Islam critiqued taught a lesson; was Abraham commanded to sacrifice his only son?

In answer to the video "Abraham's Only Son- Genesis 22"

In a dream Allah

2:124"tried Ibrahim with certain words".

Ibrahim had formerly shown great spiritual resolve by steadfastly opposing the religious practices of his people and relatives, even when they attempted murdering him. He turned away from his nation and migrated. He made the painful step of leaving, by Allah's command, his wife and infant son in an area of dry land, where no food and water or any inhabitants could be found. He was now being tested a step further as an upholder of God's way and will. The aim was this time, through his attachement to that progeny he had so long desired and prayed for, to make him reach the climax of prophethood by becoming the universal leader (Imam) of monotheism 2:124. 

This was another step in Ibrahim's journey, freeing himself from desires of prestige, wealth, women and children and turning with total surrender and progressing with complete devotion to the Lord

37:99"Surely I fly to my lord; He will guide me".

Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. When he sacrificed his connection to his homeland and idolatrous father, God re-established these broken connections. Ibrahim, the prototype of the religious outcast, was saved from his polytheistic environment, resettled in a better place and granted a righteous offspring. No sooner was all this achieved that once more, all is compromised through a new test of obedience. Would Abraham fall into complacency or be prepared to repeat his former sacrifice of social belonging for the sake of God? 

Abraham demonstrated again his unshakeable obedience to God, giving it precedence over human loyalties under all circumstances, just as the subsequent prophets would teach their followers, including Jesus and Muhammad.

Neither he nor his son failed the test of their trust in God; they both willingly set the stage for the sacrifice. Ismail, aware of the hardship ahead humbled himself to God, does not give himself any credit in the matter, instead asked to be increased in patience 37:102. Contrast this attitude of Ismail with the Biblical account where the son of the sacrifice is a passive participant. Up to the last moment when Abraham was about to slit his throat, he is unaware of the divine command and of his father's intentions towards him Gen22.

Ibrahim then placed his only beloved son, raised his hand with the knife but was stopped from going further

37:105"you have made the vision true..Most surely this is a manifest trial".

This shows that the reality of Ibrahim's vision was that he was GOING to sacrifice his son and not that he had sacrificed him. The act of slaughtering was therefore not part of the divine vision since it was not needed for its fulfilment, rather the preparedness to do it amounted to its fulfilment. God did not want him to sacrifice his son, but wanted to detach his heart fully, test his trust for a higher objective that included the dedication of Ismail (and his descendants through him) to the worship of Allah. This is Islam's essence, God wants nothing from His servants other than that they submit themselves to Him totally, with nothing too precious to be given up, including life itself. When both Ibrahim and Ismail demonstrated their Islam, what was left was flesh and blood, which the Quran says is secondary compared to submission 22:37 and which was thus substituted by another type of flesh and blood.

Again, the Quran never says that Allah ordered Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, but speaks of Ibrahim being tried with

"certain words"

like Adam received

2:37"some words"

that taught him how to perform repentance. The dream was symbolic and its fulfillment consisted in the preparedness in sacrificing his son, just like the fulfillment of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf's symbolic dream of celestial bodies bowing before him consisted in having his close family members prostrating to him

12:4,100"When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! Indeed, I saw eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to me...And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true".   

Ishmael was ransomed with a great sacrifice 37:107. The text does not say what that sacrifice was and what is it that made it great but as we continue reading, we see a clear correlation with the great institution of yearly sacrifice at the hajj and this heavenly ransom. It is the prime symbol by which Abraham is commemorated, as stated in the next verse

37:108"and we left for him a good name among the succeeding generations".

Until now and throughout the Muslim world, the courage and trust of Ibrahim in his Lord, his complete detachment from all worldly benefits, including the most precious gifts for God's sake, are remembered through the day of sacrifice ('id al adha). The theological significance of both the near sacrifice and the settlement of Ishmael away from Canaan had the clear purpose of making Abraham the leader(imam) of mankind and the establishment of a monotheistic sanctuary that would eventually guide mankind to the Abrahamic path.

So the whole thing had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. This selective application, considering that Abraham's son was never sacrificed but rather saved by God, also ignores the unequivocal mosaic prohibition of human sacrifices of any kind Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. It is an act of abomination and among the explicit examples given is that of the sacrifice of a son by his father, which eerily resembles the trinitarian idea. God's anger towards this action is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis, just as He did not command the sacrifice of Ishmael in the Quran. In Genesis it says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises. 

Neither did the sacrifice have for purpose to establishment a covenant. This had occurred prior, and included Ishmael. Isaac's particularity from a covenantal perspective is the land grant to his descendants, of which Ishmael wasnt part of. This, even the Quran agrees with; the Israelites, because of Abraham's obedience, were promised to be settled in the holy land, as a matter of test, whether they would remain on the straight spiritual path or not. Further, following the near-sacrifice, Abraham is told

 Gen22:16-18"I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me". 

None of those divine blessings apply to the Israelites, while all can easily reflect the trajectory of the Ishmaelites, and the climax being the revival of the Abrahamic way with the rise of the last Ishmaelite prophet.

To further elaborate on the incompetence of the transmitters of biblical tradition prior to it having been put unto writing, in Gen17:1-19 after announcing Isaac's future birth, God promises to establish through his line

"an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him".

How could God then demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? Why would God change his name from Avram/exalted father to Avraham/father of nations, in connection to that promise and then almost immediately after request him to sacrifice his "only son"? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. Because of this absurdity, the Talmud presents different opinions with some suggesting that it was actually Abraham that was testing God and not the other way around, since Abraham was already aware that God had made a promise to him through Isaac. This is because a valid test is when one isnt sure of the outcome.

That difficulty in the text reflects down to the NT in Hebrews 11 which attempts to explain a contradiction. If God himself promises Abraham a covenant through Isaac, there is no reason for him to think God is a liar. Abraham will simply go on with the command all the while knowing the outcome (Isaac will live and fulfill the covenant). That is in fact exactly what Hebrews11 suggests, postulating that Abraham even thought beforehand that God would raise Isaac back from the dead after the sacrifice in order that the covenant be fulfilled through his line, just as He had promised prior to the test.

It may be argued that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made BEFORE his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and THEN the promise was made, meaning it happened AFTER the event of the sacrifice.