And mention in the Book, Isma'il

The apparent meaning is that he is the son of Ibrahim (peace be upon both of them), as the majority have held, and this is the truth. He singled him out by mentioning him separately from his father and his brother (peace be upon them) to highlight the perfection of the care taken regarding his affair by presenting him independently.

It has been said: He is Isma'il ibn Hizqil, whom Allah the Exalted sent to his people, and they flayed the skin of his head. Allah the Exalted gave him the choice regarding whatever he wished for their punishment, but he sought pardon for them and was content with the reward of Allah the Exalted, delegating their affair to Him, Mighty and Majestic is He, regarding pardon and retribution. The Imami sect narrated this from Abu ‘Abd Allah—may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him—and it is most likely that it is not authentic from him.

"Indeed, he was true to his promise"

This is a justification for the necessity of the command. He (peace be upon him) is presented with this description due to his extreme fame for it. It has come in some reports that he promised a man to wait for him in a place, so he remained there for a year, and when the man came to him, he said to him: "Have you not departed from your place?" He replied: "No, by Allah, I would not break my promise." It is also said: He remained there for twelve days; and according to Muqatil, three days; and according to Sahl ibn Sa'd, for a day and a night—and the first is more well-known. The Imami sect also narrated it from Abu ‘Abd Allah—may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him.

If he is the Dhabih (the one intended for sacrifice), then that is sufficient evidence of his truthfulness, for he promised his father patience regarding the slaughter by saying: "You will find me, if Allah wills, among the steadfast," and he fulfilled it. Some intellectual scholars who have lingered on this said: It is not far-fetched that this is an allusion to that promise, and being truthful in it is among the greatest things imaginable.

"And he was a messenger, a prophet"

The discourse regarding this is the same as the discourse regarding the previous one. However, they said here: There is an indication in it that a messenger does not necessarily have to be the possessor of an independent law, for the children of Ibrahim (peace be upon them) were upon his law, even though the contrary is famous. Rather, some of them stipulated that he must also be the possessor of a Book. The truth is that this is not necessary.

It has been said: The meaning of him being a possessor of a law is that he has a law relative to those to whom he was sent. Isma'il (peace be upon him) was such, for he was sent to the Jurhum tribe with the law of his father, while Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was not sent to them. The weakness of this [argument] is not hidden.