Canadafreepress.com

By Dr. Norman Berdichevsky  Wednesday, September 1, 2010

What is meant by “Our Judeo-Christian-Heritage”?  What upsets both many Jews and Christians when President Obama reversed the order traditionally used by public figures and spoke of the United States as “A Country of Christians and Muslims,”? Is not Islam one of the “Three Abrahamic Religions” as many Muslims claim? How does Islam fundamentally differ? What does the history of Islamic expansion and its views on the individual, society and what the Constitution calls “inalienable rights” portend?

The Torah and the Constitution were elevated by Jews and Americans respectively as the final recourse and supreme arbiter of political disputes and moral conflicts. The “LAW” rather than any President or King was acknowledged as the source of power in the state. A King Ahab or a President Nixon were displaced not by armed insurrection or devious political maneuvering but by the sense of public outrage that they had abused the moral authority that had been entrusted to them. The Prophets had the Torah and the political opponents of the administration had the Constitution on their side. A King Solomon and a President Clinton even if not impeached or deposed, suffered the scorn and humiliation of having betrayed their sacred trust. Nowhere else but in ancient Israel and modern America is there a document that is so respected and carries such weight.

The designation in modern Hebrew for The United States is “Artzot haBrit” literally means “The Lands of the Covenant.” For Hebrew speakers, this name struck an immediate responsive chord that America was a country that placed the rule of law foremost above all persons and privileges. “Brit”means covenant and was also the term used for “circumcision”, the act that made the covenant a visible sign in the flesh between God and the descendants of Abraham and Isaac. This covenant - The Torah, constituted the voluntary acceptance of a righteous moral code.

The American Revolution which established the system of federal and state government in the United States promulgated a respect for equality of individual citizens before the law—a cardinal point that rejects monarchy and above all places ultimate reliance on a fixed document—the Constitution—rather than a monarch held in great reverence. In this regard, the United States, a Republic from its inception, developed a written code which was the final arbiter of all problems and conflicts. It is the means to decide what is legal and what is illegal.

Islam and Sharia Law

What came to be known as Sharia codified seventh century Arab culture from the Arabian peninsula and became imbedded in the new faith of Islam. Under the first Caliphate of the Umayyad rulers, caliphs enacted laws reflecting the jurisprudence of imams in which, from the very start, they were specifically exempted from theft, adultery (in spite of the legality of plural marriage and numerous concubines), killing,  and drinking alcoholic beverages. An Islamic head of state could not be charged with these crimes (codified Islamic Law, vol. 3, no. 914 cited in Cruel and Usual Punishment” by Nonie Darwish). Abu Hanifa (699-767), the imam who granted immunity to Muslim political leaders and was the author of one of the major codes of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, was himself killed by the reigning caliph!

This tradition has continued to the present day explaining the absence of fundamental democratic institutions allowing for political debate and respect for the equality of citizens under the laws. Individuals enjoy no protection from despotic rule, Kaffirs (non-believers)  and women are not the equal of men and it is taken from granted that leaders will be corrupt and that this is part of the established order of society. Fourteen hundred years after the death of Muhammad and the codification of Sharia, the specter of 7^th century Arabia with its tribal way of life rules over more than a billion people. Death for apostasy continues to be the accepted ruling in many Muslim majority states and in places such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran, any other the public worship of any other religion is either totally forbidden or severely restricted. Not one member of the 57 member Organization of Islamic Conference of Nations (OIC) could qualify as a democracy. 

In his Cairo speech, President Obama attempted to rewrite history equating what the self conflicted “Muslim World” and the United States are supposed to share—their concern with human rights and religious tolerance…

” I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.”

Yet his unyielding belief that these values exist or are respected in the Muslim world must be based on his ignorance that every one of the majority Muslim countries in the world has NOT signed the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights but subscribes to their own “Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights” (UIDHR), signed at Cairo in which predominantly Muslim countries take expressed issue with the U.N. Declaration for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of Non-Western countries. The document was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guideline for the member states in matters of human rights.

In 1981, the Iranian delegate to the U.N. Said Rajaie-Khorassani articulated the Muslim position by criticizing the U.N. document as “a secularunderstanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing Islamic law. What this means in essence is that the fundamental rights of individuals, women and children for protection from abuse and the right to their freedom of conscience as understood in both Israel and the United States as well as all the other non-Muslim countries who signed the document, are all denied.

Article 10 of the UIDHR states: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”

Article 10 thus explicitly states that it is forbidden to convert someone from Islam to another religion or to atheism. Exploitation of “ignorance” is one of the forbidden ways. Since in an Islamic state, “ignorance” can be attributed to anyone who is non-Muslim, Article 10 can be used to outlaw apostasy from Islam whatever the circumstances. This result accords with all the main schools of Islamic law, which prescribe the death penalty for sane, adult males (the judgment regarding women apostates is however more debatable) who leave the Islamic faith.

In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education and the Association of World Citizens have declared that the “The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights and International Covenants.”

ISLAM AND AMERICAN HISTORY

Obama’s attempts to expand on Muslim tolerance and achievement are faulty to say the least but his linking the “Muslim World” to American history is simply absurd when he quoted John Adams ...”The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote, The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”

This 1796 quote was written when Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe had no direct knowledge whatsoever with Islam or any familiarity with Muslim societies. All of them later, during the period 1801-1815, subscribed to the absolute necessity to confront the Barbary Pirates to end the scourge of piracy and the unprovoked attacks on American and European merchant vessels, the capture and the enslavement of their crews for ransom by the various vicious Muslim “Deys”—the rulers of the North African states.

All four of these American presidents, despite their initial reluctance to raise taxes, empower a modern navy and send thousands of American sailors and marines across the Atlantic to fight a protracted war, became aware of the utter hopelessness of dealing with Muslim rulers who proclaimed their inherent right to act in this aggressive manner because the Koran commanded them to do so against infidels who under the Koran enjoyed no rights whatsoever.

There is virtually no contribution of any kind to American culture and our institutions from Muslims until the turn of the 20^th century.

The Legacy of Hebrew and the Bible in American Culture

Hundreds of Biblical expressions and Hebrew words became a part of the English language and American culture as if they had originated in it and were subsequently borrowed for successful novels, films, political slogans, popular mottoes embracing folk wisdom, allegories, proverbs, and even stamped on the Liberty Bell—(Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof—Leviticus 25:10)—The Good Earth, Little Foxes, East of Eden, Chariots of Fire, Let My People Go, Pastures of Plenty, Grapes of Wrath, Each Man under his Vine and Fig Tree, By the Sweat of Your Brow, etc. and words directly transcribed to English—amen, hallelujah, hosanna, manna, cherubim, seraphim, Satan, shibboleth, cabal, mammon, paschal, messiah, abbot, Sabbath, alphabet, leviathan and so on.

This common vocabulary, moral code, religiously inspired heritage and the form of Constitutional government prescribed in the Torah with divinely sanctioned rights that no monarch can violate is what is meant by the adjective “Judeo-Christian” to characterize our way of life.

In Chronicles II Chapter 7, verses 16-20, God clarifies the nature of the covenant He has made not only with Israel but with granting Solomon the office of King…

16. For now I have chose and sanctified this house, that my name be there for ever ; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

17. And as for thee, If thou wilt walk as David, thy father walked and do according to all that I have covenanted with David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee and shalt observe my statutes and judgments:

18. Then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom as I have covenanted with David thy father saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.

19. But if ye turn away, and forsake my statues and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them:

20. Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them….and I will cast them out of my sight

Fulfilling a similar covenant, the oath of office requires the President to swear on the Bible “To Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States - so help me God!

This insistence on the written law parallels American regard for the Constitution as the document by which the highest Judicial authority—the Supreme Court—was given the right to interpret it in order to decide what is the law of the land and what is forbidden to be rejected no matter how many legislators voice their approval. Until the destruction of The Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., The Great Sanhedrin, a type of Jewish Supreme Court met in an assembly of 71 members. They had both judicial and legislative functions and claimed powers to try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and settle all questions of law. In some cases, it was only necessary for a 23-member panel (functioning as a Lesser Sanhedrin) to convene. In general, the full panel of 71 judges was only convened on matters of national significance (e.g., a declaration of war) or in the event that the 23-member panel could not reach a conclusive verdict.

From the earliest days of the New England Puritan colonies, the following elements made the acceptance of Jews for high political office more likely than other new immigrants:

• a great respect for the Ten Commandments and the Hebrew Language;
• an emphasis on education and literacy;
• a commitment to abide by mutually agreed upon written covenants.

Furthermore there was an esteme for the Old Testament reflected in the prevalence of Biblical place names such as Salem and Bethlehem and personal names. Colonial America, especially New England was populated by countless Isaacs, Josephs, Jacobs, Joshuas, Solomons, and Abrahams (one American commander at Bunker Hill and in charge of the Continental Army in New York was Israel Putnam), as well as Sarahs, Ruths, Rebeccas, Rachels, Deborahs and Abigails. Reverence for the Old Testament extended down to copying the measure for a barrel of beer in Massachusetts as specified in Deutoronomy.

All this evident regard for the Biblical-Hebrew heritage made New England initially hospitable to early Jewish settlement. Nothing better illustrates this immense respect for the Old Testament than the words uttered in May, 1775 by Ethan Allen, leader of the Green Mountain Boys in Vermont. When challenged by British soldiers at the gates of Fort Ticonderoga, on whose authority he was acting to demand its surrender, he replied: ‘By the authority of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress’!

The Puritan respect for Hebrew extended to it being a required subject on a par with Latin and Greek and it was part of the curriculum in Harvard, Brown, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Columbia and Dartmouth, the last three of which universities preserve Hebrew inscriptions in their official seals. A Hebrew oration was given annually at Harvard graduation ceremonies until 1817. An intimate knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures in English translation was part of the formative home education of many New Englanders and early settlers in other regions.

After all, as the influential Anglo-Jewish historian Cecil Roth puts its: ‘Generation after generation of Englishmen heard the Bible read in church and studied it at home. In many cases, it was the only book; in all, the principal book. At last, its cadences, its music, its phraseology, sank into his mind and became part of his being. Hence by slow degrees his daily speech was not merely enriched, but to some extent molded by its influence’.

Why should American Jews have had such a long and prominent role in political affairs in the United States? The American system was adopted with enthusiasm and regarded by almost all Jewish immigrants as particularly congenial and better suited to traditional Jewish concepts of rule than any other existing form of government. The Constitution came to occupy a place in the hearts and minds of Americans in a way which recalled to Jews the role of the Torah (Hebrew for the first Five Books of the Old Testament. i.e. - The written Law).

Like most of the merchant class incensed by British trade restrictions, American Jews, many of whom were Sephardim (of Spanish-Portuguese descent), enthusiastically supported the Revolutionary cause in the 1770s. Their loyalty was acknowledged and reciprocated by the country’s earliest leadership. Although some voting restrictions existed in several colonies, they were all abolished within the first few decades of independence.

The list of appointments and honors accorded to American Jews prior to the Civil War included U.S. Marshall for Maryland (Reuben Etting) by President Jefferson, American Consul in Tunis (Mordechai Noah) by President Madison; action by American diplomats to protect the Jews of Damascus from the absurd accusations of ritual blood murder (President Van Buren), the appointment of an American Consul to Palestine (Warder Cresson, a Quaker convert to Judaism!) by President Tyler, and signing the charter to permit the first synagogue in the District of Columbia (President Pierce). These appointments were not made in order to placate a “Jewish lobby” among the electorate for Jews were too few in number to have any political influence at the time but were awarded on the basis of individual merit. 

In succeeding generations, many millions of immigrants to the United States sought the same economic and social opportunities as did Jews but none found so many important elements of their religious or political culture so embedded in the original American civilization established by English, Scots and Ulster Irish settlers. Greeks and Italians might point to the classical Greek, Italianate and Romanesque architecture of American public buildings but only early Jewish immigrants could feel the same sense of welcome expressed by Thomas Jefferson who declared himself ‘happy in the restoration of the Jews, particularly to their social rights and hope they will be seen taking their seats on the benches of science as preparatory to their doing the same at the board of government’.

A scant three generations after American Independence, the Civil War made extensive use of Biblical imagery against slavery. The Battle Hymn of the Republic which became a second national anthem during the war invoked the biblical specter of God’s ‘Terrible Swift Sword’ trampling out the vintage where the ‘Grapes of Wrath’ are stored and many abolitionists who helped escaped slaves reach the ‘Promised Land’ (either the North or Canada) before the war saw themselves as continuing the tradition of the biblical prophets.

It may well be that a large part of the intense hostility Arab and Muslim radicals and Islamists feel towards Israel has been compounded by the almost automatic sympathy and solidarity Israelis feel towards the United States as much as the other way round. Just as there continues to be a special bond of both “blood” and shared political values and cultural heritage between Anglo-Americans and the peoples of the British isles, there is a strong link between most Christian Americans and the Jews stemming from the more than two hundred and fifty year old coexistence in North America and the two thousand year old Judeo-Christian ethic.

George Washington in a letter to Moses Seixas, Warden of Touro Synagogue in Newport Rhode Island in August, 1790 expressed the wish that ...“The children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree”. This wish has long been reciprocated.