
Obi
41.5K posts



Dear @DanBurmawy, I made a promise I won’t go hard on anybody today because apparently today is our Eid Celebration. But, Burmawi won’t let me. Your entire argument is a classic display of profound historical and textual ignorance, built on a desperate attempt to sound deep while completely misrepresenting both the Bible and the historical record. You call the Islamic position theological vandalism. Really? Funnily, you do not even realize you are defending a text that biblical scholars themselves have flagged for centuries as a compromised, heavily edited document. First of all, let me start with the unforgivable textual contradiction in Genesis 22:2, where your text says, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac." Burmawi, anyone with a basic sense of logic can see the glitch here. Isaac was never, at any point in his life, Abraham’s only son. Ishmael was born fourteen years before Isaac. The only time Abraham ever had an "only son" was before Isaac was even born, when Ishmael was his single child. This is not even an Islamic argument; this is standard, objective biblical scholarship. Top Western theologians and textual critics, such as Dr. T.C. Mitchell (former Keeper of Western Asiatic Antiquities at the British Museum) and the renowned biblical scholar Dr. Robert Alter, have written extensively on how the Hebrew word Yachid (only/unique) in this text is completely irreconcilable with Isaac's historical position. The text explicitly demands a firstborn who was an only child for a period, which historically fits nobody but Ishmael. What you are reading is a clear case of later scribal interpolation, where later writers crossed out Ishmael's name and inserted Isaac to serve a nationalistic, tribal narrative. Unfortunately for them, they completely forgot to fix the "only son" blunder they left in the verse. lol 😂 Again, your attempt to reduce Ishmael to a mistake of "human performance" completely exposes your ignorance of the Old Testament itself. In Genesis 16:11, it is the Angel of the Lord who commands Hagar to name the child Ishmael, which means "God hears." God does not name mistakes. Also, in Genesis 17:20, God explicitly says, "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." Dr. John Van Seters, a biblical historian noted here that the promises of greatness and covenant blessings given to Ishmael in the text run completely parallel to those given to Isaac. Therefore, calling Ishmael a product of mere human scheming is a direct contradiction of the very scripture you are trying to preach from. Let me also say that your reliance on Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4 to frame Ishmael as "the law and bondage" is a big chronological leap. Paul was simply writing an ideological polemic in the first century to convince a Roman-era audience to abandon Jewish legalism. So, using a first-century rhetorical allegory to rewrite a historical event that happened two thousand years before is not scholarship; it is a desperate theological spin, and that shows how ignorant and mischievous you are. Burmawi, note this: The Islamic narrative did not hijack or distort anything. Okay? It simply restored the story to its logical, geographical, and historical truth. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his firstborn, the child of his lonely old age, in absolute submission. You exchanged the historical firstborn for a younger son to fit your tribal exclusivity. Then you wrapped it in flowery language about “grace” versus “works” to hide the factual error. Next time you want to accuse an entire civilization of theological vandalism, try reading your own book with the lights on first. I hope this clears your mischief. Allah knows best.




















Sir, what can you say about the issue of insecurity? Your President: 👇🏾 You should rot in hell if you still support this man for a second term.









