CIRA international undecided; Quran unclear on the child of sacrifice?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

The sequence in 37:99-113 shows Abraham asking God for a son. Ishmael, whose name itself means "God-hears", was the only one from his progeny that Ibrahim prayed God for. And this hapenned early on in Ibrahim's life, as he set himself to leave his land and people, disconnecting himself from his nation. He then naturally begged God to provide him with a righteous child so as to restore this broken connection. God directly answers the prayer, appeasing the heart of his devout servant. But later on, when Allah was about to raise Ibrahim to the status of guide/imam of mankind, father and son are put through a test. It occured once the boy reached his working age (which corresponds with Ismail's age of 13-14 right before the birth of isaac). When they both willingly fulfilled the command, God blessed Abraham with another son, Isaac as a reward. This concluding announcement of Isaac's birth would have been a redundancy had it been mentionned a few verses earlier. Also, the good news of Isaac came at a much later time in Ibrahim's life 11:72. 

The network of Quranic evidence together, all point to Ismail as the son of the sacrifice, while none, within the Book, support the Isaac view. The strongest argument in support of that later opinion is that the unnamed son is a "good news" to Ibrahim, while Isaac is also twice described as "good news" 37:112,51:28. This only works assuming Ishmael was no "good news", which he certainly was, as explained earlier. 

Further, the unnamed son is described in the same passage as forbearing and steadfast, like Ismail is 21:85. This fits the character of one going through a difficult test. Isaac is never qualified as such. Similarily, Ismail is one messenger prophet who was

19:54"truthful to his promise".

The stress laid on that quality is due to him fulfilling a word which would lead to what he thought meant to give up his own life in obedience to the divine will

37:102-3"O my son! I have seen in a 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 of the steadfast!" So when they had both submitted..."

The reports stating that the sacrificed is Isaac are part of the Israeliyyat transmitted by those who converted among them like Kaab al-Ahbar and it was only transmitted as sign of trust. None of those reports go back to the prophet or his companions. Reuven Firestone, who is the leading scholar quoted by misinformed critics, admits that those opinions endorsing Isaac which he deems are earliest, were developped in a biblical milieu when

"Early Muslims naturally turned to Biblicists for information regarding legends found both in the Quran and the Bible".

All later opinions endorsing the Isaac theory eventually go back to such discarded reports that fooled them. With the conversion of many believers of former scriptures to Islam, the early Muslim authorities went to great lengths trying to curb the influence of Israeliyyat on Quranic exegisis and traditions. Although they could not completely stop the phenomenon, one notable example is that of the 4th Caliph Ali who threatened to flog those that interpreted David's encounter with the litigants in the Quran in light of the Biblical tradition.

That however did not stop some of the classical commentators from doing so. Every book of exegesis (Yusuf Ali's commentary is often misrepresented and misquoted, he does not endorse the Isaac theory) or biography or even history would mention the argument that took place on the topic. However, some would follow the argument by outlining the truth and others wouldn't add any commentary.

Many, most of those quoted by Islam critics are even found sometimes on both sides of the argument and this is because they were reporting both opinions. The most classic examples are those often quoted from Tabari, such as reports from Abu Kurayb, Ya’qub, Ibn Humayd or Ibn Bashshar who all relate both sides of the argument.

 Reuven Firestone himself admits that

"Most of al-Tabari’s traditions, however, place the location of the Sacrifice in the area of Mecca" and that "The battle between the two kinds of exegesis was probably won by the Mecca-Ishmael school even before the time of al-Tabari".

As he notes, even those faulty reports endorsing Isaac place the sacrifice in and around Mecca, which shows the baselesness of their opinions. The strongest reports going back to pillars of Islamic scholarship all endorse the position that the sacrificed was Ishmael, the likes of Ali, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Tufayl, Saad Ibn Jubayr, Mujâhid, al-Sha'by, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad Ibn Kaab al-Qardhy, Saad Ibn al-Musayyab, Abu Jaafar Muhammad al-Bâqir, Abû Sâlih, al-Rabî' Ibn Anas, Abû Amr Ibn al-Alâ', Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others.


The unanimous position of the scholars of hadith is that the Sacrificed is Ishmael. This is supported by Quran, sahih reports from the Companions and Followers and reports rated Marfu' (tacit approval) of the Prophet.

This opinion was famous among the Arabs before the advent of Islam and it was transmitted from generation to generation in tawatur and it was also mentioned in the pre islamic poetry of Umayyah Ibn Abi al-Salt.

The Muslim scholars have solved this case a long time ago and, very early in the history of Islam, the popular Islamic tradition has integrated the fact that Ishmael was the sacrificed.