The Big Eid and reflections on ‘reasonable revelation’

The “Big Eid” approaches! Eid al-Adha (عيد الاضحى) or the Feast of Sacrifice falls on November 27th this year. I mentioned after my Eid al-Fitr experience that Muslim events are pegged to the lunar calendar and that game-time decisions are made when approaching such holidays to determine the exact phase of the moon. It seems that Oman has a streak of deviating from regional “moon-sightings” so holidays may fall a day after the Eid is celebrated even in bordering countries such as Saudi. (For an interesting discussion on moon sighting controversies). Clouds prevented the sighting of the new moon to mark the end of Ramadhan, and an overcast evening was set to delay the Big Eid as well. However, it seems as though the initial report has been recanted and we are going to celebrate November 27th instead of the 28th. The timing of this Eid seems more crucial to pin-down as well due to the timing of the end of the Hajj which should coincide with Eid al-Adha if I am not mistaken.

Now, Jews and Christians will be interested to find that the Feast of Sacrifice bears witness to Abraham’s complete submission to the will of God, to the point that he was willing to sacrifice his son when asked. Much has been made about the etymology of the word “Islam” as meaning surrender or submission, and the significance of this holiday certainly shows the centrality of complete and utter faith in God to the religion.

Muslims will mark this holiday by sacrificing a sheep and dividing the meat evenly between friends, family and the poor.

In looking for information on the Eid, I arrived at the BBC’s site and clicked on the internal link to an article on ‘Abraham in Islam’. I always have conversations with my friends here on the similarities and differences between our Abrahamic religions so I was glad to review what I had been taught in those Catholic Church, basement CCD classes as a kid. Now, I must admit, my religious debates with peers reveal my lack of commitment to the religion I was born into (can’t hate a girl for wandering down the path of spirituality at a slower pace) as well as a fuzziness on some details.

A quick summary of what I know about Abraham in Islam:

• His Arabic name is Ibrahim
• His is regarded as one of the leading prophets in Islam, along with Moses (Musa), Jesus (‘Isa), and Muhammad (see the picture I took of a tree with the names of the Abrahamic prophets written in Arabic from Job’s tomb in Salalah, Oman)
• His is a friend of God
• Muhammad is descended from the Abrahamic lineage

But reading the story of the willing sacrifice I had a ‘HUH?’ moment when I called into question my ability to remember my own faith.

As the BBC article summarizes: “The tradition of God testing Abraham’s devotion to him by asking him to sacrifice Ishmael is the heart of the Abrahamic tradition and the Abrahamic stories. Abraham was the first Prophet who was asked for the ultimate sacrifice: ‘I want you to sacrifice your own flesh and blood for me’. And he passed the test because he was prepared to do it, in his submission and devotion to God.”

So I realized this difference between the Jewish/Christian and Islamic versions of the story. The former believes that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac (born of Sarah, Abraham’s wife) and the latter believes that the sacrifice was of Ishmael (born of the slave/servant Hagar). Interesting!

Upon further investigation, I found that—who would have thought—others have stumbled onto this inconsistency which represents one of the many ways that individuals ultimately believing in the same God have perceived human history in relation to that God.

First, the Quran actually does not say *which* son was sacrificed, and it has been left up to interpretation if Abraham was going to kill Isaac or Ishmael. So that is important to note from the start.

Second, the Christian sites that I visited lambasted this inconsistency in the Quran (or more appropriately, in the interpretation of the Quran). While a particular article I read was off-the-wall biased and would be offensive to many Muslims, its aggressive tone reveals a debate between the monotheistic religions.

Christian Courier states: “Before one commits to a system of religion, it is necessary to inquire into the source of that religion. If the Bible is from heaven, then Christianity is the true religion. If the Koran is from God, then Islam is the genuine system.”

Agreed. One Muslim friend stated that her acceptance of Islam and faith was based in her perception that it was a reasonable devotion; that it makes sense to her.

The site continues: “The Scriptures, although recorded by approximately forty human writers, over a period of some 1500 years, contain an amazing unity of purpose and doctrine. This includes many prophecies, i.e., detailed predictions, that are later fulfilled perfectly. Although challenged by the most renowned skeptics, the Bible is found to be without error. It has been vindicated countless times. Men are ever trying to “catch up” with the Scriptures.

But the Koran, despite its claims, lacks the marks of divine revelation. Its sub-standard treatment of women is no secret to anyone familiar with Islam. The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, i.e., the chronological misplacement of persons, events, etc.”

Let us try to forget that the writer believes that we cannot find ANYTHING anachronistic in the Bible (have we proven that people can live to be around 175? Or that the earth was actually only created a few tens of thousands of years ago? I’m still waitin’ on that) and let’s try to ignore the jab at Islam when the writer states that the Quran makes Muslims treat women poorly (many scholars and individuals would refute that passionately).

What I am interested in here is the need to justify who has the more reasonable revelation. I entered into the same debate with a friend of mine here in fact. I stated that my belief is that an objective glance at the birth of the Bible v. that of the Quran would result in the Bible’s origin being deemed more reasonable. To me (again this is theoretical because I’m not a true believer) if a series of events occurred that were so awesome or inspiring as those mentioned in the Bible, we WOULD have multiple people writing about them and interpreting them differently. And that would lead to a greater understanding of the divine events themselves. However my buddy’s reply was: how can you trust something that was edited, compiled, things thrown out or added, over a long period of time?

Well how can you?

At the same time, I personally do not see the logic in God’s divine revelation of what became the Quran to Muhammad, and the purity of an orally transmitted book. From what I understand, the Quran was transcribed following the Prophet’s death, and perhaps the tashkeel, the voweling, which would change the nature of the sentences grammatically, may have been added later. Additionally, the sayings of the Prophet were edited.

The “divinity” question would also include, I assume, a discussion on which seems more “divine”: direct revelation of a text or indirect revelation but indeed direct contact with God.

There are strengths and weaknesses of the claim to “most reasonable revelation” but the discussion seems almost pointless as it inevitably ends in the necessary leap of faith required to submit to a religion and God, which cannot be rationalized by carbon dating technology.

Please comment and enlighten me on facts and opinions!