Prophet Abraham asked to sacrifice his son?

[s1c4r1us]

Good point Wakas. The great sacrifice also involved Ibrahim's separation from his wife and Ismail !!

That was actually a fight which separated them. Read the Torah. Even until this day the Israelites and Arabs hate each other.

The Quran doesn't give the name of the son who was going to be sacrificed. The Torah and the Gospel both say it was Isaac, by name, and i checked the Hebrew and Greek. The Quran again tells us that it confirmed the Torah and the Gospel. So there should be no doubt about who the sacrificed son was.

I think God wanted to see if Abraham could support Jesus Christ by asking him to sacrifice hes son to God. Remember how God made a substitute when Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac, which symbolic can mean that it wasn't Isaac who was going to come with the big changes, but it was Jesus Christ, who sacrificed himself as a lamb to God who teaches us how to love God and each other.

[s1c4r1us]

Salaam Joseph,

Thanks for your reply and reminding me to follow the Quran narration. 

Abraham prays for a salihin son; he is given a halim son.  When he attains the age of working along with his father, Abraham wants to test his faith and submissiveness to God, thus  talks to him about his vision of sacrificing his son who is, knowing that God is with those who are persevering in submission to Him, submits to the Divine Will.


"Allah does not call you to account for what is vain of your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing" (Quran, 2:225).


Some of Allah's messengers are recognized as Haleem; for example, Abraham, the Friend of Allah, is described as, "... most surely Abraham was very tender-hearted, forbearing" (9:114), and in Surat Hud, he is praised likewise: "Most surely Abraham was forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning (to Allah)" (11:75).

"So we gave him the glad tidings of a boy [Ishmael] possessing forbearance" (Quran, 3:101).

Al- Haleem quite often overlooks sins and covers up shortcomings.  Al-Haleem shields those who indulge in sins with His forgiveness, pardons those who violate His laws,  is not slighted by the rebellion of the rebellious, and no oppression of any oppressor can ever provoke Him.  He shows gentleness because He is so powerful can delay judgment.

At the human level, haleem knows how to overcome his emotions and passions, calms down his anger when insulted, restrains himself from doing violence.

"And We gave him in exchange a Great Sacrifice" can be understood at the physical level as the Great Sacrifice of animals abolishing the practice of human sacrifice; and on the spiritual level, the animal in man was to be sacrificed to the divine in him.

3:101 doesn't mention the word Ishmael..

[Wakas]

I have now updated the article with a list of test questions at the end so people can put their understanding to the test.

Direct link.

[Hamzeh]

Asalamu 3alykum brother Wakas

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the narrative.

These are my humble thoughts on your perspective.

You still seem to accept that a dream of an actual slaughter/sacrifice has appeared to Abraham in his dream because of course the word of "dhib'hin/sacrifice" was used and as you admitted that "Dh-B-Ḥ carries the meanings:
a) to split something,
b) to slit someone's/something's throat
c) to strangle someone/something."

and admitted that "and this word is always used to mean a literal slaughter/sacrifice/kill in Quran."

So in this case your saying the dream is still ultimately from God because he was commanded to separate from his son.

Since your saying that Abraham interpreted the dream that he was to separate from his son rather than slaughter/sacrifice his son, why does God call out to him "O' Abraham, Surely you have believed/confirmed the vision...." when yet Abraham still has not departed or separated from his son at this point.

What is the significance of this?

Since your also saying that they just put there heads together instead of Abraham putting his sons head down I do not see any separation at this point although the son was said he would bare patience while the command was carried. So the command at this stage if taken as separation was not yet carried out nor did the son need to have patience because no separation was done yet and also the significance of the verse when God has called "O' Abraham" has been totally undermined and given little significance.

What your interpolation seems to be suggesting to me is that Abraham had a dream of a literal slaughter/sacrifice of his son and then reinterpreted the dream to leave his son instead. Then as they were just getting ready to separate and saying goodbye, God calls to him for reinterpreting the dream to the correct way and also exchanged Abrahams separation with a great sacrifice.

I am also not sure how you interpreted 3:107. You said "In the Abraham leaving scenario the "great/mighty sacrifice" would refer to the great sacrifice made by leaving his beloved son, making it a self-contained explanation."

What is the exchanged or ransom that was done by God for the operation to Abraham? the verse says "Wafadaynahu bithibhin AAatheemin"- "We ransomed him with a sacrifice great".

Would this make sense to say " we ransomed him(Abraham) with a great separation"?


For a few reasons I cannot accept this interpolation and I think it undermined the Quranic narrative to where much of the wisdom that can be extracted towards how such prophets interacted with such inspirations has been taken away. It also undermines the wisdom that can be extracted that shows how such prophets struggled with their capacity as being prophets and there struggles to understand what was from the Lord and what was not from the Lord and their eagerness to never disobey the Lord.

It was a good read, but I have to respectfully argue that I find that Abraham had a dream that he seemed very stunned by and which he obviously thought it was from the Lord.

We do understand from the Quran that Abraham is not foreign to inspirations and witnessing great miracles like how he was saved from the fire.

The dream lead him to ask what his son thought of it which also illustrated the belief they both had towards God. The son did seem certain with the belief in God and replied that in my own words that if this is what God had commanded then do what your commanded as this shows their trust in God.

This question by Abraham to his son also seems to show there could of been a little doubt and the struggle he was copping with, and would possibly be easier with the acceptance of his son.

They both submitted and as the practice was being taken place and the patience of the son was being illustrated and the act was being taking place as the sons head was flung down, God by His mercy had intervened and stopped this action and exchanged some how some way his son to a great sacrifice of some sort. No details given of how this happened and what was exchanged. However this is not surprising as also we understand those communities of the past had been shown miracles and Abraham also is one who seems to be familiar with the intervention of God when God saved him from the fire and made the fire to be cool.

Also no where in the Quran does it say God had commanded it.

Thanks for sharing

Salam

[Wakas]

peace brother Hamzeh,

Thank you for your considered reply. I note however you made no attempt to answer any of the questions cited in the list.

why does God call out to him "O' Abraham, Surely you have believed/confirmed the vision...." when yet Abraham still has not departed or separated from his son at this point.

What is the significance of this?

We do not know when Abraham was called, i.e. if it was immediately after this goodbye embrace, or shortly after etc. Either way my view works perfectly.

If you insist your argument has merit then the same argument can be said against your view, i.e. no actual slaughter took place.

...the son was said he would bare patience while the command was carried. So the command at this stage if taken as separation was not yet carried out nor did the son need to have patience because no separation was done yet and also the significance of the verse when God has called "O' Abraham" has been totally undermined and given little significance.

Please provide your Quranic evidence for your interpretation of the word in red bold above. Again, if you insist your argument has merit then the same argument can be said against your view, i.e. no actual slaughter had yet been carried out.
Interestingly, in your view the patience seems to refer to the son with his head down waiting patiently for the knife to strike (or whatever the slaughter method would be) - if you think this is befitting then each to their own. In any case the son being patient in your interpretation contradicts your interpretation of being flung down, as you put it. I mention this issue in Q4 in my list.

I am also not sure how you interpreted 3:107. You said "In the Abraham leaving scenario the "great/mighty sacrifice" would refer to the great sacrifice made by leaving his beloved son, making it a self-contained explanation."

What is the exchanged or ransom that was done by God for the operation to Abraham? the verse says "Wafadaynahu bithibhin AAatheemin"- "We ransomed him with a sacrifice great".

Would this make sense to say " we ransomed him(Abraham) with a great separation"?

The son was exchanged/ransomed with a mighty/great sacrifice, which Abraham made by separating from his son. This mighty deed was taken into account by God and he/they were rewarded as a result. It is a self contained explanation because there is absolutely nothing else mentioned in context. I prefer this rather than interpolating a sacrificial animal for example, which is the common understanding.

I also disagree with your view that my understanding somehow undermines other aspects of Quranic narratives. In fact, the opposite argument could be made, it is your view that undermines various aspects.


What I found most interesting about your reply was that your view seems to suffer from the objections you raised about mine. Once an attempt has been made to answer the questions in the list I think it will become obvious which view has the most issues, but as always, each to their own.

[Wakas]

It is that time of the year again (according to Traditional Islam): Eid Al-Adha

Questions to ask about the traditional story:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Abraham-Sacrifice-Questions.html

(to this day no-one has attempted to answer all the questions)

Is it time to sacrifice our long held dogmatic beliefs? Perhaps.

[inay321]

Salam

Brother Joseph. I just read your article 'Ishaac or Ismaeal'.
http://quransmessage.com/articles/ishmael%20or%20isaac%20FM3.htm


You made this point, saying that since Abraham's prayer in 37:100 was for a righteous son, then this adjective is told only about Isaac in 37:112, then the son who is "forbearing" in 37:101 and who was the subject of the dream can only be Isaac ..........

But Ismael, the son of Abraham is not described as "one of the righteous" in the narration in Sura 37, that is tre, it is Isaac who is given this description.
However when we read other Quranic verses we see that Ismaeal is described with that same adjective:
 
[21:85] Also, Ishmael, Enoch and Ezekiel; each one was among the steadfast.
[21:86] We admitted them into Our mercy. They were among the righteous.
 
God does not have to give us all details in one verse!
By reading all relevant verses together, we find that Abraham's prayer to be granted one of the righteous in 37:100, does not automatically point to Isaac, but it indicates that God answered the prayer of Abraham when He granted him Ismaeal as well as Isaac.

Salam

Inayah

[Athman]

Dear inay321,

Wa alaikum as-salaam,

Despite it being a direct address to Br. Joseph, I hope this response is acceptable.

From what I can gather from Br. Joseph’s article that you have cited, I don’t think that he argued against Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) not being described as ‘of the righteous.’ In my understanding, what is being argued for is the “'narrative scope' of the same Surah of the Quran” [1] that is, chapter 37.

You noted: “"one of the righteous" in the narration in Sura 37, that is tre, it is Isaac who is given this description.” Now, I think this was the remit of Br. Joseph’s sentiment on this specific matter. He argues the flow of the narrative and what culminates into what (37:112) can be argued as fulfillment and answer to Prophet Ibrahim’s (pbuh) original prayer (37:100).

In another thread, Br. Joseph argues: “Before the 'wa' (and), the narrative was focused on Prophet Abraham's test and after the 'wa' (and), his original prayer in 37:100 was answered in 37:112.

The link is strong. The original prayer was for a 'saliheen' (righteous son) in 37:100. In 37:112 we note the conclusion of that prayer. This connection in my humble view, transcends the 'wa' (and) conjunction particle.” [3]

In the article, Br. Joseph ultimately summarizes his view in that verses 37:100ff focus on Prophet Isaac (pbuh) with his father Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and that there’s no focus on Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) in the whole narrative.

“In this way and given the discussions above, the whole narrative captured in (37.100 - 113) would be with regards Prophet Isaac, (pbuh) the son that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) saw in a dream to be sacrificed.” [2]

Thus, from such an approach, it is strongly argued that the prayer in 37:100 for ‘one of the righteous’ child is answered in 37:112 where such ‘one of the righteous’ is confirmed and more so, one who is a prophet - in this case Prophet Isaac (pbuh). Nonetheless, even if we consider the fact that Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) is mentioned as ‘one of the righteous’ in 21:85-86 which undoubtedly he is, he still can’t be the ‘one of the righteous’ mentioned in 37:112 because the verse identifies such ‘one of the righteous’ (pbuh) to be Isaac (37:112).

On the other hand, I still find the popular Muslim view of Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) being the ‘clement’ (haleem) child in 37:101 but still the same ‘righteous’ (swaliheen) one asked for in 37:100 to be a valid position on its own. Afterall, from such an approach, verses 21:85-86 do confirm the child prayed for in 37:100 (‘one of the righteous’) in this case Ismaeel (pbuh), to actually be ‘one of the righteous’ (21:86). This is different from saying that those who hold the ‘narrative scope’ of verses 37:100-112 to focus on Prophet Isaac (pbuh) do claim that Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) is not described as ‘one of the righteous.’

I hope that clarifies.

Regards,
Athman.


REFERENCES:

[1]. Qur'an 11:71 Isaac and Ishmael

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=976.15

[2]. PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) SACRIFICIAL SON - ISHMAEL OR ISAAC? (pbut)

http://quransmessage.com/articles/ishmael%20or%20isaac%20FM3.htm

[3]. The Sacrificial Son of Abraham - Ishmael or Isaac?

 http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=173.0

[inay321]

Salam Athman

The context of any verse should not be taken from just that one verse, but from all the relevant Quranic input about the subject at hand.

But also from other verses that shed light on the same subject. If we shut the door and seek the truth from only one verse and those around it, we would be depriving ourselves of the more complete truth, which is often completed in other verses.

To conclude that the son in the dream (37:102) must be Isaac because Abraham prayed for a righteous son (37:100) and only Isaac is described as righteous in verses from 100 to 112 is to shut our eyes of other Quranic verses that complete the meaning and give a complete picture.

Ishmael is described as righteous in the Quran (21:85-86).
When we take all verses in consideration we can see that it is wrong to insist that the son in the dream could only be Isaac.

We would know that it could also be Ishmael because he was also righteous, and so would also be a fulfilment of Abraham's prayer in 37:100 for a righteous son.
The truth is what matters, and the truth does not have to be given in one verse only or in one Sura.

Are you saying the truth does not matter unless it is mentioned in Sura 37?
Are you serious? So what if it is another Sura?

What matters is that the prayer of Abraham for a righteous son does not have to be Isaac because Ishmael was also righteous, so his prayer was answered in Ishamel as well as Isaac ...
why does all the details have to be all in one Sura?
 
Anyway, here are other important verses about the same subject:
 
The following verse confirms that Ishmael was also a prophet and not only Isaac:
 
[19:54] And mention in the Book Ishmael. He was true to his promise, and he was a prophet messenger.
 
And the next verse is quite important in confirming the order of birth of Abraham's 2 sons.
God granted Abraham his son Ishmael first, then came Isaac, i.e. Ishmael was the first son
 
[14:39] Praise be to God for granting me, despite my old age, Ishmael and Isaac. My Lord is the Hearer of prayers.
 
If Isaac came first, Abraham would have said "Isaac and Ishmael":
 
Are you also going to say these pieces of information do not matter because we are looking only at Sura 37?

It is Ishmael .... the words in 37:112 are a new subject - after God told us about the dream of Abraham with Ishmael , God then tells us a New event in 37:112 , which was the coming of Isaac.

They are TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS

the first word in 37:112 is ''AND'' WE GAVE HIM THE NEWS ..... the word AND means and a new event.

God does not repeat the same truth in the narration in adjacent verses - if the son in 37:101 was the same son in 37:112 , God would need to repeat it.


Salam.

Inayah

[Wakas]

peace Inayah,

Firstly, no-one is saying the so-called "sacrificial son" can only be Isaac.

Secondly, 14:39 doesn't "confirm" what you claim (i.e. order of birth) but certainly one could make such a case based on that verse but "confirm" is far too strong a word based on the evidence you presented. "suggests" is much more apt.

Thirdly, 37:112 does not mention "the coming of Isaac". Whenever the phrase "good news" is used it tells us what the "good news" is. In 37:112's case it is of "Isaac, a prophet from the righteous".

[Athman]

Dear inay321,

As salaam alaikum,

Let me take this opportunity to first remind you that it is significantly of paramount importance to understand someone's or an article's position from their widest context of evidence shared. You have to respectfully consider all the threads shared and the arguments raised for you to comment/ contend any point - to pick and choose a point and draw contentions over it without considering its remit and in the long run confusing it with the wider position shared is in my opinion, unwarranted.

Kindly allow me to expound on this as I respond to your comments in purple below:

You shared:

"The context of any verse should not be taken from just that one verse, but from all the relevant Quranic input about the subject at hand."

I do concur. However, before consulting other verses from other Qur'anic narratives for any further clarification/ context, I would assert drawing a possible understanding of a verse(s) from its surrounding verses foremost to an extent possible - it may or may not be conclusive of course.

"But also from other verses that shed light on the same subject. If we shut the door and seek the truth from only one verse and those around it, we would be depriving ourselves of the more complete truth, which is often completed in other verses."

In the main, this is very correct. However, in my opinion, with all due respect, this is not a rule. I would for instance not find the need to consult other narratives related to one under study if that one under study is self-satisfying in whatever it intends to impart as a message. Other verses would only be consulted for a wider context and a wider message.

"To conclude that the son in the dream (37:102) must be Isaac because Abraham prayed for a righteous son (37:100) and only Isaac is described as righteous in verses from 100 to 112 is to shut our eyes of other Quranic verses that complete the meaning and give a complete picture."

As far as your previous sentiment is concerned, your contention was against Br. Joseph's position on the 'righteous' child in 37:100 to which I respectfully shared what appears to be his reasons for positing such a viewpoint. However, this is different from what you are now arguing which is against the whole article on the position of who was 'the son in the dream (37:102)" If this is what you intend to argue against, I think you need to respond to all the arguments raised in Br. Joseph's article and the other related threads against the traditional position of Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) being the 'near sacrifice' son, especially those in [2] as he himself notes:

"For me to accept any viable alternative from a Quran's perspective (and not be unduly influenced by Ahadith or a Biblical perspective), I would need to be satisfied with cogent responses for the above contentions." [2]

My response was only in the context of the term 'righteous' (swaliheen) in 37:100 and even so, I also acknowledged the traditional position on this as a valid one on its own. See the last paragraph on my previous response.

"Ishmael is described as righteous in the Quran (21:85-86).
When we take all verses in consideration we can see that it is wrong to insist that the son in the dream could only be Isaac."

Respectfully, a position has been argued for, not merely an act of 'insisting.' As Br. Joseph rightly pointed out:

"So this is not a matter that I humbly feel we should 'resolve', but to feel content to state our position with citation of the best evidence we possibly can." [1]

Therefore, no one is trying to 'resolve' such a long debated matter. However, a position has to be taken especially where cogent citation of evidence has been made. Arguments and counter-arguments have to be addressed if one is to attack a particular position.

"We would know that it could also be Ishmael because he was also righteous, and so would also be a fulfilment of Abraham's prayer in 37:100 for a righteous son.
The truth is what matters, and the truth does not have to be given in one verse only or in one Sura."

As far as my analysis of relevant verses is concerned, I don't dispute that. However, you have respectfully missed my point and the article's main argument.

"Are you saying the truth does not matter unless it is mentioned in Sura 37?
Are you serious? So what if it is another Sura?"

There is no need to get emotional dear fellow member. You don't have to deal with my 'seriousness' nor that of Br. Joseph, you have to respectfully respond to the contentions raised.

"What matters is that the prayer of Abraham for a righteous son does not have to be Isaac because Ishmael was also righteous, so his prayer was answered in Ishamel as well as Isaac ...
why does all the details have to be all in one Sura?"

My position as regards 'righteousness' of Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) in relation to the traditional position has already been stated in my previous response. Nevertheless, I have not mentioned anything along the lines of 'all the details have to be all in one Sura.' My contention and that of the article would be, why should we ignore the 'narrative scope' of verses 37:100-113 if they are self-evident and consult other Qur'anic narratives regardless if they are related?
 
"The following verse confirms that Ishmael was also a prophet and not only Isaac:
 
[19:54] And mention in the Book Ishmael. He was true to his promise, and he was a prophet messenger."

This is respectfully digressing in my opinion. The article and I have not argued against Ismaeel's (pbuh) prophethood.
 
"And the next verse is quite important in confirming the order of birth of Abraham's 2 sons.
God granted Abraham his son Ishmael first, then came Isaac, i.e. Ishmael was the first son
 
[14:39] Praise be to God for granting me, despite my old age, Ishmael and Isaac. My Lord is the Hearer of prayers.
 
If Isaac came first, Abraham would have said "Isaac and Ishmael":"

As far as Br. Joseph's position which you have been contending with is concerned on this, he has also stated:

"In fact the Quran confirms Prophet Ishmael as Prophet Abraham's first born such as in verse 14:39." [3]

However, I trust that you will both find Br. Wakas' comment above (Jazakallah brother) on this useful and to have been an apt reminder on your choice and use of words.
 
"Are you also going to say these pieces of information do not matter because we are looking only at Sura 37?"

See my previous response. Though a case can be argued for, it is respectfully still not unequivocal proof nor conclusive.

"It is Ishmael .... the words in 37:112 are a new subject - after God told us about the dream of Abraham with Ishmael , God then tells us a New event in 37:112 , which was the coming of Isaac.

They are TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS"

My concern has been, with respect, with your argument on the Qur'anic use of the term 'righteous' (swaliheen) and your unwarranted criticism of Br. Joseph's position on that matter - which has a specific remit of the 'narrative scope' underpinned by a host of arguments raised from within the same 'narrative scope.' I hope that you will kindly first appreciate this.

"the first word in 37:112 is ''AND'' WE GAVE HIM THE NEWS ..... the word AND means and a new event."

I don't entirely dispute this. However, it is also still inconclusive. With regards Br. Joseph's position, see his view cited below which you may consider responding to:

"The 'wa' (and) conjunction in my opinion does not separate the narratives with a view to deal with two separate personalities which runs as one theme from 37:100 to 37:113. The 'wa' (and) in my view only separates the time periods.

Before the 'wa' (and), the narrative was focused on Prophet Abraham's test and after the 'wa' (and), his original prayer in 37:100 was answered in 37:112.

The link is strong. The original prayer was for a 'saliheen' (righteous son) in 37:100. In 37:112 we note the conclusion of that prayer. This connection in my humble view, transcends the 'wa' (and) conjunction particle." [4]

"God does not repeat the same truth in the narration in adjacent verses - if the son in 37:101 was the same son in 37:112 , God would need to repeat it."

Why is this restriction imposed? I respectfully know of no such rule nor would I necessarily rule out a position which argues for that in such a Qur'anic narrative scope. However, I still find the traditional position of  verses 37:100-101 referring to Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) and verse 37:112 to Prophet Ishaq (pbuh) valid in its own accord.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Regards,
Athman.


REFERENCES:

[1]. Qur'an 11:71 Isaac and Ishmael

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=976.15

[2]. The Sacrificial Son of Abraham - Ishmael or Isaac?

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=173.0

[3]. Ibid

[4]. Ibid

[Athman]

Dear Wakas,

As salaam alaikum,

With a view to briefly attempt responding to what appears to be your main arguments against the general position that takes 'dhibh' to mean 'sacrifice/ slaughter,' see my short responses below to your contentions 3 to 9 in blue as requested in the link shared [1] as a minimum.

You contend:

"3) The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
Let me clarify, here is structure of the Arabic: ABC <future particle sa> XYZ
My view is XYZ occurs in the future, i.e. after ABC.Your view is XYZ occurs prior to ABC or XYZ occurs until ABC takes place.
”

In my view, I don’t find the need to raise concerns over the particle ‘sa’ nor consider such an analogy which I respectfully find incongruent. The particle ‘sa’ simply asserts the ‘sabr’ which Prophet Ibrahim’s (pbuh) son (pbuh) promises to exercise ‘once’ met with the ‘dhibh.’ Relative to the time he was uttering that speech, the expected ‘dhibh' and in fact the attempted one in 37:103 was ‘yet to be actioned’ hence a ‘future’ (sa) incident. So was the ‘sabr’ he promises to endure which is contextually linked to the assumed ‘amr’ from God - ‘dhibh.’ Hence, I find the illustration “ABC <future particle sa> XYZ” in this case without warrant.

"4) can you provide a Classical Arabic dictionary reference which states the meaning of the verb TaLLa can mean what you take it to mean and can be done in a gentle/soft/willing manner? i.e. without force.
Reason: the primary meaning of this definition is to throw down / make one prostrate / hold down / wrestle them down etc but Quran states both submitted so the action was willingly, i.e. no force needed."

It is the same verse 37:103 which uses both terms ‘aslama’ and ‘watallahu’ hence I don’t see your contention as raised against those who posit the meaning of ‘aslama’ to be 'a submissive decision' to the ‘dhibh.’ Rather, you appear to contend with the Qur’an itself as to why it suggests ‘submissiveness’ by using the term ‘aslama’ then use a seemingly ‘coercive’ term ‘watallahu.’  Would you kindly please clarify.

"5) can you provide an example elsewhere in Quran in which God rewards us/someone for what they were about to do but did not do.
Reason: stating "like thus We reward..." [37:105, 110] implies an exemplar, if so, where are the other examples, or where such a principle is mentioned.”

From my perspective, I would not pronounce it a clear cut ‘did not do’ instance especially from the point of view of God who holds accountable the intentions at heart (2:225) and focuses on the ‘taqwa’ in such intentions/ acts (22:37). In this case, the act was intended for God and in fact understood as a command from Him. It is also to be noted that it is God Himself who intervened the attempted ‘dhibh’ and thus hypothetically, if not for His intervention, the act would have been carried out. Thus, the ‘taqwa’ in intention of ‘dhibh’ for Him and in fact presumably from Him, had to reach Him as always does (22:37). Similarly, ‘monasticism’ (ruhbaniyyah) invented for God was rewarded (ajrahum) to those who were true ‘believers’ (amanu) - 57:27. As an ultimatum, it was finally the intent that was arguably rewarded for those 'believers' among them as a fundamental principle in 2:225. The actual ‘monasticism’ in its due observance was not achieved and yet believers among them were rewarded. Rather, the ‘intent’ and effort to do so mattered (regardless if the actual 'monasticism' was achieved) as did in the case of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) in 37:103 as regards the sacrifice. It should however be noted that the 'monasticism' was not done as a command nor an assumed command from God but simply in the spirit of pleasing God - and voluntarily.

"6) can you provide another example in Quran wherein it states someone did X (e.g. perfect verb) but what is meant is they intended to do X.
Reason: you take "...when they both had submitted..." in 37:103 as submitted in intention only (i.e. not actually done the slaughter). Similar case with "...Surely you have believed/confirmed..." in 37:105, i.e. technically he hasn't confirmed it yet, i.e. it is intention only.
Note: perfect verbs are used thousands of times in Quran."

Respectfully, I find the comparison between perfect verbs of 37:103 and 37:105 to be made without warrant. In context, I find it odd that one expects the 'aslama' in 37:103 to be translated as 'submitted in the sense of having carried out the sacrifice' while the next phrase 'and he laid his forehead down' depicts an act that precedes the actual 'slaughter' action. In line with your view, it becomes superfluous that after the 'slaughter' (aslama) strangely followed by such an act to 'lay ones forehead down' ready for the sacrifice (again) that God confirms the same act at that point in time (qad swadaqta). It even worsens when He intervenes for 'fidya' while the 'sacrifice has already been carried out' (aslama).

"7)  preposition "li" occurs over 2000 times in Quran. Please provide clear examples of it meaning "upon" as you take it to mean in 37:103 (i.e. upon his forehead)."

The 'li' in 'lil jabeen' (37:103) takes the function of the particle 'ala' that is 'on/ upon' as it does in 'lil adhqani' (17:109).

"...laid him prostrate (watallahu) upon his forehead (lil jabeen)" [Qur'an, As-Swaffat 37:103]

"And they fall (wayakhirruna) upon their chins (lil adhqani) weeping..." [Qur'an, Al-Isra 17:109]

"8.) please explain why Quran describes the sacrifice/dhibhin in 37:107 as great/mighty/azeem?"

In my view, I don't consider the term 'dhibh' in 37:107 to refer to an alternative one in ransom. However, with such an understanding of an alternative ransom, it can simply be argued that given such a great 'evident trial' (balaul mubeen) that the 'ransom' (fidya) that replaces it is spiritually held in greatness (adhwim) regardless of its material value.

"9) If you consider killing of an innocent child an evil act and you consider God was simply testing Abraham but was always going to stop him before he actually did it, is there any other example similar to this in Quran (i.e. God commanding or condoning an evil act)? "

Respectfully, I would personally not refer to it as an act of God simply 'condoning an evil act' per se. Rather, I would relate to the fact that exercised volition among humans is a great virtue that is however under God's control. It is ultimately Him who determines the point at which to intervene. See the example of Prophet Yusuf (pbuh) in 12:23-24 where God intervenes at the verge of Prophet Yusuf (pbuh) being given into his master's seductive wife (12:24).

I hope that gives some perspective God willing.

Regards,
Athman.


REFERENCE:

[1]. Follow up to: Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son?
 http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Abraham-Sacrifice-Questions.html