Jo Hirschmann, Rabbinical student at Hebrew Union College spoke to the Al-Iman students about her experience as a Jewish female in the Reform tradition. She presented an activity which provided Biblical text depicting women and their roles in early Judaism as significant to the faith. The students thoroughly enjoyed hearing her unique perspective.

Religion attempts to explain life and existence mostly through the use of what is referred to as “superstition” by the secular community. Furthermore, it is a system that once employed by a person, often tends to govern the life of the individual through set guidelines. Therefore it is a comprehensive system of ideology that, besides being a belief system, includes rules and regulations. The function of this practical component of religion is synonymous with that of a modern day government in that it attempts to govern the society through the maintenance of law and order.

Politics is a term that has developed a negative connotation in today’s society. The natural need of a society to be governed and managed through a set of guidelines requires politics. It is in fact innate at all levels of society including corporate, academic, as well as religious. Being a natural part of life, politics can and may exclude the influence of any particular religion. However, religion being such a comprehensive system cannot exclude politics. Therefore politics becomes a sub-constituent of religion.

Religion, being an individual’s connection with the divine, makes politics seem almost at a subservient level and not so much at a par. Politics appears to be only a materialistic tool for man. The phrase “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's,” makes this distinction precisely. Furthermore, when Jesus made a claim about religion by saying, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he clarified that politics is only a worldly measure that should not be allowed to influence religion.

-Syed M. Razvi

While religion is often viewed as the cause of many conflicts throughout history, its role in transforming conflict is often overlooked. In Jewish-Muslim relations, religion is crucial in bridging differences and transforming conflict because of the motivation it provides for seeking peace. There are theologies and concepts in each religion that encourage its believers to do this in various ways. In religious conflict, religion is often the best impetus for peace.

Conflict is defined in many ways. The most obvious is a fight, battle or war. Often, it is more subtle, and is a “competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (As of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) and mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.” There are several ways of dealing with conflict, including Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution, and Conflict Transformation.

Conflict Management is a “systematic process geared toward finding mutually satisfying outcomes for two or more conflicting parties” that can help the two parties “function more effectively.” The goal is to “reduce the incidence of dysfunctional conflict (conflict that hinders group performance) and to increase the likelihood that any conflicts that take place will be resolved efficiently and effectively.” Conflict Management is a temporary way of dealing with conflict, and does not address the root of the conflict, but rather aims to eliminate the negative results of the conflict. Conflict Management is often the most effective in small groups that are trying accomplish something other than resolving conflict. In an office setting, for example, conflict management is often used so that the group or team can accomplish their goal without conflict hindering them.

Conflict Resolution is a “collaboration towards a compromise or consensus decision,” and a “process of resolving a dispute or a conflict, by providing each side’s needs, and adequately addressing their interests so that they are satisfied with the outcome. Conflict resolution aims to end conflicts before they start or lead to physical fighting.” Conflict resolution treats conflict as “short term phenomenon that can be ‘resolved’ permanently through mediation or other intervention processes” This way of treating conflict often overlooks the complexities of the situation by assuming that a definite resolution exists. It does not seek to eliminate the roots of the conflict, but rather prevent the conflict from continuing. Conflict resolution is often used on a larger, political scale. It is the most practical for international conflict because it usually involves formal negotiations and mediations, and, if done successfully, results in clear plans and protocols for peace. It often requires cessations of violence and other actions that cause conflict, and thus is more practical on a political level.

Conflict Transformation goes beyond managing and resolving the conflict, and instead aims to change the nature of the conflict itself. According to this theory, “social conflict is naturally created by humans who are involved in relationships, yet once it occurs, it changes (i.e. transforms) those events, people, and relationships that created the initial conflict.” Conflict Transformation sees conflict as “dialectic.” It seeks to change the people involved in conflict, which will then change their relationship to each other and to the conflict, and which will in turn change the people involved, thus changing the nature of the conflict itself. Conflict transformation is often best on a personal scale, or between groups trying to break a cycle of conflict and violence, because it addresses the roots of the conflict and the nature of the conflict itself, rather than the results of the conflict.

Religion plays a very large role in Jewish-Muslim relations. Ninian Smart, a religious studies scholar and author of The Religious Experience of Mankind, identifies six dimensions of religion. The Ritual Dimension includes rituals such as worship, prayer, and other often symbolic offerings. The Mythological Dimension is the stories within the religion. Often these stories are the stories of creation and stories about a people’s and religion’s history. The third dimension is the Doctrinal Dimension, which, although very similar to the mythological dimension, is a system of beliefs shared by believers. Often, these beliefs come from the myths and rituals of the particular religion. The Ethical Dimension is the code of ethics of the religion that influences the behavior of the individual, which in turn influences the daily life of the community. The Social Dimension of religion is the social and communal significance, which is often determined and enhanced by a set of common rituals, beliefs, and practices. The final dimension is the Experiential Dimension, which is the personal religious experience a person has, whether that be an other-worldly, out of mind, mystical, or divine/supernatural experience, or a life situation that is experienced through the lens of religion. It is the variations within each dimension that make each religion unique, and the overlap of the dimensions that make many religions so similar.

Religion has often been used to further conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and especially in violent ways. Examples include Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Jewish assassins, nationalist religious parties, land-grabbing in the name of God, and suicide mass-murder in the name of God. But the role of religion in transforming conflict is often overlooked. In particular, the concepts of forgiveness, repentance, compassion, reconciliation, and patience, all of which are central in both religions, can provide a religious framework for conflict transformation.

There are many concepts in Judaism that promote peacemaking. Teshuvah is the term for repentance, and highlights the Jewish belief in an individual’s and community’s ability to change and transform, as well as the belief in a merciful, forgiving God. There are several aspects to a true repentance. The first is viduiy, confession, which involves acknowledging the wrongs done, regret (haratah), and a drive to changing the future (kabalah le’habah). This process is especially challenging in a conflict where both sides have wronged and been wronged. It is difficult for one side to admit they have wronged when they themselves have had crimes committed to them, but at the same time, acknowledgment of crimes is necessary for the victims to forgive them. While an extensive acknowledgment is not always possible, the sentiment and effort is a step forward.

There is a rabbinic idea that true and complete repentance, teshuvah gemurah, is fulfilled when a person is faced with the same situation as when he or she sinned or committed a crime the first time and the person resists the impulse to do it again. These actions (or rather, lack of actions) are especially important as testimony to the perpetrators’ words of repentance, and help build trust between the two sides. This is especially important in violent conflicts. If retaliation for a wrong is viewed as a crime, which to many people seeking peace it might be, true repentance is when a person is able to restrain him or herself by not seeking revenge the next time a tragedy befalls them or their community. Teshuvah is so powerful in Judaism that there is a rabbinic idea that true teshuvah brings healing to the world.

The process of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement and the holiest day for Jews, is very revealing and relevant for conflict transformation. The fact that this day is one of the most observed Jewish holidays, and that it is considered the holiest day of the year, is tribute to the Jewish belief of the importance of forgiveness and the abilities of humans to change. Fasting on Yom Kippur is, in some ways, a personal sacrifice that then leads to renewal and purification. This idea of rebirth is also key in breaking a cycle of violence and building a more positive future.
There are several ways of expressing Teshuvah in a more physical, tangible way. Showing emotion, such as through crying, especially to the ‘other’ is often overlooked. It can be a powerful tool for showing authenticity, trust, and humanness, and can help in building relationships that are far from hostile and antagonistic. Other important acts include chesed, acts of loving kindness, and tzedakah, charity. These are actions encouraged by Judaism that go beyond verbal repentance.

Another demonstration of repentance is changing one’s identity. This notion stems from Abraham, whose name is changed by God from Abram to Abraham in order to show a new level of commitment to God and monotheism. This tradition was also followed by his grandson, Jacob, who changed his name to Israel after he struggled with both God and humans. A transformation in identity, is also important in transforming conflicts, especially the Israel/Palestinian one. Dr. Dan Bar-Or of Ben Gurion University believes that “The Israelis and Palestinians run the risk of losing their own identity, an identity that is shaped in many ways by defining their adversary. Thus, the peace process will ultimately serve as a mechanism to redefine oneself.”

There are also several other related concepts. On an inter-personal level, there is piyyus, in which one apologizes until the victim forgives the perpetrator. Although within piyyus there is the danger that the perpetrator does not mean what s/he says, there is also the extremely powerful notion that the victim must rely on trust for the offender, something that is often difficult for victims. Other concepts include mehila, forgiveness, and sliha, which is forgiveness or pardon, and in certain cases, “the power to forgive.” (Psalms 130:4, according to the JPS Tanakh translation). Kapparah is the process of atonement, and the hope that sins will be pardoned and wiped away. These concepts all imply a merciful, forgiving God, one who easily forgives the sins of humans. Indeed, this is mentioned in various forms in Jewish literature. The Amidah refers to God as mohel ve’soleakh, a God who forgives and pardons. God is given qualities such as over al pasha, one who passes over sin, and noseh avon, one who carries the burden of sin. God is described as an omnipotent, all-knowing, divine being, one who clearly is aware of all of the sins of mankind, and yet has all of the above forgiving qualities.

There are also many concepts in Islam that promote peacemaking and forgiveness. Like the merciful God of Judaism, Allah is referred to as “oft forgiving”, especially to minor sins. While the Quran says that Allah does not forgive people for worshipping other gods or associating them with Allah, in practice, Allah forgave the Jews after they built a golden calf, and was very patient with Abraham as he discovered monotheism. There is also the instance of angels praying for forgiveness for all human beings, implying even non-Muslims. However, Allah does not see repentance near death after a life time of sinning as authentic. And of course, all divine forgiveness relies on human efforts of repentance.

In addition to divine forgiveness, human forgiveness is also encouraged. The Prophet Muhammad received the instruction to “Hold on to forgiveness”. The Quran also says that forgiveness is better than retaliation. It acknowledges that people’s natural tendencies are for retaliation and revenge, and while there is no punishment for retaliation, the highest reward goes to those who can forgive even when they are angry. In fact, forgiveness is seen as an act of a “courageous will.” In Malik’s Muwatta, an early collection of hadith or oral tradition, it says “A strong person is not the person who throws his adversaries to the ground. A strong person is one who contains himself when he is angry.” It also says, “What is better than much prayer and sadaka [charity]? …Mending discord. And beware of hatred—it strips you of your deen [religion].” One thing that is perhaps overlooked by this hadith is that charity can be an effective means of repentance. The idea that one of the most basic principles of Islam, one of the five pillars, Zakat, is a means of reconciliation and peace-building is extremely powerful.

Sulha is one of the main methods of reconciliation in Islam. It literally translates as “settlement,” and is legally binding. It is generally conducted between Muslims, and is very action and ritual oriented. Public sulha often occurs between two groups, such as tribes, and can include compensation for past wrong doings, even those done historically, and a commitment to moving on from the past and beginning a new future. Private sulha is usually between specific people, and is intended to avoid further conflict and violence. Often, families will go to muslihs or jaha, people with esteem in the community, and a hodna, or truce, will be declared. Sulha is so highly ritualized, in fact, that in many societies, it is a “quasi legal phenomenon,” in that in some societies it is built in to the legal system. In some ways, it can make it less effective, because it is not as genuine and heartfelt. On the other hand, it is perhaps more personal and effective than other justice and legal systems.

Muslaha is often considered the ritualized aspect of sulha, and is translated as reconciliation. In the highly ritualized and bilateral process, families line up, shake hands (Mustafa), the family of the perpetrator visits the family of the injured, they drink bitter coffee, and the family of the perpetrator hosts a meal. There is also a version of sulha in which the offender goes to the house of the victim, takes off his shirt, bows his head, and places a dagger on the folded shirt. This act is particularly striking; the symbolism is extremely powerful, there can be no ambivalence about what the perpetrator is trying to say, and the actions go far beyond any words.

There are, however, limitations and shortcomings to both the Jewish and Islamic concepts of peace and reconciliation. Primarily, there is the issue of “selective application of religious values” in which notions of reconciliation and peace-building are only applied to members of the same faith; there is the problem that “forgiveness can be selectively withdrawn from the enemy groups who need most to be engaged.” In Judaism, it is permitted to deal harshly with those who are considered “wicked,” namely, non-Jews. In Islam too, sulha is generally only applied to other Muslims. The question arises of who decides when the peaceful concepts are applied, and when it is permitted to deal harshly with enemies. Members of each religion often feel the need to explain the violent, un-peaceful concepts, a phenomenon Marc Gopin titles “apologetics.” If there are two contradictory concepts, peace and violence, how does one decide which takes precedence? Another limitation is that in many conflicts, the role of the perpetrator and victim is not clearly defined, especially when both sides have committed wrongs and have been wronged. Invoking Teshuvah and sulha is made all the more challenging because both these concepts assume there is only one guilty party.

In a religious conflict, religion cannot be removed. For example, in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it is, among other things, holy, desirable land that is being fought over. Both sides of the conflict have given up parts of their land; Israel has lost much of the Promised Land, and Palestinians have lost their homes. People on both sides, especially the more religious people, have sacrificed land that is precious to them. It is much easier for secular people, especially Israelis, to be willing to exchange land for peace. “The real heroes of this process of transformation from war to peace will be those who deeply cherish the land, who feel that they own it and that God gave it to them but are willing to give up part of it, out of a sense of justice and a commitment to peace.”

In Muslim-Jewish relations in general, religion is key in transforming conflict, especially through teshuvah and sulha ceremonies, and religious leaders should be at the forefront of this endeavor. Because religion is at the origin of the conflict, religion must be used to address it by changing the people and the relationship of the people involved, and changing the nature of the conflict itself. The family metaphor is often used to describe the relationship between Jews and Muslims. In both religions, Abraham is viewed as the father of this family, representing cultural and religious origins. Members of the family are joined together by their belief in a single God, and both religions share a common story or myth, that of Abraham and his immediate family. It is not unusual for family members to fight on occasion, but they almost always reconcile their differences and return to a place of love and respect. Religion has the power to transform the conflict and the complex relationship between Jews and Muslims. There are theologies and methodologies in both Islam and Judaism that encourage its believers to seek peace in various ways. In a religious conflict, religion should be a tool for transformation.

Over the course of the year I have been consuming information on dialogue and conflict that has opened up my mind to more than I could have imagined. I have learned and gained countless experiences and understanding about my Muslim counterparts. Now the time has come to put that knowledge into action. When I was given this assignment I knew right away that I wanted to create something different than a research paper, something that will actively engage both “sides” in dialogue. As I began to recap my personal experience, I realized that I wanted to create a game that would allow both Jewish and Muslim students to learn more about each other’s characters and individuality as teenagers before engaging in conflict dialogue and debates. I have decided to work on a game that contains both fun and educational aspects to it, which will help both groups to build trust and feel comfortable with each other. Subconsciously without even realizing what was in the making, I was trying to achieve a form of dialogue that engaged the participants in creative communication.

When I was reading the text on almsgiving I stumbled upon words that really astounded me more for their power than the phrase’s meaning. The sentence read, "These two basic religious activities are clear indicators of the importance of the vertical relationship between humankind and God through prayer and obedience, on the one hand, and the horizontal relationship of Muslims with one another through the giving of one’s wealth, on the other."

The words “vertical relationship” and “horizontal relationship” were a significant inspiration for the board game because before we could talk about Jewish and Muslim vertical connection to God, it was important, in my mind, to establish a horizontal relationship within the group. During the first two inter-school meetings our topics of conversation were structured by the facilitators geared towards getting to know each other cultures and lifestyles. However, many times throughout the meeting we would hit awkward moments of silences because students felt obligated to answer the questions when they did not necessarily had anything to share. Even though the board game would require physical and vocal contribution from the participants, certain tasks and questions would be posed to a group of students where anyone in that group could take on the response.

Ideally, the Jewish and Muslim students would be put in two intermixed groups with both teams having Muslim and Jewish participants. The students then would use the board game as a guide to answer questions about religious texts, their cultures, and their opinions on various topics. Moreover, the teams would engage in trust games along the way to establish comfort in the group through fun and learning. The questions answered correctly would be awarded with points allowing that team to move forward in the game, and questions unanswered would back track the team giving them an opportunity to regain the lead on the next turn. Playing the game would create a competition to a certain degree between the two teams motivating the students to contribute and pay attention, but at the same time, having no tangible prizes for the winning team, would ensure that students realize that their main goal is not to win but to become friends and enjoy the experience.

Amongst the different ways of dialogue, creative communication ultimately prevails. Where banal communication feels boring and avoids intimacy or surprises, antagonistic communication engages in heated debates and discussion that in a way counters the purpose of dialogue. The middle path between boring and defensive conversation is creative communication, which promotes diversity and imagination pursuing understanding and meaningful connections.

This project in essence incorporates my personal experience from the inter-school meetings as well as my understanding of the text over the course of the year. I have learned that, we, as Jewish and Muslim teenagers who live far from the “Middle Eastern Conflict” have little to dispute, and in order to bring two communities closer in America we need to engage in dialogue. The only way our feelings and subconscious reservations about each community could be transformed is by sole interaction, something no book or media can achieve. Therefore, the board game has the potential to separate individual religious views and instead create understanding of inter-group liking and love, or what Todd L. Pittinsky calls allophilia. There is no doubt that creative communication is the key to changing people’s minds and beliefs. In a game with no prizes, where each team enjoys the interaction and the competition with in it, each individual is a winner.

Both Islam and Judaism can agree on the fact that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Both agree that Ishmael was older than Isaac and born to Hagar, Sarah’s servant, and that eventually Sarah requested that Abraham remove Ishmael and Hagar from their household. At this point the similarities end, and although the stories themselves are quite similar, the differences outnumber the similarities. It is at this point that one sees one of the most fundamental problems that deter Jewish-Muslim relations. In Islam it is clear that God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Ishmael. In Judaism it is clearly written that God wants Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, not Ishmael. Besides this basic difference of whom Abraham sacrifices, the style in which both narratives are written and the details the narrator chooses to include completely change the way one understands that specific story. Each story includes different aspects that then change the focus of the story and the moral a person gets from that narrative. Although both texts tell very similar stories, with the exception of who it is that is sacrificed, they too are very different because each story is written in a way that displays and promotes the main principles of faith and the main ancestors of that religion.

The story the Qur’an tells goes as follows: Abraham tells Ishmael that he saw a vision in which he was supposed to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice to God. Ishmael tells Abraham to do as he is commanded and sacrifice him. He convinces his father to submit to the will of Allah, and so Abraham prepares Ishmael out to be sacrificed. At that point the Angel Gabriel stops Abraham and says that he has done what God wanted and is righteous and will be rewarded. Abraham’s reward is his new born son, Isaac, which makes it clear to Muslims that Ishmael was sacrificed, although his name was never mentioned. It is very short, and almost no details are given. Only the important parts of the story, the bare minimum of facts, are actually described and even then the description is rare.
The Qur’an emphasizes the principles and morals rather than the details of the story itself and all of what occurred between Abraham and Ishmael. It is written in the Qur’an “And when they both submitted to Allah and Ibraheem laid down his son prostrate upon his forehead for sacrifice.” Clearly the Qur’an is emphasizing the idea of submitting to the will of Allah, one of the main ideas of Islam. Islam itself literally means “surrender or submission”, which is exactly what both Ishmael and Abraham do in the Qur’an’s telling of this story. The imagery of Ishmael being literally bound and put prostrate upon his forehead for sacrifice, and having done so willingly, already shows this idea of obedience to God’s will. Abraham also complies with God’s demand and follows what God tells him to do.

Another important aspect of the Qur’ans telling of this story is that although Abraham is blessed and called righteous, it is Ishmael that is “hero” of the story. Abraham does not immediately surrender to God; rather he looks to Ishmael to tell him what to do. Ishmael is the one to really submit to God’s will and he is the one who directs Abraham to sacrifice him. This shows how the Qur’an emphasizes its main prophets. It is from Ishmael that Muhammad is descended and it is Ishmael that is first “branch” that separates Muslims from Jews. Ishmael is one of Islam’s main prophets and by making him the one who exemplifies this aspect of faith he becomes a more important prophet. Besides that, making Ishmael the “hero” separates him from Isaac, in the narrative in the Torah. Isaac does not know what is going on, he is not the one to “surrender” to God and Ishmael does making him more laudable according to Islam’s standards.

The story in the Torah is told in a completely different style. Not only is it longer, but there is much more detail building up to the actual sacrifice of Isaac. God tells Abraham to take his favorite son, Isaac, and to offer him as a sacrifice, and the next morning Abraham complies. On their third day traveling Abraham tells the two servants to stay behind and takes his son. In this version, Isaac is completely unaware of what is happening and asks his father where the sheep is for the sacrifice. Instead of telling him the truth, Abraham answers that God will provide a sheep for sacrifice. They arrive to their destination and Abraham binds Isaac and picks up the knife, and as he is about to slaughter him an Angel comes down from the heavens. The angel tells Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac because he now knows that Abraham fears God enough to do such an act. A ram then appears to be sacrificed in place of Isaac.

This version told in the Torah sheds a completely different view on this story. Every aspect of the “journey” to where the sacrifice is to take place is documented with so much detail. Unlike in the story told in the Qur’an the sacrificed child, namely in this version, Isaac, is not aware of what will be done to him. Abraham does not share with his son that he is going to sacrifice him and up until the moment his father binds him and is about to sacrifice him Isaac does not know of this “test.” Isaac even asks his father at one point “Here are the firestones and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” Clearly, unlike Ishmael, Isaac is not the main focus. In the Jewish religion, Abraham is the forefather. He is the one Jews credit as our forefather: we address him in the Amidah and it is he who is mentioned often when discussing the covenant between God and the Jewish people. So it is important that in this version it is Abraham who is made the “hero.” He is the one who does not question God and submits to him.

Another aspect of the story that can be seen in the Qur’an as well is the emphasis on submitting to God; however, from a Jewish perspective this comes from a fear and respect of God and God’s power, not because of complete faith in God’s authority. Rambam, a Jewish scholar, explains that, “the account of Abraham our father binding his son, includes two great principles of our faith. First it shows us the extent and limit of the fear of God. Abraham is commanded to perform a certain act, which is not equaled by any surrender of property or by any sacrifice of life, for it surpasses everything that can be done…” As Rambam manages to explain, the Torah’s version of the binding of Isaac shows what Judaism is partially based on, which is the extent and limit of God’s power and how one should give everything up for God and surrenders to God’s will. Rambam also states that “Abraham did not hasten to kill Isaac out of fear that God might slay him or make him poor, but solely because it is man’s duty to love and to fear God, even without hope of reward or fear of punishment.” Again Rambam connects the story of the binding of Isaac to the main ideas in Judaism. Abraham agrees to surrender to God’s will because one does so out of duty rather than wishing for a reward or being frightened of getting punished.

Because the stories are so different, scholars from both religions have tried to legitimize their religion’s account or reconcile the two different versions. There are accounts since around the rise of Islam of scholars trying to find a way to make sure that it is Isaac or it is Ishmael that is considered the “favorite” son. The religious leaders feel it is important to make sure that it is their account which is genuine. It is a long standing conflict; for whoever is considered to actually be the “favorite” son in the end, is the religion that is then more legitimate. Whoever’s ancestor is the one that was chosen becomes the religion that is genuine.

In the Hadith literature it is written such: “Another proof of our speech [that the sacrificed was Ishmael] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] so he asked him: which son did Abraham sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael, By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.” The writer of this text realized the importance of making Ishmael the one who was to be sacrificed for the Islam religion and so has a Jew state that it was Ishmael who was chosen. By having a Jew say that in reality the Torah is wrong and admit to it being Ishmael makes it much more believable for many that Ishmael was really the one who was almost sacrificed.

In the Jewish tradition there are also countless Midrashim that try to prove that it was Isaac who was chosen by God to be sacrificed. One Midrash states: “Isaac said to Abraham: ‘father, tie me and tie my two hands and my two feet in order to restrain me.’” Although this Midrash does not try to state that it was Isaac over Ishmael, it too tries to legitimize the story told in the Torah. In the Torah, Isaac is unaware of what is occurring, unlike Ishmael who bravely tells his father to sacrifice him. By having Isaac command his father to tie him up and sacrifice him, Rabi Eliezer tries to put Isaac at the same level of bravery as Ishmael. By doing this, Isaac becomes just as special as Ishmael and exemplifies the same faith, making him just as good as Ishmael. Since the Midrash was written around the time of the start of Islam, it makes sense that aspects of Islamic tradition would be incorporated in order to make Judaism still seem genuine and Isaac still seem like the chosen ancestor. Any Jew that might have considered Islam would be able to see this midrash and find the same bravery in Isaac. Another Midrash, states more plainly the fact that it was Isaac over Ishmael that God told Abraham to sacrifice. In this Midrash, Abraham asks God which son he means for him to sacrifice. God answers your only son. Abraham answers well this son is the only one for this mother, and this son is the only one for his mother. God answers the one you love. Abraham then asks God if there is a separation in his gut for who loves more. To this God only replies, take Isaac. Again this Midrash is making it clear that it is Isaac who was sacrificed. Although Abraham loves both his sons and considers them both to equally be his sons, God is the one who tells him to take Isaac, something that is hard to argue with.

Overall, both the narratives in the Torah and in the Qur’an are written in a way that emphasizes the main principles and ideals of the religion as well as presenting the ancestor of each religion as the forefather. The Qur’an, focuses on the aspect of submitting to God and presents Ishmael as the force behind the story, the one to tell Abraham to submit to God. In the Torah, however, Abraham chooses to sacrifice his son in order to do what God wants. Although there will always be the argument of which story is more legitimate, and scholars from both religions will always try to prove that it was Isaac or that it was Ishmael, ultimately that doesn’t matter. The conflict overshadows the moral of this story. Both religions extract the same ideal from the story, and any human being, no matter from what religion, can understand the same message when reading this story. In the end both Islam and Judaism display the same basic idea of faith through this story. Both stories send the message that absolute faith and devotion to God is what is important. Submitting to God’s will without hoping for a reward or for fearing punishment, but doing so blindly because one loves God and so one wants to submit to his will, that's what is important. That is what Ishmael does, that is what Abraham does. In the end it doesn't matter if it was Isaac or Ishmael, if it was his ancestor or his ancestor that was chosen, rather it is what we take from the story of the almost sacrifice that matters and is important to religion and to God.