice for sin by which God may grant grace to humankind. “Since sacrifices are no longer offered in Judaism, where do you expect to find God’s grace?” (page 2). The rabbi finds the missing foundation of grace in the binding of Isaac. “In the liturgy, again and again we mention “the binding of Isaac” as a cause for God to automatically forgive the sins of Isaac’s descendants” (page 2).

After this introduction, the rabbi finds the following evidence that Isaac was actually sacrificed as reported in Genesis 22, and then later raised from the dead.

It is questionable that an omniscient God would need to “test” Abraham. The radical N-S instead of N-S-H is the word actually used. Thus, the translation of “test” is a misunderstanding of the text. It should rather be “banner” or “example”, instead of “test” (page 2).

Why should the mere binding of Isaac be such an earth-shattering event as the Jewish liturgy suggests? (page 2).

“Jewish commentary states ‘God Himself commanded the offering of Isaac – but would Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand his Maker?’”“The commentary explains, ‘the angel spoke to Abraham and Abraham refused to stop, saying God commanded, only He can stop me’” (page 2).

The command not to injure Isaac meant that he must be offered whole and uninjured (page 3).

The words can be interpreted as ‘another ram’ or ‘an after-ram’ (page 3).

Tahat bno means under his son rather than instead of his son (page 3).

“This thing” and “you did not spare your son” in Genesis 22:15-17 indicate that Isaac was sacrificed (page 3).

The text reports that both Abraham and Isaac went up, but that only Abraham returned (page 3).

Abraham went directly to Be’er Sheva. Genesis 23:2 reports that Sarah died in Kirjath-arba. Therefore Abraham could not face Sarah after sacrificing Isaac, and Sarah died of sorrow upon hearing that Isaac was dead (page 3).

Genesis 23:2 reports that Abraham “came” to mourn for Sarah, but no mention is made of Isaac (page 3).

Genesis 24 describes obtaining a wife “for Isaac”, that is, Abraham would raise up seed in Isaac’s name. There is no input of Isaac, but Rebecca is asked if she would agree. Rebecca was shocked to find Isaac alive, so she fell off her camel and covered her face (page 3).

Isaac came from the way of the well lahay roi’, the well of Life of Him who sees me, which is a reference to his having been resurrected (page 4).

The reference of resurrection in Jewish prayers is in the present (page 4).

Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death upon his marriage to Rebecca three years after the event, showing that he had just learned of it when he was resurrected (page 4).

The Jewish practice of Kidush Hashem is based on the death and resurrection of Isaac (page 4).

I shall examine each of these arguments in order.

It is questionable that an omniscient God would need to “test” Abraham. The radical N-S instead of N-S-H is the word actually used. Thus, the translation of “test” is a misunderstanding of the text. It should rather be “banner” or “example”, instead of “test” (page 2).

The radical N-S-H is used 36 times in the Hebrew Scriptures almost always with the clear sense of “putting to the test”. Examples are Exodus 15:25; 1Samuel 17:39 and 1Kings 10:1. Genesis 22:1 does not appear to depart from this clear usage. However, if the text does in fact mean that God “made an example” of Abraham, rather than “putting him to the test”, the result does not appreciably foster any particular interpretation of the sacrifice of Isaac. It does not indicate that Isaac was therefore actually sacrificed rather than merely bound to the altar.

Why should the mere binding of Isaac be such an earth-shattering event as the Jewish liturgy suggests? (page 2).

If there is a continual reference to the binding of Isaac in Jewish literature, this does support the rabbi’s contention that the experience of Isaac had a great impact on Jewish faith. It does not follow that Isaac was actually sacrificed. It does not even thereby follow that the belief that Isaac was sacrificed was ever widespread in Judaism. The liturgical reference quoted notes “binding”, not actual sacrifice. As such, it speaks against the rabbi’s premise.

“Jewish commentary states ‘God Himself commanded the offering of Isaac - but would Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand his Maker?’” “The commentary explains, ‘the angel spoke to Abraham and Abraham refused to stop, saying God commanded, only He can stop me.’” (page 2).

This argument is based on the conflict between the messages of Elohim God in Genesis 22:1-2 and of the angel of the Lord in Genesis 22:11-12. The implication is that Abraham perceived these as two conflicting commands, originating in two different sources, and chose to obey Elohim God as having greater authority than the angel of the Lord.

The problem with this interpretation is that there is no other precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures for the angel of the Lord contradicting God. In fact, the angel of the Lord so closely represents YHVH that he sometimes speaks in the first person I as YHVH, note Genesis 16:10, and even me at the end of Genesis 22:12. The linguistic confusion between the angel of the Lord and YHVH Himself is compounded in Genesis 18 where the celestial figures are never called angels, but only men and YHVH, who behaves and acts like a man. A case could be made, at least in Genesis 18 and Genesis 22:12, for YHVH being an elliptical expression for angel of the Lord (YHVH). In Genesis 19 the same figures are consistently called angels.

Genesis 22:12 maintains agreement between Elohim God and the angel of the Lord. It states for I know that thou fearest God. In sum, the text gives no support for a conflict between God and the angel of the Lord.

The command not to injure Isaac meant that he must be offered whole and uninjured (page 3).

This argument accepts agreement between the angel of the Lord and God. The words of the angel by this interpretation do not prohibit the sacrifice of Isaac, but rather prohibit injuring Isaac before the sacrifice. The import of the words would thus be that Isaac must be in perfect condition at the moment of the sacrifice.

Since this argument is in conflict with the third argument, one or the other interpretation must be chosen. Both are not acceptable. If we accept two possible interpretations of the first half of verse 12, the second half will clarify which of them is valid. According to argument four, the meaning of the text would read thus: “Do not injure Isaac, because the sacrifice must be unblemished: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” There is no sense connection between the first and second half of the verse. According to the traditional interpretation the sense of the text would read thus: “Do not injure Isaac or carry out the sacrifice to completion: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” In this case, the text is coherent. The first half interrupts the sacrifice, and the second half indicates that the test is finished, since Abraham did not withhold his son.

The words can be interpreted as “another ram” or “an after-ram” (page 3). The implication is that the ram is an additional sacrifice to the sacrifice of Isaac, since it is “another” or “after”. The KJV translates “ahar/other/after” as “behind him” with the pronoun in italics, indicating that it is added. The NIV leaves out the word altogether, saying “there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns.”

In this point the rabbi is right. The most linguistically logical understanding of the words is another ram. It is also correct that Isaac is the only figure which could be the first ram, since it has been made plain that no other animal was provided in Genesis 22:7. It does not follow, however, that Isaac was therefore sacrificed. It only follows that he was a ram to be offered up. The ram caught in the bushes was another sacrificial animal.

Tahat bno means “under” his son rather than “instead of” his son (page 3).

It is true that the word tahat means under. It is used as such in Genesis 1:7. However, the word also means instead of, and is used as such in Genesis 2:21 “and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof”. It would be nonsense to translate under in this case. The word is used as instead of in Genesis 4:25; 30:15; Leviticus 14:42; 2Samuel 19:14. It is used as under in Genesis 7:19; Exodus 32:19; and possibly 1Chronicles 29:34. It is used in the sense of for the sake of in Exodus 21:26. It is used as by means of in Psalm 66:17. It is used as whereas in Isaiah 60:15. Finally it is combined with other particles for other meanings in the book of Jeremiah. The great variety of meanings for the word, and the fact that it is used in the sense of under in a minority of the biblical cases, speaks against the rabbi’s proposal.Finally, the sense of under makes no sense at all. If the ram is sacrificed under Isaac, how was it placed, since Isaac was already bound to the altar? If the ram is sacrificed under Isaac, then it seems that the ram is not ahar/another/a second but the first. The translation of instead of is the only translation that makes any linguistic sense at all.

“This thing” and “you did not spare your son” in Genesis 22:15-17 indicate that Isaac was sacrificed (page 3).

The rabbi refers to the expression in Genesis 22:16hast not withheld thy son to show that Isaac was sacrificed. The same expression, loo chasakhtaa eth binkhaa, is found in Genesis 22:12. In Genesis 22:12 Abraham had clearly not yet sacrificed Isaac, and yet he had already fulfilled whatever it meant not to have withheld him. Since the expression clearly does not refer to having carried out a burnt offering in Genesis 22:12, there is no reason to suppose that it refers to having carried out a burnt offering in Genesis 22:16.

The text reports that both Abraham and Isaac went up in Genesis 22:8, but that only Abraham returned in Genesis 22:19 (page 3).

The rabbi’s report of the text is exact. The fact, however, that both are mentioned on the trip up, and only one on the trip down, does not mean that Isaac did not return. In Genesis 12:14 it says that Abram was come into Egypt. It does not say that Sarai went with him. In fact, the preceding verses show that Abram was afraid to take her with him to Egypt. Using the rabbi’s method of interpretation, we might infer from this that at the last moment they decided she should not go, rather than lie about their relationship. Yet, despite the fact that the text states only that Abram went down to Egypt, lo and behold, the same verse continues “the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair”. If it were not for verse seventeen, where Sarai’s name is mentioned, we might even conclude, using the rabbi’s method of interpretation, that Abram had a different and temporary wife for the trip to Egypt.

Genesis 22:19 concludes that they went together to Be’er Sheba. Although the young men are also mentioned, we have as much right to conclude that Isaac went along as we do to conclude that Sarai went down into Egypt in Genesis 12.

Abraham went directly to Be’er Sheva. Genesis 23:2 reports that Sarah died in Kirjath-arba. Therefore Abraham could not face Sarah after sacrificing Isaac, and Sarah died of sorrow upon hearing that Isaac was dead (page 3).

The rabbi suggests that Abraham went to Be’er Sheva instead of returning to Sarah. But Genesis 21:33, only two verses before that command to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham is living in Be’er Sheva. Although the text does not say so, it might not be too much to assume that his wife Sarah was living there with him. Genesis 21:34 indicates that Abraham lived in Be’er Sheva for a long time. The expression many days does not have the connotation it does in English of only a few weeks. It is similar to the expression in Psalm 23:6, translated by both the KJV and NIV as for ever. There is a break in the narrative with Genesis 22:1, so it is possible to suggest that Abraham was living at that time in parts unknown. But the fact that Genesis 22:19 says that he went to Be’er Sheva suggests strongly that he started out from there, and that Sarah was waiting for him there, unless indeed she was waiting with the young men. The text just does not mention Sarah at all, and by the rabbi’s reasoning, as we shall see, that could very well mean she was dead, and resurrected to die again in Genesis 23.

The best way to understand the text is to assume that Abraham and Sarah were living at Be’er Sheva at least until the close of Genesis 22:19. There is another break in the narrative at Genesis 22:20, which continues into the beginning of Genesis 23. There is therefore no textual reason to assume that Abraham was avoiding Sarah.

Genesis 23:2 reports that Abraham “came” to mourn for Sarah, but no mention is made of Isaac (page 3).

The rabbi suggests that Isaac must have been dead because he is not mentioned to have been present at the funeral of his mother Sarah. Again, such a conclusion from what the text does not say is unwarranted, as we have already seen. It is clear that Sarah went down into Egypt, even though the text only said that it was Abraham who went down. It is clear that Sarah was alive during the time of Genesis 22, even though it does not state that she was present at so important a rite of passage as the sacrifice of her son Isaac. It is also clear from the text that Isaac is alive at the death of his mother. He was still alive in Genesis 22:12 and in Genesis 24:6.

Genesis 24 describes obtaining a wife “for Isaac”, that is, Abraham would raise up seed in Isaac’s name. There is no input of Isaac, but Rebecca is asked if she would agree. Rebecca was shocked to find Isaac alive, so she fell off her camel and covered her face (page 3).

The rabbi’s first point is that Abraham should redeem Isaac, who was dead, byraising up seed with a wife for Isaac. This argument is destroyed by the fact that in Genesis 24:6 Abraham commands the servant not to take his son Isaac back to the land of his kindred. The implication is clearly that Isaac was alive and that the wife was for him personally.

The rabbi’s second point is that there is no input from Isaac, while Rebecca’s opinion is closely investigated. Therefore, Isaac is dead. However, there is no need to mention Isaac’s input, since we can safely assume that at the ripe age of forty he was very willing to marry. His input need be mentioned only in the contrary case. The close investigation of Rebecca’s opinion is not in conflict with the practice of arranged marriages or with Middle Eastern marriage standards. To think the contrary is merely a Western prejudice.

The rabbi’s third point is that Rebecca’s behaviour in falling off the camel and veiling herself indicates surprise at Isaac’s resurrection. Genesis 24:64 says that she alighted from the camel. The root is N-P-L which indeed is commonly used in the sense of falling. It is one of the two general words used for getting down from a mount or vehicle, however. It is used as such in 2Kings 5:21 as well as Genesis 24:64. The rabbi’s interpretation is neither linguistically natural nor necessary. The experience of a woman falling from the height of a camel, which is much higher than a horse, would necessitate much more than merely adjusting her veil. In the country areas of the Middle East today it is still the practice for a woman to get down from a mount if she meets a man coming toward her on the road. There is nothing in Rebecca’s behaviour to show surprise. On the contrary, her behaviour is normal, which speaks against any surprise resurrection.

Isaac came from the way of the well lahay roi’, the well of Life of Him who sees me, which is a reference to his having been resurrected (page 4).

The rabbi interprets Isaac coming from the way of the well lahay roi’ as evidence of his having been resurrected. However, the words do not have this symbolic meaning in the text. They refer to a literal well of water so named by Hagar in Genesis 16:13-14. The meaning of God seeing is attached to the experience of Hagar, not to Isaac. It is not in the least an evidence ofIsaac’s having been resurrected.

The reference of resurrection in Jewish prayers is in the present (page 4).

The rabbi concludes that the reference in Jewish prayers to God raising the dead, since it is couched in the present tense, whatever he means by that, since there is no present tense in Hebrew, implies that God is already now a raiser of the dead. Since God is already now a raiser of the dead, He must have resurrected Isaac. If we accept the rabbi’s premise that God is already now a raiser of the dead, it does not imply that Isaac is one of those raised. There are biblical references to other people who were raised from the dead, namely the widow’s son at the time of Elijah (1Kings 17:17 ff), and the Shunamite woman’s son at the time of Elisha (2Kings 4:8 ff). If the argument turns on the time, based on the fact that there is no resurrection mentioned in Genesis before Isaac, it also raises a theological issue of even greater moment. If God is supposed to become a raiser of the dead at a certain moment, rather that be a raiser of the dead essentially, then there is an implication of change in God as well as God being subservient to time. The Rabbi’s presupposition is precisely that of secularism, whichis in fact a form of Christianity . It presupposes time and space to be absolute and in effect a deity, so that even God is controlled thereby.

Although Jewish prayers may indicate something of importance in Jewish life, which was the purpose of the rabbi’s study in the first place, they cannot provide evidence on whether or not the text of Genesis actually reports a real sacrifice and resurrection or not.

Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death upon his marriage to Rebecca three years after the event, showing that he had just learned of it when he was resurrected (page 4).

It does not follow. It is certainly possible that Isaac might have mourned his mother for as long as three years, to the extent that his marriage was a comfort to him. There is no evidence for Isaac’s death and resurrection in this.

The Jewish practice of Kidush Hashem is based on the death and resurrection of Isaac (page 4).

Although a belief in the death and resurrection of Isaac may have had an impact on some Jews to inspire them to be faithful in martyrdom, that belief is hardly essential to such faithfulness. Such faithfulness is not evidence either for belief in the death and resurrection of Isaac,nor for the factuality of the event.

At this point it is possible to make a general evaluation of the study. The first problem is the rabbi’s motive and premise. His motive is skewed, so his results cannot help but be skewed. The only proper motive for studying the text is to find truth, the truth about what was originally meant by the text and how that might apply to one’s own faith and experience. The rabbi is not interested in finding the truth but, by his own words, he is motivated by the desire to find Christian motifs in Judaism. He wants to find a functional replacement for the death of Jesus on the cross as a channel of divine grace. With this purpose in mind, he latches on to the sacrifice of Isaac.

The premise also remains undemonstrated. The premise is that faith in the martyred and resurrected one will automatically make it possible for God to forgive sin. Although this premise is accepted by Christianity, a Jewish scholar has the duty of demonstrating its validity. The rabbi makes no attempt to do so. He merely accepts this Christian viewpoint and begins from there. This is a serious methodological flaw.

There are several types of weaknesses in the rabbi’s argumentation. First of all, there are several linguistic errors. It is as though the computer mindset has deprived researchers of basic linguistic intelligence. To choose one meaning of a word and apply it across the board constitutes a mechanical superficiality and lack of analytical integrity that would have been unthinkable before the age of mechanical translators. Such methodology is found in the rabbi’s way of handling the words tahat (instead of) and tippol (she got down). His use of these words is outright error of translation.

There are other linguistic problems as well. Symbolic interpretation is unacceptable when the text clearly has a literal meaning. The rabbi makes this mistake in dealing with the expression well of lahay roi’. Another linguistic error is to give the same expression in the same context two different meanings, unless the context requires it. The rabbi does this with the expression hast not withheld thy son, which occurs twice in the passage in question. Finally, the rabbi presents linguistic arguments that are not relevant to the question as though they were, as in his treatment of the radical N-S-H.

There are errors of logic as well. The rabbi presents conflicting interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 22:12 as evidence for the same interpretation of Isaac’s sacrifice. This is logically impossible and greatly weakens his argument. The rabbi draws unwarranted conclusions from things left unstated in the text: that Isaac did not return with Abraham after the sacrifice, that Isaac did not attend his mother’s funeral, and that Isaac was not involved in plans for his marriage. Argument based on nothing cannot be worth more than zero. Finally, the rabbi makes mistakes in logic by drawing unwarranted conclusions from statements in the text. He draws the conclusion that Sarah was in Kirjath-arba when Abraham was in Be’er-Sheva on the basis of the fact that she died there. The data in the text are insufficient to draw that conclusion.

The rabbi draws conclusions on mistaken cultural and psychological assumptions. He errs in finding investigation of a woman’s feelings incongruous with arranged marriage. He errs in thinking that Isaac would not mourn for his mother for up to three years.

There are at least two more fatal flaws in the rabbi’s study. The first is the dependence on a conflict between Elohim God and the angel of the Lord. There is no precedent for this in Scripture, the text does not require it, and it raises problematic theological issues for which the rabbi makes no account. The idea of a conflict between Elohim God and the angel of the Lord is totally unacceptable on the basis of the biblical text.

The second fatal flaw is the rabbi’s failure to consider texts which clearly speak against the death and resurrection of Isaac. Among these is Genesis 24:6, which states Isaac to be alive at a point when according to the theory he had not yet been resurrected.

The study is also flawed by the failure to consider texts in the passage which actually do present problems. The most obvious of these are Genesis 22:2 and Genesis 22:16, where Isaac is called the only son of Abraham. There was never a time when Isaac was Abraham’s only son. This is the one feature of the story which most obviously demands attention, and we may thank Rabbi Ben-Yehuda for raising the issue.

The rest of this study will re-examine the biblical text, but with the motive of explaining what appear to be inconsistencies in it. The basic assumption is that the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, at least insofar as Genesis 22 is concerned, is consistent and can be successfully harmonised with itself.

In Genesis 22:2 (and in Genesis 22:16), Isaac is called the only son of Abraham. This is inconsistent with the report in the Masoretic Text of Genesis 16:15 which states that Hagar bore Abram a son called Ishmael. In Genesis 17:17-19, it is apparent that Ishmael was alive before the birth of Isaac. Genesis 21:2-3 reports the birth of Isaac after the circumcision of Ishmael at the age of thirteen (Genesis 17:25). Finally, Genesis 25:9 reports Ishmael to be alive after the events in Genesis 22. Isaac was not, therefore, according to the text the only son of Abraham at the time of the events in Genesis 22 or at any time previous to them.

There are other problems with the story besides the textual one. Judaism generally interprets the story as a revelation to Abraham that God does not accept human sacrifice. The Christian interpretation of the story generally emphasises the lesson of obedience. The Christian is thus faced with a theological conflict in the command to offer the son as a burnt offering. Such a command conflicts with the commandment in Exodus 20:13, Thou shalt not kill. Although theologians may well resolve the issue somehow in their own minds, most Christians are left in a quandary. They cannot understand how God could command anyone actually to kill his own child.

If we understand the story as it generally is – that God actually commanded Abraham to kill his own child – then there are some narrative problems with the story as it appears in the Bible. The conversation in Genesis 22:7-8 does not fit into the course of events in which Abraham intended actually to kill Isaac. Isaac asks where the lamb is, as though a lamb were going to be offered and not himself. Abraham answers as though a lamb were going to be offered and not Isaac. Furthermore, there is no evidence to follow that Abraham informed Isaac later of the true character of the sacrifice, yet Isaac is a willing and knowing participant throughout.

What the Bible actually describes is an event in which a father takes his son, goes to a secluded place in a totally male group which is left to guard, further secludes himself with his son, performs a mock sacrifice of the son, then sacrifices an animal as a burnt offering, and returns apparently without the son.

Throughout the process, Isaac is called the only son. He is so called nowhere else in the Genesis recital. This factor is unique to this event. The event consists of sacrificial actions and a series of statements or questions and responses. The text presents itself as consistent, despite the incongruity of some of the speeches. The text ignores the theological problems of divine temptation and human sacrifice, as though these were not issues.

At this point we have exhausted the biblical information. It is necessary to look for explanatory material outside the text itself. There are several factors to look for. If possible, we should find examples of mock sacrifices of young men by their fathers or other authorities followed by a replacement sacrifice of an animal. These sacrificial events should include a series of speeches which might ignore the factual situation.

In 1909, A. van Gennep identified precisely this type of situation in his book Les rites de passage. The rite of passage of this type is performed on boys of a certain age, although there are similar rites in some societies dealing with girls as well. The rite always includes set speeches in what is called an initiatory structure. There is a mock killing of the youth, a replacement animal sacrifice, and a mock resurrection of the youth. There is often a period of seclusion for the youth or especially seclusion from the opposite sex. At the end of the rite, the youth has passed from childhood to adulthood, and may marry and carry out other adult behaviour; or he passes from one status to another in his adult life.

Although the liturgy or ritual of the rite of passage is usually found in non-literate societies, there are examples of texts with an initiatory structure in the various classical religious texts of the world. One of these is the first section of the Kathopanishad, one of the Vedic Upanishads known in classical Hindu Scriptures. There are certainly more precedents for initiatory structure in ancient religious texts from around the world, and there is no reason at all why we should not expect to find one in the Bible. It is clear that the story of the sacrifice of Isaac contains all the essentials of such a sacrificial ritual.

If the story is reporting a rite of passage liturgy, the speeches are set speeches relating to the ritual. They are certainly presented as having occurred on a particular time in a particular place with specific individuals involved, but they must be understood to have occurred in the case of every young man in the given culture when appropriate.

The rite begins with the instigation of God, who calls Abraham in Genesis 22:1. The response of God in verse 2 is also couched in the traditional phrases of the ritual. This explains why Isaac is consistently called the only son here. It is a part of the ritual. It is possible that the ritual is in reference to the first-born of every woman. The marking of the first-born is a consistent feature through much of the Bible. The consecration of the first-born of every woman is described first in Exodus 13 and in later passages. The expression would generally hold true, and would only fail in the situation of polygamy, as in the case of Abraham. Yet even in the case of polygamy, the same ritual words would be attached to the sacrificial event, since the same traditional liturgy or appropriate words for the sacrifice would always be used.

The common traits of a rite of passage fit into the Genesis story like this. The all-male group leaves on a three-day trek (Gen. 22:3,4 ). Those not actively participating are left to wait and guard (Gen. 22:5). Most rites of passage include such ritual paraphernalia as wood for an offering, fire, and a weapon (Gen. 22:6). Most rites of passage include a standardised text of speeches and responses between the officiant and the initiate (Gen. 22:7,8 ). Most rites of passage include sacrificial preparations and a mock sacrifice of the initiate in which he is bound or locked in a dark enclosure (Gen. 22:9-10). Most rites of passage include a substitution sacrifice which is found in a series of speeches, substituted for the initiate, and sacrificed (Gen. 22:11-13). Many rites of passage include the naming of the place or the renaming of the initiate or, more rarely, the officiant (Gen. 22:14). Most initiatory rites of passage end with a blessing on the initiate, an instatement into adulthood or the appropriate status (Gen. 22:15-18). Some rites of passage end with the youth being required to find his own way home, to demonstrate his newly gained status (Gen. 22:19).

The text of Genesis 22 has been examined from the point of view of an initiatory structure as a rite of passage. No inconsistencies with this theory of interpretation were found in the biblical text.

The reinterpretation of the text as a rite of passage provides a means of accounting for most of the potential inconsistencies of Genesis 22. The incongruities of the speeches, with the glaring inconsistency of calling Isaac Abraham’s only son, are seen to be completely consistent with a rite of passage. The theological inconsistency of commanding a human sacrifice disappears. The temptation of God is reduced to the requirement of redeeming the first-born of every woman, or expressing that Abraham is a model for future generations.

The question may be raised whether we have the right to interpret the text as an initiatory structure since there is nothing in the text which says it is such. One might raise a stronger case against another interpretation. To interpret the text otherwise would leave us with the problems mentioned above, some of which are crucial and some of which are glaringly apparent. We are justified in accepting an initiatory explanation for more reasons than that it is so wide-spread throughout the world in many cultures in Australia, Asia, Africa and America. The fact that initiatory structures are found in other religious texts, such as the Kathopanishad, although certainly suggestive, does not impel us to accept it in the case of a biblical text. We are justified in accepting the initiatory interpretation because the redemption of the first-born is commanded in Exodus 13 and described andalluded to many times. Anything that is commanded and alluded to must also have a practice. It is the practice that is described in Genesis 22.

It must be mentioned that this text, the Sacrifice of Isaac, has had a great impact on religious experience. The misconception that God might tell someone to engage in human sacrifice has opened the way for criticism of religion altogether on one hand, and to extreme cases of unstable practice on the other. Within Judaism, it appears that the moral of the story is that God taught Abraham in a graphic way that He did not accept human sacrifice. It was so graphic because the practice of human sacrifice in Canaan might otherwise have influenced Abraham and his descendants.

Christianity has seen the moral of the story to be that Abraham’s obedience is an example for all to follow. Both Judaism and Christianity have used the story as a source of criticism of Islam. The Qur’an (33:103-106) reports the same events for Ishmael instead of for Isaac. The Muslim commentator might refer to the “only son” in Genesis 22:2 as a remnant of the true text referring to Ishmael, who was the only one who was ever the only son of Abraham in real life. Such a commentator would suggest that the text was corrupted by the Jews to tell about Isaac instead.

In an initiatory scenario, the facts would have been different. Both Ishmael and Isaac, both being first-born of their mothers, would have had to be redeemed. The initiatory redemption, the substitutionary sacrifice was performed for both of them. In the end, the biblical text is coherent, and the Bible and the Qur’an are both right. Everyone is disarmed and we are all faced with living together in peace. Can we rise to that challenge?