In the Quran Ibrāhīm is said to have founded the sanctuary of the Kaʿba together with his son Ismāʿīl. In this paper I will suggest that this episode is a reflection of post-biblical traditions concerning Genesis 22. In addition to presenting the parallels between the stories, I will also discuss the new features found in the quranic version.

This episode is described in Q 2: 127–9 in the following manner:

There are two difficulties in the Arabic of verse 127 which are smoothed out in my translation. First, Ismāʿīl is not mentioned immediately after Ibrāhīm, but only at the end of the sentence after the description of the act and therefore seems to hang loose in the verse. A literal rendition of the verse's beginning would be: “And when Ibrāhīm was raising the foundations of the house and Ismāʿīl…”.Footnote ² Second, the words “[they said]” are missing in the original,Footnote ³ and the verse moves abruptly from a description of Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl's act to the content of their prayer.

As a result of these difficulties, there is no agreement that Ismāʿīl indeed took part in the raising of the foundations. Ṭabarī (d. 923) quotes an opinion which holds that Ismāʿīl alone uttered the prayer, and adds that accordingly Ibrāhīm raised the foundations alone. The verse should then be rendered “And when Ibrāhīm was raising the foundations of the house and [when] Ismāʿīl [said] ‘Our Lord! accept [this] from us. Indeed you are the hearer, the knower’”. Ṭabarī does not identify those who hold this opinion, but refers to them as “others” (ākharūn).Footnote ⁴ A similar opinion is cited in the name of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 728)Footnote ⁵ and is also held by the Baṣran grammarian al-Akhfash al-Awsaṭ (d. 830) who comments on Q 2: 127: “it was Ismāʿīl who said: ‘Our Lord! accept [this] from us’”.Footnote ⁶

However, this approach is far from convincing. Q 2: 125 demonstrates that Ismāʿīl had a real part to play: “[…] And we ordered Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl: ‘purify my house for those who circle [it], for those who cleave [to it], and for those who bow and prostrate themselves’” ().Footnote ⁷ Therefore the view held by the majority of exegetes which understands Q 2: 127 as referring to Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl raising the foundations of the house together seems preferable.

What exactly, however, is meant by the phrase yarfaʿu ’l-qawāʿid, which I translated as “raising the foundations” is not clear. The word qawāʿid, usually rendered as “foundations”, is found also in Q 16: 26: “Those that were before them plotted; so Allah came upon their building from the foundations, and the roof fell down on them from above them…” (). In both verses the word qawāʿid is often understood as foundations (isās or āsās).Footnote ⁸ However, other explanations were suggested as well. Thus, in Q 16: 26 many exegetes understood the word as meaning either “foundations” or “columns” (asāṭīn).Footnote ⁹ More attention seems to have been paid to the word in Q 2: 127. While many commentators understood it as “foundations”, some preferred other meanings. The well-known philologist al-Kisā'ī (c. 737–805), for example, is said to have explained it as “walls” (judur).Footnote ¹⁰ An additional interpretation is that the word refers to the rows of bricks (sāfāt).Footnote ¹¹ Presumably, these interpretations are aimed at explaining what it means to raise the qawāʿid. Since it is not entirely clear how foundations are raised,Footnote ¹² the exegetes searched for other possible meanings for the word. But no matter how we choose to understand the phrase, it is clear that the father and the son are both depicted as participating in the erection of the house.Footnote ¹³ That “the house” refers to the Kaʿba, as the exegetes understand, seems very reasonable in the light of Q 5: 97: “Allah has appointed the Kaʿba, the sacred house, as an establishment for the people…” ().

At first glance, this scene does not seem to have a clear biblical precedent.Footnote ¹⁴ Nonetheless, modern scholars have suggested several sources as possible inspirations. Henry Preserved Smith noted in 1897 that “the Old Testament makes him [i.e. Abraham] a builder of altars. What more natural than that Mohammed should suppose him the founder of the Kaaba?”.Footnote ¹⁵ Speyer, Goitein and RubinFootnote ¹⁶ pointed to Jubilees 22: 24 where Abraham addresses Jacob and says: “This house I have built for myself to put my name on it upon the earth. It has been given to you and to your descendants forever. It will be called Abraham's house. It has been given to you and your descendants forever because you will build my house and will establish my name before God until eternity. Your descendants and your name will remain throughout all the history of the earth”.Footnote ¹⁷ According to these scholars, the “house” referred to is a sanctuary (or perhaps the Temple in Jerusalem) and this tradition of Abraham as the founder of a sanctuary is the ultimate source for the quranic scene.

These suggestions are not entirely satisfactory. Although the passage from Jubilees refers to the building of “Abraham's house”, this seems to be a metaphorical reference to Abraham's family (i.e. household)Footnote ¹⁸ or to the land.Footnote ¹⁹ Since Jubilees did not previously describe Abraham as building an actual house or temple in his lifetime, there is no compelling reason to understand that a reference to such an edifice is being made in Jubilees 22: 24. Although Rubin argues that the general context of the passage in Jubilees implies the actual building of a sanctuary, I fail to see this.Footnote ²⁰ Moreover, these suggestions do not address the unique aspect of the quranic verse, namely, that Ibrāhīm and his son Ismāʿīl build together.Footnote ²¹

Joshua Finkel pointed to the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac in Gen. 22 as the source of this episode.Footnote ²² In his opinion, the proto-Muslims responsible for this legend shifted the story of the attempted sacrifice to Mecca in order to form a national religion. Since Isaac was not an ancestor of the Arabs, his part was omitted from the story. Instead, Ishmael was assigned the auxiliary role of helping with the dedication ceremonies of the house.Footnote ²³

In what follows I will attempt to substantiate the link between Gen. 22 and the quranic scene. I will suggest, however, that the scene of the father and the son building together is not a mere replacement of the attempted sacrifice, as Finkel would have it, but rather an integral part of post-biblical traditions concerning Gen. 22.

After Abraham and Isaac reach Mount Moriah, it is said:

The biblical account is quite clear about the roles of the father and his son. All the actions in the verse are carried out by Abraham; Isaac is completely passive. Nevertheless, in post-biblical sources Isaac was ascribed the active role of one who willingly offers himself for slaughter.Footnote ²⁵ As part of this portrayal Isaac was depicted by some sources as participating in the building of the altar. We find this theme already in Josephus Flavius, and it is further developed in several pre-quranic Christian sources (as well as in several post-quranic Jewish ones) where the father and son are described as building the altar together.

Josephus, in Judean Antiquities 1.227, writes: “And they brought with them as many things as were needed for the sacrifice except for the victim. When Isakos, who was in his twenty-fifth year, was setting up the altar and asked what they were about to sacrifice, since no victim was present, he said that god would provide for them…”.Footnote ²⁶ A homily attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340–after 394) and preserved only in Coptic attributes the following speech to Isaac: “… And now, build a place of sacrifice, and this will become a tomb for me, for your son, and I shall ascend it well. I myself, my father, I shall help you eagerly to build my tomb. I shall heap up the stones. May my tomb resemble a temple, and guide me thereto. Slay me for the One who has called you”.Footnote ²⁷ As Sebastian Brock notes, several anonymous Syriac homilies on Gen. 22 include a motif similar to that of Amphilochius and describe the father and the son building together.Footnote ²⁸ Thus in an artistic prose homily dated by Brock to the late fourth or very early fifth century we find: “So the (two) wise architects (ardekle ḥakkime) began to build a choice altar for the noble offering. As Isaac collected together stones, Abraham took them from his beloved one”.Footnote ²⁹ A similar description is found in two other Syriac homilies written in verse. The first (dated by Brock to the mid-fifth century) describes the building of the altar thus: “But now let us gather together some wood/so that we can build a pyre, (a labour) of our gladness … And Abraham began to build/the pyre that he had in mind, while Isaac was bringing along wood/on his shoulders to Abraham … old man and child both, readily became/workers for God…”.Footnote ³⁰ The second (which makes use of the first and is dated by Brock to the second half of the fifth century) describes the building of the altar thus: “Abraham began to build,/for his mind was prepared, while Isaac brought along stones/on his shoulders to Abraham: they became workers for God/the old man and his son, equally…”.Footnote ³¹ Finally, descriptions of Abraham and Isaac building together are found also in several post-quranic rabbinic sources.Footnote ³²

The source most relevant to our issue is a Syriac verse-homily by Jacob of Serugh (d. 521) dedicated to Gen. 22. The description of the building of the altar runs for several lines and emphasizes Isaac's willing participation in his own sacrifice. For our needs a few lines suffice:

The meaning of ngad dumsa in the third line is not clear. The word dumsa (a Greek loanword) may refer to a house, to a row of bricks (or stones) or to the foundation of a building.Footnote ³⁴ It is difficult to understand it as referring in this instance to the entire structure since the next line states that the final aim was “to build there a house…” (d-nebne tamman bayta).Footnote ³⁵ It might, therefore, be preferable to understand it here as referring to a part of the structure, either to a row of bricks (or stones) or to the foundation. These meanings are found in Bar Bahlūl's entry on dumsa.Footnote ³⁶ Interestingly, the Arabic words he uses are the same ones found in the exegetes' definitions of the Arabic qawāʿid: sāf and asās. Rabbinic sources have dimos (דימוס) (row or layer of stones), which in some instances seems to be the responsibility of the master-builder, the ardikhal (ארדיכל), who sets the stones in the dimos.Footnote ³⁷ This parallels Jacob's scene where the master-builder (ardekla) deals with the dumsa. As for the meaning of the Syriac verb ngad, which literally means “to draw” or “to pull”, in this context, it seems to mean “to lengthen”, “to stretch” or “to extend”.Footnote ³⁸ Therefore, ngad dumsa could be understood to mean “extended the layer of stones” or “extended the foundation”.Footnote ³⁹

In Jacob's homily, we have more than Isaac simply helping with the building of the altar. The whole scene is described in terms of construction: Abraham is a master-builder (ardekla), Isaac is a labourer who carries stones (paʿla d-kipe), and most importantly, the structure being built is not only an altar but also a house (bayta).Footnote ⁴⁰ I suggest that a similar version in which Abraham built an altar which was also a house together with his son (Isaac) served as the background for the quranic scene in which Ibrāhīm and his son (Ismāʿīl) raise the foundations of the house together. Without putting too much emphasis on it, I find the similarity between the Arabic yarfaʿu ’l-qawāʿid and the Syriac ngad dumsa striking. Qawāʿid and dumsa can both mean “foundation(s)” or “row(s) of bricks”.Footnote ⁴¹ Likewise, the two verbs are not that far apart in meaning. While the Arabic means “to raise”, the Syriac means “to pull” or “to extend”.Footnote ⁴² It is perhaps of interest that “a certain resemblance” has been noted previously between the Quran and another homily of Jacob regarding the story of the Sleepers of Ephesus.Footnote ⁴³

Further support for the suggestion that Q 2: 127 reflects traditions concerning Gen. 22 is found in the prayer which accompanied the building of the house in Q 2: 127–9. In it Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl ask that Allah accept their deed with special emphasis on the (religious) fate of their offspring. This parallels Gen. 22: 15–8, which considers Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son as merit for his descendants:

In the biblical text this promise is God's initiative and does not follow a prayer by Abraham. However, later Jewish sources (probably motivated also by the obscure words of Gen. 22: 14: “So Abraham called that place YHWH will see …”) portray Abraham as praying to God to remember his willingness to sacrifice his son as merit for his offspring. In Genesis Rabba 56.10, for example, the following prayer is put in Abraham's mouth:

Further support for the linking of the quranic scene with Gen. 22 might be found in the way the section concerning Ibrāhīm begins in Q 2: 124: “And [remember] when his Lord tested (ibtalā) IbrāhīmFootnote ⁴⁵ with words and he fulfilled them…” (). The classical exegetes offer several different identifications of these words of trial. The words are interpreted, for example, to refer either to the laws of Islam, to acts of ritual purification, to the rites of the Ḥajj or to the tests to which Ibrāhīm was subjected.Footnote ⁴⁶ The verb “tested” (ibtalā), however, is reminiscent both of the way Gen. 22: 1 begins (“After these things God tested (nissa [נסה]) Abraham…”) and of the manner in which the Quran itself describes the attempted sacrifice episode in Q 37: 106 as a trial (balā’). Therefore, it seems likely that this verse refers to the trial of the sacrifice. This interpretation is found in a few classical exegetes,Footnote ⁴⁷ and is popular with Western scholars.Footnote ⁴⁸ If Q 2: 124 is taken as a heading for the following verses, then Q 2: 127 should be related to the sacrifice episode.Footnote ⁴⁹

Yet another link to the sacrifice story of Gen. 22 is found in later traditions concerning the building of the Kaʿba. A motif common to many of these traditions is that Ibrāhīm could not find the location of the house on his own. Ṭabarī's introduction to his chapter about the building of the Kaʿba reflects the gist of these traditions: “Ibrāhīm did not know in which place to build since [Allah] had not made this clear to him. Therefore he was unable to accomplish it…”.Footnote ⁵⁰ As a result Ibrāhīm received some sort of supernatural help. The traditions differ as to whether the help came from Jibrīl,Footnote ⁵¹ from a supernatural strong wind,Footnote ⁵² from the Sakīna,Footnote ⁵³ from a cloud that rested over the site,Footnote ⁵⁴ or from a Ṣurad Footnote ⁵⁵ bird.Footnote ⁵⁶ Several of these traditions cite explicitly or at least hint at Q 22: 26 “And [remember] when we assigned (bawwa’nā) for Ibrāhīm the site of the house …” (). The common meaning of the verb bawwa'a in the second form is “to lodge one in an abode” or “to prepare an abode for one”.Footnote ⁵⁷ This by itself could already give the impression of divine help concerning the site of the house. Moreover, the same root (in the fifth form) can also refer to a closely related meaning of marking a place in order to abide there.Footnote ⁵⁸ Some exegetes actually interpreted the word in this verse as meaning “we showed” (araynā).Footnote ⁵⁹

This motif is again reminiscent of a common theme in post-biblical traditions concerning the sacrifice story. In Gen. 22: 2 God commands Abraham:

Verse 4 then reports that:

Since the text does not mention that God showed this site to Abraham, readers naturally wondered how Abraham identified it. This question was answered in several ways. According to the homily attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium, God himself opened Abraham's insight and made him see the place in response to his request.Footnote ⁶⁰ Similarly, one of the anonymous Syriac verse-homilies has a voice from above identifying the mountain for Abraham.Footnote ⁶¹ According to Jacob of Serugh, Abraham recognized the site through “the eye of prophecy” and saw a symbol of the crucifixion on the top of the mountain.Footnote ⁶² Classical Midrashim mention that Abraham saw a cloud enveloping the mountain. Genesis Rabba 56.2, for example, has the following comment:

Later Jewish sources, based on the rabbinic use of the word hammaqom (“the place”) to refer to God, say that Abraham saw the Shekhina standing on the mountain.Footnote ⁶⁴ Thus Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 31, states:

Some sources not only explain how Abraham eventually identified the site, but also stress the difficulty which he had to begin with in a manner reminiscent of the Islamic traditions. Thus, for example, the homily attributed to Amphilochius puts the following request in Abraham's mouth:

All in all, these parallels seem more convincing than previous attempts to explain the supernatural help that Ibrāhīm received as reflecting either Abraham's three visitors in Gen. 18,Footnote ⁶⁷ the cloud that guided the Israelites in the desert as well as the cloud in which God would descend on the tabernacle,Footnote ⁶⁸ or indigenous pre-Islamic Arab legends regarding the sanctity of the shrine.Footnote ⁶⁹

A final parallel between the Gen. 22 tradition and the founding of the house might be adduced again from later Islamic and Jewish traditions. Although the Quran only mentions Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl as the founders of the house, many traditions claim that Ādam had already built it (or that it had come down from heaven in his time).Footnote ⁷⁰ The explanation given is that Ādam's Kaʿba had to be rebuilt on account of the flood. A similar tradition is found again in post-quranic Jewish sources with regard to the altar built by Abraham. Thus, according to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 22: 9, Abraham built his altar at the exact site where Adam had built his. At the time of the flood it was demolished, built again by Noah only to be demolished again at the time of the scattering of the nations (Gen. 11) and finally rebuilt by Abraham.Footnote ⁷¹ Admittedly, parallels between post-quranic Islamic and Jewish sources cannot prove the origin of the quranic episode itself. They do, however, indicate that to early audiences real parallels existed between the two stories. This in turn lends strength to the idea that these parallels were already present in the background of the quranic narrative itself.

That such parallels exist between the sacrifice story of Gen. 22 and the quranic scene describing the building of the Kaʿba is not surprising taking into account the similar etiological function of both texts. The scene in the Quran serves to explain the origin of the worship at the Kaʿba (see Q 2: 125). Gen. 22 probably also serves as an etiology for the worship at the temple in Jerusalem (see Gen. 22: 14), and at the very least was understood in this fashion in later Jewish tradition.Footnote ⁷² Therefore the scene in the Quran may be understood as an appropriation of the foundation story of the Jerusalem temple, adapting it to the founding of the Kaʿba. This would not be the first time that the site in which the attempted sacrifice took place was identified with a sacred site of another religion. The Samaritans identified the site with Mount Gerizim,Footnote ⁷³ while as a result of their typological reading of Gen. 22 as prefiguring the crucifixion,Footnote ⁷⁴ several Christian writers identified the site with Golgotha.Footnote ⁷⁵

If the quranic description of the building of the Kaʿba does indeed reflect post-biblical traditions concerning Gen. 22, what are the changes that it introduces to the story? An obvious addition is the last part of the prayer in which Ibrāhīm (with Ismāʿīl) requests that a prophet be sent to his offspring (Q 2: 129 “And our Lord! Send to them a messenger from them who shall recite your signs to them, teach them the book and the wisdom, and purify them. Indeed you are the mighty, the wise”). This has no precedent in the prayer of Abraham as attested in the various Jewish sources, and is a reference to Muḥammad himself, as can be seen from other verses which employ the same language most probably with regard to Muḥammad.Footnote ⁷⁶ Thus the story now serves not only as an etiology for the sanctuary in Mecca but also as a prediction of Muḥammad's prophecy.Footnote ⁷⁷

The replacement of Isaac with Ismāʿīl is perhaps the most striking innovation, and is most probably related to the notion that the Arabs are the descendants of Ismāʿīl. Although the Quran never states this explicitly, this notion is known to have existed among some Arabs in pre-Islamic times, as testified in the writings of two fifth-century Greek authors, Theodoret and Sozomen.Footnote ⁷⁸

My suggestion might shed light on the much-debated issue of the identity of the intended victim in Q 37: 100–111. As it does in many cases, the Quran neglects to mention a name, but rather refers to the “boy” (ghulām).Footnote ⁷⁹ Classical exegetes as well as modern scholars disagree as to whether this refers to Isḥāq or Ismāʿīl. Both sides adduce arguments from the Quran, and it seems that none are conclusive. Several scholars who examined the history of the exegesis of the story in Q 37 concluded that Isḥāq was originally considered to be the intended victim, and only later was he replaced with Ismāʿīl.Footnote ⁸⁰ If, however, the link between Q 2: 127 and Gen. 22 is to be accepted, then we may conclude that at least one passage of the Quran already identified the son in question as Ismāʿīl.

If the traditional chronology of the Suras is accepted, this might be an instance of change over time in the Quran's presentation of a theme. The progression from a Meccan Sura (Q 37) in which the name of the son is not mentioned to a Medinan one (Q 2) where he is identified as Ismāʿīl coincides with the opinion of several Western scholars regarding the development of the figure of Ismāʿīl in the Quran. These scholars argue that Ismāʿīl changed from a prophet unconnected with Ibrāhīm in the Meccan period to his first son in the Medinan one. It should be noted, however, that this opinion uses a circular argument in treating Q 14: 37 as a Medinan addition to a Meccan Sura only on the basis that Ismāʿīl is Ibrāhīm's son in that verse.Footnote ⁸¹ Whatever the exact relationship between Q 2 and Q 37, Q 2: 127 can still serve as evidence that the replacement of one sibling with another began already in the Quran.

A comparison of these two passages raises, however, a different difficulty. Nowhere is a sacrifice mentioned in Q 2: 124–9 on the building of the house, while conversely, when the Quran does deal with the attempted sacrifice (Q 37: 100–111), the building of the house is neither mentioned nor alluded to. This would seem to imply that the two episodes are completely unrelated in the Quran. This conclusion is, however, unmerited, since it is quite common for the Quran to present different parts of the same story in different Suras in accordance with the themes of each Sura.Footnote ⁸² Thus one could argue that in this instance too the Quran chooses to present the elements which illustrate best the argument of each Sura. The verses in Q 37 are part of a unit that deals with the deliverance of messengers from distress, and therefore emphasize the sacrifice element of the story.Footnote ⁸³ On the other hand, the verses in Q 2 are part of a unit which deals with the religious legacy of Ibrāhīm, and, as a result, highlight the sanctuary and rites related to the story.Footnote ⁸⁴

My suggestion does, nevertheless, suffer from other flaws. The parallels from post-biblical treatments of Gen. 22 are gathered from different Jewish and Christian texts. Thus, for example, the descriptions of father and son building together are found in pre-Islamic Christian texts (but only in post-quranic Jewish sources), while Abraham's prayer is found in many Jewish sources but not in Christian ones. Had all these elements been found in one source, my case would definitely have been stronger. Another weakness of the argument is that some of the parallels could have arisen independently. All the same, when taken together they make for an interesting case.

This paper has attempted to show the biblical background of the story of the foundation of the Kaʿba, by demonstrating the way post-biblical developments of Gen. 22 were appropriated by the Quran and later Islamic traditions. A completion of the cycle is found in the Judaeo-Persian work Bereshit [Nāmah] of Mawlānā Shāhīn-i Shīrāzī (fl. fourteenth century) which, arrestingly, incorporates the Islamic story of the building of the Kaʿba into its retelling of the events of Genesis.Footnote ⁸⁵