Before Orthodoxy; The Story of Abraham's Sacrifice (Dzabīh) in Early Muslim Commentaries


Azhari Andi(1*), Hamdi Putra Ahmad(2)

(1) Universitas Islam International Indonesia, Indonesia
(2) University of Oxford, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


The story of Abraham's sacrifice holds significant place in Islam, and what Muslims believe about Ishmael as the intended sacrifice is not the only belief in the Muslim tradition. This paper examines the historical transformation of Abraham’s sacrifice narratives in Muslim commentaries (tafsīrs), with a focus on revealing how, when, why, and at whose hands this transformation occurred. Employing the theory of tafsir as a genealogical tradition of Walid A. Saleh and adopting a socio-historical approach, this paper investigates the evolution of the interpretation of the story of dzabīh from Isaac to Ismael and the factors contributing to this evolution. The analysis reveals that in the first four centuries of Islam, Muslim interpretations and attitudes regarding the story of dzabīh were the complete opposite of what is common today. Muslim commentators, such as al-Suddī, Ibn Juraij, Muqatil ibn Sulaiman, al-Thabarī, and al-Samarqandī, firmly believed that Isaac is dzabīh. However, Ibn Athiyyah and al-Baghawī, the commentators of the sixth century hijri, showed different responses towards this story, neutral and favoring Ismael as dzabīh. Additionally, in the eighth century Hijri, Ishmael as dzabīh gained orthodoxy and popularity, as demonstrated by Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Kathir. They condemned the pro-Isaac as heretical interpretation and rejected it. Even though they disagree with the pro-Isaac commentators, they still quoted the narrations and opinions of previous commentators by providing counter-arguments, and this is what is called tafsir as a genealogical tradition. Furthermore, power dynamics and the socio-political setting of the eighth century may have had an impact on this change in the story of dzabīh. This evolution highlights the dynamic nature of Islamic interpretation, where interpretation is not necessarily static but evolves over time, shaped by historical contingencies and socio-political dynamics. This historical re-evaluation illuminates the complexity of Islamic intellectual history and the fluidity of religious interpretation in the Muslim tradition.


Keywords


Abraham’s Sacrifice, Dzabīh, Isaac, Ismael, Tafsīr and Muslim Commentaries

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdel Haleem, M. A. (Ed.). (2005). The Qurʼan. Oxford University Press.

Afsar, A. (2007). A Comparative Study of the Intended Sacrifice of Isaac and Ismael in the Bible and the Qur’an. Journal of Islamic Studies, 46(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20839091

al-Baghawī, A. M. al-H. ibn M. (1989). Ma’ālim al-Tanzīl. Dār al-Taibah.

al-Bāqī, M. F. A. (1364). Al-Mu’jam al-Mufahras Li Alfāz al-Qur’ān al-Karīm. Dar al-Hadis.

al-Dzahabī, M. H. (1989). Isrā’iliyyat fī al-Tafsīr wa al-Hadīth (D. Hafidhuddin, Trans.). Pusaka Litera Antarnusa.

al-Ghanī, H. A. (1413). Tafsīr Ibn Juraij. Maktabah al-Turāts al-Islāmī.

al-Jazairī, A. B. (n.d.). Aysar al-Tafāsir (Vol. 3). Maktabah Shamilah.

al-Marāghī, A. M. (2007). Tafsīr al-Marāghī (1–23). Mustafā al-Bābi al-Halbī.

al-Qattān, M. (2008). Mabāhis fī ’Ulūm al-Qur’ān (8th ed.). Maktabah Wahbah.

al-Sābūnī, M. ’Alī. (1981). Safwah al-Tafāsir (Vol. 2). Dār al-Qur’ān al-Karīm.

al-Samarqandī, A. L. N. ibn M. ibn A. ibn I. (1413). Tafsīr al-Samarqandī; Bahr al-’Ulūm (A. M. Mu’awwid, A. A. A. al-Maujud, & Z. A. al-Majid al-Nawti, Eds.). Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah.

al-Shanqitī, M. al-Amin. (1415). Tafsīr Adwā’ al-Bayān fī Īdlah al-Qur’ān bi al-Qur’ān (Vol. 6). Dar al-Fikr.

al-Tabarī, M. bin J. (n.d.). Jāmi’ al-Bayān fī Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān (Vol. 21). Dar al-Tarbiyyah wa al-Turas.

al-Tabarī, M. ibn J. (1442). Tafsīr al-Tabarī; Jāmi’ al-Bayān ’an Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān (A. A. ibn A. Al-Muhsin al-Turkī, Ed.; 1–19). Dār Hajar.

al-Usaimin, M. ibn S. ibn M. (1993). Majmū Fatāwa wa Rasā’il. Dar al-Wathan.

al-Tabātabā’ī, M. H. (1417). Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (Vol. 17). Muassasah al-A’lamī li al-Matbū’āt.

Asad, T. (2009). The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam. Qui Parle, 17(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5250/quiparle.17.2.1

’Ashūr, M. al-Tāhir ibn. (2008). Al-Tahrīr wa al-Tanwīr (Vol. 23). Dar Tunisiyah.

Barlas, A. (2011). Abraham’s sacrifice in the Qur’an: Beyond the body. Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis, 23, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.67380

Ehrman, B. (2023). The Socio-Historical Method. The Bart Ehrman Blog; The History and Literature of Early Christianity. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-socio-historical-method/

Firestone, R. (1989). Abraham’s Son as The Intended Sacrifice (Al-Dhabīh, Qur’ān 37: 99–113): Issues in Qur’ānic Exegesis. Journal of Semitic Studies, XXXIV(1), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/XXXIV.1.95

Firestone, R. (1998). Abraham’s Son as the Intended Sacrifice (al dhabih [Qur’an 37:99 113]): Issues in Qur’anic Exegesis. Journal of Semitic Studies, 34(1). https://www.academia.edu/3768824/Abrahams_Son_as_the_Intended_Sacrifice_al_dhabih_Qur_an_37_99_113_Issues_in_Qur_anic_Exegesis

Hamka. (1986). Tafsir al-Azhar (Vol. 23). Panjimas.

Hamka. (2015). Tafsir Al-Azhar. Gema Insani.

Hanafi, H. (1996). Method of Thematic Interpretation of the Qurʿan. In Wild (Ed.), The Qur’an as Text (pp. 195–211). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004452169_014

Ibn Athiyyah al-Andālusiah, A. M. A. al-H. ibn G. (2010). Al-Muharrar al-Wajīz fī Tafsīr al-Kitāb al-’Azīz. Dār Ibn Hazm.

Ibn Taimiyah. (n.d.). Al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr (1–3). Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah.

Ibn Taimiyah. (2005). Majmū’ah al-Fatawā (1–4). Dār al-Wafā’.

Kathīr, A. al-F. I. ibn ’Umar ibn. (1999). Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-’Azim (Vol. 7). Dār al-Thayyibah.

Kathīr, A. al-F. I. ibn ’Umar ibn. (2012). Fadā’il al-Qur’ān (A. Hapid, Trans.). Pustaka Azzam.

Lakhdar, S. (2001). Qissah al-Dzabīh Baina al-Riwāyāt al-Kitābiyyah wa al-Islāmiyyah; Dirāsah Dīniyyah Manhajiyyah Muqāranah. Muassasah al-Risalah.

Mirza, Y. Y. (2013). Ishmael as Abraham’s Sacrifice: Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr on the Intended Victim. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 24(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2013.786339

Nahdi, S. A. (1993). Yang Disembelih Ishaq atau Isma’il? Arista Brahmatyasa.

Qastah, I. A. (2022). Khalīl al-Rahmān Ibrāhīm ’Alaih al-Salām. Mazeedah.

Qutub, S. (2003). Fī Zilāl al-Qur’ān. Dar al-Shuruq.

Saleh, W. (2004). The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition: The Qurʾān Commentary of al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035). BRILL.

Shihab, M. Q. (2011). Tafsir Al-Misbah; Pesan-Kesan dan Keserasian al-Qur’an (Vol. 11). Lentera Hati.

Sirry, M. (2018). Islam Revisionis; Kontestasi Agama Zaman Radikal. Suka Press.

Slade, D. M. (2020). What is the Socio-Historical Method in the Study of Religion? Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry, 2(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.01

Sulaimān, M. I. (1423). Al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr (A. M. Shahatah, Ed.; Vol. 2). Muassasah al-Tarikh al-’Arabiy.

Yūsuf, M. “Athā.” (1414). Tafsīr al-Suddī al-Kabīr. Dar al-Wafa.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/ijik.v14i1.29413

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Azhari Andi and Hamdi Putra Ahmad

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

IJIK: International Journal of Islamic Khazanah has been indexed on:

Google ScholarDOAJ

 

 UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
Abdul Haris Nasution Street No.105, Cibiru,  Bandung, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

E-mail: IJIK@uinsgd.ac.id

Lisensi Creative Commons

IJIK are licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

 
Flag Counter
View my Stats ( Click )