Was Hagar Abraham’s wife according to the Bible?

 Was she a wife or just a concubine? Putting the record straight once and for all

by Ibn Anwar

 

  Christians believe that Hagar was of a lesser position compared to Sarah, Abraham’s first wife. Many would deny her as Abraham’s wife, saying she was only a bondwoman, a slavewoman or a concubine. Some would even go so far as to suggest that the first son of Abraham, Ishmael was illigitimate. What is the cause for these views that are regarded as totally erronuous by Muslims? In my own personal view, the reason is because Muhammad s.a.w. a real opponent of Christianity and Judaism and considered as such by their followers claimed lineage via Ishmael(Isma’il in Arabic). Some Christians may think that by demeaning Hagar, Muhammad’s credibility by extension can be shaken. I’m not saying this is the only window of opportunity for these detractors, but, it is one of many. It has been the nature of many Christians(not all) throughout the ages to attack Islam from whichever and whatever position possible. One of the earliest can be traced back to John of Damascus which I’ve written about in an article prior to this one.  Since then, hundreds and thousands of literature have been dedicated and circulated the world over in the never ending effort of attacking Islam and its followers. What then is my response to this particular angle of offense?

   Who was Hagar according to the Bible? To answer this question we need to go to Genesis chapter 16, verse 3.

ותקח שרי אשת־אברם את־הגר המצרית שפחתה מקץ עשר שנים לשבת אברם בארץ כנען ותתן אתה לאברם אישה לו לאשה׃

“and Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”

The word wife referring to Hagar in the verse is “ishhah” which is the exact and precise same word used for Sarai in the same verse as well as in others such as Genesis 16:1 and Genesis 13:1. In fact, in the Old Testament language the word most commonly used for wife is ‘ishhah with occassional and rare exceptions as in the case of Genesis 20:3 where ishhah is alternatively translated as woman and the word wife occurs at the end by the word ba’al which means to have dominion over. However, we should note that “piylegesh” which means concubine is never confused with ‘ishhah. For example, we see a clear distinction between wives and concubines in Solomon’s case:

And he had seven hundred wives as queens, and three hundred concubines: and the women turned away his heart.”

In Hebrew we read sheba’ me’ah ishhah = 700 wives and shalowsh me’ah piylegesh = 300 concubines. The two sets of women are clearly not the same, otherwise they’d have been put together as 1000 women or wives or concubines or 1000 wives and concubines. Yet, we see wives are distinguished from concubines and vice versa. Why then are such Christians like the one who wrote this, “A Handmaid Becomes a Concubine” http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000820.htm (Canadian Bible study ministry) insists on calling Hagar a concubine instead of a wife in tandem with Genesis 16:3? The reason may stem from the reasoning I gave earlier backed by this seemingly “contradictory” verse and the false understanding adduced from it:

“Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines (Hagar and Keturah) Abraham gave gifts…” (Genesis 25:5-6)

You may notice that we’ve stumbled upon something. Earlier we encountered a verse which identifies Hagar as a wife, but now we encounter another( a much later verse ) saying she’s a concubine. Which is it? Is there a contradiction? Let us analyse some of the prevalent understandings about these two seemingly problematic verses and see whether they hold water or not.

The standard Christian apologist view:

Presumably, the reason why Moses calls Keturah a concubine of Abraham right after stating that she was his wife is to highlight the fact that she was a second wife who never attained to the status of Sarah.”

“This privileged status of Sarah was never given or transferred over to either Hagar or Keturah. “

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/keturah.htm

 
 
 

 

pre·sum·a·ble      (prĭ-zōō’mə-bəl)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.   That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster.

pre·sum’a·bly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

“presumably” is the key word in the whole thesis. It means the author is unsure or uncertain about his claims. If he was he would not have used the term presume which is similar to assume. It is safe to say one should not bind oneself to his presumed opinion for it lacks sufficient evidence, thus the use of the word presumably. I agree the word does also mean likely, but notice that likely means there is a chance for possible error. And indeed there is error.

  The basis for his opinion that Sarah has a higher status compared to Hagar is due to the alleged covenant made with Sarah and Abraham leaving Hagar out of the picture. I reproduce the passage which he has chosen to support his exposition :

“‘As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish MY COVENANT as an EVERLASTING COVENANT between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give AS AN EVERLASTING POSSESSION to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God’ … God also said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.’ Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, ‘Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?’ And Abraham said to God, ‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!’ Then God said, ‘Yes, BUT your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH HIM AS AN EVERLASTING COVENANT FOR HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIM. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. BUT MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC, WHOM SARAH WILL BEAR TO YOU BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR.’” Genesis 17:4-8, 17-21

There’s a trick being played here. Did you notice it whilst reading? Perhaps if I reproduce the section wherein the trick is being played you’ll notice it:

I will give AS AN EVERLASTING POSSESSION to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God’ … God also said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

What are the dots “…” ? The dots which I myself have used in this article is an indication that  there is a break in the quotation, which means there is more to be read but the author for reasons best known to him has chosen not to quote. In this very instance, the reason is because he wants to hide a most crucial information about the covenant from you. Let’s go through these crucial verses which the author decided was not important for the readers:

And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you will keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.”

This is My covenant which you will keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you will be circumcised;

and you will be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.

“He who is eight years old among you will be circumcised, every male child among your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.”

“He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”

And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person will be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

(Genesis 17:7-14)

And Ishmael became part and parcel of the covenant as Abraham’s first born:

And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. That very same day Abraham was circumcised, and his son Ishmael.”

As a matter of fact, Ishmael bearing the sign of the covenant and being Abraham’s first descendant entered into the covenant. The covenant was made with Ishmael as well as Isaac. It was not just Isaac who was given the covenant(through Sarah) as what the author attempts to argue. The first part of the passage is clearly speaking in a most general way without any restriction to whom precisely amongs Abraham’s descendants shall inherit the covenant. It says “I will establish MY COVENANT as an EVERLASTING COVENANT between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you”. For Christians to say the covenant was only via Isaac they must prove Ishmael was not Abraham’s descendant, which of course they cannot. One way they can argue this is by saying that Hagar was not liked and was kicked out into the wild. This is not true, but say for the sake of argument we were to agree, that does not in any way disqualify Ishmael as Abraham’s descendant. We read in Deuteronomy 21: 15 to 17 :

Suppose a man has two wives, but he loves one and not the other, and both have given him sons. And suppose the firstborn son is the son of the wife he does not love. When the man divides his inheritance, he may not give the larger inheritance to his younger son, the son of the wife he loves, as if he were the firstborn son.He must recognize the rights of his oldest son, the son of the wife he does not love, by giving him a double portion. He is the first son of his father’s virility, and the rights of the firstborn belong to him.”

Clutching at straws one may further ask,” Why does Genesis 17:15 to 19 specifically speak of Sarah and a covenant being made through her and Isaac, this must mean she is special.” I admit that you will find no equal passage in Hagar’s case, but the reasoning proposed is faulty. Did you know that God never spoke to Sarah at all? But we find that God communicated to Hagar as how He communicated to Abraham. Was Abraham special? Yes, of course he was and as such he was privileged to communicate with God which is the exact same privilege granted to Hagar but not Sarah. God spoke to Hagar in Genesis 17, verses 7,9, 10 and 11 and once again in Genesis 21:17 to 20. In contrast, God never once spoke to Sarah, but spoke only via the angel through Abraham regarding Sarah. This can be seen in Genesis 17, verse 15 and Genesis 18, verse 13. One would think that if the great covenant was truly bestowed upon this opportuned woman, Sarah and her opportuned son Isaac, God would have spoken to her once, as how God spoke to Abraham and incidentally Mary via Angel. Shall I now conclude that from this standpoint Hagar is of greater status than Sarah?

In any case, whether one likes it or not Genesis 16:3 is very clear in saying that Hagar was Abraham’s wife and I have yet to see a major English Bible which translates it differently.

 

Genesis 16:3
 
 
New American Standard Bible
After Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Abram’s wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife.


King James Bible
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

American King James Version
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelled ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

American Standard Version
And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.

Douay-Rheims Bible
She took Agar the Egyptian her handmaid, ten years after they first dwelt in the land of Chanaan, and gave her to her husband to wife.

Darby Bible Translation
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar, the Egyptian, her maidservant, at the end of ten years that Abram had dwelt in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram, as his wife.

English Revised Version
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

World English Bible
Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.

Young’s Literal Translation
And Sarai, Abram’s wife, taketh Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, at the end of the tenth year of Abram’s dwelling in the land of Canaan, and giveth her to Abram her husband, to him for a wife,

 

Nevertheless, the question why one verse says wife and another says concubine is yet unanswered. Insha’Allah, it will be in due course. Let us now consider the other side of the coin.

 

The standard Muslim apologist view:

“The inconsistencies in Genesis 25:5-6 were so serious that the story is tantamount to impossibility. Therefore it is highly likely that Gen. 25:5-6 were latter imputes by the ancient scribes.

(Was Ishmael or Isaac Taken for Sacrifice?, A.S. Abraham)

The common Muslim stand is to shout corruption. Whilst I do not have a problem with this particular stance, I think there is a much better way to resolve the dispute in this case. If the popular belief that a concubine(hood) is a lesser position than wife(hood), then A.S. Abraham and other Muslim apologists will have a good case, since a wife can’t be a concubine and vice versa at the same time. Jeremiah 8:8 may be true in many cases, but perhaps it is not so accurate in this.

 

Reconciliation

A concubine recognized among the ancient Hebrews. She enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives themselves gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife; and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her. Thus Jacob never forgave his eldest son for violating Bilhah (Gen. xxxv. 22, xlix. 4). According to the story of Gibeah, related in Judges xix., 25,000 warriors of the tribe of Benjamin lost their lives on account of the maltreatment and death of a concubine. Abner, Saul’s first general, deserted Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, who had reproached his leader with having had intercourse with Rizpah, the daughter of his royal father’s concubine, Aiah (II Sam. iii. 7); and Absalom brought the greatest dishonor upon David by open intercourse with his father’s concubines (ib. xvi. 21 et seq.).

The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife. Abraham dismissed his natural sons with gifts (Gen. xxv. 6), and Jacob’s sons by Bilhah and Zilpah were equal with his sons by Leah and Rachel; while Abimelech, who subsequently became king over a part of Israel, was the son of Gideon-jerubbaal and his Shechemite concubine (Judges viii. 31). In the time of the Kings the practise of taking concubines was no longer due to childlessness but to luxury. David had ten concubines (II Sam. xv. 16), who, however, also did housework; Solomon had 300 (I Kings xi. 30); and his son Rehoboam had sixty (II Chron. xi. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=313&letter=P&search=concubine

In a nutshell, the difference is just in a small technicality regarding a formal contract with legal stipulations which is absent in the case of Hagar. That’s about it. Otherwise, both concubine and wife share the same degree of respect and status. According to the Bible Hagar was a wife, but also a concubine in the sense that she did not have a written contract for her marriage(that does not question the legality of her marriage to Abraham in the least bit). This is perhaps the only reasonable mid-way view to take. But of course we can always go down the road of contradictions and corruptions which I think the Muslims have an upper hand ;). In summation, the Bible does teach that Hagar was the legitimate wife of Abraham which is why in Genesis 16:3 she is regarded as his wife, in Genesis 17:20 her son Ishmael is blessed, in Genesis 17:23-26 Ishmael inherits the covenant and in Genesis 16: 7,9,10 and 11 God spoke to Hagar.

  In truth, there are many problems with the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar in Genesis, which we may further detail next time, but for now as to the question Was Hagar Abraham’s wife according to the Bible, I cannot emphasise enough that one must say YES.

 

Incoming search terms:

  • was hagar abraham\s wife
  • Was Hagar Abrahams Wife
  • was abraham married to hagar
  • was hagar married to abraham
  • did abraham marry hagar
  • hagar abrahams wife
  • write a brief comment on the women in Abrahams life That is Sarah Hagga and Keturah
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

18 Responses to “Was Hagar Abraham’s wife according to the Bible?”

  1. Ali says:

    Sallam brother Ibn Anwar,
    When one reads an article he is able to see ways where the article may be a little bit flawed, or a bit deceiving , and this is the case for many articles, and this holds no bias what so ever. Muslims have flaws in there articles and may also have deceiving translations or arguments and vice versa to Christians and others.. When it comes to this article I can almost make the claim that this is a perfect article.. This has to be the first article that I have a read in a very long time which probably is close to perfection if not already so. You have not left any openings for possible responses. You showed the original language used , you showed almost ALL of the English translated versions of the bible to support your case, and you used one of the most infamous anti Islamic websites to even support you case. Your argument is thorough and conclusive. I will definitely be giving this another read, and even saving some of the arguments for future references.
    I pity the person who tires to respond to this. Though impossible is nothing.
    The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) came to us, and did many things, one of those many things he did, is that he showed us the perfection of character. So it saddens me that people may use such weak arguments to shaken his credibility, but alhamdullah we have Muslims such as yourself to swap away these lies.

    Walikum Salam Wr Wb

  2. roqayah says:

    Salam W Alaikum W RahmatAllah W Barakatoo
    InshaAllah inta be kheir ekhi
    I have been a big fan of your blog for some time now, to make that clear I would love to say “WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE!?” lol

    Please keep up the good work and stop by anytime 🙂

    Your sister in Islam
    -Roqayah

  3. Ibn Anwar says:

    Ws wr,
    Alhamdulillah ana bi khair : ). You’ve been a big fan of the blog for quite some time? i didn’t know that..in fact, i didn’t know u existed before a few hours ago lol : p. Where have i been? here, i guess? lol

    Thanks sis, your blog’s great too and keep it up ; ). Jazahullah.

    Sincerely,
    Ibn Anwar

  4. George says:

    Ismael is not of the Abrahamic covenant according to the Bible. Abraham’s name was Abram when Hagar had Ishmael. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham right before Sarah had Isaac. According to the Bible, the covenant went through Isaac, not Ishmael.

    Ishmael is the father of Arabs, not Muslims. Arabs can be Jews, Christians Hindus or any religion they want.

    Islam did not come into effect until the year 622AD when a man named Mohammed founded the religion.

  5. Ibn Anwar says:

    GReetings,
    Ishmael did enter into the covenant with God as did Isaac. Genesis 17 shows that as discussed in the article. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say that the covenant went only through Isaac.
    Yes, I know Ishmael is the common father of the Arabs. Muslims trace their lineage back to Ishmael, not biologically, but spiritually. Yes, Arabs can be Jews, Christians or Muslims…but Hindus? I’m not so sure about that. I’ve never heard of a Hindu Arab before lol. But, in like manner, the descendants of Isaac can also be Jews, Christians and Muslims. So, I’m not sure what your point is.

    Islam came before Muhammad s.a.w. i.e. submission to God’s will which all previous Prophets did. However, the Islam as we know it today with the form of shari’ah(teachings and laws etc.) did indeed begin with Muhammad s.a.w.

  6. George says:

    Your reply says that nowhere does it explicitly indicate that God established His covenant only with Isaac, but it is as plain as day in verse 21 of Genesis chapter 17 which reads: – “But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.”

    Verse 20 of Genesis chapter 17 shows that God did not make a covenant with Ishmael, but told Abraham that Ishmael will be blessed and fruitful and God will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget and I will make him a great nation. It is in verse 21 that God mentions where He will establish His covenant and it is with Isaac.

    No word of God making a covenant to Ishmael is ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It might be mentioned in the Koran, but not in the Bible. If you find it mentioned in the Bible, I would like to see it. The covenant through Isaac and Jacob is mentioned many times, but not once does the Bible state that God established His covenant through Ishmael. Abraham might have circumcised Ishmael, but he also circumcised his servants too. That is not the covenant.

  7. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but nowhere does Genesis 17 suggest that the covenant was ONLY to pass through Isaac. The verse you mentioned says, “but my covenant will I establish …”. I personally, have no compunction in accepting this. Yes, Isaac was given the covenant, but does it say he is the ONLY one? The verse prior to this speaks of Ismael being blessed, does the verse say that that is the only thing he is rewarded and excluded out of the covenant? No, it doesn’t say anything like that. These are nothing more than your assertions. But, if you read the whole chapter and pay particular attention to that part which speaks about the covenant in the most general of manner and which says that the SIGN of the covenant is the circumcision of the foreskin and that it shall be a sign unto Abraham’s DESCENDANTS which Ishmael clearly was and connect that to the verses nearing the end where Ishmael is clearly made into the covenant via circumcision along with Abraham’s whole household. Again, the key section is when God says, THE SIGN of the covenant is the circumcision of the foreskin and that Abraham’s descendants(without excluding either Ishmael or Isaac) will be made into it. Ishmael clearly bore the SIGN of the circumcision and as a legitimate descendant of Abraham he bears the covenant as well.

  8. Halim Naeem says:

    Salaams Ibn Anwar,

    My name is Halim Naeem. I would like to know your email and converse with you about some topics in religion that I am trying to address. I’m a doctoral student in Psychology. I am writing my dissertation on Personality and Religion. I read your article and I am an instant fan of yours! It is very refreshing to see sopshisticated arguements and assertions backed by kniowledge about religion. I had a comment and a question. Based on my small readings of Hinduism, there is so many different theological beliefs and nuances that are accepted into being a Hindu, that people debate if it is really a religion or just a philosophical orientation (such as Buddhism). So I do believe, based on the little I know, that there is room for an Arab to believe in Allah and be a Hindu. Again, that is based on limited research.

    My question for you. Where did Arabic really come from? And what language did Haggar speak (wife of Abraham, who I believe was ethnically Sudanese) I hear people say Arabic comes from the “3A’raab” (pure Arabs from the Gulf region). But for some reason, I don’t buy it. The first Arab known to speak Arabic (as far as Islamic history goes) is Ismail. Did he get it from mom? I know he couldn’t have gotten it from dad. Did he get it from the tribe who took him in? If so, what are the origins of the tribe who took him in? Its an intriguing topic which I am sure you can contribute significantly towards. Jazakallah Khair and thank you. I look forward to your response.

  9. Ibn Anwar says:

    Assalamu’alaikum,
    Thank you for dropping by akhi Halim Naeem. I truly appreciate your comments, queries and especially the reminder. May Allah bless you immensely for your concern : ). With regards to your question about Hinduism. Well, there are scholars who disagree with this label which was first given to those who believed in Krishna, Vishnu and the like by the British. According to some Hindu intellects the proper name that Hindus ought to subscribe to is Vedantism instead of Hinduism. Vedantism stems from the four most important books of the Hindus namely, the Vedas. The argument is quite simple. Hinduism comes from the root Hind which is in reality the name given to the geographical location which is known today as India. Linguistically, anyone who hails from the lands of Hind may be addressed as a Hindu. So, some scholars have opted for an alternative name i.e. Vedantist to describe the follower and Vedantism to describe the philosophy or religion. However, the term Hindu is still widely and commonly used as the official label for followers of the Hindu pantheon of gods due to the long history in which it has been used to describe them.
    You said,”Based on my small readings of Hinduism, there is so many different theological beliefs and nuances that are accepted into being a Hindu, that people debate if it is really a religion or just a philosophical orientation (such as Buddhism).”
    Unlike so called Abrahamic faiths, “new age” kind of beliefs are often unstandardised and can even be disorganised. It is what the believer makes it out to be instead of the other way around. This is a common characteristic of most polytheistic belief systems(that are unsystemised lol)since time immemorial. That however, does not change the fact that Hinduism is a religion. Some people have the mistaken belief that religion means a rigid standardised system of conformity to a set of strict set of regulations and beliefs. This is not so. Religion is simple a reference to the belief in the supernatural or of things that are beyond human capacity e.g. escathology and metaphysics. The reason why some faiths like Wicca for instance and sometimes even Christianity say that their belief systems are not religions stems from either linguistic ignorance of the word or that they feel the need to detach themselves from a word who’s image has been tarnished by its so called adherents e.g. bloodshed, war etc. These are unfortunate issues often associated with religion. So in trying to be free from such undesirable things they refuse the word religion. There’s a word to describe this sickness. It’s called “immasculated” : p. In any case, It is prohibited for Muslims to associate(believe) in Hindu anthropomorphic ideas. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for an Arab to believe in both Allah an in the entire Hindu pantheon of gos and maybe even join the Hare Krishna movement. It would be rather strange though, since I have never heard nor seen a Hindu Arab before lol.

    With regards to the Arabic language. I must admit before hand that though I have studied Arabic for many years, I have never delved into the origins of the language in any in depth manner. It is however known in academic circles and those who care to research that the language may have evolved from Nabatean since that is where the Arabic script began as observed by T. Noldeke. Of course, we also know that its sister languages include the Syiriac as well as the Hebrew. I do not think that Hagar spoke Arabic. According to the Bible, Hagar came from Egypt, if that is the case she must have spoken languages associated with Egypt at that time instead of Arabic. Even if she spoke Arabic it would have been proto-Arabic and not in the Quraisy dialect which the Qur’an is preserved in. Allah knows best.

    Ibn Anwar

    P.S. my e-mail is ibnanwar@yahoo.com

  10. zbhotto says:

    I have absolutely no doubt about ISHMAEL (PBUH). He is and must be the person GOD almighty asked IBRAHIM (PBUH) to sacrifice. This is because I believe in KORAN. BUt to shake the jew/christians vague beliefs would you please write an article about this issue. I have read such article in http://www.islamonline.net where it is clearly established that ISHAEL (PUBH) was chosen to be sacrificed not ISAAC by using the bibilical and Quaranic account. Unfortunately this site is closed now.

  11. Sarah says:

    Many Christians and Jews alike educate that Hagar was NOT Abraham’s ‘wife’ but a concubine. However, their scripture teaches otherwise. In the book of Genesis it is clearly mentioned that Sarah gave Hagar as WIFE to Abraham

  12. Sebastian says:

    Salaam alaikum brother. Thank you for this excellent ilucidation of the fact of ishmael’s right to the covenant with YHWH. Jazakalla Khair.

  13. ORACLE says:

    I have studied these topics of religion for many years and have concluded in the end someone will be wrong. I can confirm this, Jesus is a man who will never be forgotten, a mediator between God and man, a man who is spoke about in the Holy Koran and the Holy Hebrew Bible. I can say this, I would rather have Jesus in my heart and not need him in the end than need him in the end and not have him.

    In conclusion of this subject and my research I will say Jesus is the man you to have in your heart and for the muslim people, it wouldnt hurt any of you at all to include him in your hearts because he loves you. It wouldnt be an insult to Muhammad considering he is openminded however there can only be one saviour.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Muslims do have Jesus in their hearts since he is one of our prophets. In fact, a Muslim cannot be a Muslim without believing in his prophethood. That is within one of the five pillars of Islam. If you have actually done studied on Islam then you would know this together with the fact that the Qur’an speaks frequently and favourably of Jesus.

  14. Dawn says:

    Thank you for this article. I came across it because I was flipping through the Bible and noticed something in 1 Chronicles 1:28 which states: The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael. Then the caption Descendants of Hagar and list Ishmael’s sons. Then the caption Descendants of Keturah verse 32 states: The sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: and list her sons. Then the caption Descendants of Sarah. This reference in 1 Chronicles also supports the fact that Hagar was indeed Abraham’s wife and is listed before Sarah in this Historical record.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You’re welcome Dawn. Please continue to visit our site and share it with your acquaintances. Salam.

  15. ak says:

    tnx for the article

  16. Jeannie says:

    Great article! Lots to think about. I enjoyed the comments as well. I’m a Christian, who loves to hear all points of view and clarifications about issues. You made good arguments.

Leave a Reply