Let’s begin with a simple point of logic. There is no academic proof that Adam and Eve existed. Yet Christians ground their understanding of “Original Sin” in the existence of these two figures, and Muslims understand humanity’s role on earth as Khalīfah—“Vice Regent of God”—through the same foundational story.
So does the absence of archaeological or academic evidence invalidate these beliefs? Not at all. Faith does not depend on academic verification. Faith is supported by reason, reflection, and the moral truth conveyed through sacred narratives. We have no hard evidence that any major figure in the Torah existed either, yet believers still benefit from the lessons embedded in their stories. Faith, by its nature, is not contingent on laboratory proof.
This becomes especially relevant whenever people attempt to dismiss Islamic or Biblical narratives as mere “myths.” A story can be described as a myth by scholars and yet still convey deep spiritual, historical, or moral truth. The question is not whether every detail can be excavated from the desert sands; the question is whether the narrative conveys meaning, identity, and continuity—and whether it respects what we already know from history and linguistics.
The Issue of Ishmael and the "Arabic" Language
Some critics try to discredit the Islamic tradition that Ishmael learned “Arabic” from the Arab tribe of Jurhum, arguing that standardized Classical Arabic did not exist at that time. This criticism misunderstands both history and linguistics.
The academic sources people cite are usually referring to standardized Arabic—the literary, codified form that emerges around the 4th century CE and becomes fully recognizable by the time of the Qur’an. But this says nothing about the existence of earlier Arabian languages and dialects. Pre-Islamic Arabs did not suddenly appear in the 4th century. They existed long before, with their own identities and speech forms.
Before Classical Arabic, there were multiple early Arabian dialects that scholars today call “dead languages,” but at the time were simply considered lugha ʿarabiyya—the languages of the Arabs.
Early Arabian Languages: A Real, Documented Linguistic Landscape
Academics categorize these languages under several branches. One major group is Old North Arabian (ONA), spoken across northern and northwestern Arabia—precisely the regions where the Bible places the ancient “ʿArab” (עֲרָב).
Old North Arabian includes:
-
Safaitic
-
Hismaic
-
Dedanitic
-
Taymanitic
-
Thamudic
These are authentic Arabian languages. They are Semitic, they share recognizable Arab features, and they are historically attested centuries before Classical Arabic took shape.
Alongside ONA, some tribes spoke what scholars call Old Arabic, Proto-Arabic, or Pre-Classical Arabic. These dialects—used by groups such as the Nabataeans and Qedarites—are structurally close to Classical Arabic and show that early Arabic speech forms were already developing well before Islam.
So when a person in the 1st millennium BCE spoke an Arabian dialect, they were, in every meaningful sense, speaking “Arabic”—just not the standardized form codified later.
Ishmael, Akkadians, Jurhum, and Historical Possibility
Critics often claim that Ishmael must have spoken Akkadian because Abraham originated from Mesopotamia. But the ancient Near East was multilingual, and the Biblical and Islamic traditions place Ishmael in contact with Arabian tribes—specifically the tribe of Jurhum.
Akkadian sources themselves mention nomadic Arab groups, calling them Aribi / Arabi (𒀀𒊏𒁉). These references appear centuries before Islam. The people of Jurhum fit precisely into this world: Arabian tribes living near the Hijaz, speaking Arabian dialects, and interacting with broader Semitic cultures.
Is the Ishmael-Jurhum story historically provable? Academics would say: possible, but unverified. They say the same thing about nearly every figure in the Torah, despite acknowledging that these stories preserve cultural memory and reflect real historical settings. Again, reason helps place the narrative in context without relying on absolute proof.
What “Ishmael Learned Arabic” Really Means
When Sahih Bukhari states that Ishmael learned “Arabic,” the phrase simply means:
Ishmael learned the language spoken by the Arabs of his time.
Not the standardized Arabic of 400 CE.
Not Qur’anic Arabic.
But the Semitic dialects historically spoken by Arabian tribes long before Islam.
Since we know Arabs existed, since their languages are well-documented, and since Semitic dialects were widespread in the region, the statement is historically coherent.
Logic supports it. Linguistics supports it. History supports it.
Academic “proof” is unnecessary, because faith and reason already align with what the evidence suggests.
Peer-Reviewed Academic Sources
Here are three academic works—authored by leading scholars—that examine pre-Islamic Arabs and their dialects:
-
Jonathan Owens, A Linguistic History of Arabic (Oxford, 2006)
-
Jonathan Owens, “Arabic and the Case against Linearity in Historical Linguistics”
-
Ahmad al-Jallad, Personal Names in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonia (c. 750–100 BCE) — Chapter 11: “Arabian Names”
These sources confirm the complexity, diversity, and antiquity of the Arabian linguistic landscape—long before Islam.
Comments
Post a Comment