(1) This is based on the view that the sacrificial son was Isaac, peace be upon him. The sound and established position is otherwise. We therefore reproduce here an extensive discussion by Ibn al-Qayyim and his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on them both, refuting the claim that the sacrificial son was Isaac. Ibn al-Qayyim states in Zad al-Maad, 1:71-75: “The assertion that he was Isaac is false on more than twenty grounds. I heard Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah sanctify his soul, say: This view was merely taken from the People of the Book, although it is false even according to the text of their own Scripture. It states that Allah commanded Abraham to sacrifice his firstborn son; in another wording, his only son. Neither the People of the Book nor the Muslims doubt that Ishmael was his firstborn. What misled those who hold this view is that the Torah in their possession says, ‘Sacrifice your son Isaac.’ This addition, he said, is part of their distortion and fabrication, for it contradicts the statement, ‘Sacrifice your firstborn and only son.’ However, the Jews envied the descendants of Ishmael for this honor. They wished it to belong to themselves, to ascribe it to themselves, and to reserve it for themselves rather than the Arabs. Yet Allah insists on bestowing His favor upon those worthy of it. How can it be said that the sacrificial son was Isaac when Allah, exalted is He, gave Isaac’s mother glad tidings of him and of his son Jacob? Allah relates concerning the angels that, when they came to Abraham with the glad tidings, they said: ‘Do not fear; indeed, we have been sent to the people of Lot.’ His wife was standing by and laughed, so We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob’ (Hud 11:70-71). It is impossible that He should give her glad tidings that she would have a son and then command that he be sacrificed. There is no doubt that Jacob, peace be upon him, is included in these glad tidings. The wording gives glad tidings of both Isaac and Jacob alike, as is evident from the wording and context. If it is said: Had the matter been as you state, ‘Jacob’ would have been in the genitive case, coordinated with ‘Isaac,’ so that the reading would mean, ‘and Jacob after Isaac’—the response is that the nominative form does not prevent Jacob from being included in the glad tidings. Glad tidings are a particular form of speech: the first true and joyful information. Allah’s statement, ‘and after Isaac, Jacob,’ is a sentence containing these qualifications and thus constitutes glad tidings; indeed, the very essence of glad tidings is a declarative sentence. Since glad tidings are speech, this sentence stands in the accusative position as quoted speech, as though the meaning were: ‘And We said to her: After Isaac, Jacob.’ If someone says, ‘I gave so-and-so glad tidings of his brother’s arrival and of his baggage following after him,’ no one would understand this except as glad tidings of both matters together. No person of understanding could doubt this at all. Moreover, the genitive reading is weakened for another reason: the expression, ‘I passed by Zayd, and after him Amr,’ is weak usage. The coordinating particle takes the place of the preposition and should therefore not be separated from the word it governs, just as a preposition is not separated from its governed noun. Further evidence is that, after mentioning the story of Abraham and his sacrificial son in Surat al-Saffat, Allah says: ‘When they had both submitted and he laid him down upon his forehead, We called out to him: “O Abraham, you have fulfilled the vision.” Thus do We reward those who do good. Indeed, this was the clear trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice, and We left for him a favorable mention among later generations: “Peace be upon Abraham.” Thus do We reward those who do good. Indeed, he was among Our believing servants’ (al-Saffat 37:103-111). Then Allah says: ‘And We gave him glad tidings of Isaac, a prophet among the righteous’ (al-Saffat 37:112). This was glad tidings from Allah to him in reward for his patience regarding what he had been commanded. It is very clear that the one given these glad tidings was other than the first son; indeed, the verse is nearly explicit on this point. If it is said: The second glad tidings concerned his prophethood; that is, when the father patiently endured what he had been commanded and the son submitted to Allah’s command, Allah rewarded him by granting him prophethood—the response is that the glad tidings concern the entirety: his very person and existence, and that he would be a prophet. For this reason, ‘a prophet’ is in the accusative as a circumstantial expression denoting a future state; that is, he was destined to become a prophet. It is impossible to exclude the primary subject of the glad tidings and restrict them to the dependent circumstantial qualification, which is supplementary in nature. Rather, if the glad tidings include his prophethood, then they more certainly include his existence. There is likewise no doubt that the sacrificial son was in Mecca. This is why the sacrificial offerings on the Day of Sacrifice are performed there, just as the circuit between Safa and Marwah and the stoning of the pillars commemorate the affair of Ishmael and his mother and establish the remembrance of Allah. It is well known that Ishmael and his mother, rather than Isaac and his mother, were in Mecca. Hence, the place and time of the sacrifice were connected to the Sacred House, in whose construction Abraham and Ishmael both participated. Sacrifice in Mecca was part of the pilgrimage to the House, which was established through Abraham and his son Ishmael in both time and place. Had the sacrifice occurred in Greater Syria, as the People of the Book and those who took from them claim, the sacrificial offerings would have been performed in Greater Syria, not in Mecca. Allah also described the sacrificial son as forbearing, for no one is more forbearing than one who submits himself to be sacrificed in obedience to his Lord. When Allah mentioned Isaac, however, He described him as knowledgeable: ‘Has there come to you the account of Abraham’s honored guests? When they entered upon him, they said, “Peace.” He said, “Peace—an unfamiliar people”’ (al-Dhariyat 51:24-25), until He says: ‘They said, “Do not fear,” and gave him glad tidings of a knowledgeable boy’ (al-Dhariyat 51:28). This was undoubtedly Isaac, for he was born from Abraham’s wife, who was given those glad tidings; whereas Ishmael was born from a concubine. Moreover, they were given glad tidings of Isaac when they had reached old age and despaired of having children, unlike Ishmael, who had been born earlier. Allah has also made it part of human nature that the firstborn child is dearer to parents than those born afterward. When Abraham, peace be upon him, asked his Lord for a child and was granted one, a portion of his heart became attached to loving him. Allah had taken him as an intimate friend, and intimate friendship entails devoting one’s love exclusively to the beloved and allowing no one else to share in it. Thus, when the child took a portion of the father’s heart, the exclusive nature of this intimate friendship required that it be removed from the heart of Allah’s intimate friend. He was therefore commanded to sacrifice his beloved son. When he proceeded to sacrifice him, and his love for Allah proved greater than his love for his child, his intimate friendship was purified of every trace of sharing. There then remained no benefit in the actual slaughter, since the benefit lay in the resolve and in preparing oneself for it. The intended purpose had been attained; the command was abrogated, the sacrificial son was ransomed, Abraham fulfilled the vision, and the Lord’s will was accomplished. It is well known that this trial and test could only have occurred with the first child. It would not have occurred with the later-born child instead of the first; indeed, the later child did not compete with Abraham’s intimate friendship with Allah in a manner that would require the command to sacrifice him. This is exceedingly clear. Sarah, the wife of Allah’s intimate friend Abraham, peace be upon him, was intensely jealous of Hagar and her son, since Hagar was a servant woman. When she gave birth to Ishmael and his father loved him, Sarah’s jealousy intensified. Allah therefore commanded that Hagar and her son be taken away from her and settled in the land of Mecca, so that Sarah’s jealousy might subside. This was from Allah’s mercy and compassion. How, then, could He command Abraham thereafter to sacrifice Sarah’s son while leaving the son of the servant woman unharmed? This would contradict Allah’s mercy toward Sarah, His removing harm from her, and His consoling her. Rather, His perfect wisdom required that he be commanded thereafter to sacrifice the son of the concubine. Then the mistress’s heart would soften toward Hagar and her son, the harshness of jealousy would become mercy, and the blessing of this servant woman and her son would become apparent to her: that Allah would not forsake a household to which this woman and her son belonged. He also wished to show His servants His restoring after breaking, His gentleness after hardship, and how the outcome of Hagar and her son’s patience through separation, loneliness, estrangement, and submission to the sacrifice of the son came to be: their greatest traces and the places where their feet trod became rites and places of worship for His believing servants until the Day of Resurrection. This is Allah’s way with those among His creation whom He intends to elevate: He bestows His favor upon them after their weakness, humiliation, and brokenness. Allah says: ‘We wished to bestow favor upon those who had been oppressed in the land, to make them leaders, and to make them inheritors’ (al-Qasas 28:5). That is Allah’s favor, which He grants to whom He wills; and Allah is the Possessor of tremendous favor.” See also al-Israiliyyat wal-Mawduat by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Shahbah, pp. 353-363.