The Biblical Story of
Ishmael and Isaac: An Analysis and Comparison with the Islamic Narrative
Originally Published: January 11, 2014
“Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the
revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes,
and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their
Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to
Allah (in Islam)."”
- The Holy Quran, Surah
Al-Baqarah, 2:136
The Biblical story of Abraham’s two sons, Ishmael
and Isaac, is at the heart of theological and historical disagreements among Jews
and Christians on the one hand and Muslims on the other. It is among many
issues which have been debated by followers of the three Abrahamic religions
for centuries and remains a highly contentious issue even to the present
day. What is it about the story as it is told in the Judeo-Christian
tradition which puts it at stark contrast with that of the Islamic
tradition? Is the acceptance of the Biblical version justified for Jews
and Christians or are they the victims of an insidious deception which has
caused them to reject the truth? In this article, we will discuss this
possibility. We will first summarize the Biblical version of the story of
Ishmael and Isaac (peace be upon them).
Following the summary will be an analysis of the Biblical story to
discuss the internal contradictions and inconsistencies which ravage the text
and yet which somehow have remained hidden from the vast majority of Jews and
Christians.[1]
Finally, we will summarize the Islamic version and compare it to the Biblical
one. It is hoped that from this objective analysis, the reader will find
that the Islamic version, and not the Biblical one, is much more deserving of
acceptance.
The Biblical Story
The
Biblical story of Abraham and his two sons is found in the first book of the
Hebrew Bible, Genesis. For the purposes of this article, we will
concentrate specifically on the contents of Genesis 16-18, 21-22, and 25.
As the
story goes, Abraham and Sarah (originally known as Abram and Sarai,
respectively) had both grown old and yet still had no child. Desperate to
“build a family”, Sarah urged Abraham to
impregnate her slave Hagar, who was an Egyptian.[2]
After some tensions developed between Sarah and the now-pregnant Hagar, the
latter fled from the abuse of her mistress and encountered an angel who
prophesied that she would bear a son who would be named Ishmael. And so
it was that Hagar bore the eighty-six year old Abraham a son.[3]
The story
then moves 13 years forward to when Abraham was 99 years old and so Ishmael was
13 years old. It was at this point that God gave the name Abraham to the
patriarch and also instituted the “Covenant of Circumcision”. God also
announced that Sarah would bear a son named Isaac, with whom God would
establish His covenant (and not with Ishmael, the first-born son). In
keeping with the “Covenant of Circumcision”, Abraham circumcised himself as
well as Ishmael and every other male in his household.
One day, Abraham
was visited by three angels, who again announced to him the birth of Isaac as
well as to tell him of the impending destruction of Sodom, where Abraham’s
nephew Lot lived.[4]
As had
been promised, Sarah became pregnant and gave birth to a son, whom Abraham
named Isaac. At this point, Abraham was now 100 years old. As
before, tensions again began to rise between Hagar and Sarah. By this
time, Isaac had been weaned and Sarah demanded of Abraham to:
“Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s
son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”[5]
Though
Abraham was distressed, God ordered him to do as Sarah had demanded, and told
Abraham not to be distraught for He would make a nation out of “the son of the slave”.[6] Obeying God’s command, Abraham sent Hagar and
Ishmael into the desert of Beersheba, where their limited supplies quickly
dwindled. Faced with the prospect of death, Hagar placed the 16-year old
Ishmael under a bush, unable to watch her son die of thirst. However,
both were saved when God intervened and provided water. Ishmael lived and
grew up to be an archer in the desert.[7]
He also had 12 sons and lived to the age of 137 and was also present with his
brother Isaac when their father, passed away at age 175.[8]
Meanwhile, once Hagar and Ishmael
had been sent out, Isaac’s status as God’s chosen was established. It began with a test. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his
“only son, whom you love”, in the “region of Moriah”.[9] Abraham complied with the command, but just
before sacrificing Isaac, he was stopped by an angel. Abraham had passed the test with flying
colors and God promised him that:
“I will surely bless you and make your descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your
descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through
your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed
me.”[10]
Thus, the Bible
establishes that it would be through Isaac, and not Ishmael, that God would
bless “all nations on earth”.[11]
Analyzing the Story
The story
of Ishmael and Isaac, as summarized above, is accepted as a historically
accurate version of events by Jews and Christians. But is it
really? In actuality, a careful reading of the text will reveal several
flaws in the story which cannot be reconciled through reason. In this
section of the article, we will see the evidence for why this story must be
rejected.
According to the story, Hagar and Ishmael were exiled
shortly after Isaac was weaned:
“The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was
weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the
Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of
that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the
inheritance with my son Isaac.”
The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned
his son. But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your
slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac
that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the slave into a
nation also, because he is your offspring.””[12]
According to the
Jewish commentator Rashi, weaning occurred when a child was 24-months old (i.e.
2 years old).[13]
This would mean that Ishmael would have been 16 years old at the time, as
mentioned above. We know this because Abraham was 86 years old when
Ishmael was born and 100 years old when Isaac was born, as stated in the
summary. As such, Ishmael was old enough to be married and have his own
family and certainly old enough to be considered a man who would be expected to
be caring for his mother, and not the other way around. Even in modern
times, a 16-year old is expected to bear certain responsibilities. In
fact, the Bible states that even young children and boys were called to become
prophets, which is of course a great responsibility. For example, Samuel
is described as a “boy” when he began preaching:
“The boy Samuel ministered before the Lord under Eli. In those days the word
of the Lord was rare; there were
not many visions.”[14]
According to
Josephus, Samuel was not even a teenager when he became a prophet:
“…to Samuel the prophet, who was yet a child, he openly
shewed his sorrow for his sons’ destruction. […]
Now when Samuel was twelve years old, he began to
prophesy…”[15]
So clearly, even a
12-year old, though still considered a “child”, could still be given heavy
responsibilities. Hence, even children in ancient times were expected to
show more maturity than people would expect from children at that age in the
modern world.
Since this is irrefutable, a contradiction arises when we read the
Genesis account of Hagar and Ishmael’s exile. Since Ishmael would have
been a teenager (older than Samuel was when he became a prophet) and more
likely to be caring for his mother than the other way around, the Genesis
account is most certainly erroneous because it describes him as if he was an
infant! It states [our comments in bold]:
“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. [Rashi states that Hagar carried Ishmael on her shoulders
because he was unable to walk due to a curse placed on him by Sarah![16]]
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 about a bowshot away, for she
thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, 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.”[17]
When reading this
account, one would have to question Ishmael’s actual age. He was clearly
not 16 years old, because the text describes him consistently as a “boy” or
“lad” who was completely dependent on his mother. This is even clearer
from Genesis 21:20, which states that God was with Ishmael “as he grew up”. How could
this be if he was already 16 years old and would probably have been married
already under normal circumstances? He was already old enough to be
considered a man. How much more “growing up” did he have to do?
Even in modern times, a 16-year old is considered old enough to be able to work
and drive a car. Why then does Genesis treat Ishmael as if he was a
child…unless he really was? As we shall see later, this possibility fits
in well with the Islamic version of the story.
As Dr. Laurence Brown has observed:
“…Genesis 21:14-19 portrays the outcast Ishmael as a
helpless infant rather than an able-bodied sixteen-year-old youth…”[18]
The proof of
Ishmael’s actual age can be seen in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word used
to describe the 16-year old Ishmael is “hay-ye-led” (translated by the NIV as
“boy”), and it is ironically the same word used to describe the 2-year old
Isaac (but translated by the NIV as “child”)![19] Why is the word translated differently within
the same chapter? If there is any lingering doubt as to the real meaning
of the word, we should consider that it is almost exclusively used in the Bible
to literally describe children, and more specifically, young children or infants.
Examples of its usage in the Bible are the following passages:
“But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus
basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in
it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile.”[20]
“Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him.
The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was
the father of Jesse, the father of David.”[21]
“After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David,
and he became ill.”[22]
Another place where
this word is used is Ecclesiastes 4:15, but a different form is used in verse
13. Let us see these verses:
“Better a poor but wise youth [ye-led][23] than
an old but foolish king who no longer knows how to heed a warning. The youth
may have come from prison to the kingship, or he may have been born in poverty
within his kingdom. I saw that all who lived and walked under the sun followed
the youth [hay-ye-led],[24]
the king’s successor.”
We can see the
obvious inconsistency with which this word is translated. Nevertheless,
it is clear that the word refers to a child, specifically one who is less than
13 years of age. How do we know this? In the commentary on Ecclesiastes
4:13, Rashi explains that in the Jewish tradition, any boy less than 13-years
of age was considered a child, whereas anyone 13-years or older was considered
a man:
“…why is it called a child? Because it does not enter man
until thirteen years.”[25]
Hence, we can see
that Ishmael too must have been a child, for why else was he referred to as a
“boy” (hay-ye-led)? The account in Genesis 21 is, thus, chronologically wrong
and is possible proof that later editors placed the story in the wrong section
of Genesis (for obvious polemical reasons) and that this incident must have
occurred much earlier than the Bible claims. It must have occurred when
Ishmael was still a baby or a young child.
Alternatively, it is also possible that the contradiction is the inevitable
result of different versions of the story that have been joined together as one
long narrative. Indeed, it is the
general view of Biblical scholars that the books of the Pentateuch are the
result of this editorial process.[26] The Book of Genesis, including the account of
Ishmael and Isaac, is no different.[27]
Some Jews and Christians may object that Ishmael was a child when he was cast
out. They may point to the fact that Genesis 21 refers to him both as
“hay-ye-led”[28]
and “han-na’ar”.[29]
The latter is used in most cases in the Bible to describe a “young man”,[30]
so its usage would be appropriate when referring to Ishmael, who was 16-years
old at the time, and hence an adult according to Rashi. However, this
argument only raises another contradiction since it does not change the fact
that the word “hay-ye-led” mostly refers to young children.[31]
Given that Ishmael is shown to be helpless and completely dependent on his
mother, it is unlikely that he would have been described as “han-na’ar” and
hence the use of the word is actually inappropriate. He cannot be both
“hay-ye-led” and “han-na’ar”, just as in English, he cannot be described both as
a “child” and as an “adult”.
In addition to this inconsistency, we also need to consider the incident
of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac, as told in the Bible, for it is partially
responsible for the disagreements between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic
traditions.[32]
As mentioned in the summary, Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, who
was referred to as Abraham’s “only son”. After reading this passage, we
must ask the obvious question. Why did God refer to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” when he clearly had two sons, Ishmael
being the other and the elder of the two? In fact, earlier God had
specifically counted Ishmael among Abraham’s “offspring” (and of course, there
was no reason not to):
“I will make the son of the slave into a nation also,
because he is your offspring.”[33]
Why did God specifically refer to
Ishmael as Abraham’s progeny in one place and then referred to Isaac as his
“only son” in another place? The Jewish commentator Rashi offered a
rather bizarre extra-biblical conversation between God and Abraham to explain
this contradiction:
“He [Abraham] said to Him, “I have two sons.” He [God]
said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his
mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you
love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.” Now why did
He not disclose this to him at the beginning? In order not to confuse him
suddenly, lest his mind become distracted and bewildered, and also to endear
the commandment to him and to reward him for each and every expression. — [from
Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7].”[34]
Can any rational person accept
this explanation? If the intention was to avoid confusing Abraham, then
God would have simply mentioned Isaac by name without adding the phrase “your only son, whom you love”! Clearly,
this explanation makes little sense and does not reconcile the contradiction. It is no wonder, then, that Christian
apologists have come up with other explanations, though they are just as absurd
as the one suggested by Rashi. For
example, Emir F. Caner and Ergun M. Caner make the following claim:
“First, the term ‘only’ may be in reference to your
‘beloved’ son (John 1:18, 3:16). Second,
the verse is an affirmation of the inheritance intended for Isaac, the
legitimate heir of Abraham, and not Ishmael, born from a concubine who thereby
had no right to the promises of God. It
is clear that Isaac is the one God desired to bless (Genesis 21:12).”[35]
This is, of course,
just a mindless repetition of an age-old polemical argument, but it clearly has
no merit. First, to refer to the Gospel
of John in the New Testament to explain the meaning of the phrase in Genesis 22
is both irrelevant and absurd. What does
one book have to do with the other, even if Christians believe in both? Certainly, Jews place no importance on the
Gospel of John and the concept of Jesus being the “son of God”! Second, the idea that Ishmael was not a “legitimate heir of
Abraham”
is refuted by the Bible itself, which clearly states that he was a legitimate
son of Abraham.[36] Why then would he not be a “legitimate heir” as well? Moreover, Genesis 16:3 states clearly that
Hagar was given to Abraham by Sarah to be his “wife”:
“So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai
his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his
wife.”[37]
It seems the Caners,
and indeed all apologists who use this argument, simply pick and choose some
passages from the Bible while ignoring others.[38]
So, we must look for an alternative answer by asking a different
question. What if this part of the story is also chronologically
misplaced? What if this part of the story actually refers to Ishmael, who
was born 14 years before Isaac? Surely, the phrase “your only son, whom you love” only makes sense if
it was referring to Ishmael. This suggests that the editors of Genesis
altered the story as well as its place in the Bible and thus tried to deny
Ishmael his rightful place as a legitimate son and heir of Abraham. To Jews and Christians, this may come as a
shock, but given the undeniable history of the Bible’s editorial evolution, reasonable
people would not be shocked at all.
In closing, a careful analysis of the Genesis account reveals irreconcilable
contradictions in the text. No doubt, Jewish and Christian apologists
have gone to great lengths to explain these problems, but an objective analysis
can only lead to one conclusion: these inconsistencies are real and cannot be
explained by polemical gymnastics. Rather, the best explanation appears
to be that the story has been edited by anonymous hands and passed off as
“scripture”.[39] It is just another sordid example of Biblical
“myth-making”.[40]
The Islamic Story
Compared
to the Biblical story, the story as told by the Islamic tradition is consistent
and more in line with the facts. Ishmael’s birth and his near-sacrifice
are described in a beautiful passage in the Quran:
“He (Ibrahim] said: "I will go to my Lord! He will
surely guide me! O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)! So We gave
him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. 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 practicing Patience and Constancy! So when they had
both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his
forehead (for sacrifice), We called out to him "O Abraham! Thou hast
already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do
right. For this was obviously a trial- And We ransomed him with a
momentous sacrifice: And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to
come) in later times: "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"”[41]
It is well known that these
verses deal with the birth of Ishmael (peace be upon him), as the vast majority
of Quranic commentators have stated. This is clearly seen by the fact
that following these verses, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) next mentions
Isaac (peace be upon him), so verses 99-109 could not have referred to him:
“And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one
of the Righteous. We blessed him [Ibrahim] and Isaac: but of their
progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their
own souls.”[42]
It should also be noted that
Ishmael (peace be upon him) is described as a young man (possibly a teenager)
when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was ordered to sacrifice him, since he is
described as having reached the age of “serious work”.
But what
about the incident of Ishmael and Hagar’s journey into the desert after Ibrahim
(peace be upon him) was ordered by Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to send
them out? As we saw above, the Biblical story is
self-contradictory. It describes Ishmael (peace by upon him) as a
helpless child yet we are supposed to believe that he was actually 16 years
old. From the internal evidence, it is clear that he was indeed a very
young child, possibly even an infant. According to a hadith, this is
exactly what Ishmael (peace be upon him) was at the time of this incident:
“Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "May Allah
bestow His Mercy on the mother of Ishmael! Had she not hastened (to fill her
water-skin with water from the Zam-zam well), Zam-zam would have been a stream
flowing on the surface of the earth." Ibn 'Abbas further added, "(The
Prophet) Abraham brought Ishmael and his mother (to Mecca) and she was suckling
Ishmael and she had a water-skin with her.'”[43]
Clearly, both the
Bible and Islamic sources describe Ishmael (peace be upon him) as a helpless
infant when he was sent out with his mother.
The only difference is that the Biblical story is chronologically flawed
and self-contradictory. Also, both the
Bible and the Quran agree that Ishmael was the first-born son of Ibrahim (peace
be upon them). However, the former
contradicts itself by referring to Isaac (peace be upon him) as the “only son”
of Abraham shortly before the incident of the sacrifice, even though he was the
younger of the two sons.
Before we conclude this article, it
must be emphasized that even though the Holy Quran and the Ahadith make it
clear that it was Ishmael (peace be upon him) who was the son that Allah
(Glorified and Exalted be He) commanded Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to
sacrifice (and in all probability, Isaac was not even born yet), it does not in
any way suggest that Ishmael was somehow “superior” to his younger brother. Rather, Muslims revere both sons of Ibrahim
(peace be upon them all) and do not believe that Allah (Glorified and Exalted
be He) discriminated against either one of them. Muslims are taught to hold all the prophets
in high regard and not to prefer one over another, praise be to Allah
(Glorified and Exalted be He). As a
matter of fact, if it turned out that Isaac (peace be upon him) was actually
the son who was to be sacrificed, it would not have made any difference to the
faithful Muslim. As Professor John
Kaltner of Rhodes College states:
“Both Ishmael and Isaac are esteemed equally in the Qur’an
and each is held up as a model of faith for the reader, so it is
inconsequential which one was almost killed by his father.”[44]
Conclusion
There can be no doubt that after reading the Biblical story (in
its correct context despite the obvious editorial efforts) and the Islamic
story, that Ishmael (peace be upon him) was not only a legitimate son of
Ibrahim (peace be upon him) but was only an infant when he was sent out with
his mother. This event would have occurred years before Isaac’s
birth. It is also clear that Ishmael was the son whom God had ordered
Ibrahim to sacrifice, and not Isaac (peace be upon them all), who would not
have been born yet. Therefore, the Biblical version suffers from serious
contradictions and can only be the result of textual tampering. However,
despite these insidious attempts at altering the story, there are enough clues
within the text itself that point the way to the truth. Thus, the unavoidable
conclusion is that the Biblical story should be rejected as a biased account
written by fraudulent hands, and that the Islamic version of the story is more
deserving of acceptance and gives a faithful account of the story.
And Allah knows best!
[1] Biblical scholars,
including Christian scholars, are no doubt aware of these contradictions, but
the majority of lay Jews and Christians are, in all likelihood, completely
oblivious of them.
[2] Genesis 16:1-2 (New
International Version).
[11] Christians maintain
that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the fulfillment of this promise, since his
alleged death and resurrection was the path to salvation for all people, Jew
and Gentile alike. As one Christian website puts it:
“[Genesis 22:18]
prophesied all nations would be blessed through one special descendant or seed
of Abraham. Jews and Gentiles alike are blessed when they accept Jesus a
descendant of Abraham as their Savior.”
[15] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 5:10.
[18] Laurence B. Brown, MisGod’ed: A Roadmap of Guidance and
Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions (Booksurge, 2008), p. 238. Kindle Edition.
[20] Exodus 2:3. This verse describes the well-known story of
the mother of Moses placing the infant in a basket on the Nile River. Obviously, Moses was not a teenager as
Genesis 21 would want us to believe regarding Ishmael! See also Exodus 2:6, 2:9 and 2:10, all of
which describe the infant Moses.
[22] 2 Samuel 12:15. This verse mentions how David’s son from his
adulterous relationship with Bathsheba was struck with an illness as David’s
punishment for his sin. The son was clearly
still an infant and not a teenager.
[26] The general consensus
is that there are four different sources that have been joined together: the “J”
source (or “Yahwist” source), the “E” source (or “Elohist” source), the “D”
source (or “Deuteronomist” source) and the “P” source (or the “Priestly”
source).
[27] See The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on
the New American Bible: Old Testament, Edited by Dianne Bergart. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992, pp.
52-62.
In
addition, the word “han-na’ar” is also used in 1 Samuel 3:1 to refer to
the prophet Samuel (peace be upon him), who as we previously mentioned, was
only 12 years old when he became a prophet.
[32] Scholars attribute the
version of Isaac’s near-sacrifice to the “Elohist” (E) source. See The
Collegeville Commentary, op. cit.,
pp. 60-61.
[35] Emir F. Caner and Ergun
M. Caner, More Than a Prophet: An
Insider’s Response to Muslim Beliefs About Jesus and Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2003), pp. 96-97.
[37] Even though the verse
uses different words to refer to Sarah as Abraham’s “wife” (’ê-šeṯ) and Hagar as his “wife” (lə-’iš-šāh), the latter usage is clearly
established to mean a legitimate wife, as seen by other verses from Genesis,
such as Genesis 20:12, which describes Sarah as “lə-’iš-šāh” as well!
[38] On an unrelated note,
the Caner brothers have been discredited as liars and frauds after even their
fellow Christians pointed out the discrepancies in their “Islamic”
upbringing. For example, see the
following:
Ergun
Caner has even been exposed by his fellow Christians for pretending to speak
Arabic, when in reality, he was speaking gibberish:
In
fact, he has even been caught completely misstating the Shahada,
which is the Islamic declaration of faith, despite the fact that he claimed to have
been a “devout” Muslim before his conversion to Christianity:
[39] It is an undeniable
fact that different versions of the same story were simply brought together later
on, as previously mentioned.
[40] Elsewhere in Genesis,
the Biblical authors concocted the story of the incestuous origins of Israel’s
great enemies, the Moabites and Ammonites.
See our discussion of this in the recently updated article on the
Biblical story of Lot:
Thus,
myth-making is a common phenomenon in the Bible.
[41] Surah As-Saaffat,
37:99-109 (Yusuf Ali Translation).
Regarding
the phrase “بِغُلَامٍ حَلِيمٍ”,
which Yusuf Ali translated as “…of a boy ready to suffer and forbear”,
an alternative rendering is “…of a gentle boy”, as offered by Maulana
Abdul Majid Daryabadi (d. 1977) in his translation (The Glorious Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (Leicester:
The Islamic Foundation, 2001), p. 805).
Indeed, the Arabic word حَلِيمٍ (halimin) is from the root “ح ل م”, and the word “halim” is defined by Lane’s Lexicon (see p. 632)
as:
“…the quality of forgiving
and concealing [offences]…or moderation; gentleness; deliberateness…patience…sedateness;
calmness…”
Hence,
Maulana Daryabadi translated the word “halimin” as “gentle” instead of “forbearing”
(although both are correct). However, the
use of the word in the Arabic is significant given its meaning of both “gentle”
and “forbearing” as it refuted the Biblical charge against Ishmael (peace be
upon him) as being “wild” (Genesis 16:12), as explained by Maulana Daryabadi in
his commentary:
“The epithet
contradicts the ferocity of temperament attributed to Ishmael by the Jews and
Christians”
(Ibid.)
[42] Surah As-Saaffat,
37:112-113.
[43] Sahih Bukhari, Book 55,
Number 582.
[44] John Kaltner, Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction to
the Qur’an for Bible Readers (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), p.
124.
