The formation of moral and legal obligations rests on various epistemological and ontological sources of constructing, justifying and maintaining those types of obligations. This thesis explores those sources utilizing a cultural psychological comparison between two world traditions, Western and Arabo-Islamic. By analyzing cultural differences between specific terms of obligation, knowledge and being, the differences and similarities between moral and legal obligation become clearer. The methodology that I have used has been an interdisciplinary approach. This paper includes the integration of moral, political and legal philosophy, cultural psychology, Islamic legal tradition, natural law tradition, social contract theories, linguistic analysis, hermeneutics, theology, jurisprudence, etc. The main conclusion is that there is a coalescence between the moral and the legal within the Arabo-Islamic tradition, which is embodied within the idea of a covenantal contract. This idea is an amalgamation of moral, legal, and religious authority embodied within a legal contractual relationship that is supplemented by a morally, theologically based covenant within the Arabo-Islamic tradition. This is supported by distinct Arabo-Islamic epistemological concepts related to the ideas of intuition, rationality, legal authority, rights, and moral & legal obligation and ontological concepts related to being, servitude and indebtedness towards a higher monotheistic deity, who is defined by divine, theological attributes. All these concepts contribute to the conflation between the moral and the legal, such that moral and legal obligations isn’t strictly separated within the Arabo-Islamic tradition, as assumed to be within the Western tradition. A case study of free speech and blasphemy is utilized to understand the differences in both types of obligations and traditions. I conclude with implications and future research directions. If you wish to request a copy, please email babdelhady@uchicago.edu, and I will do my best to respond.