The missionary Sam Shamoun has claimed that there is a discrepency in the traditions of Ishmael (P) being the ancestor of the Arabs and hence he (P) cannot be the father of Muhammad (P), 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.
See also : Further Comments On : Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad Revisited
Refutation to the “Hypothesis”
The missionary would like us to believe that the Arabs have no ancestral link to the Prophet Abraham (P) and his son, Ishmael (P). 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 descendents 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 (P) 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 (P) 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 (P) and his love for his “first-born”, i.e. Ishmael (P). One of his verses was :
- بَقَرُهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَيَصْبُرْ عُنْهُ أَوْ يُرَاهُ فِي مَشْرِعِ الْأَقْطَالِ
Baḵaruhu lam yakun laiyaṣbir uṇḥ aw yurahu fī ma’ṣḥer al-aqtāl
[The sacrifice] of his first-born of whose separation he [Abraham] could not bear neither could he see him surrounded in foes.
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 Gesenius5 :
The missionary has kindly provided us with the genealogy of the Prophet Muhammad (P) in his article. We reproduce it here to facilitate easier elucidation of the matter.
Thus, it is clear that even within the Jewish traditions, Kedar, the son of Ishmael (P) 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, 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 favour of revised genealogies that put more people between Abraham (P) and Muhammad (P) and Abraham (P) and Adam (P). The Christians, however, would have to throw out passages from their “inspired” Bible that deal with genealogies.8 So in effect, if Shamoun’s source is correct, we would need to conclude that :
- (a) the writings of Ibn Ishaq are not infallible, and
(b) 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. 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 !
And only God knows best.
Cite This As :
- ABCNews, Jews, Arabs are brothers,
genetic study shows[Online Document][↩] - The Times (9 May 2000), Jews and Arabs United by Genes, The Journal of Babylonian ExilArch [Online Document][↩]
- cf. F. Sezgin : “GAS”, Band ii, seite 298 – 300, Leiden 1975[↩]
- “Isma’il” in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Leiden 1954[↩]
- H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, p. 724[↩]
- al-Hafiz Imam Ibnu Hajar al-‘Asqalaniy, Kitab Bulughul Maram, hadith no. 336[↩]
- A. Guilaume, The Life of Muhammad : A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 3 – 4[↩]
- Various passages in the book of Genesis, Chronicles and Luke that deal with genealogies.[↩]
4 Comments
Lmao next time you try to “disprove” something, be sure to grasp the context of what you’re citing ? Muhammad is the antichrist and is burning in hell.
To anyone who sees this comment in 2024, please read the whole chapter to understand what Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is talking about. This dumb Islam loving, child-rapist defending, weak-willed man will lead you astray just like the Rabbi Jesus was condemning in that very chapter.
Read the whole chapter for context, but allow me to truly explain what is meant in Matthew 23 but this time using verses 16 – 22. “ (16) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’
(17) Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred ?
(18) And you say, ‘If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.’
(19) You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred ?
(20) One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it ;
(21) one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it ;
(22) one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.“
In this chapter, Jesus is calling out the teachings of the Pharisees for how foolish they both are. By swearing on the Gold and not the temple made to hold the Gold, and by swearing on the gifts on the alter and not the alter made to hold the gifts, Jesus shows how blind the scribes and Pharisees are. This is because, as he says, to swear on the alter would mean to swear on it and everything on it, and to swear on the Temple would mean to swear by it and by him who dwells in it. Now this proves nothing about God permanently dwelling in the Temple. In fact, from what we know of the practices of Jews in Christ’s time, the Temple was a house of God, and the alter was a table of the Lord, and the alter acted as the people’s connection between heaven and earth. And the alter was described to be where God’s presence was. This is why Jesus says what he says about the temple and the alter, for this is what the Jews of Jesus’ time believe. So, to convey his message and meaning he uses what they believe to reveal their hypocrisy. For if the alter and the Temple are of God, how can swearing by them mean even less when compared to swearing by the gifts and gold on and in the alter and temple ? Now you understand just how corrupt the Pharisees and scribes were, and the true meaning of Jesus’ words now in that verse.
What’s funny is that the Muhammad-lover (police be upon him) left out a very vital verse from that chapter that immediately follows the Temple and alter verses. I’ll quote it again right now and even explain it, because it’s very interesting : “(22) one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.” Now I don’t know about you, but this verse clearly sticks out from the previous verses. This time, Jesus actually uses the word God to refer to his (God’s) throne. “him who is seated on it” directly refers to God since it’s God’s throne… I mean who else but God can be seated on God’s throne. So now Jesus, our Lord and Savior, emphasizes that by swearing by heaven, we swear by God’s throne, and by God who sits on his throne. The scribes and Pharisees never brought up heaven at all, so why is Jesus bringing it up ? Again, the Temple and alter act as the connection between heaven and earth. And we now understand that by swearing by the temple and the alter you were basically swearing by God. This means that by swearing by the Temple and the alter, you were swearing by heaven, and by the throne of God, and by God who sits on it. What I want to emphasize from this verse is how Jesus talks about the throne of God and heaven. He professes it in a way as to say that God is presently sitting on his throne in heaven. While the temples and alters were made by man to worship God, heaven was made by God himself (as expressed in the first chapter of Genesis). If you want to know where God dwells, it is in his home in heaven where he sits on his throne. So no, God is not permanently in the Temple like this foolish pedo-loving man declares. However, God is all powerful, and has the power to appear to man even on earth as he has done before all throughout the Old Testament. To give a couple examples because this is getting long : he appears to Adam and Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:8), and he appears to Abraham (Genesis 18:1). God can appear and be anywhere, but his throne is in heaven where he sits, just as Jesus our Lord and Savior preaches to us.
Thank you for your time, and remember : without lies Islam dies !
Firstly, the claim that Muhammad is in hell is a theological assertion that lacks foundation in Islamic teachings. Muslims believe that the ultimate judgment of a person’s soul rests with God alone, and it is not for us to speculate on the fate of others in the afterlife. In fact, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is in Paradise, as a reward for his unwavering devotion to Allah and his role in spreading the message of Islam.
Regarding your interpretation of Matthew 23, it is important to understand the context of the passage within the broader message of Jesus in the Bible. The verses you have cited address the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of the time and emphasize the importance of sincerity and true devotion to God. This message is universal and can be applied to any religious context, including Islam, urging followers to be sincere in their faith and actions.
Islam teaches peace, compassion, and respect for others. Engaging in respectful dialogue can help bridge the gap between different faiths and foster mutual understanding and respect. Unfortunately, I see none of these values in you since you are being deceived by the Satanic apostle from Tarsus, the bastard Paul and his false god, Yahweh the Satan.
Without lies, Islam thrives and the truth prevails.
I have read the missionary post. And I have read this website response to that post. After comparing this site’s rebuttal to the missionary claims, I find that this rebuttal is greatly lacking in substance and depth. I expected more from this rebuttal.
The missionary began with written Biblical and Islamic material. But the rebuttal here began with science findings.
Hopefully I will be able to find a strong enough rebuttal. If one can direct me, that would be great.
shamoun is one of James Patrick Holdings hatchlings.see refutation to james patrict holdings here :
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/bobby/greek.html
i’ll quote an extract from the article for all you geezers to see :
QUOTE:Matthew 23:21 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth [katoikonti] therein.
The word for dwelleth in this passage was a derivative of katoikeo, which Turkel claims meant permanent residence, so if he is right, this text was saying that God dwells permanently in the temple. Well, who said this ? None other than Jesus himself, and I assume that Turkel won’t quibble that Jesus wasn’t perfect. This leaves Turkel, Stephen, and the apostle Paul to argue with Jesus. They claim that God didn’t dwell in the temple, but Jesus said that he did… and, according to Turkel, dwelt there permanently.
END QUOTE
as you can see shamouns god dwells permanently in temples created by men