Talk:Ishmael

message: At the start the article says:
"Ishmael (The hebrew name cotton means all amazingness traped in a single form for eternity he will be the ultimate savior!; Greek: Ισμαήλ; Latin: Ismael; Arabic: إسماعيل‎, ’Ismā‘īl) is a figure"
But when I try to edit it it says:
"Ishmael  (; ; ; , ’Ismā‘īl)  is a figure "
What's up with the Hebrew name?
Has the article been hacked?89.210.189.119 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm that is strange. It looks like copying and pasting the template again fixed it though. I find it odd that it managed to slip under the radar like that though, it made it look like it was just part of the template, so I can't find anywhere it appears on any of the edit history. Peter Deer (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks you fixed it, but I can't see your edit in the history page. Maybe that page is hacked too.89.210.189.119 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even stranger! I can't think of a logical reason why that would be the case. Perhaps a sysop should be talked to about this... Peter Deer (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTH? 

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

message: Some updates to this treatment here:
*The Bahá'í view doesn't warrant mention in the opening paragraphs per WP:Undue weight. In the same vein, the treatment of the Bahá'í should be succinct in the body of the article itself.
*Ishmael isn't a "Manifestation of God" in that religion's theology.
*The "two Ishmaels" observation is not germane as it refers to two different people.
*The Bahá'í Faith takes largely the Islamic view with respect to Ishmael across the board.
Hope this is clear. MARussellPESE 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MARussellPESE for writing the section. --Aminz 06:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bahá'í view

message: A few critiques of this article with respect to the good article review:
# Excellent use of citations.
# Excellent use of images
# Covers the topic very well from several different angels
# Article is relatively stable though a bit less then I would like
Now two minor problems
# references like Hagar (Bible)#Hagar in Jewish mysticism  are probably better handled via a rename like  Hagar in Jewish mysticism 
# Some of the sentences seem to mix discussion between references, for example under Jewish Tradition, In some Rabbinic traditions, Ishmael is said to have had two wives named Aisha and Fatima, the names of Muhammad's wife and daughter.[1] This is understood as a metaphoric representation of the Muslim world (first Arabs and then Turks) with Ishmael.  Better would be something like In some Rabbinic traditions Ishmael is said to have had two wives named Aisha and Fatima.  Those names correspond to the Muslim tradition for the names of Muhammad's wife and daughter. Unless the article means to assert that there is a rabbinic tradition involving the names of Muhammad's wife. 
In my opinion this article satisfies Wikipedia:What is a good article? jbolden1517Talk 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

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

message: The Penteteuch or the Book of the Law spends a lot of time discussing covenants, property rights and inheritances. As he travels south from Haran, through Syria Abram makes a covenant with El Shaddai lord of the land. As he enters the territory of Egypt Abraham makes a covenant with Yahwah the power of the air. Hagar is protected by El Roi the Power of the Well and after Sarah goes with AbiMelech we have Abraham building an alter and perforrming the ritual of Chemosh or the passing of the first born through the flame. What follows in Exodus is a covenant with the people to be law abiding.
The essence of the story is the comparison of the semitic Sharia law of Sarai, with the towrah  to·rä' law  of the Sons of Israel, and the Afroasiatic Egyptian hotep of Hagar as regards laws, decrees, commandments, ordinances, the rights of in laws by birth and by marriage
laws, judgements as to what is right and proper, decrees, commandments, manners, commissions, rules, norms, mores, and conventions.
In comparing the rules of Sharia, torah, dath, hotep, mishpat, nomos regarding inheritance we have on the one hand the common law and on the other the written law; both are taken in terms of having made a contract by establishing a meeting of the minds.
The question is posed as to whats the relative status of Abrams sister by another mother? Under which laws is she permitted to be his wife and under which laws is that prohibited? Under what circumstances can their offspring inherit? next come the question, well what if she has gone with another man?...what if her husband permits it?...what if he not only permits it but encourages it?...what if he decides its necessary to save their lives?... what if it happens again?...what if its necessary to have a child?...what if she can't have a childwith him ...what if he goes with another woman to have a child by her?...what if she goes with another man to have a child by him...
What if the eldest son doesn't survive?...
At the time of this story Hammurabbi has just codified the laws of Babylon and had the code of Hammurabi carved in stone.After the story of Abraham sets the stage the rest of the Pentetuch goes on to look at what we call mosaic law, and then we get that covenant to abide by the absolute power of the written law carved in stone, placed in an ark and the ark housed in a sanctuary in the Egyptian manner. The Egyptians carve their gods in stone, place the stone in an ark and place the ark in a sanctuary.
Then we learn that Yahwah has a consort called Asherah. Like the Egyptian goddess Maat she is a fertility goddess with an eros for wisdom. When judges are appointed the absolute power of the law is tempered with wisdom giving birth to justice.
The bottom line question is under what conditions is Isaacs birthright tsaddiyq  tsad·dēk'  righteous, just, and lawful and when is it krima or criminal? Rktect (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah and Hagar

message: Ishmael's name is from Old Persian asma dēla [asma dǣla] 'eighth son', cf. Old Prussian asmus 'eighth', Latvian dēls 'son' (Latin filius < *dhēl-) . Roberts7 11:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

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

message: Can someone reword the term "theory" from the excerpt
However the belief that the son was Ishmael prevailed, and this view is continued to be endorsed by Muslim scholars.[5] The argument of those Muslims who believed in the Ishmael theory was that "the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob (Qur'an 11:71–74) excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac."[5] The other party held that the son of sacrifice was Isaac since "God's perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac (in Qur'an 12:6) referred to his making Abraham his friend and saving him from the burning bush and to his rescuing Isaac.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Though it depends on the translation used. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording

message: OK, I can see how "multiplying" and "being a populous nation" is a blessing, but the rest?
He will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone's hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
Are these really all good things? Normally, I'd refer to such a thing with a more neutral word, such as "determining someone's destiny".--
It doesn't have to be good. Remember one can Inherit bad things too, not just blessings but curses also. If you censor the bad things then youre making wikipedia a whitewashing instrument.
91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blessings Given to Ishmael" 

message: "Please read this before u take any silly action"
I have edited this article I dont think there is anything to say because the sources for that was the Quran and the verses of the Quran are mentioned in the edited article and Ive also kept a conclusion and literal proof for the editings I have made
One thing I deleted was the theory that some Muslim scholars say that Isaac and Jacob were both promised for Sarah so this means Ishmael was sacrificed. This Beleif and theory is false! because never does the Quran say in Arabic so? the verses that talk about Isaac and Jacob in arabic states that "we gave her the good news of Isaac and after Isaac Jacob" but what many english speakers don't know is that in Arabic grammer the letter BA was kept beside Isaac's name. the letter BA is a letter kept when someone wants to use the word 'with" so the Quran said we gave her glad tidings with Isaac by using the letter BA but however after that the Quran clearly says and after him we gave good news of Jacob but it doesnt use the letter BA the letter BA was only used with Isaac meaning that the angels came to talk about Isaac but after Isaac grew and the sacrifice occured god told Abraham about the birth of Jacob because the style of the Quran tends to talk about something and then states the future act .. the Quran clearly says that the three angels only gave news of Isaac in many verses i mentioned in the article and there is no verse talking about Jacob and the three angels except this one and like i mentioned earlier this verse used the letter BA to say with "we gave her glad tidings with Isaac'" BUT IT DOESNT USE THE LETTER BA WITH JACOB so clearly this verse talks about Isaac and then states the future of when Jacob was born long after Isaac grew with his father TO WALK AND WORK .. nowhere in Islamic tradition or the Quran it states that Jacob had a relation with the tidings of Isaac.. so this is another proof as well as I MYSELF HAVE EDITED THE ARTICLE AND CLEARY MADE THE STORY CLEAR SO A READER WOULD DEFINATLY UNDERSTAND MY POINT WITHOUT HAVING A LOOK AT THIS TALK PAGE... there are many things i didnt mention AS PROVE OF THE BINDING OF ISAAC IN ISLAM like the birth of Isaac give to Abraham when Abraham left his people or when abraham was ordered to sacrifice the un-named son who grew up with him and was given to him miraculously and clearly every knows that Ishmael was taken away from Abraham when he was just a baby nor did Ishmael have a miraculous birth nor did he live with his father to work and walk ....the quranic verse are kept in the article! ... Il put some here to make it easier to see
037.083 YUSUFALI: Verily among those who followed his Way was Abraham.
037.084 YUSUFALI: Behold! he approached his Lord with a sound heart.
037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship?
037.086 YUSUFALI: "Is it a falsehood- gods other than Allah- that ye desire?
037.087 YUSUFALI: "Then what is your idea about the Lord of the worlds?"
037.088 YUSUFALI: Then did he cast a glance at the Stars.
037.089 YUSUFALI: And he said, "I am indeed sick (at heart)!"
037.090 YUSUFALI: So they turned away from him, and departed.
037.091 YUSUFALI: Then did he turn to their gods and said, "will ye not eat (of the offerings before you)?...
037.092 YUSUFALI: "What is the matter with you that ye speak not (intelligently)?"
037.093 YUSUFALI: Then did he turn upon them, striking (them) with the right hand.
037.094 YUSUFALI: Then came (the worshippers) with hurried steps, and faced (him).
037.095 YUSUFALI: He said: "Worship ye that which ye have (yourselves) carved?
037.096 YUSUFALI: "But Allah has created you and your handwork!"
037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!"
037.098 YUSUFALI: (This failing), they then sought a stratagem against him, but We made them the ones most humiliated!
037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
037.100 YUSUFALI: "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
037.101 YUSUFALI: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
037.103 YUSUFALI: So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
037.104 YUSUFALI: We called out to him "O Abraham!
037.105 YUSUFALI: "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
037.106 YUSUFALI: For this was obviously a trial-
037.107 YUSUFALI: And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
037.108 YUSUFALI: And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
037.109 YUSUFALI: "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
037.110 YUSUFALI: Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
037.111 YUSUFALI: For he was one of our believing Servants.
This verse says the WHOLE STORY ... a son was given to Abraham after Abraham left his pagan people and THIS SON WAS UN NAMED BUT WHAT THE READER CAN TAKE AS A CLUE IS THAT THE UN-NAMED SON WAS A CHILD GIVEN TO ABRAHAM AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE
019.041 YUSUFALI: (Also mention in the Book (the story of) Abraham: He was a man of Truth, a prophet.
019.042 YUSUFALI: Behold, he said to his father: "O my father! why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?
019.043 YUSUFALI: "O my father! to me hath come knowledge which hath not reached thee: so follow me: I will guide thee to a way that is even and straight.
019.044 YUSUFALI: "O my father! serve not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against (Allah) Most Gracious.
019.045 YUSUFALI: "O my father! I fear lest a Penalty afflict thee from (Allah) Most Gracious, so that thou become to Satan a friend."
019.046 YUSUFALI: (The father) replied: "Dost thou hate my gods, O Abraham? If thou forbear not, I will indeed stone thee: Now get away from me for a good long while!"
019.047 YUSUFALI: Abraham said: "Peace be on thee: I will pray to my Lord for thy forgiveness: for He is to me Most Gracious.
LOOK AT THIS
019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will TURN away from YOU (ALL) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest."
019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had TURNED away from THEM and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet.
these verses talk about ISAAC GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN ABRAHAM LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE SO THIS PROVES THAT THE UN-NAMED SACRIFICED SON WAS ISAAC BECAUSE THE EARLIER VERSE THAT MENTIONS THE SACRIFICE SAYS ABRAHAM WAS GIVEN A UN-NAMED SON ....... WHO WAS GIVEN TO HIM RIGHT AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE AND LIKE I SAID .. THESE VERSES CLEARLY MENTIONS ISAAC BY NAME AS THE UN-NAMED SON WHO WAS GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE.. so the conclsion is ... Isaac was binded  :)
ps. please do mind my grammer and rush in this talk page thank you
Highdeeboy (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the reliable source guidelines - they do not include exegesis as an option.  ALSO, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET.
I wasnt shouting I was adding where I want you to focus but unfortuantly u didnt! ... this isnt exegesis these are Qurnic verses I provided who cares about Exgesis i Just said that as a historical fact but what better source is there than the Holy Quran ..? seriously Have u had a look at the verses ,, i can provide more but you must tell me what is wrong so I can know?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

text: Again, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LIKE SCREAMING ON THE INTERNET.  Cross referencing verses to clarify them is interpretting them.  I am not calling the verses Tafsir, I am saying that they are being used for Tafsir/Exegesis/interpretation.  I am not defending the Genesis account.  I have no problem with the article including properly sourced additions discussing how there are notable interpretations, but this site is not to be used to advocate any particular interpretation.  If you can provide some source that says that some people interpret the Quran that way, then that would be a good addition. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Quran is just says that it was "Abraham's son" that Abraham was called to sacrifice, without clarifying.  A number of Muslims believe that this refers to Ishmael, and the Quran is ambiguous.  You are presenting different verses to advocate the view that the Quran says it was Isaac, when the actual text is ambiguous.  That is interepretation.  I am not putting my interpretation, I am simply going with the sources that point out that most Muslims believe that it was Ishmael.  If a Christian tried to use ambiguously worded Bible verses that were crossreferenced to try to make a point that is not outright stated in those verses, I would revert their edits (and I have so a lot in the past, here is one example).  Secondary sources are what Wikipedia prefers.  You need to provide secondary sources for your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

message: This articles layout has been heavily modified, however, at this point, no textual content has been deleted... just moved around into their appropriate sections. The intro was burdened by world/religious views. A very short world view summary would suffice if wanted. Jasonasosa (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research from the section: Blessings given to Ishmael was removed. However, the bottom half concerning his brothers was merged into the World views at this point Jasonasosa (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Layout 

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

message: Sending a child and his mother into the desert is a sacrifice by all measure. Oneye1i (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ishmael was indeed sacrificed according to the Torah 

message: Even though the Torah, as collated and rewritten by Ezra the Scribe in the (Babylonian) vernacular upon the return of the tribe of Judah (with Benjamin and the Levites) to Zion under Cyrus the Great of Persia, uses "Yahweh" and derivatives and "El" and derivatives interchangeably, this is not historical.  Yahweh is the God of the Jews (tribe named "Yehuda" or more accurately "Yehudat", worshipper of Yehu, and Abraham was a Hebrew, whose chief God was El or El Elohai (God highest in the pantheon).  So the Abrahamic covenant was with El, the only God he ever knew. Oneye1i (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moses wrote the Torah, and Genesis is the oldest text on the planet.[1] "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Gn 26.5) There was no "rewritten", as confirmed by the DSS. 69.29.213.247 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham never heard of "Yahweh" 

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

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

message: The commentaries on the Quran and the numerous collections of Stories of the Prophets flesh out the Islamic perspective of Ishmael and detail what they describe as his integral part in setting up the Kaaba. According to Muslim tradition, Ishmael was buried in Al Hijr (Kaaba), inside the Sacred Mosque.[38]
Although some books say that he was buried in Al Hijr there are books which also say that he was not. See this, this, and the book Getting the best out of Hajj page - 217. The books which say that he was buried in Al Hijr, reference hadith which is classed mawqoof by this] and by Al Albany. Those mawqoof hadiths can be interpreted saying that Ismail and his mother Hajira are buried in Al Hijr. Plaease also see Tahdheer al-Saajid min Ittikhaadh al-Quboor Masaajid. He was not buried in Al Hijr. There are also websites which say that there are 70 graves underneath Al Hijr (Funny isn't it!!!) . The no. of references i gave certainly say that he was not buried in Al Hijr and outweigh the reference that is cited. The Fatwa by islamqa.com is a strong source, and there's the AlBany's book as well. The least that can be done is to remove the phrase "According to Muslim tradition" because the Muslim tradition certainly does not say that. Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk  10:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buried in Al Hijr  !!!

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

message: This is an explanation for User:AmyMoosey of why their edits continue to be reverted, by myself and User:Hayman30. As your three edits indicate, you seem to want to put some reference about Abraham raping Hagar into this article. If you want to do this, you need to find reliable sources that describe Abraham as raping Hagar. So far, you've simply added in "rape" without a source, which was undone by Hayman30 (). Then you added "possibly non-consensual" to the article, without citing a source, which introduces the same problem, so I undid the edit. Third, you've added a source -- which is progress -- but not the kind of source we can use at Wikipedia. You've added a self-published blog post, which is generally not used here (see WP:BLOGS). For a really good source, which stands a chance of not having your edit removed, I would recommend finding a source published in a peer-reviewed journal or university press, or some similar reliable source as outlined at our policy pace WP:RS.
I want to thank you for your concern about this issue, but I also need to remind you of some of the norms here on Wikipedia for dealing with disagreements about article content. When you see a way to improve an article, and you don't know of any policy reason why your edit would be disallowed, you can go ahead and be WP:BOLD about changing it. However, if someone else removes your edit, as Hayman30 did, and then tries to discuss it with you, the spirit of the WP:BRD policy requires that you and the editor you disagree with try to talk through the issue rather than simply reverting each others changes repeatedly. That can lead to WP:EDITWAR, which is disruptive to producing an encyclopaedia. This is especially true if you're simply reverting the edits of two or more other editors without discussion. A valuable part of Wikipedia's culture is WP:CONSENSUS, which requires editors to try to reach consensus, and which discourages an individual editor from simply re-inserting material without talking through it, especially when multiple editors disagree with them. Repeated reversion without discussion generally leads eventually to the disruptive editor's account being blocked from Wikipedia, and its always a shame to lose an editor. Alephb (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Everything said above also applies to your recent edit at Hagar. Alephb (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagar and Rape 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishmael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113015839/http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/chayeisara63.htm to http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/chayeisara63.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishmael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104064710/http://www.anchorite.org/blog/2006/07/31/biographical-study-on-ishmael/ to http://www.anchorite.org/blog/2006/07/31/biographical-study-on-ishmael/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Genesis Narrative section, the claim is made that “Abraham was blessed so that his descendants would be as numerous as the dust of the earth, but that promise would be to a son of Sarai.” The last phrase — “that promise would be to a son of Sarai” does not seem supported and needs a cite. Yes, Genesis 22 concerns a son of Sarai, but 22:17 — “that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore …” does not specify which of Abraham’s offspring will so ‘multiply’. Citation needed or this phrase should be removed as WP:OR. Humanengr (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising the issue, User:Humanengr. I've removed the unsourced bit. If someone can find a source, I'd have no objection to it or something like it being added back in. Alephb (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  “that promise would be to a son of Sarai.” ?? 

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