Religion — Page 7

Akwat, then what do we say about the different views of Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons? To put it roughly, Catholics believe priests are a necessary conduit to God, that saints may be prayed to, that relics and idols have some importance, etc. That isn't reconcilable with the protestant view of God.

That there are variations, even major variations, is beyond dispute. But be careful not to conflate categories. Most of the differences between, say, Catholicism and Protestantism fall under the categories of Soteriology and Ecclesiology, not Theology Proper. As far as the ontological description/definition of God is concerned, both groups subscribe to Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology; hence, their views on who/what God is are substantially identical. (Specifically: There is but one God in essence who exists eternally in three distinct Persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus is conceived of as truly God and truly man, one person yet two natures, the two natures being united without confusion, mixture, or division.) It would be completely accurate to say that the Catholic and Protestant views on salvation and the nature of the Church are mutually exclusive, but not that their views on the nature of God are mutually exclusive.

Now, as for the Mormon view of God, that's a little different. I don't profess to know as much about Mormon doctrine, but my present understanding is thus (Ender can correct me if I'm mistaken on anything): The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS sees itself as a Restorationist movement. That is, it holds that Christianity committed wholesale apostasy shortly after the Apostolic era, and adopted doctrinal stances contrary to what Jesus and the Apostles taught. The truth was therefore neglected in mainline Christianity until Joseph Smith received his vision from the angel Moroni, and restored the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles. While similar to mainline Christian doctrine in many respects, LDS doctrine does depart significantly from a number of historically-held "Christian" views, among them the doctrine of God.

Mormonism's version of God is neither pre-existent nor omnipresent. Moreover, the Mormon version of the Trinity is markedly different from classical Nicene Trinitarianism, conceiving instead of three separate Gods literally born in different times and places from one another. This view of God is maintained across a broad spectrum of LDS source material, including Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (345-349), Key to the Science of Theology by Parley P. Pratt (23), Abraham 4:1, and Apostles Orson Hyde (Journal of Discourses, 1:123) and Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, 1:50). Thus, I think it is fair to say that the Mormon view of God is irreconcilably different from the Catholic and Protestant view of God. And I don't think that most Mormons would disagree with that assessment.

The Quran does not say, "Everything before this is crap. Here's the truth." It says, "We continue the teachings of the previous faiths, but here are a few corrections to what they believe." Again, very loose generalization intended to give the big picture that Islam, as defined in Islam, is a continuation of Judaism and Christianity. It doesn't adopt everything 100% from those religions, but it is a continuation.

Thus, to say that the Judeo-Christian God is not the God of Islam is actually in opposition to the central teaching of Islam.

It's not quite that simple, though. Islam does not teach that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God. Rather, it holds that Allah is the only true and living God to which the Jewish and Christian Scriptures originally testified. However, those Scriptures have become corrupted over time and therefore by the time of Muhammad were no longer to be considered completely reliable. Just as Joseph Smith's angelic vision is held by Mormons to signal the restoration of doctrinal truth, so also Muhammad's angelic vision is held by Muslims to signal the restoration of doctrinal truth. This is the Islamic doctrine of abrogation: where the Old and New Testaments err, the Qu'ran and Hadith correct them--and one of the most egregious errors in Jewish and Christian Scripture, according to Islamic teaching, is the departure from belief in Allah and the concomitant advocacy of false gods (Yahweh/Jehovah, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.). The only way that Jews or Christians may come to worship the true God to whom their Scriptures originally pointed, is by converting to Islam. That's why the Islamic version of hell contains two levels reserved for the everlasting punishment of Jews and  Christians (Al-Hut?amah and Laz?a respectively; cf. Dictionary of Islam, edited by Thomas Patrick Hughes [Clifton: Reference Book Pub., 1965], 171.)

The God of Islam is the God of Abraham. You've basically proven my point but don't realize it.

Islam says that there is only one God, just as Judiasm says. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah because they don't believe in the Trinity. Islam says that Christians have mistaken Jesus to be divine when he was a mortal prophet like Moses. Islam says that there is only one God (who would be one third of the Trinity).

Does the Bible also not say the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ? Does it not say that others will go to Hell if they don't confess their love for Jesus Christ?

You keep trying to discredit Islam with an inherent assumption/belief that Christianity is "correct".

That is why you are unable to see that Allah = God = Yahweh.

You keep trying to discredit Islam with an inherent assumption/belief that Christianity is "correct".

Where did you get that idea? Can you find a single sentence of mine in this thread that says anything to that effect? I'm not trying to credit or discredit any religion. My interest is in allowing each religion to speak for itself, rather than forcing them all into a conceptual straightjacket with a priori decrees such as, "These three religions worship the same God." My argument is simply that if you allow each religious community to define its own terms, you will find that their three disparate conceptions of God are incompatible with one another. Each of these three monotheistic faiths denies that the versions of God worshiped by the other two, is its own. This can be proven either by investigating each religion's version of Theology Proper (in which case the mutually exclusive characteristics of the deity in question should rise to the surface) or by investigating each religion's version of Eschatology (Islam consigns Christians and Jews to hell, while Christianity does the same for Jews and Muslims).

I really don't know how else I can phrase this argument to make it any clearer. And I'm not sure it would be beneficial even if I could; you seem to be intent on responding to an argument (namely, which religion is "right") that I'm not even making.

And I keep telling you that in the Quran there are countless references to Judiasm/Christianity and reaffirmations that the God of Abraham is the same as the God of Islam.

You keep saying that different interpretations make these Gods different. I'm telling you that the very definition of God in Islam says otherwise, and that agrees with why Jews don't believe in the Trinity or Jesus being divine.

If someone watches Inception and thinks it's all a dream, while another person watches the movie and says it was real, does that mean they watched a different movie? No. They interpret the movie differently.

Your argument is clear. It's simply wrong.

The fact that you think I'm trying to discredit Islam somehow shows that you've completely failed to comprehend my argument clearly. Moreover, you're just repeating yourself rather than responding to my specific comments. In particular, this one:

It's not quite that simple, though. Islam does not teach that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God. Rather, it holds that Allah is the only true and living God to which the Jewish and Christian Scriptures originally testified. However, those Scriptures have become corrupted over time and therefore by the time of Muhammad were no longer to be considered completely reliable. Just as Joseph Smith's angelic vision is held by Mormons to signal the restoration of doctrinal truth, so also Muhammad's angelic vision is held by Muslims to signal the restoration of doctrinal truth. This is the Islamic doctrine of abrogation: where the Old and New Testaments err, the Qu'ran and Hadith correct them--and one of the most egregious errors in Jewish and Christian Scripture, according to Islamic teaching, is the departure from belief in Allah and the concomitant advocacy of false gods (Yahweh/Jehovah, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.). The only way that Jews or Christians may come to worship the true God to whom their Scriptures originally pointed, is by converting to Islam. That's why the Islamic version of hell contains two levels reserved for the everlasting punishment of Jews and  Christians (Al-Hut?amah and Laz?a respectively; cf. Dictionary of Islam, edited by Thomas Patrick Hughes [Clifton: Reference Book Pub., 1965], 171.)

You seem to think that just because the same label is applied to two different concepts of deity, that makes them one and the same. The analogy you made about Inception would be far more accurate if we were talking about three different movies that all had the title Inception, but had different storylines, characters, and actors. Obviously, the fact that these three hypothetical movies are called by the same title doesn't mean that they're the same movie.

If I say that I worship the "God of Abraham" but then when you ask me to describe him I list off the characteristics and attributes of Vishnu, can I rightly claim to be worshiping the same God as Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Even though my doing so would deeply offend all three communities of faith, given the peculiarities of the deity I label "the God of Abraham?"

Your argument is clear. It's simply wrong.

Gee, you convinced me. Taking a page out of the "Twooffour's Guide to Intelligent Debating Tactics," huh?

My whole point is that if one doesn't adopt the "Christianity came first" perspective, and looks at Islam objectively, within the framework of Islam Allah = God = Yahweh. Christians disagree because of the Trinity. Islam doesn't say it's a different God, it says that God has no progeny.

I'm not saying the religions and all their fine details are the same. I'm saying that the groundwork, traced back to Abraham and earlier prophets before Jesus, is common. Again, to Christians if Muslims believe that God did not have a son, then to them Islam is a false religion. To Muslims Jesus was a divinely inspired prophet but not divine himself, and they believe some aspects of Christianity to have been misinterpreted or skewed.

This is going in circles so I think I may give up. I'm not trying to convince anybody, I just want you to see that to many people (including all Muslims) it's the same God among the three faiths. In one of the faiths God has a son. In the others He doesn't.

Comparing Vishnu to Allah/Yahweh/God is inapplicable. We are not talking about Vishnu. And I already answered Akwat's questions by illustrating that Christianity says the only way to Heaven is through Jesus - how is that different than Islam saying others will go to Hell unless converting to Islam? It's funny that you keep ignoring this.

Akwat - you interpret Islam's stance of Judaism and Christianity being corrupted as Islam saying they believe in a different God. That is incorrect. The Quran doesn't say that and your argument is invalid. Your quote does not say it's a different God anywhere. Islam says that the scriptures of The Old/New Testaments were partially corrupted by man. That is why The Quran is written as the actual word of God.

I'm repeating myself because you are repeatedly ignoring the very fact that The Quran states repeatedly that Allah is the God of Abraham. You've ignored this because it contradicts your viewpoint. You've also ignored the fact that The Bible condemns nonbelievers to hell as well.

The ROTJ and sequel analogy doesn't work because you're essentially saying The Bible is authentic and The Quran is an illegitimate knockoff, written by a different author, at odds with the original work. Once again, The Quran is meant to be an extension of those previous teachings while correcting what it says are errors in how those faiths approached aspects of belief in God.

Judaism considers itself to be the final monotheistic faith (as to them Jesus was not the Messiah). Christianity considers itself to be final as Jesus was the son of God. Islam considers itself to be final because it is the word of God.

I don't know which one is correct (if any), but your perspective in this argument depends on which faith you have. Christians will say the Muslim God is different. Muslims will say it's the same God (but He didn't have a son). I'm not sure what Jews will say...

You guys are saying what Islam says can't be resolved with Christianity because Christianity came first (ROTJ vs hack sequel). Then within that logic Christianity can't be resolved with Judaism, because Judaism came first. Which is the original work then - Judaism or Christianity? If one is consistent, we'd say Judaism is the original.

By using the different author idea, you're holding Islam to be illegitimate w/ respect to Christianity. I don't feel this is an objective view on the matter.

I'm trying to convey that, without ruling out Islam because it came after Christianity, the common denominator is the same God.

I really don't have much more to provide on this. I'd like to find common ground. Maybe someone else can chime in from either or both perspectives?

CP3S said:

 

I think this is where your lack of understanding of Christian doctrine is tripping you up. Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Judaism, so a Christian can easily say that the Old and New Testament mesh, even though to a Jew Christianity is a total bastardization of their religion. To a Muslim, Islam is the correction of the previous two religions that fell into the hands of corrupt people who twisted and ruined them. But thank goodness the Kuran is incorruptible, so that won't ever happen again.

How can someone be objective and logical with that kind of attitude?

Islam can't be resolved with Christianity, not because Christianity came first, but because you'd have to throw out every part of it that made it Christianity and make it Islam in order to resolve it to Islam.

I believe I've stated the key difference between Christianity and Islam multiple times. I've often referred to the Abrahamic roots, which are grounded in Judaism (which serves The Old Testament, part of The Bible).

See, you're twisting the argument into Christians and Muslims believing/not believing the same things vs. having the same roots to the God of Abraham. They differ in their interpretations of this God. Whether or not they are the same God depends on your beliefs.

I think that is precisely where this discussion is at, and where the disagreement lies, you'd have to take the side of Islam (along with its caveat about corruption in the other two religions) in order to make the claim that the Islamic God is the same God as the Christian God is the same god as the Hebrew God. You'd have to take the side of Christianity to say that the Christian God is the same God as the Hebrew God, while the Muslim God is just a bastardization of that God as depicted by a false religion.

I'm not taking the side of Islam. Simply not taking the side of Christianity and seeing the common threads through each of the three faiths. If one doesn't discount Islam entirely, then that person understands that Islam refers to the teachings of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Jesus, etc. quite frequently. The two religions are not completely disparate. Islam does say that the word of God was corrupt in previous faiths. Just like Christianity says the path to Heaven and salvation is only through accepting Jesus, Islam says the path to Heaven is only through accepting the true word of Allah. I can make that claim without having stakes in either religion.

The God depicted in the Koran is extremely different from the Christians' depiction of God.

They are both quite vengeful Gods, at the very least. The Trinity/Unity thing is the biggest difference among others. But again, this different interpretation of what God embodies doesn't necessitate Islam throwing everything out the window. That's simply not true because as I've stated over and over, The Quran draws on the stories/teachings of the many prophets in The Old/New Testaments. Your argument here, that the two religions are 100% incompatible, is not true provided that one is not a Christian (but doesn't have to be a Muslim) basing the compatibility solely on the Holy Trinity.

To support your argument that the Gods cannot be the same, you're using a belief system truncated after Christianity. Thus, you're concluding that Islam is a false religion and it can't be resolved with The Bible. I make no claims about which religions are true/false/etc. What I see is that each book develops a belief system based on the same prophets from the times before Jesus, then diverges based on whether God is a Trinity or a Unity.

I think what we are ultimately trying to convey, is that without accepting the teachings of Islams, you can't make the claim that all three religion share in a single deity.

Sure, just looking at the surface all three claim the same deity, but once you touch ever so lightly on the surface, things get messy.  

My claim is that if one doesn't discount Islam from a Christian perspective, it's quite easy to see the common Abrahamic roots. I know things get messy and am not contesting that. But the problem is that each religion claims the other to essentially be misguided or false in at least aspects of how they view God (One or Trinity). When you start talking about all the ways that Christianity debunks Islam, you have to equally look at all the ways Islam debunks (or attempts to resolve) Christianity. This discussion has been slanted towards Christianity and I have provided the other perspective based on my modest understanding of each religion.

The Bible makes the same claims about it being the only path to salvation. The wording is different, the message and boldness of said message are the same.

Any thoughts on the rest of my post? I have enjoyed this, by the way.

My whole point is that if one doesn't adopt the "Christianity came first" perspective, and looks at Islam objectively, within the framework of Islam Allah = God = Yahweh. Christians disagree because of the Trinity. Islam doesn't say it's a different God, it says that God has no progeny.

Again, you're talking about labels rather than characteristics. Yes, all three religions claim to worship the "God of Abraham." But no devout Muslim believes that Christians and Jews today are actually worshiping Him. Ditto for the other two faiths; Christianity sees Jews and Muslims as apostate, and Judaism sees Christians and Muslims as apostate. Thus, the three faiths do not see their own deities as identical. It is believed in Islam, for instance, that the Yahweh worshiped by Jews today (and in the fourth century, for that matter) is NOT the true God, but a false god, and that the Trinity worshiped by Christians is NOT the true God, but a false one. Therefore, while the labels may be interchangeable, the specific conceptions of deity are not.

I'm not saying the religions and all their fine details are the same. I'm saying that the groundwork, traced back to Abraham and earlier prophets before Jesus, is common.

Sure, there are commonalities, but there are also vast differences. All three religions claim to have definitive divine revelation from God Himself, yet these three revelations conflict. Was the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant extended to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or to Abraham, Ishmael, and Esau? Did Abraham attempt to sacrifice his first or second son on Mt. Moriah? More importantly, are only Jews going to Heaven? Or only Christians? Or only Muslims? The point is, all three "revelations" are mutually exclusive in certain respects (as least insofar as the communities of faith interpret them), so if your claim is correct then why did one deity reveal Himself in three such contradictory and mutually exclusive accounts?

Akwat - you interpret Islam's stance of Judaism and Christianity being corrupted as Islam saying they believe in a different God. That is incorrect. The Quran doesn't say that and your argument is invalid. Your quote does not say it's a different God anywhere. Islam says that the scriptures of The Old/New Testaments were partially corrupted by man. That is why The Quran is written as the actual word of God.

Technically, Islam does not believe that it believes in a different God, it believes that Jews and Christians believe in a different God. Which is functionally the same thing. That's why Jews and Christians who do not convert to Islam will suffer forever in Al-Hutamah and Laza. Surah 98:4-7: "And the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) differed not until after there came to them clear evidence. (i.e. Prophet Muhammad) (Peace be upon him) and whatever was revealed to him). And they were commanded not, but that they should worship Allâh, and worship none but Him Alone (abstaining from ascribing partners to Him), and perform Prayers and give Charity: and that is the right religion. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and pagans will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures. Verily, those who believe [in the Oneness of Allâh, and in His Messenger Muhammad (pbuh)) including all obligations ordered by Islâm] and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.

I'm repeating myself because you are repeatedly ignoring the very fact that The Quran states repeatedly that Allah is the God of Abraham. You've ignored this because it contradicts your viewpoint.

I haven't ignored it, I've addressed it directly. Labels do not equal characteristics. My dad's name is George, and I assume from your screenname that yours is, too. That doesn't mean that the two of you are the same person.

You've also ignored the fact that The Bible condemns nonbelievers to hell as well.

Quite to the contrary, I said in post #155: "Islam consigns Christians and Jews to hell, while Christianity does the same for Jews and Muslims." Why would I ignore this, as it proves my point rather nicely? The personal Eschatologies (i.e., doctrines of the afterlife) of all three religions consign the adherents to the other two faiths to hell, and that constitutes incontrovertible evidence that--as far as these faiths themselves are concerned--the other two are not worshiping the same God. If they really believed that, then all three religions would regard the adherents of the other two faiths as Heaven-bound. They don't.

I don't know which one is correct (if any), but your perspective in this argument depends on which faith you have. Christians will say the Muslim God is different. Muslims will say it's the same God (but He didn't have a son). I'm not sure what Jews will say...

This is rather uninformed, if you don't mind my saying. Again, devout Muslims do NOT believe that Jews and Christians worship Allah. Nor do Jews believe that Christians and Muslims are worshiping Yahweh. Nor do Christians believe that Jews and Muslims are worshiping the Trinity. Thus, the deities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are different.

One need not adhere to any of these faiths in order to recognize and appreciate their respective complexities and the vast differences between them.

You guys are saying what Islam says can't be resolved with Christianity because Christianity came first (ROTJ vs hack sequel).You guys are saying what Islam says can't be resolved with Christianity because Christianity came first (ROTJ vs hack sequel).

No, I'm not. I have nowhere presented an argument based on chronological priority. My argument is that Islam's teachings can't be resolved with Christianity's or Judaism's because they are objectively irreconcilable. By the same token, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity cannot be resolved with those of Islam. The door goes both ways, but whichever vector of approach you choose, the point remains the same: The Allah worshiped by Islam is not the same deity as the Yahweh worshiped by Jews or the Trinity worshiped by Christians. And vice-versa.

I'm trying to convey that, without ruling out Islam because it came after Christianity, the common denominator is the same God.

Again, similarity does not constitute identity, and just because two things bear the same label does not make them identical. Ontologically, the characteristics ascribed to their respective deities by these three faiths are markedly different to the point of mutual exclusivity.

Thus, you're concluding that Islam is a false religion and it can't be resolved with The Bible.

Can't be resolved with the Bible? True. Islam a false religion? For my part, I have made such a claim nowhere in this thread. Please stop putting words into my mouth. Pointing out the differences between these religions' conceptions of God is not the same thing as ruling one or more of them true of false.

Islam does say that the word of God was corrupt in previous faiths.

Right. And that therefore, those revelations in their corrupted forms point to false gods rather than Allah.

That's simply not true because as I've stated over and over, The Quran draws on the stories/teachings of the many prophets in The Old/New Testaments.

It does indeed "draw" on them, but in so doing it alters and contradicts them. Have you ever done a comparative reading of the Qu'ran and the Bible? I recommend it. Specifically, compare Gen. 1:1-2:2 with Surah 41:9-12; 1 Sam. 9-10 with Surah 2:246-252, 5:20; Esther 3:1 with Surah 28:35-42, 40:36-37; Ex. 2:5-6 with Surah 28:4-10; Ex. 2:15-22 with Surah 28:23-28; Gen. 17:1-5 with Surah 21:60; Gen. 9:28-29 with Surah 29:14; Ex. 24:3-8 with Surah 2:92-93; and John 8:57 with Surah 5:110. And that's just the beginning; further contradictions could be produced ad infinitum. So, given the massive differences between the various faiths' relevations, we are left with basically only two options.

1.) The three versions of God are in fact the same, but for some reason the three accounts of Himself that He revealed are completely different and oftentimes contradictory. If this is the case, then none of these three religions may be taken seriously, since all conceive of God as unable to err, which obviously wouldn't be true given this scenario.

2.) At least one and possibly two of the three revelations of God are corrupted so severely that barely any semblance remains to what they originally said. If this is the case, then those relevations that have been corrupted now point inexorably to different (false!) versions of God. Hence, the three deities are not one and the same.

To support your argument that the Gods cannot be the same, you're using a belief system truncated after Christianity. Thus, you're concluding that Islam is a false religion and it can't be resolved with The Bible.

Again, if you'd read what we're actually saying rather than putting words into our mouths, you'd see that no one is making any value judgment as to which religions are "true" or "false." I am merely contending that the theological differences between the three religious systems are irreconcilable. You're the one who keeps trying to find some sort of religiously binding statement in what is essentially an objective discussion of comparitive religions, not an evangelistically-motivated polemic.

When you start talking about all the ways that Christianity debunks Islam, you have to equally look at all the ways Islam debunks (or attempts to resolve) Christianity.

Again with the polemic-talk. I'm not trying to "debunk" any religion; it is my aim in this thread simply to point out the complexity and variations between the three faiths. As I have argued, if you allow all three faiths to define their own terms, then you will inexorably arrive at the conclusion that they worship different (although similarly labeled) deities.

No, seriously, the Koran (dude, I totally spelled it wrong in the above quote) claims that the two religions that came before it are corrupt as hell, while pointing out that it itself is corruption proof.

Correct. The incipient form of this teaching is found in Surah 5:48 and 15:9. Later, it was expanded upon by Ibn Hazm, whose impact can still be seen on Islamic doctrine today. This concept (that the earlier revelations were terribly corrupted) is known as the Islamic doctrine of Tahrif, and I think it impacts this discussion directly. If the earlier revelations in their present form are corrupted to the extent that the deities to which they bear witness are false, then Islam itself essentially claims that the Gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are different Gods.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Again with the polemic-talk. I'm not trying to "debunk" any religion; it is my aim in this thread simply to point out the complexity and variations between the three faiths. As I have argued, if you allow all three faiths to define their own terms, then you will inexorably arrive at the conclusion that they worship different (although similarly labeled) deities.

 

 

Not at all...

I for one will innocently think that it is fortunate that the diversity of thoughts and formulations from people on this planet lead to the same point.

... Before it becomes obvious each one of these has unfortunately interpreted and biased the same truth since their creation in favor of an elite that can rule their people, spreading thus more confusion.

The chance we have nowadays to check the origin of every religions (thanks to the work of a few serious people, added to the fact we're beginning to open our eyes and ears) and their common symbolism reveals some deep knowledge has remained ignored and unshared at the begining.

I've always been amazed by such 20 kilometers post and replies as above...!

^ Numbers have a meaning. You can't deal with Unity as if you were dealing with concrete things.

Trying to depict the Absolute (Abstraction) weaving Reality with a finished formula or any limited way that is the only thing Humans have as a communication tool is the nonsense of our modern religions.

Exemple: hieroglyphs have a conventional meaning if treated isolately. They have the deepest meanings when seen as a part of the whole (the temple, with the laws that make its characteristics and its proportion a divine functional plan).

(Louxor Temple, Egypt).

 Edit: source of the image (an "ABC" on the subject !)

Bingowings said:

..., three socks of God.

 ... Good match though !

Read Gen. 28:6-9. Esau married Ishmael's daughter Mahalath, and thereby entered his progeny by her into Ishmael's bloodline.