Muslims Have Slaughtered Billions of Animals, Yet Still Don’t Know Who Was Sacrificed: Ishaq or Ismail?
It is astonishing. Muslims have killed billions of animals over the last 1400 years in memory of a sacrifice, yet they do not even know with certainty which son of Abraham was sacrificed. Was it Ishaq (Isaac), or was it Ismail (Ishmael)? The confusion is not minor. It strikes at the very foundation of one of Islam’s central rituals.
There were originally 131 narrations from early Muslims, including respected companions and successors, that clearly identified Isaac as the sacrificial son. These narrations were passed down through reliable chains, attributed to key figures such as Ibn Abbas and Abdullah ibn Masud. However, these accounts presented a theological problem for later generations of Muslims.
If Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac, and that event occurred in Jerusalem (not Mecca), then how could the ritual of animal sacrifice during Hajj in Mina, Mecca, be justified as a continuation of that divine event? After all, Isaac never visited Mecca. Nor did his descendants. That left the entire Islamic practice of animal sacrifice during Hajj hanging on nothing but thin air.
In reality, the Arabs before Islam already had a pagan tradition of sacrificing animals at Mina. When Muhammad adopted many of the rituals of the pre-Islamic Arabs during Hajj, he also absorbed this pagan tradition. But to give it a sacred and Abrahamic origin, Muslim scholars had to reframe the story.
Thus began a campaign of fabrication.
Later hadith collectors and scholars manufactured 133 narrations that claimed it was not Isaac, but Ishmael, who was to be sacrificed. These new narrations strategically placed the event in Mina, thus giving the Islamic Hajj ritual a divine origin rooted in the legacy of Abraham and Ishmael. The newly forged hadiths effectively buried the older 131 narrations that had stated the opposite.
This was not an accident. It was a deliberate rewriting of history to suit a religious agenda. It was damage control.
Even prominent classical Islamic scholars recognized this contradiction. Imam Qurtubi, in his tafsir under verse Quran 37:102, wrote 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 ... This opinion is STRONGER (Arabic: قوي) in terms of the narration from the Prophet, peace be upon him, and from the companions and the successors.
Despite this overwhelming testimony in favor of Isaac, later Muslims ignored it. Instead, they followed the fabricated traditions to make Ishmael the sacrificial son, just to give their rituals credibility.
This entire episode is a testament to the unreliability of Islamic hadith literature. The fact that 131 narrations had to be overpowered by inventing 133 opposing ones shows that hadith transmission was not divine truth but religious propaganda dressed up as sacred history.
Imam Tabari gave his final decision about the Quran on this matter in these words (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."
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)
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 in 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:
-
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.
-
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
Hassan Radwan