Christians Agree: America is a Muslim Country

Blog Against Theocracy 2008

Fundamentalist Christians are quick to claim that the United States was founded on Christian principles. For one piece of evidence, they point to the Declaration of Independence. The very first sentence of our founding document states, in part:

…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

The very next sentence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hot damn! God is mentioned in the first sentence and then again in the second! That settles it!

The problem here is that the god is completely undefined. Intentionally so, because that defers to the personal beliefs of each citizen. The founders were not about to set forth in this document a declaration of what the citizens believed or should believe.

If they had meant the Christian God, they would have said “the Christian God”. Instead, they wrote “their Creator” and “Nature’s God”. “Their Creator” is the creator of the individual’s choice—the creator within that individual’s personally-held beliefs.

The phrase “Nature’s God” certainly doesn’t sound like Yahweh to me. It actually sounds pagan. How do we know they weren’t referring to an Earth deity? In fact, for all we know, they were referring to the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Well Since You Mentioned It…

The fundamentalist Christians have entered the Declaration of Independence into evidence. That means it’s fair game to further examine this document for clues. In fact, let’s take another look at that second sentence, specifically:

…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

“Unalienable Rights”. That’s an interesting concept. Where did it come from? The phrase is more commonly referred to as “inalienable rights”, about which Wikipedia says:

The idea that certain rights are inalienable was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.” [emphasis added]

That’s right. This most basic of concepts, declared as “self-evident” in our founding document, is based on Islamic law!

Let’s read a little further in that same Wikipedia paragraph:

These ideas may have influenced John Locke’s concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.

There you have the direct line of descent. From Islamic law to John Locke to the Declaration of Independence. It can’t be any clearer.

The next paragraph elaborates:

In 17th-century England, philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being “life, liberty, and estate (or property)”, and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract.

In an early draft of the Declaration, Jefferson originally wrote “life, liberty, and property”. This was a direct incorporation of John Locke’s writings. Jefferson expanded the concept in the final draft into “the pursuit of happiness”, but its roots are unmistakable.

Therefore, by using the fundies’ very own logic of citing the Declaration of Independence as proof, we are forced to conclude that America isn’t a Christian country, it’s a Muslim country!

But wait! There’s more!

Many American Laws are Based on Islamic Law

America’s Islamic heritage is far greater than a few concepts mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Much of American law has been derived from English common law. Much of English common law has been derived from Islamic law.

The Wikipedia entry on Sharia has numerous examples. Here are just a few:

It has been suggested that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders during the Crusades.

According to Professor John Makdisi, the “royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif.”… These influences have led some scholars to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for “the common law as an integrated whole”. [emphasis added]

The section on English common law concludes with:

Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator.

The article then lists numerous additional concepts that American common law grabbed from Islam. Here’s a big one:

Similarities between Islamic law and the common law of the United States have also been noted, particularly in regards to Constitutional law.

Want more? How about the effect of Islamic law on property law? Or civil law? (See the wikipedia article for long lists of both.)

Need even more proof? How about one of our most cherished of all principles:

Another influence of Islamic law on the civil law tradition was the presumption of innocence, which was introduced to Europe by Louis IX of France soon after he returned from Palestine during the Crusades. Prior to this, European legal procedure consisted of either trial by combat or trial by ordeal. In contrast, Islamic law was based on the presumption of innocence from its beginning…. [emphasis added]

Conclusion

Is America based upon Christian principles? There are probably some enshrined within our foundation. But as I have clearly shown, much of America’s founding is based upon, and owes a debt of gratitude to, the enlightened civilizations of the Muslims.

A Christian country? Maybe in parts. A Muslim country? Yes, very much so.

64 Responses to “Christians Agree: America is a Muslim Country”

  1. Waqas Says:

    @ al
    “All the tenets of English common law, and the Declaration, and the Constitution are found first in the laws of the Roman Republic, evolving to fruition with the enlightenment, and nought to do with Christianity or Islam”

    Really nought to do with Islam? Can you quote a reference that any of these rights were available in the laws of Roman Republic or any other Republic predating Islamic Sharia?

    “In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts before the 12th century which anticipated similar modern concepts in the field.[64] These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of “bidding unto good” (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women’s rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation. Many of these concepts were adopted in medieval Europe through contacts with Islamic Spain and the Emirate of Sicily, and through the Crusades and the Latin translations of the 12th century.” (pp. 129-32 Weeramantry, Judge Christopher G. (1997), Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering Human Rights, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9041102418)

    @Scion:

    “the ‘Fallen Angel’ myth that is in the Quran, but not the Bible”
    Interestingly you are telling the opposite of what is true, the idea of Fallen Angel is in the Bible (Isaiah 14:12-15), in the Quran the Satin is a Fallen Jinn, not a Fallen Angel (Quran 2:34; 7:12; 15:27; 55:15).

    “The assertion that such things as impartial judges originate in Islam is wholly ridiculous.”

    The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters “which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff.” The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the “judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition.” According to Professor John Makdisi, “no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury.” It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.[2] However, the hearing of trials before a body of citizens may have existed in courts before the Norman conquest.

    The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law.[23] For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries.[24] Under both a Waqf and a trust, “property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries cannot be created” and “without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis.”[25] The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East.[26][27] Dr. Paul Brand also notes parallels between the Waqf and the trusts used to establish Merton College by Walter de Merton, who had connections with the Knights Templar. Brand also points out, however, that the Knights Templar were primarily concerned with fighting the Muslims rather than learning from them, making it less likely that they had knowledge of Muslim legal institutions.[20]

    [20] Mukul Devichand (24 September 2008). “Is English law related to Muslim law? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

    [23-27] Gaudiosi, Monica M. (April 1988), “The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 136 (4): 1231–1261, doi:10.2307/3312162

    The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action “for the recovery of usurped land”, in contrast to the previous Roman law which “emphasized possession in resolving such disputes.” The “assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq.”[28] Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which “used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves.” The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836.[29]

    [2]: Makdisi, John A. (June 1999), “The Islamic Origins of the Common Law”, North Carolina Law Review 77 (5): 1635–1739

    [28]: Jackson, Sherman (January 1995), “Review: Islamic Law and Jurisprudence: Studies in Honor of Farhat J. Ziadeh by Nicholas Heer Sherman Jackson”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54 (1): 68–9, doi:10.1086/373733
    [29]: pp. 167-8 Badr, Gamal Moursi (Winter 1984), “Islamic Criminal Justice”, The American Journal of Comparative Law 32 (1): 167–169, doi:10.2307/840274

    “Wikipedia reports the ‘truth’ of Islamic history from the mouths of Muslim fundamentalists and propagandists.”

    Really? The above quotes from Wikipedia are from Judge Christopher G Weeramantry, Mukul Devichand, Monica M. Gaudiosi, John A. Makdisi, Nicholas Heer Sherman Jackson and Gamal Moursi, they are all Muslim fundamentalists and propagandists and their books are packs of lies and the journals that printed their work are actually tabloids.

  2. Abarel Says:

    Just some examples of what our wonderful founding fathers said about religion. From this website:
    http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm
    “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” – Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

    Every man “ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” – George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)

    “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

    “When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)

    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

    “Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

    “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” – James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

    “Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” – John Adams

    “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” – James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 – signed by President John Adams.)

    Also see Treaty of Tripoli

    “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.” – Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” – Patrick Henry

    “That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.” – Patrick Henry (Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776.)

    From my reading: only Patrick Henry seems to be a “true christian.”

  3. adam kippes Says:

    someone said:

    The main idea of any religion, comes down to “treat others like you would want to be treated”. So one could state that the constitution is derived from any and all religions combined, not one specific religion.

    after reading “the selfish gene”, i would argue that “treat others like you would want to be treated” is the evolutionary strategy humans adopted to become the highly successful organisms we are.

    i view religion as the structures of thought that allow humans to override that core impulse and commit the intraspecies atrocities that fill our recorded past.

  4. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The main idea of any religion, comes down to “treat others like you would want to be treated”. So one could state that the constitution is derived from any and all religions combined, not one specific religion.

    Except the gays and brown people, of course!

    i view religion as the structures of thought that allow humans to override that core impulse and commit the intraspecies atrocities that fill our recorded past.

    That’s a bold statement considering how many wars in human history (including right now in the present) are happening largely based on religious disagreements.

  5. Andrew Mutabeli Says:

    Obviously, you either one of the Jihadist or moron musliums. Why don’t you, Obama and those Crazy moron musliums leaves us alone. You should go back to where you came from.

    The truth is you are an idiot moron. You need more schooling than anything elese – Your arguments are baseless and stupidity. This world will be better place without the MUSLIUMS on our FACES. Muslium religion has been a religion of VIOLENCE since it’s inception by Mohammand.

    Mohammand was Con and false prophet who stole most of the ideas from the conguered people in India and other parts of Asia including Africa.

    Muslium is the worst religion that is based on false teaching in the world.

  6. Syldoran Says:

    Rather than argue that last comment, I will simply nitpick in order to amuse myself for a moment:

    “Idiot moron” is a bit redundant.

    Muslium?

    Conguered?

    “Elese” sounds like a name.

    Should be “Since ITS” inception. Also should be “baseless and STUPID” in order to maintain the correct sentence structure and have the adjectives agree with the noun.

    I think you mean “a con artist” rather than just “con.”

    And since when has Africa ever been a part of Asia?

    My god.

  7. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Lol, I think that was a troll. It was almost too perfect of a fundie stereotype.

  8. Syldoran Says:

    Perhaps. I stopped caring some time ago. Half the websites I go to have real people that are just as bad as trolls, so I think I lost my ability and desire to differentiate.

  9. Jeff Eyges Says:

    “Idiot moron” is a bit redundant.

    Perhaps an “idiot moron” is stupider than a regular moron.

  10. TheRealistMom Says:

    Have I mentioned just how much I love my kid? (Yes Syldoran, I love embarrassing you too, but still- I think I got a smart one.)

  11. OtherRob Says:

    Perhaps and idiot moron is something like a Lt. Colonel.

  12. Parrotlover77 Says:

    How cute! We have another family on BoF. Thankfully this time they are on the side of reality.

  13. Syldoran Says:

    Oh geez.

  14. S. Says:

    would someone please help me for a minute and remind me why I thought of this game??? J/J,great post :-)

    Cherry-O Board Game – Hi Ho Cherry-O Game Parker Brothers Hasbro Games. Classic for over 30 years. Be the first to pick your cherry tree clean.