The Abrahamic Covenant in Islam: Ratified After the Sacrifice, Not Predeclared

Azahari Hassim

📜 The Abrahamic Covenant in Islam: Ratified After the Sacrifice, Not Predeclared

A Qur’anic Rebuttal to the Biblical Chronology of Covenant

Introduction

In the Biblical narrative of Genesis 17, the covenant between God and Abraham is presented as a predeclared agreement, granted before the birth of Isaac, and independent of any monumental act of obedience. By contrast, the Qur’an presents a profoundly different theological order: the covenant is not announced in advance but is conferred upon Abraham only after he proves unwavering submission—most dramatically, in the episode traditionally understood in Islam as the near-sacrifice of Ishmael.

This difference is not a minor chronological disagreement; it reveals two fundamentally divergent theological frameworks. In the Qur’an, the covenant is something earned through obedience, not something granted beforehand and later tested. The pivotal verse is Surah al-Baqarah 2:124, a cornerstone of Islamic covenant theology.

⸻

🌟The Qur’anic Sequence: The Covenant Comes After the Test

1. The Test Precedes the Covenant (Qur’an 2:124)

The Qur’an states plainly:

“And [remember] when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands, and he fulfilled them.
[God] said: ‘I will make you a leader for mankind.’”
(Qur’an 2:124)

This verse establishes two essential theological principles:

1. The covenant (leadership / imamate) was not announced beforehand.
2. It was granted only after Abraham successfully fulfilled a set of divine commands.

Islamic exegetes—classical and modern—identify the ultimate test (al-balāʾ al-ʿaẓīm, cf. 37:106) as the command to sacrifice his son, whom Muslims understand to be Ishmael. This act represents the apex of Abraham’s submission (islām), making him the archetypal Muslim (22:78).

Thus, in the Qur’anic order:

• Test → Fulfillment → Covenant

The covenant is the result, not the premise, of Abraham’s obedience.

⸻

2. The Son in the Qur’anic Narrative: Ishmael, the Firstborn and Heir of Sacrifice

The Qur’an situates the sacrifice narrative before the birth announcement of Isaac (37:100–113). This means:

• The son involved must be Ishmael.
• The covenantal blessing upon Abraham flows from the episode with Ishmael, not Isaac.

This has direct implications for covenant theology:

• Ishmael, not Isaac, is the son through whom Abraham demonstrates absolute surrender.
• Therefore, the covenant’s ratification follows Abraham’s relationship with Ishmael—not Isaac.

This reverses the chronological and theological structure found in Genesis 17–22.

⸻

♦️ The Biblical Sequence: Covenant First, Test Later

In Genesis 17, the covenant is:

• Announced before Isaac’s birth,
• Unconditional,
• Tied specifically to Isaac as the exclusive heir.

The order is the reverse of the Qur’an:

• Covenant → Birth Promise → Test (Genesis 22)

This creates a theological puzzle often noted in Jewish and Christian scholarship:

Why would God declare Isaac the guaranteed covenantal heir in Genesis 17,
only to command his near-destruction in Genesis 22?

From the Qur’anic viewpoint, this puzzle does not arise, because:

1. The covenant had not yet been announced.
2. The test was not of Isaac but of Ishmael.
3. The covenant comes after the supreme test, not before it.

⸻

♦️ Qur’anic Theology: Covenant as the Fruit of Obedience

Surah 2:124 continues:

“[Abraham] said: ‘And from my descendants?’
[God] replied: ‘My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.’”

This indicates:

• The covenant is conditional (ishtirāṭī), not automatic.
• It does not blanket all biological descendants.
• Its transmission is tied to righteousness, not mere lineage.

Thus, unlike the Biblical model—which ties covenantal inheritance exclusively to Isaac’s seed—the Qur’anic model conditions covenantal leadership on piety and submission, not ethnicity or primogeniture.

⸻

☪️ Why the Qur’anic Order Matters

1. It Resolves the Canonical Tension in the Bible

The Qur’anic sequence avoids the apparent contradiction of:

• Promising Isaac as the guaranteed heir in Genesis 17,
• Then nearly eliminating him in Genesis 22.

2. It Places Ishmael at the Heart of Covenant History

Since the covenant follows the test, and since the test involves Ishmael, the Qur’an centers Ishmael—not Isaac—as the arena of covenantal ratification.

3. It Embodies the Core Islamic Principle: Submission Before Privilege

In Islam, honor is a result of submission.
Covenant arises from obedience.
Imamate (leadership) comes after trial.

Abraham becomes the Imam (leader) of Humanity because he fulfilled the test, not because of biological lineage.

⸻

📕 Conclusion

From the Qur’anic perspective, the Abrahamic covenant is not a predeclared divine grant delivered before the birth of a promised son. Instead, it is a conferred reward—bestowed after Abraham’s greatest act of obedience: his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael.

Surah 2:124 stands as the decisive statement of this theology. The covenant, in Islam, is the crown placed upon Abraham only after he proves that nothing—not even his beloved son—stands between him and his Lord.

This Qur’anic narrative not only diverges sharply from the Biblical sequence in Genesis 17 and 22 but also reframes the covenant as the fruit of faith, earned through total submission—a paradigm that shapes the entire Abrahamic identity of Islam.

“How can an event presented as the supreme test of Abraham’s faith (Genesis 22) remain canonically isolated, unreferenced, and theologically underdeveloped elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures?”

❓ What the statement means

The statement is not making a claim; it is asking a critical interpretive question.

In plain terms, it is pointing to a puzzle inside the Hebrew Bible and asking why that puzzle exists.

⸻

📖 1. “An event presented as the supreme test of Abraham’s faith (Genesis 22)”

This refers to Genesis 22, where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but stops him at the last moment.

• This story is often seen as the ultimate test of Abraham’s faith and obedience to God.

• It’s one of the most dramatic and foundational moments in the biblical narrative.

⸻

🧩 2. “Canonically isolated” — what this means

To say the story is canonically isolated means:

• Later biblical books do not refer back to Genesis 22

• There is no appeal to this event in:

• the Law

• the Prophets

• the Psalms

• Israel’s national theology

By contrast, events like the Exodus, Sinai, or Davidic covenant are repeatedly recalled and theologized.

⸻

🤐 3. “Unreferenced” — the silence is striking

If Genesis 22 were truly the supreme model of faith, we might expect later texts to say things like:

• “Remember how Abraham offered his son…”

• “As Abraham proved faithful at Moriah…”

• “God chose Abraham because he passed the great test…”

But none of this happens.

The episode is never explicitly cited as a foundation for Israel’s faith or identity.

⸻

🧠 4. “Theologically underdeveloped” — no doctrine grows from it

The story does not become:

• a law

• a ritual

• a theological principle

• a recurring moral example in Israel’s scriptures

Instead, it remains a single, self-contained narrative, powerful but unexplained.

⸻

🔍 5. What the question is really asking

So the statement is asking:

How can a story framed as the greatest test of faith fail to shape the theology of the rest of the Bible?

And more pointedly:

• Was Genesis 22 intended to function differently than later readers assume?

• Is its role literary rather than doctrinal?

• Does the silence suggest editorial layering, theological discomfort, or narrative tension?

⸻

⚠️ 6. Why this matters for interpretation

The question implies that importance inside a story does not automatically equal importance inside the canon.

That forces interpreters to reconsider:

• how Genesis 22 should be read,

• whether later traditions have amplified its meaning beyond the Hebrew Bible itself,

• and whether the silence is accidental or meaningful.

⸻

🧾 In simple terms

The statement means this:

If Genesis 22 stands as the supreme test of faith, it is remarkable that the rest of the Hebrew Bible remains almost silent about it.

That tension is what the statement invites the reader to think about.

Search

Search