Talk:Ishmael

• Talk:Ishmael/Archive 1

At the start the article says:

"Ishmael (The hebrew name cotton means all amazingness traped in a single form for eternity he will be the ultimate savior!; Greek: Ισμαήλ; Latin: Ismael; Arabic: إسماعيل‎, ’Ismā‘īl) is a figure"

But when I try to edit it it says:

"Ishmael (Hebrew: יִשְׁמָעֵאל, Modern: Yišmaʿel, Tiberian: Yišmāʿêl; Greek: Ισμαήλ; Latin: Ismael; Arabic: إسماعيل, ’Ismā‘īl) is a figure "

What's up with the Hebrew name? Has the article been hacked?89.210.189.119 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm that is strange. It looks like copying and pasting the template again fixed it though. I find it odd that it managed to slip under the radar like that though, it made it look like it was just part of the template, so I can't find anywhere it appears on any of the edit history. Peter Deer (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you fixed it, but I can't see your edit in the history page. Maybe that page is hacked too.89.210.189.119 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's even stranger! I can't think of a logical reason why that would be the case. Perhaps a sysop should be talked to about this... Peter Deer (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nearly every character in the Bible who also appears in the Qur'an has his own article. Can we make Islamic view of Ishmael? --Ephilei 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some updates to this treatment here:

• The Bahá'í view doesn't warrant mention in the opening paragraphs per WP:Undue weight. In the same vein, the treatment of the Bahá'í should be succinct in the body of the article itself.
• Ishmael isn't a "Manifestation of God" in that religion's theology.
• The "two Ishmaels" observation is not germane as it refers to two different people.
• The Bahá'í Faith takes largely the Islamic view with respect to Ishmael across the board.

Hope this is clear. MARussellPESE 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks MARussellPESE for writing the section. --Aminz 06:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A few critiques of this article with respect to the good article review:

1. Excellent use of citations.
2. Excellent use of images
3. Covers the topic very well from several different angels
4. Article is relatively stable though a bit less then I would like

Now two minor problems

1. references like Hagar (Bible)#Hagar in Jewish mysticism are probably better handled via a rename like Hagar in Jewish mysticism
2. Some of the sentences seem to mix discussion between references, for example under Jewish Tradition, In some Rabbinic traditions, Ishmael is said to have had two wives named Aisha and Fatima, the names of Muhammad's wife and daughter.[1] This is understood as a metaphoric representation of the Muslim world (first Arabs and then Turks) with Ishmael. Better would be something like In some Rabbinic traditions Ishmael is said to have had two wives named Aisha and Fatima. Those names correspond to the Muslim tradition for the names of Muhammad's wife and daughter. Unless the article means to assert that there is a rabbinic tradition involving the names of Muhammad's wife.

In my opinion this article satisfies Wikipedia:What is a good article? jbolden1517^Talk 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are there written sources discussing Ishmael as the ancestor of the Arabs from before the time of Muhammad? This should be explained in the article. Thanks.--Pharos 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where is a direct quote from Arabs that they are the seed of Ishmael?

Frow New Advent.org about Ismael

"In his Epistle to the Galatians (4:21, sqq.) St. Paul expands allegorically the narrative of Ismael and Isaac, urging upon his readers the duty of not giving up their Christian freedom from the bondage of the Law. Of course, in so arguing, the Apostle of the Gentiles did not intend to detract in any way from the historical character of the narrative in Genesis. With regard to the various difficulties, literary and historical, suggested by a close study of the Biblical account of Ismael's life, suffice it to say that each and all will never cause a careful and unbiased scholar to regard that account otherwise than as portraying an ancient historical character, will never induce him to treat otherwise than as hypercritical every attempt, by whomsoever made, to resolve Ismael into a conjectural personality of the founder of a group of Arabic tribes. And this view of the matter will appear most certain to any one who compares the Biblical narrative with the legends concerning Ismael which are embodied in the Talmud, the Targum, and the other rabbinical works; while the latter are plainly the result of puerile imagination, the former is decidedly the description of an ancient historical figure. "

I have checked the source claiming that the Antiquities of the Jews states that Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs. It says no such thing. Source claimed, Book 1 chapter 12. I have quoted the book in it's entirety. Thus I have removed the claim.

" CHAPTER 12.

PHASAELUS IS TOO HARD FOR FELIX; HEROD ALSO OVERCOMES ANTIGONUS IN RATTLE; AND THE JEWS ACCUSE BOTH HEROD AND PHASAELUS BUT ANTONIUS ACQUITS THEM, AND MAKES THEM TETRARCHS.

1. WHEN Cassius was gone out of Syria, another sedition arose at Jerusalem, wherein Felix assaulted Phasaelus with an army, that he might revenge the death of Malichus upon Herod, by falling upon his brother. Now Herod happened then to be with Fabius, the governor of Damascus, and as he was going to his brother's assistance, he was detained by sickness; in the mean time, Phasaelus was by himself too hard for Felix, and reproached Hyrcanus on account of his ingratitude, both for what assistance he had afforded Maliehus, and for overlooking Malichus's brother, when he possessed himself of the fortresses; for he had gotten a great many of them already, and among them the strongest of them all, Masada.

2. However, nothing could be sufficient for him against the force of Herod, who, as soon as he was recovered, took the other fortresses again, and drove him out of Masada in the posture of a supplicant; he also drove away Marion, the tyrant of the Tyrians, out of Galilee, when he had already possessed himself of three fortified places; but as to those Tyrians whom he had caught, he preserved them all alive; nay, some of them he gave presents to, and so sent them away, and thereby procured good-will to himself from the city, and hatred to the tyrant. Marion had indeed obtained that tyrannical power of Cassius, who set tyrants over all Syria (16) and out of hatred to Herod it was that he assisted Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, and principally on Fabius's account, whom Antigonus had made his assistant by money, and had him accordingly on his side when he made his descent; but it was Ptolemy, the kinsman of Antigonus, that supplied all that he wanted.

3. When Herod had fought against these in the avenues of Judea, he was conqueror in the battle, and drove away Antigonus, and returned to Jerusalem, beloved by every body for the glorious action he had done; for those who did not before favor him did join themselves to him now, because of his marriage into the family of Hyrcanus; for as he had formerly married a wife out of his own country of no ignoble blood, who was called Doris, of whom he begat Antipater; so did he now marry Mariamne, the daughter of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, and the granddaughter of Hyrcanus, and was become thereby a relation of the king.

4. But when Caesar and Antony had slain Cassius near Philippi, and Caesar was gone to Italy, and Antony to Asia, amongst the rest of the cities which sent ambassadors to Antony unto Bithynia, the great men of the Jews came also, and accused Phasaelus and Herod, that they kept the government by force, and that Hyrcanus had no more than an honorable name. Herod appeared ready to answer this accusation; and having made Antony his friend by the large sums of money which he gave him, he brought him to such a temper as not to hear the others speak against him; and thus did they part at this time.

5. However, after this, there came a hundred of the principal men among the Jews to Daphne by Antioch to Antony, who was already in love with Cleopatra to the degree of slavery; these Jews put those men that were the most potent, both in dignity and eloquence, foremost, and accused the brethren. (17) But Messala opposed them, and defended the brethren, and that while Hyrcanus stood by him, on account of his relation to them. When Antony had heard both sides, he asked Hyrcanus which party was the fittest to govern, who replied that Herod and his party were the fittest. Antony was glad of that answer, for he had been formerly treated in an hospitable and obliging manner by his father Antipater, when he marched into Judea with Gabinius; so he constituted the brethren tetrarchs, and committed to them the government of Judea.

6. But when the ambassadors had indignation at this procedure, Antony took fifteen of them, and put them into custody, whom he was also going to kill presently, and the rest he drove away with disgrace; on which occasion a still greater tumult arose at Jerusalem; so they sent again a thousand ambassadors to Tyre, where Antony now abode, as he was marching to Jerusalem; upon these men who made a clamor he sent out the governor of Tyre, and ordered him to punish all that he could catch of them, and to settle those in the administration whom he had made tetrarchs.

7. But before this Herod, and Hyrcanus went out upon the sea-shore, and earnestly desired of these ambassadors that they would neither bring ruin upon themselves, nor war upon their native country, by their rash contentions; and when they grew still more outrageous, Antony sent out armed men, and slew a great many, and wounded more of them; of whom those that were slain were buried by Hyrcanus, as were the wounded put under the care of physicians by him; yet would not those that had escaped be quiet still, but put the affairs of the city into such disorder, and so provoked Antony, that he slew those whom he had in bonds also. "

I decided to be bold and change the description of Ismail as "pre-Islamic" (with link to Jahiliyyah) to "pre-Muhammad". Does Islam consider significant prophets such as Ibrahim and Ismail to be in Jahiliyyah just because they preceded Muhammad? Since Ibrahim ayah 39 records Ibrahim praying to God, he's not in the state of paganism that (if I remember right) is meant by "Jahiliyyah". Someone more knowledgeable please confirm or correct this! Nyttend 01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The term Jahaliyyah is used specifically to refer to Pagan Pre-islamic Arabia. Islam is defined in the Qur'an as the Religion of Abraham and considers all prophets in all times to be Muslims ie. those submitting to the will of God.Royalbengal100 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The belief that Islam is a new religion brought by Muhammad is surely the most popular even by Muslims, but not islamo-theologically correct. Jah means ignorance and Jahiliyyah means time of ignorance. If there was no truth (islam according to the Qur'an) in that time, what should someone ignore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.193.16 (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Penteteuch or the Book of the Law spends a lot of time discussing covenants, property rights and inheritances. As he travels south from Haran, through Syria Abram makes a covenant with El Shaddai lord of the land. As he enters the territory of Egypt Abraham makes a covenant with Yahwah the power of the air. Hagar is protected by El Roi the Power of the Well and after Sarah goes with AbiMelech we have Abraham building an alter and perforrming the ritual of Chemosh or the passing of the first born through the flame. What follows in Exodus is a covenant with the people to be law abiding.

The essence of the story is the comparison of the semitic Sharia law of Sarai, with the towrah to·rä' law of the Sons of Israel, and the Afroasiatic Egyptian hotep of Hagar as regards laws, decrees, commandments, ordinances, the rights of in laws by birth and by marriage laws, judgements as to what is right and proper, decrees, commandments, manners, commissions, rules, norms, mores, and conventions.

In comparing the rules of Sharia, torah, dath, hotep, mishpat, nomos regarding inheritance we have on the one hand the common law and on the other the written law; both are taken in terms of having made a contract by establishing a meeting of the minds.

The question is posed as to whats the relative status of Abrams sister by another mother? Under which laws is she permitted to be his wife and under which laws is that prohibited? Under what circumstances can their offspring inherit? next come the question, well what if she has gone with another man?...what if her husband permits it?...what if he not only permits it but encourages it?...what if he decides its necessary to save their lives?... what if it happens again?...what if its necessary to have a child?...what if she can't have a childwith him ...what if he goes with another woman to have a child by her?...what if she goes with another man to have a child by him... What if the eldest son doesn't survive?...

At the time of this story Hammurabbi has just codified the laws of Babylon and had the code of Hammurabi carved in stone.After the story of Abraham sets the stage the rest of the Pentetuch goes on to look at what we call mosaic law, and then we get that covenant to abide by the absolute power of the written law carved in stone, placed in an ark and the ark housed in a sanctuary in the Egyptian manner. The Egyptians carve their gods in stone, place the stone in an ark and place the ark in a sanctuary.

Then we learn that Yahwah has a consort called Asherah. Like the Egyptian goddess Maat she is a fertility goddess with an eros for wisdom. When judges are appointed the absolute power of the law is tempered with wisdom giving birth to justice.

The bottom line question is under what conditions is Isaacs birthright tsaddiyq tsad·dēk' righteous, just, and lawful and when is it krima or criminal? Rktect (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ishmael's name is from Old Persian asma dēla [asma dǣla] 'eighth son', cf. Old Prussian asmus 'eighth', Latvian dēls 'son' (Latin filius < *dhēl-) . Roberts7 11:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)

It is not clear which son was nearly sacrificed, Isaac or Ishmael. There seems to be both errors and confusion, especially regarding the mohammedan version? M99 87.59.100.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC).Reply

First, it's spelled Muhammad and Muhammadan. Second, it should be obvious to all with an introduction education of comparative religion that Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on much and disagree on much. 66.165.183.108 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ishmael/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of good information here. I do have some concerns that I'd like to bring up.

• There are several ^{[citation needed]} templates on the article, I put one on but there are several more, some dating back to December 2008. These need to be addressed.
• The references look good though accessdates and publisher need to be on website refs.
• From a content stand point I have some concerns about the "Islam" section. You quote Watt as saying that God saved Abraham from the burning bush. I am not totally familiar with Islamic tradition but I know that it parallels Jewish tradition in many ways. The only burning bush I know of is with Moses. Is there a different burning bush with Abraham in the Islamic tradition? I just want to be sure I'm reading it correctly.
• Also the reference to Metzger and Coogan as professors of Religious Studies, usually also has where they are professors at, what university. I think it would be good to include that information.

• Regarding that sentence, it is a stub paragraph (a one-sentence paragraph), which should be expanded, combined or removed. Is there any other elaboration on that subject?

Overall the article is really well-written and fine. I would just like to see a little work done on these issues in order to keep it at GA. I'll hold the article for a week, please contact me if you have any questions or need more time. H1nkles (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article has been on hold for a week and no appreciable work has been done to address my concerns. I will therefore delist the article as it does not meet the current GA Criteria when it comes to adequate referencing. H1nkles (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can someone reword the term "theory" from the excerpt

However the belief that the son was Ishmael prevailed, and this view is continued to be endorsed by Muslim scholars.[5] The argument of those Muslims who believed in the Ishmael theory was that "the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob (Qur'an 11:71–74) excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac."[5] The other party held that the son of sacrifice was Isaac since "God's perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac (in Qur'an 12:6) referred to his making Abraham his friend and saving him from the burning bush and to his rescuing Isaac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

one more thing: "he shall be a wild ass of a man", is this true? a wild ass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.189.134 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Though it depends on the translation used. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I can see how "multiplying" and "being a populous nation" is a blessing, but the rest?

He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."

Are these really all good things? Normally, I'd refer to such a thing with a more neutral word, such as "determining someone's destiny".--

It doesn't have to be good. Remember one can Inherit bad things too, not just blessings but curses also. If you censor the bad things then youre making wikipedia a whitewashing instrument.

91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC) This Torah quote is one from a perspective of the ancient Israelites. The Ishmaelites/Muslims don't promote this. 66.165.183.108 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Please read this before u take any silly action"

I have edited this article I dont think there is anything to say because the sources for that was the Quran and the verses of the Quran are mentioned in the edited article and Ive also kept a conclusion and literal proof for the editings I have made

One thing I deleted was the theory that some Muslim scholars say that Isaac and Jacob were both promised for Sarah so this means Ishmael was sacrificed. This Beleif and theory is false! because never does the Quran say in Arabic so? the verses that talk about Isaac and Jacob in arabic states that "we gave her the good news of Isaac and after Isaac Jacob" but what many english speakers don't know is that in Arabic grammer the letter BA was kept beside Isaac's name. the letter BA is a letter kept when someone wants to use the word 'with" so the Quran said we gave her glad tidings with Isaac by using the letter BA but however after that the Quran clearly says and after him we gave good news of Jacob but it doesnt use the letter BA the letter BA was only used with Isaac meaning that the angels came to talk about Isaac but after Isaac grew and the sacrifice occured god told Abraham about the birth of Jacob because the style of the Quran tends to talk about something and then states the future act .. the Quran clearly says that the three angels only gave news of Isaac in many verses i mentioned in the article and there is no verse talking about Jacob and the three angels except this one and like i mentioned earlier this verse used the letter BA to say with "we gave her glad tidings with Isaac'" BUT IT DOESNT USE THE LETTER BA WITH JACOB so clearly this verse talks about Isaac and then states the future of when Jacob was born long after Isaac grew with his father TO WALK AND WORK .. nowhere in Islamic tradition or the Quran it states that Jacob had a relation with the tidings of Isaac.. so this is another proof as well as I MYSELF HAVE EDITED THE ARTICLE AND CLEARY MADE THE STORY CLEAR SO A READER WOULD DEFINATLY UNDERSTAND MY POINT WITHOUT HAVING A LOOK AT THIS TALK PAGE... there are many things i didnt mention AS PROVE OF THE BINDING OF ISAAC IN ISLAM like the birth of Isaac give to Abraham when Abraham left his people or when abraham was ordered to sacrifice the un-named son who grew up with him and was given to him miraculously and clearly every knows that Ishmael was taken away from Abraham when he was just a baby nor did Ishmael have a miraculous birth nor did he live with his father to work and walk ....the quranic verse are kept in the article! ... Il put some here to make it easier to see

037.083 YUSUFALI: Verily among those who followed his Way was Abraham.

037.084 YUSUFALI: Behold! he approached his Lord with a sound heart.

037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship?

037.086 YUSUFALI: "Is it a falsehood- gods other than Allah- that ye desire?

037.087 YUSUFALI: "Then what is your idea about the Lord of the worlds?"

037.088 YUSUFALI: Then did he cast a glance at the Stars.

037.089 YUSUFALI: And he said, "I am indeed sick (at heart)!"

037.090 YUSUFALI: So they turned away from him, and departed.

037.091 YUSUFALI: Then did he turn to their gods and said, "will ye not eat (of the offerings before you)?...

037.092 YUSUFALI: "What is the matter with you that ye speak not (intelligently)?"

037.093 YUSUFALI: Then did he turn upon them, striking (them) with the right hand.

037.094 YUSUFALI: Then came (the worshippers) with hurried steps, and faced (him).

037.095 YUSUFALI: He said: "Worship ye that which ye have (yourselves) carved?

037.096 YUSUFALI: "But Allah has created you and your handwork!"

037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!"

037.098 YUSUFALI: (This failing), they then sought a stratagem against him, but We made them the ones most humiliated!

037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

037.100 YUSUFALI: "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"

037.101 YUSUFALI: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

037.103 YUSUFALI: So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

037.104 YUSUFALI: We called out to him "O Abraham!

037.105 YUSUFALI: "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

037.106 YUSUFALI: For this was obviously a trial-

037.107 YUSUFALI: And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

037.108 YUSUFALI: And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

037.109 YUSUFALI: "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"

037.110 YUSUFALI: Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

037.111 YUSUFALI: For he was one of our believing Servants.

This verse says the WHOLE STORY ... a son was given to Abraham after Abraham left his pagan people and THIS SON WAS UN NAMED BUT WHAT THE READER CAN TAKE AS A CLUE IS THAT THE UN-NAMED SON WAS A CHILD GIVEN TO ABRAHAM AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE

019.041 YUSUFALI: (Also mention in the Book (the story of) Abraham: He was a man of Truth, a prophet.

019.042 YUSUFALI: Behold, he said to his father: "O my father! why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?

019.043 YUSUFALI: "O my father! to me hath come knowledge which hath not reached thee: so follow me: I will guide thee to a way that is even and straight.

019.044 YUSUFALI: "O my father! serve not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against (Allah) Most Gracious.

019.045 YUSUFALI: "O my father! I fear lest a Penalty afflict thee from (Allah) Most Gracious, so that thou become to Satan a friend."

019.046 YUSUFALI: (The father) replied: "Dost thou hate my gods, O Abraham? If thou forbear not, I will indeed stone thee: Now get away from me for a good long while!"

019.047 YUSUFALI: Abraham said: "Peace be on thee: I will pray to my Lord for thy forgiveness: for He is to me Most Gracious.

LOOK AT THIS

019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will TURN away from YOU (ALL) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest."

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had TURNED away from THEM and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet.

these verses talk about ISAAC GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN ABRAHAM LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE SO THIS PROVES THAT THE UN-NAMED SACRIFICED SON WAS ISAAC BECAUSE THE EARLIER VERSE THAT MENTIONS THE SACRIFICE SAYS ABRAHAM WAS GIVEN A UN-NAMED SON ....... WHO WAS GIVEN TO HIM RIGHT AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE AND LIKE I SAID .. THESE VERSES CLEARLY MENTIONS ISAAC BY NAME AS THE UN-NAMED SON WHO WAS GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE.. so the conclsion is ... Isaac was binded  :)

ps. please do mind my grammer and rush in this talk page thank you Highdeeboy (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read the reliable source guidelines - they do not include exegesis as an option. ALSO, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET.

I wasnt shouting I was adding where I want you to focus but unfortuantly u didnt! ... this isnt exegesis these are Qurnic verses I provided who cares about Exgesis i Just said that as a historical fact but what better source is there than the Holy Quran ..? seriously Have u had a look at the verses ,, i can provide more but you must tell me what is wrong so I can know?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

and btw This is not called vandilizing this is called editing with providing proof and making it simple with providing the Only sources of Islam .. The Holy Quran and the Sunnah and some History .. WT ELSE? please have a look at it and read it so i can know why was my editiing removed because the exegesis excuse wont work .. i didnt provide any exegesis all i said was one sentecne concerning exegesis .. dunno whats the big deal bout it?Highdeeboy (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia does not accept original research, which includes takoing something from one source and take something from another source, and combine them to make a new statement, and If you could find a single source that makes your point, then. You provided Tafsir, an interpretation of the Quran, which in English is called Exegesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

NO I DIDNT! Exgesis is interpretation and explanation ,.. i provided verses ... u know what ure doing what u claim u are doing ,..you are using GENESIS TO EXPLAIN THE QURAN SO I FIND IT IRONIC THAT URE CRITISIZING ME AND CALLING MY VERSES TAFSIR BUT ANYWAYS IL PROVIDE U WITH VERSES FROM ANOTHER CHAPTER OF THE QURAN WITHOUT ANY TAFSIR AND U SEE THE LOGIC .. :)

021.051 YUSUFALI: We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him. 021.052 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?"

(this is no exegesis iam just asking u to focus on Abraham;s father mentioned here ...)

021.068 YUSUFALI: They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"

(this is from the same sura .. it talks about Abraham;s people burning him and his father was obviously involved like i mentioned in the earlier verse)

021.072 SHAKIR: And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub and We made (them) all good.

now take these two points with u ...:Abraham;s dad and the fire happened before the giving of Isaac

Now .. this chapter talks about the sacrifice after .. the two points (Abraham's dad and the fire) see for yoruself

037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship? (ABRAHAM;S DAD) 037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!" (THE FIRE) 037.101 YUSUFALI: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. (whos this boy? ... its Isaac because the earlier chapter says after Abraham left his father and the fire he was given Isaac ....)

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

common sense ... ansewr me a question .. we both know that Ishmael and Hagar were taken out when Ishmael was a baby cariied in Hagar's shoulder and Abraham left them there ... so how in god;s green earth could this be Ishmael if it says the sacrificed son grew and walked and worked WITH his dad .. this is talking about Isaac growing WITH HIS FATHER IN CANAAN WHEN ISHMAEL WAS IN ARABAIA WITH HIS MOTHER ....

Iam not providing exegesis iam just guiding and helpin so understand my point i cant just say X=0 Y=9 ..iam not telling u my interpretation or opinion or imagination iam asking u to read these verses do research and see the common sense .. i PROVIDED U WITH MANY VERSES FORM MANY CHAPTERS UP! this is extra info .. wt else sir?

please do not provide Gensis accounts because we dont belive in genesis and when u examine the Quran u examine itself alone u do not mix something with it .. thats not called assesment? and besides we dont belive in Gensis so all what it brings is confusion and corruption , thank you.Highdeeboy (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Again, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LIKE SCREAMING ON THE INTERNET. Cross referencing verses to clarify them is interpretting them. I am not calling the verses Tafsir, I am saying that they are being used for Tafsir/Exegesis/interpretation. I am not defending the Genesis account. I have no problem with the article including properly sourced additions discussing how there are notable interpretations, but this site is not to be used to advocate any particular interpretation. If you can provide some source that says that some people interpret the Quran that way, then that would be a good addition. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

there is no proof to state your point . i dont want to prove my point about Isaac I just want this page not to mention any thing supporting that Ishmael is the son of sacrifice becuase like i said .. what the article says is WRONG! in language and tradition so please clean it up or ask an Arabic speaker to look up that verse because its Wrong! and proveless ...

=======

019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will turn away from you (all) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet.

====== the story is mentiond in much detail in another chapter

037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!" ======================

i didnt add any interpretation all i kept was the same SOURCE this page uses to prove its point read the verses and its clear ... Highdeeboy (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Quran is just says that it was "Abraham's son" that Abraham was called to sacrifice, without clarifying. A number of Muslims believe that this refers to Ishmael, and the Quran is ambiguous. You are presenting different verses to advocate the view that the Quran says it was Isaac, when the actual text is ambiguous. That is interepretation. I am not putting my interpretation, I am simply going with the sources that point out that most Muslims believe that it was Ishmael. If a Christian tried to use ambiguously worded Bible verses that were crossreferenced to try to make a point that is not outright stated in those verses, I would revert their edits (and I have so a lot in the past, here is one example). Secondary sources are what Wikipedia prefers. You need to provide secondary sources for your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

But i already provided u a freaking secondary source and you said .. ITS EXEGESIS .. DUDE JUST LEAVE ME ALONE U MAKE NO SENSE SHEESHHighdeeboy (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)!Reply

When the Holy Qur'an is translated to English, then the Arabic "Allah" should be translated to GOD. 66.165.183.108 (talk) 7:47 am, Today (UTC−5)

Dude, those discussions happened 8 years ago, there was no point in replying to them further. Also, don't edit other people's posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are three pictures all of the same incident. Is this necessary?

Also, though there's maybe no better ones, they are all inaccurate, as Ishmael was a teenager when they were sent to the desert. He was 14 when Isaac was born (Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born, and 100 when Isaac was born), and they were sent to the desert after Isaac was weaned, which would be 2 or 3 years later. 217.44.101.159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC).Reply

This articles layout has been heavily modified, however, at this point, no textual content has been deleted... just moved around into their appropriate sections. The intro was burdened by world/religious views. A very short world view summary would suffice if wanted. Jasonasosa (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Original research from the section: Blessings given to Ishmael was removed. However, the bottom half concerning his brothers was merged into the World views at this point Jasonasosa (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

"reference to his "making merry" (Gen. 21:9), a translation of the Hebrew word 'Mitzachek'." Isaac in Hebrew is 'Yitzchak', I will laugh or I laughed, from the same root, referring to Sarai's laughter when told she would deliver a child in old age. So 'Mitzachek' can be read as a direct threat to 'Yitzchak'. Oneye1i (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sending a child and his mother into the desert is a sacrifice by all measure. Oneye1i (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that it is, especially when G-d directly tells Abraham that he should listen to Sarah, she is right, and that he will make the boy into a great nation. So, if G-d tells you that to do it and that He will look after the boy, it is not a sacrifice to send him into the desert. Salaam. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even though the Torah, as collated and rewritten by Ezra the Scribe in the (Babylonian) vernacular upon the return of the tribe of Judah (with Benjamin and the Levites) to Zion under Cyrus the Great of Persia, uses "Yahweh" and derivatives and "El" and derivatives interchangeably, this is not historical. Yahweh is the God of the Jews (tribe named "Yehuda" or more accurately "Yehudat", worshipper of Yehu, and Abraham was a Hebrew, whose chief God was El or El Elohai (God highest in the pantheon). So the Abrahamic covenant was with El, the only God he ever knew. Oneye1i (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moses wrote the Torah, and Genesis is the oldest text on the planet.[1] "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Gn 26.5) There was no "rewritten", as confirmed by the DSS. 69.29.213.247 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The usage of Ismail is under discussion, see Talk:Ismail and Talk:Ismail (name). 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since the term "Ishmaelites" is a Biblically-based name on Ishmael is it correct to merge it with Arab people? See discussion at Talk:Arab people#Merger proposal from Ishmaelites. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The commentaries on the Quran and the numerous collections of Stories of the Prophets flesh out the Islamic perspective of Ishmael and detail what they describe as his integral part in setting up the Kaaba. According to Muslim tradition, Ishmael was buried in Al Hijr (Kaaba), inside the Sacred Mosque.[38]

Although some books say that he was buried in Al Hijr there are books which also say that he was not. See this, this, and the book Getting the best out of Hajj page - 217. The books which say that he was buried in Al Hijr, reference hadith which is classed mawqoof by this] and by Al Albany. Those mawqoof hadiths can be interpreted saying that Ismail and his mother Hajira are buried in Al Hijr. Plaease also see Tahdheer al-Saajid min Ittikhaadh al-Quboor Masaajid. He was not buried in Al Hijr. There are also websites which say that there are 70 graves underneath Al Hijr (Funny isn't it!!!) . The no. of references i gave certainly say that he was not buried in Al Hijr and outweigh the reference that is cited. The Fatwa by islamqa.com is a strong source, and there's the AlBany's book as well. The least that can be done is to remove the phrase "According to Muslim tradition" because the Muslim tradition certainly does not say that. Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk 10:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I recently made an edit in which I deleted a number of unsourced attempts to assign Arabic etymologies to the sons of Ishmael. User:Sarah Canbel added them back in claiming that there is some need to discuss the matter before removing this unsourced material. But there's a Wikipedia policy covering cases like this: WP:PROVEIT. It's part of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and states the following:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]

Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Accordingly, we either need to get a reliable source directly stating that these names do indeed have these Arabic meanings. It should not be added back into the article unless those sources can be located. In the edit summary adding the material back in, Sarah Canbel states, "Be neutral and discuss the matter before removing it." That's not how the Wikipedia policy works. Anything that's not sourced can be removed. It should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Alephb (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Arabic etymologies to the sons of Ishmael"

see: any reference to "the people of the east", and "grasshoppers" or "locusts". Judges 6:3-5, 7:12. [1, 2]. Arabic, not Islam. 69.29.213.247 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Neither of those sources can be used to prove anything on Wikipedia, because neither one meets Wikipedia's ideas about what makes a reliable source. For our policy on this, see WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Both OT & NT view Ishmael connected with the "people of the east", not the religion of Islam, which began in the 7 century AD. So make this known first. 69.29.213.247 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is an explanation for User:AmyMoosey of why their edits continue to be reverted, by myself and User:Hayman30. As your three edits indicate, you seem to want to put some reference about Abraham raping Hagar into this article. If you want to do this, you need to find reliable sources that describe Abraham as raping Hagar. So far, you've simply added in "rape" without a source, which was undone by Hayman30 ([1]). Then you added "possibly non-consensual" to the article, without citing a source, which introduces the same problem, so I undid the edit. Third, you've added a source -- which is progress -- but not the kind of source we can use at Wikipedia. You've added a self-published blog post, which is generally not used here (see WP:BLOGS). For a really good source, which stands a chance of not having your edit removed, I would recommend finding a source published in a peer-reviewed journal or university press, or some similar reliable source as outlined at our policy pace WP:RS.

I want to thank you for your concern about this issue, but I also need to remind you of some of the norms here on Wikipedia for dealing with disagreements about article content. When you see a way to improve an article, and you don't know of any policy reason why your edit would be disallowed, you can go ahead and be WP:BOLD about changing it. However, if someone else removes your edit, as Hayman30 did, and then tries to discuss it with you, the spirit of the WP:BRD policy requires that you and the editor you disagree with try to talk through the issue rather than simply reverting each others changes repeatedly. That can lead to WP:EDITWAR, which is disruptive to producing an encyclopaedia. This is especially true if you're simply reverting the edits of two or more other editors without discussion. A valuable part of Wikipedia's culture is WP:CONSENSUS, which requires editors to try to reach consensus, and which discourages an individual editor from simply re-inserting material without talking through it, especially when multiple editors disagree with them. Repeated reversion without discussion generally leads eventually to the disruptive editor's account being blocked from Wikipedia, and its always a shame to lose an editor. Alephb (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

PS. Everything said above also applies to your recent edit at Hagar. Alephb (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ishmael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113015839/http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/chayeisara63.htm to http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/chayeisara63.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ishmael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104064710/http://www.anchorite.org/blog/2006/07/31/biographical-study-on-ishmael/ to http://www.anchorite.org/blog/2006/07/31/biographical-study-on-ishmael/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the Genesis Narrative section, the claim is made that “Abraham was blessed so that his descendants would be as numerous as the dust of the earth, but that promise would be to a son of Sarai.” The last phrase — “that promise would be to a son of Sarai” does not seem supported and needs a cite. Yes, Genesis 22 concerns a son of Sarai, but 22:17 — “that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore …” does not specify which of Abraham’s offspring will so ‘multiply’. Citation needed or this phrase should be removed as WP:OR. Humanengr (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for raising the issue, User:Humanengr. I've removed the unsourced bit. If someone can find a source, I'd have no objection to it or something like it being added back in. Alephb (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

We are having repeated additions of unsourced material to this article by User:XJJRosebrook. I have attempted to explain WP:V and how it forbids this, but have gotten nowhere. My recommendation, to anyone who comes along, is to look over the recent edits and help restore the article to its previous state. Alephb (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

What unsourced material are you referring to? I never added any source, I removed a couple of sources for being unreadable, and one being subject to hackers. Rosebrook (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am talking about, for example, this edit: [2], in which you re-added material to the article that did not have a source. When material is removed from an article which does not have a source, Wikipedia policy page WP:V forbids you from adding it back. I attempted to explain this at your talk page in more detail, but you immediately removed my comments.

Every claim you add to a Wikipedia page needs to have a source. For example, you re-added the claim that Ishmael was Abraham's "surrogate" son. You did not cite a source. This is a violation of WP:V.

You re-added the claim that Ishmael "." You did not add a source to back up that claim. Re-adding that claim is a violation of WP:V.

You added the claim that the Ishmaelites were said in the Hebrew Bible to have "conquer[ed] other tribes around ancient Judea thousands, and thousands of years ago." You did not add a source for that claim. Re-adding that claim is a violation of WP:V.

You added the claim that "Jewish and Islamic traditions consider Ishmael to be ancestor of [[Arabs|Arab people]]." You did not site a source for that (barely readable) claim. Re-adding the claim is a violation of WP:V.

You made an accusation about the motives of Muslims teachers around the world: "This is also reflected in the Qur'an in the Muslim tradition with it being literally written in the original Arabic, but is not often taught in Mosque around the world for other, likely discriminatory, reasons." You did not add a source for that claim. Readding that claim is a violation of WP:V.

You need to stop adding your own ideas to Wikipedia articles unless you can find reliable sources that directly back up those claims, and you need to cite those sources in inline citations when you re-add material that has been removed. I have tried repeatedly to explain this, and you do not seem to understand. You either need to figure out how to understand this, or stop editing. I recommend that you read WP:CIR. Competence is not optional on Wikipedia.

I listed more examples on your talk page, which I would recommend you look over carefully.Alephb (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I added a source to most of the material you've mentioned, but for the Arab people source; I used the many sources that were added by another person. Did you actually look through the three to five sources provided by that person? It's in there. Rosebrook (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, you added two sources to one sentence. One is a YouTube video; the other is a self-published website. Self-published websites are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards according to WP:SELFPUBLISH, and posting a YouTube video of someone who is not an expert on Islam just talking about Islam in general is also not a reliable source for a specific claim about what the "original Arabic" contains. On another sentence, you've now stuck in a Bible verse as a "source" for claims you made about modern Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thought. The Bible is an ancient source, and cannot directly support any claims about what modern people think. You are only making things worse here, and continuing to operate well outside of the bounds of WP:V. You need to read WP:R before making any more additions of sources.

If you continue to violate WP:V, this may result in being blocked from editing at some point. WP:V is not a negotiable policy. It is a basic of Wikipedia.Alephb (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you know who Dr. William Lane Craig, is? He's an academic who's actually studied Medieval Islam, and read the original Qu'ran in Arabic. He runs a site called "reasonablefaith.org." And, that self-published website is a Muslim source, and there are a lot of "self-publish" websites being used as sources on this very article, if you actually looked; especially the academic stuff. And, Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe nearly the same thing about Ishmael, except what Muslims believe with respect to its lineage to Muhammad. This entire article is filled with Bible verses, pal. Read it. Rosebrook (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The self-published website Answering Islam that you cited is not a Muslim source. You are confused. You are also confused about the "Bible verses" issue. There is no problem with Bible verses being mentioned in an article. There is a problem with using the Bible to support a claim about what modern people think. This should be a simple thing to understand. Alephb (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Check the sources of that self-published article, it came directly from A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Translation and Commentary and Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. II, Prophets and Patriarchs (trans. William M. Brenner), State University of New York Press, Albany 1987. These are print books that referenced in the article, and for that "modern people" comment you made. You're not making any sense. This entire article was riffed with how modern people, the editors, think and researched; heck, the editors are likely to be Jews, Muslims, and Christians themselves! If you have an alternative source, I highly recommend that you cite it, but keep my source in-tact for it doesn't violate any rules. A self-published website is any site that is hosted by a NON-CORPORATION. Most websites are hosted by one dude, man, or a group of dudes; not corporations. AnsweringIslam is a Christian source, and I apologize for that. However, their sources were pretty Muslim. Rosebrook (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you still do not understand why your repeated additions of unsourced content to Wikipedia articles are a violation of policy, I can no longer help you. It's a competence issue. If you continue to add unsourced material to Wikipedia pages, I will eventually take this issue to WP:ANI, where it will be left to the administrators to decide whether to block you. Alephb (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you a Muslim? If you feel that particular source is bothering you then add another while also providing a sort of counter to the statements I've made in supporting your source. Then, let the people decide. What I sourced was sourced well, and it was backed. Self published works only apply to books, not websites, because websites are difficult to pinpoint as to who really owns it, and whether or not it should be considered "published." It's very subjective. I think you're bothered by this, and I don't blame you. Just add another source next to it. Rosebrook (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

My personal beliefs about religion are none of your business. And the WP:SELFPUBLISH policy certainly does apply to websites. Read it again. It specifically names websites as things that are largely not acceptable for use on Wikipedia if self-published. Alephb (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just add another source beside it... Stop responding, and no more reverting. I neutralized many aspects of this article, except the Islam part. You can make it better by simply adding another source for people to read, and perhaps add a sentence right next to it so people like yourself can see this article even more neutral than it already is. Just add another source, and stop reverting when you don't need to. I think you're a Muslim, because if you weren't you wouldn't have reacted in the way you did. You're offended. Just add another source. Rosebrook (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2018

Speculating about my religious beliefs is way out of line. I've warned you twice about this now. The issue here is WP:V, which you have violated left and right here, and show no signs of comprehending. If the issue were my religious beliefs, there's no reason I would be equally opposed to your repeated additions of unsourced material at Rephaite, where Islam is mentioned at all. Alephb (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're a troll. This conversation ends now. Rosebrook (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2018

@Ermenrich:@Nishidani:@Tgeorgescu:@Zero0000:@Dimadick:@Warshy:@Achar Sva:@Doug Weller: Hi. I was reading this article about Ishmael and I noticed that there is nothing about the historicity of Ishmael in it. There is just two lines at the beginning of Ishmael#World views: "Historians and academics in the fields of linguistics and source criticism believe that the stories of Ishmael belong to the three strata of J, or Yahwist source, the P, or Priestly source, and the E, or Elohist source (See Documentary hypothesis). For example, the narration in Genesis 16 is of J type and the narration in Genesis 21:8–21 is of E type." Whereas if you look at the articles about Abraham's historicity alleging that Abraham#Historicity "By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures" (and Isaac's Isaac#Academic "Some scholars have described Isaac as 'a legendary figure'" and Jacob's Jacob#Historicity "...an imaginative picture of the past to embody present hope"). Same with Moses there is a huge section on Historicity Moses#Historicity that starts out by alleging that "The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure." So my question is, why the double standard? Either the Ishmael article needs to get a full-blown Historicity section, or the Moses and Abraham articles can get two liners only about "World views"? Also, according to the arguments that "Abraham did not exist", then it makes sense to say that Ishmael his son also did not exist! Care to share your views please? Similarly, if you look at Moses in Islam and Ishmael in Islam it must mean that there needs to be a question about the historicity of Moses and Ishmael in Islam, which the latter articles do not mention. According to modern historicists therefore, Islam has a big problem in that neither of two of their greatest prophets Ishmael and Moses ever existed. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back IZAK. A lot more has been written about Abraham's historicity than Ishmael's. For much of the 20th century, biblical archaeologists were still trying to uncover evidence for the so-called Patriarchal age. They thought that the Book of Genesis may reflect historical events from the Bronze Age. William F. Albright claimed that: "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details"

Naturally, much of the interest was on the Patriarchs themselves, with other characters like Ishmael seen mostly as minor players. If we can find texts on Ishmael's historicity we should cover it. But yes, Ishmael is no more of a historical figure than Abraham was. We are talking about legendary ancestors.

I am not certain why we should mention Moses' historicity in a spin-off article. We are not dealing with a different Moses, but with the same legendary figure in a different religious context. I am not entirely happy with that historicity section, since the idea that Moses may be loosely based on the historical Amenmesse/ Amenmose gets only a passing mention. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Just got hooked up to the Internet in my Summer location. I am not asking that there be a historicity spin-off article about Moses. Moses is a Biblical figure. If one believes the Bible is true, Moses existed, if not, then he did not exist. It is quite simple. There is already Moses in rabbinic literature and Moses in Judeo-Hellenistic literature which are both thorough. Thank for your comments. My real question is, is there a fear of offending religious Islamic readers that has kept scholars and editors from writing generally about and then adding a secular historicity section to the Ishmael article? IZAK (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don’t have much internet at the moment, but we can add something on the historicity of Ishmael if we can find sources. Certainly I don’t see why he would be seen as any more historical than Abraham or Isaac. I haven’t really looked at the article yet, but I assume that the people called Ishmaelites in the Bible are historical, so it’s possible that They claimed ancestry from someone named Ishmael. I’m not sure if Ishmaelites=Arabs is a later tradition. Anyway, I can try to have a look when I have internet again, thank you for the ping. I’ll add: I don’t think we need a historicity section for Ishmael in Islam any more than I supposed Fasjank or whatever his name was when he started adding that the Exodus was a myth to articles like Passover. The article on purely religious things doesn’t need to go into detail on those aspects.

On Moses, I’ve actually wondered (like Dimadick I see) if we aren’t being too doctrinaire on his nonexistence: I’ve read several RS mentioning there may have been a prophet by that name, though he probably was quite different from the Bible. It’s hard to explain why he would have an Egyptian name that the Bible claims is Hebrew otherwise.—Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ermenrich. According to the Bible it was pharaoh's daughter who named him Moshe מֹשֶׁה (Moses in English). According to the Midrashim his Hebrew name was Avigdor or Tovia (10 names in all are given in Hebrew with symbolic meanings) but the name Moshe is supposedly Egyptian in origin, not Hebrew, yet it is has been "Hebraized" and "Judaised" and means "from the water I drew him" with "drew him" being "meshisihu" in Hebrew = root of "Moshe". Interestingly, the letters for the name Moshe in Hebrew backwards reads as "Hashem" meaning "the Name" = of God. IZAK (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Usually the from the water etymology is seen as a folk etymology for a name whose meaning was not apparent to whoever wrote Exodus. Modern scholarship and even many ancient authors recognized it as Egyptian though. Anyway, that discussion is perhaps better kept at Moses.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The existence of Moses, Abraham, Ishmael, etc., is not falsifiable. If they ever existed, their lives (biographies) are lost to historical investigation. See Newton's flaming laser sword. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would add to this sentiment that the historicity of Isaac, Ishmael, and Abraham are all part of the same issue and ought really to be treated the same. Moses is separate, but the sons of Abraham can hardly have any historicity if Abraham himself is fictitious. Trying to claim Moses has an existence independent of Exodus based on folk etymologies preserved in Exodus itself is suspiciously like counting angels on pinheads. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’m making no claims, only what I’ve read. You haven’t understood what I wrote anyway. Exodus doesn’t know the meaning of Moses name and gives it a folk etymology. We know what it means today though. Obviously the name Moses cannot originate with The Book of Exodus then. Whether that means a man named Moses existed is I suppose an open question, but even if one did it doesn’t mean he was much like the biblical account.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think your example helps Tgeorgescu. A concept concerning scientific experiments versus philosophical thought can hardly apply to matters of history or archaeology. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The point was: if there is no way to know it, then it is futile to quarrel about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

A brief look through Google Scholar and Books hasn't turned up anything directly addressing the historicity of Ishmael. Perhaps we could just note that scholars generally reject the historicity of the whole "patriarchal age"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ermenrich. Which scholars? You need to specify that it is secular scholars, because obviously Islamic scholars (basing themselves on Koran scholarship) and Judaic scholars (basing themselves on Torah scholarship) as well as Christian scholars (basing themselves on Biblical scholarship) would not agree with that, and their views need to be included in a NPOV article. IZAK (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No we do not have to specify "secular scholars". That is a slur to try to denigrate serious scholarship. The fact that fundamentalist scholars necessarily can't accept any flaws in their holy texts means that they are not within the mainstream on this issue, as has been explained to you many times now.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Mainstream" of what? It is all a matter of opinion. Are you saying that Christian scholars representing about 2 Billion Christians and Islamic scholars representing about 1.5 Billion Muslims and Jewish scholars representing thousands of years of Jewish scholarship, are somehow out of a hallucinatory so-called "mainstream" just because a few thousands professors in ivory towers spouting what we here at WP call WP:OR have invented their version of what Judaism's, Christianity's and Islam's ancient texts are really all about? How blind can one be? IZAK (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You have very little understanding of mainstream Christianity, Judaism or even Islam if you think that every person in those numbers you gave, or indeed every sect or denomination in those religions, insists on the infallibility of their Holy Texts regarding the existence of figures such as Ishmael.

I've pointed you to the relevant policies on Wikipedia several times, I'm not going to bother to again, you either aren't reading them or refuse to understand what they say. I'm sure there's some Fundamantapedia out there you can edit if you want to present the events of Genesis and Exodus as historical.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The idea that there are 2 billion Christians or that their theological opinions could be represented by a clutch of academics are both quite wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ermenrich, are you claiming to be speaking for BOTH "mainstream" secular views AND religious views SIMULTANEOUSLY? Isn't that overreaching if not impossible? IZAK (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You claimed to speak for all Christians, Muslims, and Jews. I'm pointing out that those religions are not monoliths: different Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as well as their respective denominations, believe different things. Not every one of those people insists on the historicity of Ishmael, and it is inaccurate for you to claim that they do and that somehow trumps what actual scholars, as in historians, philologists, and archaeologists, have to say on the subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Which brings us full circle of this post. This article has nothing about the non-historicity of Ishmael. Why is that? You also found nothing in Google scholar. Does that mean that Ishmael gets a free pass while Moses faces the "did not happen, did not exist" firing squad? IZAK (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Howardcorn33: I'm replying here, since the best place for discussions is on the article talk pages, so that other editors have a chance to join. I reverted to the previous picture because it emphasizes the character of Ishmael as an archer (the bow in your picture is scarcely visible), and also because - at least to me - it looks less like a portrait of a real person. If you read Ishmael#Genesis_narrative, you get the impression that some people still have to be told that characters from the Bible before Omri (or maybe before David) are not historical. So better have a picture that doesn't put our readers on the wrong track. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Watch out for people saying the documentary hypothesis is not current to imply that source/text criticism is a thing of the past. It's dissimilating and intentionally dishonest in a way that's very harmful to popular understanding of scholarship. The documentary hypothesis that's no longer in vogue is the narrow one, not the broad one. The multiple sources theory is not in question. Temerarius (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stealthy apologia is worse than petty vandalism. Don't do it.

Temerarius (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply