Ishaq As was not the chosen son to be sacrificed.

It is clear from the Quran Ismail As was the chosen Son to be sacrificed not Ishaq As.  Christians on the other hand insist, the Quran makes no explicit mention on which son was taken to be sacrificed? So from that they conclude it may have been Ishaq As as their "Torah" claims.

This is a false understanding of the Quran. Just because Allah Swt didn't mention the name of the son who was to be sacrificed doesn't mean it could have been Ishaq As.

This false understanding and claim by Christians can be dismantled by following verses from the Quran

-------------

Indeed Our messengers came to Abraham, bearing glad tidings. They greeted him with 'peace', and Abraham answered back to them 'peace', and hurriedly brought to them a roasted calf.

When he perceived that their hands could not reach it, he mistrusted them, and felt afraid of them. They said: 'Do not be afraid. We have been sent to the people of Lot.

And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob.

She said: 'Woe is me! Shall I bear a child now that I am an old woman and my husband is well advanced in years. This is indeed strange!'

They said: 'Do you wonder at Allah's decree? Allah's mercy and His blessings be upon you, O people of the house. Surely, He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.'  (Surah 11:69-73)

Here's the evidence that Ishaq As was not the son who was to be sacrificed.  Surah Hud tells us about the Angels who came to visit Abraham Pbuh and tell him about the outcome of the people of Lot Pbuh. In Verse 71 we are told that the Angels gave glad tidings to Sarah the wife of Abraham Pbuh by informing her that she will give birth to a son, Ishaq and after Ishaq of Yaqub Pbut i.e. Ishaq Pbuh will be the father of Yaqub Pbuh.

"And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob."

This is clear proof that Ishaq As was not the chosen son to be sacrificed. If Ishaq As was the chosen son to be sacrificied, then Abraham Pbuh could of easily responded by saying "did you not decree Ishaq would also have a son called Yaqub?" "how then could he be sacrificed when he would see his son as decreed?" Makes no sense. The Quran makes is clear that Ishaq As would have a son called Yaqub As, thus Ishaq As was not the son to be sacrificed.

Instead it was the older son Ismail As who was the chosen son to be sacrificed. And just for the record

The earliest manuscripts for the Tanack are the DSS, dating back roughly 200bc. Although we have no complete full manuscripts for the DSS, what we have are fragments of the scrolls. What’s fascinating is the most disputed topic on who was chosen to be sacrificed Ismael or Isaac (pbut) is not found as part of the fragments from DSS. What we have starts from “Genesis 22:13-15”, when you read Genesis 22 you’ll find the name of the son in verse 2,3,6,7 and 9, whereas the DSS fragment starts from verses 13-15, so in no way the name of the child is found.

The Masoretic text was compiled during the 10th century contradicting much of earlier manuscripts such as the Septuagint and Samaritan. It’s possible the name was changed from Ismael to Isaac for obvious reason. If there is no early sources to look back into, and all we have are corrupted received text such as the Masoretic, then this dispute certainly cannot go in the favour of Jews or Christians.