CIRA international miss the point; reason for Ishmael's sacrifice?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

In a dream Allah

2:124"tried Ibrahim with certain words".

Ibrahim had formerly shown great spiritual resolve by steadfastly opposing the religious practices of his people and relatives, even when they attempted murdering him. He turned away from his nation and migrated. He made the painful step of leaving, by Allah's command, his wife and infant son in an area of dry land, where no food and water or any inhabitants could be found. He was now being tested a step further as an upholder of God's way and will. The aim was this time, through his attachement to that progeny he had so long desired and prayed for, to make him reach the climax of prophethood by becoming the universal leader (Imam) of monotheism 2:124. 

This was another step in Ibrahim's journey, freeing himself from desires of prestige, wealth, women and children and turning with total surrender and progressing with complete devotion to the Lord

37:99"Surely I fly to my lord; He will guide me".

Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. When he sacrificed his connection to his homeland and idolatrous father, God re-established these broken connections. Ibrahim, the prototype of the religious outcast, was saved from his polytheistic environment, resettled in a better place and granted a righteous offspring. No sooner was all this achieved that once more, all is compromised through a new test of obedience. Would Abraham fall into complacency or be prepared to repeat his former sacrifice of social belonging for the sake of God? 

Abraham demonstrated again his unshakeable obedience to God, giving it precedence over human loyalties under all circumstances, just as the subsequent prophets would teach their followers, including Jesus and Muhammad.

Neither he nor his son failed the test of their trust in God; they both willingly set the stage for the sacrifice. Ismail, aware of the hardship ahead humbled himself to God, does not give himself any credit in the matter, instead asked to be increased in patience 37:102. Contrast this attitude of Ismail with the Biblical account where the son of the sacrifice is a passive participant. Up to the last moment when Abraham was about to slit his throat, he is unaware of the divine command and of his father's intentions towards him Gen22.

Ibrahim then placed his only beloved son, raised his hand with the knife but was stopped from going further

37:105"you have made the vision true..Most surely this is a manifest trial".

This shows that the reality of Ibrahim's vision was that he was GOING to sacrifice his son and not that he had sacrificed him. The act of slaughtering was therefore not part of the divine vision since it was not needed for its fulfilment, rather the preparedness to do it amounted to its fulfilment. God did not want him to sacrifice his son, but wanted to detach his heart fully, test his trust for a higher objective that included the dedication of Ismail (and his descendants through him) to the worship of Allah.This is Islam's essence, God wants nothing from His servants other than that they submit themselves to Him totally, with nothing too precious to be given up, including life itself. When both Ibrahim and Ismail demonstrated their Islam, what was left was flesh and blood, which the Quran says is secondary compared to submission 22:37 and which was thus substituted by another type of flesh and blood. 

Again, the Quran never says that Allah ordered Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, but speaks of Ibrahim being tried with "certain words" like Adam received 2:37"some words" that taught him how to perform repentance. The dream was symbolic and its fulfilment consisted in the preparedness in sacrificing his son, just like the fulfilment of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf's symbolic dream of celestial bodies bowing before him consisted in having his close family members prostrating to him

12:4,100"When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! Indeed, I saw eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to me...And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true".   

Ishmael was ransomed with a great sacrifice 37:107. The text does not say what that sacrifice was and what is it that made it great but as we continue reading, we see a clear correlation with the great institution of yearly sacrifice at the hajj and this heavenly ransom. It is the prime symbol by which Abraham is commemorated, as stated in the next verse

37:108"and we left for him a good name among the succeeding generations".

Until now and throughout the Muslim world, the courage and trust of Ibrahim in his Lord, his complete detachment from all worldly benefits, including the most precious gifts for God's sake, are remembered through the day of sacrifice ('id al adha). The theological significance of both the near sacrifice and the settlement of Ishmael away from Canaan had the clear purpose of making Abraham the leader(imam) of mankind and the establishment of a monotheistic sanctuary that would eventually guide mankind to the Abrahamic path.

So the whole thing had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. This selective application, considering that Abraham's son was never sacrificed but rather saved by God, also ignores the unequivocal mosaic prohibition of human sacrifices of any kind Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. It is an act of abomination and among the explicit examples given is that of the sacrifice of a son by his father, which eerly resembles the trinitarian idea. God's anger towards this action is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis, just as He did not command the sacrifice of Ishmael in the Quran. In Genesis it says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises. 

Neither did the sacrifice have for purpose to establishment a covenant. This had occurred prior, and included Ishmael. Isaac's particularity from a covenantal perspective is the land grant to his descendants, of which Ishmael wasnt part of. This, even the Quran agrees with; the Israelites, because of Abraham's obedience, were promised to be settled in the holy land, as a matter of test, whether they would remain on the straight spiritual path or not. Further, following the near-sacrifice, Abraham is told

 Gen22:16-18"I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me". 

None of those divine blessings apply to the Israelites, while all can easily reflect the trajectory of the Ishmaelites, and the climax being the revival of the Abrahamic way with the rise of the last Ishmaelite prophet.

To further elaborate on the incompetence of the transmitters of biblical tradition prior to it having been put unto writing, in Gen17:1-19 after announcing Isaac's futur birth, God promises to establish through his line

"an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him".

How could God then demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? Why would God change his name from Avram/exalted father to Avraham/father of nations, in connection to that promise and then almost immediately after request him to sacrifice his "only son"? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. Because of this absurdity, the Talmud presents different opinions with some suggesting that it was actually Abraham that was testing God and not the other way around, since Abraham was already aware that God had made a promise to him through Isaac. This is because a valid test is when one isnt sure of the outcome.

That difficulty in the text reflects down to the NT in Hebrews 11 which attempts to explain a contradiction. If God himself promises Abraham a covenant through Isaac, there is no reason for him to think God is a liar. Abraham will simply go on with the command all the while knowing the outcome (Isaac will live and fulfill the covenant). That is in fact exactly what Hebrews11 suggests, postulating that Abraham even thought beforehand that God would raise Isaac back from the dead after the sacrifice in order that the covenant be fulfilled through his line, just as He had promised prior to the test.

It may be argued that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made BEFORE his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and THEN the promise was made, meaning it happened AFTER the event of the sacrifice. 

CIRA international accuse Abraham; sending Hagar and Ishmael to die?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

The claim that Ishmael and Hagar were cast into Paran as a result of some wife jealousy is patently false, and as the Quran states, Ishmael was re-located by the command of God for a particular purpose, by Abraham, and neither were there conflicts between the wives or the brothers who are even depicted as attending their father's funeral together in the HB itself Gen25:9.

This means, and just as the Quran states, there were frequent trips throughout the years between the 2 locations, where both Abraham and Ishmael resided, involving at least Abraham as per the Quran, and implicitly Ishmael as per the HB since he was aware of his father's condition.

Abraham in addition, would never commit an act so be-smearing of any sensitive person. People dont just send their other wife and child into the midst of the wilderness to end the bickering of their wives. If this was the case, Abraham would have simply let Hagar and Ishmael reside in some tent in a nice place and not the desert wilderness, where they were to suffer from extreme thirst to the point the infant child, in addition ill on account of Sarah's evil eye, was on the verge of death.

But the scribes needed to depict Abraham as giving the "final order" as it would be tantamount to declaring Ishmael not a legitimate heir. Abraham was this way openly dissatisfied with Ishmael's actions and behavior, and all this with God in the background giving the directive

Gen21:12"in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee".

As a side note, although some progressive religious feminist Jews like presenting this verse as if women should sometimes be listened to and highly regarded, it isnt so in their own Talmudic writings, where there "sages" depict them as secondary to men and should be especially disregarded in spiritual matters (Bava Metzia 59a). One can only wonder why would God depose Ishmael from his birthright due to some mistreatment of his younger brother but on the other hand maintain the favors bestowed upon Isaac and subsequent Israelite prophets despite their reported treacheries and evil deeds.

Anyway, now that it has been established that Ishmael isnt part of any inheritence, cast away geographically and stripped from his birthrights by his own father, the scribes, obviously writing long after the events could not but mention his being made into a seperate nation Gen21:13.

And Abraham is not a typical human being, in the Quran's words

11:75"forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning to Allah".

He is a prophet, known for his empathy, piety and obedience to God, as well as notorious in the Bible for his arguing with YHWH himself to spare the lives of innocent strangers Gen18 and yet here he is suddenly incapable of pleading with a wife for his own beloved, and sick son. To claim he would place his wife and child in the desert for the sake of the petty jealousy of Sarah is a smearing campaign. It isnt normal behavior, let alone behavior for a Prophet of God. The scribes knew this so although they speak of Abraham's reluctancy Gen21:9-11, he nevertheless submits to his wife's alleged request and casts his beloved firstborn -heavily ill on top of that if one is to believe the Jewish tradition quoted earlier- into the wilderness. And as is often the case in the Hebrew Bible, God Himself is taking sides in those tribal conflicts

"Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed".

The Quran and the traditions state that it was for a clearer plan of which we see evidence today in the manifestation of the altar in Mecca known as the Kaaba. It is the prime symbol of the oneness of God throughout the whole world and will forever be, until the Day of Judgement.

Abraham's divine blessings indiscriminately extending to the righteous among his offspring, Ishmael's vital role in making this possible through his willing submission during the test of the sacrifice, all this clearly was against the scribes' tribal prejudice and notion of exclusive, unconditional choseness.

CIRA international find Islamic blessings: Abraham dedicating Ishmael to YHWH?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

Abraham asking God that

"Ishmael might live before thee"

has a specific meaning, besides the affectionate connotation. Being "before the Lord" or "in His presence" applies in Hebrew bible terminology to anything OFFERED to God or anyone DEDICATED to His service Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26,1Sam2:30,2Chron7:17 and throughout Leviticus.

Accordingly, the firstborn and "only son" Ismail was prepared for sacrifice then settled and resided beside the altar of Mecca, dedicated to the One God's service. Every Jewish translation and rabbinic comentary agrees with the fact that in Gen17:19 God accepted Abraham's request that Ishmael be dedicated to serve the Lord.

 The way this promise manifested itself obviously is a mystery to Jewish scriptures but not to the Quran 2:123-9,14:35-41 and Muslim tradition. The promise came true with the establishement of the Kaaba by both Ibrahim and Ismail, and the latter's settlement at the temple.

Per the Torah, it is Sarah who in the first place got Abraham to marry Hagar in order for him to bear a child Gen16. Upon her pregnancy, it is reported that Hagar started despising Sarah, so she complained to Abraham who replied

Gen16:6"Your servant is in your hands, Do with her whatever you think best".

So she was sent away in the wilderness but came back shortly after, when God told her to

Gen16:9"Go back to your mistress and submit to her".

After Isaac's birth, the situation became unbearable between the two sons because of Ishmael's misbehavior towards his brother. At that point the Talmudic smearing campaign against Ishmael becomes humorous, he is then not only a "young" idolater but also an adulterer (Rashi on Prov19:26). Seeing this situation, Sarah asked Abraham to

Gen21:10"Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac".

Abraham accepted her request and sent Hagar with his firstborn Ishmael, food and water all on her shoulders

"and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba".

As is clear in the wording of the verse and as understood in traditional Jewish interpretation, all elements mentionned are placed upon Hagar. This includes Ishmael who is now around 15years old!

The Jewish traditions state that Hagar's carrying of her child along with her food and water reserves was due to Ishmael being incapacitated by Sarah's evil eye cast upon him Gen. Rabbah 53:13. Just as with the invented dialogue between Abraham and God regarding which "only son" was meant, this obviously is an attempt at explaining away the absurdity of having a woman wandering in the dry desert heat, carrying her 15year old grown up boy and her meager provisions. When the meager means of subsistence tarried, and because of the debilitating sickness, Hagar

"cast the child under one of the bushes".

She couldnt bare to

"see the death of the child".

There is obviously no reason to assume that a healthy supposedly 16 year old teenager's life would be threatened by lethal dehydration that fast, faster than his mother. Unable to weave out from the inconsistencies of their corrupt story, the rabbinic commentators painted themselves into a corner, forced to cast even Sarah whom they revere as superior to Abraham in terms of revelational experience (exod. rabb. 1:1 tan. shem. 1) into a bad light. Sarah is the one who invoked some evil occult science that caused Ishmael to become severely ill and unable to walk.

Eventually

"God heard the voice of the lad" and told Hagar to "Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him". 

All these are obviously not the description of a 15-16 year old teenager but of an INFANT, as attested by the numerous Islamic traditions,

"Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on the mother of Ishmael! Had she not hastened (to fill her water-skin with water from the Zam-zam well), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” Ibn ‘Abbas further added, “(The Prophet) Abraham brought Ishmael and his mother (to Mecca) and she was suckling Ishmael and she had a water-skin with her.’".

The Hebrew hay-ye-led used to describe young Ishmael in that passage Gen21:14-19 is the same as the one used for Isaac when he was 2 years old as well as Moses when he was placed upon the river as an infant Ex2:3.

Another interesting observation is that Jewish tradition, firmly based on calculation from the HB, state that Rebecca was married to Isaac when she was 3 and he was 40. Isaac was 37 at the event of the near-sacrifice. Rebecca was born straight after that. Isaac was married to Rebecca when he was 40 Gen25:20 meaning 3 or 4 years after her birth.

And yet these calculations, despite their accuracy do not agree with the descriptions that are made of her prior to her marriage, which clearly denotes physical and mental maturity Gen24. This is the kind of internal inconsistency that happens when tradition is neglected, partially forgotten, inappropriately handled and transmitted, let alone purposefully tampered with.

The whole story is that of Hagar desperately fearing that her infant baby would die. Isaac wouldn't even have been born at the time for the incident that is alleged to have happened in verse 12.

If the incident was related to Isaac being born, Ishmael would NOT have been an infant at the time he was cast out.

It should also be noted that Beersheba was a place well known to Hagar, Ibrahim having lived there with her for long. Waterwells were dug all throughout the region and even by Ibrahim. All these could not have been unknown to Hagar. She could therefore have obtained further water, after a little search, from any of the many wells in the area, some of them she was very familiar with. And yet she is depicted as desperately wandering in search of water to no avail, to the point she cast the child under one of the shrubs until

"God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water".

It is worthwhile noting here yet another attempt at character assassination by the scribes, in their comentaries and oral tradition as quoted by Rashi, in order to minimize to the utmost any positive reference to Ishmael. In relation to that divine inspiration to Hagar, they quote the angels themselves protesting God's revealing of the well's location to Hagar Gen.rabbah

53:14"O Lord of the universe, for one who is destined to kill your children with thirst, You are binding up a well?! And He answered them "What is he now, righteous or wicked?" They replied "Righteous" He said according to his present deeds i judge him".

This other ridiculous "divine dialogue" also bellies the notion in their own traditions, cited earlier, that Ishmael at the time was an idolatrous adulterer.

Further, the essence of the order to banish Ishmael, per the Torah was to have only Isaac as Abraham's heir, while Ismail and his descendants should settle in and populate another land. How then could they have been settled in Beersheba which was then within the sphere of Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s activities? Hagar and Ismail could only have been, and were indeed consigned to an unknown, far-away and unsettled land. The Paran mentioned in the Genesis as the place where they finally settled could not simply have been any Paran in and around Beerseba and Sinai.

CIRA international follow the clues; Isaac the only son of Abraham?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

The first, most "in your face" oddity is God asking Abraham to sacrifice his Gen22:2,12"only son" Isaac. This would mean he had no son other than the one to be sacrificed. Yet this same book states Ismail, Abraham's firstborn son was 14 years older than Isaac, the supposed "only son" Gen17:17,24,25,18:10.

In the presence of his older brother Ishmael, the literal, firstborn and legitimate "only son" could never, at any point, have been Isaac.

Another inconsistency resulting from the identification of Isaac with the son of the sacrifice is that the HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2. Was Sarah living away from both husband and son all this time or just after the sacrifice and why? Jewish tradition suggests she dwelt in Canaan before Isaac's near sacrifice since it is this news that saddened her to the point it caused her demise Gen.Rabbah58:5. The only way she could have known of the incident while in Canaan was if Abraham and Isaac had left for the location of sacrifice (ie Moriah) from Canaan itself. However we are told Abraham and his "only son" left for the sacrifice from Beerseba, not from Canaan. And by the way, it would have never taken Abraham 3 days to reach Moriah in Jerusalem, from his location near Hebron, which is less than a day's walk.

The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice.

The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice. Interestingly, this Marwah which the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occurred. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.

Some Judeo-Christian apologists have tried brushing away the literal and exclusive meaning of "only son" by invoking an unwarranted, textually unsupported metaphorical interpretation. Isaac was the "only son" left with Abraham since Ishmael was allegedly "cast away" along with Hagar. Others say Isaac was the "only son", not of Abraham as per the words in Genesis, but "of the covenant" (although Ishmael was also previously included in a covenant as will be shown below).

All these suggestions, besides contradicting the meaning of the phrase as used in other places in the HB (see Zech12:10 for example), contradict even the Jewish oral traditions which, actually shows that the rabbis understood the problem of associating Isaac with the phrase.

But like recent apologists they must resort to the most absurd contortions of the text to make the phrase "only son" fit to Isaac. They firstly present Abraham as perfectly understanding the meaning of the expression in a concrete, not figurative way, since he asks whether it is Hagar or Sarah's only son that God means. Notice the clever diversion, making it sound as if the command to take "your son, your only son" was issued to Sarah or Hagar, while it was issued to Abraham. Why would Abraham need to know whether it is Sarah or Hagar's only son when the command was directed at him alone, meaning it was HIS only son that is intended?

Secondly, knowing themselves that it is the concrete meaning that is intended, create a surrealistic dialogue where Abraham confuses God's command to him specifically into an order that includes his wives. The dialogue supposedly cuts the flow of Gen22:2 and comes right after "take your son" in order to prepare the ground for the application of the phrase to Isaac:

(Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7)"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.”

One doesn't need to be told how forced on the story this 'explanation' is. But this oral tradition stresses the important point that the phrase was understood in that particular context in a literal, concrete way; it wasnt the figurative "only son" left with Abraham when Ishmael was sent away, it wasnt the figurative "only son" of the covenant. Abraham needed to know if God meant the literal only son of Hagar or the literal only son of Sarah. What this Talmudic tradition also shows is that Ibrahim loved both his sons equally and saw both Ismail and Isaac as equals and legitimate sons of his. This is in accordance with the mosaic law in Deut21:15-17.

Some modern Jewish translations though, to escape the difficulty of the phrase "only son", attach a specificity to it "the only one you love" ie (Ishmael was not loved). Neither the Midrash, nor the Talmud, nor even ancient Rabbinical authorities understand the verse in that way. This is not only incorrect grammatically, but also textually since many passages reflect Abraham's love of his firstborn. In fact in the whole pre-binding narrative the only love one can see is the one Abraham had for Ishmael, obviously the son he so dearly desired and that came in answer to his prayers, while he seems distant from his second son Isaac.

When God granted Abraham's wish of a son, he named him Ishmael meaning "God hears" in hebrew, because Ishmael was the answer of God to Abraham's prayer for a righteous son as reflected in both the HB Gen15:2 and the Quran 37:100-1. In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love", this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's reaction to God announcing a second miraculous birth, that of Isaac is

"O that Ishmael might live before thee".

It is expected for a firstborn to hold a special place in parents' hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son. This adds to the relevancy of the test in relation to Ishmael, as well as the statement "whom you love". Further, from a legalistic perspective the sanctity of the firstborn (human or else) is a recurrent them in the bible Gen4:4,Numb8:17-18,Ex13:1-2.

We interestingly find in the book of Jubilees (second temple retelling of Genesis and Exodus that was considered cannonical by Ethiopian Jews and Christians), that the Lord praises Abraham for “not refus[ing] me your first-born son whom you love" 

What is even more revealing is how Jewish oral tradition explains the defeated rebellious Moabite king Mesha's offering of his firstborn in sacrifice 2Kings3:27 it was to emulate Abraham's offering of his only son, his firstborn:

 In the Pesikta of the section of Shekalim it is expounded that he asked his servants ([in] Pesikta [and] Yalkut: his astrologers), “What is the character of this nation, that miracles such as these were performed for them?” They replied, “Their forefather, Abraham, had an only son. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, Sacrifice him before Me, and he wanted to sacrifice him to the Holy One, Blessed be He.” He said to them, “I too have a first born son. I will go and sacrifice him to the gods.”

Further, throughout their history of straying into the ways of the neighboring polytheistic nations, among the practices which they readily assimilated was children sacrifice which they adapted into their own tradition by offering the firstborn to the idol. See Rashi on Ezek20:31,39. Another interesting observation is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a fragment 4Q225 with an alternate version of the story, where Ishmael never appears on the scene prior to the binding of Isaac, making Isaac the true and literal "only son". The writer was aware of the inconsistency and obviously desired to fix it by changing the original text.

As to Isaac qualifying as an "only son" due to Ishmael being supposedly of illegitimate birth. Nothing in the mosaic law states that the child of a concubine is illegitimate or of a "lesser birth" than one born of a normal marriage. Had it been the case, it would defeat the whole purpose of the union, initiated and endorsed by Sarah herself. The purpose was to ensure a male heir to the childless couple.

Ismail was thus born of a legitimate union with Hagar whom he took as a wife Gen16:3. Hagar was the princess daughter of an Egyptian King according to even some Rabbinical traditions. As a side note, Solomon became allied to the Egyptian king through marrying his princess daughter 1Kings3:1 and loved her more than his other numerous wives 1Kings11. There are other such recorded unions, between Israelites and daughters of Egyptian nobility 1Chr4:18. David's great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite princess that preferred converting to Judaism and live as an ordinary member of the comunity. Her piety and good manners were well known, a book of the biblical cannon is named after her.

Abraham's marrying the daughter of a foreign nation's nobility is therefore certainly not something illegitimate or odd for the ancient people, including the Israelites. But blinded by their tribal hatred, they still argue that Ishmael was illegitimate due to a supposedly low birth to a foreign servant. Yet Ishmael is referred as Abraham's seed, taken to be circumsized, then distinguished as his son next to the purchased male slaves Gen17:23-27. Also, according to Deut21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother.

The Hebrew text's successive promises of blessing to Ibrahim's offspring and multiplying Ismail's progeny into a great nation Gen12,17 was something the Israelites writing the stories of the patriarchs much later than the events, could not ignore Gen21:21,25:9-18.

By the time the scribes were busy compiling the Torah, Ismail had already multiplied and his progeny had already established princes and nations throughout the region. But just as they had to admit their racial affinity with the Bedouins of the Great Peninsula, at the same time they needed to degrade them by tracing their origin to a slave-concubine of their common ancestor, Abraham.

CIRA international cannot deal with it; binding of Isaac or Ishmael in the Bible?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

The event, as reported in the Bible is one of the the most glaring displays of tribal prejudice by the Bani Israel, who are known for their tribalism, towards their own Israelite brethren and more blatantly against their brethren of Bani Ishmael.

The Quran addresses this unjust behavior of theirs after giving a detailed account of the achievements of Ibrahim and Ismail, including their construction of the first Temple of monotheism, the Kaaba

2:140"And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And lah is not at all heedless of what you do".

Similarly after mentioning the Safa and the Marwa as a sign and a place of pilgrimage in remembrance of the exact location where Hagar and Ismail were settled and guided to the Zamzam source, the Quran turns again to those of the Jews who conceal the truth 2:159.

The settlement of a place dedicated to propagate the Abrahamic legacy away from the sacred Jewish land, and established by their non-Israelite brethren, undermines the racist ideology prevalent throughout their scripture. This racism, besides having fueled all kinds of intertribal hatred among their own Israelite brethren, did not even spare the pure monotheism which they claimed to uphold, by turning the God of all mankind into an ethnical monolatrous deity.

Before detailing how the Abrahamic connection to Mecca and the Kaaba was distorted, the first thing to address is a recurrent question by Judeo-Christian apologists; how and when did the corrupt version of the patriarchs make it to the written Biblical text? The simple logical answer is that these corruptions were first transmitted orally, as would any lie be repeated and exaggerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed through successive periods of destruction, enslavement, tumult and exile.

The introduction of just one of many blatant falsehoods in their scriptures, is revealed by scrutinizing all related signs they could not blot out. These signs most often attest to carelessness in the transmission of religious knowledge, but also many times deliberate distortions fueled by their racial hatred. That disfigured version was eventually put in writing when Genesis was first composed, around the same time different parts of the Torah were written by priests and scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah during the First Temple period and the Babylonian Exile. This occured very far removed in time and space, let alone the Persian and Hellenistic cultural environment, and social conditions than the time of Moses, let alone Abraham. Scholars place that first redaction anywhere from the 9th to 6th centuries BCE, most probably the 7th which happens to coincide with the discovery of a scroll which nobody knew what it was until it was ascertained that it was the forgotten Torah 2kings22,23.

How uncanny that this unknown document suddenly reappears around the same time the Torah is believed to have been written and compiled. Most of these parts were stitched together by Ezra the Scribe to create a single historic narrative and legal code for the returning exiles. These authors were not writing from historical sources but were reflecting their own ideas, ideologies, cultural background, and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.

The Quran however sheds light on the approximate period where the prejudice against Ismail began to grow among the Israelites

2:133-4"were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your god and the god of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one Allah only, and to Him do we submit. This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

In the HB, this particular section of Jacob's story, his last moments among his family, is known among biblical scholars as one of the most convoluted and problematic accounts of the Torah, betraying the conflation of multiple traditions which the scribes tried harmonizing.  

As the Quranic version makes it clear, up to the time of Jacob and the first few generations that followed, Ismail's rightful place in prophetic history was recognized. What is also interesting here is how the Quran absolves a prophet of God, Jacob, from any type of prejudice, let alone tribal, and shows that his utmost priority in regards to his sons is that they worship the one true, universal God as opposed to the tribal monolatrous Jewish religion later grafted into the religion of Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob.

What is remarkable is the manner in which the Quran, in its usual pattern of employing words with surgical precision, subtly maintains the idea of a universal religion proclaimed by the Israelites' ancestors. When it quotes the prophet Yusuf/Joseph citing his physical relatives Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob he leaves no ambiguity as regards the universality of the religion of these noble figures. He states that the same uprightness God favored him and his ancestors with, was equally bestowed on all of mankind

12:38"And I follow the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it beseems us not that we should associate aught with Allah; this is by Allah's grace upon us AND ON MANKIND, but most people do not give thanks".

CIRA international undecided; Quran unclear on the child of sacrifice?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

The sequence in 37:99-113 shows Abraham asking God for a son. Ishmael, whose name itself means "God-hears", was the only one from his progeny that Ibrahim prayed God for. And this hapenned early on in Ibrahim's life, as he set himself to leave his land and people, disconnecting himself from his nation. He then naturally begged God to provide him with a righteous child so as to restore this broken connection. God directly answers the prayer, appeasing the heart of his devout servant. But later on, when Allah was about to raise Ibrahim to the status of guide/imam of mankind, father and son are put through a test. It occured once the boy reached his working age (which corresponds with Ismail's age of 13-14 right before the birth of isaac). When they both willingly fulfilled the command, God blessed Abraham with another son, Isaac as a reward. This concluding announcement of Isaac's birth would have been a redundancy had it been mentionned a few verses earlier. Also, the good news of Isaac came at a much later time in Ibrahim's life 11:72. 

The network of Quranic evidence together, all point to Ismail as the son of the sacrifice, while none, within the Book, support the Isaac view. The strongest argument in support of that later opinion is that the unnamed son is a "good news" to Ibrahim, while Isaac is also twice described as "good news" 37:112,51:28. This only works assuming Ishmael was no "good news", which he certainly was, as explained earlier. 

Further, the unnamed son is described in the same passage as forbearing and steadfast, like Ismail is 21:85. This fits the character of one going through a difficult test. Isaac is never qualified as such. Similarily, Ismail is one messenger prophet who was

19:54"truthful to his promise".

The stress laid on that quality is due to him fulfilling a word which would lead to what he thought meant to give up his own life in obedience to the divine will

37:102-3"O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!" So when they had both submitted..."

The reports stating that the sacrificed is Isaac are part of the Israeliyyat transmitted by those who converted among them like Kaab al-Ahbar and it was only transmitted as sign of trust. None of those reports go back to the prophet or his companions. Reuven Firestone, who is the leading scholar quoted by misinformed critics, admits that those opinions endorsing Isaac which he deems are earliest, were developped in a biblical milieu when

"Early Muslims naturally turned to Biblicists for information regarding legends found both in the Quran and the Bible".

All later opinions endorsing the Isaac theory eventually go back to such discarded reports that fooled them. With the conversion of many believers of former scriptures to Islam, the early Muslim authorities went to great lengths trying to curb the influence of Israeliyyat on Quranic exegisis and traditions. Although they could not completely stop the phenomenon, one notable example is that of the 4th Caliph Ali who threatened to flog those that interpreted David's encounter with the litigants in the Quran in light of the Biblical tradition.

That however did not stop some of the classical commentators from doing so. Every book of exegesis (Yusuf Ali's commentary is often misrepresented and misquoted, he does not endorse the Isaac theory) or biography or even history would mention the argument that took place on the topic. However, some would follow the argument by outlining the truth and others wouldn't add any commentary.

Many, most of those quoted by Islam critics are even found sometimes on both sides of the argument and this is because they were reporting both opinions. The most classic examples are those often quoted from Tabari, such as reports from Abu Kurayb, Ya’qub, Ibn Humayd or Ibn Bashshar who all relate both sides of the argument.

 Reuven Firestone himself admits that

"Most of al-Tabari’s traditions, however, place the location of the Sacrifice in the area of Mecca" and that "The battle between the two kinds of exegesis was probably won by the Mecca-Ishmael school even before the time of al-Tabari".

As he notes, even those faulty reports endorsing Isaac place the sacrifice in and around Mecca, which shows the baselesness of their opinions. The strongest reports going back to pillars of Islamic scholarship all endorse the position that the sacrificed was Ishmael, the likes of Ali, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Tufayl, Saad Ibn Jubayr, Mujâhid, al-Sha'by, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad Ibn Kaab al-Qardhy, Saad Ibn al-Musayyab, Abu Jaafar Muhammad al-Bâqir, Abû Sâlih, al-Rabî' Ibn Anas, Abû Amr Ibn al-Alâ', Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others.


The unanimous position of the scholars of hadith is that the Sacrificed is Ishmael. This is supported by Quran, sahih reports from the Companions and Followers and reports rated Marfu' (tacit approval) of the Prophet.

This opinion was famous among the Arabs before the advent of Islam and it was transmitted from generation to generation in tawatur and it was also mentioned in the pre islamic poetry of Umayyah Ibn Abi al-Salt.

The Muslim scholars have solved this case a long time ago and, very early in the history of Islam, the popular Islamic tradition has integrated the fact that Ishmael was the sacrificed.

CIRA international discuss Jewish rites; 2 lambs on yom kippur?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

This youtuber is attempting a poor parallel with the scapegoat ritual. It is the closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB is the scapegoat sacrifice Lev16. It happens on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur done each year. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. The apologetic counter argument that Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood and thereby could offer up himself as a sacrifice is useless in this case.

A non-Aaronic order of priesthood, regardless of its tribal origin has no relevancy to the requirements. Melchi-tzedek by the way is a description, not a name. It means "righteous king". Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins.

Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Acts17apologetics google translate; Kalima of Allah does not change?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"

Kalimatullah in these contexts is simply the word of God in the sense of His promise as amply used in the Quran 6:34,115,10:64,18:27 etc. Such divine word is a command that can never be reversed or altered once issued 13:41, it can be the promise of victory and assistance to the messengers and their followers 37:171-2 or the promise of chastisement to the rejecters 58:21 or again the promises of miracles or blessings whether in this life or the next. This is because, as repeatedly said in the Book, Allah's statement is truthful and He never breaks His promise

10:55,33:4,38:34"The truth then is and the truth do I speak" 39:20"Allah will not fail in (His promise)".

God placed the responsibility on humans to preserve the integrity of His revelations over time 5:44. But the people themselves, after revelation and knowledge came to them, began to confuse the truth 42:14. At that point God could have judged between the people immidiately when corruption started apearing 41:45 but He has decreed that mankind shall bear the responsibility for straying away from the truth once it has reached them in its unaltered form 2:253, that there will be no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 that true believers in their revelations and seeking guidance will find the way to the straight path 2:213. This can be achieved first and foremost by the people of the book upholding the truth of their own scriptures.

The corruption of past scriptures is a historical fact independant of what the Quran says, but their corruption is not absolute and neither does the Quran say so. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin/Guardian of past scriptures. It guards what is still true in them, reveals what has been hidden or misintrepreted, exposes their most important falsehoods that are essential for the establishment of the true Faith, while disregarding many other such things

5:15"O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah. With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path". 

The position of the Quran is that at the time of the prophet, what was available of previous scriptures and traditions was an amalgam of truth and falsehood.  This principle is derived from a holistic understanding of the Quran. It says previous scriptures and traditions contain guidance and light. It also says they were physically and orally tampered with. And when it makes these 2 statements the Quran doesnt speak in absolute terms, that they are totally guiding or totally corrupt. This leaves the possibility for both statements to be true at the same time.

The reason for the protection of a revelation is linked to the discontinuation of the institution of prophethood after Muhammad. While the line of Prophethood was active, there was no need to protect the Scriptures as they were secondary compared to the current prophet's word of mouth. The current prophet's word was the primary source of God's religion, not the past scripture

35:24"and there is not a people but a warner has gone among them".

Each Prophet was always as reliable and as powerful an authority of God's laws as the previous. As no further prophet was to be sent to Mankind, it became crucial for the guidance of man, that the final Message be guarded intact by God Himself until the Final Day. Through the Quran referred to as the Reminder, Guardian, Criterion or Balance, all other scriptures are safely restored to their pristine originality and preserved through a divine pledge.

600 years had passed between Jesus and Muhammad, but that does not mean the people were left without any tools to discern the truth, which, as already said, was not completely blotted out from the past scriptures and traditions. God always grants respite to the people and allows them to choose their own path after receiving guidance. This is an ongoing process since the line of prophethood was initiated. Everytime corruption of a divine system appeared, prophets would eventually rise to reform the people. According to the judeo-christian belief for example, Malachi was the last of the minor prophets and 400 years later Jesus was sent to the Israelites in order to clear the falsehood of the Israelite elite

5:19"O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) messengers, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things".

Also, many prophets were sent to Israel to warn them of their disobedience but many were rejected, persecuted or killed as Jesus amply says in the NT and as corroborated in their own books. God surely was doing his job by sending Prophets until Muhammad to correct their lies and expose them. It just so happened that Israel was so degraded that the corrupt, even while prophets were busy preaching in their midst, always came back into power to manipulate the truth once again

2Kings17:13-14"And the Lord warned Israel and Judah through all prophets of all visions, saying, "Repent of your evil ways, and keep My commandments, My statutes, according to the entire Law that I commanded your forefathers, and that I sent to you through My servants, the prophets. But they did not heed, and they hardened their nape like the nape of their forefathers who did not believe in the Lord their God".  

again in Zech1:3-4 or

Jer7:25-6"Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt until this day, I sent you all My servants the prophets, sending them day [after day] with every fresh morn. Yet they hearkened not to Me nor did they incline their ear, but stiffened their necks; they did worse than their fathers".

The prophets specifically targeted in the most harshful ways the elite, the ones supposed to be the upholders of the Torah, transmitters of true knowledge and guardians of piety, for their corruption to the core Jer8:8,Hosea4:6,Micah3:9,Zeph3:4etc, down to Jesus who perhaps used the most condemning words of reprove towards the religious leaders Matt23. In the time of Muhammad the transgressions of their leadership were equally pointed

5:62-63"And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do. Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work"  

2:87"And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew".

Acts17apologetics find a pattern of the prophets; rejecting the divine envoys?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"

That opposition to God's envoys, in reality is due to a dislike of the message they bring 38:8. This is exemplified in the opposition the prophet Muhammad had to face. His opponents tried to make him compromise the message in exchange of their alliegance, which he of course never did. 
Belief in all prophets equally is an article of faith 3:84. To reject one is to reject all, considering that, besides all of them coming with the same tenets of faith and refering to the same One God, all of them, except for the first prophet sent to mankind, claimed spiritual descendancy from a line of prophets

26:105,25:37"And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the messengers (plural), We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust". 

Any distinction or rejection of any of them is a denial of all of them and the rejection of the very One who sent them 2:136-7 an act of rebellion severly condemned 4:150-2. This is rooted in the principle that all revelations are one in essence

46:9,21:7-10,29:47,4:163"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood Psalms".

It isn't simply believing in Muhammad that entails faith and one cannot be a Muslim, claiming that it is sufficient to believe in him. All Prophets represent the will of the Lord and must be equally believed.

Acts17apologetics expose Islamic lie; corruption of the Bible?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"

The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality.

Even if, for argument's sake we assume that the Quran endorses the Bible's authenticity, despite it speaking of the corrupt writings of the Jewish scribes and the singular Injil of Jesus, which has nothing to do with the mutliple Gospels and other Greek writings assembled into the NT, then there is still the inescapable notion of the Quran superseding and abrogating previous revealed, authentic laws and scriptures.

The corruption of the Bible is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8.

When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or writen tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood

21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".

The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons. 

It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed parts of the Torah available to him. He confirmed the truth, by exposing the falsehood, both in the scriptures and traditions of the Bani Israil. Those among them that rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah which he confirmed.

Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another.

This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad

2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"..

That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of

Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him". 

But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate

3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".

These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran

4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses".

A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision. This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words

"and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".

Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim. As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.  

In summary, the passage 5:43-68, states the following;

1. God reveals the Torah.

2. God then reveals the Gospel, and the Bani israel are required to judge by it. They cannot ignore it, despite the fact that they have the Torah. Further, this rejection would be even more grievous considering the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah as a Book of God.

3. Now God has revealed the Quran, and the people must judge by it, irrespective of the fact that the Gospel and Torah are present, even though in their corrupted forms. The Quran states that the new revelation confirms the Torah and Gospel and guards them.

That is why the whole passage ends in 5:69 with a statement that success in the Hereafter is independant of any appellation, so long as one is obedient to God's revelations throughout time.
Rejecting the last Revelation does not only result in rejecting their own scriptures. It also entails rejection of Gabriel who has revealed it to the Prophet's heart by Allah's Command, not by his own wish. So they were ultimately disbelieving in God

6:33,2:98"Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's Command, verifying that which is before it, and guidance and good news for the believers. Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Gabriel and Michael - so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers".

To reject any messenger, as is here stated concerning Moses against whom the Israelites rebelled 44:19 is equal to rejecting the One that sent him. Similarily, Gabriel is one of Allah's honored servants, just like Michael and others; they have no authority except to follow and obey the Divine Commands. That is why the Quran speaks of the belief in the carriers and transmitters of revelation -angels or human messengers- as an article of faith 2:177,285. 

The verse 2:98 exposes another side of the Israelites' rejection. Their hatred and grudge against Muhammad's prophethood took them to the extent of inventing the tale that Gabriel was an enemy of theirs because he was the Angel of destruction. This in their eyes was among the justified reasons for rejecting Islam. Had the angelic messenger been Michael, who brings prosperity, they would have believed. Whether Islam was true or false, this argument was ludicrous. Angelic messengers, as corroborated in their own books, have no free will and act only according to God's directives. They do not willingly take sides, much less among humans.