All posts by David Stevenson

Isaiah

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Emmanuel,” Isaiah 7:14
Critics often claim that this verse was never meant to be a messianic prophecy. They point out that Isaiah 7 describes an encounter between Isaiah and King Ahaz. The “sign” in Isaiah 7:14 is offered to the King to assure him that God will deliver Judah from their coalition of enemies. The sign of a messiah being born long after King Ahaz was dead would not seem to accomplish the goal. They argue, therefore, that Isaiah 7:14 could only be talking about something that happened shortly after Isaiah spoke those words and could not have anything to do with the Messiah.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Isaiah 7 was written in a vacuum. It assumes that the story was written with no connection to the rest of the book of Isaiah and for absolutely no purpose other than to duly record an event. The Book of Isaiah, however, is not a memoir or a work of history. There is very little narrative in Isaiah at all. When it does tell a story, it is utilising that story to make a larger point. When the New Testament author cited Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Jesus, it was not merely ripping the verse out and slapping it on the page. It was making a larger case that Jesus was the fulfilment of a series of prophecies about a promised Messianic Son in Isaiah 7-12.
Matthew directly applied the verse to Jesus, saying:
“Now all this took place to fulfil what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us,'” (Matthew 1:22-23)
Luke’s gospel, however, lays out the point more holistically. While Luke does not directly quote from any one verse, Luke 1:31-33 directly connects the virgin birth with prophecies quite like Isaiah 9:7, such as sitting on the throne of David and ruling over a kingdom forever. There is also language similar to that of Isaiah 10-11. Luke is not merely proof-texting, but applying the idea of the promised Davidic Son of Isaiah 7-12 as a whole to Jesus, starting with the virgin birth. Likewise, Matthew does not cite only Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 4:15-16 also applies Isaiah 9 to Jesus, and a case can be made that Matthew 2:23 applies Isaiah 11 to Jesus as well. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Jesus is explicitly identified with the “root of Jesse” in Isaiah 11:10 (Romans 15:12) as well as the “stone of stumbling” from Isaiah 8:14-15 (Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:8). Clearly, they saw Isaiah using the story of his encounter with King Ahaz as part of a larger point that Isaiah was making to his readers in that whole section of his book.
But is this really what Isaiah intended? The details certainly point that way:
1. In Isaiah 7:3, when God sends Isaiah to speak to the king, God tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub. The Bible specifically says that Isaiah’s children are signs from the Lord to Israel (Isaiah 8:18) and in the very next chapter we are told of Isaiah naming another one of his children as a prophetic sign (Isaiah 8:3-4). The fact that Isaiah is told to bring a specific son by name is no accident. It is a part of his message. The child’s name, Shear-jashub, means “a remnant shall return.” Isaiah’s conversation with the king is about God protecting Judah, but embedded here was something more: a promise that a remnant would return. Return from where? From exile, of course. The whole Book of Isaiah is dealing with the coming exile and the promise of return and restoration. That was not, however, King Ahaz’s concern. He was concerned about his enemies at that moment, and God promised to protect him from those enemies. Yet, God was also clearly speaking to something bigger than that, and He had Isaiah bring with him the message “a remnant shall return.” If you read Isaiah 7-12 together, this message is central and frequently repeated. It is also a future Messianic hope.

2. Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz in the singular, but when we reach 7:13, the grammar changes and he is speaking to “the house of David” in the plural. While it is hard to see it in the English, the pronouns change from the singular “you” to the plural “you,” and the verb forms reflect a plural address. Isaiah delivered his prophecy in such a way as to speak to a broader audience than the King alone.

3. Isaiah 8:8 goes on to refer to Emmanuel as the one to whom the land belongs, so the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 is brought over into the greater context, and not as a mere bystander. Isaiah 9:6-7 describes the promised Son who will sit on the throne of David and rule forever. Isaiah 11 speaks of a shoot from the stump of Jesse (David’s father) who will rule in righteousness. The image is of the house of David as a tree that has been cut down to a stump, but then a new shoot springs forth from the tree and brings forth new life. It is an image of a future restoration through a new Davidic king. There is a consistent theme of a future Messiah to be born. It runs throughout the passage and begins with Isaiah 7:14 and the first promise of Emmanuel.

4. The inclusion of this story in Isaiah’s book at all shows that it contained a message for later readers and not just for King Ahaz alone. There probably was a child born in the days of Ahaz that served a sign for him in his situation, but we are told nothing more about that because that was not the point of telling this story. Isaiah told this story to point to the larger message to his readers, the message of coming judgement and the promise of restoration. There was a dual fulfilment of this prophecy that was intended by God from the very beginning. That’s what made this story meaningful even to Isaiah’s original readers, who themselves would have read this chapter well after King Ahaz and Jerusalem’s deliverance from the immediate, temporary threat. Isaiah’s prophecies were about the coming exile and the later hope of restoration under the Messiah. Isaiah includes the story because it contained that message, even if King Ahaz would not have known it.
The narrow and superficial reading of Isaiah 7 offered by sceptics misses all of this and therefore misses the beautiful consistency that runs through these chapters. Isaiah is warning the people that a violent judgement is coming, but he also promises a hope beyond that trial. The ultimate hope of an eternal kingdom and a Messiah King who will be “God with us” and who will be called “Mighty God.” Jesus is that divine Messiah.

Isaiah 7.20 and Shaving

Isaiah 7 . 20 says nothing about private parts

20 In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River with the king of Assyriathe head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.

The LORD will bring the king of Assyria upon you: This was bad news to Ahaz, who had been foolishly trusting in Assyria instead of the LORD. It is as if the LORD is saying, “It will seem to you like trusting in Assyria is a clever move, because the armies of Syria and Israel will be defeated. But the Assyrians will end up defeating you also.”

“Thou mightest have remained at home and at ease, and mightest have received the assistance of God; but thou choosest rather to call in the Assyrians. Thou shalt find them to be worse than thine own enemies.” (Calvin)

If Ahaz understood and believed what the LORD said, it would have terrified him. The Assyrians were well known for their sheer cruelty, especially over the nations they conquered. They delighted in the torture and humiliation (shave with a hired razor … the head and the hair of the legs).

To shave off the beard of an Oriental was an unbearable shame to him and was a sign of great sadness and mourning as well as despicable slavery.” We see this principle illustrated by the actions of David in 2 Samuel 10:4-5.

How can Jesus the Messiah, the second person of the Godhead, be called Everlasting Father

How comforting, then, to read of the birth of a child whose name shall be called “Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6). Under his care, his protection, and his provision, we are safe and will be satisfied for all eternity.

Of all the names attributed to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, Everlasting Father intrigues me the most because it’s the one I understand the least. How can Jesus the Messiah, the second person of the Godhead, be called Everlasting Father?

1. Isaiah is not confusing Jesus the Messiah with the first person of the Trinity.

Isaiah isn’t teaching us that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is the same person as God the Father. (The early church denounced this idea as the heresy of modalism.)

It’s unlikely Isaiah has the Trinity in mind at all when he says the Messiah will be called Everlasting Father. It’s not the Messiah’s role within the Godhead, but the Messiah’s character toward us that Isaiah has in mind. Concerning the language of “Everlasting Father,” Sam Storms calls it “a descriptive analogy pointing to Christ’s character . . . he is fatherly, father-like, in his treatment of us.”

2. Isaiah is highlighting the divine nature of the Messiah.

More than any other author, Isaiah loves to speak of eternity. He speaks of God as “the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is holy” (Isa. 57:15). And here in Isaiah 9:6 he uses the same type of language to refer to the Messiah. He’s the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end”the one who is and who was and who is to come”the Almighty (Rev. 1:8).

Isaiah is speaking of a child who will be born some 700 years in the future”yet he makes clear that this child is the author of eternity, the “father of time”! This truly boggles the mind.

3. Jesus the Messiah is the only one who can reveal God’s fatherly character to us, for he is one in nature and essence with the Father.

Isaiah couldn’t have fully seen the light of glory that shone from Jesus when he dwelt among us. But from Jesus’s own lips, words such as these were spoken:

I and the Father are one . . . know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. (John 10:30, 38)
Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? (John 14:9″10a)
If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. Jesus is the perfect image of God, and the exact representation of his being. Jesus alone makes the Father known. Indeed, no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6).

Isaiah 9.6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Isaiah is not confusing Jesus the Messiah with the Father

Isaiah is not confusing Jesus the Messiah with the first person of the Trinity.

Isaiah isn’t teaching us that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is the same person as God the Father. (The early church denounced this idea as the heresy of modalism.)

It’s unlikely Isaiah has the Trinity in mind at all when he says the Messiah will be called Everlasting Father. It’s not the Messiah’s role within the Godhead, but the Messiah’s character toward us that Isaiah has in mind. Concerning the language of “Everlasting Father,” Sam Storms calls it “a descriptive analogy pointing to Christ’s character . . . he is fatherly, father-like, in his treatment of us.”

2. Isaiah is highlighting the divine nature of the Messiah.

More than any other author, Isaiah loves to speak of eternity. He speaks of God as “the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is holy” (Isa. 57:15). And here in Isaiah 9:6 he uses the same type of language to refer to the Messiah. He’s the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end”the one who is and who was and who is to come”the Almighty (Rev. 1:8).

Isaiah is speaking of a child who will be born some 700 years in the future”yet he makes clear that this child is the author of eternity, the “father of time”! This truly boggles the mind.

3. Jesus the Messiah is the only one who can reveal God’s fatherly character to us, for he is one in nature and essence with the Father.

Isaiah couldn’t have fully seen the light of glory that shone from Jesus when he dwelt among us. But from Jesus’s own lips, words such as these were spoken:

I and the Father are one . . . know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. (John 10:30, 38)
Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? (John 14:9″10a)
If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. Jesus is the perfect image of God, and the exact representation of his being. Jesus alone makes the Father known. Indeed, no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6).

Perfect Father

Herman Bavinck observed that Jesus “takes away our guilt and again opens the way to [God’s] fatherly heart.” Everything you’ve ever dreamed a father could be”everything you’ve ever wanted from your relationship with your earthly father”Jesus is and will be for you. Your Messiah will forever be perfectly father-like in the way he shepherds and leads you. In Jesus, you have a perfect father forever.

Sadly, the word father doesn’t always bring to mind someone who shepherds, affirms, and stays close. Instead, it connotes adjectives like distant, aloof, passive, absent, unreliable, selfish, uncaring, and cruel. Even among Christian families, far too many children experience emotional indifference and self-centered neglect from their dads.

Not so from Jesus. Jesus, your Everlasting Father, came down at Christmas into a broken and sinful world to fill our hearts with heaven’s love, and to teach us how to love one another. He came to make sons and daughters out of his enemies. This is the Father’s gift to us at Christmas.

Our Everlasting Father

How comforting it is to read, “His name shall be called . . . Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6). Once we become a child of Christ’s, we are his and he is ours forever. Forever. There will be no goodbyes with him. Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from his love. Not even death itself”indeed, it will only draw us nearer.

“There is no unfathering Christ, and there is no unchilding us,” Charles Spurgeon once said. “He is everlastingly a father to those who trust in him.” Praise God for our eternal security in Christ, our Everlasting Father.

Isaiah Predicts The Birth Of Jesus Who Will Be God

ISAIAH PREDICTS THE BIRTH OF JESUS WHO WILL BE GOD.

“And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord , and his name one.” (Zechariah 14:9 KJV)

Muslims will deny any Messianic prophecy that predicts the birth of the Messiah who would be God.

Unfortunately it’s undeniable. Just from 2 passages alone we have the
irrefutable proof.

Right from the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah hundreds of years before we are told the Messiah would be God.

“For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on His shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. The dominion will be vast, and its prosperity will never end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:6‭-‬7 HCSB)

Did you get that M@slms? “Mighty God”? Also “He will rule on the throne of David” … “forever”?

Now compare to the announcement to Mary by the angel Gabriel in Luke’s gospel…

“Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” (Luke 1:31‭-‬33 HCSB)

Questions arising:

■ What mere earthly king has an everlasting reign?

Answer: None.

■ How many thrones of David are there?

Answer: One.

■ So if Isaiah and the angel Gabriel in Luke both describe the Messiah as
sitting on the throne of David and reigning forever does that prove they are both referring to the one and same person, namely Jesus?

Answer: Yes, indupitably.

■ Which king alone has the right of eternal reign?

Answer: The King of kings and Lord of lords. (Zechariah 14:9 – See above; 1
Timothy 6:15; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 17:14; Revelation 19:11-16). They are titles of Jesus.

So by the correlation of the fact that He will sit on the throne of David and reign forever we know that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God who will reign eternally in perfect justice. He will as Isaiah puts it:

“will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

“Wonderful Counsellor” .. who does that describe? The “counsellor” or
“Comforter” is the Holy Spirit. “Eternal Father” is of course our heavenly
Father. “Prince of Peace” is The Son Jesus. Many references but I mention just one:

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of OUR PEACE was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53.5 KJV)

Finally all the above titles encapsulated in One “Mighty God”. Yes Muslims not only does Isaiah 9.6 confirm the Messiah would be God it also explicitly references the Tri-personal nature of God, in His titles, all embodied in Jesus.

It’s a double whammy against Isl@m which would have both facets as an invention of Paul or worse of the Council of Nicea.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: #JESUS_is_GOD #JESUS_is_KING_of_KINGS

Ishmael is not the Father of Muhammad

Sam Shamoun

“Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, ‘I cannot watch the boy die.’ And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob. God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.’ Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.” Genesis 21:13-21

The Holy Bible locates Paran near Israel (Canaan) and Egypt, south of Judah. John L. McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible notes:

Paran (Hb pa’ran, most frequently the name of a desert region). The place name Elparan (Gn 14:6) no doubt is associated with the desert; this place is thought to be identical with Elath* by some scholars. The desert of Paran was the home of the Ishmaelites (Gn 21:21). It was, the itinerary according to P (cf. PENTATEUCH), reached by the Israelites after the desert of Sinai (Nm 10:12), and they camped in this desert for some time (Nm 10:12; 13:3, 26, mission and return of the scouts). In Dt 1:1 Paran is vaguely defined as a place in the desert. Hadad of Edom passed through the desert of Paran on his journey from Midian* to Egypt (1 Kings 11:18). The mountains of Paran are the place from which the theophany* appears (Dt 33:2; Hab. 3:3); like most other names mentioned in the theophanies, Paran reflects the region S of Judah. The desert of Paran is probably that region of the Negeb* which lies S of Kadesh-barnea*. (McKenzie, p. 637)

Compare the following OT passages:

“In the fourteenth year, Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him went out and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert. Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazazon Tamar.” Genesis 14:5-7

“On the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle of the Testimony. Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran. They set out, this first time, at the LORD’s command through Moses.” Numbers 10:11-13

“So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on till she was brought back. After that, the people left Hazeroth and encamped in the Desert of Paran.” Numbers 12:15-16

“The LORD said to Moses, “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders.’ So at the LORD’s command Moses sent them out from the Desert of Paran. All of them were leaders of the Israelites.” Numbers 13:1-3

“At the end of forty days they returned from exploring the land. They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land. They gave Moses this account: ‘We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit.'” Numbers 13:25-27

“These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. (It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.)” Deuteronomy 1:1-2

Unless Muslims want to claim that Moses and the Israelites traveled from Sinai all the way to Mecca and back during their 40-year desert wandering, it becomes quite evident that Paran is nowhere near Mecca.

Continuing further:

“Now Samuel died; and all Israel assembled and mourned for him. They buried him at his home in Ramah. Then David got up and went down to the wilderness of Paran.” 1 Samuel 25:1

Are we to assume that David went to Mecca after Samuel’s death?

“This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death. He said: “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes. Deuteronomy 33:1-2

“But Hadad, still only a boy, fled to Egypt with some Edomite officials who had served his father. They set out from Midian and went to Paran. Then taking men from Paran with them, they went to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food. Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage.” 1 Kings 11:17-19

“God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth.” Habakkuk 3:3

Interestingly, the preceding passages connect Mount Paran with Seir and Teman. Both Seir and Teman are associated with Edom. Here is McKenzie regarding the locations of Seir and Teman:

Seir (Hb se’ir), a geographical name; Seir is associated with Esau* and Edom* and the association is expressed in a play on the words se’ar, “goat,” and sa’ir, “hairy,” in Gn 25:25; 27:11, 23. The name appears as the designation of a land, of a mountain, and as a gentilic. There is no doubt that the mountain is the chain which extends SW of the Dead Sea along the W side of the Arabah*, rising to an average height of 5000 ft. The name was later extended to the corresponding mountain chain on the E side of the Arabah. As a territorial designation the term is used more loosely of the region adjacent to the mountain chain, substantially identical with the territory of EdomIsraelite tradition itself recognized that the claim of Edom to Seir and its settlement there were older than its own claim to Canaan. It was the region of Esau the brother of Jacob … The mountain becomes a loose designation of its inhabitants as “the men of Seir or Mt Seir” (2 Ch 20:10, 22f; 25:11, 14); these must be the Edomites … (McKenzie, pp. 783-784)

Teman (Hb teman, “the south”), a place name; a region of Edom (Je 49:7; Ezk 25:13; Am 1:12; Ob 9) mentioned with Dedan* (Ezk 25:13), famous for its wise men (Je 49:7), the place from which Yahweh appears (Hab 3:3; mentioned with Mt Paran*); genealogically reckoned a descendant of Esau and a son of Eliphaz (Gn 36:11, 15, 42; 1 Ch 1:36, 53). The situation is unknown except that it must be in the territory of Edom. Very frequently in the OT teman is used to signify simply “south” as a point of direction. (McKenzie, p. 872)

J. Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, p. 897, states:

TEMAN.- A tribe (district) of Edom.

In light of this, it is little wonder that Hadad of Edom passed through Paran en route to Egypt. It makes no sense for Hadad to travel from Edom to Mecca in order to get to Egypt.

Furthermore, there is no evidence apart from the later Muslim traditions that Ishmael ever married a Jurhumite woman since the Holy Bible indicates that he married an Egyptian. The Holy Bible also tells us where Ishmael’s sons settled:

“This is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham. These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers.” Genesis 25:12-18

McKenzie locates Shur around the area of Palestine and Egypt:

Shur (Hb sur), a geographical name which designates the slopes of Palestine and E of Egypt and N of the deserts of the Sinai peninsula. The Hb word suggests sur, “wall”, and some geographers have thought that the name alludes to the line of fortresses constructed by the Egyptians to protect the E frontier of Egypt. The region is the scene of the flight of Hagar* in the account of J (Gn 16:7). Abraham dwelt for a time in the Negeb* between Kadesh* and Shur (Gn 20:1). The Israelites traversed the desert of Shur after crossing the Sea of Reeds (Ex 15:22). The area from Havilah* to Shur was the home of the Amalekites* and other nomad tribes (Gn 25:18; 1 S 15:7; 27:8). (McKenzie, pp. 810-811)

This conclusively demonstrates that neither Ishmael nor his twelve sons settled in Mecca. It is claimed that some of the descendents of Ishmael’s twelve sons migrated to Arabia. For instance Nebaioth is said to be the father of the Nabateans. The Nabateans flourished in northern Arabia, first establishing their capital in Petra in the 4th century B.C. which was captured by the Romans in 106 B.C. They then moved to Damascus. The Dead Sea Scrolls actually contains Nabatean documents from the later period.

There are two major problems with the above assertion. Even though it may be true that some of Ishmael’s descendants settled in Arabia, this does not mean that they necessarily were the fathers of the Arabs. Muslim tradition itself affirms that Ishmael was not the father of the Arabs. Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad states:

Ishmael is the son of Ibrahim (Abraham) b. Tarih (Azar) b. Nahur b. Sarugh b. Rau’u b. Falikh b. ‘Aybar b. Shalikh b. Arfakhshadh b. Sam (Shem) b. Nuh (Noah). (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, p. 3)

Then we have another line from Noah, where we read:

‘Ad b. ‘Aus b. Iram b. Sam b. Nuh and Thamud and Jadis the two sons of ‘Abir b. Iram b. Sam b. Nuh, and Tasm and ‘Imlaq and Umayan the sons of Lawidh b. Sam b. Nuh are all Arabs. Nabit b. Isma’il begat Yashjub and the line runs: Ta’rub-Tayrah-Bahur-Muqawwan-Udad-‘Adnan. (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, p. 4)

This demonstrates that Arabs existed long before Ishmael was even born since according to this tradition, Ishmael’s great-great-great-great…-great uncles were already the Arabs.

Second, the Hadith does not agree with the biblical record at all. The Hadith claims that after settling in Mecca Ishmael married twice, and both of his wives were of Arab descent:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water. So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her. Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?” He said, “Yes.” She said, “Then He will not neglect us,” and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka’ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:

“O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.’ (14.37) Ishmael’s mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).

When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times.”

The Prophet said, “This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, “O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?” And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.”

The Prophet added, “May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael’s mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” The Prophet further added, “Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.’ The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada’. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, “This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.’ They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water).” The Prophet added, “Ishmael’s mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, “Do you allow us to stay with you?’ She replied, “Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.’ They agreed to that.” The Prophet further said, “Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.

After Ishmael’s mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael’s marriage in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael’s wife about him, she replied, “He has gone in search of our livelihood.’ Then he asked her about their way of living and their condition, and she replied, “We are living in misery; we are living in hardship and destitution,’ complaining to him. He said, “When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).’ When Ishmael came, he seemed to have felt something unusual, so he asked his wife, “Has anyone visited you?’ She replied, “Yes, an old man of so-and-so description came and asked me about you and I informed him, and he asked about our state of living, and I told him that we were living in a hardship and poverty.’ On that Ishmael said, “Did he advise you anything?’ She replied, “Yes, he told me to convey his salutation to you and to tell you to change the threshold of your gate.’ Ishmael said, “It was my father, and he has ordered me to divorce you. Go back to your family.’ So, Ishmael divorced her and married another woman from amongst them (i.e. Jurhum).

Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished and called on them again but did not find Ishmael. So he came to Ishmael’s wife and asked her about Ishmael. She said, “He has gone in search of our livelihood.’ Abraham asked her, “How are you getting on?’ asking her about their sustenance and living. She replied, “We are prosperous and well-off (i.e. we have everything in abundance).’ Then she thanked Allah’ Abraham said, “What kind of food do you eat?’ She said. “Meat.’ He said, “What do you drink?’ She said, “Water.’ He said, “O Allah! Bless their meat and water.” The Prophet added, “At that time they did not have grain, and if they had grain, he would have also invoked Allah to bless it.” The Prophet added, “If somebody has only these two things as his sustenance, his health and disposition will be badly affected, unless he lives in Mecca.” The Prophet added,” Then Abraham said Ishmael’s wife, “When your husband comes, give my regards to him and tell him that he should keep firm the threshold of his gate.’ When Ishmael came back, he asked his wife, “Did anyone call on you?’ She replied, “Yes, a good-looking old man came to me,’ so she praised him and added. “He asked about you, and I informed him, and he asked about our livelihood and I told him that we were in a good condition.’ Ishmael asked her, “Did he give you any piece of advice?’ She said, “Yes, he told me to give his regards to you and ordered that you should keep firm the threshold of your gate.’ On that Ishmael said, “It was my father, and you are the threshold (of the gate). He has ordered me to keep you with me.’

Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished, and called on them afterwards. He saw Ishmael under a tree near Zamzam, sharpening his arrows. When he saw Abraham, he rose up to welcome him (and they greeted each other as a father does with his son or a son does with his father). Abraham said, “O Ishmael! Allah has given me an order.’ Ishmael said, “Do what your Lord has ordered you to do.’ Abraham asked, “Will you help me?’ Ishmael said, “I will help you.’ Abraham said, Allah has ordered me to build a house here,’ pointing to a hillock higher than the land surrounding it.” The Prophet added, “Then they raised the foundations of the House (i.e. the Ka’ba). Ishmael brought the stones and Abraham was building, and when the walls became high, Ishmael brought this stone and put it for Abraham who stood over it and carried on building, while Ishmael was handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, “O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.’ The Prophet added, “Then both of them went on building and going round the Ka’ba saying: O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.” (2.127) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583)

This tradition clearly contradicts the biblical data that shows that Ishmael settled in Paran, not Mecca, and married an Egyptian, not an Arab. The above tradition states that Ishmael learnt Arabic from the tribe of (or a family from) Jurhum who settled in Mecca. Since Arabic is not Ishmael’s mother tongue, and since Arabic as a language existed before, Ishmael cannot be the ancestor of Arabs. This means that the notion that Ishmael is the progenitor of the Arabs is erroneous. At most, Ishmael can only be called an Arabicized immigrant. The Muslim traditions prove that Ishmael is not the father of all the Arabs.

The Muslim traditions further complicate the problem. We are told:

Ma’n Ibn ‘Isa al-Ashja’i al-Qazzaz (silk-merchant) informed us; he said: Mu’awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Yahya Ibn Jabir who had seen some Companions of the Prophet and said: The people of Banu Fuhayrah came to the Prophet and said to him: You belong to us. He replied: Verily, (the archangel) Gabriel has informed me that I belong to Mudar. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume I, p. 4)

This indicates that Muhammad’s genealogy was actually revelatory, not necessarily common knowledge. In fact, the people of Banu Fuhayrah did not know that Muhammad was a descendent of Mudar and Muhammad had to be informed by Gabriel that he was, not through common knowledge. This may form the basis of some hadiths:

Narrated Kulaib:

I was told by the Rabiba (i.e. daughter of the wife of the Prophet) who, I think, was Zainab, that the Prophet forbade the utensils (of wine called) Ad-Dubba, Al-Hantam, Al-Muqaiyar and Al-Muzaffat. I said to her, “Tell me as to which tribe the Prophet belonged; was he from the tribe of Mudar?” She replied, “He belonged to the tribe of Mudar and was from the offspring of An-Nadr bin Kinana.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 698)

Muslims may claim that Muhammad is a descendant of Kedar and therefore a true offspring of Ishmael. Muslim historians traced Muhammad’s line to an ‘Adnan, an alleged descendant of Ishmael. The following genealogy is taken from T.P Hughes’ Dictionary of Islam, p. 217:

Adnan- Ma’add- Nizar- “Ilyas- Mudrikah- Khuzaimah- Kinanah- An-Nazr- Malik- Fihr- Luwaiy- Ka’b- Murrah- Kilab- Qusaiy- “Abdul Manaf- Hashim- Abdul Muttalib- Abdullah- Muhammad.

This other one comes from a Muslim website:

Prophet Muhammad- Abdullah- Abd Al Muttalib- Hashim- Abd Manaf- Qusaiy- Kilab (Ancestor of the Holy Prophet’s mother)- Murrah- Ka’b. Lu’ayy- Ghalib- Fihr- Malik- Al Nadr- Kinanah- Khuzaiymah- Mudrikah- Ilyas- Mudar- Nizar- Madd- `Adnan– Adad- Zayd- Yaqdud- Al Muqawwam- Al Yasa’- Nabt- Qaidar (Kedar)- Prophet Ismail (Alaihi Salaam)- Prophet Ibrahim (Alaihi Salaam)- Tarih- Nahur (Nahor)- Sharukh- Ar’u- Farigh- `Abir- Shalikh- Arfikhishd- Sam (Shem)- Prophet Nuh (Noah) (Alaihi Salaam)- Lamak- Mutawshilkh- Khanukh- Burrah- Mihlayil- Kaynun- Anuus- Shees (Seth) (Alaihi Salaam)- Prophet Adam (Alaihi Salaam). (Source.)

On the mother’s side, the above list gives Muhammad – Aminah – Wahab – Abd Manaf – Zuhrah – Kilab, same as the Kilab in Muhammad’s side. This reference is derived from Ibn Al Jawzy via Abi Muhammad Ibn Al Samarqandi via `Ali Ibn `Ubayd of Kufa, a companion of Tha’lib Muhammad ibn Abdullah.

The following genealogy is taken from Syed Yusuf:

  1 Abraham Hanifa (AS) was the father of
  2 Isma’il (AS) was the father of
  3 Kedar was the father of
  4 “Adnaan was the father of
  5 Ma’add was the father of
  6 Nizaar was the father of
  7 Mudar was the father of
  8 Ilyaas was the father of
  9 Mudrikah was the father of
10 Khuzaimah was the father of
11 Kinaanah was the father of
12 Al-Nadr was the father of
13 Maalik was the father of
14 Quraysh was the father of
15 Ghaalib was the father of
16 Lu’ayy was the father of
17 Ka’ab was the father of
18 Murrah was the father of
19 Kilaab was the father of
20 Qusayy was the father of
21 “Abd Manaaf was the father of
22 Haashim was the father of
23 “Abdul Muttalib was the father of
24 “Abdullah was the father of
25 Muhammad (SAW)

(source)

There are several problems with these genealogies. The first problem is the time span, as noted by the following sources:

“If there are only four generations between Adnan and Ishmael, then the are about 24-25 generations between Muhammad and Abraham spanning about 2500 years. This makes for about one hundred years between generations, which is a bit far-fetched (it is ok if it were for some generations, like Abraham and Ishmael, but very far-fetched if it were to occur regularly. We know that the generations near to Muhammad are pretty normal, not so stretched out, so this makes the other inter-generational gaps even wider). On the other hand, using the data from reference 2, we get about 32-33 generations between Abraham and Muhammad, giving us an inter-generational gap of about seventy-five years. This is still unbelievably high.

It should be said that perhaps, we are faced with incomplete data in that some generations are omitted (the situation is also to be seen in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus where he omitted some names). It could be the same with Muslim genealogical data. On the other hand, if the hadith that there are only four generations between Adnan and Ishmael is literal, then we are faced with a problem. If the hadith is true, then Muslim genealogy is most likely false (it is difficult to imagine so many one hundred years between generations). If the hadith is false, then we have to re-evaluate the accuracy of hadith reports. (Source.; bold emphasis ours)

Commenting on Yusuf’s list given above, the authors at FreeThoughtMecca note:

First of all, there are only 24 generations from Abraham to Muhammad, which is quite fantastic. Now, if we grant 30 years to each generation (i.e. make the generous assumption that each male fathered his respective son by age 30), this would place Abraham some time around 150 BCE. The math behind such a conclusion goes as follows:

30 X 24 = 720

Muhammad was allegedly born 570 CE

570 – 720 = -150.

The oldest existing texts to mention Abraham are found among the scrolls from Qumran (so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls”), which date anywhere from the 3rd century BCE to 68 CE. With that in mind it is reasonable to assume that writing already existed on Abraham (as well as numerous later Biblical heroes, such as Isaac, Jacob, Moses, et cetera) at the time the above genealogy places the patriarch. Of course, this is a moot point, as no Muslim would ever try and place Abraham’s life around 150 BCE.

The only way out of this would be to take a page from the Judeo-Christian folklore, and start postulating wild scenarios, where patriarchs don’t reach puberty until 90, father children at 120, and finally die some time around 200 years of age! Of course that is just plain absurd, and it shows the extent of the silliness found in the “intellectual” religion known as al-Islaam. (source; bold emphasis ours)

Apart from the disparaging remarks regarding the age of some of the Patriarchs, the problem with the Muslim genealogies stands out clearly.

The second problem with these genealogies is that they are written long after Muhammad’s rise to fame. In other words, these are not based on pre-Islamic records but records compiled by Muslims after the death of Muhammad. It is not hard to imagine Muslims concocting genealogies around biblical figures in order to legitimize Muhammad’s claim to prophethood. Let us point again to this hadith:

Ma’n Ibn ‘Isa al-Ashja’i al-Qazzaz (silk-merchant) informed us; he said: Mu’awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Yahya Ibn Jabir who had seen some Companions of the Prophet and said: The people of Banu Fuhayrah came to the Prophet and said to him: You belong to us. He replied: Verily, (the archangel) Gabriel has informed me that I belong to Mudar. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume I, p. 4)

If this is true, then the genealogy of Muhammad was not known to either himself or his clan. Otherwise he could have appealed to general knowledge and would not have had to appeal to revelation to place himself in a certain descendency. To be a descendant of Ishmael (via Mudar) was a claim that started with Muhammad’s own words but without historical evidence even in his life time. In the end, it comes down to nothing but an unsubstantiated claim from Muhammad, … or from later Muslims who put this into his mouth.

The third problem with these above lists is that they are not even consistent with that given by Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasulullah. Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of Muhammad traces his line to Ishmael through Nabit (Nebaioth), not Kedar. Here is Ibn Ishaq’s list:

MUHAMMAD’S PURE DESCENT FROM ADAM

Abu Muhammad “Abdul Malik ibn Hisham the Grammarian said:

This is the book of the biography of the apostle of God.

Muhammad was the son of “Abdullah, b. “Abdu’l-Muttalib (whose name was Shayba), b. Hashim (whose name was Amr), b. “Abdu Manaf (whose name was al-Mughira), b. Qusayy (whose name was Zayd). B. Kilab, b. Murra, b. Ka’b, b. Lu’ayy, b. Ghalib, b. Fihr, b. Malik, b. al-Nadr, b. Kinana, b. Khuzayma, b. Mudrika (whose name was “Amir), b. Ilyas, b. Mudar, b. Nizar, b. Ma’ add, b. “Adnan, b. Udd (or Udad), b. Muqawwam, b. Nahur, b.’Tayrah, b. Ya’rub, b. Yashjub, b. Nabit, b. Isma’il, b. Ibrahim, the friend of the Compassionate, b. Tarih (who is Azar), b. Nahur, b. Sarugh, b. Ra’u, b. Falikh, b. “Aybar, b. Shalikh, b. Arfakhshadh, b. Sam, b. Nuh, b. Lamk, b. Mattushalakh, b. Akhnukh, who is the prophet Idris according to what they allege, but God knows best (he was the first of the sons of Adam to whom prophecy and writing with a pen were given), b. Yard, b. Mahlil, b. Qaynan, b. Yanish, b. Shith, b. Adam.

THE LINE OF ISMAIL

Isma’il b. Ibrahim begat twelve sons: Nabit the elder, Qaydhar, Adhbul, Mabsha, Misma, Mashi, Dimma, Adhr, Tayma, Yatur, Nabish, Qaydhuma. Their mother was Ra’la d. Mudad b. “Amr al-Jurhumi (II). Jurhum was the son of Yaqtan b. “Aybar b. Shalikh, and [Yaqtan was] Qahtan b. “Aybar b. Shalikh. According to report Isma’il lived 130 years, and when he died he was buried in the sacred precincts of the K’aba besides his mother Hagar (I2). (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], pp. 3-4; bold emphasis ours)

Ishaq is basically in agreement with the Holy Bible regarding the names and number of sons born to Ishmael. The only difference being is that Ishaq believes that these sons were conceived from Ra’la a Jurhumite.

This leads us to our final problem. The veracity of these records is based primarily on the assumption that Ishmael settled in Mecca and married a Jurhumite woman. Since Ishmael did not settle in Mecca, but in Paran, and married an Egyptian this means that neither Kedar nor Nebaioth could have been the ancestor of the Meccan Arabs.

There are certain Islamic scholars who readily admit this fact. The late Egyptian Professor, Dr. Taha Husayn, considered one of the foremost authorities on Arabic literature, while commenting on the story of Abraham and Ishmael building the Kabah, states:

“The case for this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons.” (As quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170 as found in Behind the Veil, p. 184, source; bold emphasis ours)

Writer Camilla Adang, in a footnote from her book Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm, mentions:

… Ishmael is considered the progenitor of the Arabs. Dagon (1981) has shown that this idea is an Islamic construction AND THAT NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND THE ARABS HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD. Already in the first Islamic century, however, Ishmael came to symbolize the Islamic Umma, and biblical passages about Ishmael were taken to refer to Muhammad, the Arabs, or the Muslim community. (Adang, p. 147, fn. 37: E.J. Brill Academic Publishers; August 1997 ISBN: 9004100342; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Former Muslim turned to atheist Ibn Warraq writes:

We are told that [Abraham] was born in Chaldea, and that he was the son of a poor potter who earned his living by making little clay idols. It is scarcely credible that the son of this potter went to Mecca, 300 leagues away in the tropics, by way of impassable deserts. If he was a conqueror he no doubt aimed at the fine country of Assyria; and if he was only a poor man, as he is depicted, he founded no kingdoms in foreign parts. — Voltaire

For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham, than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. — Maxime Rodinson

It is virtually certain that Abraham never reached Mecca. — Montgomery Watt

The essential point … is that, where objective fact has been established by sound historical methods, it must be accepted. — Montgomery Watt

According to Muslim tradition, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the cube-like structure in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But outside these traditions there is absolutely no evidence for this claim – whether epigraphic, archaelogical, or documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Muhammad invented the story to give his religion an Arabian origin and setting; with this brilliant improvisation Muhammad established the independence of his religion, at the same time incorporating into Islam the Kaaba with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs. (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY 1995], p. 131; bold emphasis ours)

Finally, Islamicist Alfred Guillaume notes:

“… there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.” (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62)

In case Muslims want to claim that the biblical text has been tampered with, it should be pointed out that the Jews would have no reason to distort the location of Paran since there was neither Christians nor Muslims around when these texts were written. Therefore, claiming textual distortion will not solve the problem for the Muslims.

In light of all this confusion, it becomes evident that the biblical data is more precise and accurate since it is much older and closer to these events. Since the Holy Bible indicates that Ishmael never settled in Mecca he therefore cannot be the father of the Arabs that settled there. In other words, Muhammad is not a descendant of Ishmael.

In the service of our great God and Savior, the risen Lord of eternal glory, Jesus Christ. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.

Ishmaelites enemies of God

Question: “Who were the Ishmaelites?”

Answer: Simply put, the Ishmaelites were the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abram by his wife’s handmaiden, Hagar (Genesis 16:1″12). From small beginnings, the Ishmaelites became a numerous and mighty people.

The origin of the Ishmaelites was fraught with difficulty. When Sarai was unable to produce a child with Abram, she followed the common cultural practice and gave Hagar to him, and Hagar conceived his child. But Sarai later became jealous and mistreated Hagar, who fled from her mistress into the wilderness. There Hagar met the Angel of the Lord who pronounced the first of three prophecies concerning the child she was bearing. She would give birth to a son, and his descendants would multiply greatly. It was at this time that God told Hagar to name him Ishmael, which means “God hears” (Genesis 16:10″11).

In the wilderness the Angel of the Lord also predicted that Ishmael”and therefore the Ishmaelites”would be stubborn, untamable, and warlike: “He will be a wild donkey of a man; / his hand will be against everyone / and everyone’s hand against him, / and he will live in hostility / toward all his brothers” (Genesis 16:12). After hearing the angel’s words, Hagar returned to her mistress and eventually gave birth to Ishmael.

Later, God changed the names of Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham and established a covenant with Abraham’s son Isaac. But Ishmael also had a promise from God: he would be blessed, too, and he would be the father of a great nation, beginning with twelve sons, the first of the Ishmaelites (Genesis 17:20). The names of the twelve are listed in Genesis 25:12″16; it is from the Ishmaelites that the Arab nations descended.

As Ishmael grew to adulthood, there was dissention between him and Isaac, so Hagar took her son and left the camp of Abraham. The Angel of God met them once again and predicted for the third time that Ishmael would father a great nation (Genesis 21:18). Later in Israel’s history, the Ishmaelites were also called Midianites (although not all Midianites were descendants of Ishmael), and they engaged in the buying and selling of slaves (Genesis 37:28; 39:1). Judges 8:24 tells us that the Ishmaelites were fond of gold, and gold earrings were part of their plunder.

During the reign of King David, the Ishmaelites joined a confederacy against God and against His people, Israel (Psalm 83:5″6). Their goal was to “destroy them as a nation, / so that Israel’s name is remembered no more” (verse 4). Considering the current turmoil in the Middle East and the hatred often directed against Israel by her neighbors, the prophecies concerning the descendants of Ishmael continue to prove true.

Islam cannot be reformed

Islam can’t be reformed. You need to have an authority with a rank similar or superior to the one claimed by Muhammad to be able to reform Islam. But that can’t be done, because Muhammad said he was the last prophet. The atrocities perpetrated by Muhammad exceeded anything that anyone had experienced before. Amazingly, his followers, taken aback by his utter lack of conscience and his monstrous inhumanity, thought he must be supported by some invisible force for they could not understand how a human being could be so ruthless and kill so many people with such conviction while praising God at the same time and inviting people to be pious. Criminals do not talk about God. They often have a trace of conscience left in them and are often overtaken by remorse. But not the psychopaths! Psychopaths do not have a conscience. They feel entitled to kill, and they believe they are doing God’s work. This is what Hitler said:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York : Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65]

Muhammad offset his follower’s balance of right and wrong. He overloaded it with so much evil that it broke.

We humans have an inner balance with which we weigh good and evil. This balance, in Muslims stopped working. The indicator is stuck on zero. Muhammad’s companions could no longer register right and wrong. Because it’s hard to envision how a human being could be this ruthless, they persuaded themselves that he must be from God. As for why this god is so demonic, they fooled themselves with the lies that he told them. He told them that it is not up to man to question God. This absurd explanation satisfied his benighted followers. They resorted to fideism and argued that reason is irrelevant to religious belief. The great Imam Ghazali (1058 1111) said: “Where the claims of reason come into conflict with revelation, reason must yield to revelation.” Upon this belief in absurdity fideism is founded and it is the position that has been adopted by Muslims. This fideistic attitude allowed the early believers to abandon reason and accept whatever Muhammad did, even his blatant crimes, without questioning him.

However, mostly they WANTED to believe because they had no other choice. Muhammad had become their only source of sustenance and survival.

The city of Yathreb (Medina) was devastated by the Muslims. Its original inhabitants those who ran the businesses and provided employment, who were artisans, tradesmen and farmers the Jews, were either banished or killed. The Arabs had been working for the Jews. Now, with the Jews gone or massacred, they were out of work and depended on Muhammad and his raids for their sustenance. It was not convenient to think critically about what they were doing. They let themselves go with the flow and kept themselves fooled. They got their confirmation by watching the zealotry of their coreligionists. Each follower encouraged others, and among them they created a mass hysteria that has lasted up to this day. “How can all these people be wrong?” was their rationale. This is the same rationale Muslims use today to keep their faith alive. This is what happens in cult compounds. The members lose their identity and surrender their rational faculty to the guru. They become an extension of the group and a reflection of the cult leader. The cultish nature of Islam has not changed a bit. Fourteen hundred years later, if you join Islam, you are received with cheers and hugs, but if you decide to leave, you’ll be chased down and killed.

You say that violence was the norm in those days. Even if this were true, which it is not, did Muhammad come to follow the bad practices of his people or set new standards?

Now, the most important question is WHY: Why keep Islam and honor Muhammad? Can we do the same thing with Nazism? Can we reform Nazism pretend that Hitler was an innocent product of his time, and pick and choose, only the good parts of his Mein Kampf? How much must we fool ourselves, and WHY?

What we have to understand is that Muhammad, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, and millions of other less known monsters, was a pathological narcissist. These celebrated men were not normal. They were sick in the mind.