father of Muhammad

Response to Sam Shamoun : Ish­mael Is Not The Father of Muhammad ?

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 :

Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad? 1

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.

Muham­mad
ʿAb­dul­lāh
ʿAbd al-Muṭṭal­ib
Hāshim
ʿAbd Manāf
Qusayy
Kilāb
Mur­rah
Kaʿb
Luʾayy
Ghālib
Fiḥr
Mālik
al-Naḍr
Kinā­nah
Khuza­ymah
Mudrikah
Ilyās
Mudar
Nizār
Madd
Adnān
Adad
Zayd
Yaqdūd
al-Muqawwam
al-Yasāʾ
Nabt
Qaidar (Kedar)
Ismāʿīl (alay­hī salām)
Ibrāhīm (alay­hī salām)

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.Endmark

Cite this arti­cle as : Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, Response to Sam Shamoun : Ish­mael Is Not The Father of Muham­mad ?,” in Bis­mi­ka Allahu­ma, Sep­tem­ber 19, 2005, last accessed May 27, 2024, https://​bis​mikaal​lahu​ma​.org/​m​u​h​a​m​m​a​d​/​i​s​h​m​a​e​l​-​f​a​t​h​e​r​-​o​f​-​a​r​a​bs/
  1. ABC­News, 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-‘Asqalaniy, 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.[]

4 Comments

  1. 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 !

    1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. shamoun is one of James Patrick Hold­ings hatchlings.see refu­ta­tion to james patrict hold­ings here :

    http://​www​.theskep​ti​cal​re​view​.com/​j​f​t​i​l​l​/​b​o​b​b​y​/​g​r​e​e​k​.​h​tml

    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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *