The biblical accounts create a genuine tension with the Islamic narrative, especially if Genesis is read as placing Ishmael continuously in Canaan until adolescence. They do not, however, amount to a conclusive refutation: Genesis never names Mecca, never gives a complete travel history for Ishmael, and its reference to Paran is geographically disputed.
Why the objection seems strong
Genesis 17 presents Ishmael as thirteen when Abraham circumcised him, apparently while Ishmael was living with Abraham in Canaan. Genesis 21 then describes Ishmael being sent away with Hagar, entering the wilderness of Paran, and taking an Egyptian wife. On the ordinary reading, this differs sharply from the report in Sahih al-Bukhari that Abraham left the infant Ishmael and Hagar at the future site of the Kaaba, where Ishmael grew up among Jurhum.
That is a fair argument. If Genesis is assumed to provide a continuous and geographically precise biography, the two accounts do not fit comfortably. A serious Muslim answer should not pretend otherwise.
What the Islamic sources actually claim
The Quran links Abraham and Ishmael with the Sacred House and describes Abraham settling some of his descendants in an uncultivated valley near it:
"Our Lord, I have settled some of my offspring in an uncultivated valley near Your Sacred House."
Quran 14:37
It also says:
"And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House..."
Quran 2:127
Sahih al-Bukhari gives the fuller account: Hagar and the nursing Ishmael were taken to the barren valley, Ishmael grew there, the Jurhum tribe later settled near them, and Abraham subsequently returned and built the Kaaba with Ishmael.
"And when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House, they said, 'Our Lord, accept this from us.'"
Sahih al-Bukhari, 3364; Quran 2:127
Thus, Islam is not deriving this claim from Genesis. It rests on the Quran and the transmitted prophetic report.
Does Genesis decisively disprove it?
Not decisively. Genesis does not say that Ishmael never lived anywhere before the events it records, nor does it identify Paran beyond dispute. Some interpreters have associated Paran with the southern wilderness, while others place it in or near Sinai. The text also compresses family movements into a short narrative and does not present a detailed map of Ishmael's life.
Still, the plainest reading of Genesis favors Ishmael remaining with Abraham until he was older. Muslims may therefore reasonably argue that the biblical text has suffered loss, alteration, or imperfect preservation, as Islamic theology holds regarding earlier scriptures. But this should be stated honestly: the Bible itself does not provide positive proof for the Meccan account.
So the argument establishes a substantial difference between Genesis and the Islamic tradition, not the collapse of the Abraham-Ishmael-Kaaba connection. It shows that the claim depends on the Quran and authentic Islamic tradition rather than on an uncontested reading of Genesis, while the Bible does not conclusively rule it out.