For more recent work on Mohammed or Islam click here.
This was inspired by the condemnation of Abraham by Immanuel Kant in his Religion Within The Bounds Of Sheer Reason, the chapter on Conscience (which is not very easy to read). The essay here can be better understood after having read a treatment of Kant's thinking on the Highest Good and Moral Religion.
See an essay concerning the inability of Mohammed to make things clear, where we contrast this lack of clarity with the vaunted claim of Islam on behalf of the Koran.
Abstract
The author seeks a means for any person to distinguish between a divine and a demonic communication. Based on analysis of concepts, two such means are proposed and examined, namely: the appearance of the communication and the moral import of the communication.
All that the appearance can do is to hint as to the supernatural, but it cannot serve to distinguish a finite supernatural power from an infinite power (the latter pertaining to God alone). The only certain criterion is the moral, namely: 1. God will never command an immoral act but only the moral, and 2. a demon may command the moral on occasion, but then only as a ruse for bringing about a corruption of all morals.
The alleged commnications of three famous prophets are subjected to the two criteria with the following verdicts:
Abraham cannot have been recipient of a divine communication when he thought to have discerned the voice of God telling him to slay his innocent son (for that is a blatant violation of the moral law).
Paul could have been the recipient of a divine communication, for the foundation of his practices was the moral law (expressed vernacularly as the Golden Rule or Law of Love) and that law alone was understood as sufficient for pleasing God.
Mohammed cannot have been the recipient of a divine communication because the foundation of his practices is a profound, moral-destroying selfishness (expressed especially in the high praise of Abraham for being willing to disregard the moral law entirely in the attempted killing of his son). [Nevertheless, due to certain unusual numerologies in the communication reported by Mohammed, there may be good reason to think that this communication were supernatural, and not something he made up.]
Criteria
One occasionally hears rumors of a person being approached by a divine or by a demonic being. It is the purpose of this reflection to arrive at a means for distinguishing between the two.Thus we will assume the possibility of a God and of a Demon, and that these would want to communicate with humans.* First we will identify what we mean with God and Demon, and then we will examine the possibility of discerning a divine mission by sighting, and then we will examine the moral criterion. And then finally we will apply whatever criteria we might have to the reported revelations of three famous prophets.
[* It is not necessary for the reader to admit the existence of a God or a demon. It is sufficient merely that either or both be possible in the mind of any individual.]
Concepts of God and Demon
God. With God, as generally conceived, we already think and presuppose infinite power and infinite goodness (which is called holiness) and rationality.
Demon. Concerning Demon, we will think of him as of supernatural, but still finite power; and thoroughly evil and thoroughly rational.* **
[* We will not consider the possibility of hallucinations or self induced dreams.]
[** Conceptually the human stands between God and Demon in this wise: while God loves the moral law by virtue of his sheer holiness (and this law is expressed for us by universal dignity and love) and while Demon hates the moral law, man neither loves it nor hates it, but he does respect it, i.e., it is impossible for him to be thoroughly happy when he is conscious of a violation on his part of this law of moral conduct. For more on this see a short examination of Kant's proof of freedom based on morality. The back button must be used to return here.]
Criteria of Appearance and Morality
Appearance. Concerning the appearance of the communication and especially with regard to infinite power, all we can say is that the human being simply cannot recognize an infinite power and distinguish it from a finite, albeit supernatural, power.* We cannot recognize it any more than we can distinguish a very long but finite line from an infinite line, for each comes to an end in the eye ** The most we can presume to do is to tell a supernatural power (and even that is suspect), but we cannot distinguish in the supernatural power a finite power from an infinite power. We simply cannot tell by looking that some being before us is infinite in power or finite in power, i.e., whether it is divine or demonic. The most we can tell is that some perception seems to be supernatural, e.g., flying in an airplane from the perspective of a savage.
[* By virtue of the supernaturalness in general we simply mean the idea of a power which is independent of the laws of nature; and say nothing at all about the degree of that power and whether it is infinite or not.]
[** This is due to human perspective which is far indeed from any sort of intuition as to the length of the lines. When we stand on an infinite straight line and look at it we do not intuit its infinity in some way, but rather our perspective presents it as having an end, i.e., there is a stopping place in our sight, and so is indistinguishable from a very long straight line, but which is still finite. For an extended consideration of this sort of understanding see essay on Circles in the Air.]
Moral Content. Now as to the content of a communication not much can be said in general. But there two certitudes in particular in the moral. In the first place since God is utter holiness whatever else he may communicate to the human he will communicate the moral and never the immoral.* Whatever else may be communicated, and we cannot know what might be communicated to us, is to be understood to be interpreted as leading to a love of the moral law. All we can know in advance is that God will communicate the moral only (directly or indirectly), and never the immoral.
[* The moral law is a product of common human rationality when applied practically, i.e., to actions. The moral law itself is conceived by man in his rationality in this sort of way: He conceives of a realm of free beings and where there would be an election as to the laws to guide their behavior with each other, and that would be subjectively of two different sorts: "I am supremely important," or instead: "all are equally important."** The common element among all the beings of this realm would be “all are equally important” and this then is the moral law, the law of universal human dignity, a law that each person comes up with on his own (albeit usually as the result of a prompting occasion). In other words all people count equally and indeed are of infinite worth. Now this is a nice idea, one that is easy enough to dream up by pure practical reason, just like the tooth fairy tale and just as we have done here, but the fact of the matter is that the human is imposed upon by this idea, of his own making, so much that he has a bad conscience when he reflects upon a wrongful act he has committed, i.e., an act contrary to the dictates of this moral law. This bad conscience is based on a feeling that arises soley upon upon a comparison of one's actions with the moral law. It is a practical feeling and is called respect for the moral law. See Kant on Proof of Freedom.]
[** I would prefer, for example: "Philip is supremely important" but would settle for "all people are equally important." My friend Jack would prefer "Jack is supremely important" but would also settle for "all people are equally important." The only choice which can and will be universally accepted is "all people are equally important." And that is the moral law.]
With Demon the matter is not quite as clear cut. At first thought one would think that Demon would always call for some immorality, for he relishes violations of the moral law, i.e., he hates the moral law and wishes to thwart it and have others thwart it. But this could be too obvious for the human to stomach. And Demon is not merely hateful, he is also rational and therefore armed to tailor his communication in a way that seems moral, in order to seduce his hearers, but at bottom proves to be immoral.* And so we should not be surprised to hear Demon command something that is moral, for that is no proof at all, not when dealing with an intelligent and rational being. If some icon or core can be produced in a communication then a definitive judgment might be possible, for if the core is moral then the communication can be divine and cannot be demonic. And if the core should focus toward the corruption of the moral in the human then that communication can be demonic, but it cannot be divine. At least that much could be determined. Otherwise with regard to appearance, again the most we can say is that something looks supernatural to us, i.e., it seems to defy the laws of nature.**
[* The corruption of the moral core of the human might be achieved in the following way. Moral and amoral (and eventually also immoral) commands are lumped together and presented a means to the same Great Reward or for avoiding the same Great Punishment according to the will or whim of a God, the Infinite Power. No attention is placed on the moral education. Parents, for example, would not ask children, “how would you like it if someone did that to you?”*** Hence there is no reason for anyone to even consider what a moral law might be, but instead perhaps to understand that "moral" means doing as one is told by the God and reaping the Great Reward and avoiding the Great Punishment. From an individual standpoint moral becomes "smart", "doing the smart thing, or even the 'right' thing" is to walk the Path of Great Reward. By virtue of the Great Reward and the Great Punishment both the moral and the amoral and even then also the immoral can collectively be called moral. Moral then comes to mean that which is commanded by the God (and leading to the Great Reward) and the immoral is what is commanded not to be done (and which leads to the Great Punishment). Then in this state, when those (if there be any remaining) who still have an uncorrupted conception of the moral come to challenge those who are corrupted in this way, those who are corrupted will simply not be able to understand the challenge of the uncorrupted. For along with the moral heart, the meaning of the word will also have been lost, and the corruption will be complete.**** This is also a common demoninator of otherwise very diverse cults.]
[** I am not certain about the general understanding of laws of nature up until about 1500, and I think it was more a time when most anything could happen as a result of spirits and genies and demons and angels and so forth. Perhaps everything was still in universal causation, only some causes were spirits and couldn't be seen nor subjected to experimentation.]
[*** Instead we would hear: "if you do that again I will punish you, and in any case, even if I don't catch you myself, the God catches everything and will impose the Great Punishment."]
[**** Suppose the God commanded only that the moral law be obeyed, and would base the Great Reward and Great Punishment on the ensuing conduct? Then we would have at least the trappings of a moral religion, for the teaching of such a religion indicates that only moral conduct can please God. But even if the God commanded only moral acts, still in the absense of any knowledge of the moral law, and thus following merely a list of do's and don't's, even a list like the moral law would be able to generate, would mean the corruption of the moral heart, i.e., acting for the sake of the Great Reward and not for the sake of moral goodness. For in this case while what is being done is good (objectively moral) still it is being done with the same attitude and state of mind (regarding reward and punishment) as though one were told to do the amoral and inane or the immoral. And so only the moral law can enable a person to make a judgement about good and evil, even to the extent of judging the God.***** Cmf: Genesis 3:22.][***** All in all, the "God" of a religion not based on the moral law, but on reward and punishment, is summed up in this Christmas Season song: "you'd better watch out; you'd better not cry; you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why--Santa Claus is coming to town. He knows when you are sleeping; he knows when you're awake; he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake", and where "goodness sake" is understood to mean the great reward, and "bad or good" means doing what you have been told not to do or to do, respectively. There is an appendix below concerning the so-called Christian Paradox which describes how the Christians sought to deal with the import of reward and punishment vis-à-vis the moral law.]
We can imagine many demons and the like. They would all hate the moral law. But Demon, as presented here, would represent the greatest of all such spirits or beings, for he would be thoroughly rational and thus self controlled and would focus not on inciting individual immoral acts so much as rather corrupting the very foundation of morality itself.
This then is all that we can know in advance with regard to any divine communication: it will not command the immoral. And all we can know in advance of a demonic communication is that the ultimate goal is the immoral (although not necessarily every specific command). And as far as the appearance goes we can discern what seems supernatural to us, but we cannot discern any apparant difference between God and Demon among whatever might be supernatural.
Other Criteria. We might consider other criteria. For example we would expect a divine communication to be very clear and a demonic one, perhaps, caged in some confusion for the further, nefarious goal of corruption of the moral make up of the human. We would expect the divine communication to speak to all people regardless of their condition, while with the demonic, even though it is conceivable to speak to all people equally, it is also possible that certain human conditions would not be acceptable, e.g., writing with one’s left hand.* And somehow we would think that a communication of God would have a certain result morally.** But these are not conclusive and definitive. A divine communication might be delivered in terms of a particular situation, and might become confused when considered later, or any number of possibilities with regard to all this.***
[* This would be consistent with Demon’s intention of universal moral corruption. Here good and evil is put on things, and not on the state (motivation) of the heart, and so where it is necessary to be instructed, and where it is necessary then to have some holy guidances about pleasing God, and where then everything can (and indeed in that system must) be associated with a certain reward and punishment, and thus where morality becomes identified with happiness and in that way is totally lost, and people come to comply with commands, some of which might even be moral, but solely for the reason that they are connected with certain qualities and degrees of happiness, and not because they are just. And it further would serve Demon's purpose to topple the moral imperative that "all people count and have dignity," and a good way to do that is to show that some humans, e.g., lefthanders, are different and not acceptable to the God and hence may be treated differently.]
[** The certitude for this lies in the fact that the only meaningful notion of God possible for humans arises as a consequence of the respect which humans naturally (by virtue of their freedom) hold for the moral law. This is given in an essay on the respect humans hold for the moral law. And hence an effect would be expected and it would be expected to be moral.][*** See Appendix IV below for a consideration of the matter of clarity as a sign of a divine communication.]
In short we shall not utilize any of these "other criteria" for they are still all problematic,* and we want something which is certain, and that we find alone in the negative proof of a divine communication, namely that it cannot call for immoral acts or have an immoral or even an amoral core, and also the positive indicator that it will reveal a moral core.** We will play it safe and opt for the moral key and leave all else to the particular circumstances***
[* In an appendix below we will consider the matter of the clarity of a divine communication in light of the unusual claims of Mohammed's communication to be a divine dictation, and so where no confusion can be present.]
[** This latter is not conclusive, of couse, for a human might dream up a "communication" which had a moral core.]
[*** In a moral religion, which is a step further from the object of this examination, God is further developed to the point where he is additionally pleased with a love for the moral law and not just respect, as sufficient as that is for being in his good graces. By means of working together in this consideration of God the individual has reason to think that he can develop this love of the moral law. See the essay on removing the husk of sacred history. The back button must be used to return here.]
Summary. While we may easily suspect the supernatural in the appearance, we cannot distinguish the divine from the demonic in this way, and so for our purposes here the supernatural is only suggestive of the divine. The only criteria that we will consider is the moral, namely: a divine communication about practices will command the moral law and never a violation. A demonic communication might comand specific moral actions, but Demon's communication can be seen leading to a corruption of the moral nature of the human. It is not to be expected that a demonic communication will issue commands which are patently immoral, although this is not impossible, and it is more likely, given the presumed rationality of Demon, that a demonic communication will speak in moral terms, as a seduction for the corruption of the moral core of the human, and have such things as immoral slayings develop more gradually, through flexibility in interpretation.
Application
Now in order to test the applicability of our moral criteria, we will consider some famous examples of people who claimed to have encountered the divine and obtained communications from God. We shall consider Abraham, Paul and Mohammed (and Joseph Smith to a lessor extent and degree and in an appendix below), and shall attend to the appearance of the supernatural and an analysis of the apparent moral core.
Abraham encounters voices telling him to slay his son, and is absolutely wrong by seeking to comply, for he has no right reason to consider this murderous voice to be the voice of God.* For this is a clear violation of the First Rule (the Negative) of divine communication, namely the immoral will never be understood as coming from God.
[* What Abraham should have done is something like what Kant described. If, he said (in so many words), the heavens should split before my eyes and I see a great being upon a great throne and hear him tell me to slay my child, I should say to him: whether you be God or a demon or my own hallucination I cannot tell. but that it is wrong to slay an innocent person is clear to me, and I cannot do as you say. See essay on Kant’s Condemnation of Abraham. which also contains some justification for Abraham's action by the author of this essay]
Paul sees a Jesus-in-the-Sky and reports becoming a changed person filled with a Holy Spirit and attrributes his communication to that Holy Spirit.
It was impossible for Paul (or Abraham or any other man) to tell that this Holy Spirit that Paul assumed (to explain the dramatic change in his thinking) was of God. Paul instead used the moral determination, and he found that the communications from or through him could be derived from the moral law (called Jesus's Law of Love) and for that reason was convinced that the moral law was the only guide and law for the follower of Jesus via Paul.* In order to be pleasing to God, one had only to seek the most efficient way of manifesting love, and nothing else mattered, for all else was a just a matter of expediency and rationality. Thus for the first time in history a faith arose to witness to a religion where the foundation was thoroughly moral.** ***
[* See essay on the Liberty of the Gentile Christian. Back button must be used to return.]
[** Immanuel Kant once observed in passing that the Christian religion was the only moral religion in the history of the world. (It is important to keep in mind that Kant uses "religion" in a different way from "faith." See an essay entitled Removing The Husk. Back button must be used to return.)][*** With respect to the appearance there is not much information as to why Paul was sure that his vision was divine except that he seems to have been overpowered and held and then later released in a way that appeared miraculous to him. He lost his sight and then regained it three days later as was foretold. And so it was certainly supernatural in his eyes. Then he will have become impressed with the incredible moral purity of Jesus and realized, perhaps better than anyone of his time, that the love of God for the Jews was simply a particular historical case of God's love for the entire human race. And so he could have taken the moral purity of his communication as a very positive sign that it was divine, in addition to his three days of physical blindness, which was a sign to him of the supernatural. But of course he also thought the sky was a upside down sort of metal bowl. And so he requires interpretation for today.]
Note: the high esteem the Christians hold for Abraham seems to be based on his faith in the promised child, and they remain able to condemn him for thinking God would call for what is clearly an immoral act.*
[* The Christian might more profitably look at the Hebrew Testament with some skepticism anyway, and be more concerned with the effect of this Testament (any errors included) on the development of the man Jesus than with its accuracy.]
Mohammed encounters a Gabriel-in-the-Cave and decides to do whatever this being tells him to do and say.* Over a long period Mohammed is given a list of things which lead to happiness and which lead to unhappiness, and things leading to happiness are considered "smart" and encompass much that is rightly moral, e.g., giving to the poor. But the motive of compliance has nothing to do with the morality but solely with the degree of happiness attached. For example, refusing to give to the poor or bow down according to a clock will result in hell.
[* It is interesting how Mohammed made his determination. He meets a super strong being in the cave who calls itself an angel and tells Mohammed to repeat to others what the being tells him. Mohammed asks his wife and she convinces him that the being is an angel by getting undressed in the presence of the being and noticing that the being leaves. This proved that it was an angel, for a demon always loves immodesty and dirty things and would have remained to watch the intimacies between Mohammed and his wife. There is also a story that she consulted with a neighbor, perhaps a Christian, who concurred that it was indeed an angel. In any case Mohammed was convinced that this being was not demonic, but rather divine and angelic.]
We will look at an icon of the faith and evalutate it morally, and then we will examine an ostensibly moral command to see if the motivation is moral.
The Icon. The ideal Muslim is epitomized by the figure of Abraham. Abraham serves as the Great Slave, who is so sincere in his servitude and submission that when a dream comes with a voice saying “I am from the God. Go slay your son” he talks it over with his son and finding the son eager to cooperate, Abraham decides he'd be wise to comply with the voice.* This man Abraham is the most exalted of the prophets, and serves as a model: the man who was willing to violate the moral law in order to heed a possible command of the God to do just that.
[* The logic for Abraham is compelling. If the command is not from the God, it really doesn’t matter (with regard to reward), because the sincerity in the killing and in the being killed (by the willing son**) would call for a reward for diligence and sincerity. And if the command is from the God, then both (Abraham and his willing son) would get the reward of compliance. And so it doesn't really matter one way or the other that the command to Abraham was immoral (or even of God). In fact this can show us a moral corruption at the core, for the example it establishes that morality is simply not a consideration, but entirely and only what the God says (or what one sincerely but still merely thinks God says). ]
[** It’s worth noticing that in the case of Abraham's willing son, the incentive to die is equally overwhelming. All Muslims must await their day of judgement and sleep in graves before they know their ultimate fate, and there is no assurance as is found, for example, in the Christian faiths, but merely a hope that it will go well and that the God will be beneficient at the time of Judgment. But there is one exception, namely the martyr who willingly dies in obedience to the God. According to this doctrine, Abraham’s son would have gone directly to the highest paradise and enjoyed the best immediately, and not have to suffer his alloted time upon the earth and eventually die in old age with infirmity and disease.]
The "Moral" Command. Now we consider a moral command from the Mohammed's communication. When we look at two of the pillars of the Islamic conceptrion, we find that if a man refuses to bow down according to the clock and compass or refuses to give something to the poor, that man will go to hell. Avoidance of hell becomes the justification for both of these acts. Therefore the otherwise seeming moral act of giving to the poor loses its morality by virtue of the fact that it would be complied with just as well if the command were simply to consume some money in a flame, i.e., it is simply an inane sacrifice* which happens to be directed toward the good of the poor, but which focus also is entirely immaterial (as evidenced by the equally important, hell-avoiding command of bowing down). In this way we see a fundamental moral corruption in the Islamic doctrine: the removal of the moral incentive and replacing it with the prudent/happiness incentive, such that the Muslim becomes isolated from all people and indeed may even be in competition with them for a, perhaps, fixed reward.**
[* which, by virtue of the very fact that it is inane, serves as an act of subservience and submission.]
[* There is a suggestion in Islamic lore that the paradises and the hells were constructed before the humans were, and then only a number of people equal to that total will be created. And so the people are entirely free and they can now strive to see who wins the higher paradise and avoid the lower hell. If this is true then there is a "grading on the curve" where each person is in competition with all others, in terms of zeal and of imitation of Abraham by taking dreams as commands of God, regardless of traditional notions of morality.]
Indeed the Muslim may boast he is obligated to help the poor. But this is not a moral obligation, and there is no such thing in Islam as a moral obligation. And so while the effect does correspond with what a morally inclined person would do for the sake of duty or righteousness, the motivation here is of deep selfishness and a conscious and prudently necessary exclusion of humanity. And this corresponds perfectly with the clear and iconic teaching of the Great Slave Abraham.
Evaluation. This communication leads to a moral corruption along with a perversion of words. It is exceedingly individualistic and selfish and may even set people into competition with each other in trying to prove a greater zeal to their Allah. There is no moral icon or beacon visible like that of the Jesus of John 5. The greatest Islamic icon, that of the Great Slave Abraham, only serves to subvert the human's moral foundation by subjugating the moral law to superior commands. And consistently with this, even the ostensibly moral commands are motivated by reward and punishment and are so mixed with the amoral as to be lost in a morally blind soup where "moral" comes to be another word for "smart."
However it must be said that based on a certain numerology reportedly found in the Quoran there is evidence that the Quoran must have had a superhuman source, and so Mohammed can have been very sincere.* **
[* See comparison of Mohammed and Joseph Smith in the appendix below. Here is a Christian treatment of this matter: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Nehls/Ask/number19.html. An excellent Islamic source on this subject can be found here: http://islamic.org.uk/I4WM/structur.htm.]
[** In order to establish itself as a moral faith it seems to me that some icon must be found for Islam indicating the supremacy of the moral law for pleasing God and such that all else, such as bowing, are justified in some sort of moral strengthening. I think this may be very difficult to accomplish, but perhaps I presume here in ignorance.]
Conclusion. We can evaluate these three alleged prophets in this wise. Abraham was simply wrong in assuming God could command an immoral act, and so this definitely was not an appearance of God. Paul might have been visited with a divine communication, for his overall communication, extending over the time of his life, is thoroughly moral in its foundation and core (reflecting in a stark way the example of Jesus breaking the revealed law for the sake of good as indicated above). Mohammed could not be deemed to have received a divine communication, for the moral is lost in a mire of extreme selfishness where personal reward is the sole motivating force of the human and where concern about morality can be put quite aside. It is a totally solitary religion. Every man for himself and forget the others (except as commanded, and then for the sake of the command and reward and not for the sake of the others). And yet, from the appearance of a remarkable numerology, it is also doubtful that it could have been conceived by Mohammed and so the appearance at least points to a supernatural being.
Appendices
I. Mohammed and Joseph Smith--a Comparison.*
Joseph Smith was a prophet in America during the first half of the 19th century. He reported encountering an angel named Moroni and then also the God and Jesus, all in bodily form. The result was the Mormon church which is growing rapidly and now has tens of millions of adherents. Smith had pretty much the same experience as Mohammed has reported, except that Smith, who could read, was allowed to read and translate the holy book which is before the throne of God, while Mohammed, who was illiterate, was limited to repeating what he had been told by the angel Gabriel and then trusting others to accurately record what he had repeated. And the results of the two alleged communications (Smith's and Mohammed's) are contradictory, and so both cannot be divine, and yet it is difficult to distinguish them in terms of their appearance and moral make up. They are so much alike that Smith’s might be called a copy or replication of Mohammed's. But if this were true, it would necessarily cast doubt on Mohammed’s alleged communication (showing an invention to be easy enough). However and in any case the recently discovered numerology recently discovered in Mohammed's communication suggests it needed some super human agency. And so while Smith’s can more easily be considered a fraud, Mohammed’s communication may be too close to the supernatural to suspect he could have dreamed it up.
[* . For a more extensive comparison click here.]
This is worth noting for contrast with Islam. According to the communication of Paul, Christians have already received their reward. Through the concept of the "binity"* Christians have died with Jesus and are resurrected to a new life in him such that all good is done is his name and without consideration of reward, for the reward of eternal life with Christ has already been obtained. Hence the so-called Christian Paradox, namely: while the original attraction to the faith may be due to a fear of punishment and a pursuit for reward, the effect of the faith is that there is no longer any concern with punishment and reward, but rather instead how best to exemplify the love of this Christ in one's life. The Christian enters in prudently and selfishly (pursuit of reward) and becomes unselfish in spirit in the process.**
[* A binity is an object with two perfectly identical examples, but which are nevertheless different. The left and right hands each perfectly exemplify the notion of hand, and yet they cannot wear the same glove. This is presented in more detail in the essay In Aid Of Trinitarians. The term was not used by Paul but expresses his thinking here very well.]
[** The Muslim, in contrast, comes in selfish and does not change or even expect or want to change, but continues to harken to the rules for personal gain and advantage, and whatever the moral cost. It is a remarkable distinction.]
III. Characterization of Islam and Christianity.
Islam is a religion which calls for conformity to an externally given code of conduct and it induces compliance by means of promises of great reward and threats of great punishment. As a result it can be characterized as a child's religion or even a slave’s religion. The latter denomination is particularly apt in view of the high esteem held for Abraham by Islam because 1. of his willingness to act on the assumption that a mere voice in his dream was the voice of God and 2. he was not deterred by the fact that he was to slay an innocent person. The motto of Islam is: do as you are told, i.e., submit!*
[* This is not unlike the training of animals. Here the human can look forward to future consequences in terms of pleasure and pain, while the animal needs the immediate feeling. Hence the human can come to do as he is told just like the animal does. If he is not rewarded by the master, at least the obedient slave can hope that he won't be punished.]
Christianity, at least in its pure paulian form, calls for the faithful to determine for themselves what they are to do in accordance with their moral law of universal love. Since the Christian counts himself already a member of the Kingdom of God, and thus already has his reward (as indicated in the previous appendix), he no longer acts with regard to reward and punishment. For this reason we might call it an adult religion or even a freeman religion. The icon here is the image of Jesus breaking the ten commandments in order to do a good deed immediately. The motto here is: do as you know yourself to be right!* **
[* Apparently an assumption of Paul was that by virtue of the direction of the law of love and using right reason and understanding, people of a kindred and good spirit would cooperate together to fashion a better world, through better master-slave relations, and husband-wife relations, and citizen-government relations, and so on.]
[** See Luke 12:13-14 or 57 where Jesus assumes people know right and wrong and simply need to apply it in their own lives.]
IV. Expected Clarity of a Divine Dictation
Mohammed's communication is represented as being more than merely inspiration (as is the case with Paul's)--it is a divine dictation. When we consider the quality of a divine inspiration we already allow for some confusion as to meaning, for here the inspired person, e.g., Paul, will formulate the communication in his own words and according to his own understanding. And as a result one might easily expect some confusion or difficulty in understanding, especially on the part of later generations.
With a divine dictation, on the other hand, we expect two qualities, namely understandable to all people, even children, and to all generations. But this is obviously not the case with Mohammed's communication, for the determination of what someone is required to do by the Islamic God calls for experts and extensive, indeed even excessive interpretations and codes of conduct.
In contrast to this divine dictation to Mohammed the communication of Paul (which is at most would be divinely inspired and thus subject to confusion), since it is moral (as established above in the text of the essay) is extraordinarily simple and clear, such that even children can grasp it. It is summarized in Romans 13:8-10 as consisting of the moral law alone (in terms of the law of love of neighbor). Thus is was clear then to all and is clear now and cannot be confused.* **
[* The reader needs to keep in mind that Romans 13:8-10 provides a principle for the motivation of all actions. All things are lawful to the Paulian and expedience becomes the only criterion (cite 1 Corth 6:12). Therefore the only question that remains for the Paulian is to discover what is and is not helpful, what is medicine, as it were, and what is poison. With that information all correct actions can be derived. Thus while the principle remains clear and constant, the actions undertaken in accordance with that principle will vary, depending on the state and level of science. Thus (as an analogy), depending upon his or her understanding and diagnosis a modern doctor might give a sick patient penicillin while an earlier doctor might "bleed" the patient, but both in a sincere effort to cure the patient.]
[** See an essay concerning the utility of the clarity issued with regard to an essay on an evangelistic approach to Muslims.]
V. Moments of an Evangelistic Appeal to Muslims
Here I am trying to develop a procedure for approaching Muslims by Christian evangelists.
1. Salute the component of sincerity in Islam and note that Islam gives great credit in this regard to Jesus.
2. Note the problem with clarity with regard to Mohammed's communication per Appendix IV above, namely that it does not have the clarity expected of a divine dictation. Accordingly this communication fails the test of a "clear sign" on which Islam prides itself so much. Use the fact of this "murky sign" as an opening to examine Mohammed's communication further.
3. Undertake an analysis of the moral character of the communication (per the Application section of the essay above) and note that it is quite lacking and certainly not what one would expect of a divine communication. Thus we have a failure with regard both to clarity and to moral content. This should suggest a severe problem with Mohammed's claim.
4. Compare Mohammed's communication with that of Joseph Smith (Appendix I above) and note that while they are contradictory and so where at least one (and perhaps both!) are incorrect, it is impossible to tell which is which. And furthermore point out that if we assume Joseph Smith is a fraud, it merely means that it is easy enough to formulate a fraudulent communication, and so Mohammed could have done the same thing.
5. Now introduce the communication of Paul and note that it succeeds on both counts where Mohammed fails, namely in clarity and in moral content with regard to all actions which could be pleasing to God, i.e., because it is a truly moral teaching it is also ipso facto extraordinarily clear.
6. Note in closing that Mohammed's communication, faulty as it is, does nothing more than to continue the legalistic character of the Jewish communication, whereas Paul dispenses with all law. Thus with the continuing respect that one must have for the sincerity insisted upon by the Muslims, one sees that Paul combines that sincerity with liberty while Mohammed connects it with legalism, i.e., the sincerity of the Muslim means only that the believer does what he does out of a sincere respect for the commands of God, and thus calls for the Muslim to discover all the laws and rules and regulations in order then to sincerely implement them in honor of God. And all this Paul dispenses with and makes moot, for with him it is merely sincerity in love that counts for anything before God.
7. Thus Paul presents the communication for free beings, while Mohammed, like the Jews, remains with a communication for slaves (see also Appendix III above).
To contact the author, please e-mail: pmr**kantwesley.com (note: the ** must be replaced by @)
To The Table Of Contents of Home Page