The Isaac vs. Ishmael Conflict — Which Son was Sacrificed?

131 Traditions claim Isaac was the son who was sacrificed, while 133 Traditions claim Ishmael was the son

There are two sets of contradictory Ahadith. The first one claims it was Isaac who was sacrificed, while the other one claims that it was Ishmael. 

Wikipedia:
There are such persuasive arguments for both, in fact, it is estimated that 131 traditions say Isaac was the son, while 133 say Ismael.^{[2]
[2: Firestone, Reuven (1990). Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham-Ismael Legends in Islamic Exegesis. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-0331-0.]}

The Central Question

Muslims have slaughtered billions of animals over 1,400 years in commemoration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son. This is one of Islam's most important rituals, observed annually during Eid al-Adha and as part of the Hajj pilgrimage. Yet Muslims cannot answer a fundamental question: Which son was Abraham commanded to sacrifice? Was it Isaac or Ishmael?

This is not a minor theological detail. The entire Islamic justification for performing animal sacrifice at Mina during Hajj depends on the answer. If Isaac was the intended sacrifice, and that event occurred in Jerusalem (as biblical and early Islamic sources indicate), then the Hajj sacrifice at Mina has no connection to Abraham's test. It would be exposed as nothing more than a continuation of pre-Islamic Arab pagan rituals that Muhammad adopted and tried to legitimize by falsely linking them to Abraham.

The Original Evidence: 131 Narrations for Isaac

Early Islamic sources overwhelmingly identified Isaac as the son who was to be sacrificed. There existed 131 separate narrations from companions of Muhammad and their successors clearly stating that Isaac was the intended sacrifice.

These narrations had authentic chains of transmission. Imam Qurtubi acknowledged that the evidence for Isaac was "stronger" and represented the "correct opinion" attributed to the companions and successors. He wrote in his tafsir under verse Quran 37:102, the following  (link):

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 ...

And this statement (i.e. Isaac was the son who was sacrificed) is more strongly narrated (than others) from the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Companions, and the Successors (Tabi'un).

And here are a few more "Sahih" traditions:

Musnad Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Hadith 2658:

Arabic Text: حدثنا ‏ ‏يونس ‏ ‏أخبرنا ‏ ‏حماد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عطاء بن السائب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد بن جبير ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏أن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏إن ‏ ‏جبريل ‏ ‏ذهب ‏ ‏بإبراهيم ‏ ‏إلى ‏ ‏جمرة العقبة ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏ثم أتى ‏ ‏الجمرة الوسطى ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏ثم أتى ‏ ‏الجمرة القصوى ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏فلما أراد ‏ ‏إبراهيم ‏ ‏أن يذبح ابنه ‏ ‏إسحاق ‏ ‏قال لأبيه يا ‏ ‏أبت أوثقني لا أضطرب فينتضح عليك ‏ ‏من دمي إذا ذبحتني فشده فلما أخذ ‏ ‏الشفرة ‏ ‏فأراد أن يذبحه نودي من خلفه ‏ ‏أن يا ‏ ‏إبراهيم ‏ ‏قد صدقت الرؤيا

English Translation: Yunus narrated to us, saying Hammad informed us, from Ata' ibn As-Sa'ib, from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Jibreel (peace be upon him) took Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to Jamrat Al-Aqabah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground. Then he came to the middle Jamrah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground. Then he came to the last Jamrah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground." "Then, when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was about to sacrifice his son Is-haq (peace be upon him), his son said to his father: 'O my father! Tie me so that I do not struggle and my blood does not splash on you when you slaughter me.' So he tied him. When Ibrahim (peace be upon him) took the knife and intended to slaughter him, a voice called from behind him: 'O Ibrahim! You have indeed fulfilled the vision.'"

Ruling: The chain of narration for this tradition is Sahih (authentic). (Link)

Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut narrated this tradition in Takhrij Mushkil al-Athar (Link):

Arabic Text: أنَّ أسماءَ بنَ خارجةَ سابَّ رَجُلًا، فقال: أنا ابنُ الأشياخِ الكرامِ، فقال عبدُ اللهِ: الأشياخُ الكرامُ يوسفُ بنُ يعقوبَ صفيِّ اللهِ ابنِ إسحاقَ ذبيحِ اللهِ ابنِ إبراهيمَ خليلِ اللهِ

English Translation: "Asma' ibn Kharijah insulted a man and said: 'I am the son of noble elders.' So the Companion Abdullah (Ibn Mas'ud) said: 'The noble elders are Yusuf son of Ya'qub, the chosen one of Allah, son of Is-haq, the sacrifice of Allah, son of Ibrahim, the Khalil (intimate friend) of Allah.'"

Ruling: Sahih (authentic) (Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut)

Imam Al-Qurtubi (link) mentions the Companions (Sahaba), Successors (Tabi'un), and scholars who held the view that Isaac (Is-haq) was the one intended for sacrifice (Dhabih Allah):

The 7 Companions (Sahaba) were:

1. Ibn Abbas
2. Ali ibn Abi Talib
3. Abdullah ibn Masud
4. Jabir
5. Umar ibn al-Khattab
6. Abu Hurairah
7. Abbas bin al-Muttalib

The Successors (Tabi'un) and scholars included:

1. Alqama
2. Ash-Sha'bi
3. Mujahid
4. Sa'id bin Jubayr
5. Ka'b al-Ahbar
6. Qatada
7. Masruq
8. Ikrimah
9. Qasim bin Abi Bazzah
10. Ata
11. Muqatil
12. Abdur-Rahman bin Sabit
13. Al-Zuhri
14. Al-Suddi
15. Abdullah bin Huzayl
16. Imam Malik bin Anas

The Theological Problem

This created a crisis for Islamic ritual practice. If Abraham's test with Isaac occurred in Jerusalem, how could Muslims justify their animal sacrifices at Mina in Mecca? The answer is simple: they couldn't. The practice of sacrificing animals at Mina was actually a pre-Islamic Arab pagan tradition that had nothing to do with Abraham. When Muhammad incorporated the existing rituals of the pagan Hajj into Islam, he needed to give them an Abrahamic origin to make them appear divinely ordained rather than pagan holdovers.

The Fabrication Campaign: 133 Counter-Narrations

To solve this problem, later Muslim transmitters launched a systematic campaign of fabrication. They manufactured 133 new narrations claiming that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. These fabricated reports conveniently placed the event at Mina in Mecca, thus providing the Islamic Hajj ritual with an Abrahamic backstory and covering up its pagan origins.

This wasn't a gradual evolution of understanding. It was a deliberate rewriting of history to defend Islamic practice. The fabricators even created reports falsely attributed to the same companions (like Ibn Abbas) who had originally identified Isaac, now claiming these same individuals said it was Ishmael.

The 133 Narrations for Ishmael 

There are 133 narrations present which claim that it was Ishmael who was sacrificed. 

Ibn Kathir (link) and Imam Qurtubi lists the four Companions (Sahaba) from whom it is narrated that the son intended for sacrifice was Ishmael:

1. Abu Hurairah

2. Abu Tufayl Amir bin Wathila

3. Umar ibn al-Khattab

4. Ibn Abbas

The Successors (Tabi'un) who identified the son as Ishmael, as cited by al-Qurtubi, include:

1. Sa'id bin al-Musayyib

2. Ash-Sha'bi

3. Yusuf bin Mahran

4. Mujahid

5. Rabi' bin Anas

6. Muhammad bin Ka'b al-Qurazi

7. Al-Kalbi

8. Alqama

Finally, Imam al-Qurtubi delivers his verdict, stating:

'The first view [that it was Isaac] is what is most abundantly narrated from the Prophet, from his Companions, and from the Successors.' (Link)"

While Imam al-Qurtubi acknowledged that the traditions identifying Isaac as the sacrifice were both more numerous and historically stronger, the later scholar Ibn Kathir took a radically different approach. To protect the emerging orthodox consensus, Ibn Kathir dismissed the entire mountain of early evidence, labeling all traditions favoring Isaac as "weak" and claiming they were nothing more than foreign "Isra’iliyyat" (Jewish fabrications).

In his commentary on verse 37:101, Ibn Kathir writes (link):

وقد ذهب جماعة من أهل العلم إلى أن الذبيح هو إسحاق ، وحكي ذلك عن طائفة من السلف ، حتى نقل عن بعض الصحابة أيضا ، وليس ذلك في كتاب ولا سنة ، وما أظن ذلك تلقي إلا عن أحبار أهل الكتاب ، وأخذ ذلك مسلما من غير حجة . 

A group of scholars held the view that the one intended for sacrifice was Isaac, and this view has been reported from a number of the early generations, and it has even been attributed to some of the Companions as well. However, there is no basis for this in the Book (the Quran) or the Sunnah, and I do not think this view was received except from the rabbis of the People of the Book, and it was accepted uncritically without any proof.

The Mechanism of Suppression

Ibn Kathir’s dismissal is a classic example of "fabricating an excuse." He offers no empirical evidence to prove that the 131 narrations from the Companions and Successors were actually taken from Jewish sources; he relies entirely on his own conjecture.

In the system of Islamic Ilm al-Hadith, this mere suspicion from a later authority like Ibn Kathir is often enough to discard hundreds of "authentic" narrations. This reveals a fatal flaw in the science: a "Sahih" (authentic) chain of transmission from the Prophet's family or his closest Companions can be deleted from history simply because it doesn't fit a later theological agenda.

The 'Double Narrative' Anomaly

Here is a fascinating point to note regarding the inconsistency of these reports: Ibn Abbas and Umar ibn al-Khattab (the two of the most pivotal figures in early Islam) are recorded on both sides of the argument. In some narrations, they insist the son was Isaac; in others, they claim it was Ishmael.

This same confusion persists among the Tabi'un. Leading scholars like Sa'id bin al-Musayyib, Ash-Sha'bi, Mujahid, and Alqama are also found in both camps, with conflicting reports attributed to them."

This double-narrative pattern is mathematical proof of forgery. Later Muslim transmitters stole the names and reputations of early Islamic authorities to legitimize fabricated traditions

The Quran's Failure: Both Camps Deducing Opposite Conclusions from the Same Text

Muslims claim the Quran is "clear," "easy to understand," and "manifest guidance." Yet the Isaac vs. Ishmael debate exposes this claim as false. Two of Islam's most respected scholars, both experts in Quranic interpretation, analyzed the same verses and reached completely opposite conclusions.

Imam Tabari's Quranic Analysis: Isaac Was the Sacrifice:

Tabari examined the Quranic narrative systematically and concluded that the textual evidence definitively identifies Isaac (link):

"As for the above-mentioned proof from the Quran that it really was Isaac, it is God's word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, 'I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.' This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham's vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him. The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, 'And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob', and 'Then he became fearful of them'. They said. 'Fear not!' and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her face, and cried, 'A barren old woman'. Thus, wherever the Quran mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God's words 'So we gave him tidings of a gentle son', as it is true of all such references in the Quran."

Tabari's logic was straightforward: Every time the Quran mentions God giving Abraham glad tidings of a son, it refers to Sarah and Isaac. Therefore, when Surah 37 mentions the "gentle son" who would be sacrificed, it must refer to Isaac as well.

Ibn Kathir's Quranic Analysis: Ishmael Was the Sacrifice:

Yet Ibn Kathir, analyzing the exact same Quranic passages, reached the opposite conclusion (commentary on verse 37:101):

وهذا كتاب الله شاهد ومرشد إلى أنه إسماعيل ، فإنه ذكر البشارة بالغلام الحليم ، وذكر أنه الذبيح

And this is the Book of God, acting as a witness and a guide, indicating that it was Ishmael. For it mentions the glad tidings of a 'forbearing boy' (غلام الحليم) and identifies him as the one to be sacrificed.

Ibn Kathir argued that the Quran describes two different sons with different characteristics: the "forbearing boy" (Ishmael) who was to be sacrificed, and Isaac who was promised later. According to him, the Quranic text itself clearly distinguishes between them.

The Devastating Implication:

Here we have two towering Islamic scholars, both masters of Quranic interpretation, both analyzing the same divine text that claims to be "clear" and "easy to understand"—yet they reach diametrically opposed conclusions. One says the Quran clearly indicates Isaac. The other says the Quran clearly indicates Ishmael.

If the Quran were truly clear, such fundamental disagreement among Islam's greatest scholars would be impossible. This isn't a minor point of theological nuance—this concerns the identity of the son in one of the Quran's most important prophetic narratives, a story that justifies one of Islam's central rituals performed by millions annually.

The fact that expert scholars can read the same verses and reach opposite conclusions proves the Quran's vagueness, not its clarity. A truly clear divine book would not leave its most knowledgeable interpreters in contradictory confusion about basic narrative facts.

The Ilm al-Hadith Disaster

Here is where the bankruptcy of Ilm al-Hadith as a "science" becomes undeniable. When faced with these two contradictory sets of narrations, the authentication system completely failed:

1. Scholars reached opposite conclusions using the same methodology.

Imam Qurtubi, applying the principles of Ilm al-Hadith, concluded that the 131 narrations supporting Isaac were stronger and more authentic. Imam Ibn Kathir, using the exact same "scientific" principles, concluded that the 133 narrations supporting Ishmael were stronger and the Isaac narrations were weaker.

2. The same companions appear on both sides.

Ibn Abbas is reported in authentic chains saying it was Isaac. Ibn Abbas is also reported in authentic chains saying it was Ishmael. The same contradiction appears for Umar ibn al-Khattab and numerous other early authorities. How can the same person be a reliable witness for contradictory claims?

3. Both sides claim authenticity.

Proponents of the Isaac position cite authentic chains. Proponents of the Ishmael position cite authentic chains. Both use the technical terminology of Ilm al-Hadith. Both declare their narrators trustworthy. Yet they cannot both be right.

4. No objective criteria exist to resolve the contradiction.

When pressed, Muslim scholars resort to subjective preferences, sectarian loyalties, or theological convenience. Some say "the majority opinion" should win (but early Islam favoured Isaac). Others say "stronger chains" should decide (but both sides claim stronger chains). Still others simply choose whichever position supports their pre-existing theological commitments.

The Logical Proof of Fabrication

This case provides mathematical certainty of mass fabrication:

• Premise 1: The 131 narrations say Isaac was the intended sacrifice
• Premise 2: The 133 narrations say Ishmael was the intended sacrifice
• Premise 3: Both cannot be true (logical impossibility)
• Conclusion: At least one set of narrations (totaling over 130 reports) must be fabricated

This isn't speculation. It's logical necessity. We can prove with certainty that Muslim transmitters fabricated at minimum 131 Hadith on this single topic. Yet Ilm al-Hadith cannot definitively identify which set is fabricated, exposing the entire authentication system as subjective opinion dressed up as science.

Was Eid al-Adha Originally Named After Isaac (Izhak / إضحاك)?

There is a striking and often-ignored possibility: the name Eid al-Adha may actually have been named after Isaac himself. Isaac’s name in Hebrew is Yitzhak or Itzhak, which corresponds closely with the Arabic form إضحاك (Izhak), meaning “laughter.”

This raises an uncomfortable question for Muslims today: Is it possible that Eid al-Adha was originally associated with Isaac, and not Ishmael?

Let’s explore the reasoning.

1. The Linguistic Clue: Izhak and Adha

The phonetic similarity between Izhak (إضحاك) and Adha (أضحى) cannot be easily dismissed. It is entirely plausible that the name Eid al-Adha originally evolved not from a root verb implying “sacrifice” in Arabic, but from a proper name: Isaac (Izhak).

Muslims today deny this strongly. They argue that the Arabic language follows strict triliteral root patterns, and that the word ضحى (duha or adha) comes from the root ض-ح-ي, meaning “to sacrifice” or “morning light.” In contrast, the name Izhak comes from the root ض-ح-ك, meaning “to laugh.” Based on this difference, they claim the two have no relation.

But here is where their argument falls apart.

2. The Flaw in the Muslim Objection

The name of the festival, Eid al-Adha, is not a grammatical derivative of an Arabic root. It is not a verb. It is the name of an event, and possibly a person. Therefore, applying Arabic root grammar to this name is irrelevant if the origin of the word is foreign, which is in this case, Hebrew.

In other words, Muslims are trying to judge a foreign name using Arabic root rules, which is a false equivalence. Just as the name Ibrahim is not derived from any Arabic root, but is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew Avraham, so too could Adha be a linguistic borrowing or distortion of Izhak (Isaac).

Arabic grammar cannot override historical etymology.

3. The False Claim That “Duha” Means Sacrifice

Muslims today argue that the word ضحى (Duha / Adha) means “sacrifice,” and that the festival Eid al-Adha is therefore the “Festival of Sacrifice.” But where is the proof for this?

Is there any verse in the Quran that uses Duha or Adha to mean “sacrifice”?

No, there is not.

Is there any evidence from pre-Islamic Arabic poetry or literature that Duha was used to refer to the act of animal sacrifice?

Again, no.

In fact, the word Duha is commonly used in the Quran to mean “morning” or “daylight” , for example, in Surah Ad-Duhaa. It was never used in the Quran to refer to sacrifice. The usage of ضحى to mean “sacrifice” was introduced in Arabic Dictionaries after Islam, by Muslim scholars trying to justify the naming of the Eid.

So the entire claim that Adha means “sacrifice” has no basis in the Quran or early Arabic. It is an invention and a back-projection to suit religious narrative.

The name Eid al-Adha, like a fossil, preserves the original version of the story, the version in which Isaac, not Ishmael, was the intended sacrifice.

The name Eid al-Adha may be the final, unintentional proof left behind by history. It may echo the original association with Isaac (Izhak), before hadith writers rewrote the story to tie it to Ishmael and Mecca.

Muslim scholars can twist hadiths. They can reinterpret verses. But they cannot erase the linguistic and historical traces that expose the contradictions and forgeries within their tradition.

The name Adha may not come from Arabic sacrifice at all. It may come from Isaac — the real Zabihullah.

Trusting Muslim Ahadith is nothing short of madness

The hadith tradition within Islam is plagued with contradictions so deep and destructive that trusting in it is not just misguided. It is madness.

Take, for example, the issue of who was to be sacrificed: Isaac or Ishmael. Among the companions of Muhammad, we find contradictory narrations. Ibn Abbas and Umar ibn al-Khattab are reported in some traditions to say it was Isaac, while in others these same companions claim it was Ishmael. How is it possible? 

The confusion continues with the next generation. Shabi, Mujahid, and Alqamah also appear on both sides of the debate (i.e. in some narrations, they are claming Isaac to be the son who was slaughtered, but in others, they are claiming Ismael to be the son who was slaughtered). 

So, after such a HUGE contradiction, how can anyone claim the hadith literature is reliable? These contradictions are not accidents. They are symptoms of a broader disease: the intentional manufacturing of hadiths to defend and glorify Islam.

This brings us to a foundational distinction:

1. Unverifiable Revelations: Many hadiths exist where Muhammad alone claims to have received a revelation from the angel Jibreel (Gabriel). No one else ever saw or heard anything. There were no witnesses. This leaves the door wide open for abuse. Muhammad could easily claim any "revelation" he wanted to serve his personal interests. For example, as explained in the article “The Role of Revelation in Muhammad’s Journey from 4 Marriages to 9 Marriages,” we see clear examples of Muhammad using revelations to justify personal decisions.

2. Historically Witnessed Events: There are other traditions where multiple people witnessed the events. The mass execution of all the men of Banu Qurayzah is one such case, including old men and boys who had reached puberty. These hadiths carry a bit more weight because others also reported them. But even here, Muslims later introduced fabricated reports with contradictory details. In the end, the truth was buried under a flood of invented counter-narratives.

Ilm al-Hadith: A Sophisticated Tool for Covering Up Contradictions

To handle the tidal wave of contradictions, later generations of Muslims invented Ilm al-Hadith, the so-called "science" of hadith authentication. But this was not an impartial search for truth. It was a political and religious tool designed to clean up the mess and silence narrators who exposed uncomfortable facts about Muhammad and Islam.

If someone exposed a flaw in Muhammad's actions, the scholars would simply label that narrator as weak (da'if), forgetful, or misguided in belief. On the other hand, if a narrator praised Muhammad, he would be declared trustworthy (thiqah). The result was a complete contradiction within the very system that claimed to establish truth.

Take, for instance, the sacrifice narrative:

• Imam Qurtubi, using Ilm al-Hadith, judged that 131 narrations supporting Isaac as the sacrificial son were stronger.

• But Imam Ibn Kathir, using the same Ilm al-Hadith, declared those same 131 narrations as weaker, and instead supported the 133 narrations in favor of Ishmael.

So what are we left with? Two top scholars using the same “science” and reaching opposite conclusions. If this is not proof of contradiction, what is?

The Universal Truth: Contradiction Exposes Falsehood

It is a universal principle that truth is internally consistent, while falsehood is riddled with contradictions. Islam’s hadith tradition fails this test spectacularly. And the so-called Ilm al-Hadith, instead of solving the problem, exposes it even more.

Let us not forget: the entire hadith corpus was compiled, preserved, interpreted, and controlled entirely by Muslims. They had every reason to alter, embellish, or suppress narrations in defense of their prophet and religion. There was no external oversight. No independent verification. Just a monopoly. And a motive.

Hadith is not history. It is not evidence. It is religious propaganda disguised in scholarly robes.

To believe in this system after seeing its internal contradictions is not just naive. It is madness.

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

The Quran makes bold claims about its clarity and simplicity:

• 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)

But all of these promises collapse when we examine the incident of the sacrificial son. Despite being in the Arabic language, and despite the claim of clarity, the Quran fails to clearly state who was meant to be sacrificed: Ishmael or Isaac.

As a result, Muslim scholars are completely divided.

• One group uses the same Quranic verses to argue that Isaac was the sacrificial son.
• Another group uses the same Quranic verses to argue that it was Ishmael.

If the Quran were truly clear and easy to understand, such a major contradiction among scholars would not exist. This dispute exposes the falsehood of the Quran’s claim to be a book of manifest guidance. A divine book should not leave its followers confused over such a central story, especially after promising clarity.

This is not a minor detail. It touches on the very heart of Islamic theology, lineage, and identity. Yet the Quran leaves it vague and open to endless debate. This incident stands as undeniable proof that the Quran’s promises of clarity, ease, and guidance are not only unfulfilled but also misleading.

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