Like all Christians I learned about Abraham from the Jewish book of Genesis. He was always understood as an extreme example of faith that should be an inspiration to all people, especially his willingness to sacrifice his beloved child of promise, Isaac, in order to remain obedient to God. And just like the majority of Christians I considered this story to be the only story about this famous man.

Fairly recently I have met with two surprises concerning this widespread, Christian understanding of Abraham. On the one hand I learned that there is an Muslim tale of Abraham which, while not as detailed as the Jewish tale, varies from the latter in very significant ways. And then I also learned of the arguments of Immanuel Kant who takes Abraham to task for thinking that God might order the slaying of an innocent person.*

[* The Muslim story teller has a distinct advantage over the Christian because he is untroubled by any notion of good and evil in the affairs of the world. What the Christain calls evil, e.g., Hitler (due to his challenge to universal human dignity), the Muslims dismisses as sheer nonsense. This is due to a hyper-calvinist (predestimational) bent of fate which engulfs Islam.The Muslim Allah makes all people do exactly what they do and so for whom the entire human experience is a mere past time, much like a child playing with dolls and making them do this and that.** And when so many people are tragically broken ,and which the Christain must strain to explain as existing in a world made good by a good God, the Muslims needs merely appeal to a "trial and test" imposed by Allah and then can shrug his shoulders and says that all things accord with the will of Allah.***]

[** There is even talk that God first created paradises and hells and then created enough people to exactly fill each and enjoys having them go through life in order that they can then understand why they are in a paradise or in a hell. If true (and I have only heard this) this means a zero-sum game and that means that the Muslims then are in competition with everyone, for the high achievers will get the better paradises and the low achievers get the worst hells. This competition could occasionally play itself out in mass displays of fervor in a given (perceive) test and trial.]

[*** Athough the final answer to the riddle facing the Christian, i.e., from whence evil?, cannot be satisfactorially dealt with except with the aid of Kant, we still can easily ascribe all evil to man and assert, for example, that if the world were so arranged as it could be in its possible perfection (every person sincerely seeking to do right above all else, a la Japanese almost), then warnings would have been issued in times of disasters.**** This would be a world or spirit of unfettered sharing as opposed to the purchse of cooperation (the market economy) where it is "Each man for himself, and God against all."]

[**** In such times as a devastating tsunami, for example, people would have been so prepared (according to this hypothesis) that millions could have been awestruck witnesses of the poweer and majesty of God's world, instead of suffering and being afraid (as was the case of the Great Tsunami of December, 2004). By the way the reasoning of this hypothesis is that if people were as eager with things moral as they are with things of profit, then information would be developed much faster than in a market economy (of purchased and coerced sharing). The problem is in the make up of the human. See essay on Kant's Religion (Part 1).The back button must be used to return here.]

The Jewish Tale of Abraham, made Righteous through Faith. Abraham hears the voice of God and believes what he hears and acts accordingly. The voice tells Abraham that he will be a father of many nations through a son. He is unable to have a son with Sarah, his wife, due to her advanced age and takes a concubine, Hagar, and through her has a son named Ishmael. Abraham’s voices then tell him that the promised son is not Ishmael, but will be born to Sarah. When Sarah is 90 and Abraham is 100 a son is born who is called Isaac. While still a child and before having any children, Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac to God like an animal, i.e., as a burnt offering. Abraham sets off to do just that, but then is stopped just before killing Isaac by an angel, and offers a ram instead. Later Isaac marries and has two children, Jacob and Essau.

Arabian Tale of Abraham, the Great Slave of Allah. This rendering of the Abraham story has (or seems to have) Ishmael being the child to be sacrificed. Also Ishmael agrees to be the sacrifice (while no mention is made in the Jewish rendition of any acquiescence on the part of the sacrificial son).

Kant’s Indictment of Abraham as (intended) Murderer. Kant observes that it is impossible for anyone to identify God through any sensory medium, e.g., hearing or sight or feeling, and so any communication from God would be subject to the limitations of the human and as such could never be certain. However, Kant continues, there is no question but that it is wrong for anyone to slay an innocent person. And so Abraham was wrong to take the uncertain immoral over the certain moral and to plan to kill his innocent son.*

[* In Kant’s own words from “Conflict Between The Faculties” "If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses [like hearing, seeing, feeling, etc.], nor distinguish it from sensible beings [whether it is a devil, another person, or even his own hallucination], and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion [or deception?].**"

[** Bracketed words and phrases added by Rudisill. Kant then adds the following footnote: “For example the myth of the sacrifice that Abraham wanted to make based on the divine command, the slaughter and the fire offering of his only son (the poor lad also had to carry the wood in his ignorance). Even if the voices were to resound from a visible heaven, Abraham should have answered the alleged, divine voices by saying, ‘that I should not kill my good son is clear to me; but that you, who appear to me, be God, that is not at all clear and can also never become clear.’” See also "Guide Of Conscience".]

Arabian Tale. The Arabian tale of Abraham has been incorporated into the holy dictation of Islam’s Allah, the Koran. When we consider the over all attitude of this religion we can realize that Abraham, and also Ishmael, serve as the exemplar of the perfect slave. The idea of the Koran is for people to comply with the dictates of Allah willingly or unwillingly. The moon, stars, sun and the animals have been told what to do and they comply willingly, which is the ideal. This is then what Abraham also does as a free act: he submitts to Allah (as understood through his voices or a dream of that voice). As the Great Slave he does not dispute with Allah in any way and most certainly does not presume to remind or instruct Allah that it is wrong to slay an innocent person. The most he does is to tell Ishmael about this and that he wonders if this is a communication from God. Ishmael is so impressed with Abraham’s willingness to serve Allah in this absolute way that he tells Abraham that he, Ishmael,* will also go along and will assume this is Allah's command and will comply willingly with his command.

[* According to general Islamic thinking if a slave (a human being) presumes to disobey Allah he will be punished in a never-ending horror. If a slave obeys Allah unwillingly, i.e., reluctantly, he will be spared this horror. If a slave obeys Allah willingly, there is a great hope, although no guarantee, that he will be rewarded. Ishmael would most likely have reasoned along these lines: if we do this and Abraham slays me and if we are right and this voice is the voice of God, then we will be rewarded for our obedience; and if we are wrong and this is not the voice of God, we will still be rewarded for our sincerity in wanting to obey; and so the only stupid act would be not to comply with the voice as understood.]

This willingness captures the essence of this massive religion. “Ours is not to reason why; ours is to do and die.”* The fact that this is an intended murder and contrary to all human law presses home the notion of an abject willingness, utter submission, to do anything that Allah asks (or even what it is sincerely thought to be Allah's requirements). Ishmael’s willingness merely accentuates the iconic role that Abraham plays for the Muslim audiences: willingly kill an innocent person, willingly commit suicide, willingly do anything that is sincerely thought to be the guidance and wish of Allah. The point is to sincerely search out the guidance of Allah and then to eagerly comply with that guidance without scruples. There is no question that is raised in advance regarding anything to do with morality or anything else, not by the true slave.**

[* From Tennyson's “The Charge Of The Light Brigade.” Shakespeare’s Richard III has told a servant to go somewhere and do something, and when the servant hesitates, tells him, “don’t stand upon the word go, but go!” This could exemplify the voice of Allah to his slave. The proper attitude for the Muslim is "I submit".]

[** Another interpretation of the heart of Abraham has recently come forth, what might be called the "loving parent hypothesis." This was suggested to me by an episode on the TV series "Law and Order." A devout Christian mother of limited understanding murders her new born infant in the understanding that as a result the infant will always be happy in the presence of God and will never be tempted to sin and will never suffer the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that "flesh is heir to." She does this for the sake of her beloved child, even though she knows that she will go to hell as a result. Likewise then we can conceive of Abraham in the Muslim rendition thinking of his son of sacrifice as a martyr who is willing to die in obedience to God's command. As a result Ishmael would be elevated immediately to pleasure paradise without ever having to suffer the infirmaties that curse the human condition. Abraham still intends murder, but there is no malice but rather an overwhelming love for his son. And here Abraham would also have no fear of any punishment for himself in hell. He would lose the company of his son while on earth, but would have the assurance of his son's eternal delight in paradise. (10/3/06)]

Thus the Arabian or Islamic Abraham is not concerned at all with Kant’s indictment and indeed uses the case of murder as an extreme indication of what it means to be a sincerely willing and unhesitating slave.

By the way Abraham here does not escape Kant’s censure by being stopped at the last moment by an angel and by offering a ram to Allah instead of his son. Abraham’s heart is understood to be unhesitating with regard to compliance and so it was just a matter of time and opportunity.*

[* This nicely points out the distinction between the legal and the moral. Abraham was prepared not only to commit this crime, according to the thinking suggested by the Arabian tale, but any number of crimes, indeed an infinite number of crimes, if that were called for. Hence morally and spiritually he is infinitely guilty. Legally, of course, since he was hindered in his planned crime, he is not guilty at all, for nothing happened. This is much like the legal courts looking merely to the specific motivation and intention of a person with regard to a specific crime,** while in a moral court we would inspect the entire heart, as it were, i.e., the disposition, and might easily find a readiness to commit any number of crimes if that were possible and profitable, a readiness which is not even realized in the timid soul who perceives few temptations. Morally the Arabian Abraham is infinitely evil while legally he is perfectly clean.]

[** But of course no crime took place and so there would not even be a legal trial for Abraham in a human, legal court.]

Hebrew Tale. When we consider Abraham from the Jewish perspective we have a choice in sight which is apparently not available to the Muslim. The Muslim will have people see Abraham as the eager and willing (and iconicly immoral) Great Slave of the Muslims, but we can also see him as innocent of any intention to commit a crime and morally blameless if we look at him through Jewish eyes. In order to achieve to this choice of viewpoint we draw on Abraham’s experience of having the voice promise a miracle child who would be a father. Then we also remember the miracle birth itself and finally the absence of any children born to the miracle child at the time of the commanded sacrifice. Based on this and consistent with Kant's requirement, we can have Abraham even doubting whether the voice ordering the sacrifice was the voice of God, even though it evidently sounded the same to him, but deciding to go along anyway in the full and confident assurance that nothing whatsoever could harm his child, no matter what Abraham might try to do, by virtue of the promise and dependability of his voice or dream.* In this way, by means of the Jewish tale, Abraham is rescued morally.** ****

[* This scenario suggests the Norse tale of Balder whose mother gets all things (except the feeble mistletoe!) to promise never to hurt her son, and then whose friends earnestly seek to hurl spears into his body in the certain belief that this is impossible. Steve Palmquist has suggested the notion of “magician's assistant” to describe this attitude of Abraham. The assistant knows that the “dangerous” act that is about to take place is a trick of the magician, and that the intended “victim” cannot be harmed, even though the assistant may not know how the magician does his trick.]

[** Incidentally the Christian use of Abraham is primarily focused on his initial belief to leave his homeland and strike out in the wilderness simply because this incredible voice had told him to do just that, and promised him a great reward for doing so. In this way (according to some Christian thinking) he became the means for God to slip back into the world and start preparing for the gentiles of St.Paul who would trust God in that same, model way. The Christians can still condem Abraham for thinking as he did about God, i.e., it is wrong for any person to so act as Abraham did. Nothing bad happened, but that was due to the intervenion of God.***]

[*** How did Abraham then know which voice was the voice of God, the original slaying voice or the subsequent saving voice, or does God change his mind?]

[**** As of October 2006 I realize that there is a Christian perspective on this episode which renders the solution provided here incomplete. This has to do with the report that Abraham realized that his son might be killed and then also resurrected (Hebrews 11:17-19). The writer intends to incorporate this information into the case and to modify the defense of Abraham to account for this fact. This does not effect the defense of Abraham from the Jewish perspective.]

When look at Abraham through Islamic glasses we see someone who is as willing to kill an innocent person as he is to stand on his head, as long as he knows it is likely* the guidance of Allah. From the Jewish perspective it is possible to see Abraham as a moral man.** Thus Kant is right in his condemnation of the Islamic Abraham but perhaps not of the Jewish Abraham.

[* According to Islamic thinking a person has a great incentive to seek to implement whatever he happens sincerely to think is a revealed guidance of Allah and not to worry about making a mistake, e.g., misjudging the guidance and deliberately killing an innocent person when this was not the guidance at all. This sincerity in trying to be a dutiful slave is sufficient for a reward for seeking to be wary of Allah and to comply, even if mistakenly. However, if the killer has reasoned rightly and the suspected guidance was indeed the guidance of Allah, then he gets an additional reward, the reward of obedience.]

[** The Christians, who accept the Jewish perspective and the morality of Abraham, and then go further and offer a positive icon on the moral status of their Christian religion. According to the fifth chapter of John’s gospel (and stated twice there), Jesus broke the accepted and revealed law of Moses by healing on the Sabbath. This would indicate not only a negative moral icon of the faith, namely that nothing immoral could be construed to be of God,*** but also a positive icon that God commands people to do what they already know to be moral. For if the knowedge of good and evil came from the Christian scriptures instead of merely being acknowledged in scripture (Genesis 3:22) then manifestly a person, getting the moral from those scriptures, would not be able to notice anything more or less moral about the prohibition of Sabbath work and the prohibition against murder, for all would add up together to be a list of the moral, as it were, along with the various principles to be derived from all that.]

[*** It is worth noting that this negative constraint is lacking with the Islamic faith and there is no reason to think that Allah would not today command someone to do what is immoral according to plain, ordinary thinking, e.g., the slaying of innocent children. Hence given the incentive to give any benefit of doubt to Allah, it is hardly surprising that we would find young Muslims, à la Ishmael and Abraham both, willing to kill themselves in order to kill other people. There is no overriding and compelling reason not to think this, for there is nothing in Islam comparable to John 5 or Romans 13:8-10 to suggest such could not be a guidance of Allah. Indeed, Tor Andrae reports in Mohammed The Man and His Faith that a man kills a particular Jew at the instigation Mohammed. Andrae continues: “The Jew was a close friend of an elder brother to the killer. For this reason the brother condemned the murder, accused the perpetrator of ingratitude, and said: ‘much of the fat on your body comes from the gifts of the Jews.’ But the murderer answered: ‘Verily, if the man [Mohammed] who commanded me to kill that Jew should command me to kill you I would do so.’ Then the brother replied, ‘A religion which can drive men so far is an extraordinary religion,’ and he was converted on that some day.”****

[**** From page 149. Dover Publications, 1955.]

Appendix
Kant's Explicit Removal of All Vestiges of Moral Content of Islam

When searching the web for correlations of morality and Islam a person will be confronted with this verse from the Quoran (2.177):

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts -- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)."

Kant probably had elements of this verse in mind ("and pay the poor-rate") when he made his analysis of Islam in his work on Religion Within The Limts Of Reason Alone (Part 4 General Remarks, paragrdaph 7), for he spoke of the five pillars of Islam in this wise:

"And so the human has dreamed up certain customs as means of grace in all public forms of belief, even though, and in contrast to the Christian faith, they do not in all refer to practical, rational concepts and the disposition conformable to them (e.g., the Muslim belief concerning the five great commandments: washing, praying, fasting, benevolence to the poor, the pilgrimage to Mecca; among which benevolence alone would be worthy of exception if it occured from a truly virtuous and, at the same time, religious disposition for human duty, for then would deserve to be considered as a means of grace. But since this benevolence is a form of extortion by giving to the poor what is intended as a sacrifice to God, it can easily take its place with the formality of the others, and it does not deserve to be excepted from them)."

The point is very telling.* Normally you would think that giving to the poor would be a moral act. But honoring the five pillars are necessary to avoid hell (even if not always sufficient), and so the point is to avoid hell and not to help anyone from a sense of duty (the latter being the characteristic of a moral act). In this regard, under this extortion, it is all the same to the Muslim (as a good and unquestioning and submissive slave) whether the money were burned in a dish to show Allah one's obedience or whether it is thrown to the wind to show Allah one's obedience or whether it is given to the rich or the poor to show Allah one's obedience. In other words it is simply doing whatever is demanded in order to avoid hell, much as though someone put a pistol to your head and told you to stand up or sit down or whatever. As the Mafia might put it: it is a deal that you cannot refuse.

[* Kant was mistaken in his identification of the first pillar. It is actually a public attestation to the existence and uniqueness of Allah and that Mohammed is the prophet of this Allah. But I don't wonder at his error for the role of washing seems so critical for the pillar of praying, i.e., it would be an affront to Allah for someone to presume to address him while in a state of uncleanness.]

To contact the author, please e-mail: pmr**kantwesley.com (note: the ** must be replaced by @)

To The Table Of Contents on Kant Studies