Isiyovumilika - Makala ya Kielimu

Kuachishwa kunyonyesha kulimaanisha kuwa mtoto amenusurika katika utoto wa mapema.
Wakati wa vifo vingi vya watoto wachanga, hii ilikuwa hatua kubwa.
Kwa hivyo familia ziliisherehekea kama ishara ya maisha na tumaini.

Katika ulimwengu wa kale, kuachishwa kunyonya kulikuwa hatua kubwa muhimu katika maisha ya mtoto. Vifo vya watoto wachanga vilikuwa vya juu, na watoto wengi hawakuokoka miaka yao ya kwanza. Kwa upande wa Isaka, sherehe hiyo ni muhimu sana kwa sababu kuzaliwa kwake kulikuwa iliyosubiriwa kwa muda mrefu na isiyotarajiwa. Karamu ya kuachishwa kunyonya inaangazia kwamba ahadi haikutimia tu wakati wa kuzaliwa, bali kwamba mtoto sasa alikuwa sehemu salama ya siku zijazo.

Sehemu hiyo inaanza na sherehe ya kuachishwa kwa Isaka kunyonya, ambayo ilikuwa ni desturi muhimu ya kupita katika muktadha wa kitamaduni uliokuwa na kiwango kikubwa cha vifo vya watoto wachanga.

Kama mwandishi wa Kiyahudi Dennis Prager anavyoeleza:

Abraham alikuwa mtu tajiri ambaye angeweza kumudu kufanya sherehe kubwa kwa heshima ya kuachishwa kunyonya kwa mwanawe. Leo, sherehe mara nyingi hufanyika siku ya nane, wakati wa kutahiriwa kwa mtoto. Lakini katika ulimwengu wa kale, ukiwa na kiwango cha juu sana cha vifo vya watoto wachanga, ni baadaye tu - wakati wa kuachishwa kunyonya, kwa mfano - ambapo wazazi walihisi ujasiri kwamba mtoto atapona na wangefanya sherehe kwa heshima ya mtoto huyo.[171]

Mwanateolojia John Goldingay anaongeza kwamba: “Katika jamii za kitamaduni akina mama huwanyonyesha watoto muda mrefu kuliko ilivyo kawaida Magharibi, katika 2 Makab. 7:27 mama anarejelea kumnyonyesha mwanawe kwa miaka mitatu.”[172]

Isaac ana umri wa takriban miaka 2 hadi 3.
Ishmael ana umri wa miaka 15–17 hivi.
Kuna tofauti ya umri ya takriban miaka 12 hadi 15 kati yao.

Katika Sehemu ya 8, Isaac ana uwezekano wa kuwa karibu na miaka 2 hadi 3, wakati Ishmaeli yuko karibu miaka 15–17.
(Kiusanii Isaac anaonyeshwa kuwa na umri wa miaka 4-5.)

Hii inatokana na ratiba ya nyakati katika Mwanzo. Ishmaeli anasemwa kuwa na umri wa miaka 13 wakati Abrahamu ana miaka 99, na Isaka anazaliwa wakati Abrahamu ana miaka 100. Hata kama umri wa Abrahamu ni wa mfano, pengo la wakati kati ya kuzaliwa kwa Ishmaeli na kuzaliwa kwa Isaka linaonekana kuwa thabiti.

Ikiwa Isaka anachishwa kunyonya akiwa na umri wa miaka 2 au 3, na Ishmaeli tayari ni kijana wa balehe wakati Isaka anazaliwa, basi Ishmaeli angekuwa katika miaka yake ya kati au ya mwisho ya ujana wakati wa tukio hili.

Baadhi ya wasomaji wanafikiri kwamba Ishmaeli lazima alikuwa mtoto mdogo kwa sababu ya jinsi Mwanzo unavyoeleza Hagari akiondoka pamoja naye. Hata hivyo, sarufi ya Kiebrania inaonyesha kwamba Abrahamu alimpa vifaa na kumtuma mvulana huyo pamoja naye, sio kwamba alimbeba.

Kwa hiyo simulizi inaeleweka vyema zaidi ikiwa Ishmaeli ni kijana mkuu na Isaka kama mtoto mdogo, ikionyesha wazi pengo la umri na mvutano uliopo kati yao.

Katika Kipindi cha Nane, Isaka ana umri wa miaka miwili au mitatu na Ishmaeli ana umri wa takriban miaka kumi na sita.

Kulingana na Mwanzo 17:24-25: “Abrahamu alikuwa na umri wa miaka tisini na tisa alipotahiriwa nyama ya govi lake. Naye Ishmaeli mwanawe alikuwa na umri wa miaka kumi na mitatu alipotahiriwa nyama ya govi lake.” (ESV.) Mwanzo 21:5 inasema kwamba “Abrahamu alikuwa na umri wa miaka mia moja mwanawe Isaka alipozaliwa kwake.” (ESV.) Inafaa kumbuka kwamba ingawa kuna sababu nzuri ya kufikiri kwamba miaka inayohusishwa na Abrahamu katika Mwanzo 17:24 na 21:5 ni ya heshima badala ya kuwa halisi,[173] Inaonekana kwamba pengo la muda kati ya umri wa heshima wa Abramu wakati Ishmaeli alipotahiriwa (yaani, miaka 99) na umri wake wa heshima wakati Isaka alipozaliwa (yaani, miaka 100) unakusudiwa kuwa wa kweli. Ikiwa tunadhani kwamba umri uliotolewa wa Ishmaeli alipotahiriwa ni wa kweli (dhana ya Kiyahudi ya wavulana kuwa watu wazima katika umri wa miaka kumi na mitatu ni ya kipindi cha baadaye cha enzi za kati), na ikiwa tutakadiria kwamba Isaka angeachishwa kunyonya akiwa na umri wa miaka miwili au mitatu,[174] tunaweza kukokotoa kwamba Ishmaeli angekuwa na umri wa kati ya miaka kumi na tano na kumi na saba wakati Isaka alipoachishwa kunyonya. Hiyo ingemaanisha kwamba pengo la umri kati ya Isaka na Ishmaeli lilikuwa kama miaka kumi na mbili hadi kumi na tano. Kama wafafanuzi wengi, mwandishi wa Kiyahudi Dennis Prager hurahisisha hili kufikia hitimisho kwamba: “Wakati huu, Ishmaeli alikuwa na umri wa takriban miaka kumi na sita na Isaka alikuwa na takriban miaka miwili.”[175]

Mwanzo 21:14 wakati mwingine hufikiriwa kumaanisha kwamba Ishmaeli lazima alikuwa mtoto mdogo badala ya kijana aliyebalehe, kwa sababu inasomwa kana kwamba Ibrahimu alimweka juu ya bega la Hagari pamoja na posho ya mkate na maji. Hata hivyo, kama wanazuoni mashuhuri wa Kijerumani wa Biblia wa karne ya kumi na tisa Karl Keil na Franz Delitzsch wanavyoeleza:

Maneno hayo, “akatwaa mkate na kiriba cha maji, akampa Hagara, akavitia (sehemu ya neno la Kigiriki/Kiebrania participle, sio perfect) begani mwake, na yule mtoto, akampeleka,” hayasemi kwamba Abrahamu alimpa Ishmaeli pia abeba. Kwa maana ואת־היּלד haitegemei שׂם na ויּתּן kwa sababu ya kiunganishi ו, bali inategemea יקּח, kitenzi kikuu cha sentensi, ingawa kimetenganishwa nacho kwa fungato “akavitia begani mwake.” Hivyo, haitokei kutokana na maneno haya kwamba Ishmaeli anaonyeshwa kama mtoto mdogo.[176]

Hivyo basi, Literal Standard Version inatafsiri: “Naye Abrahamu anaondoka asubuhi na mapema, naye anatwaa mkate, na chupa ya maji, na kumpa Hagari (akiweka [hayo] juu ya bega lake), pia na huyo mtoto, na kumtuma aende zake; naye anaendelea, na kupotea katika nyika ya Beer-Sheba . . .” New American Standard Version isiyo ya neno kwa neno sana inaepuka mkanganyiko kwa kutafsiri: “Basi Abrahamu akaondoka asubuhi na mapema akachukua mkate na kiriba cha maji akampa Hagari, akaviweka juu ya bega lake, akampa na huyo mtoto, akampeleka zake. Akaenda zake na kutangatanga katika nyika ya Beersheba.”

Neno linaweza kumaanisha kucheza, lakini linaashiria dhihaka.
Inapendekeza tabia isiyopendeza badala ya mchezo wa asili.
Wengine wanatafsiri kama aina ya ushindani au uadui.

Neno la Kiebrania linalotumiwa katika Mwanzo 21:9 linahusiana na jina la Isaka na linamaanisha kihalisi “kicheka” Hata hivyo, maana yake inategemea muktadha na inaweza kuanzia tabia ya kucheza hadi dhihaka au utani usiofaa.

Katika kisa hiki, wanazuoni wengi wanaamini tabia ya Ishmaeli haikuwa mchezo wa asili, bali ni kitu kilichofanyika ladha mbaya, ikiwezekana kumdhihaki au kumdharau Isaka.

Neno hili linatumika mahali pengine katika Biblia likiwa na maana hasi au hata isiyofaa, jambo ambalo linaunga mkono tafsiri hii. Agano Jipya pia linaonyesha mtazamo huu, likielezea tabia ya Ishmaeli kama aina ya mateso (Wagalatia 4:29).

Wengine wanapendekeza kwamba Ishmaeli huenda alikuwa akitenda kwa njia iliyopinga nafasi ya Isaka, labda hata kudhihaki jukumu lake kama mtoto aliyeahidiwa.

Wengine wanafikiri tabia hiyo inaweza kuonyesha mivutano ya ndani ya nyumba, ikiwezekana ikisukumwa na uhusiano wa siri kati ya Hagar na Sara.

Kwa hivyo wakati neno linaweza kumaanisha “kucheza,” muktadha unapendekeza kwa nguvu kitu kibaya zaidi: aina ya dhihaka au ushindani badala ya mchezo usio na madhara.

Tabia ya Ishmaeli katika Mwanzo 21:9 labda ilikuwa ni “mchezo” mbaya wa dhihaka, badala ya kuwa suala la “mchezo” wa nia njema.”

Mwanzo 21:9 inasema kwamba “Sara akamwona mwana wa Hagari Mmisri, ambakamzalia Abrahamu, akidhihaki.” Neno la mwisho la sentensi hii ni neno lenye utani linalohusiana na jina la Isaka ambalo lina maana halisi “kufanya acheke.” Kwa maana isiyo halisi, neno hili lina maana mbalimbali zinazohusisha “cheza,” “fanya masihara” na “dhihaki,” na ambalo linaweza hata kuwa na maana ya ngono (ona Mwanzo 39:14, Kutoka 32:6).[177] Mwanateolojia John H. Walton anapendekeza kwamba kitenzi hicho “kinaelezea jambo fulani linalofanywa ‘kwa njia isiyo ya kupendeza’ (iwe ni la kimapenzi, chafu, au kwa namna fulani isiyofaa).”[178] Katika Agano Jipya, mtume Paulo (ambaye alikuwa msomi wa Kiyahudi), alielezea tabia ya Ishmaeli kuwa ilikuwa ikimtesa Isaka (Wagalatia 4:29).[179] Mtaalamu wa teolojia John Goldingay anasema kwamba:

Ishmaeli . . . anawachekesha watu (kuhusu mtoto Isaka?) au anacheka kwa nguvu; kitenzi hiki ndicho kinachohusishwa na jina la Isaka . . . . Ni kana kwamba Ishmaeli anajifanya kuwa Isaka, mvulana ambaye jina lake linamhusisha na kicheko, kana kwamba bado anatishia kuchukua nafasi inayomilikiwa na Isaka.[180]

Labda ladha mbaya ya Ishmaeli ya kufanya mzaha kwa namna fulani ilionyesha chuki kwa upande wa Hagara kuelekea Isaka, kwani tabia ya watoto mara nyingi hutoa dirisha lisilochujwa katika maneno na/au vitendo vya watu wazima walio karibu nao.

Sarah alitaka kulinda urithi wa Isaka.
Ishmaeli alikuwa mpinzani mtarajiwa kama mwana wa kwanza wa Abrahamu.
Uamuzi wake huenda ulichanganya hofu, mvutano, and kanuni za kiutamaduni.

Uamuzi wa Sarah labda ulitoka kwa mchanganyiko wa nia, lakini iliyo wazi zaidi ni kulinda nafasi ya Isaka kama mrithi.

Katika Mashariki ya Kale ya Kariki, Ishmaeli, akiwa mwana wa kwanza wa Abrahamu, angeweza kuwa na haki halali ya urithi. Sheria za wakati huo zinaonyesha kwamba wana wa wanawake watumwa wangeweza kushiriki katika mali ya familia, hasa kama walitambuliwa na baba.

Baada ya kuachishwa kunyonya kwa Isaka, Sara huenda aligundua kwamba Isaac sasa alikuwa na maisha ya baadaye ya kweli, na kwa hiyo mpinzani wa kweli. Tabia ya Ishmaeli kumwelekea Isaka inaweza kuwa imeyaimarisha hofu yake, ikionyesha mvutano au ushindani.

Ombi lake la kuwafukuza Hagar na Ishmaeli lingefuta tishio hilo kwa ufanisi, na kuhakikisha kwamba Isaka peke yake ndiye angekurithi.

Wakati huo huo, kitendo hiki kilikuwa ndani ya kanuni za kiutamaduni. Kinaweza kueleweka kama aina ya kutengana kisheria, ikimpa Hagari na mwanawe uhuru huku wakiondoa dai lao kwa nyumba hiyo.

Hali ya hofu na dhiki ya Abrahamu inaonyesha kwamba, hata kama ilikuwa inakubalika kitamaduni, hali hiyo ilikuwa yenye uchungu binafsi na tata kimaadili.

Kwa hiyo vitendo vya Sarah vinaakisi mchanganyiko wa ulinzi wa mama, destuko za kijamii, na mivutano ya kifamilia, badala ya motisha rahisi au safi tu ya kiungwana.

Sarah anaweza kuwa alikuwa na mchanganyiko wa nia, lakini wazi alitaka kulinda urithi wa mwanawe Isaka.

Huenda kukawa na mchanganyiko wa mambo yanayochochea hamu ya Sara ya kumtaka Abrahamu amfukuze Hagari na Ishmaeli. Labda mchezo wa dhihaka wa Ishmaeli katika Mwanzo 21:9 kwa namna fulani ulionyesha uhasama kwa upande wa Hagari dhidi ya Isaka, kwani tabia ya watoto mara nyingi hutoa dirisha lisilochujwa la maneno na/au vitendo vya watu wazima walio karibu nao. Kulingana na mwandishi wa Kiyahudi wa Kimarekani Dennis Prager, “sasa kwa kuwa Isaka amepita umri muhimu wa kuachishwa kunyonya, Sara alitambua atakuwa na ushindani kwa ajili ya urithi wake, naye akataka kuondoa ushindani huo.”[181] Msomi wa Kiyahudi Nahum M. Sarna, Profesa Mstaafu wa Masomo ya Biblia katika Chuo Kikuu cha Brandeis, anatoa maoni kwamba:

Kulingana na sheria za Hammurabi, wana wa mke mtumwa hushiriki urithi kwa usawa na wana wa mwanamke aliye huru, mradi tu baba, kwa hiari yake mwenyewe, awatambue rasmi. Iwapo hatawatambua kama wana wake, mtumwa huyo na watoto wake hupewa uhuru wao. Hatujui iwapo utambuzi huo ungehitajika wakati mke mwenyewe alitoa mjakazi ili kupata mwana na mrithi, lakini vyovyote vile, hali na haki za mwana wa namna hiyo zingekuwa si duni kuliko zile za mtumwa wa kawaida; na tayari tumeona kwamba Abrahamu alikuwa amemtambua Ishmaeli bila shaka kama mwana wake. Sheria za Lipit-Ishtar, takriban miaka mia moja na hamsini kabla ya Hammurabi, zinaagiza kwamba uzao wa mke mtumwa huachilia haki zao za urithi badala ya uhuru wao. Kwa kuzingatia hayo yaliyotangulia tunaweza kudhani kwa usalama kwamba Ishmaeli, kama mwana aliyetambuliwa rasmi wa Abrahamu, alikuwa na haki ya sehemu yake ya urithi.[182]

Kwa hiyo, Sarna anasema kuwa:

Alichokitaka Sara kilikuwa ni Hagari na mwanawe wapewe uhuru wao, na hivyo kuachana na madai yote ya kupata sehemu ya mali ya familia. Ikiwa ndivyo hivyo, tukio lote linaweza kuonekana kuwa lilitendeka kulingana na desturi za kijamii na taratibu za kisheria za nyakati hizo. Huzuni ya Abrahamu haingekuwa kwa sababu ya uhalali wa tendo hilo, ambalo halikuwa likihojiwa, bali ni kwa sababu ya upendo wa kibaba na masuala ya kimaadili.[183]

Kulingana na mwanateolojia John H. Walton:

Mwanamke mwenye hadhi ya Hagar angeweza kufukuzwa, lakini si kwa mume au mke peke yake, na hangekuwa na uwezo wa kuuzwa. Mtoto wake alikuwa na hadhi ya mrithi halali, na kwa ujumla alipaswa kuachishwa ndoa. Kwa kumfukuza Hagar, madai ya Sarah na Abraham yanabatilishwa. Hii ina maana kwamba anapewa uhuru wake pamoja na talaka. Kitenzi katika 21:14 (“kumfukuza”) ni kitenzi cha talaka . . .[184]

Ingawa kitenzi cha “mtume aende zake” si neno la kiufundi la “talaka,” ni neno linalotumika na maana hii (kwa hakika, mapokeo ya Kiyahudi yanasema kwamba Abrahamu alimpa Hagari hati ya talaka).[185]

Profesa Rabbi Reuven Firestone anaongeza maelezo yenye matumaini kwamba:

Mistari inayotangaza kifo cha Abrahamu [Mwanzo 25:9] inaweka sauti ya matumaini kuhusu uhusiano kati ya ndugu hao . . . . Baadaye tunaambiwa kwamba mwana wa Isaka Esau alimwoa binti ya Ishmaeli (Mwa. 28:9, 36:3), jambo ambalo linazidi kuonyesha kwamba uhusiano ulikuwa umerudi kuwa wa kawaida kati ya ndugu hao na familia zao.[186]

Mungu anaunga mkono matokeo, sio lazima nia ya Sara.
Isaka anachaguliwa kwa ajili ya agano, lakini Ishmaeli naye anabarikiwa.
Mungu anawajali wote wawili, sio mmoja tu.

Mungu anamwambia Abrahamu amsikilize Sara si kwa sababu nia yake ni sahihi kabisa, bali kwa sababu ombi lake linaambatana na Mpango wake mkubwa zaidi.

Katika Mwanzo, Isaka anachaguliwa kuwa yule ambaye kupitia yeye agano litaendelea. Sara anajikita katika urithi na kulinda mwanawe, lakini lengo la Mungu ni pana zaidi: kufunuka kwa kusudi la kihistoria na kiroho.

Hii haimaanishi kuwa Mungu yuko dhidi ya Hagar au Ishmaeli. Kwa hakika, maandiko yanasisitiza kinyume chake. Mungu alikuwa amekwisha ahidi kwamba Ishmaeli angekuwa taifa kuu, na baadaye Anaingilia kati moja kwa moja ili kumlinda na kumruzuku Hagara na mwanawe.

Kwa hiyo kuna utofauti:
 – Isaac anachaguliwa kwa ajili ya mstari wa agano.
 – Ishmael bado barikiwa na kutunzwa.

Hali ya huzuni ya Ibrahimu inaonyesha gharama ya kibinadamu ya hali hiyo, na mwitikio wa Mungu unaonyesha zote mbili haki na huruma.

Hadithi hiyo pia inaakisi mfumo wa Kibilia unaojirudia: ukoo uliochaguliwa si lazima uwe wa mzaliwa wa kwanza, jambo ambalo linaangazia kwamba makusudi ya Mungu hayategemei matarajio ya wanadamu.

Mungu alimwambia Ibrahimu amsikilize Sara kwa sababu kufanya hivyo kulisaidia mpango Wake wa kimungu, si kwa sababu Mungu aliidhinisha nia ya Sara au kwa sababu ana chuki yoyote dhidi ya Hagari na Ishmaeli.

Mwandishi wa Kiyahudi Dennis Prager anapendekeza kwamba:

Mungu alimwambia Abrahamu amsikilize Sarah kwa sababu alikuwa sahihi, ingawa sababu zake hazikuwa za kiungwana. Ingawa nia ya Sarah ilikuwa kumfukuza Ishmaeli ili kulinda urithi wa mwanawe, hata hivyo Mungu aliunga mkono mpango wake kwa sababu uliambatana na kusudi Lake kuu: kwamba Isaka aendeleze utume wa Abrahamu.[187]

Anaongeza:

Inawezekana kwamba Sarah pia alikuwa na wasiwasi kuhusu hatima ya kiungu ya Isaac, kwa kuwa alisikia maneno ya malaika watatu waliotangaza kuzaliwa kwake (Mwanzo 18:10). Hata hivyo, inasikitisha kwamba yeye . . . aliwasilisha ombi lake kwa kuzingatia tu urithi.[188]

Hakika, msomi wa Kiyahudi Nahum M. Sarna anapendekeza kwamba wasomaji wa Mwanzo wanapaswa:

Angalia mabaduko ya hila kutoka kwa nia ya Sarah hadi ya Mungu. Mama huyo mkuu alikuwa na nia pekee ya kulinda urithi wa mali wa mwanawe. Mungu anajali uzao wa Abrahamu, na utimilizi wa mpango wa kimungu wa historia.[189]

Kama mwanateolojia John Goldingay anavyopendekeza, labda “Mungu anathamini fursa ya kudhihirisha kanuni muhimu kwamba wewe huwi wa kwanza kwa sababu tu umezaliwa wa kwanza (rej. Kaini na Abeli, Esau na Yakobo, Manase na Efraimu).”[190]

Mwanateolojia Tammi J. Schneider anabainisha kwamba katika masimulizi ya Mwanzo: “Mungu, tangu mwanzo, hana jambo lolote baya dhidi ya Ishmaeli, na hata tangu kutangazwa kwa kuzaliwa kwake amekusudia jukumu lake (16:11-12).”[191] Although God’s covenant promises to Abraham and Sarah flow through Isaac, God also promises to bless Ishmael “and make him fertile and numerous; he shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and the Deity will make Ishmael a great nation (17:20; fulfilled 25:12-18).”[192]

When Hagar (with Ishmael) is in the arid Negev region (a region which nevertheless contains low vegetation, including brush and dwarf bushes),[193] she receives a second visitation from God, who “not only comforts her with a promise (21:18) but provides for her needs (21:19). Few individuals in the Bible are favoured with two theophanies and can claim to have been rescued by receiving divine instruction.”[194]

Professor Rabbi Reuven Firestone adds the happy note that:

Mistari inayotangaza kifo cha Abrahamu [Mwanzo 25:9] inaweka sauti ya matumaini kuhusu uhusiano kati ya ndugu hao . . . . Baadaye tunaambiwa kwamba mwana wa Isaka Esau alimwoa binti ya Ishmaeli (Mwa. 28:9, 36:3), jambo ambalo linazidi kuonyesha kwamba uhusiano ulikuwa umerudi kuwa wa kawaida kati ya ndugu hao na familia zao.[195]

As Christian minister Rick Richter asks:

Might not Abraham’s deep love for his two sons and his concern for Ishmael as well as for Isaac, and the fact that Isaac and Ishmael came together to bury their father (see Gen. 25:9), be an inspiration for understanding between Jews and Arabs today?[196]

The biblical account places Hagar and Ishmael in the region of Beersheba, not Mecca.
The connection to Mecca comes from later Islamic tradition.
The episode follows the earlier Genesis narrative.

In Genesis 21:14, Hagar and Ishmael are sent into the wilderness of Beersheba, in the southern Levant. This fits with the wider geographical setting of Abraham’s life, which takes place between Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt.

Islamic tradition, developed later, teaches that Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca.
 In that tradition, the Zamzam well is miraculously provided, and Abraham later returns to build the Ka‘ba with Ishmael.

However, the Qur’an itself does not clearly describe this journey or explain how Abraham would have traveled between these regions.
The detailed Mecca narrative comes mainly from later Islamic sources such as hadith and tafsir.

From a historical perspective, there is no clear evidence placing Abraham in Mecca.
His movements in Genesis are consistently located within the Near East.
A journey to Mecca would involve a long desert crossing not mentioned in the earlier texts.

Additionally, Mecca is not clearly attested in early archaeological or literary sources from the time of Abraham.
Other cities in the region are well documented, but Mecca appears later in the historical record.

Some scholars have also noted that early mosque directions do not always align with Mecca, though this point is debated.

In summary, the Genesis account and the later Islamic tradition present different locations for this event. The episode follows the earlier biblical narrative, placing Hagar and Ishmael in the region of Beersheba rather than Mecca.

The Islamic tradition associating Abraham and Ishmael with Mecca (Makkah) is contradicted by the older narrative in Genesis, and is disconfirmed by all of the available archaeological, cartographic and independent literary historical evidence concerning Mecca.

Professor Reuven Firestone, President of the International Qur’anic Studies Association, observes that:

While some Qur’anic texts such as Suras 11:69-76 and 15:51-60 refer to Abraham in Syria and others such as 2:125-127, 3:97, 14:37 and 22:26 refer to him in Mecca, the Qur’an itself does not explain how he made the transition.[197]

Competing Islamic traditions give different accounts of how this transition took place. According to the most popular tradition, associated with Abdallah Ibn Abbas (d. 687),[198] Abraham did not send Hagar and Ishmael away to “the Wilderness of Beersheba” (Genesis 21:14) in the Negev region of southern Israel,[199] but personally took them to Mecca, where he left them. The Genesis narrative about an angel revealing of a providentially handy well to Hagar after the water-skin provided by Abraham ran out (see Genesis 21:15-19) is transformed by this Islamic tradition into an angel creating the Zamzam well in Mecca.[200] Abraham is then said to have rebuilt the Ka’ba with Ishmael during a later visit to Mecca.  However, as Peter Townsend comments:

Abraham’s recorded movements covered an arc from Mesopotamia to Canaan (roughly equivalent to the area covered by the modern state of Israel) and Egypt. To go from there to the middle of Arabia would require a 750-mile trip, mostly through empty desert and we are entitled to ask why on earth Abraham undertook such a journey and why this epic expedition did not leave any trace on the earliest records dealing with his life.[201]

Islamic tradition “holds that Muhammad led prayers towards Jerusalem until the 16th or 17th month after his migration from Mecca to Medina [in 622 CE], when Allah directed him to instead turn towards the Kaaba in Mecca”^[202] (see Sura 2:144, 149-50):

Yet the earliest archaeological evidence from mosques built at the beginning of the 8th century suggests their sanctuary was located a long way north of Mecca . . . . The Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, constructed in 670 AD, pointed west instead of due south. Likewise, floor plans from two later Umayyad (650-750 AD) mosques in Iraq, demonstrate their Qiblas were oriented too far north. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, the Baghdad mosque by 30 degrees. The ‘Amr b. al ‘As mosque near Cairo, again pointed too far north . . . Jacob of Odessa . . . was a contemporary eye-witness writing in Egypt around 705 AD. His letter in the British Museum maintains the “Mahgraye” (Greek term for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east, towards their Ka’ba, the place of their patriarchal origin - in other words towards Palestine, not Mecca.^[203]

Peter Harremoës, a mathematician who is also trained in archaeology, explains that:

Typically a mosque has a long qibla wall with a mihrab, a prayer niche, in the middle and the Muslims are praying facing the qibla wall . . . . Many early mosques have a qibla that appear to be inconsistent with a direction towards Mecca in Saudi Arabia.[204]

Harremoës considers the “theory is that the early Muslims did not know the exact direction towards Mecca.”[205] However, he argues that “Given their ability to navigate through the desert this is seems less likely”[206] than that these qibla are deliberately facing an alternative location or locations. In a journal article on this very subject, Professor Walter R. Schumm notes that:

The point of contention is not that some early mosques do not appear to point toward the city of Mecca (most scholars seem to agree on that) but on how to explain that issue, especially with respect to technological limitations at that earlier time.[207]

Schumm’s own analysis suggests: “that most mosques in the first two centuries of Islam could have had a fairly high degree of qibla accuracy . . .”[208] As the abstract of a paper by Shumann and Zvi Goldstein published in the Open Access Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology observes:

Dan Gibson has argued that the first holy city of Islam was Petra. David King has disputed Gibson’s conclusions. Using data from Gibson’s website, the two theories are tested and contrasted statistically. While King’s theory works well for most mosques and other sites after 900 C.E., Gibson’s theory seems to work well for sites prior to 900 C.E., especially for sites constructed before 725 C.E. In summary, many early mosques and related structures do appear to face Petra geographically rather than towards Mecca. However, later structures may be related to today’s Mecca in a variety of ways other than simple geographical alignment.[209]

There is some dispute about exactly where some of the early (seventh-early eight century CE) qibla’s are facing (e.g. some may face Jerusalem), and as to why they are facing where they do, but the key point is that long after Islamic tradition says they are supposed to face towards the Kaaba in Mecca, none do.[210] In fact, the first qibla facing Mecca has been dated to 727 CE![211]

Harremoës uses statistics based on Gibson’s data to highlight a “descriptive confidence region” of early qibla’s that is “closely confined around the ancient city of Petra,”^[212] as well as a secondary “descriptive confidence region” over the Ruwafa temple in northern Arabia. Harremoës reaches the “temporary conclusion that early Muslims [outside of a few outliers] used Petra as qibla.”[213] Indeed, according to Harremoës: “There are a lot of indications that Islam has its origin in north western Arabia rather that in the area around Mecca . . .”[214]

Professor of religious studies Stephen J. Shoemaker, a specialist on the beginnings of Islam, comments that:

The Islamic historical tradition claims to know a lot about pre-Islamic Mecca. Yet scholars of early Islam have long recognised that these much later memories of Muhammad’s Mecca are not historically reliable and cannot be taken at face value. These canonical narratives about the beginnings of Islam are instead pious reminiscences, which have little if any connection with the actual events of the seventh century or the history of ancient Arabia.[215]

For example:

The quaranic community is described as being busy with various forms of agriculture including growing crops and tending sheep, goats, cattle, camels, horses, mules and donkeys, taking them out to pasture and bringing them back each day. The Messenger keeps telling his audience to contemplate their crops, orchards and livestock, and consider the goodness of Allah to them . . . . None of this makes any sense in Mecca or Medina. Furthermore, in the Qur’an the Messenger is criticized by his opponents for not having a garden. When he was preaching about the garden that will come in the next life, some of his audience mocked him for not even owning a garden here on earth. Such a charge could only make sense in a context where cultivation of gardens was possible, but Mecca is not such a place.[216]

Indeed, the Islamic portrait of Mecca simply isn’t reflected in the historical and archaeological evidence, as one would expect it to be if that portrait was accurate:[217]

According to the Qur’an, Mecca was the first and most important city in the world. Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka’ba (sanctuary) there, while Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Meccan Ka’ba centuries later (Sura 2:125-127). Mecca was allegedly the centre of Arabian trading routes before Muhammad’s time. Yet there is no archeological corroboration for this . . . . Mecca is certainly not on the natural overland trade routes - it is a barren valley requiring a one hundred mile detour.[218]

Peter Townsend reports that “this supposedly great historical city, indeed ‘the mother of all cities’, is entirely absent from the historical record until long after the advent of Islam.”[219] He also notes that:

The first map on which Mecca appears dates from approximately 900 CE or about 300 years after Muhammad is supposed to have lived there . . . . Mecca is entirely absent from the ancient cartographic record until long after the advent of Islam.[220]

This disconfirming data cannot be dismissed as an invalid argument from ignorance, for an absence of evidence does count as evidence against a hypothesis when that evidence is to be expected if the hypothesis in question were true. As Townsend argues:

detailed historical records for many other towns and cities dotted up and down the Arabian Peninsula. These include Yathrib (later Medina, “second city” of Islam), Sana’a and Petra. We can even . . . point to detailed sources confirming the pre-Islamic existence of the city of Ta’if. At 70 miles from Islam’s holy city, Ta’if is practically on modern Mecca’s doorstep. It is presented in the Islamic record as very much in the shadow of its much more illustrious neighbor. We would be justified in thinking, considering this, that there would be plenty of sources from which to reconstruct the pre-Islamic history of Mecca with scanty evidence for Ta’if. Instead we have much to draw upon for Ta’if and precisely nothing for Mecca . . . . If Mecca existed in ancient times, the scribes and kings of Arabia and Northeast Africa would have noticed. They clearly did not. It is entirely absent from the historical record and the implications of this should be abundantly obvious. To draw an analogy, the silence of the Arabian documentary and archaeological record regarding Mecca would be akin to studying the early medieval records of Naples, Florence, Venice, Pisa, Genoa and Milan and not finding even a single mention of the city of Rome. It simply beggars belief that Mecca could have existed as the most important city of mid-Arabia and then not make it into any kind of historical record . . . . When we study the inscriptions, documents and archaeological evidence produced by Mecca’s Arab near-neighbors and the imperial powers that dominated the ancient Near-East (Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian and Roman), we do not find a single reference to Mecca. This despite the fact that we can produce historical evidence trails for even relatively insignificant Arabian cities.[221]

Genesis clearly identifies Isaac as the son Abraham was told to sacrifice.
The Qur’an does not name the son, and early Muslim scholars disagreed.
The episode follows the biblical account, where Isaac is the son of promise.

In Genesis 22:2, God explicitly tells Abraham to sacrifice “your son, your only son Isaac.” The biblical text leaves no ambiguity about which son is meant.

In the Qur’an (Surah 37:102), the son is not named. Because of this, later Islamic tradition came to identify the son as Ishmael.

However, early Muslim commentators were not in agreement. Some, including the historian Al-Tabari, identified the son as Isaac. Within Surah 37 itself, the narrative mentions the “good news” of a son and later explicitly refers to Isaac. This has led some scholars to conclude that Isaac fits the flow of the passage.

The claim that the biblical text was corrupted to replace Ishmael with Isaac is not supported by manuscript evidence. All existing versions of Genesis consistently name Isaac.

The phrase “only son” in Genesis does not deny Ishmael’s existence. Rather, it highlights Isaac’s unique role as the covenant son. The Hebrew word “yachid” can mean “unique” or “special,” not strictly “only one in existence.” Similarly, the New Testament describes Isaac as Abraham’s “one and only” son in terms of promise.

So while Islamic tradition later identifies Ishmael, the earlier biblical account consistently points to Isaac. The episode follows that earlier textual tradition.

Despite claims to the contrary by some Muslims, the son who was almost sacrificed by Abraham was Isaac.

The Qur’an features the following conversation between Abraham and an un-named son:

. . . he said, “O My son, I see in a dream that I am sacrificing you; see what you think.” He said, “O my Father, do as you are commanded; you will find me, God willing, one of the steadfast.” (Sura 37:102.)[222]

Many Muslims believe the son in this exchange is Ishmael, and consequently assume (without any textual evidence) that Jewish scribes corrupted the original text of Genesis, which states that Isaac is the nearly sacrificed son of Abraham.[223] However, “the earliest Islamic commentators were divided over which son was intended.”[224]

After discussing Abraham leaving behind idol worship, Surah 37 gives its own account of the narrative in Genesis 22:

99. He [i.e. Abraham] said, “I am going towards my Lord, and He will guide me.”

100. “My Lord, give me one of the righteous.”

101. So We gave him good news of a clement boy.

102. Then, when he was old enough to accompany him, he said, “O My son, I see in a dream that I am sacrificing you; see what you think.” He said, “O my Father, do as you are commanded; you will find me, Allah willing, one of the steadfast.”

103. Then, when they had submitted, and he put his forehead down.

104. We called out to him, “O Abraham!

105. You have fulfilled the vision.” Thus We reward the doers of good.

106. This was certainly an evident test.

107. And We redeemed him with a great sacrifice.

108. And We left with him for later generations.

109. Peace be upon Abraham.

110. Thus We reward the doers of good.

111. He was one of Our believing servants.

112. And We gave him good news of Isaac, a prophet, one of the righteous.

113. And We blessed him, and Isaac. But among their descendants are some who are righteous, and some who are clearly unjust to themselves.[225]

The “good news” of a child to be given by God to Abraham in verse 101 is picked up by verse 112’s reference back to “good news of Isaac . . .” Consequently, contemporary Islamic historian Al-Tabari argues that the son in Genesis 22 is indeed Isaac.[226]

The description of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” in Genesis 22:2 is not contradicted by the existence of Ishmael. In the first place, it may simply reflect that fact that, since Abraham sent away Ishmael with Hagar, Isaac is the only son left to Abraham. Then again, the Hebrew used for “only” in Genesis 22:2 is yachiyd, which has a range of meanings, including “‘unique’ or ‘only begotten’ (special). So the Hebrew clarifies that Isaac is indeed the special, unique, only begotten son of Abraham. Isaac was the son of promise.”[227] As Norman L. Geilser and Thomas Howe note: “the phrase ‘only son’ may be equivalent to . . . a special son.”[228] Indeed, in stating that “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered Isaac - he who had received the promises was about to offer his unique son in sacrifice,” the New Testament book of Hebrews (11:17) uses the Greek term monogenē, a word traditionally translated as “only begotten” and that literally means “one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind)”[229] (see also John 1:18[230]). Hence, the International Standard Version translation of Genesis 22:2 reads: “God said, ‘Please take your son, your unique son whom you love – Isaac - and go to the land of Moriah.’” Isaac was certainly a unique, one-of-a-kind son of Abraham, being the only son miraculously conceived with his first wife Sarah, and being the subject of God’s covenant with Abraham.[231]

God tested Abraham to reveal and strengthen his faith, not to gain new knowledge as God already knows all things..
Wakristo pia huliona kama kielelezo cha Yesu.

In Genesis 22, God tests Abraham, but not to learn something new. Rather, the test reveals and strengthens Abraham’s faith.

As Nahum Sarna explains, the story has a didactic purpose for people, not for God. It shows what genuine trust in God looks like under extreme pressure.

Stephen Coleman notes that the test proves the reality of Abraham’s faith. It demonstrates that Abraham trusts God’s promise, even when it seems contradictory.

Fr. Vincent Serpa adds that the test also reveals Abraham’s faith to himself. Through the trial, Abraham discovers the depth of his own trust in God.

Importantly, God never intended Isaac to die. The intervention at the last moment shows that this was always a test, not a command meant to be completed.

The story also firmly rejects human sacrifice. Instead, God provides a substitute, a ram in place of Isaac.

From a Christian perspective, the event carries additional meaning. It is seen as a form of enacted prophecy. There are parallels between Isaac and Jesus. Both are beloved sons, both carry the wood for their sacrifice, and both willingly follow their father. In both cases, God provides the sacrifice. In Genesis, it is a ram, while in the New Testament, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God.” So the story functions on two levels: a test of faith in its original context, and a foreshadowing of a greater sacrifice in later interpretation.

Mungu alimleta Abrahamu katika “jaribio” hili ili kuimarisha na kuonyesha uaminifu wake kwa Mungu, na kutoa unabii uliotendeka kumhusu Yesu.

Kwanza kabisa, kama mwanazuoni wa Kiyahudi Nahum M. Sarna anavyoandika:

Wakati “Mungu alipomjaribu Abrahamu” haikuwa wazi jaribio ambalo matokeo yake yalikusudiwa kuongeza kwenye jumla ya ujuzi wa Mungu. Wazo kama hilo lingeonekana wazi kuwa linakinzana na dhana ya kibiblia ya kujua yote kwa Mungu. Ikiwa hadithi hiyo imejumuishwa katika fasihi ya kibiblia bila shaka ni kwa sababu ya thamani yake ya kimaadili kwa mwanadamu.[232]

Kama Stephen M. Coleman anavyoona:

Mungu hakumjaribu Ibrahimu ili kugundua jambo fulani kumhusu mzaa-taifa hilo ambalo hakujua . . . Bali Mungu alimjaribu Ibrahimu ili kufichua, kuimarisha, na kudhihirisha ukweli wa imani yake alipoitwa kuliamini neno la ahadi la Mungu . . .[233]

Mwandishi wa Kikatoliki Padre Vincent Serpa O.P. anatoa maoni kwamba:

Katika kumwomba Abrahamu amdhabihu mwanawe, Mungu hakuwa akimjaribu kwa ajili ya habari zake mwenyewe bali kwa ajili ya Abrahamu. Hadi wakati huu Abrahamu hakujua kwamba alikuwa na imani ya namna hiyo ndani yake. Kwa kutoa ombi hilo gumu sana, Mungu kwa hakika alimtoa Abrahamu kilicho bora zaidi.[234]

Pili, kwa mtazamo wa Kikristo, hadithi ya Mwanzo 22 inapata umuhimu wa ziada kama mfano wa unabii uliotendeka. Kama anavyoeleza Andy Patton:

Hadithi ya Abrahamu na Isaka inapata maana kubwa zaidi ukiweka katika muktadha wa uigizaji wa kinabii. Katika Biblia yote, Mungu aliwaomba manabii kutenda mambo ambayo alisema angefanya (k.mf., Eze. 5:1-4). Vitendo vyenyewe havina utata sana tunap时代的viona kwa nuru hii. Kisha tunaanza kuuliza [Je,] Mungu alikusudia tujifunze nini kupitia hili? Kama vile Mungu . . . alivyomwambia Ezekieli alale ubavuni mwake kwa zaidi ya mwaka mmoja kuashiria mzingiro wa Yerusalemu (Eze. 4), ndivyo Mungu alivyomwomba Abrahamu kuigiza nafasi ya Mungu katika dhabihu ya mwanawe mwenyewe . . . . Isaka na Yesu wote ni “wana wapendwa” waliotarajiwa kwa muda mrefu ambao wanazaliwa katika mazingira ya miujiza (Mwa. 22:1). Wana wote wawili wanachukua mti ambao utakuwa kifaa cha vifo vyao mabegani mwao (Mwa. 22:6; Yn. 19:17). Katika hadithi zote mbili, baba anamwongoza mwana mlimani, na mwana anafuata kwa utii kuelekea kifo chake mwenyewe (Mwa. 22:3; Mt. 26:39). Na katika visa vyote viwili, Mungu hutoa mbadala wa dhabihu, ambao Abrahamu anasema itakuwa kondoo dume na waandishi wa Agano Jipya wanamtambulisha kama Yesu, “kondoo wa Mungu” (Mwa. 22:8; Yn. 1:29).[235]

The exact location of “the land of Moriah” is uncertain.
Jewish tradition links it to Jerusalem, where the temple was later built.
However, this identification is debated among scholars.

Genesis 22:2 refers to “the land of Moriah,” but does not clearly identify its location. The only other biblical reference to “Moriah” is in 2 Chronicles 3:1, where it is linked to Jerusalem and the site of Solomon’s temple. Because of this, Jewish tradition has long associated Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac with the temple mount in Jerusalem. This creates a strong theological connection between Abraham’s act and later temple worship.

However, some scholars question whether these two references point to the same place. John Walton suggests the similarity in names may be coincidental rather than intentional. Nahum Sarna argues that the geography does not fit easily. Jerusalem may not align naturally with the “three-day journey” described in Genesis. Others, like A. E. Steinmann, respond that “the third day” is a narrative expression and does not require a full three-day journey. In that case, Jerusalem remains a possible location.

Additional arguments involve practical details, such as Abraham bringing wood with him. Some see this as evidence for a more remote destination, while others interpret it as preparation for immediate obedience.

Robert Harris cautions that “the land of Moriah” and “Mount Moriah” may not refer to the same exact place. The terminology itself leaves room for uncertainty.

In summary, while tradition strongly connects Moriah to Jerusalem, the exact location of the Genesis 22 event cannot be established with certainty.

It isn’t clear what location is referred to in Genesis 22:2 as the “land [or ‘region’] of the Moriah.” Jewish tradition associates “the land of the Moriah” with that part of Jerusalem where the temple was later built.

God tells Abraham to go to “the land of the Moriah” (Genesis 22:2). On the one hand, theologian Victor P. Hamilton points out: “The only other Old Testament use of this name is in 2 Chr. 3:1. There Moriah is connected with Jerusalem, specifically that part of Jerusalem where Solomon built the temple.”[236] In Abraham’s time, this area had not yet been built upon, although it was near to the city walls. However, on the other hand, theologian John H. Walton argues that “the reference in Chronicles is most likely a coincidence of the same name.”[237]

Jewish scholar Nahum M. Sarna objects that the identity of locations between Genesis 22 and the later temple mount “cannot possibly be maintained” because “Jerusalem is not a three-days’ journey from Beer-sheba . . .”[238] However, theologian A. E. Steinmann responds that:

this is a misunderstanding of the phrase the third day in verse 4. It does not denote a three-day journey. Instead, the first day is the first day of the narrative – the day when God commanded the sacrifice; the second day marked the beginning of the journey (v. 3); and the third day was the day of arrival at the mountain and the sacrifice on it. Therefore, the journey occupied only parts of two days, and we ought not doubt that Mount Moriah in Chronicles is the mountain in the region of Moriah where Abraham sacrificed to God.[239]

Moreover, as theologians Alex Varughese and Christina Bohn observe:

Reference to three days/third day appears frequently in the OT to designate a significant segment of time necessary for the preparation of important events (see, for example, Gen 31:22; Exod 3:18; 5:3; Num 10:33; Jonah 3:3; Esth 5:1).[240]

Sarna also objects that since “the hills of Judea would have amply supplied”[241] wood for a sacrifice, the fact that Abraham took wood on the journey shows he must have had a different destination in mind, one where an ample supply of wood could not be relied upon. Varughese and Bohn offer the alternative conjecture that “Taking enough wood for the offering indicates Abraham’s intent to carry out the sacrifice without any delay upon arrival at the destination.”[242]

Robert Harris (Professor of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at Jewish Theological Seminary) urges caution in identifying “the land of the Moriah” with “Mount Moriah”:

At first glance, the reference to Moriah seems clear enough: our tradition associates it with the place that Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac . . . and, later on, with the site of Solomon’s Temple . . . . however [2 Chronicles 3:1] mentions “Mount Moriah,” not “the land of (the) Moriah.” While it does seem evident that by the later biblical books, Moriah was a place–name identified with Jerusalem, it is less clear that this site is necessarily the same one to which Abraham led Isaac. To make a long story short, an exact understanding of the name (or word) “Moriah” will likely always elude us.[243]

Perhaps “Mount Moriah” in Jerusalem is “one of the mountains [or ‘hills’]” in “the land of the Moriah” mentioned in Genesis 22:2, and perhaps Jewish tradition named this hill “Mount Moriah” on the basis of an accurate tradition linking it to the Genesis 22 narrative, but it is hard to have much confidence here. In sum, the identification of Mount Moriah in Jerusalem with the location of the “binding” of Isaac in Genesis 22 is possible but “far from certain . . .”[244]

Human sacrifice did occur in the ancient Near East, though it was relatively rare.
Child sacrifice is attested in some cultures, but not specifically in Ur.
Sarah’s reaction in the episode is artistic license and may be anachronistic.

Human sacrifice was practiced in parts of the ancient Near East, though it was not widespread. It is attested among cultures such as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Moabites, and others. Child sacrifice is also mentioned in biblical texts and some external sources. For example, practices associated with Molech are condemned in the Old Testament. Outside the Bible, child sacrifice is most clearly attested in places like Carthage. However, this is later and geographically removed from Abraham’s setting.

Archaeological evidence from Ur, Abraham’s likely city of origin, includes human sacrifice. The Royal Cemetery of Ur contains “retainer sacrifices,” where attendants were buried with elites. These victims were adults, not children. There is no clear evidence of child sacrifice specifically in Ur.

Other sites in the ancient world show possible sacrifice of younger individuals, but such cases are relatively rare and often debated.

Importantly, ancient people did not necessarily view sacrifice the way modern people do. It could be seen as a religious duty rather than a moral horror.

This means Sarah’s strong emotional reaction in the episode may not reflect ancient attitudes. It is likely a modern perspective projected into the story.

Additionally, Isaac himself is best understood as a young man in Genesis 22, not a small child.

In summary, while human and even child sacrifice did exist in the ancient world,
there is no specific evidence for it in Ur, and Sarah’s reaction is a creative addition rather than a historical detail.

Human sacrifice was a feature of ancient near eastern culture, though child sacrifice was probably a less common practice than adult sacrifice. Sarah’s horror at child sacrifice in Episode Eight, which does not feature in the Genesis narrative, is a piece of artistic license that may be anachronistic. We do have literary and archaeological evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in the ancient near east, including in the city of Ur (which is presumably “the city” to which Sarah refers in this episode). Some of the literary and archaeological evidence pertains to child sacrifice, although there’s no specific evidence of child sacrifice taking place in Ur. That said, Isaac was actually a young man rather than a child at this point in the Genesis narrative.

Human sacrifice was a reoccurring if fairly rare feature of ancient near eastern culture,[245] and child sacrifice seems to have been a less common practice than that of adult sacrifice. As Alex Varughese and Christina Bohn observe: “Human sacrifice was a religious practice in the ancient world. . . This practice is attested among the Phoenicians, the Ammonites, the Moabites (2 Kgs 3:27), the Egyptians, and the Canaanites . . .”[246] Besides multiple references reporting and condemning the practice of child sacrifice in the Old Testament literature (e.g. Leviticus 18:21, Deuteronomy 12:31 & 18:10, 2 Kings 3:27, Jeremiah 32:35):

The practice of child sacrifice is attested in other sources throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, particularly in Carthage [a Phoenician colony that thrived from c. 800 BC until 146 BC]. In the city, a sacred grove and a temple were dedicated to one such cult. Carthage was founded by Phoenician colonists which gives them a connection to the Canaanites. It has been suggested that there is also a connection between the child sacrifices practiced in Carthage and similar practices in Canaan and Judah such as the cult of Moloch.[247]

Danish archaeologist Laerke Recht observes that: “In terms of the archaeological evidence, human sacrifice can be very difficult to detect, and may at times be indistinguishable from other practices.”[248] However, she notes that:

The prime archeological example of human sacrifice in the ancient Near East is the Early Dynastic “Royal Cemetery” at Ur. Dug in the early twentieth century by Leonard Woolley, this cemetery contains at least 16 “royal” graves and “death pits” with human sacrificial victims.[249]

The Early Dynastic “Royal Cemetery” at Ur (dated c. 2600-2450 BC, about seven or eight centuries before Abraham lived) features a so-called “retainer sacrifice,” whose victims were adults intended to accompany their masters into the afterlife.[250] Another example of retainer sacrifice occurred during Egypt’s early history:

Human sacrifices have been found by the graves of early pharaohs at Abydos, a city in southern Egypt that served at times as Egypt's capital and was the cult center for Osiris, the god of the underworld. The practice appears to have become less common or completely phased out by the time the Giza pyramids were built around 4,500 years ago.[251]

Archaeology testifies to other forms of human sacrifice in the ancient world, and children sometimes feature in this evidence. For example, a team led by Dr Brenna Hassett:

examined burial practices at Başur Höyük, a Bronze Age cemetery in Turkey. It contains a series of individuals who were buried between 3100 and 2800 BCE. The site dates to 500 years before the famous Royal Cemetery of Ur . . . . In three graves were found the remains of at least 11 people, male and female, ranging from age 11 to young adults.[252]

According to Hassett: “There are various pieces of evidence which suggest that these young people did not die accidentally or naturally - rather they were sacrificed.”[253]

As for Sarah’s reaction to child sacrifice, we should heed the note of caution struck by Dr Josephine Quinn of Oxford University’s Faculty of Classics when she comments that “We should not imagine that ancient people thought like us and were horrified by the same things.”[254] As Recht observes: “the ancient people of the Near East may not have understood human, or indeed animal, sacrifice as a violent, repulsive act.”^[255] The “test” set before Abraham (and Sarah and Isaac) in Genesis 22 is not the “horrific” concept of child sacrifice as such, but the “test” of how they will to respond to God’s request in light of everything else they think they know about God’s character and covenant agenda. As theologian John H. Walton comments:

the command to sacrifice his son would not have been as shocking to Abraham as it is to us. In the Canaanite worldview, the god who provided fertility (El) was also entitled to demand a portion of what had been produced . . . . in Abraham’s day it was considered a deity’s right to ask for such a sacrifice, and Abraham does not question that right.[256]

What Abraham (along with Sarah and Isaac) has to wrestle with is the baffling, paradoxical nature of God’s request “in light of the covenant promises.”[257]

Abrahamu aliamini kwamba Mungu angetimiza ahadi yake kumhusu Isaka.
He believed God would preserve Isaac’s life.
His obedience flowed from faith, not certainty about the outcome.

Abrahamu alilitii agizo la Mungu kwa sababu aliamini tabia na ahadi za Mungu.
God had already promised that Isaac would be the one through whom the covenant would continue. This created a tension: how could Isaac die if the promise depended on him?
Abraham obeyed anyway, trusting that God would resolve the contradiction.

Genesis 22 contains deliberate ambiguity about what would happen. Abraham tells his servants, “we will come back,” suggesting he expected Isaac to return. When Isaac asks about the sacrifice, Abraham replies that “God will provide.” This answer leaves open whether God would provide a substitute or act in another way.

Some Jewish interpreters suggest Abraham may not have fully understood the command. The wording can mean “offer him up,” without explicitly stating that Isaac must be killed. Even so, Abraham proceeds in obedience. His faith is not based on clarity, but on trust.

The New Testament (Hebrews 11:19) later reflects that Abraham believed God could even raise Isaac from the dead. This shows the depth of his confidence in God’s ability to keep His word.

Culturally, sacrifice was not an unthinkable concept in Abraham’s world. What made this situation unique was the conflict with God’s promise.

In the end, Abraham acts because he trusts that God is just and faithful. He does not know how the story will end, but he believes God will remain true.

Abraham alikuwa na imani ya dhati kwa Mungu (yaani alimtolea Mungu uaminifu wake na kumtegemea) na alikuwa na hakika kwamba Mungu angekuwa mwaminifu kwa neno lake la agano. Kwa hiyo, Abrahamu anaonekana kuwaza kwamba Mungu ama angezuia kutolewa kafara kwa Isaka (na kutoa mhanga mwingine badala yake), au kwamba Mungu angemfufua Isaka kutoka wafu.

Kuna utata fulani uliokusudiwa katika masimulizi ya Mwanzo kuhusu “kufungwa kwa Isaka” ambao unapendekeza kwamba huenda Abrahamu hakuwa na hakika kama Mungu alitaka amtoe Isaka dhabihu au la; lakini Abrahamu alikuwa na hakika kwamba kwa njia moja au nyingine, as he told his servants before he headed up the mountain with Isaac: “Sisi itaabudu na kisha sisi ”tutarudi kwenu." (Mwanzo 22:5, Nuru, msisitizo umeongezwa).

Kulingana na Mwanzo 22:2, Mungu anamtaka Abrahamu amchukue Isaka mpaka “nchi ya Moria” na “kumtoa sadaka huko [au “kwa ajili ya”[258]] sadaka ya kuchomwa juu ya mmoja wa milima [vilima] nitakaokuambia.” Mwanafalsafa Paul Copan anaeleza kwamba:

Neno la Kiebrania Moriah linatokana na neno la Kiebrania furaha, “toa, ona, onesha.” . . . . Kwa hiyo katika neno Moriah lenyewe (“utoaji”) tuna ishara ya wokovu na ukombozi.[259]

Zaidi ya hayo, neno la Kiebrania lililotafsiriwa kuwa “kumtoa dhabihu huko” hasi inamaanisha “mfanye apande huko kama [kwa ajili ya] kitu kinachopanda.” Kulingana na mfasiri wa Kiyahudi wa enzi za kati Rashi, Mungu alimpa Abrahamu amri yenye utata, bila kutoa maagizo yoyote ya wazi ya “kumchinja” Isaka (ambayo ingehitaji neno la Kiebrania shachtehu^[260]):

kwa sababu Mtakatifu . . . hakutaka amuue, bali alimwambia ampeleke mlimani ili kumtoa awe sadaka ya kuteketezwa. Basi alipokwisha kumpanda naye, Mungu akamwambia, “Mshushe.”^[261]

Kwa maneno mengine, Mungu alimtaka Abrahamu toa ofa Isaka kama dhabihu, lakini hakumwomba Abrahamu afanye hivyo kweli ua au “kumchinja” Isaka.

Utata wa ombi la Mungu unaweka mazingira ya kutokuwa na hakika kwa Abrahamu mwenyewe kuhusu yale ambayo yangetokea. Hivyo Rabi Binny Freedman anauliza swali la balagha: “Namna gani ikiwa Abrahamu hakuhakika kweli na kile ambacho [Mungu] alitaka kutoka kwake?”^[262] Vivyo hivyo, Paul Copan anaandika kwamba: “Abrahamu alijua kwamba Mungu angetimiza ahadi yake kumhusu Isak, lakini hakujua Mungu angefanya nini mwishoni.”[263]

Walipokuwa wakipanda mlima:

Izaaki akamwambia Abrahamu baba yake, “Baba yangu!” Naye akasema, “Mimi hapa, mwanangu.” Akasema, “Tazama, moto na kuni, lakini yuko wapi mwana-kondoo wa kutoa sadaka ya kuteketezwa?” Abrahamu akasema, “Mungu atajipatia mwana-kondoo wa sadaka ya kuteketezwa, mwanangu.” Basi wakaendelea wote wawili pamoja. (Mwanzo 22: 7-8)

Angalia utata wa jibu la Abrahamu, ambalo linaacha wazi kama Abrahamu anasema kwamba Mungu atatoa “mwanangu” (yaani Isaka) kama “mwana-kondoo” wa mfano, au kama Abrahamu anamwambia mwanawe (yaani Isaka) kwamba Mungu atajipatia “mwana-kondoo” wake halisi kwa ajili ya dhabihu.

Jean E. Jones anasema kwamba:

Katika mahali pa kuzaliwa kwa Abrahamu, Uru, mila za kidini zilihusisha dhabihu za binadamu. Moja ya uchimbaji wa kushangaza zaidi kutoka Uru ni kile kinachoitwa “Makaburi ya Kifalme” pamoja na mashimo yake yenye dhabihu za binadamu. . . . Abrahamu alihamia Harani, karibu na maeneo mengine ambapo dhabihu za binadamu zimefukuliwa kutoka enzi hiyo hiyo. . . . Licha ya kwamba kulikuwepo pia na dhabihu za watoto wachanga katika maeneo hayo, hizi hasa ni dhabihu za watu wazima. Hili ni jambo la maana kwa sababu wakati Mungu alipomjaribu Abrahamu kwa kumtaka amtoe Isaka dhabihu, Isaka hakuwa mtoto. . . .^[264]

Hakika, neno ambalo Mwanzo 22:5 linatumika kwa ajili ya Isaka na watumishi linatumika katika Mwanzo 14:24 kuelezea kijana wa umri wa kijeshi. Alex Varughese na Christina Bohn wanaripoti kwamba:

Neno na‘ar (lenye maana ya “mvulana,” “kijana,” “mtumishi”) linatumika katika mstari wa 5 kwa ajili ya watumishi na Isaka . . . neno hili linahusiana na umri kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja tu; mara nyingi linaonyesha hali ya mtu kama “mkuu chini ya mamlaka na ulinzi wa baba yake” au “mkuu au kamanda wake” . . .[265]

Mtaalamu wa Agano la Kale wa Kiyahudi Isaac Kalimi anaeleza kwamba:

Baadhi ya marabi wanachukulia Agidah sio tu mtihani wa Abrahamu bali pia wa Isaka . . . alikuwa na ufahamu kwamba baba yake alikuwa akimpeleka kwenye kifo, lakini kwa hiari alimfuata na kumtii. Hii ndiyo maana ya maneno yanayorudiwa, “na wao wawili wakaenda pamoja” (Mwa. 22:6b, 8b) . . . . Utayari wa Isaka kutolewa dhabihu unatajwa tayari na Josephus [Vitu vya kale 1.232], Pseudo-Philo (Kitabu cha Mambo ya Kale ya Biblia 32:1-3), na 4 [Wamakabayo] 7:13-14 . . .^[266]

Kidokezo kingine cha kimaandishi ndani ya masimulizi ya Mwanzo kinachoonyesha mwelekeo huu ni ukweli kwamba Isaka alikuwa na nguvu za kutosha kubeba kuni za dhabihu, na kwa hiyo labda angeweza kumpinga Abrahamu kama angekuwa na nia ya kufanya hivyo:

Kufungwa huko basi kunamaanisha tu kwamba Abrahamu anatenda kulingana na desturi ya sadaka ya kuteketezwa. Vidokezo katika sura hii kwamba Isaka anashiriki katika kile kinachotokea vinatoa msingi wa mwelekeo wa tafsiri ya Kiyahudi kuhusu utayari wa Isaka kutolewa a kuwa dhabihu.[267]

Uelewa huu wa Kiyahudi wa Mwanzo 22 unaeleweka ukizingatia asili ya kitamaduni ya Mashariki ya Kale ya Karibu. Kama Jones anavyoona:

Watu wa siku za Ibrahimu hawangeweza kuona chochote ambacho si cha kimaadili kuhusu dhabihu za binadamu. Kwa kweli, waliona kuwa ni tendo la utauani mkuu... katika tamaduni zilizoamini katika miungu inayotoa baraka badala ya dhabihu, kumtoa mtoto dhabihu kungechukuliwa kuwa jema la kimaadili... Bwana Mungu alitoa kondoo dume ili kuonyesha kwamba Mungu huyu alikuwa tofauti: Mungu huyu hakutaka wanadamu wawatoe wanadamu dhabihu.^[268]

Mtaalamu wa akiolojia kutoka Denmark, Laerke Recht, anatoa maoni kwamba “watu wa kale wa Mashariki ya Karibu huenda hawakuwa wakichukulia dhabihu za binadamu, au hata za wanyama, kama kitendo cha jeuri na cha kuchukiza.”^[269]

Ufafanuzi huu wa Kiyahudi wa Mwanzo 22 uliathiri Qur'ani, ambapo Ibrahimu na mwanawe asiyetajwa jina wana mazungumzo haya:

[Ibrahim] akasema: “Ewe mwanangu, hakika mimi ninaona katika ndoto kwamba ninakuchinja; basi inangalie wewe, unaonaje?” Akasema: “Ewe baba yangu, fanya unayoamrishwa; utanipata mimi, Inshallah, miongoni mwa wanao subiri.” (Surah 37:102)[270]

Wakati Waislamu wa siku hizi mara nyingi wakifikiri kwamba mwana katika mazungumzo haya ni Ismail, “wafafanuzi wa mwanzo kabisa wa Kiislamu waligawanyika kuhusu ni mwana yupi aliyekusudiwa.”[271] Tazama Sehemu ya Nane: Swali la Saba kwa maelezo zaidi kuhusu hili.

Hatimaye, kumbuka kile ambacho Abrahamu aliwaambia watumishi wake kabla ya kuondoka na Isaka: “Sisi itaabudu na kisha sisi atarudi kwenu.” (Mwanzo 22:5, NIV, mkazo umeongezwa). Kitabu cha Agano Jipya kinachojulikana kama Waebrania anaona kwamba kwa sababu Abrahamu “alikuwa amepokea ahadi [za Mungu]” (Waebrania 11:17) - ikijumuisha kugeuzwa kwa muujiza kwa kukoma kwa hedhi kwa Sara na baadaye kutungwa mimba kwa Isaka mwenyewe - “aliona kwamba Mungu anaweza kuwafufua watu hata kutoka kwa wafu” (Waebrania 11:19). Kwa maneno mengine, kwa kuzingatia uzoefu wake wa maisha akimfuata Mungu, Abrahamu alikuwa na hakika kwamba “mwamuzi wa dunia yote [angetenda] kwa haki,” (tazama Mwanzo 18:25) na kwamba kwa njia fulani, Mungu angetimiza ahadi zake za agano (Mwanzo 17:19). Kwa hiyo, ikiwa Mungu alitaka Abrahamu amtoe Isaka kuwa dhabihu kweli, basi Mungu angemfufua Isaka kutoka wafu, kwa sababu hiyo ingekuwa njia pekee kwa Mungu kutimiza ahadi yake ya agano kwa Abrahamu, ambayo ilikuwa imejikita katika wazao wa Isaka.