“Isaac is said to have been sacrificed unto God, whereas in the Qur’án . . .”

[Ahanu]

His first enquiry concerneth the fact that, in the Scriptures of the past, Isaac is said to have been sacrificed unto God, whereas in the Qur’án this station—that is, the sacrifice unto God—hath been revealed and recorded for Ishmael. What he hath mentioned is undoubtedly the truth. All people must, however, fix their gaze upon the Word that hath dawned from the horizon of Divine Utterance. It is incumbent upon every soul to ponder its sovereignty and pervading influence, its might and all-encompassing power. There can be no doubt that these matters are confirmed and proven only through the Word of God. It is the Word of God that standeth supreme over all things. It is the begetter of the world and the educator of its people. It summoneth them that wander athirst in the vale of separation to direct their steps towards the ocean of reunion. It illuminateth the darkness of ignorance with the morning light of knowledge.

Consider how in this day all those who believe in the Scriptures of the past accept that Isaac was a sacrifice unto God; likewise, the people of the Qur’án affirm the same station for Ishmael. This, despite the fact that it is clear and evident to every possessor of insight and understanding that, to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed. Meditate, therefore, on the reason why a person that hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back alive was clothed with the robe of divine sacrifice and was invested with the ornament of His acceptance. There is no doubt that he attained this station and was adorned with this mantle through the agency of the Word of God. Thus, the appearance, the realization, and the fulfilment of every name, station, and created thing are all dependent upon the Word of God.
-Bahá’u’lláh

Additional Tablets and Extracts from Tablets Revealed by Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

www.bahai.org

 

[Ahanu]

“This, despite the fact that it is clear and evident to every possessor of insight and understanding that, to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed. Meditate, therefore, on the reason why a person that hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back alive was clothed with the robe of divine sacrifice and was invested with the ornament of His acceptance."

 

[Eldrus]

in the Scriptures of the past, Isaac is said to have been sacrificed unto God, whereas in the Qur’án this station—that is, the sacrifice unto God—hath been revealed and recorded for Ishmael.

Consider how in this day all those who believe in the Scriptures of the past accept that Isaac was a sacrifice unto God; likewise, the people of the Qur’án affirm the same station for Ishmael.

@Ahanu

Someone has the wrong end of the stick here. Neither Ishmael nor Isaac were sacrificed.

God tested Abraham by testing his willingness to sacrifice even his own son. When Abraham showed that willingness, God told him to spare Isaac and to sacrifice instead a ram he found tangled in a thicket.

Neither Isaac’s blood, nor that of Ishmael, was actually spilled. It is explained clearly in the Bible.

 

[Ahanu]

@Ahanu

Someone has the wrong end of the stick here. Neither Ishmael nor Isaac were sacrificed.

Someone has missed Bahá’u’lláh’s point.

 

[Ahanu]

@Ahanu

Someone has the wrong end of the stick here. Neither Ishmael nor Isaac were sacrificed.

God tested Abraham by testing his willingness to sacrifice even his own son. When Abraham showed that willingness, God told him to spare Isaac and to sacrifice instead a ram he found tangled in a thicket.

Neither Isaac’s blood, nor that of Ishmael, was actually spilled. It is explained clearly in the Bible.

You wrote: "Neither Isaac’s blood, nor that of Ishmael, was actually spilled... God told him to spare Isaac and to sacrifice instead a ram..."

Bahá’u’lláh wrote: "...to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed." He says the person "went to the altar of sacrifice... and yet hath come back alive."

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

This same passage was just brought up on another forum and they also missed what Baha'u'llah was saying.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

Consider how in this day all those who believe in the Scriptures of the past accept that Isaac was a sacrifice unto God;

in the Scriptures of the past, Isaac is said to have been sacrificed unto God

Which scripture says that Isaac was sacrificed? He was not sacrificed.

EDIT: Perhaps its just a translation issue?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Which scripture says that Isaac was sacrificed? He was not sacrificed.

EDIT: Perhaps its just a translation issue?

This is in the quote, also post #2.

"...This, despite the fact that it is clear and evident to every possessor of insight and understanding that, to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed.."

In the Scriptures of the past, Isaac was to be the sacrifice unto God and in the Qur’án this gives the same station for Ishmael.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

This is in the quote, also post #2.

"...This, despite the fact that it is clear and evident to every possessor of insight and understanding that, to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed.."

In the Scriptures of the past, Isaac was to be the sacrifice unto God and in the Qur’án this gives the same station for Ishmael.

Regards Tony

I understand. However in no scripture does it say that Isaac was sacrificed.

Bahaullah seems to be saying that Isaac was not really sacrificed, in spite of the fact that the Bible says he was. In fact the Bible makes it quite clear that Isaac was not sacrificed. It is the whole point of the episode.

Consider how in this day all those who believe in the Scriptures of the past accept that Isaac was a sacrifice unto God; likewise, the people of the Qur’án affirm the same station for Ishmael.

So it's confusing.

As I said, perhaps it's just lost in translation.

 

[Ahanu]

I understand. However in no scripture does it say that Isaac was sacrificed.

Bahá’u’lláh agrees: “to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed.”

However, New Testament authors clearly refer to Isaac as an offering upon a sacrificial altar: “Ouk Abraam ho patēr hēmōn edikaiōthē ex ergōn, anenenkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thysiastērion?” (James 2.21)

This aligns with Bahá’u’lláh’s observation that “all those who believe in the Scriptures of the past accept that Isaac was a sacrifice unto God.” Also, the perfect tense verb προσενήνοχεν (prosenēnochen) in Hebrews 11.17 describes a completed spiritual action (Abraham has offered up Isaac). The scripture treats the spiritual sacrifice as fully accomplished, even though an animal was physically slain in his place.

 

[wil]

The problem, like newspapers is the choice of headline.

The title of the thread (maybe not the content of the thread) is the issue.

One writes headlines to get folks to respond...it worked.

 

[Ahanu]

The problem, like newspapers is the choice of headline.

The title of the thread (maybe not the content of the thread) is the issue.

One writes headlines to get folks to respond...it worked.

The problem is this; the problem is that.

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.”
-Rumi

The title is not clickbait manufactured to “get folks to respond.”

The title simply reflects the text to be discussed.

 

[Ahanu]

I am not sure which Persian term Bahá’u’lláh uses above since I can’t find the Persian text, but I have ʻAbdu'l-Bahá’s Persian text on this matter.

As readers of English, we might misunderstand and confuse divine sacrifice (fidá) with mere butchery. The word fidá refers to a type of sacrifice, a spiritual surrender, the willing ransom of one's own self. Other words for sacrifice can include dhabh (ذبح), which means physical slaughter, or qurbání (قربانی), which refers to a ritual offering.

ʻAbdu'l-Bahá‘ uses all three in one sentence. God commanded sacrifice to produce the supreme spiritual state of fidá in both Abraham and his son.

مقصود از ذَبح و قربانی در كور حضرت خليل مقام فدا بود نه مرادْ قصّابی و خونريزی
Maqsúd az dhabh va qurbání dar kawr-i-Hadrat-i-Khalíl maqám-i-fidá búd, nah murád qassábí va khún-rízí
In the Dispensation of Abraham, by “immolation” was meant attainment to the station of sacrifice, not butchery [qassábí] and the shedding of blood.

Here is ʻAbdu'l-Bahá‘s text concerning the matter:

In the Dispensation of Abraham, by “immolation” was meant attainment to the station of sacrifice, not butchery and the shedding of blood. This is the mystery of sacrifice, and inexhaustible are its meanings. Among them are freedom from passion and desire, laying down one’s life in the path of guidance, and detachment from all save God. Another meaning is the annihilation of the seed and its appearance in all respects in the tree and the fruit. The seed doth truly sacrifice itself for the tree, for were the seed not to disintegrate outwardly, that tree with its branches, fruits, leaves, and blossoms would not come into being in the world of existence. Yet another meaning of sacrifice is for the Point of Truth, with all His manifold tokens, signs, precepts, and acts, to appear and become evident in all manifestations, whether universal or particular. That is to say, souls would derive their grace from His splendours and hearts receive their illumination from His rays. This mystery of sacrifice is clearly evident in the essence of every sanctified Reality, every celestial Being, and every effulgent Manifestation, in accordance with the rank and station of each. All have sacrificed Themselves, all have laid down Their lives in the path of God, and all have hastened to love’s field of martyrdom. For this reason, Isaac and Ishmael are both sacrifices, as are indeed all the true servants of God. This station is one of the necessary attributes of the Stars of the heaven of Divine Unity.

 

[RJM]

In the Dispensation of Abraham, by “immolation” was meant attainment to the station of sacrifice, not butchery and the shedding of blood. This is the mystery of sacrifice, and inexhaustible are its meanings. Among them are freedom from passion and desire, laying down one’s life in the path of guidance, and detachment from all save God ...

This makes sense. The sacrifice was never just about blood on the altar but about giving a valuable animal from the herd to God, or in Abraham's case, the willingness to sacrifice even his own beloved son. And the mystery of sacrifice extends beyond that.

Later the concept of sacrifice became corrupted to simply blood upon the altar.

Christ came to correct this as the last blood sacrifice -- to end blood sacrifice.

I understand this is the Baha'i section and don't wish to divert the discussion.

 

[Thomas]

Interesting ... and I agree that the mystery of sacrifice is inexhaustible ...

What struck me Abraham was instructed to sacrifice his son, and when it was clear he would do so, the Angel of the Lord stayed his hand.

Abraham then finds a ram trapped in a thicket, and sacrifices that – the Angel never instructed him to do so, as far as the text goes, the angel withdrew after telling Abraham not to harm his son.

The questions:
Did God not know Abraham's heart?
The ram is a chance (providential) find, not one of Abraham's flock. What value then is a sacrifice that essentially cost nothing?

I'm aware of various readings of this event ... it's just something I'm thinking about.

As above – not to divert the discussion.

 

[RJM]

Meditate, therefore, on the reason why a person that hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back alive was clothed with the robe of divine sacrifice and was invested with the ornament of His acceptance."

Bahaullah suggests that Isaac (or Ishmael) has acquired a special consideration by God's acceptance of his purity as sacrificial offering?

 

[RJM]

@Ahanu
Does the thought end there? Or does Bahaullah offer more on the subject?
I'm sure he brings himself into it?

 

[RJM]

Sorry, here:

"Meditate, therefore, on the reason why a person that hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back alive was clothed with the robe of divine sacrifice and was invested with the ornament of His acceptance. There is no doubt that he attained this station and was adorned with this mantle through the agency of the Word of God. Thus, the appearance, the realization, and the fulfilment of every name, station, and created thing are all dependent upon the Word of God."

Not sure where the thought goes from here? As when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Baha'i believe God is likewise speaking through Bahaullah. But other than that, what is the conclusion of the thought?

Respectful question and apology for multiple postings.

 

[Ahanu]

The questions:
Did God not know Abraham's heart?

Did God need to discover something He didn't already know? Instead of thinking like this, Abraham had to experience and actualize his own inner transformation. On another level, I think that, if his spiritual surrender had remained hidden in his heart (as something only God knows), it would be of no use to the countless generations that followed him. The test was also for us, to educate humanity.

“This profitless world produceth naught save deadly poison, and its ephemeral dregs can never yield the everlasting cup. Were the Jesus of the spirit to give ear to the call of holiness from the Falcon of the realm above, He would assuredly cry out from His inmost being and be seized with fervid longing even as the lover’s soul. It is through that call that the Moses of eternity was dumbfounded; it is by its virtue that the Abraham of faithfulness shattered the idol of the mortal body. Shatter then, in turn, this idol, that thou mayest take up thine abode in the land of the Beloved; and forsake all desire, that thou mayest take flight unto the Egypt of imperishable glory. Sanctify the city of thine heart, that thou mayest behold the beauty of the Divine Essence and be quickened to a new life through the grace of the Holy Spirit.”
-Bahá’u’lláh

The ram is a chance (providential) find, not one of Abraham's flock. What value then is a sacrifice that essentially cost nothing?

I'm aware of various readings of this event ... it's just something I'm thinking about.

As above – not to divert the discussion.

Was the ram the fidá? Or was the fidá Abraham enduring a three-day journey to Mount Moriah believing he was going to lose the person he loved most despite God’s promise?

 

[Ahanu]

His first enquiry concerneth the fact that, in the Scriptures of the past, Isaac is said to have been sacrificed unto God, whereas in the Qur’án this station—that is, the sacrifice unto God—hath been revealed and recorded for Ishmael. What he hath mentioned is undoubtedly the truth. All people must, however, fix their gaze upon the Word that hath dawned from the horizon of Divine Utterance. It is incumbent upon every soul to ponder its sovereignty and pervading influence, its might and all-encompassing power. There can be no doubt that these matters are confirmed and proven only through the Word of God. It is the Word of God that standeth supreme over all things. It is the begetter of the world and the educator of its people. It summoneth them that wander athirst in the vale of separation to direct their steps towards the ocean of reunion. It illuminateth the darkness of ignorance with the morning light of knowledge.

Consider how in this day all those who believe in the Scriptures of the past accept that Isaac was a sacrifice unto God; likewise, the people of the Qur’án affirm the same station for Ishmael. This, despite the fact that it is clear and evident to every possessor of insight and understanding that, to outward seeming, no such sacrifice took place, and all agree that an animal was sacrificed. Meditate, therefore, on the reason why a person that hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back alive was clothed with the robe of divine sacrifice and was invested with the ornament of His acceptance. There is no doubt that he attained this station and was adorned with this mantle through the agency of the Word of God. Thus, the appearance, the realization, and the fulfilment of every name, station, and created thing are all dependent upon the Word of God.
-Bahá’u’lláh

Additional Tablets and Extracts from Tablets Revealed by Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

www.bahai.org

More about the Tablet to Hájí Mírzá Kamálu'd-Dín:

Moojan Momen clarifies:

From the information given by Mazandarani in Amr va Khalq, it is not possible to be 100% sure who Haji Mirza Kamalu'd-Din was, but I cannot think of any prominent Baha'i at that time with that name other than Haji Mirza Kamalu'd-Din Naraqi. However, Naraqi was definitely not a Jew. He was the grandson of one of the most famous Muslim clerics of the reign of Fath-`Ali Shah, Mulla Ahmad Naraqi. In any case, a Jew is unlikely to have had the name Haji Mirza Kamalu'd-Din.The text of Amr va Khalq is a little difficult to understand but to me it appears to say "In the letter of Haji Mirza Kamalu'd-Din, Hakim Hizqiel Hayyim asks two questions..."Hakim Hizqiel Hayyim is undoubtedly a Jewish name. So I think it is correct that the questioner as Jewish, but Kamalu'd-Din himself was probably not the questioner. He merely conveyed the question. I cannot at present identify Hakim Hizqiel Hayyim and 1878 is before there were Jewish Baha'is resident in Kashan/Naraq, where Haji Mirza Kamalu'd-Din Naraqi was. So this may have been a question from a Jew, rather than a Jewish convert to the Baha'i Faith. This is interesting as it indicates that the Baha'is were talking to the Jews about the Baha'i Faith as early as 1878. [note from an email, 2015-12-04]