Response to Sam Shamoun’s Ish­mael Is Not The Father of Muhammad”

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi

The mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun has claimed that there is a dis­crepen­cy in the tra­di­tions of Ish­mael being the ances­tor of the Arabs and hence he can­not be the father of Muham­mad ﷺ, as per the record of Mus­lim tra­di­tions. We aim to respond to this lat­est mis­sion­ary polemic and at the same time we would like to address the abuse of this mis­sion­ary’s cita­tion from the trans­la­tion of Ibn Ishaq’s Sir­at Rasul Allah, insha’al­lah.

Refu­ta­tion to the Hypothesis

The mis­sion­ary would like us to believe that the Arabs have no ances­tral link to the Prophet Abra­ham and his son, Ish­mael. The real­i­ty is that sci­en­tists today have found a genet­ic link between the Arabs and the Jews, and hence this ver­i­fies the tra­di­tions that informs us that the Semit­ic peo­ple share a com­mon ances­tor. We read that :

…They found that group­ing Jews and Arabs togeth­er — both are Semi­tes — is based on genet­ic and well as his­tor­i­cal and lin­guis­tic real­i­ty.1

This is fur­ther con­firmed when in the Jour­nal of Baby­lon­ian Exi­lArch, we are told that :

Jews and Arabs are extreme­ly close­ly relat­ed, a new genet­ic sur­vey has shown.

Wher­ev­er in the world they now live, Jew­ish men car­ry the same Y chro­mo­some as Pales­tini­ans, Syr­i­ans and Lebanese.

Jews and Arabs are all real­ly chil­dren of Abra­ham and all have pre­served their Mid­dle East­ern genet­ic roots over 4,000 years,” said one of the sci­en­tists involved. Har­ry Ostr­er, direc­tor of the Human Genet­ics Pro­gramme at New York Uni­ver­si­ty School of Med­i­cine. The team analysed regions of the Y chro­mo­some in 1,371 men from 29 pop­u­la­tions world­wide. The Y chro­mo­some pass­es large­ly unchanged down the male line. 

The results, pub­lished in Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, show that the dif­fer­ence between Jew­ish and Arab pop­u­la­tions is extreme­ly small, con­sid­er­ably small­er than that between North and South African pop­u­la­tions, for exam­ple. The study con­firms that both Arabs and Jews owe their genes to a com­mon ances­tor pop­u­la­tion that pre­dat­ed the Jew­ish reli­gion.2

Hence it is clear that mod­ern sci­en­tif­ic research con­duct­ed today has shown that the Arabs and the Jews are the descen­dants of Abra­ham(P) and hence we find it ludi­crous to see the mis­sion­ary deny­ing this sci­en­tif­ic evidence.

The mis­sion­ary had con­stant­ly relied on a spu­ri­ous quote from one W. Aliyyud­din Sha­reef, where­by it is claimed that the pre-Islam­ic Arabs do not recog­nise Ish­mael as the Father of the Arabs. On the con­trary, a study of pre-Islam­ic poet­ry and Arab genealog­i­cal records pro­vides one with con­vinc­ing evi­dence that Ish­mael is indeed recog­nised as the Father of the Arabs.

For instance, a pre-Islam­ic poet Umaiya b. Abi as-Salt3 wrote a long ode in which he talks about Abra­ham and his love for his first-born”, i.e. Ish­mael. One of his vers­es is :

بقره لم يكن ليصبر عنه أو يراه في معشر الأبطال

bikrahu lam yakun li-yaṣbi­ra ʿan­hu aw yarāhu fī maʿshar al-abṭāl

Trans­la­tion : He could not endure to be apart from his first­born, nor to see him among the band of heroes.”

Here, this pre-Islam­ic Arab poet clear­ly points to Ish­mael(P) as the first-born of Abra­ham(P) and to his sacrifice. 

Like­wise, to fur­ther strength­en our point, here is what A. J. Wensinck has to say in this regard :

Ish­ma’il is also con­sid­ered the ances­tor of the North Ara­bi­an tribes. In the Arab genealo­gies, the Arabs are divid­ed into three groups : al-Ba’i­da (those who have dis­ap­peared), al-‘ariba (the indige­nous) and al-mus­ta’ri­ba (the ara­bi­cised). Ish­ma’il is con­sid­ered the prog­en­i­tor of the last group, whose ances­tor is Adnan.4

Fur­ther, we also read the fol­low­ing cita­tion from Gesenius :

Response to Sam Shamoun's "Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad" 15

The mis­sion­ary has kind­ly pro­vid­ed us with the geneal­o­gy of the Prophet Muham­mad in his arti­cle. We repro­duce it here to facil­i­tate eas­i­er elu­ci­da­tion of the matter.

  1. Abra­ham (Ibrāhīm al-Ḥanīf, peace be upon him) was the father of
  2. Ish­mael (Ismāʿīl, peace be upon him), who was the father of
  3. Kedar, who was the father of
  4. ʿAd­nān, who was the father of
  5. Maʿadd, who was the father of
  6. Nizār, who was the father of
  7. Muḍar, who was the father of
  8. Ilyās, who was the father of
  9. Mudrikah, who was the father of
  10. Khuza­imah, who was the father of
  11. Kinā­nah, who was the father of
  12. al-Naḍr, who was the father of
  13. Mālik, who was the father of
  14. Quraysh, who was the father of
  15. Ghālib, who was the father of
  16. Luʾayy, who was the father of
  17. Kaʿb, who was the father of
  18. Mur­rah, who was the father of
  19. Kilāb, who was the father of
  20. Quṣayy, who was the father of
  21. ʿAbd Manāf, who was the father of
  22. Hāshim, who was the father of
  23. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭal­ib, who was the father of
  24. ʿAb­dul­lāh, who was the father of
  25. Muḥam­mad ﷺ

Thus, it is clear that even with­in the Jew­ish tra­di­tions, Kedar, the son of Ish­mael and the father of Adnan is exclu­sive­ly linked to the Arabs. Indeed, until this very day, Mus­lims recite the fol­low­ing prayer in wor­ship, as follows :

O Allah ! Send Your Mer­cy on Muham­mad and on his fam­i­ly [wives and his off­spring], as You sent Your Mer­cy on Abra­ham’s fam­i­ly ; and send Your Bless­ings on Muham­mad and his fam­i­ly , as You sent Your Bless­ings on Abra­ham’s fam­i­ly, in the world, for You are the Most Praise-wor­thy, the Most Glo­ri­ous.6

Need­less to men­tion, we sus­pect that it is prob­a­bly the mis­sion­ary’s inher­ent jeal­ousy of how Mus­lims hon­our the Prophet Abra­ham(P) and his fam­i­ly which has prob­a­bly spurred his per­ju­ri­ous claim in the first place !

Ibn Ishaq’s Sir­at Rasul Allah : Use and Abuse of Evidence

The mis­sion­ary, as it is fre­quent through­out his writ­ings, has again appealed to A. Guilaume’s trans­la­tion of Ibn Ishaq’s Sir­at Rasul Allah, specif­i­cal­ly, the out­line of the geneal­o­gy7. In the near future, we aim to record the num­ber of the mis­use and abuse of this work by the missionary.

In the mean­time, how­ev­er, let us address this spe­cif­ic claim of this mis­sion­ary regard­ing the genealog­i­cal sources. 

His alle­ga­tion is that :

There are several problems with these genealogies. The first problem is the time span.

He then pro­ceeds to cite from an athe­ist source, which is an inher­ent dis­ease in the mis­sion­ary agen­da. The prob­lem with cit­ing this source is that if this sys­tem is effec­tive­ly applied to the mis­sion­ary’s own Bible, his Bible will also fall under exam­i­na­tion. This is because if his source’s point is valid, it deals a much more heav­ier blow to Chris­tian­i­ty than it does to Islam. 

The crit­i­cism he quot­ed from the athe­ist source fits just as eas­i­ly on the Bib­li­cal account as well, so if he agrees with his source, he would have to agree with the absur­di­ty of his own Bible. The dat­ing sys­tem is still very much the same.

In oth­er words, if the source that the mis­sion­ary Shamoun cites is cor­rect, then the genealo­gies as they stand now are fab­ri­ca­tions, so Mus­lims would have to throw out a cou­ple of hadith from the 2nd cen­tu­ry A.H., in favor of revised genealo­gies that put more peo­ple between Abra­ham and Muham­mad and Abra­ham and Adam.

The Chris­tians, how­ev­er, would have to throw out pas­sages from their inspired” Bible that deal with genealo­gies8. So in effect, if Shamoun’s source is cor­rect, we would need to con­clude that :

  • the writ­ings of Ibn Ishaq are not infal­li­ble, and ;
  • the Bible is not infallible.

This is a posi­tion that Mus­lims have already tak­en, but it is one that the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies, most espe­cial­ly the mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun, might want to think twice about !

Con­clu­sions

We have shown that the mis­sion­ary claim is, at best, spec­u­la­tive. Mod­ern sci­en­tif­ic research has shown that Jews and Arabs share the same genes, and there­fore hail from the same com­mon ances­tor. His attempt to sev­er Ishmael’s con­nec­tion to Prophet Muham­mad ﷺ rests on out­dat­ed bib­li­cal lit­er­al­ism, selec­tive use of Mus­lim sources, and a fail­ure to appre­ci­ate the cul­tur­al mem­o­ry and tex­tu­al tra­di­tions of pre-Islam­ic Ara­bia. More­over, we have seen how the mis­sion­ary has dis­tort­ed the Islam­ic tra­di­tions, and we have seen his attempts to appeal to an athe­is­tic source that bad­ly back­fires on him. Truth is clear from error”, as the Qur’an has said, and we are grate­ful to the mis­sion­ary for the demon­stra­tion of these very words !

May the peace and bless­ings of Allāh be upon Abra­ham and his right­eous descen­dants, among whom stands the final Prophet ﷺ. And only God knows best.

The Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary made a fee­ble attempt to reply to our obser­va­tions above, which in our opin­ion has glossed over our major points. A short com­ment on that mis­sion­ary attempt can be seen in Fur­ther Com­ments On Ish­mael Is Not The Father Of Muham­mad” Revis­it­ed.

  1. ABC News, Jews, Arabs are broth­ers,
    genet­ic study shows
    [Online Doc­u­ment]
    []
  2. The Times (9 May 2000), Jews and Arabs Unit­ed by Genes, The Jour­nal of Baby­lon­ian Exi­lArch [Online Doc­u­ment][]
  3. cf. F. Sez­gin : GAS”, Band ii, seite 298 – 300, Lei­den 1975[]
  4. Isma’il” in Ency­clo­pe­dia of Islam, 2nd ed., Lei­den 1954[]
  5. H. W. F. Gese­nius, Gese­nius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lex­i­con, p. 724[]
  6. al-Hafiz Imam Ibnu Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Kitab Bulughul Maram, hadith no. 336[]
  7. A. Guilaume, The Life of Muham­mad : A Trans­la­tion of Ibn Ishaq’s Sir­at Rasul Allah (Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1978), p. 3 – 4[]
  8. Var­i­ous pas­sages in the book of Gen­e­sis, Chron­i­cles and Luke that deal with genealo­gies.[]
TAGS