At this point it is imperative to mention that various Christian historians raise the allegation that there is no historical evidence that Ishmaelas settled in Arabia. Therefore, the fact that the Holy Prophetsa was a descendant of the children of Ishmaelas also lacks authenticity. Moreover, they claim that the child, whom Abrahamas wished to slaughter, as the Bible contends, was in fact Isaacas and not Ishmaelas. The brief confutation of both these allegations has been provided below. The rebuttal to the first allegation is as follows:
It is categorically proven in light of the unanimous narrations of the Arabs that Ishmaelas settled in Arabia and that the Quraish of Makkah are his descendants. There is not even a single narration found before the time of the Holy Prophetsa or in subsequent eras, that confutes this fact.1 Moreover, the greatest testimony about the history of a nation is its own authentic narrations. Therefore, in the existence of the above mentioned testimony, no fair-minded individual can doubt the fact that Ishmaelas settled in Arabia and that the Quraish are the descendants of his blessed progeny.
The Holy Qur’ān, which is accepted by both friend and foe for its historical credibility, also considers the Quraish as being descendants of the children of Ishmaelas.2
The Bible admits that due to the displeasure of Sarahas, Ishmaelas and Hagaras were exiled from their homeland.3 If Ḥijāz is not the country of their settlement then where is it that his descendants are found?
It is acknowledged by the Bible that Ishmaelas and his mother settled in a completely abandoned desert region, where no food was to be found and which was empty of habitation.4 This illustration is in complete accordance with the desolate valley of Becca.
Moreover, the Bible evidently substantiates that Hagaras and Ishmaelas settled in Fārān.5 Irrespective of the fact that the word Fārān in actuality means an uninhabited barren region6, Arabian geographers unanimously concur that Fārān is the name given to the mountains of Makkah or Ḥijāz.7 Those who have visited Arabia, are well aware that in the Valley of Fāṭimah, which is situated between Makkah and Madīnah, if one inquires of the youth who sell the Jadhīmah flower there, where this flower has been brought from, they will answer مِنْ بَرِیَّةِ فَارَان in other words, “From the desert of Fārān.”8 In the existence of this narration, even if Fārān is the name of another region, undoubtedly, let it be so. However, since the existence of Fārān in Ḥijāz is also categorically confirmed, assuredly the Fārān of Ishmaelas must be considered the one situated in Ḥijāz and no other.
The Bible also mentions that after Ishmaelas departed from his homeland, “His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur.”9 Moreover, Christian research scholars have themselves acknowledged that Havilah and Shur imply the opposite sides of Arabia.10
In the Bible, Ishmaelas is referred to by use of the word ‘wild’, or one who resides in the desert. As a matter of fact, this particularity is mentioned by God Almighty as a prophecy to imply the fact that Ishmaelas would be one to reside in the desert.11 This verity fully corresponds with the settlement of Ishmaelas in Makkah. In addition, a cause of greater astonishment is that the word ‘Arab also means ‘a deserted and abandoned region’, as is apparent by the word A‘arāb, which refers to those who inhabit the desert.12
Saint Paul, a renowned leader of the Christians, has also admitted that Hagaras, the mother of Ishmaelas, bore relation to Arabia.13
From the testimony of the Bible, it is evident that the descendants of Kedar, who was assuredly the son of Ishmaelas, inhabited the region of Arabia.14
The Encyclopedia makes mention of this very Kedar, the son of Ishmaelas, stating, “He was the son of Ishmael, whose descendants settled in the Northern region of Arabia.”15
Based on the above mentioned argumentation, it has become manifest in the similitude of broad daylight that Ishmaelas settled in Arabia, and that a portion of the Arabian people are in fact his descendants. Since it is proven, it cannot be considered just to reject all the forceful narrations of the Arabs, which confirm the Quraish to be the descendants of the progeny of Ishmaelas.
The second question is, who was the sacrificial offering? In other words, which son did Abrahamas intend to sacrifice in the way of God? In this regard, it must be remembered that this question does not hold much significance. Whether Ishmaelas is proven to be the sacrificial offering or Isaacas, this in no way influences the claims of the Holy Prophetsa or the fundamental principles of Islām. Nonetheless, as a historical occurrence, this matter is worthy of research, in order to deduce who in fact was the sacrifice. Hence, as mentioned above, in our opinion, the correct perception is that Ishmaelas was the one to be slaughtered and not Isaacas. Undoubtedly the Bible refers to Isaacas as the sacrificial offering, however, firstly, the historical merit of the Bible is not very solid. Secondly, the account of the Bible itself negates this claim and the testimony of Islāmic narrations further strengthens it. In any case, a summary of our argumentation with relevance to this matter is presented below:
The Holy Qur’ān states that Abrahamas prayed to us for righteous and truthful offspring and we gave him the glad tidings of a humble and submissive son. When the child grew older, Abrahamas saw in a dream that he was slaughtering that son. Upon this, Abrahamas became prepared to sacrifice his son literally for the sake of God, and the son submitted himself to the command of Allāh. However, just as Abrahamas was about to pass a knife over his child’s neck, an angel of God stopped him from doing so. Then, after this, it is mentioned that Abrahamas was given the glad tidings of the birth of Isaacas.16 From this account, it becomes clearly evident that the son whom Abrahamas was set to slaughter was Ishmaelas and not Isaacas. The Holy Qur’ān has connected the occurrence of the slaughtering with the eldest son of Abrahamas, who was indeed Ishmaelas, and mention of the birth of Isaacas follows subsequently. If Isaacas was the intended sacrificial offering, the occurrence of the slaughtering should have been linked to Isaacas and not to the eldest son of Abrahamas.
The Holy Qur’ān also states that when God bestowed upon Abrahamas the glad tiding of his son Isaacas, the glad tiding of his son Jacobas was also given therewith. In other words, the glad tidings of both a son and grandson were given to Abrahamas simultaneously.17 Now, from the very start, if the glad tiding of Isaacas along with that of Jacobas was also present, how is it possible for Abrahamas to have agreed to literally slaughter his son Isaacas, when he clearly knew that his own son’s life is meant to last at least until a son is born to him.
It is mentioned in Ḥadīth that the Holy Prophetsa stated, “I am the son of two sacrificial offerings”.18 Firstly, Ishmaelas, and secondly ‘Abdullāh bin ‘Abdul-Muṭṭalib, whom the grandfather of the Holy Prophetsa wished to sacrifice as an oblation, and who prepared himself to do so. From this Ḥadīth it is at least proven that, to the Holy Prophetsa, the actual fact of the matter was that Ishmaelas was the offering and not Isaacas.
It is proven from the Bible that it was a custom of the progeny of Abrahamas that the eldest son was dedicated in the way of God.19 In the spiritual connotation, dedication for the sake of God is equivalent to slaughtering. Therefore, observance of this custom in the offspring of Abrahamas proves that the sacrificial offering was Ishmaelas, because he was the eldest son of Abrahamas and Isaacas was his younger son.
All of the customs pertaining to sacrificial slaughtering on a national level were found among the Arabs and still exist among them today. None of these customs are found among the Banū Isrā’īl. This is solid evidence that the one to be slaughtered was Ishmaelas and not Isaacas. If the one to be sacrificed had in fact been Isaacas, then these customs and traditions should have been found among the Banū Isrā‘il instead of the Banū Ismā‘īl. However, the current situation is completely opposite. For example, it is apparent from the Bible that those whose lives were devoted in the way of God (which is in fact the true meaning of slaughtering), would refrain from shaving their heads.20 Although the Bible claims that Isaacas was to be slaughtered, yet no such custom is to be found among the Banū Isrā’īl as can be commemorative of that sacrifice. However, quite the contrary, among the Arabs (who claim to be the descendants of Ishmaelas), this tradition was existent not only prior to the advent of Islām but also continued afterwards as well. Therefore, at the occasion of Ḥajj, prior to the slaughtering of their animal sacrifice, it was a custom among the Arabs to refrain from shaving their head or trimming their hair, which remained a part of Islāmic tradition as well. In the same manner, it was a custom among Arabs to offer animal sacrifices on the occasion of Ḥajj, which was in reminiscence of the ram that was sacrificed instead of Ishmaelas, and this custom also remained a part of Islām. However, this tradition cannot be found in the Banū Isrā’īl at all. In light of these examples, it is apparent that the inheritance of sacrifice was endowed to the children of Ishmaelas and not to the progeny of Isaacas. Of course, the ancestor of the nation which inherited the heritage of sacrifice should himself be considered the sacrificial offering.
In the Bible, the place where this sacrifice was offered, in other words the altar was in a place called ‘Moriah’. However, the whereabouts of that place are not clearly mentioned. Nonetheless, it is mentioned that it is a mountainous region.21 On account of the Bible’s lack of elaboration in this instance, Jewish and Christian scholars have fallen to disaccord in regards to the true geographic location of this place. However, upon deliberation, it becomes clear that the mountainous region in the close proximity of Makkah named ‘Marwah’ perfectly conforms to this name and explanation. The minor difference in the pronunciation of this name is insignificant due to the variation of languages. Undoubtedly, it is true that now at the occasion of Ḥajj, sacrifices are offered at Minā rather than Marwah. However, firstly, Minā and Marwah are in close proximity to one another. Secondly, it is proven by a statement of the Holy Prophetsa in a Ḥadīth that the actual altar was in fact Marwah22, which was later relocated to a place away from the residential area due to an abundance of pilgrims.
Although the Bible has stated that Isaacas was the one to be slaughtered, yet such facts are mentioned in the elaboration of this occurrence, as only apply to Ishmaelas and not Isaacas. The occurrence of the sacrificial offering has been mentioned in the book of Genesis in the Bible.23 Anyhow, where Isaacas has been referred to as the sacrifice, he has also been described as the only son of Abrahamas, even though it is obvious that Isaacas cannot in any case be referred to as the only son of Abrahamas. If anyone possesses the right to be thought of as ‘an only son’ it is indeed, Ishmaelas. In actuality, Ishmaelas was the only son of Abrahamas for approximately 13 to 14 years, whereas Isaacas never acquired this position. On this foundation it is clearly evident that initially the Bible referred to Ishmaelas as the sacrificial offering as well, but this was later changed to Isaacas by Jewish scholars under the influence of national antagonism. However, various minutia have slipped their acknowledgement, which clearly unveil this unjust attempt at a transposition of words. Similarly, the Bible states that after God proscribed Abrahamas from slaying his son, He addressed Abrahamas saying, “Since you have not hesitated in slaying your only son in the way of God, I shall now bless your offspring abundantly, and all the nations of the world shall be blessed through your progeny.”24 It is apparent from these words that the actual sacrificial offering was the son, from whose progeny that magnificent prophet was destined to be born, who without the distinctions of nationality and country was to be sent for the whole world. Of course, it is obvious that this covenant was fulfilled by the advent of the Holy Prophetsa, because, it was this very prophet who was commissioned to the entire world. Therefore, the Holy Prophetsa states, “Prior to me, prophets were commissioned to their particular nations alone, but I have been sent to all the nations of the world.”25 As compared to this proclamation, the statement of the last prophet of the Banī Isrā’īl, Jesus Christ is worthy of mention, in which he says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”26 and also that, “I have not come to cast the children’s [i.e., children of Isaac] bread before the dogs [i.e., other nations].”27 The limited jurisdiction of the Israelite prophets and in comparison, the universal prophethood of the Holy Prophetsa is categorical evidence of the fact that the promise of giving blessings to all the nations which was bestowed upon Abrahamas as a reward for the sacrifice of his son, was not fulfilled through the progeny of Isaacas, rather by the children of Ishmaelas. Therefore, the sacrificial offering was in fact Ishmaelas and not Isaacas.
Prior to the conclusion of this discussion, it is necessary to respond to another allegation which is levelled against the person of Hagaras by various prejudiced Christians. The accusation is that Hagaras was merely a slave-girl and that the actual wife of Abrahamas was Sarahas, thus, the Holy Prophetsa is the descendant of a slave-girl. In relation to this accusation, the first aspect which should be kept in mind is that this allegation is levelled merely on the foundation of malice and enmity. The same mouth, at the same time, cannot possibly level both these charges, namely that the Holy Prophetsa is not the descendant of Ishmaelas and that the Holy Prophetsa is the descendant of a slave-girl. For both these statements are completely in contradiction to one another. However, since the purpose is to ensure that if one allegation does not hit its target the second should take its place, for this reason, the same breath seems to be exhaling both hot and cold air simultaneously. However, the truth is that both these allegations are false and ineffectual. The ancestry of the Holy Prophetsa from the children of Ishmaelas has already been discussed previously. As far as the allegation related to Hagaras is concerned, its rebuttal is as follows: firstly, there is no conclusive evidence which can prove that Hagaras was a slave-girl. Generally the word ‘ جَارِیَةٌ ’ has been used in Arab transcripts for Hagaras, which means both ‘a slave-girl’ as well as ‘a girl’. However, even if it is hypothetically accepted that Hagaras was once a slave, none can reject the fact that when Abrahamas took her into matrimonial tie, he kept her as his wife and not as a slave-girl. Furthermore, if to merely remain in the bondage of slavery for a while is objectionable, then those who raise allegations should bear in mind that even Sarahas was not protected from this blemish. It is confirmed that upon the arrival of Abrahamas to Egypt, the Pharaoh took Sarahas away from Abrahamas and took her into his possession as a slave. She was granted freedom after some time.28 Moreover, Josephas son of Jacobas, a noble ancestor of the Banū Isrā’īl, was also made a slave and then sold in Egypt, where he spent a significant period of his life. This is such an instance as is even known to young school children. Hence, even if a portion of Hagar’sas life was spent in the bondage of slavery, this cannot become a cause of reproach. In fact, there is no proof of the fact that Hagaras was a slave-girl at all. As a matter of fact, all that has been evidently established is that when the Pharaoh fell in awe of Abrahamas and Sarahas, after his disgraceful action, not only did he release Sarahas, but also presented a noble and intelligent girl to Abrahamas and Sarahas and that girl was Hagaras. Furthermore, the Bible and Islāmic narrations both allude to the fact that the Pharaoh fell into immense awe of Abrahamas and Sarahas as a result of their grandeur and spiritual power. Therefore, it would not be a surprising notion if Hagaras was among the close relatives of the Pharaoh, who was presented to Abrahamas and Sarahas, in reparation of the wrong committed by the Pharaoh against Sarahas. On account of this, perhaps she was later declared a slave-girl. This is not a mere notion; rather, various ancient research scholars have presented this ideology as an established fact. A Jewish scholar by the name of Dubshalom writes in his commentary of the Torah that Hagaras was the very daughter of the Pharaoh, whom he had presented to Sarahas upon witnessing her spiritual power.29
Therefore, the accusation of being a slave-girl is completely false and incorrect. However, hypothetically, even if it is proven that she was a slave, indeed, slavery in which an innocent individual is forcefully stripped of freedom and made a slave (as was the common custom of the time) cannot be the cause of imperfection. If it is so, then not a single noble and free nation of the world can be held exempt from the blemish of slavery. The nation of the Banī Isrā’īl itself was taken into the bondage of slavery for an extended period of time, first in Egypt and then in Babylon.30 Nonetheless, on account of this, the prophets and kings of the Banī Isrā’īl cannot be categorized as the sons of slaves. Moreover, no Israelite can be held rightfully liable for taunt or reproach on account of Sarahas, who was temporarily imprisoned by the Pharaoh, nor Josephas, who spent a significant portion of his life in the house of the Pharaoh as a slave.
1 * Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, Kitābu Aḥādīthil-Anbiyā’, Bābu Qaulillāhi Ta‘ālā Wadhkur fil-Kitābi Ismā‘īla, Ḥadīth No. 3373
* Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitābul-Faḍā’il, Bābu Faḍli Nasbin-Nabīsa, Ḥadīth No. 5938
* Tārīkhuṭ-Ṭabarī, By Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad bin Al-Jarīr Ṭabarī, Dhikru Khabri Wuldi Ismā‘īl bin Ibrāhīm, Volume 1, p. 193, Dārul-Fikr, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (2002)
* As-Sīratun-Nabawiyyah, By Abū Muḥammad ‘Abdul-Malik bin Hishām, p. 25, Siyāqatin-Nasabi min Waladi Ismā‘īla ‘Alaihis-Salām, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (2001)
* Aṭ-Ṭabaqātul-Kubrā, By Muḥammad bin Sa‘d, Dhikru Ismā‘īla ‘Alaihis-Salām, Volume 1, p. 22, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996)
* Sharḥul-‘Allāmaiz-Zarqānī ‘alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, Al-Maqṣadul-Awwal, Volume 1, pp. 130-131, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996)
* Tārīkhul-Khamīs, By Ḥusain bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan Dayār Bakrī, Aulādu Ibrāhīm, Volume 1, p. 130, Muwassasatu Sha‘bān, Beirut
2 Al-Ḥajj (22:79)
3 Genesis (21:14)
4 Genesis (21:14-21)
5 Genesis (21:21)
6 Faṣlul-Khiṭāb, By Ḥaḍrat Maulānā Nūr-ud-Dīnra, Volume 2, p. 208, Niẓārat-e-Ishā‘at Rabwah (New Edition)
7 Mu‘jamul-Buldān, By Abū ‘Abdullāh Yāqūt bin ‘Abdullāh Al-Ḥamvī, Under the word “Fārān”, Volume 6, p. 406, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon
8 Faṣlul-Khiṭāb, By Ḥaḍrat Maulānā Nūr-ud-Dīnra, Volume 2, p. 208, Niẓārat-e-Ishā‘at Rabwah (New Edition)
9 Genesis (25:18)
10 The Review of Religions, May 1934, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp. 16-17
11 Genesis (16:12)
12 * Tājul-‘Urūs, By Imām Muḥibb-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Murtaḍā Az-Zubaidī, Under the root “‘Araba”
* Aqrabul-Mawārid, By Imām Sa‘īd Ash-Shartūnī, Under the root “‘Araba”
13 Galatians (4:22-25)
14 Isaiah (21:13-18)
15 The Review of Religions, May 1934, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp. 16-17
16 Aṣ-Ṣāffāt (37:113)
17 Hūd (11:72)
18 Tārīkhul-Khamīs, By Ḥusain bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan Dayār Bakrī, Dhikrul-Ikhtilāfi fidh-Dhabīḥ, Volume 1, p. 95, Muwassasatu Sha‘bān, Beirut
19 * Numbers (8:17)
* Deuteronomy (21:15-17)
20 Judges (13:4-5)
21 Genesis (22:2)
22 Mu’aṭṭā Imām Mālikrh, Kitābul-Ḥajj, Bābu Mā Jā’a fin-Naḥri fil-Ḥajj, Ḥadīth No. 895
23 Genesis (Chapter 22)
24 Refer to Genesis (22:16-18) (Publishers)
25 Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, Kitābuṣ-Ṣalāt, Bābu Qaulin-Nabīsa Ju‘ilat liyal-Arḍu, Ḥadīth No. 438
26 Matthew (15:24)
27 Mark (7:27)
28 * Genesis (12:14-20)
* Chambers’ Encyclopedia 1930 Edition, Volume 1, p. 18, Column 2
29 Tārīkh Arḍul-Qur’ān, By Syed Sulaimān Nadvī, Volume 2, p. 40, National Book Foundation, Second Edition (2000)
30 * Exodus (1:10-14), Kings II (25:9-11), Jeremiah (52:24-30), Kings II (24:10-16)
* Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 15, pp. 383-384, Under the word “Jews”, 1911 Edition