Abraham’s Near Sacrifice: Why No Torah Commemoration?

The story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son stands as one of the most dramatic and defining episodes in the shared heritage of the Abrahamic faiths. Known in Jewish tradition as the Akedah (“the binding”), this test of obedience demonstrates Abraham’s total submission to God. Yet one striking question remains: why does the Torah prescribe no festival or ritual to commemorate such a pivotal event, even though it ordains commemorations for other moments of salvation and faith?

📖 Torah’s Silence

The book of Genesis describes the scene in stark terms:

“Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering…” (Genesis 22:2)
The text names Isaac as the intended son. Yet, for all its significance, the Torah gives no command to remember this event in the ritual life of Israel. By contrast, the Torah carefully prescribes detailed festivals for other acts of divine deliverance: Passover recalls the Exodus, Shavuot remembers the giving of the Law, and Sukkot marks the wilderness wanderings. In the case of the Akedah, however, silence reigns.

🕋 Islam’s Commemoration

Islam preserves the story in living ritual through the festival of Eid al-Adha. Each year, millions of Muslims worldwide commemorate Abraham’s test of faith with practices that echo the original event:

• Qurbani (sacrifice of livestock) recalls God’s substitution of a ram.
• Prayers unite the community in remembrance.
• Charity ensures that the poor share in the meat.
• Universality makes the commemoration a global act of worship.

In Islamic tradition, the son who was nearly sacrificed is identified as Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn. Thus, what Judaism remembers only in narrative, Islam enshrines in ritual and practice.

❓ The Scholarly Puzzle

This divergence raises a significant puzzle: why would Judaism, with its rich festival calendar, omit commemoration of such a defining story? If Isaac was truly the son placed upon the altar, then surely his survival—no less than the Exodus—warrants annual remembrance.

Some scholars suggest that Genesis 22:2 may have undergone redaction, with the name “Isaac” inserted in place of “Ishmael.” If the original tradition centered on Ishmael, the absence of Jewish ritual commemoration begins to make sense: a story once attached to Abraham’s firstborn was later reshaped, and silence became the safest theological option.

🏺 Historical-Critical Insight

From a historical-critical perspective, the silence of the Torah may itself be evidence of earlier memories. It is possible that the original story celebrated Ishmael as the son of sacrifice, a view preserved in Islamic tradition. Later scribes, seeking to reinforce Israel’s covenantal identity through Isaac, may have shifted the narrative. The result was a text that names Isaac, but a ritual calendar that refuses to enshrine the memory—reflecting the unease of a rewritten tradition.

🔍 Comparative Framework

The contrast between traditions can be summarized as follows:

• Judaism → The Torah recounts the story but prescribes no festival. The Akedah is remembered in prayer and commentary, but not ritually enacted.
• Islam → The near sacrifice is ritually commemorated through Eid al-Adha, making it a central act of worship and identity.
• Scholarship → The absence of Jewish commemoration is itself a clue, pointing to possible textual evolution and redaction.

🌟 Conclusion

The silence of the Torah is as meaningful as its words.

• For Judaism, the story of Abraham’s test lives in memory but not in ritual practice.
• For Islam, it is a central, annual commemoration, binding the global community in submission to God’s will.
• For scholars, the absence of Torah commemoration hints at deeper layers of textual evolution and theological rewriting.

In the end, the children of Abraham inherited the same story but carried it forward in different ways—Judaism with silence, Islam with celebration. This divergence reflects not only theological difference, but also the complex history of how sacred texts were remembered, reshaped, and lived.

Isaac or Ishmael? A Comparative Study of the Abrahamic Covenant in Islam and the Bible

1. Why Islamic Scholars Believe the Torah Was Altered Regarding Ishmael

The Qur’an accuses some Jewish scribes of altering scripture:

“Do you hope they will believe you, when some of them used to hear the words of God then distort them after they had understood them, knowingly?” (Qur’an 2:75)
“So woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from God,’ to exchange it for a small price.” (Qur’an 2:79)
This doctrine of taḥrīf (distortion) is applied by Muslim exegetes to the Abrahamic covenant narratives. They argue that the Torah originally gave Ishmael covenantal prominence, but Jewish scribes altered the text to place Isaac in that role for political and ethnic reasons:

• Ethnic exclusivity: Restricting the covenant to Isaac made it Israel’s exclusive inheritance.

• Religious authority: Elevating Isaac justified Israel’s claim to be God’s sole chosen people.

• Arab-Israelite rivalry: Excluding Ishmael delegitimized the Ishmaelites (later Arabs) as covenantal heirs.

⸻

2. Islamic Reasons Supporting Ishmael’s Role

a. Qur’anic Testimony

• Universal covenant: Abraham was promised leadership for his descendants, but God limited it to the righteous, not by bloodline (Qur’an 2:124). Ishmael qualifies.

• The Sacrifice Narrative: Qur’an 37:101–112 implies the sacrificed son was Ishmael, since Isaac’s birth is mentioned after the sacrifice story.

• Kaaba (House of God) and prayer for Ishmael’s descendants: Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba and prayed for a messenger from their line (Qur’an 2:127–129) — fulfilled in Muhammad ﷺ.

• Praise for Ishmael: The Qur’an honors Ishmael as a prophet and covenant-keeper (Qur’an 19:54–55).

b. Historical logic

• Firstborn son: By ancient Near Eastern custom, Ishmael (the firstborn) should have been covenantal heir unless disqualified — but the Bible itself shows God blessing him greatly (Genesis 17:20).

• Circumcision: Ishmael was circumcised at the age of 13, on the same day as his father Abraham, and before Isaac was born (Genesis 17:23–25). This means that Ishmael entered the covenant earlier than Isaac. Therefore, the theological importance of Isaac’s circumcision is similar to that of the other members of Abraham’s household.

• Sacrificial test: Islam preserves Ishmael’s central role in the great test of faith, commemorated annually at Eid al-Adha. Judaism and Christianity, in contrast, have no liturgical commemoration of Isaac’s binding (Akedah), which Muslims see as a sign of textual alteration.

⸻

3. Biblical Reasons that Support the Islamic Assertion

Even within the Bible, there are tensions and clues that suggest Ishmael’s role was more significant than later scribes allowed:

1. Ishmael is blessed to become a “great nation”

• “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.” (Genesis 17:20)

This blessing closely parallels covenantal promises given to Isaac.

2. Circumcision before Isaac

• Genesis 17:23–25 explicitly records Ishmael’s circumcision as covenantal sign, before Isaac’s birth. This raises the question: why would the covenant sign be given to one excluded from it?

3. Ambiguity of the Sacrifice Story

• In Genesis 22:2, Isaac is named as the son to be sacrificed. But Muslim scholars argue this insertion is suspicious because:

• Earlier verses (Genesis 22:1) simply say “your son, your only son” — which could only have referred to Ishmael at the time, since Isaac wasn’t born until later.

• The phrase “your only son” makes no sense if Isaac is meant, because Ishmael was alive. Thus, the text seems edited.

4. No Jewish Festival for the Binding

• Despite its centrality, Judaism has no feast commemorating Isaac’s binding, whereas Islam preserves its memory through Eid al-Adha. This absence suggests the Isaac-centered version was secondary.

5. Arab traditions of Abraham and Ishmael

• Pre-Islamic Arabs preserved traditions of Abraham and Ishmael at the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca. This continuity indicates Ishmael’s role was widely remembered outside of Jewish editing.

⸻

4. Ishmael as a Baby: A Biblical Contradiction

The book of Genesis presents Ishmael in a way that appears inconsistent with the chronological details of the narrative:

• Genesis 21:14–18: Abraham sends Hagar away with bread and water, placing the child on her shoulder as though he were an infant. Later, Hagar lays Ishmael under a bush, unable to watch him die of thirst, until an angel instructs her to “lift the boy up.”

• Genesis 21:20: The text continues, “And God was with the boy as he grew,” which further suggests an image of early childhood.

Yet, according to the timeline, Ishmael would have been around 16–17 years old at this point (Genesis 16:16; 21:5). The description of him as a helpless baby therefore introduces a contradiction within the Biblical account.

Importantly, this very portrayal aligns with the Islamic perspective: Ishmael was still an infant when Hagar left Abraham’s household and settled in the valley of Makkah, where God provided for them. Thus, the Biblical imagery of Ishmael as a young child, though inconsistent with its own chronology, indirectly supports the Islamic tradition that situates his expulsion in infancy.

Conclusion

The ambiguous wording of the sacrifice narrative—where the phrase “your son, your only son” could only have referred to Ishmael at that time—and the fact that Ishmael was circumcised alongside Abraham before Isaac’s birth, strongly indicate his covenantal significance. These elements suggest that Ishmael was indeed a rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant, but the text was later shaped to elevate Isaac while diminishing Ishmael’s original role.

The contradictions within Genesis — portraying Ishmael as both a teenager by chronology and as a helpless baby by narrative — point to possible textual reshaping intended to diminish his stature in favor of Isaac. At the same time, this very imagery, whether intentional or not, indirectly supports the Islamic belief that Ishmael was in fact an infant when he left Abraham’s household with Hagar.

Islam affirms that Ishmael was never rejected. Instead, he was a prophet, covenant-bearer, and forefather of Muhammad ﷺ. Through him, the Abrahamic covenant found its universal fulfillment, not confined to one lineage but extending to all nations through Muhammad and the message of Islam.

Isaac: A Son of Joy, Not Sacrifice — Rethinking the Identity of the Sacrificial Son

The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son is one of the most profound and contested episodes in the Abrahamic traditions. While the Hebrew Bible clearly names Isaac as the intended sacrifice, Islamic tradition maintains that it was Ishmael. In recent years, some scholars and believers have revisited the linguistic, theological, and contextual clues surrounding the narrative. A compelling argument centers around the meaning and role of Isaac’s name, suggesting that Isaac’s very identity may indicate he was never meant to be the sacrificial son.

The Meaning of Isaac’s Name

The name Isaac (Hebrew: Yitzḥaq, meaning “he will laugh” or “laughter”) is deeply tied to the emotional response of Abraham and Sarah upon hearing the divine promise that they would have a child in their old age (Genesis 17:17, 18:12). This laughter reflects astonishment, joy, and divine mercy—emphasizing the miraculous and comforting nature of Isaac’s birth. The child represents the culmination of a divine promise and the joy of old age, rather than a figure marked for trial and sacrifice.

Isaac as a Symbol of Fulfillment and Closure

From this perspective, Isaac is seen not as a son of trial, but as a gift of consolation—the final chapter in the long journey of Abraham and Sarah. His birth occurs after decades of wandering, waiting, and testing. His role in the narrative is one of continuation, legacy, and divine reward, not intense sacrifice. The Biblical text even notes that Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90 when Isaac was born—a clear emphasis on grace and joy rather than hardship and testing.

Ishmael as the Son of Trial

In contrast, Ishmael—Abraham’s firstborn by Hagar—is born amid tension, struggle, and uncertainty. According to both Islamic and Biblical narratives, he and his mother were sent away into the wilderness. In the Islamic tradition, this is framed as part of a divine plan, with Ishmael becoming the ancestor of a great nation and a prophet in his own right. Importantly, Islamic scripture (Qur’an 37:99–113) narrates the near-sacrifice without naming the son, but contextual clues suggest it refers to Ishmael, since the announcement of Isaac’s birth follows after the sacrifice episode.

Linguistic and Narrative Inference

The sequence of events in the Qur’an is particularly telling:

“So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son… And when he reached the age of striving, he said: ‘O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am sacrificing you…’” (Qur’an 37:101–102)
This is followed later by:

“And We gave him good news of Isaac, a prophet from among the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:112)
This sequence supports the interpretation that the son being sacrificed was not Isaac, but someone before him—namely, Ishmael. Moreover, this interpretation aligns with a thematic reading: Ishmael is the son through whom Abraham is first tested, while Isaac is the son through whom Abraham is blessed.

Pre-Islamic Arab Tradition

Arab oral traditions preceding Islam also reflect the belief that Ishmael was the son nearly sacrificed. This belief was deeply rooted in the collective memory of the Arab people and manifested in religious rituals such as Eid al-Adha and the Sa’i—the reenactment of Hagar’s search for water. These practices are tied to Ishmael, not Isaac, further reinforcing his role as the son of trial.

Conclusion

While the Biblical tradition names Isaac as the sacrificial son, both linguistic and theological reflections open space for rethinking this assumption. The joyful connotation of Isaac’s name, the sequence of Qur’anic verses, and longstanding Arab traditions all support the idea that Isaac was not the son marked for sacrifice, but rather a son of comfort and reward.

In contrast, Ishmael bears the marks of trial, testing, and divine submission—characteristics that align more directly with the sacrificial narrative. This perspective invites a deeper, more nuanced understanding of Abraham’s legacy and the roles of his two sons in the shared heritage of monotheism.

The Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: An Islamic Perspective on Sacred Continuity and Relics

In the comparative theology of Abrahamic religions, the concept of divine covenants occupies a central role. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all trace their spiritual lineage to the Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام), but they diverge in their understanding of which covenant is binding and through whom it continues.

One unique Islamic perspective highlights the theological and symbolic significance of sacred relics and the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai (Mosaic) Covenant. This article explores how Islamic scholars frame the continuity of divine promise, drawing attention to the absence of Abrahamic relics in Jewish tradition and the centrality of Abrahamic symbolism in Islamic rites.

1. Two Covenants: Abrahamic and Sinai

The Abrahamic Covenant, as recorded in both the Bible and Qur’an, was made between God and Abraham, promising:

• A multitude of descendants

• A blessed lineage

• A divinely appointed land

In contrast, the Sinai Covenant—or Mosaic Covenant—was established generations later, between God and the Israelites through Moses at Mount Sinai. This covenant was heavily centered on legal ordinances, ritual purity, and national identity.

Islamic scholars underscore this distinction, arguing that while the Sinai Covenant was specific to the Israelites and conditional upon their obedience, the Abrahamic Covenant is universal, unconditional, and eternal, forming the foundation of Islamic monotheism.

2. Islamic Continuity: Inheriting the Abrahamic Legacy

From an Islamic theological standpoint, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is seen as a direct descendant of Abraham through his firstborn son Ishmael. This lineage is critical in Islamic thought, as it places Muhammad ﷺ and the Muslim ummah within the direct stream of Abrahamic blessing and covenantal responsibility.

Islam views itself not as a new religion, but as the revival and perfection of the original Abrahamic faith. This perspective is reinforced by the Qur’an’s emphasis on following “the religion of Abraham, the upright” (Qur’an 3:95), and by prophetic traditions affirming the the reconstruction of the House of God (Kaaba) by Abraham and Ishmael.

3. The Role of Sacred Relics

A distinctive element of the Islamic argument involves the presence or absence of Abrahamic relics:

In Islam, the Kaaba (House of God) in Mecca is considered the house built by Abraham and Ishmael (Qur’an 2:125–127), accompanied by the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad) and the Station of Abraham (Maqam Ibrahim). These physical sites serve as living relics of the Abrahamic legacy, venerated by over a billion Muslims worldwide.

In Judaism, no physical relic directly associated with Abraham has been preserved. The most significant ancient artifact, the Ark of the Covenant, belongs to the Mosaic era and is tied to the Sinai Covenant, not Abraham. Moreover, it was lost during the destruction of the First Temple.

Islamic scholars point to this contrast to suggest that the direct covenantal heritage of Abraham has been preserved in Islam, not in Judaism. The absence of relics connected to Abraham in Jewish tradition is interpreted by some as symbolic of a rupture in the transmission of his legacy.

4. The Ark of the Covenant: Significance and Loss

The Ark of the Covenant remains an iconic symbol in Jewish history. It was said to contain the tablets of the Law (Torah) and represented the divine presence among the Israelites. However, from an Islamic perspective, the Ark is not seen as an Abrahamic relic but rather as a Mosaic artifact.

Its eventual loss during the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple is often viewed by Islamic scholars as a symbolic termination of the Sinai Covenant, marking the end of that specific historical phase of divine interaction.

5. Universality of the Abrahamic Covenant in Islam

A key theme in Islamic theology is the universality of the Abrahamic Covenant. Unlike the Sinai Covenant, which was exclusively for the Children of Israel, the Abrahamic Covenant—according to Islamic understanding—was meant for all peoples who follow the monotheistic path of submission to God (Islam).

This universalism is enshrined in the Qur’an (Surah 22:78):

“It is He who has named you Muslims before and in this [revelation], that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over mankind.”
Thus, Islam positions itself as the final and universal expression of the Abrahamic mission, encompassing all of humanity beyond ethnic or tribal lines.

6. Supersession and Theological Fulfillment

While Islam respects the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, many Islamic scholars adopt a form of theological supersessionism: the idea that Islam, as revealed to Muhammad ﷺ, completes and supersedes previous revelations. This includes both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

According to this view, the Qur’an is the final testament, and the Muslim community (ummah) is the rightful heir to Abraham’s spiritual legacy, fulfilling his vision of pure monotheism (tawḥīd) untainted by tribal exclusivism or theological alteration.

Conclusion

The Islamic view on the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants is deeply rooted in both theological reasoning and historical symbolism. By emphasizing the continuity of Abrahamic rites, the preservation of sacred relics, and the universal scope of its message, Islam asserts itself as the true fulfillment of the covenant established with Abraham.

The absence of equivalent Abrahamic relics in Jewish tradition and the eventual disappearance of the Ark are seen not as mere historical events, but as spiritual markers—signifying a shift from the tribal covenant of Sinai to the universal mission embodied by Islam.

While these perspectives are uniquely Islamic and may not be shared by Jewish or Christian theology, they contribute meaningfully to the broader discourse on how each faith understands its relationship with Abraham, the friend of God.

The Abrahamic Covenant and the Promise of the Land

The Abrahamic covenant has long been a cornerstone of theological discussion among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. While the Judeo-Christian tradition identifies Isaac as the covenant’s primary heir, a significant body of Islamic scholarship maintains that the covenant’s fulfillment comes through Ishmael—the forefather of the Prophet Muhammad.

This interpretation emphasizes two core elements: the inheritance of the land stretching from the River of Egypt (commonly identified with the Nile) to the great River Euphrates, and the universal blessing promised through Abraham’s seed, understood to be ultimately realized in Muhammad and the religion of Islam, regarded as the restored faith of Abraham.

The Promise of the Land
In the Book of Genesis (15:18), God promises Abraham:

“To your seed I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”
Islamic scholars who hold the Ishmaelite fulfillment view interpret this promise as pertaining to Ishmael’s descendants, not Isaac’s. They point out that Ishmael, as Abraham’s firstborn, was blessed by God (Genesis 17:20) to become a “great nation.”

They argue that this “land promise” finds its historic expression in the geographic spread of Islamic civilization—from North Africa, along the Nile, across the Arabian Peninsula, and extending toward regions near the Euphrates. This territorial reality, they contend, is not coincidental but rather a visible sign of the covenant’s realization through Ishmael’s lineage.

Blessing to All Nations
In Genesis 12:3 and 22:18, God declares that through Abraham’s seed “all nations of the earth will be blessed.” Islamic interpretation sees this ultimate blessing embodied in Muhammad, a direct descendant of Ishmael, whose mission was not confined to a single people but extended universally. The Qur’an echoes this in Surah Al-Anbiya (21:107):

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to all beings.”
From this perspective, Islam is not a new religion but the restoration of the original monotheism of Abraham—free from the tribal exclusivity sometimes associated with later Israelite identity. The faith’s global spread, moral code, and unifying message are seen as the fulfillment of God’s promise of universal blessing.

The Sacrifice of Ishmael
The question of which son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice lies at the heart of this theological divergence. The Qur’an (Surah As-Saffat 37:99–113) narrates the event without initially naming the son, but the sequence of verses places the announcement of Isaac’s birth after the sacrifice episode, implying that Ishmael was the son offered.
Proponents assert that Ishmael’s role in this trial signifies divine confirmation of his status as the covenant’s chosen heir. They maintain that the shift to Isaac in the Hebrew scriptures represents a later alteration by Israelite scribes to bolster their own national claim to covenantal blessings.

Scriptural Alterations and Covenant Identity
Those who uphold the Ishmaelite view argue that ancient Israelite scribes re-framed certain historical narratives to affirm Israel’s unique claim to God’s promises. In their understanding, the Torah’s emphasis on Isaac as the covenantal son serves to align the covenant with the Israelite nation, while the Qur’an restores the original truth of Ishmael’s role.

The Sinai Covenant: A Separate Agreement
The Sinai covenant—delivered centuries after Abraham—was made specifically with the Israelites. It outlined a detailed legal and moral framework, binding the Israelite community to God through laws and rituals. Unlike the Abrahamic covenant, which Islamic scholarship sees as global and unconditional, the Sinai covenant is conditional, requiring obedience to maintain divine favor.
This distinction reinforces the view that the land and universal blessing promises belong not to the Sinai covenant but to the Abrahamic covenant, and therefore—according to this interpretation—to the descendants of Ishmael.

Conclusion

Within this interpretive framework, the followers of Muhammad are seen as the true inheritors of Abraham’s covenant, heirs to the divine promise of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, and the bearers of the universal blessing foretold millennia ago. Islam, as the restored religion of Abraham, reaffirms the original monotheism, the inclusive message to all nations, and the geographic destiny that was set forth in God’s ancient promise.

Far from being a mere theological debate, this understanding shapes how millions perceive history, identity, and divine purpose—viewing the spread of Islam not as a historical accident, but as the direct unfolding of God’s covenant with Abraham through Ishmael.