Tafsir of As-Saffat 37:113

(And We blessed him)—that is, Abraham, peace be upon him—(and Isaac)—that is, We poured upon them both the blessings of religion and the world, by increasing their progeny and appointing among them prophets and messengers.

It is recited as (barrakna) with a shaddah (emphatic doubling), for intensification.

(And from their progeny are those who do good)—in their actions, or toward themselves through faith and obedience—(and those who are clearly unjust to themselves)—by disbelief and disobedience, and this includes injustice toward others; (clearly unjust)—meaning their injustice is manifest. In this, there is a notification that lineage has no effect upon guidance or misguidance, and that injustice in the descendants does not cast a flaw or defect upon the ancestors.

Regarding this matter, there are several discussions after the verses:

(First): They differed regarding the [identity of the] "Sacrificed One" (al-dhabih). According to what Al-Jalal Al-Suyuti mentioned in his treatise Al-Qawl al-Fasih fi Ta'yin al-Dhabih, Ali, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurairah, Abu al-Tufayl, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Al-Sha'bi, Yusuf ibn Mihran, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Abu Ja'far al-Baqir, Abu Salih, Al-Rabi' ibn Anas, Al-Kalbi, Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala', Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and others stated that it was Ishmael, peace be upon him, not Isaac, peace be upon him. This is one of the two narrations from Ibn Abbas, and a group preferred it, especially the majority of the Hadith scholars. Abu Hatim said: "This is the authentic position." In Al-Huda, it is stated that this is the correct view according to the scholars among the Companions, the Successors, and those who came after them.

Abu Sa'id al-Darir was asked about this and he recited:

"The sacrificed one, you have been guided, is Ishmael; the text of the Book states this, as does the Revelation. Through him, God favored our Prophet, and the exegesis and interpretation have come with it. If you are of his nation, do not deny him the honor with which he has been exclusively distinguished."

There is some consideration regarding his claim of a "textual" proof. This was also famous among the Arabs before the Prophetic mission, as indicated by verses quoted by Al-Tha'alibi in his exegesis from Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt.

Evidence for this [being Ishmael] includes:

1. That he is the one who was granted to Abraham after the supplication mentioned, as opposed to the glad tidings of this boy [Isaac]. The appearance of distinctness [in the verses] dictates that it is Ishmael.
2. That he was given glad tidings that he would exist and be a prophet, so it is not permissible for Abraham to be tested with his slaughter, as he knew the condition for its occurrence [that he would be a prophet] was nullified [by the slaughter]. The answer to this is that the first [verse] is a glad tiding of existence, and this [second one] is a glad tiding of Prophethood, but after the sacrifice. The author of Al-Kashf said this is weak because the structure of the verse does not indicate that the glad tidings are of his Prophethood, but rather that the glad tidings are of an affair restricted by Prophethood. Thus, one must either assume the existence of Isaac after the sacrifice—for which there is no indication in the wording—or assume absolute existence, which is the intended meaning. If you say: "The precedence of the glad tidings of existence is sufficient," I say: That counts against you, not for you. Who agrees that the preceding [verse] is a glad tiding of Isaac so that your intent may be realized?
3. That the glad tidings of him were accompanied by the birth of Jacob from him, as is apparent in the Almighty’s saying in Hud: "So We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob." When glad tidings are given for a son and a grandson at once, how can the command to sacrifice the son in his youth—before the birth of his own son—be conceived? The refutation of him being a youth at the time, on the grounds that he could have been an adult as the Jews hold (that Jacob was born to him and others), is a stubbornness not to be heeded.
4. That the Almighty described Ishmael, peace be upon him, with patience in His saying, the Sublime: "And Ishmael, and Idris, and Dhu al-Kifl—all were of the patient," and that the Almighty described him with truthfulness of promise in His saying: "Indeed, he was truthful to his promise," while the Almighty did not describe Isaac with either of these. Therefore, it is more appropriate for him—rather than another—that a speaker would say: "O my father, do as you are commanded; you will find me, if Allah wills, among the patient," confirming his word with his action.
5. That what occurred was in Mecca, and Ishmael is the one who was there.
6. That the horns of the ram were hanging in the Ka'bah until they burned with it during the siege of Al-Hajjaj ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), and they had been inherited by the Quraysh generation after generation. It is apparent that they would not have done that except for pride, and it would not be valid for them if the ram were a ransom for Isaac, not for their father Ishmael.
7. That Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak, Ibn Jarir in his exegesis, Al-Umawi in his Maghazi, and Al-Khuli in his Fawa'id recorded via Isma'il ibn Abi Karimah, from 'Umar ibn Abi Muhammad al-Khattabi, from Al-'Utbi, from his father, from Abdullah ibn Sa'id al-Sanabihi, who said: "We were present in a gathering with Mu'awiyah, and the people discussed Ishmael and Isaac as to which of them was the sacrifice. Some said Ishmael, and others said Isaac. Mu'awiyah said: 'You have fallen upon one who knows! We were with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) when a Bedouin came to him and said: "O Messenger of Allah, I have left the pasture dry, the water scarce; the family has perished, and the wealth is lost. So help me from what Allah has given you, O Son of the Two Sacrificed Ones." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) smiled and did not deny it.' The people asked: 'Who are the two sacrificed ones, O Commander of the Faithful?' He replied: 'When Abd al-Muttalib was ordered to dig Zamzam, he vowed to Allah that if the matter was eased, he would slaughter one of his sons. When he finished, he drew lots among them; they were ten, and the lot fell on Abdullah. He wanted to slaughter him, but his maternal uncles of Banu Makhzum prevented him and said: "Satisfy your Lord and ransom your son." So he ransomed him with one hundred camels.' Mu'awiyah said: 'This is one, and the other is Ishmael.'"

Evidence for the other view (that it is Isaac) includes:

• The fact that Allah did not mention glad tidings of Ishmael before his birth, so it must be Isaac, for his [birth] is established by text.
• That Hajar, the mother of Ishmael, was not under him [at that time], so the one called for was the son of Sarah. The response to this is that this verse is sufficient as proof that he was also given glad tidings of him, because the Almighty’s saying, "And We gave him glad tidings of Isaac," after completing this story and attaching it as it is, is clearly indicative that there were two distinct glad tidings. Furthermore, the lack of mention [in the text] does not indicate non-existence. Nor is it required that he sought this from Sarah, nor is it known that he, peace be upon him, prayed for that before Hajar was gifted to him, for she was gifted to him in Harran before reaching the Levant. Moreover, the glad tidings of Isaac were clearly in the Levant; thus, the appearance of this verse is that it [the story of the sacrifice] was before reaching the Levant, because the glad tidings occurred following the supplication, and that was before reaching the Levant, as stated in Al-Kashf.

[There are also] reports narrated by Ibn Jarir from Abu Kurayb, from Zayd ibn Hubab, from Al-Hasan ibn Dinar, from Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jud'an, from Al-Hasan, from Al-Ahnaf ibn Qays, from Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "The sacrificed one is Isaac." This is countered by the fact that Al-Hasan ibn Dinar is "abandoned" (matruk) and his teacher is "of rejected hadith" (munkar al-hadith).

And [the report] which Al-Daylami brought out in Musnad al-Firdaws... [mentions] that David asked his Lord, "Make me like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," and God revealed: "I tested Abraham with the fire and he was patient, I tested Isaac with the sacrifice and he was patient, and I tested Jacob and he was patient."

And [the report] which Al-Daraqutni and Al-Daylami brought out... from Ibn Mas'ud, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "The sacrificed one is Isaac."

And [the report] which Al-Tabarani brought out in Al-Awsat and Ibn Abi Hatim in his exegesis... from Abu Hurairah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Indeed, Allah gave me the choice between half my nation being forgiven or my intercession, and I chose my intercession... When Allah relieved Isaac of the distress of the sacrifice, it was said to him: 'Ask, and you shall be given.' He said: 'I ask for the forgiveness of my nation...' This is countered by the fact that Abd al-Rahman is weak, and Ibn Kathir said the hadith is "strange and rejected," and I fear there is an insertion (idraj) in it.

The proponents of this view claim the authenticity of some of these [hadiths]. Some of what was cited as evidence for the first [position] was answered, such as the claim that the story occurred in Mecca—it is not conceded, rather it was in the Levant. The hanging of the horns in the Ka'bah does not prove it occurred in Mecca, as they could have been moved from the Levant to Mecca. Even if we concede it occurred in Mecca, there is no obstacle to Abraham having traveled with him from the Levant to there.

Regarding the matter of the two sacrificed ones (the Son of the Two Sacrificed Ones), Al-Iraqi said: "I have not encountered it." The aforementioned report, once its state is known, is not sufficient to establish it as a hadith. There is no need to interpret it as meaning Isaac and Abdullah, or that the "two sacrificers" are Abraham and Abd al-Muttalib.

Some scholars saw the strength of the evidence on both sides and, not finding one to outweigh the other, remained silent regarding the designation, like Al-Jalal Al-Suyuti (may mercy be upon him), who said at the end of his aforementioned treatise: "I had inclined toward the view that the sacrificed one is Isaac in the exegesis, but now I am withholding from that." Others said: "There is much evidence indicating it is Isaac, and the majority of the People of the Book agree on it, and there is no authentic hadith that contradicts it. Perhaps it happened twice: once in the Levant for Isaac, and once in Mecca for Ishmael." Withholding is better for me than this statement. As for what I incline toward, it is Ishmael, peace be upon him, based on the fact that the apparent meaning of the verse dictates it, and it is what is narrated from many of the Imams of the Household (Ahl al-Bayt). I have not found any authentic, raised (marfu') hadith that necessitates otherwise.

(Second Discussion): It is argued from the story that the abrogation of a command before its performance is permissible, which is the school of many of the jurists (usuliyyin); the Mu'tazila and Al-Sayrafi opposed this. The point of the argument, as explained by some prominent scholars, is that Abraham, peace be upon him, was commanded to sacrifice his son, by the evidence of "Do as you are commanded," and he set out to sacrifice and terrify the son. If he were not commanded, it would be forbidden by law and custom. It was abrogated before the action because he did not perform it. If the action had occurred upon the arrival of the time, he would have been a sinner [had he not done it]. This was challenged... but the answer remains that the command was abrogated before the ability to perform it, which is the requirement.

(Third Discussion): Abu Hanifah argued from the story that if one vows to sacrifice his son, he must sacrifice a sheep instead. Muhammad [al-Shaybani] agreed with him in this, and Imam Al-Qurtubi transmitted it from Malik. In Tanwir al-Absar and its commentary Al-Durr al-Mukhtar: "If he vows to sacrifice his son, he owes a sheep, due to the story of the Friend [Abraham], peace be upon him." The second [Abu Yusuf] and Al-Shafi'i cancelled it, like one who vows to kill [his son]. Al-Jassas reported that a vow to kill is like a vow to sacrifice. An objection was raised against the Imam that it is a sin, and "there is no vow in disobedience to Allah." He said: "That was in the law of Abraham, peace be upon him, regarding the sacrifice of a sheep, and its abrogation was not established, so it is not a sin." Some Shafi'is said: "There is nothing in the glorious text indicating it was a vow by Abraham, so it cannot be used as evidence." It is answered that it was reported in the transmitted exegesis that he did vow it, and this is in the ruling of a text. The fairness of the matter is that the reasoning of Al-Shafi'i and Abu Yusuf is more apparent and stronger than that of the Greatest Imam, may Allah be pleased with him, in this issue. So reflect upon it.