Midrashic and Islamic Interpretations of Abraham's Sacrifice: The Identity of the 'Only Son'

What is the explanation of the Midrash about Isaac being called "thy only son" when God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son? In Islamic tradition, it is Ishmael and not Isaac, whom God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his son.


The Midrash, which is a form of rabbinic literature that provides interpretative commentary on the Torah, offers several explanations for why Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only son" in the context of the Akedah (the Binding of Isaac). Here are some key points from the Midrashic perspective:

The Midrash explains that while Abraham had two sons, Isaac held a unique status as the son of the covenant. He was born to Sarah, Abraham's wife, and was seen as the fulfillment of God's promise. Isaac is considered the spiritual heir of Abraham, chosen to carry on the legacy of monotheism and the covenant with God.

In some Midrashic accounts, when God says "your only son," Abraham responds by saying he has two sons. God then specifies "the one whom you love," and Abraham says he loves both. Finally, God says "Isaac," clarifying His command. The phrase "only son" is interpreted to mean the son who is singularly devoted to God, emphasizing Isaac's spiritual qualities rather than his birth order.

Some rabbinical commentators suggest that the Hebrew word for "only" (יחיד) can also mean "unique" or "special," rather than strictly "sole." The use of "only son" is seen as part of the test, emphasizing the magnitude of what God is asking Abraham to sacrifice.

In contrast, the Islamic tradition, as recorded in the Quran, identifies Ishmael as the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. The Quranic narrative does not explicitly name the son, but Islamic tradition and many Muslim scholars have historically identified him as Ishmael. This is partly based on the sequence of events in the Quran, which suggests that the promise of Isaac's birth came after the sacrifice narrative, implying Ishmael was the son involved.

The differences between the Jewish and Islamic narratives have been the subject of theological discussions and interpretations. Some scholars suggest that each tradition emphasizes different aspects of the story to highlight their theological and historical narratives.

While the Islamic tradition interprets the sacrificial son to be Ishmael based on him being the firstborn, Judaism relies on the Torah's explicit identification of Isaac and his special covenantal status to explain why Isaac is called the "only son" in this context. The two traditions remain at odds on this important narrative.

In summary, the explanation of the Midrash about Isaac being called "thy only son" is a matter of religious interpretation, with Jewish and Islamic traditions holding different views on who was the son intended for sacrifice.

Abraham’s Sacrifice: An Islamic Perspective on Potential Scribal Interpolation in Genesis 22

Micah 6, verse 7, reads:

“Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?“

Jeremiah 8, verse 8, reads:

“'How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?“
Several Islamic scholars believe Micah 6, verse 7, and Jeremiah 8, verse 8, may reflect a scribal interpolation of Isaac's name in Genesis 22. The son who was nearly sacrificed is believed to have been Ishmael, not Isaac. What is the articulation of their argument?

The argument presented by some Islamic scholars regarding the potential scribal interpolation of Isaac's name in Genesis 22 is based on several key points:

1. Quranic perspective: The Quran mentions the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son but does not explicitly name the son. Islamic tradition generally holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was to be sacrificed.

2. Textual analysis of Micah 6, verse 7: This verse states, "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" Some Islamic scholars interpret this as a reference to the sacrifice story and argue that since Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, this verse supports the idea that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice.

3. Interpretation of Jeremiah 8, verse 8: This verse reads, "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Islamic scholars use this to suggest that scribes may have altered biblical texts, potentially including the story of Abraham's sacrifice.

4. Historical context: Some scholars suggest that the emphasis on Isaac in Jewish traditions may have led to a gradual change in the story, resulting in Isaac's name being added to the biblical narrative.

5. Linguistic analysis: Some scholars examine the original Hebrew text and argue that there are inconsistencies or ambiguities that could support the idea of later interpolation.

6. Theological implications: The argument often ties into broader Islamic theological perspectives on the role and significance of Ishmael in the Abrahamic tradition.

It is crucial to emphasize that this perspective is not universally embraced by scholars of comparative religion, and it is just one interpretation within a multifaceted interfaith discussion. The argument relies heavily on interpretation and inference, as there is no direct textual evidence of interpolation in the Genesis account itself.

This perspective challenges traditional Jewish and Christian understandings of the text and highlights the different ways sacred texts can be interpreted across religious traditions.

The Unnamed Son of Abraham's Sacrifice in the Quran

In the Quran, the specific name of the son to be sacrificed by Abraham is not mentioned. Thus it signifies that the name of Isaac in Genesis 22, verse 2, is nothing but a scribal interpolation. What is the explanation for this argument?

The argument that the Quran's omission of the specific name of the son to be sacrificed by Abraham signifies that the name of Isaac in Genesis 22, verse 2, is a scribal interpolation is a viewpoint held by some scholars, but it is not universally accepted within the field of biblical studies or Islamic theology. This argument is based on textual and historical analysis and often arises in discussions about the relationship between the Quran and the Bible.

Here's a brief overview of the argument:

1. Quranic account: In the Quran, the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is mentioned in Surah As Saffat (Chapter 37), but the specific name of the son is not provided. This omission has led some scholars to argue that the Quran intentionally avoids naming the son to prevent any confusion or dispute regarding the identity of the son.

2. Biblical account: In the Book of Genesis (Genesis 22, verse 2), the son to be sacrificed is identified as Isaac. This is a well-known account in both Jewish and Christian traditions.

3. Argument: Some scholars propose that the Quranic omission of the son's name suggests that the original, unaltered biblical account did not specify the son's name, and the name Isaac was added later through scribal interpolation in the biblical text.

4. Quranic Interpretation:
The Quranic narrative does not explicitly name the son of the near sacrifice, but Islamic tradition and many Muslim scholars have historically identified him as Ishmael. This belief is supported by the chronological events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac's birth was made after the account of sacrifice, suggesting that Ishmael was the likely candidate for sacrifice.

It's important to note that this argument is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate among scholars regarding the relationship between the Quran and the Bible. Islamic tradition generally does not delve into such textual criticism but rather focuses on the theological and moral aspects of the story.

Islam as the Restored Faith of Abraham: Addressing Perceived Deviations in Judaism and Christianity

Islam is considered as a restored religion of Abraham due to Judaism corrupting their text as regards a son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. At the same time, Christianity corrupted their scripture concerning the oneness of God and the rite of circumcision. What is the explanation for this?

The belief that Islam is a restored religion of Abraham stems from the belief that both Judaism and Christianity deviated from the original teachings of Abraham. According to Islamic beliefs, Judaism corrupted their text by incorrectly interpreting the command to sacrifice a son, as mentioned in the Quran. Muslims believe that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Ishmael, not Isaac as mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

Similarly, Muslims believe that Christianity corrupted their scripture by deviating from the belief in the oneness of God (monotheism) and by modifying the rite of circumcision. Islam emphasizes the concept of tawheed, which is the belief in the oneness of God, and questions the Trinity as mentioned in Christian theology. Islam also practices circumcision, although the method and significance may differ from those in Judaism and some Christian traditions.

These differences and perceived corruptions are seen from the perspective of Islamic theology, which asserts that Islam is the restoration of the original teachings of Abraham, as revealed in the Quran.