Ethical Leadership: What Would Abraham Do?
Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Business Department of Finance and Business Management Brooklyn College of the City University of New York E-mail:
[email protected] Linda W. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Statistics & Computer Information Systems Zicklin School of Business Baruch College of the City University of New York E-mail:
[email protected] Sarah Hertz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Business, Management, and Economics Empire State College, SUNY Email:
[email protected]
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2574460
Abstract This paper examines Abrahamic values that can be used to improve the world and promote ethical leadership. Abraham, a simple clan leader from Ur of the Chaldees, sowed the seeds that helped defeat paganism, planted the roots for the three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), and subsequently became “the father of a multitude of nations.” He permanently transformed the world with the revolutionary ideas of ethical monotheism, social justice, brotherhood of man, love of the stranger, tolerance, and compassion for the weak.
Keywords: Abraham, values, ethical monotheism, ethical leadership, social justice, tolerance, communism, Bible.
1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2574460
Introduction
There is a leadership crisis in the world today. According to the 2014 World Economic Forum study, a concern for a “lack of values in leadership” is one of the top ten trends. Young people in particular are concerned about the kind of values they are seeing among leaders. Corporate leaders, for example, are more concerned about maximizing shareholder value and their own inflated salaries than about the triple bottom line, i.e., people, planet, and profits. CEOs may pay lip service to corporate social responsibility but they are more concerned with personal bonuses than ensuring fair wages for employees. Many companies are doing their best to ensure that the minimum wage is not raised, but these same companies allow excessive compensation for executives. People see where their countries are heading and “don’t want to go there.” Most people’s understanding of a lack of values in leadership probably relates to the problem of leaders simply caring about their own interests, rather than being motivated by something more worthwhile. We expect leaders not to just stick to what they know, but to be driven by something that moves us forward and brings people together. And so, in reality, the concern is that there’s not enough sharing of views, values and vision (World Economic Forum, 2014). Income inequality has risen so sharply that the top 1% of society will shortly have amassed 50% of the world’s wealth (Hjelmgaard, 2015).
Nocera (2012) believes that two kinds of capitalism are in a great struggle in the United States. One approach, “moral capitalism,” is followed by firms that seek to better society rather than merely earning profits. Starbucks exemplifies this belief; its mission includes helping the United States recover from the Great Recession, and considers the needs of stakeholders such as customers, employees, and coffee growers. The other kind of capitalism he refers to as the “rip2
your-eyeballs out” capitalism in which firms are only concerned about profits and do not mind taking advantage of others, including clients and customers. Goldman Sachs is one such example. America and many other countries need to choose between these two types of capitalism.
This paper examines how Abrahamic values can be used to restore the ideals of leadership and possibly unify us as well. Using the Abrahamic tradition is a natural choice given that three of the world's foremost religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam —are practiced by approximately two-thirds of humanity. Abraham, the father of these Abrahamic religions, was the first person to make a covenant with God. The three monotheistic religions all have their roots in the Middle East and recognize Abraham as their first prophet. They also all stress the concepts of “equality, justice, compassion, freedom of consciousness and human rights and dignity” (Ali, 2011).
Life in Abrahamic Times
Abraham lived more than 3,800 years ago but his influence is still felt. He was born in Ur of the Chaldees (Southern Iraq) and is buried in the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron. God changed his name from Abram (father of Aram) to Abraham meaning “father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5). Abraham had eight sons: Ishmael, Isaac, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The mother of the last six was Keturah; Abraham married her after Sarah died (Genesis 25:1-2). Abraham was the first person referred to as the servant of God (Genesis 26:24) because he spread monotheism and the importance of loving humanity. He was a man of 3
great humility and referred to himself as “dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). The essence of the Abrahamic code is helping others, as described in the sections below.
Using his own reasoning, Abraham concluded that there was one God. Abraham realized “that this Unity behind the apparent diversity that fills the world is an ethical and moral force that insists on righteousness and compassion; Abraham knew that it is not sufficient to be a monotheist but that it is necessary to be an ethical monotheist” (Riskin, 2012). When Abraham built altars to the Lord “and he called out in the name of the Lord” (Genesis 12:8) he was spreading ethical monotheism to the world. He told the idolaters that their way was wrong and taught people that God demands righteousness and justice. Abraham built many altars but did not make any sacrifices. These altars were a way to spread the word to people to join him and his clan in his faith (Riskin, 2012). Hertz (1959: 265) asserts: “The belief in the unity of the human race is the natural corollary of the unity of God, since One God must be the God of the whole of humanity…Through Hebrew monotheism alone was it possible to teach the Brotherhood of Man.”
In the Midrashic literature, Nimrod, a pagan king who was opposed to monotheism, tried to kill Abraham by throwing him into a furnace, yet Abraham was miraculously saved (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 38:13). Nimrod is described as a “mighty trapper before God” and the first ruler (Genesis 10: 8-10). His great prowess as a hunter and skill with weapons was useful when he decided to turn these abilities against people. The Bible states that the people of Shinar said (Genesis 11:4): “Let us build for ourselves a tower and a city with its top in the heavens, so that
4
we can make ourselves a name, so that we shall not be scattered over the face of the earth.” These ancient ziggurats were part of a pagan Temple complex.
Many commentaries suggest that Nimrod, first dictator, was the one who built the Tower of Babel (Kaplan, 1981: 45). The Tower of Babel was an attempt to establish a centralized totalitarian government with one language and one religion (Riskin, 2005: 80-81; Sacks, 2006: 50-51). As a consequence, God scattered them all over the face of the earth (Genesis 11:8). This goal of universalism has not worked for humankind. The communists also attempted to establish one system for all of humanity and frown on individualism. Abraham, according to the Midrash (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 24) saw the people of Shinar building the tower and city and cursed them “in the name of his God.” Abraham understood that this type of universalism was not good for humankind. The Midrash notes that when a brick fell and broke, the builders cried; however, when a person fell and died, they were indifferent and continued to build (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 24). Abraham must have seen this and recognized the threat to humanity of a dictatorship that did not care about people.
Sacks (2006: 50-52) says that the story of the Tower of Babel is a “parable of our time.” It leads to the dangerous view that “there is only one truth about the essentials of the human condition, and it holds true for all people at all times. If I am right, you are wrong. If what I believe is the truth, then your belief which differs from mine, must be an error from which you must be converted, cured and saved.” Sacks feels that this belief in universalism resulted in the “great crimes of history,” some of which originated under the banner of religion and others under secular auspices (e.g., communism). Sacks (2006: 50) recognizes that the universalism 5
represented by the Tower of Babel ends when the story of Abraham and Sarah begins. Levenson (2012: 121) posits that the view of Abraham as an iconoclast, the person who smashes his father’s idols and gets thrown into a fiery furnace by King Nimrod, is very prominent in the Qur’an and of great significance in Islam.
Strangers were not treated well in much of the ancient world, and Abraham himself was afraid for his life when traveling with his wife to Egypt because of a famine in Canaan. He feared that he would be killed so that his wife could be stolen away (Genesis 12: 11-13). Indeed, his wife Sarah was forcibly seized and taken to the house of Pharaoh (Genesis 12:14-15). This happened to Abraham again when he sojourned in Gerar in Philistia: Sarah was abducted and taken to the palace of King Abimelech (Genesis 20: 1-4). As this was a common occurrence, men often claimed that their wives were their sisters. Isaac, Abraham’s son, had a similar problem when moving to Gerar in Philistia because of a famine in Canaan (Genesis 26). He told his wife Rebecca to pretend to be his sister, fearing that he would be killed if it became known that she was his wife. The citizens of Sodom and Gemorrah also did not treat strangers well. In fact, they were ready to Sodomize two travelers who were staying in the house of Lot as guests (Genesis 19: 4-5). Apparently, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah hated strangers and did this to discourage people from settling in their country (Friedman, 2010). Abraham was attempting to change the world by introducing values such as compassion and justice (Genesis 18:19). The values discussed below are vital to all followers of the Abrahamic tradition. Many of these tenets became part of Mosaic Law. Abraham taught the world ethical monotheism but Moses was the one who codified the actual laws, stemming from the Ten Commandments received at Sinai. 6
Principal Abrahamic Values
Willingness to be Different Sacks (2013a) asks and answers a very interesting question: Abraham is without doubt the most influential person who ever lived… Yet he ruled no empire, commanded no great army, performed no miracles and proclaimed no prophecy. He is the supreme example in all of history of influence without power. Why? Because he was prepared to be different.
Abraham and his followers understood that the “majority is not always right and conventional wisdom is not always wise.” The children of Abraham are ready to challenge the idols of every generation. According to Sacks (2013a), Abraham had to leave “his land, his birthplace and his father’s house” in order to have the ability not to conform (Genesis12:1). The children of Abraham have an obligation to speak out against any ideology that threatens the Abrahamic code. Not so long ago, two ideologies threatened the world – communism and fascism. It should be noted that both Marx and Smith were interested in an economic system that was good for all of society and would lead humankind to prosperity. In fact, a messianic future where everyone prospers and the world is at peace was a goal for both. How to get to this messianic utopian future is where the two differed. Compassion and Love for the Stranger and the Destitute
Abraham demonstrated his love of strangers by being extremely hospitable. In fact, according to the Midrashic literature, his tent had openings on all four sides so that he would not miss an opportunity to invite strangers. The Bible describes how Abraham offered three traveling 7
strangers some water to wash their feet and a “morsel of bread” (Genesis 18: 4-5). He ended up serving them a lavish feast of tender calf meat (Genesis 18: 6-7). Despite his advanced age, he personally ran around to make sure that three strangers were provided with the best foods; Abraham personally served the three guests, standing by while they ate (Genesis 18:8).
Abraham often planted trees and then prayed to God. Scripture states (Genesis 21:33): “Abraham planted a grove (eshel) in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God.” The Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 10a) describes the eshel as either a grove or inn made for travelers with the purpose of getting them to praise God for providing them with food. Abraham frequently dug wells (Genesis 21:25) too so as to provide wayfarers with water to drink. These wells may have been shrines to God as indicated by the importance attached to the names. This would explain why the Philistines stopped them up after Abraham died. In fact, Isaac, Abraham’s son, re-dug them. The verse states (Genesis 26:18): “And Isaac dug again the wells of water that had been dug in the days of Abraham his father, which the Philistines had stopped after the death of Abraham. And he gave them the names that his father had given them.” Even Hagar, Abraham’s concubine, named a well “The Well at which the Living One Appeared to me” (Genesis 16:14). Hagar also referred to God as the “God of Vision,” i.e., One who sees the misery and degradation of the afflicted (Genesis 16:13).
When Isaac was an adult, Abraham sent his trusted servant (the name is not mentioned but the assumption is that it is Eliezer) to find him a wife in Haran. Abraham did not want Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman and made the servant swear in the name of God (Genesis 24: 3). Clearly, Eliezer was also a believer in the God of Abraham. Eliezer was entrusted with ten camels filled 8
with all sorts of goods as a dowry for the family of Isaac’s wife. The servant understood what was important in selecting a wife for Abraham’s son. His prayer to God upon arrival is as follows (Genesis 24:12-14): Then he prayed, "Lord, God of my master Abraham, make me successful today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. Behold, I am standing by the spring of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water. Let the young woman to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jar that I may drink,’ and who shall say, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels’—let her be the one whom you have designated for your servant Isaac. By this I shall know that you have shown kindness to my master.
Many commentators see Eliezer’s test as a way of determining the character of the potential wife. Only a kind-hearted woman with compassion for people and animals would be suitable for Abraham’s son. A love of humanity and the stranger is a key value in the Abrahamic tradition. The only suitable spouse for Isaac is one that demonstrates these values. Rebecca passed the test, as demonstrated by offering and providing water for Abraham’s servant as well as for the camels. Supplying water for ten camels, which consume about 200 gallons of water, is no easy chore. Assuming that Rebecca had no help, this “simple” task of providing water for the camels took her about two hours (Maxwell, 2002).
It is not surprising that compassion for the stranger is frequently mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. “Do not oppress a stranger; you know the feelings of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) “When a stranger dwells among you in your land, you are not to mistreat him. The stranger who dwells with you shall be treated as your native-born; you shall love him like yourself for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19: 33-34)
9
“You shall love the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19)
Love for Justice and Righteousness Not only did Abraham chose God, but God also chose Abraham. The Bible (Genesis 18: 17-19) states why God chose Abraham: Then the Lord said, ‘Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I know him (Abraham), that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of God to do righteousness (tzedaka) and justice; that the Lord may bring on Abraham that which He has spoken of him.’ The Hebrew word tzedaka is unique. Sacks (2009) notes: There’s a biblical word, Tzedakah, charity-as-justice, for which there’s no real English equivalent because we think of these as two quite different things. If someone gives you a hundred pounds because he owes it to you, that’s justice. If he does so out of generosity, that’s charity. An act can be one or the other but not both. But tzedakah means both: charity and justice, because we believe that giving isn’t an option but an obligation. Tzedaka also connotes “distributive justice, equity” (Sacks, 2009). Countries that follow the Abrahamic tradition understand the importance of social justice. There may be nothing wrong with wealth, but those in power must do everything possible to ensure that everyone shares in it – equal opportunity for all. A society that is indifferent to income inequality and favors the rich and powerful would not be following the Abrahamic tradition. Government has to strive for “righteousness and justice”; predatory capitalism does not have either characteristic.
10
Abraham argues with God upon hearing that the evil towns of Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed (Genesis 18: 17- 33). One of the most powerful statements in the entire Bible is uttered by Abraham to God (Genesis 18:25): “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?” The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were not followers of Abraham as indicated by their treatment towards strangers. Yet, Abraham had pity on them and felt that it would be wrong to destroy them if there were righteous people among them. Abraham’s “haggling” with God to save Sodom and Gomorra from destruction indicated a great love for people and an optimistic nature (Genesis 18:20-33): Abraham: 'What if there are 50 innocent people in the city? Will you still destroy it?' God: 'If I find 50 innocent people in Sodom, I will spare the entire area.' Abraham: 'Suppose there are 45 …?' God: 'I will not destroy it if I find 45 …' Abraham: 'What if there are 40?' God: 'I will not act if there are forty …' As this conversation continues, Abraham proposes and God agrees to allow for thirty, twenty, ten in succession, until Abraham finally gives up presumably because ten innocents could not be found in those evil towns. If Sodom and Gomorrah had ten righteous individuals, the towns would have been spared. Unfortunately, ten innocent people could not be found in the entire city of Sodom, and it was destroyed (Genesis 18: 23-33). Sacks (2013b) poses a very interesting question: “By what right does a mere mortal challenge God himself?” His answer is that when God stated “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” he was hinting that he wanted Abraham to respond. God knew that “Abraham had to have the courage to challenge God if his descendants were to challenge human rulers.” In fact, Abraham was going to be the role model
11
for a faith that would not be afraid to challenge any ruler or government that would not stand up for justice, compassion, and peace (Sacks, 2013b).
Abimelech, King of Gerar, asked Abraham to make a treaty with him because “God is with you in everything that you do.” (Genesis 21: 22). Before making a treaty, we are surprised to hear (Genesis 21:25): “And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away.” One of the commentaries (Sforno) observes that Abraham rebuked the king because a leader should not allow crimes to be committed with impunity. Moreover, a leader should not allow wicked people to be part of his household. The king assured Abraham that he did not know about the crime and he had not heard about it until this very day (Genesis 21:26). Abraham then made the treaty with the king. It appears that Abraham would not have made a treaty with a king that had no concern for justice and allowed wells to be stolen.
Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin [1817-1893], known as the Netziv, discusses in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis, Ha’amek Davar, why the book of Genesis was referred to as the “Book of the Upright” (Sefer Ha’Yashar) (see Joshua 10:13, II Samuel 1:18). He observed that throughout history, people would hate each other and call each other heretics and non-believers even when the religious differences were quite small. In fact, the Second Temple was destroyed because of a baseless hatred. Abraham had a true love of humanity and showed great tolerance even to those who had views that were quite different from his. A truly upright follower of Abraham has to love humankind and not seek their destruction over religious
12
differences (Grafstein, 2012). Sadly, followers of the Abrahamic religions continue to fight with each other over the smallest of differences.
Abraham was not afraid to argue with God when he heard of His plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah out of his great love for humanity. Human dignity and the value of all people is another key belief in the Abrahamic code. Aramesh (2007) asserts that human dignity is a key concept in all theistic religions. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, one of the great rabbinical leaders of the twentieth century, makes the point that human dignity and social justice “are implicit in the biblical concept that man was created in God’s image” (Besdin, 1979: 190). Catholicism, for example, has its roots in the belief that humanity was created in the image of God (Imago Dei). Aramesh (2007) notes that human dignity is “one of the most emphasized themes in Islamic theology” and can be used by Moslems to resolve ethical questions in the area of bioethics and health care.
Courage Abraham was a man of peace but was not afraid to go to war when necessary. The Bible (Genesis 14) relates how Abraham, in an attempt to rescue his nephew Lot, mobilized his clan and, with only 318 loyal followers, waged war against four powerful kings, who had just soundly defeated the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah and three allies. Abraham, a man of great courage, was greatly outnumbered but pursued his four adversaries all the way to Dan, a distance of about 120 miles from his home in Hebron. He risked his life for a nephew who left Abraham and his clan to live among the people of Sodom. Abraham lived to serve others as well as God; and leaders who are loyal to their followers are more likely to develop a loyal following than leaders who do not 13
show this sort of concern. Sacks (2013b) states that Abraham demonstrates that he accepted responsibility for a fellow family member. He could easily have avoided helping Lot. After all, Lot was the one who decided on his own to leave Abraham and live near Sodom (Genesis 13: 89), and thus should take responsibility for the repercussions of his move. Abraham, however, felt that there is a moral responsibility to help someone – especially a family member – in trouble. Abraham understood that he had a responsibility and did not hesitate to risk his own life (Sacks, 2013b). Despite his great courage, he did not spread his philosophy using violence. On the contrary, he tried to convince God not to destroy the Sodomites, despite their evil ways. Abraham believed that people with the right kind of guidance could change.
Spreading the Abrahamic Values
As noted above, the world was a dangerous place for those who were weak and helpless. Abraham used peaceful means to spread monotheism to the world. Scripture (Genesis 12:5) states: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls they had made in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan.” The verse actually states the “souls they had made”; the Hebrew word asah means to make. Translators have a problem with this word and many interpret it as “gotten,” “acquired,” or “obtained.” However, several commentaries believe that Abram and Sarai (God was eventually going to change their names to Abraham and Sarah) were converting people to monotheism. Gill (2013), citing several sources, states: some understand it of the proselytes made during their stay there; and no doubt they were as industrious in spreading and propagating the true religion, as in acquiring substance and 14
servants; and to this sense are the several Chaldee paraphrases; that of Onkelos is," and the souls which they made subject to the law in Haran;'' the Targums of Jerusalem and Jonathan are," and the souls of the proselytes, or which they proselyted in Haran;'' and with this agrees the note of Jarchi," which they brought under the wings of the Shechinah; Abram proselyted the men, and Sarai the women;'' though in the literal sense he takes it to be the acquiring of servants and handmaids; there might be of both sorts, both proselytes and servants… Both Abraham and Sarah were active in spreading monotheism as well as in acquiring wealth. Gill (2013) notes that the wealth they acquired was “both for the support of their families, and for the service of religion.” Abraham spread his values with peaceful means, not with the sword.
When Sarah died, Abraham had to negotiate with Ephron the Hittite. Apparently, Abraham was a respected person and known by the Hittites. They made it clear that he would get a burial place from them and even referred to Abraham as a “Prince of God.” (Genesis 23: 6). Clearly, Abraham had a far-reaching reputation and was known for his spiritual values in many parts of the ancient world.
Abraham understood that his job as a leader did not end with old age.
With the help of his
servant he found a wife for Isaac and even married again and had six more children (Genesis 25: 1-2). Abraham “died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life” (Genesis 25: 8). Sacks (2013c) states that he was content “because he had left future generations something on which to build. All great change is the work of more than one generation, and none of us will live to see the full fruit of our endeavours.”
Conclusion 15
Friedman & Langbert (2000) see Abraham as a transformational leader; with his values he changed the ancient world. First, he spread the belief that every person has an obligation to be concerned with righteousness and justice. The law of the jungle, predatory capitalism, crony capitalism, and social Darwinism have no place in this tradition. Second, everyone is entitled to a defense, even the wicked Sodomites. God wanted Abraham to defend the Sodomites since this is what justice requires. Third, the importance of instructing children in the principles of righteousness and justice is also mandatory. Universal education based on teaching character and morality is alluded to in the passage cited above: “… that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of God to do righteousness (tzedaka) and justice” (Genesis 18:19). This is reminiscent of a famous quote of Theodore Roosevelt: “To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” Fourth, people who follow the Abrahamic tradition are tolerant of others, even non-believers and those who mock religion. It is doubtful that any people on earth have been less disrespectful of religion than the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Abraham defended them. It is an affront to the Abrahamic tradition to harm members of other faiths and even atheists. Tolerance must be a core value of all Abrahamic religions.
Abraham, a simple clan leader from Ur of the Chaldees, sowed the seeds that helped defeat paganism and planted the roots for the three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). In so doing, he did indeed become “the father of a multitude of nations,” permanently transforming the world with the revolutionary ideas of ethical monotheism, social justice, brotherhood of man, love of the stranger, and compassion for the weak. God promised 16
Abraham (Genesis 12: 3): “I will bless those that bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Followers of Abraham are compassionate people who love humankind, have humility, and are not envious of others; on the contrary, they welcome the stranger and the needy. Grant’s (2013) acclaimed research on productivity and success shows that the most successful people are “givers.” Givers are individuals who love helping others without requiring or expecting reciprocity – clearly following the Abrahamic tradition of caring for others. The Abrahamic tradition is not about creating a welfare state but about building a state that cares about those in distress.
One of Will Durant’s famous quotes about the reason for the decline of Rome is consistent with the view that a country can only thrive when it is built on a foundation of virtue, tolerance, and compassion for others: A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars (Will Durant, 1944). In contrast, the United States was founded on the Abrahamic value of “all men are created equal.” However, in order for a country to continue to succeed, Abrahamic values need to be consistently adhered to.
The Psalmist describes a time when all nations of the world will assemble as “the people of the God of Abraham” in peace. O clap your hands, all you people. Sound the shofar unto God with cries of joy. For God is supreme, awesome, a great King over all the earth! … For God is king of all the earth; sing praises to God O enlightened one. God reigns over the nations; God is 17
seated on His holy throne. The nobles among the people assemble as the people of the God of Abraham; for God has the power to protect the earth. He is exceedingly exalted (Psalm 47: 2-3; 8-10).
This will happen when the entire world understands the importance of the Abrahamic values of social justice and compassion for all of God’s creations.
18
References Ali, M. D. Y. (2011). The three Abrahamic faiths and their roles in making peace, unity and coexistence. World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization, 1(3), 187-200. Aramesh, K. (2007). Human dignity in Islamic bioethics.” Iran Journal Allergy Asthma Immunology, February, 6 (Suppl. 5), 25-28. Retrieved from http://www.iaari.hbi.ir/journal/archive/articles/v6s5ara.pdf Besdin, A. R. (1979). Reflections of the rav. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization. Friedman, H. H.(2010, October 25). Return to Sodom and Gomorrah: The ‘new’ politicaleconomic system. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697822 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1697822 Friedman, H. H. and Langbert, M. (2000). Abraham as a transformational leader. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 88-95. Gill, J. (2013). Gill's exposition of the entire Bible. BibleHub. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/genesis/12-5.htm Grafstein, S. (2012). The Netziv’s Classic Intro to Bereishit – translated and annotated by Rabbi Shlomo Grafstein. Retrieved from http://thinking-jewish.com/2012/10/17/the-netzivsclassic-intro-to-bereishit-translated-and-annotated-by-rabbi-shlomo-grafstein/ Grant, A. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York: Viking. Hertz, J. H. (1959). Authorized daily prayer book. New York: Bloch Publishing Company. Hjelmgaard, K. (2015, January 20). By 2016, 1% will have 50% of total global wealth. USA Today. 1B. Kaplan, A. (1981). The living Torah. Brooklyn, NY: Maznaim Publishing Corporation. Levenson, J. D. (2012). Inheriting Abraham: The legacy of the patriarch in Judaism, Christianity & Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Maxwell, J. C. (2002). Running with the Giants: What the Old Testament Heroes Want You to Know About Life and Leadership. New York: Warner Books. Nocera, J. (2012, March 17). The good, bad and ugly of capitalism. New York Times, A21. Riskin, S. (2012, October 25). Parshat Lech Lecha: Why God chose Abraham. Jerusalem 19
Post. Retrieved from http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Judaism/Parshat-LechLecha-Why-God-chose-Abraham Riskin, S. (2005). Torah lights: Genesis confronts life, love, and family. Jerusalem: Urim Publications. Sacks, J. (2013a, October 12). The courage not to conform. Covenant & Conversation. Retrieved from http://www.rabbisacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CC-5774-Lekh-Lekha-TheCourage-not-to-Conform.pdf
Sacks, J. (2013b, October 19). Answering the call. Covenant & Conversation. Retrieved from http://www.rabbisacks.org/vayera-5774-answering-call/
Sacks, J. (2013c, October 20). Beginning the journey. Covenant & Conversation. Retrieved from http://www.rabbisacks.org/chayei-sarah-5774-beginning-journey/ Sacks, J. (2006). The dignity of difference. London: Continuum. Sacks, J. (2005). To heal a fractured world: The ethics of responsibility. New York: Schocken Books. Sacks, J. (2009, August 15). Covenant and conversation - charity as justice. Retrieved from http://www.ou.org/index.php/torah/article/charity_as_justice/#.Uf79E5Kkqj8 World Economic Forum (2014). Top 10 trends of 2014: A lack of values in leadership. WEForum.org. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/outlook-14/top-ten-trendscategory-page/7-a-lack-of-values-in-leadership/
20
