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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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.

Islam and the True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant: Ishmael, the Sacrificed Son

As one journeys through the sacred scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths, a profound theme emerges: God’s covenant with His chosen servants. In Islam, this covenant begins not at Mount Sinai with Moses, but much earlier—with Abraham (Ibrahim عليه السلام), the father of nations.

Unlike the Jewish and Christian traditions, which uphold Isaac as the central heir, Islam presents a compelling counter-narrative: it was Ishmael (Ismail عليه السلام)—the elder son—who was destined for sacrifice, and through whom the universal covenant was fulfilled.

The Abrahamic Covenant: A Universal Trust

According to the Qur’an, Allah made a sacred covenant with Abraham, declaring him a leader of mankind:

“Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.”

Abraham asked, “And of my descendants?”

Allah replied, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”

— Qur’an 2:124
This exchange sets the tone for an ethical and faith-based covenant, not one bound by ethnicity or tribal lineage. Abraham, in his submission to God, was promised leadership, guidance, and progeny who would uphold monotheism.

But what is often overlooked in Judeo-Christian retellings is the chronology and context of this divine pledge. When the covenant was established, Ishmael was the only son alive, having been circumcised alongside Abraham as a sign of this sacred pact (cf. Genesis 17:23–26). Isaac had not yet been born. The Qur’an emphasizes this continuity through Abraham’s prayer for a prophet from among his descendants:

“Our Lord, send among them a messenger from themselves…”

— Qur’an 2:129
Muslim scholars understand this to be a prophecy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, a direct descendant of Ishmael, thus reaffirming Ishmael’s centrality to the covenant.

The Sacrifice: Ishmael, Not Isaac

Perhaps the most emotionally stirring moment in Abraham’s life is the divine command to sacrifice his beloved son. The Qur’an recounts this story in Surah Aṣ-Ṣāffāt (37:100–113), but not once does it name the son. Yet all contextual clues point to Ishmael:

“So We gave him good news of a forbearing boy.”

(37:101)

When the boy was old enough to walk with his father, Abraham said,

“O my son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you…”

(37:102)
This boy is obedient, submitting to the will of God without hesitation. Later in the passage, Isaac is mentioned separately, in a different context (37:112), indicating that he is not the son being referred to earlier.

Thus, from an Islamic viewpoint, it was Ishmael who was offered in sacrifice, not Isaac. The act was not merely a test of faith, but the ultimate sign of Abraham and Ishmael’s joint submission (Islam) to God. It also spiritually consecrated Ishmael as the heir to the Abrahamic covenant.

Circumcision: The Forgotten Proof of Ishmael’s Precedence

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant—circumcision—was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael, as recorded in the Bible:

❝That very day Abraham was circumcised… and his son Ishmael was thirteen years old.❞

(Genesis 17:24–25)
This took place before Isaac’s birth (Genesis 17:21, 21:2), indicating that Ishmael was the only son included in the covenant at that critical moment.

In Islam, actions carry covenantal weight. Ishmael’s circumcision is not a mere detail—it is a sacred sign of his full inclusion and precedence.

The Sinai Covenant: Conditional and Revoked

Generations after Abraham, the Israelites entered into another covenant at Mount Sinai during the time of Moses (Mūsā عليه السلام). This Sinai Covenant, detailed in both the Torah and the Qur’an, involved the giving of divine law (Torah) and required strict adherence to God’s commandments.

But this covenant was conditional. The Qur’an frequently reminds the Children of Israel of their repeated breaches:

“And [recall] when We took your covenant… but you turned away after that.”

— Qur’an 2:63

“Because of their breaking the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard.”

— Qur’an 5:13
From the Islamic standpoint, the Israelites violated their trust with God through disobedience, distortion of scripture, and rejection of prophets. As a result, the Sinai covenant—while once valid—was revoked, and divine favor passed on to a broader, inclusive community centered around Islam.

Islam: The Final Fulfillment of the Covenant

In contrast to the ethnically bound covenant at Sinai, the Abrahamic covenant is universal and eternal, and its completion is found in the revelation of the Qur’an and the Prophethood of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

“This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as your religion.”

— Qur’an 5:3
Islam presents itself not as a new religion, but as the restoration of Abraham’s original monotheism. It honors all previous prophets, acknowledges their scriptures in original form, but firmly asserts that the final covenant is through the message of Islam.

Conclusion: The Line of Ishmael Vindicated

In summary, the Islamic narrative realigns the story of divine covenants:

• The Abrahamic Covenant was first given to Abraham and Ishmael, rooted in faith, obedience, and universality.

• The Sinai Covenant, later made with the Israelites, was limited, legalistic, and ultimately broken.

• The final covenant, embodied in Islam, reaffirms the legacy of Ishmael, vindicates Abraham’s prayer, and brings the universal message of submission to God back to the forefront of human history.

Thus, from the Islamic perspective, Ishmael was not only the son who was offered, but also the true heir of Abraham’s mission—culminating in the birth of an Ummah, an Islamic nation, and a prophet of Islam, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, who would carry the covenant to all of humanity

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.