3/28/06 Here I am searching for a more concise and precise uncovering of the moral foundation of Islam and Christianity.

Abraham takes a voice, which tells him to slay his son, as the voice of God. Abraham undertakes to comply with that voice, but is stopped at the last minute by a countermanding order, also presumed to be of God.

This experience of Abraham can be replicated at any time. Someone has a dream (perhaps induced by movies, discussions, preaching, etc.) and thinks that God himself is speaking and ordering him to commit what he knows to be an immoral act.

We now turn and see how two particular faiths, Islam and Christianity, would counsel the hearer of such a suggestion or command.

Islam.* In order to emulate the Great Icon of Submission, the Muslim, upon hearing such a voice, would consult with a knowledgeable member of the Islamic body. Then once it were realized that this voice could be not just a dream but rather that it could also be a suggestion from Allah through the dream, then the Muslim is well advised, per Great Abraham's example, to do as suggested, and without being concerned as to whether the person (the victim) concurs or even knows about it, nor does it really matter whether that person is innocent of any wrongdoing or not.

[* According to the Arabian tale Abraham discusses this alleged command with his son (the would be victim) who is ready to comply with the command and to "go quietly."]

In other words, as I seek to encapsulate the logic here, the supreme rule of an intelligent and knowledgeable person is as follow: if you have reason to suspect that some suggestion of Allah has come to you then the first thing you should do is to consult with another, knowledgeable Muslim, and if he concurs that it could be a divine communication, then you should act accordingly. And the logic is irresistable:

1. if you are right and it is a suggestion or command of Allah, then you will be rewarded for your obedience, and

2. if you are mistaken and it is only a dream, you will still be rewarded for your eagerness and sincerity in being obedient to Allah,

and both (1 & 2) are marks of the Good Slave.

The only incorrect action under these circumstances would be to dismiss it all as a mere dream, for then you not only miss the reward of sincerity (which would have been yours by acting as if it were an authentic suggestion of Allah, even if mistaken), but more importantly you run the risk of being faced on Judgment Day with the fact that this was a command of Allah and you had reason to suspect that, and you chose to ignore it.

In brief: slay the innocent person, or whatever else it is that you sincerely can believe is the suggestion of Allah.

Christianity.* How different this is from the Christian evaluation. In this faith it is impossible (and more recently than sometime earlier) to heed such a voice as described, and it is to be assumed, if not a dream, then the devil posing as an “angel of light.” And it doesn’t matter how many people, or which people, believe it to be the voice of God.

[* According to the Hebrew tale, there is no indication that Abraham discussed this with his son or with anyone. Instead he simply accepts the voice as the voice of God and goes forward to make the killing.

Reflection on the Christian's Old Testament. The Christians don’t really need the Old Testament except as a platform for the appearance of the Messiah, and so it doesn’t really matter if the stories contained in it are true or not. What matter is the effect these stories had on Jesus* directly and through others (family, Jews). So I think the Christians should be willing to admit to the Muslim objection that the Jews have changed the bible, although not willing to take on their own take on various stories and specific changes. Then the Christian able to discern cases where people of that time might have thought that God would speak in terms of a providential morality, for it could be that that is the only way they could understand. But that it was certainly wrong for them to have done so. This the Christian faith will insist upon, i.e., it is wrong for anyone to act as Abraham did.

[* It is for this contextual reason (effect on Jesus) that the Old Testament can be deemed Holy and studied.]

Moral Evaluation of Abraham. I think Abraham (in the context of his situation) failed the "test" by seeking to slay his son. He should not have assumed that God could order any such command or make any such suggestion. He should have rejected the voice as fake. He made a big mistake and much of mankind has suffered as a result. God salvaged from this debacle on the part of Abraham all that could be salvaged (we surmise from the story), namely that in his devotion to God Abraham was indeed giving up something he loved dearly, his most prized possession and the jewel in his crown, and it happened to be his son and an innocent child. God salvaged that much from this mess and did not comment publicly on Abraham’s limited and sad moral capacity nor on Abraham’s low estimation of God (in presuming such a command were even possible).

The only way out for Abraham in a modern court is a plea of insanity.* He was as certain as the experienced friends of Balder (or Baldar) of Norse lore that nothing he could possibly do could thwart the promise of God concerning the lad, i.e., he would live, no matter how hard Abraham might seek to kill him.**

[* This "out" would only be tenable given the Hebrew tale of Abraham.]

[** This is Steve Palmquist’s “magician” theory, i.e., that Abraham considered himself like the assistant to a mighty magician, i.e., the magician would not fail to pull off his trick and leave the "victim" harmless, even though the assistant does not know how the magician can do this.]