Muslims are strange people. They have killed billions of animals in the past 1400 years, but they don't even know if it was Ishaaq who was slaughtered or Ismael.

These were 131 narrations that attributed the act of sacrifice to Isaac. However, later Muslims fabricated 133 traditions to refute them and claim that it was not Isaac, but Ishmael, who was sacrificed (link).

Muslims had a complete motive for fabricating false narrations because a question arose for future Muslims: If Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac not in Mecca but in Jerusalem (Al-Aqsa Mosque), then where did the ritual of sacrificing animals at the place of Mina during Hajj originate from? Isaac never came to Mecca, nor did his descendants ever sacrifice animals in that manner.

In fact, during the era of pre-Islamic ignorance, the Arab pagans had a custom of sacrificing animals at the place of Mina for their deities and idols. When Muhammad adopted other rituals and customs of the era of ignorance during Hajj, he also adopted the custom of sacrificing animals.

However, later Muslim hadith scholars tried to eliminate this act of animal sacrifice for the pagan gods by connecting it to the sacrifice of Ismael in Mina (Mecca). But the problem was that there were already 131 narrations existing that testified to Isaac's sacrifice.

Therefore, the deceptive Muslim hadith fabricator created 133 new narrations and associated Ishmael with the act of sacrifice. Along with that, they claimed that Ishmael was attempted to be sacrificed at the place of Mina, and further claimed that the observance of animal sacrifice during Hajj is a continuation of Ishmael's sacrifice.

Imam Qurtabi (under the commentary of Verse 37:102) recorded the name of Sahaba and Tabaeen who declared Ishaaq to be Zabih-Ullah i.e. the son who was sacrificed (link):

 وٱختلف العلماء في المأمور بذبحه. فقال أكثرهم: الذبيح إسحاق. وممن قال بذلك العباس بن عبد المطلب وٱبنه عبد اللّه وهو الصحيح عنه. روى الثوريّ وٱبن جريج يرفعانه إلى ٱبن عباس قال: الذبيح إسحاق. وهو الصحيح عن عبد اللّه بن مسعود أن رجلاً قال له: يا بن الأشياخ الكرام. فقال عبد اللّه: ذلك يوسف بن يعقوب بن إسحاق ذبيح اللّه بن إبراهيم خليل اللّه صلى اللّه عليهم وسلم ـ. وقد روى حماد بن زيد يرفعه إلى رسول اللّه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: " إن الكريم ابن الكريم ابن الكريم ابن الكريم يوسف بن يعقوب بن إسحاق بن إبراهيم صلى الله عليه وسلم " وروى أبو الزبير عن جابر قال: الذبيح إسحاق. وذلك مروي أيضاً عن عليّ بن أبي طالب رضي اللّه عنه. وعن عبد اللّه بن عمر: أن الذبيح إسحاق. وهو قول عمر رضي اللّه عنه. فهؤلاء سبعة من الصحابة. وقال به من التابعين وغيرهم عَلْقَمة والشّعبي ومجاهد وسعيد بن جُبير وكعب الأحبار وقتادة ومسروق وعِكرمة والقاسم بن أبي بَزَّة وعطاء ومقاتل وعبد الرحمن بن سابط والزهريّ والسديّ وعبد اللّه بن أبي الهذيل ومالك بن أنس، كلهم قالوا: الذبيح إسحاق. وعليه أهل الكتابين اليهود والنصارى، واختاره غير واحد منهم النحاس والطبري وغيرهما. قال سعيد بن جبير: أُرِيَ إبراهيمُ ذبح إسحاق في المنام، فسار به مسيرة شهر في غداة واحدة، حتى أتى به المنحر من مِنىً فلما صرف اللّه عنه الذبح وأمره أن يذبح الكبش فذبحه، وسار به مسيرة شهر في رَوْحة واحدة طويت له الأودية والجبال. وهذا القول أقوى في النقل عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وعن الصحابة والتابعين. وقال آخرون: هو إسماعيل. وممن قال ذلك أبو هريرة وأبو الطفيل عامر بن واثلة. وروي ذلك عن ٱبن عمر وٱبن عباس أيضاً، ومن التابعين سعيد بن المسيّب والشّعبي ويوسف بن مِهْران ومجاهد والربيع بن أنس ومحمد بن كعب القُرَظيّ والكلبي وعلقمة. 

The scholars differed regarding who was commanded to be sacrificed. Most of them said it was Isaac. Among those who said so were Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib and his son Abdullah, and this is the correct opinion attributed to them. Ath-Thawri and Ibn Jurayj narrated it from Ibn Abbas, who said, "The one to be sacrificed was Isaac." And this is also the correct opinion attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. A man said to him, "O son of noble men," and Abdullah replied, "That was Yusuf, son of Yaqub, son of Isaac, son of Ibrahim, the beloved friend of Allah, peace be upon them." Hammad ibn Zaid narrated it, attributing it to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who said, "Verily, the generous one, son of the generous one, son of the generous one, son of the generous one, is Yusuf, son of Yaqub, son of Isaac, son of Ibrahim, peace be upon them." Abu Az-Zubayr narrated from Jabir, who said, "The one to be sacrificed was Isaac." This opinion is also narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. Abdullah ibn Umar said, "The one to be sacrificed was Isaac," and this was the opinion of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him. These are the statements of seven companions. It is also reported from some of the successors and others, such as Alqamah, Ash-Sha'bi, Mujahid, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Ka'b al-Ahbar, Qatadah, Masruq, Ikrimah, Al-Qasim ibn Abi Bazza, Ata, Muqatil, Abdul Rahman ibn Sabit, Az-Zuhri, As-Suddi, Abdullah ibn Abi Hathil, and Malik ibn Anas. All of them said, "The one to be sacrificed was Isaac." This is also the opinion of the People of the two Scriptures, the Jews and the Christians. It was chosen by more than one of them, including An-Nahhas, At-Tabari, and others. Sa'id ibn Jubayr said, "Ibrahim saw in a dream that he was sacrificing Isaac. He traveled with him for a month until he reached the place of sacrifice in Mina. When Allah turned the sacrifice away from him and commanded him to sacrifice the ram, he did so. He traveled with it for a month in a single morning, and the valleys and mountains were flattened for him." This opinion is stronger in terms of the narration from the Prophet, peace be upon him, and from the companions and the successors.

Others said it was Ishmael. Among those who said so were Abu Hurairah and Abu At-Tufayl Amer ibn Wathilah. It is also narrated from Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas. Among the successors who held this opinion were Sa'id ibn Al-Musayyib, Ash-Sha'bi, Yusuf ibn Mihran, Mujahid, Ar-Rabi' ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Quradhi, Al-Kalbi, and Alqamah.

Thus, Imam Qurtabi wrote his own conclusion in the following words (link):

وهذا القول أقوى في النقل عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وعن الصحابة والتابعين.
The saying (i.e. Ishaaq was Zabih-Ullah) has been narrated through stronger traditions from the Prophet and Sahaba and Successors (i.e. Tabaeen).

Names of 7 Companions + 16 Successors (i.e. Taba'in) who considered Ishaaq was sacrificed Names of 4 Companions + 8 Successors (i.e. Taba'in) who considered Ismael was sacrificed


  1. Ibn 'Abbas
  2. 'Ali ibn Abi Talib
  3. 'Abdullah Ibn Masood
  4. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Ansari
  5. Umar Ibn Khattab
  6. Abdullah Ibn Umar
  7. Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib

Successors (Taba'in):

  1. 'Alqama
  2. Sh'ubi
  3. Mujahid
  4. Saeed bin Jubair
  5. K'ab al-Ahbar
  6. Qatadah
  7. Masrooq
  8. 'Ikrimah
  9. Qasim bin Abi Baza 
  10. 'Atta
  11. Maqatil
  12. Abdul Rehman bin Sabit
  13. Zuhri
  14. Suddi
  15. 'Abdullah bin Hazil
  16. Imam Malik ibn Anas


  1. Abu Hurairah
  2. Abu Tufail 'Aamir bin Wasila
  3. Abdullah Ibn Umar
  4. Ibn Abbas

Successors (Taba'in):

  1. Sa'eed bin al-Musayyab
  2. Sh'ubi
  3. Yousuf bin Mahran
  4. Mujahid
  5. Rabi bin Anas
  6. Muhammad bin Kaab al-Qurzi
  7. Kalbi
  8. 'Alqama


Trusting in Muslim Ahadith is nothing short of madness:

Another interesting point to note is that both Ibn Abbas and Umar ibn Khattab, among the companions, have narrations attributed to them in which they refer to Isaac as the one to be sacrificed. However, there are also narrations in which they refer to Ishmael as the one to be sacrificed.

The same situation applies among the successors (i.e. Taba'in).  Shabi, Mujahid, and Alqamah, for example, have some narrations in which they refer to Isaac as the one to be sacrificed, while in other narrations, they refer to Ishmael.

These contradictions expose the false hadith factory that was established for the sake of the honor of the Muslim religion. Believing in the hadiths of Muslims after this is nothing short of madness.

Please note:

There are two distinct types of traditions.

  1. The first type encompasses those traditions in which Muhammad claims to have received direct revelations solely from an "unseen" angel Gabriel. As there are no other witnesses besides Muhammad himself, absolute trust in such traditions is unwarranted, considering that Muhammad could have potentially shaped these revelations to align with his personal desires. To observe Muhammad's actions in this regard, refer to the article titled: The Role of REVELATION in Muhammad's Journey from 4 Marriages to 9 Marriages
  2. The second type of tradition involves incidents where multiple individuals act as direct witnesses. Take, for example, the historical event of Banu Qurayzah, where many others also bore witness to Muhammad's act of killing ALL men, including elderly individuals and 12-year-old boys who had reached puberty. Numerous people have accurately recounted these incidents, providing a more reliable basis for trust. However, even this second type of tradition cannot be entirely relied upon, as subsequent generations of Muslims began fabricating traditions from multiple people who were telling the counter-narrative in the same incident.

Ilm-ul-Hadith (the so-called science of Hadith) is also a further extension of factories for the fabrication of false Hadiths:

The issue at hand is as follows:

  1. Numerous witnesses faithfully conveyed traditions that exposed the religion and the prophet.
  2. However, in subsequent generations, Muslims began fabricating multiple traditions with conflicting narratives. Nevertheless, this led to doubts arising due to the contradictory nature of these narratives.
  3. Thus, later Muslim generations also introduced Ilm-ul-Hadith, the so-called science of Hadith, with the intention of undermining and ultimately rejecting those traditions that shed light on the flaws within the religion and Muhammad.

Consequently, if someone spoke the truth and exposed the religion, then Muslim scholars found it convenient to discredit him by labeling him as a liar, forgetful, or holding incorrect beliefs. This CONTRADICTION is evident, as half of the Islamic scholars would deem a person trustworthy and reliable in narrating Hadiths, while the other half would brand the same person as a liar, forgetful, or espousing erroneous beliefs. As a result, a Hadith could be considered authentic (Sahih) by one group of scholars while being deemed weak by the other.

This CONTRADICTION within Ilm-ul-Hadith can be observed in the incident regarding which son was sacrificed. For instance:

  • Imam Qurtabi (link), utilizing Ilm-ul-Hadith, declared that the 131 traditions indicating that Ishaaq was the sacrificed son were STRONGER.
  • On the other hand, Imam Ibn Kathir(link), also employing the same Ilm-ul-Hadith, declared the same 131 traditions about Ishaaq to be WEAKER. And he used the same Ilm-ul-Hadith to declare the contradictory 133 traditions of Ismael being sacrificed, to be stronger.

Kindly keep in mind the Universal Truth: A lie and a falsehood can be identified by the presence of CONTRADICTIONS

This Universal Truth holds true for Ilm-ul-Hadith as well. Ilm-ul-Hadith is a LIE and Falsehood that becomes evident through the CONTRADICTIONS it contains.

Only Muslims had the full MONOPOLY on Hadith and Ilm-ul-Hadith. And they also had the full MOTIVE to introduce falsehood in it, in order to defend the religion and the prophet. 

The Quran and its false Promises are also exposed in this incident

The Quran claims that:

  • Its verses are "easy to understand" (Quran 54:17)
  • Its verses are "clear", "manifest" and "guidance" (Quran 27:1-2)
  • It was revealed in the Arabic language so that they could understand it (Quran 12:2)

Nevertheless, these Quranic Promises are also exposed as lies in this incident. The reality is, the Quran is absolutely not CLEAR and EASY to understand despite being in the Arabic language, while:

  • There is a group of Muslim Scholars who use the Quranic Verses to prove it was Ishaaq, who was sacrificed.
  • While the other group of Muslims Scholars also use the SAME Quranic Verses to prove it was Ismael, who was sacrificed. 

Please read the details in this article: Abraham and the Child of Sacrifice - Isaac or Ishmael? by Sam Shamoun

Muhammad aimed to exert influence on both the Jewish/Christian communities and the pagan Arabs by establishing a connection between pagan Hajj rituals and the biblical narrative

It is indeed remarkable that the Quraysh, as well as the wider Arab, Jewish, and Christian populations, had no prior knowledge of the Arab descent from Ismail or any association between the Kaaba, Hajj, and the acts of sacrifice with Ibrahim or Ismail.

Muhammad was the first to assert his lineage from Ismail and link Ibrahim and Ismail to the Kaaba. Seeking recognition from the Jews and Christians, he sought to prove his descent from Ismail, but his claim was not acknowledged, and he was still regarded as a false prophet by Jews and Christians.

Simultaneously, Muhammad sought to emphasize the significance of Hajj and its rituals, as they held economic and influential value within his Arab tribe. Additionally, by incorporating Hajj and its rituals into his newly established religion, he could attract the adherence of the pagan Arabs and sway them towards his new religion.