https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdEZbHYG5eY&t=5626s
I recently re-watched one of my favorite debates which included David Wood and Zakir Hussain. The debate took place many years ago and was called Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and the Covenant. I remember being impressed with a lot of David Wood’s answers. However, in re-watching the debate, I was a bit disappointed in something that David Wood did, or rather didn’t do.
Zakir Hussain tried to argue that the Abrahamic covenant was passed down through both Isaac and Ishmael. I thought his arguments were horrible. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that there was a covenant with or through Ishmael.
I do believe that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael. Some have tried to argue otherwise. This was actually raised in the Q&A. David Wood acknowledged that he didn’t stand by this argument. I personally don’t stand by it either. The fathers of the Church often referred to the Arabs as Ishmaelites.
No one in this debate had the idea of going into what the Quran says about a covenant with Ishmael. I’m re-reading the Quran right now. I don’t find anywhere in the Quran where it states that Ishmael was part of the Abrahamic covenant or any covenant at all. He certainly plays an important role and is listed alongside righteous men of the Old Testament such as Abraham and Isaac. However, despite the fact that he is honored, it does not say that he is part of the covenant.
Islam isn’t Sola Scriptura and therefore has other sources besides the Quran, namely the Sunnah which is contained in the Hadith. I will admit that I haven’t read the through the entirety of the six authentic collections of Hadith. I’ve read some and plan to read them all before 2018 is finished. However, I’ve never seen a Hadith where Muhammad or any of his companions say that God made a covenant with Ishmael and it continues through Muhammad.
Zakir Hussain and other Muslims say that the Bible is corrupted. This is expected. However, they believe that the Quran is Allah’s perfectly preserved word and that the Hadith are reliable traditions of Muhammad and the early Ummah. If the statement of a covenant with Ishmael is not in the Muslim sources then Muslims shouldn’t be claiming that it was in the pre-corrupted Bible.
Technically, one can be a Muslim in good standing and take David Wood’s position in the above debate since Islam doesn’t claim a covenant with Ishmael. The Quran and the Bible certainly contradict each other on key theological points such as Christology, the crucifixion and other things. On these points, I expect a Muslim to say that the Bible is corrupted and the truth is found in the Quran and the Hadith. What I don’t expect is for them to claim more than what their sources claim. The Islamic sources don’t claim that God has a covenant with Ishmael. If any Muslim wants to prove me wrong, all they have to do is quote a Muslim source that shows that this covenant exists.
Greetings again in Christos, Mr. Ruhl.
I might be able to summarize the entire debate.
Here’s the same video with comments from mainly Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cv9BS-1ks4
“Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and the Covenant – A Muslim-Christian Debate”
This debate was almost 8 years ago.
(Part 1, Zakir Hussain’s opening statement)
1. Verses from the Qur’an: 2:136, 19:54, 2:129, 22:26-29
2. David Wood must refute his proof texts:
2a. Genesis 17:18-20, Christians argue that Arabs will be great in physical sense while the scripture says it’s spiritual.
2b. Deuteronomy 33:2 and Genesis 21:21, Paran is Hijaz in Arabia and Memparan? is in Mecca.
2c. Isaiah 42 and Genesis 25:13, Kedar is most prominent tribe of Ishmael’s descendants like Judah
2d. Psalms 84:7, pilgrimage to Baca (Mecca)
2e. Isaiah 60, “Where have the Arabs gone to do their sacrifices?”
3. “How could Christians claim that Ishmael was not part of the covenant and that only Isaac was chosen? The main reason Christians think so low on Ishmael is what Paul wrote in a letter to the Galatians. Paul has actually proven that the NT is false and Genesis is filled with forgeries. Genesis 21 is a fabrication, refer to Galatians 4(:14?/:40?). Islam believes Ishmael was a baby when he was sent to Arabia.”
4. Sahih Bukhari, volume 4, book 55, hadith 583
5. Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac. Genesis 21:14, Ishmael was a baby being carried by Hagar to Arabia. “…then [Abraham] put the boy on [Hagar]’s shoulder and sent *her* away.” He put a 17-year-old boy on Hagar’s shoulder to Arabia *before Isaac was born* or the boy was cast out by Sarah?
6. Galatians 3:16, “Abraham and to his seed”, not “..and to seeds”; only seed who blessed the whole world was Muhammad, a descendant of Ishmael. Jesus had no father, cannot be from seed of Abraham. Biology concept that DNA passes from father to son.
7. If David Wood cannot refute numbers 5 and 6, the Bible is not an accurate historical document.
8. So far, God has plan for Ishmael’s descendants and Bible has errors/contradictions regarding the story (of what?).
9. Who was the son of sacrifice? Bible says Isaac, Qur’an and authentic narrations say Ishmael. Genesis 22:2, יָחִיד (yakhid) means “only begotten son/only child”. When was Isaac the *only begotten son* of Abraham? Ishmael for 14 years was the only begotten son before Isaac’s birth. Ferrari analogy.
10. Genesis 16, Ishmael allegedly called “wild donkey”, illegitimate son argument.
11. Genesis 12:3, Ishmael is legitimate and Hagar was a wife of Abraham.
12. Summary: (1) God in Bible and Qur’an had plans to send a prophet, scripture and pilgrimage for the descendants of Ishmael, (2) Paul thwarted a fabricated incident from Genesis: has a contradiction whether Ishmael was banished for mocking Isaac at age 17 or was a baby being carried by his mother to Arabia before Isaac was born, (3) Jesus had no father and cannot be a seed of Abraham, (4) Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham.
(Part 2 coming soon)