Binding-Unbinding

Divided Responses of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to the "Sacrifice" of Abraham's Beloved Son

Bibliographic Data

ID18991307
AuthorsYvonne Sherwood (0000-0002-9521-9130, University of Glasgow, corresponding author)
Year2004
Volume72
Issue4
Pages821-861
Publication date2004-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of the American Academy of Religion (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-7189 • E-ISSN: 1477-4585
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/jaarel/lfh081
OpenAlexW1996391817
LanguageEN
Citations received6

Media treatments of religion and violence after 9/11 have tended to polarize into two equal and opposite positions: the view that the attacks represent the “hijack” of the “Abrahamic” religions which, properly understood, are antithetical to violence, and the claim that violence and religion are virtual synonyms—a view epitomized in the British journalist Nick Cohen's “Damn Them All.”1 Both positions share the belief that violence can be expelled to a putative outside: either outside religion or outside progressive secularism as it frees itself from the ties of its religious other, conceived of as an archaic site of submissiveness, passivity, and heteronomy. This study problematizes these easy antitheses through a close reading of tangled, ancient responses to the so-called sacrifice of Abraham's beloved son. The contemporary antitheses seem both inadequate and naïve when compared to paradoxes of binding–unbinding in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Christianity · Heteronomy · Islam · Judaism · Political science · Politics · Religious violence · Sacrifice · Secularism · Theology · Law · Media, Religion, Digital Communication · Philosophy · Religious studies · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence · Violence, Religion, and Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub