Talk:Ishmael/Archive 1

Old, acrimonious dispute

What is the source for the list of Ishmael's sons? Are their names found in the Koran, other Muslim tradition, some old African records, ...? This ought to have some kind of attribution. Wesley 03:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, the source provided in the article discusses the 12 Tribes of Israel and nothing about Ishmaelites or sons. --Noitall 05:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

A User added: "The Bible indicates that the Ishmaelites were associated with the Midianites; and both were later absorbed into the Arabs of Arabia."

One question: What is the source? One comment: People can't be "absorbed" -- it is ahistorical hogwash. --Noitall 13:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I put one source in the edit history comment field. It could be worded better. Most of the Arabs are descended from Joktan. Later the Ishmaelites and Midianites moved to Northern Arabia and disappeared as distinct tribes. i.e. they "merged" with the existing Arab population. Most people, mistakenly, think that all Arabs are descended from Ishmael. RossNixon 09:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, here is your entire source that you provided:

"Now this is the genealogy of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's maidservant, bore to Abraham. 13And these were the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15Hadar,[a] Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. 16These were the sons of Ishmael and these were their names, by their towns and their settlements, twelve princes according to their nations."

Nothing like that was at the URL I provided, which was www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/midianites.html.RossNixon 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You have 3 fatal problems with your assertion:

1. If referring to the Hebrew Bible, the historicity after 4000 years and interpretation from several languages, is not accurate by any means. It is solely a matter of faith.

It has always proven acurate till now.RossNixon 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

2. Many (actually most) Christians do not believe that Genesis was meant for historical purposes but instead were an amalgramation of paribles.

If you meant to say parables; then that is not true.RossNixon 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

3. YOUR SOURCE SAYS NO SUCH THING. THIS IS ALL ORIGINAL RESEARCH OR THE INTERPRETATION OF OTHER RELIGIONS.

As above, check the URL I provided, which was www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/midianites.htmlRossNixon 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--Noitall 02:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your secondary source, after the Bible, is www.tektonics.org/lp/midish.html. This is a blog that can't even spell right (it begins, "Throughout Genesis 37-39, there seems to be a switch bewteen [sic] terms" This is worse than original research, this is random speculation. There is not a shred of history in it. --Noitall 02:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not random.

Put 'midianites' 'ishmaelites' into Google. Choose one of 7,130 hits. Is Encyclopedia Britanica a good enough source? -> "MIDIANITES (also called ISHMAELITES, Enc. Brit.)" Also, most standard reference works on Islam reject the Arab claim of Abrahamic descent. For example, the prestigious 'Encyclopedia of Islam' traces the Arabs to non-Abrahamic origins (Vol. 1, pp. 543-47). One will also find the 'Dictionary of Islam' questioning the whole idea that the Arabs are descended from Ishmael. RossNixon 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What you are telling me, if you think through your argument logically, is that the origination (other than this passage) of "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" and later history, is lost to history. This happens all the time in the Bible (that's why it is 1 volume and not 20, a 100, or a 1000). What you are also stating is that there is no point whatsoever in recording that. In fact, based on your statement, it is misleading because of all the misunderstanding and wrongful conclusions that can be reached by including such names. --Noitall 12:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

No. If I understand your confused comments, I think you are mistaking my edits with those of another editor. RossNixon 05:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• You have some nerve. I'm confused??? Ahhh, you happen to be wrong, top to bottom here, and I'm confused? From top, Genesis as a matter of history is widely considered inaccurate (as Galileo said, the Bible was not meant as a history or science book, but to show the way to heaven). For citation as to historical inaccuracy, see The Bible and history. And bottom, maybe some other vandal is signing your name, but the paragraph before has your name on it. --Noitall 06:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Let's clear up the confusion

1. Are you saying that it is impossible that the Ishmaelites moved into Northern Arabia? 2. Are you saying that if they did, they should still be identifiable from the other Arabs in Arabia? 3. Do you deny that the Arabs are descended from Joktan? 4. I never quoted a URL about the genealogy of Ishmael, or even mentioned his genealogy. You confused me with someone else. 5. I am not discussing the origination of the Ishmaelites, just whether Ishmael was the father of the Arabs or not. RossNixon 10:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Rebutting Noital: If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally, as the literal, historical Biblical explanation of God creating the Earth, then without it, Christianity collapses. For instance, without the Fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden, then what does the Lord Jesus Christ save Christians from, if not from Original Sin? What did Jesus give His life for, at the cross at Calvary, if not to purchase lost humanity with His precious blood? Then what does the New Covenant (see the books of Matthew and Jeremiah for the "New Covenant") of the Messiah Jesus mean: ("Take, drink of this cup; this [cup, which, when drunk, represents taking part in the covenant] is the blood of my new covenant, which is [will be] shed for you", that Jesus said at the Last Supper? If the book of Genesis is not meant to be historically and scientifically accurate (when interpreted correctly, within its Hebrew context and idioms), then how can it be trusted to accurately "show the way to Heaven" (to quote and refute Galileo)? Jesus quoted the book of Genesis, and he didn't say it was a collection of parables. How can Galileo, or anyone else, doubt the accuracy of the book of Genesis and still remain a believing Christian? Answer: you can't. But,because the book of Genesis is both trustworthy and accurate (within its God-given meaning), you can rely upon it to explain creation, mankind's need for salvation, why the Earth is cursed, and also the genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Ishmael. (Ned, Sept.)

What?

Ancestors of Muhammad

Some of the links in the genealogy between Ismail & Muhammad were misdirected, as follows:

• Kaab linked to the Kaaba,
• Ghalib linked to the eponymous 19th century Indian poet,
• Malik linked to an article about the word's usage as a name & as one of the 99 names of Allah,
• Nizar linked to an extremely bad stub about the 11th century Fatimid Imam Nizar, whose succession struggle led to the break between the Nizari Ismailis & the Bohra Ismailis.

So I redirected them to uncreated articles using patronymics ("Nizar ibn Ma`ad", &c.). I used the spellings from the genealogy in the Muhammad article. Adamgarrigus 18:35, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

This Ibn-Ishaq's finding of Muhammad's (p.b.u.h) ancestors is false as he himself has been said to believe that no body in the world can tell his ancestors till Adam. I think it should not be included. This is not an Islamic concept but an attempt by one person never seconded by any other scholar in history.

Islam and Ishmael

While Islam is very definite that Ishmael is the one nearly sacrificed by Abraham, the Qu'ran itself merely refers to 'his son'. This may be worth a mention, as it means that the tradition of Ishmael as the sacrificed is not total dogma. 82.26.30.4 12:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

From the context we ca easy see that Ishmael was the sacrificed one since the birth of Isaac has been described few verses after this.

Bahá'í Faith and Ishmael

I propose removing the statement about Bahá'í belief that Ishmael is a prophet, but leaving this note to give a chance for discussion first. On p87 of Dawn of a New Day, Shoghi Effendi cites a passage from 'Abdu'l-Bahá saying that the prophet Ishmael is not the same person as Ishmael son of Abraham. Thus the canon Bahá'í belief should be that this Ishmael is not a "minor prophet." Minor point for the whole article, but factually relevant.

Also, I'm not sure if it is worth mentioning, but the Bahá'í writings also refer to Ishmael as the intended sacrifice. Sfuqua 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)