RESPONDING TO AKBARALLY'S DECEPTION CHARGE

Mr. Meherally attempts to rebut other aspects of my article, yet as we shall see, falls way short of doing so. Let us proceed to his arguments.

Response:

Mr. Meherally again attacks a straw man, since I NEVER said that the Quran mentions God making a covenant with Isaac. The fact that you made this inference from my citation of Genesis 17:15-21 is your problem. Please read what I actually did say, instead of assuming what you think I meant to say.

I used Genesis 17:15-21 to demonstrate the point that God's promises about Isaac, WHICH INCLUDED MAKING A COVENANT WITH HIM BUT WAS NOT LIMITED TO JUST THAT ASPECT, did not include Ishmael at all. Amazingly, you twisted the citation and quoted only a part of it, leaving out the very part that was essential in establishing Isaac's preeminence over Ishmael:

Mr. Meherally, please tell us why did you fail to include this portion of my citation which clearly proved the point I was trying to establish, namely that Isaac was the only promised child given to Abraham?

In fact, I used this point as just one of the many reasons why the Holy Bible addresses Isaac as Abraham's only son, since THE PROMISES made to the latter, which included the Covenant, were passed down solely to the son born from Sarah. You would have clearly seen this had you quoted my citation in its relevant context:

Therefore, can you produce one verse from the Holy Bible where it states that God had promised to bless Abraham with a son from Hagar and that this son would receive the land given to Abraham’s seed as an inheritance? Could you please show us in the Holy Bible where God makes a covenant with Ishmael as he did with Isaac, Jacob and their descendants after them?

Meherally claims:

Response:

Since I never claimed that the Qur'an mentions God making a covenant with Isaac, this is clearly a straw man. In relation to Isaac being the only one who is explicitly said to be promised to Abraham as a child of glad tidings compare the following citations:

Mr. Meherally, can you please produce for us a verse where it explicitly mentions the birth of Ishmael as glad tidings from God to Abraham? In fact, I'll make it easier for you to search for the answer. Here are all the references where Ishmael is mentioned by name: S. 2:125, 127, 133, 136, 140; 3:84; 4:163; 6:86; 14:39; 9:54; 21:85; 38:48. Not one of these verses mentions that Ishmael's birth was announced as something of glad tidings given to Abraham like that of Isaac.

Furthermore, can you also produce a single verse where Ishmael's mother is even mentioned explicitly by name, or even implicitly? In fact, the impression given is that Ishmael is Abraham's son from Sarah since she is the only wife alluded to in the Quran! One must go outside the Quran and read either the Holy Bible or the Islamic traditions in order to discover that Abraham had another wife named Hagar who bore him Ishmael. This point demonstrates the Holy Bible's superiority over the Quran since what the latter vaguely mentions or is silent on the former magnificently clarifies!

Meherally asserts:

Response:

Again, notice the ad hominem attacks. It seems that Akbarally wants to sway his readers into believing him by emotional outbursts such as accusing me of being false, deceptive, etc. Yet, such statements prove absolutely nothing except Meherally's inability to deal with the facts presented in my article. Furthermore, the Holy Bible also mentions God’s specific promise to Abraham that Sarah would bear a son. It would be through that son that God would fulfill all his divine promises to Abraham.

BTW, we are still waiting for an acknowledgment from Meherally on his misquotation of Badawi. Should we assume that since Meherally has failed to comment thus far on this fact that he was deliberately trying to deceive and mislead his readers?

Meherally complains:

Response:

Again, I challenge you to show me where I claimed that the miraculous birth of Isaac excluded any sexual activity between Abraham and Sarah! This is an argument from silence since we do not know whether the miracle entailed God to cause Abraham's seed or Sarah's womb to be fertile, or God caused the latter's womb to miraculously conceive without any sexual activity.

Yet, the both the Holy Bible and the Quran agree that the birth was indeed miraculous since it occurred when the couple were both old and barren:

[However, Genesis 21:1-5 and Hebrews 11:11-18 clearly speak of Isaac as being Abraham's son (in contrast to the virgin birth of Jesus, where it is made clear in the gospel accounts that he was not the son of any human father), and, to our knowledge, Jewish and Christian commentators have never assumed anything else but that Isaac was conceived through the normal marital relationship between Abraham and Sarah. There is absolutly no hint to the contrary.]

Secondly, I never claimed that Ishmael was disqualified from being the firstborn due to the fact that he was "conceived in the normal process of sexual reproduction," so this another straw man argument from Akbarally. Yet, Meherally seems to presume that since Ishmael was the firstborn he held precedence over Isaac. The only problem with this logic is that it fails to take into consideration that the Holy Bible clearly presents God sovereignly choosing the younger son over the firstborn. One such example is God selecting Jacob over his older brother Esau:

Or Joseph's son Ephraim chosen ahead of his firstborn, Manasseh:

Finally, again it seems I must constantly repeat the charge of a straw man argument seeing that Meherally attributes to me things I have never said. I have never said that the child that was to be sacrificed had to be born "miraculously" or that the child could not be born through "the normal process of sexual reproduction." What I did say was that it was the child promised to Abraham that God commanded to be sacrificed. That promised child was Isaac, not Ishmael, a fact which both the Holy Bible and the Quran agree with.

Meherally continues:

Response:

Please notice how Meherally inserts the words "making of a Covenant by God, within the Bible, makes Isaac a 'promised child'", something I have never said. Again Mr. Meherally, where in my article do I say that the making of a covenant makes a person a promised child? I challenge you to produce one statement in any of my articles, specifically the one you're trying to rebut, where I say this.

Meherally proceeds:

Response:

Perhaps Meherally can explain these passages for us:

Since Allah clearly made a distinction between the prophets, does this mean that Muslims are more fair and righteous than Allah since they view all the prophets equally, giving them the same honor and respect? If Allah can make a distinction and prefer some above others, why can't Muslims do likewise seeing that their God clearly did so?

Mr. Meherally continues:

Response:

Here Akbarally is actually being deceptive. Notice that in my article I cited Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21 and 28:13-14. Let us read what these verses actually say and then proceed to expose Meherally's straw man and red herring arguments:

And now Genesis 15, beginning at verse 12 for the context:

According to this promise, the ones who were to inherit the land of Canaan were the very ones that were to first serve as slaves in a foreign land for four generations. The only seed who ever served as slaves for four generations were the Israelites in Egypt, never the Ishmaelites:

Furthermore, not only did the promise of inheritance precede the birth of Isaac it also preceded Ishmael's birth as well! This means that Meherally' point that the promise of inheriting the land was given before Isaac's birth proves absolutely nothing since it is not the timing of the promise that is important. Rather, what matters is the identity of Abraham's children whom God promised would inherit the land, an identity revealed in the Holy Bible as the nation of Israel.

Thirdly, even though God promised Abraham that Ishmael would also be a great nation, that promise never included Canaan as part of God's blessing upon Ishmael:

Interestingly Meherally alludes to Genesis 17:1-5 yet fails to mention this preceding passage which helps clarify what the verses he alludes to actually mean within its immediate context. We wonder why? Perhaps Meherally realized that this passage would demonstrate to his readers that the Holy Bible specifically denies the fact that God had made a covenant with Ishmael like he did with Isaac.

The Holy Bible proceeds to record the fulfillment of God's promise to Ishmael:

As far as Abraham being the father of many nations is concerned, I have never denied that Ishmael and his sons were part of the fulfillment of the promise of God to Abraham. In fact, my personal belief is that Ishmael was not the only one who contributed to the fulfillment of this promise, since Abraham had six other sons who also had children that formed mighty nations:

Interestingly, Meherally failed to include this promise made to Sarah:

This basically establishes the point that Abraham becoming the father of many nations did not entail the inclusion of Ishmael or Keturah's six sons to make this promise a reality. Isaac was all that God needed to fulfill the promise made to Abraham and Sarah that they would have offspring as numerous as the stars in heaven, producing many great nations and mighty kings. In fact, this is precisely what the Holy Bible states happened when Israel became a mighty nation under Moses' leadership:

Fulfilling the following promises:

It should be stated that the phrase "as numerous as the sand on the seashore" and " as countless as the stars of the sky" is hyperbolic language that is used to show the greatness of Israel. It must be pointed out that the Holy Bible originates from Semitic thought and culture which is rich with expressions steeped in allegory, metaphor and hyperbole. The fact that this expression is hyperbolic in nature can be seen from the following citations:

Hence, we find that the birth of the nation of Israel completely fulfilled all of God's promises to Abraham, leaving nothing for Ishmael or the six sons of Keturah to fulfill."

Meherally:

Response:

I never did, so your straw man arguments prove absolutely nothing. Furthermore, why did you conveniently overlook the context of the passages that I alluded to in my original article that clearly shows that Ishmael had nothing to do with God's covenant promises? Why did you also fail to mention the fulfillment of God's promise to bless Ishmael with a nation, a promise fulfilled when Ishmael had twelve princes who ruled to the east of their brethren, a promise which has nothing to do with Muhammad or Islam? Finally, why have you still failed to acknowledge your misquotation of Badawi seeing that you have dropped it from your article without ever mentioning it to your readers? Instead of writing rebuttals that have little or no substance behind them, you would do better to admit your careless citations of scholars like Badawi and stop your ad hominem attacks on my integrity.

We wait for Meherally's other points. If they are anything like the preceding arguments, then they won’t be too difficult to rebut.

But wait, there's more...........Meherally continues with the torture session:

Response:

Instead of telling us what YOU THINK Tabari meant, read Tabari carefully and see in fact what he actually did mean to say. Furthermore, the fact that some would prefer Isaac and others Ishmael proves that the Quran is vague and does not conclusively point to either child, which is precisely my point. Muslims have made an issue over something that the Quran fails to clarify, since it never explicitly mentions the name of the child causing confusion amongst the earliest Muslim authorities over this very issue. Akbarally's rebuttals have done absolutely nothing to clarify the problem.

Meherally:

Response:

Here is a classic example of Meherally trying to confuse the issue by throwing smokescreens. It should have been apparent why I would choose to cite the traditions that claimed that the child of sacrifice was Isaac. The consensus of modern Islamic scholarship has tried to dogmatically assert that the Quran conclusively teaches that Ishmael was indeed the one that was to be sacrificed. Hence, to these Muslim scholars Isaac is not even a consideration as far as the Quran is concerned.

Yet, this ignores the fact that the earliest Muslim authorities were divided over this issue, not agreeing whether it was Isaac or Ishmael. This is precisely why I chose to cite the traditions that point to Isaac, since most non-Muslim readers are unaware of these citations, thinking that the Quran conclusively points to Ishmael.

Furthermore, I clearly quoted Tabari's statement that there were two sets of traditions coming from the time of Muhammad pointing out the disagreements over whether it was Isaac or Ishmael that was to be sacrificed. Why would I point this out if I were trying to deceive my readers or mislead them into thinking that all the traditions unanimously held to Isaac as the victim of God?

What Meherally should do is go out and look for the book, since I have provided the name of the book as well as its translator. It shouldn't be hard to find seeing that I found a copy of Tabari's book at my local Muslim bookstore. If I could find it with little difficulty, then I am quite certain that Meherally will have no problem of finding it either.

Meherally:

Response:

The fact that you were unable to find the traditions attributed to Muhammad is not a problem of my citations, but of your inability to actually read carefully. I provided the chain of transmission where Tabari lists the companions of Muhammad as the source behind these traditions. Where did they get their information from if not from Muhammad?

Meherally:

Response:

This argument begs the question. Since Tabari is a main source of information on the life of Muhammad and his companions and since they did disagree over the child’s identity, how can Meherally make such an outlandish claim? Hopefully, Meherally will answer our question.

Meherally:

Response:

Actually, these are not merely the words of individuals, but the comments of the SAHABAH, Muhammad's personal friends and companions. In case Meherally missed it, here are the citations again:

Finally,

So, Mr. Meherally can you please explain to us how is it that the oldest traditions originating from your Prophet's companions believed that it was Isaac who was commanded to be sacrificed if the Quran is so clear that it was Ishmael?

Meherally:

Response:

This clearly demonstrates Akbarally's inability to deal with the real facts. He is constantly chasing straw man arguments, red herrings and throws smokescreens to cover his inability to rebut my points. I did not cite a book ON Tabari, but a translation OF Tabari's work into English. Please do notice the portion, "trans. William M. Brenner." In case Akbarally was unaware, this is an abbreviation that simply means that William Brenner WAS THE TRANSLATOR OF TABARI'S ORIGINAL WORK WRITTEN IN ARABIC. Brenner was NOT writing or commenting on Tabari.

This again would have been crystal clear had Akbarally carefully read my article, since I QUOTE TABARI'S' OWN WORDS WHO CLEARLY BELIEVED THAT IT WAS ISAAC, NOT ISHMAEL, THAT GOD COMMANDED ABRAHAM TO SACRIFICE:

Interestingly, Tabari PROVES FROM THE QURAN that Isaac, not Ishmael, was the child of sacrifice. How could he have used the Quran to conclusively prove that Isaac, not Ishmael, was commanded to be sacrificed IF THE QURAN CLEARLY TEACHES THAT THE COMMAND COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO ISHMAEL AS MEHERLLY TRIES TO PROVE IN HIS ARTICLE? Perhaps Meherally can answer instead of chasing red herrings and straw man arguments.

In the service of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord!

Sam Shamoun

Responses to Akbarally Meherally
Answering Islam Home Page