The Myth Of Jefferson's Koran

Allah thinks Ellison's shrewd political move of taking his private oath on a Thomas Jefferson owned copy of the Koran is checkmate. But not so fast. I see Allah has it in an update. But let's look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?

Jefferson purchased the Koran as a student prior to his even taking the bar exam and after reading another book said to be prejudiced against Islam. And the notion I suspect you'll hear repeated by the MSM, that Jefferson used the Koran to gain insight into the law, appears to be pure academic speculation with a certain anti-theist sounding slant.

The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson's visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur'an, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale's Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.

The reality is, as Allah now points out and I had planned to post via NRO, is that Jefferson waged war against Islam ... long after having read their book. And he went against his prior beliefs of a small coastal-restricted Navy in doing so.

Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.

In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary states’ interaction with Christendom.

As Jefferson reported to the Continental Congress:

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Comments

[Thomas Hormby]

"Get over it and be glad there are people willing to speak up for the American traditions that allow you to spout nonsense."

How is it nonsense? If you endorse the Virgil Goode position on immigration, Muslims in congress and the use of the Quran then it seems like you should at least cop up to it.

[Dan Riehl]

How is it nonsense? If you endorse the Virgil Goode position on immigration, Muslims in congress and the use of the Quran then it seems like you should at least cop up to it.

Good grief, I can't "cop" to it anymore than I have. Do you even read replies?

"Unless or until Muslims demonstrate a capacity to appreciate secular democracy, I don't want them having too strong a voice in American politics"

[Thomas Hormby]

"Unless or until Muslims demonstrate a capacity to appreciate secular democracy, I don't want them having too strong a voice in American politics"

So you don't think that Muslims should hold seats in congress or use a Quran to be sworn in during a private ceremony because of the attitudes and beliefs of terrorists?

How much time will have to pass until you can tolerate a Quran being used in a private ceremony and a Muslim taking his seat in congress?

[Dan Riehl]

Duh. As I haven't advocated either position, no one can be as stupid as you, so I'll just assume you're a troll.

[Thomas Hormby]

"Duh. As I haven't advocated either position, no one can be as stupid as you, so I'll just assume you're a troll."

It's not being trollish to call you out on being anti-Muslim. What's with the ad hominem attacks? I sincerely don't understand how somebody could reconcile the principles that America were founded upon (not just religous beliefs but religious coexistence if not tolerance [that term always annoys me]).

[M. Simon]

JML | Thursday, January 04, 2007 at 01:20 AM,

Mistakes were made. They are in the process of being corrected. One Hitler lover recently got the hemp necktie. Many more to follow.

[JML]

Larry,

You forgot to answer my question:

"Would you please explain to us the cozy relationship of the Reagan (Conservative Hero) Administration with Saddam, you know, the Saddam who used Hitler as a model?"

In leiu of a response to this question, you suggested that I attacked Christianity. This is typical conservative chickenshit: rather than respond to a challenge, you scream "anti-Christian" or "anti-American." You hoped that nobody would notice that you changed the subject.

My point was that fringe groups like the KKK, or Al-Qaeda for that matter, often try to find "cover" under more mainstream institutions, such as popular religions. While I think that the KKK are 180 degrees from anythnig remotely Chist-like, that doesn't affect how the KKK views itself. Are you seriously denying that the KKK considers themselves Good Christians? Please explain why you think that the KKK doesn't see itself as Defenders of the Faith.

You're the one who introduced the KKK / Mein Kampf issue, remember?

For better or for worse, America is a free country, even for the KKK and like-minded ingorant racist chickenshit assholes.

[M. Simon]

Thomas Hormby | Thursday, January 04, 2007 at 02:13 PM,

The Iraqi economy grew 4% last year. That is rather unusual for a place that is supposedly a lost cause.

[MedallionOfFerret]

Wingnuttery at it's finest. Jesusfreakery at it's finest. Sometimes I can't understand how I can be so blessed as to live in such fine times.

[JML]

Simple Simon,

The Iraqi economy grew 4 percent last year? Gee that's fantastic. 4 percent relative to what? 4 percent of shit is shit. According to George Bush, Son of God, Iraq was supposed to be making money hand-over-fist with oil revenues by now. What do you suppose happened?

[Thomas Hormby]

According to Photius, Iraq actually experienced -3% growth from last year. This was a lot worse from 2004, when it experienced 20% growth. Or even 2000 when it experienced 10% growth under Saddam.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_real_growth_rate_2006_0.html

[Thomas Hormby]

What about Iraq's current condition tells you that the war can be won militarily? Insurgents are coursing in from abroad and are springing up domestically. Around a hundred civillians dying from attacks daily in Baghdad? 150,000 service members disabled physically or mentally? I don't see how we can win, and that's sad, but Iraq was so badly mishandled.

In East Germany, the Westies brought in thousands of West German advisers to rebuild the infrastructure. In Iraq, there were fewer than 5 people. It was bad from the get go.

[JMV]

Nitpick...You state"For example: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
The truth is that Atheism is the real force behind the mass murders of mankinds history not religion, not Christianity. In the 20th century alone Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced mass slaughter, murdering more than 100 million people attempting creating their religion-free worlds.

[Thomas Hormby]

Hitler hardly wanted to start a religion-free world. He and many of the higher ups in the Nazi party were involved in occult thought. There are crazy people everywhere and they're prone to using religion (or non-religion) as a rationale for their behavior.

[Mysticdog]

"Do you really believe that people oppose abortion simply because a 2000 year old text tells them to?"

Ummm... no. The bible doesn't tell people to oppose abortion. In fact, causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a minor proprty crime, in which the offender owes the family a little money.

I think people oppose abortion because they are insecure idiots looking to daddy figures to tell them what to believe, and there are lots of "christian" daddy figures making mo' money getting people enraged.

[djangone]

Oh jebus, let me think this out. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And he owned a Koran. So...therefore...he's a newt who floats on water. Wait, no, holdonholdonholdon I have it. He owned...both GOOD things...and BAD things! And we shouldn't assume that just because Jefferson owned it, that his ownership constitutes absolute good! Wheee! It's about Jeffersonian Ownership.

But wait, I think it could, just possibly, really be about Jeffersonian Beliefs. Hang with me here. Jefferson believed that all men were created equal (nice use of the passive there, Tommy). Jefferson believed in religious tolerance. Jeez, you'd almost think he was some kind of Islam-lovin' godless librul. Has anyone looked into his accounts for donations to CAIR? Can we safely call Jefferson 'Al Qaeda's Officially Endorsed Founding Father'?

But waitwaitwait again, that's just Jeffersonian Beliefs. Who'd ever start a nation on such flimsy hokum? Along with Dan, I believe it's equally about what he owned. Jeffersonian Stuff. So, we're hereinafter also, not only a nation of slaves, a nation of SNUFF! And DUMBWAITERS. And BLUNDERBUSSES. So when djangone gets elected to office, djangone is going to swear in a private ceremony with my hand firmly on the right breast of a buxom Ethiop named Sally, who balances on her head a jar of snuff, her right foot atop a bust of Homer, her left foot firmly in a pile of horse manure, and her right hand supporting a long musket, while she's flogged from behind for adult'ry.

[prozacula]

once again, riehl stupid.

how could you say that ellison doesn't know how to 'appreciate western democracy'? he was elected in a democratic election. I bet he knows how to appreciate that.

man, you and all of your sycophantic bush-licking followers really are as dumb as everyone thinks you are.

I can't wait until you extremists fade into the obscurity you so rightly deserve.

[bob]

Islam is a death cult, pure and simple. To compare their atrocities done in the name of allah TODAY to that of christains hundreds of years ago is just idiotic. All you defending islam might want to read the koran or better yet, watch some tv from the mideast then get back to us. Defending islam is like defending child rape, discrimination against women, slavery, and anti semitism. Go ahead, defend sharia if you dare.

[Robert]

Dan
I'm glad Mr. Ellison is taking the oath on a Koran. It shows me that he is serious about his vow to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States.
And, in the end, does it matter what item one uses to take an oath on, whether it's a Koran or a Bible or a Torah or a kitchen spoon? What matters is the faith and honesty of the person taking it.
After all, George W. Bush took his oath on a Bible and look at all the way's he's dumped on the constitution.
Your rantings make no sense.

[larry]

and there ya have it. as bob points out above, islam IS a death cult. a cult that prescribes and practices the systematic prejudice and abuse of women; homos; and - just to cover all the bases - defenseless animals. those 3 groups (women, homos, and critters) are usually thought of as the left's signature core members, and attacks upon them by right-wingers ("attacks" being defined as "saying mean things about them") are met by the left with howls of rage and screams of battle.

but since it's islam - and islam is the enemy of all things western - it's given a pass by the left. why? easy enough: the brainwashed leftwing shit-for-brains have been told all their lives, by their teachers and profs, that "all things western are evil, bad, & wrong. they are to be attacked in all possible ways". and - more to the point - should the institution attacking the west be a serial abuser of - you know - women, homos, or animals, then they'll just have to get a pass. (see above, ad nauseum. note the glee at which they promote islam over the evil white christian meanies.)

since the idiot LW'ers never had the brains or the balls to question teacher's spoon-fed dogma, they swallow it up blindly, and then go out and *do as they're told*. so the question is: are they more *hypocritical*, or *contemptible*?

ellison and the death cult he's representing in the us congress (surely no one is idiot enough to think he gives a rat's ass about his minnesota constituents. he's there to represent ISLAM, baby) stand for things like the ritual slaughter of defenseless animals in the streets of middle-eastern cities. he stands for the flogging, and hangings of homosexuals in afghanistan, and the floggings and hangings of loudmouth teenage girls in iran.

and still the left defends them. "it's just a book! what book he swears in on shouldn't matter!"

[djangone]

'It's just a book! What book he swears in on shouldn't matter!' Okay, sounds right to me. Thanks, I'll take it even with the fourth-grade grammar.

Is this really a home for LGF Lizards of the drooling variety such as Larry? Mr. Riehl, how proud you must be. Next up, I fully expect some 'proof' that Rachel Corrie was the clandestine love slave of Abu Nidal.

[Thomas Hormby]

Islam isn't the root cause of the violence in the Middle East. Poverty and ignorance are. If Islam was the root cause then why are Indonesia and Malaysia both well developed and relatively free? If Christianity is the official religion of freedom then why do Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor mutilate their political opponents in the name of God?

[larry]

ok, djangone, you're up! since islam is the driving force for the middle east's serial abuse/murder of women and homos and critters, are you then willing to say "that being the case, it's clear that islamic society is demonstrably inferior to our own, western/christian society"?

no?

you probably don't understand this - teacher probably never covered it for you - but your M.O. of popping in to squeal insults and then running away like a little bitch kinda....dude....'makes my argument for me'.

get back to us on that, ok?

[larry]

and, tommy? if, as you sanctimoniously mouthed, "islam isn't the root cause of violence", then why are rapes skyrocketing in scandanavian cities?

cities that never *used to* have a rape problem, but now that they're infested by moslem immigrants, now do?

why is that, i wonder? rape *IS* a crime of violence, isn't it? the rape rate HAS gone up in direct proportion to the moslem immigrant population rate, hasn't it? what else could it be?

is it somehow bush's fault?

[Thomas Hormby]

"and, tommy? if, as you sanctimoniously mouthed, "islam isn't the root cause of violence", then why are rapes skyrocketing in scandanavian cities?

cities that never *used to* have a rape problem, but now that they're infested by moslem immigrants, now do?

why is that, i wonder? rape *IS* a crime of violence, isn't it? the rape rate HAS gone up in direct proportion to the moslem immigrant population rate, hasn't it? what else could it be?

is it somehow bush's fault?"

If you're willing to accept Islam as the root cause for all the vices of Islam then you have to do the same for Christianity and for all of the good things Muslims do. Why are countries like Malaysia capable of competing directly with the US in semiconductors if Islam is holding them back? Is all crime in New Orleans due to Christianity? Was the PRI revolution in Mexico a failure of all Christians?

No, it's not Bush's fault you hate Islam. It's nobody's 'fault' but your own. That's kind of the beauty of America. We don't have to hide behind the president or some other political leader to be heard/have controversial opinions.

[Thomas Hormby]

"cities that never *used to* have a rape problem, but now that they're infested by moslem immigrants, now do?"

What about Houston? After the surge of Katrina migrants entered the city, crime of all sorts skyrocketed. Is this because of Christianity or underlying social problems in New Orleans?

[Barry]

You are pretty much a piece of garbage, Dan.

I'm delighted you and your ilk are becoming more marginalized each and every day.

So long, suckers.

[larry]

the topic at issue wasn't "houston", tommy. it was "why are rape rates skyrocketing in scandanavian cities infested by moslem immigrants?"

how'd you segue into a 'houston/christians' riff from *that*? were you trying to change the subject?

[Thomas Hormby]

"the topic at issue wasn't "houston", tommy. it was "why are rape rates skyrocketing in scandanavian cities infested by moslem immigrants?"

how'd you segue into a 'houston/christians' riff from *that*? were you trying to change the subject?"

I changed because isolated incidents illustrate very little. A rising rape rate in Scandinavian cities because of Muslim immigrants is not a result of their religion. It would be the same thing as saying the skyrocketing crime rate in Houston is because of Christianity. It's not.

Religion is used as an excuse for every behavior imaginable. Whether that be honor killings in Morocco or propagating stereotypes of Muslims.

[Ben Regenspan]

Kind of a stretch to turn one example into "Jefferson waged war on Islam". If, G-d forbid, you were in a position of power and responded militarily to trading ships being plundered by Muslim pirates, your reason for doing so might very well be that the pirates were Muslim. We cannot assume that this was the case for Jefferson, who might just have not particularly liked seeing our ships plundered by pirates.

[M.Sphinx]

when a book sells as many copies as MK has, in a given specific region, an argument can be made that the people who live in that region consider the book to be "holy".

Huh? Is that why so many religious nuts want to ban Harry Potter?

and this newly and duly elected representative to the united states congress wants to swear in on *his* holy book: "the protocols of the elders of zion", say. no wait....that won't work, since most leftists secretly are convinced that that little book tells it like it is. yay palestine; greedy grasping israelis; you know.

wait! wait! ok ok ok ok....he wants to swear in on "mein kampf". HIS "holy book".

think we'd be hearing the same cries of "the book he lays his hand on doesn't matter" from our nitwit lefty friends THEN? yeah, me neither.

Larry, Larry, Larry. Neither Me'n Kampf nor Protocols are 'religious' Nazi texts. If this hypothetical bigot were to swear on anything it would be the Nazi version of the Christian Bible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399470&in_page_id=1770

[Jennifer]

"But let's look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?"

Color me vastly underwhelmed by your sterling "reasoning", dude.

1. Suggesting that because Jefferson, like the majority of political leaders of his day, owned slaves, that the Koran he owned is tainted by association.
2. The ludicrous idea that someone would swear into office on a slave. Please give us examples of this tradition with such a long and hallowed past.
3. As if #2 isn't inane enough, you up the ante by pondering on what religion the presumptive slave might have been. This is a logical question to ask because....because....well, actually, it's one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen in print, and for more than one reason, which is impressive, so let's take them in order...1) why would the slave's religion make any difference?...2) slaves were pretty much forced to adopt, or at least pretend to adopt, the religion of their masters. Which now that I think about it, sounds a lot like what you expect of Ellison.

But the biggest asshattery of all is, of course, your obsession with what book one particular elected official chose to use in being sworn in. So it's not a Bible. BFD. Why in the world would you want someone to swear on something that they do not follow? Are you trying to suggest that there is a religious test for public office, something along the lines of "you can believe something else, but only as long as you pretend to believe the same thing I believe"? Has it ever occured to you that you and others of your ilk are the creators and enablers of the Ted Haggards and Mark Foleys of this country? Quite apparently you find these folks good and fine as long as they lie and pretend to believe and behave the way you think they should. You prefer the costume to the real. Small wonder then that you should have so ardently supported George W Bush.

Bestowing credit where it is due, I must compliment you for your skill at cramming so much stupid into so few sentences. That's quite an accomplishment; I'm sure your parents would be proud.

Put down the crackpipe, son, and back away from the keyboard. Your brain has slipped gears and you need to coast for a while.

[Thomas Hormby]

@M. Sphinx

I don't know why some of the more virulent conservatives tend towards ad hominem attacks.

[larry]

ahhhhhh, tommy, while it's certainly pleasurable to watch you desperately tap dancing around the issue at hand, frantically tossing out something - anything - to change the uncomfortable subject, ("malaysia! morrocco! new orleans! all the good things that moslems do!"), it's grows wearisome after awhile.

so let's save time, and i'll make it easy for you. i have no problem saying the following: "i believe islamic culture to be inferior to our own, because - among other atrocities they promote - they systematically abuse and murder women, homos, and animals. furthermore, moslems seem to be prone to crimes of violence, especially *rape*. (see: oslo, stockholm, malmo, darfur)"

i would think you - a leftwing moron, allegedly dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of women, homos, and animals - would be right there with me in condemning the moslem BARBARIANS.

and yet you're not, are you? judgemental declarations like that about anything *non-western* make you uncomfortable, don't they? this reinforces the point i made earlier. now please note this: i didn't hide behind idiotic non-sequitur references to malaysia; i didn't try to change the subject to houston's troubles with the katrina trash....i used none of the meaning-obscuring devices you've tried to. i don't need them, as you clearly do.

still, despite your best efforts at masking meaning, your posts have made my point for me: idiot leftists hate the america & the west S0 much - just like teacher taught them to - that they're willing to climb in bed with, and *DEFEND*, moslem BARBARIANS who violate every one of the left's core "priciples". every one except the big one: "hate AMERICA & the west & all it stands for. and never criticize ANY non-western thought/ideas/religion, no matter *what*, as this might imply that the western ideal is superior."

it's what makes leftists and the left so utterly contemptible. not content to be merely power-mad fascists, stewing in hatred of everything their country was founded upon & stands for.....oh, no. you've got to be hypocrites, **too**.

tell me where i'm wrong, if you can. try to leave malaysia & 'the history of christianity' out of it, if you can. don't bother me with your wild musings on why string theory is wrong due to male-dominated non-queer mathematics, if you can. i breathlessly await.

[Thomas Hormby]

"i would think you - a leftwing moron, allegedly dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of women, homos, and animals - would be right there with me in condemning the moslem BARBARIANS."

Personal attacks don't make your opinion any more clear or convincing.

[Thomas Hormby]

The problem is that you're condemning all of Islam. Moderates, democrats (lower case d) and extremists. So even though the House of Saud merits little respect on the world stage (or even domestically) there are Islamic countries with Western-style governments and economies.

To use your logic in condemning Islam for the sins of Muslims, then I could condemn Christianity because some Christians do reprehensible things.

[Adolfo Rhitler]

"i believe islamic culture to be inferior to our own...)"

You are the new master race!

[Twisted_Colour]

"I don't hate Muslims at all. What I hate are people who seek America's downfall and who kill innocents without pause to achieve their goals. That isn't all Muslims. My concern isn't based in hate for any religion, or support of another. It's about the preservation of America, a secular democratic country."

a secular democratic country, a secular democratic country, a secular democratic country, a secular democratic country!!!!!!!

So what then is your problem with Ellison?

[djangone]

Larry, look back at what you write for a second. If you can write a coherent post without strawmen, massive generalizations and grade-school taunts, you'll maybe get taken seriously. This blog and its owner are stupid enough without the lizardoid bigotry about Islam as a 'death cult.'

[Thomas Hormby]

Heh,

Dan Riehl considers anybody who catches him on his anti-Muslim (Moslem went out of favor at the turn of the twentieth century) fervor(racism?)a troll but not people who sprinkle their posts with "asshat" and "leftwing moron". Now I get it.

[larry]

tommy, your droning pontifications abhorring personal attacks and "ad hominem attacks" aside - odd, ain't it, that i never seem to hear that high-minded speech from the caring lefty koolaid drinkers over at kos, making death threats and foulmouthed "we'll hunt you rightwingers down!" fulminations - you're once again dodging a chance to come right out and say it.

"the problem is you're condemning all of islam". "the house of saud this." "moderate islamites that."

passing entirely on any chance to A)deny that you think islamic culture superior to our own, and B)attack another, non-western culture for systematized barbarisms. (god forbid you make value judgements about such a thing, right?)(and, whaaaat? no comments to make on the flogged/beaten/hanged islamic homos, or sharp-tounged islamic young ladies? how come?)

in other words, agreeing with everything i've written. making my point for me.

good lord, why would ANY thinking person look up to a leftist? *not only* are they power-mad fascists; *not only* do they stew in self-hatred; *not only* are they contemptible hypocrites, ready to abandon their so-called principles at the drop of a mullah's turban.......they lack even the guts to come right out and defend their beliefs. to say what they stand for, in clear, concise, non-clintonian language.

i'll let you go now.....am sure you've got to hop into bed with yet another despicable barbarian eager for your support in the ol' "death to america" campaign.

[craig]

larry, calm down - you'll wet yourself.

You want to know what I, a "leftist" stand for, although it has been made clear over and over? Fine.
I stand for democracy and the constitution. It's that simple.

[larry]

what a bold and incisive post there, craig.

but you forgot "motherhood" and "apple pie".

will you be making any other deeply courageous policy statements this evening? neglecting of course to mention any specifics?

c'mon, now boys & girls: how hard can it be? islamites in places like afghanistan and iran are - even as we speak - are whipping and hanging harmless, innocent sharp-tounged teenage girls and wan, fey, curiously thin-wristed homos. they do this every day. they do it while proclaiming loudly that their barbaric religion - islam - says doing so is right & moral.

*I* - larry - condemn these acts as the barbarisms they are; and i also condemn the pseudoreligion used as justification for these cowardly acts of brutality.

you leftists....decline to do so. murmuring about how you "mustn't judge all moslems by the actions of 75% of them", or some such. why so shy? if it were your beloved KKK doing such things to san francisco bathhouse devotees; or radcliffe feminists, there's no way in hell you'd be saying that. not a chance in hell you'd refuse to condemn the lot of them, en masse, for their fellow KKK'ers deeds.

yet for islam - you'll cut 'em some slack.

***WHY?*** ***WHY?*** ***WHY?***

oh, THAT'S right.....i've already answered that question. never mind.

[Best be elsewhere]

Reading this blog is akin to watching someone wank. Why are thinking people wasting their time with this asinine blogger? Answering his propos is an exercise both endless and pointless: point out the error of his theories and he'll just answer that you've misunderstood or that you're missing the point; even the most concrete and waterproof argument is answered with ad hominem attempts at discreditation or outright name-calling. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter - the blogger's own "message" - and the willingness of others to "follow" it - is the only reason for this blog's existence. Bush and the neocons can play the "spin game" because they have ulterior motives; this blog has none.

Those seeking constructive discussion would better spend their time elsewhere - leave this self-deluded wanker to rant and whine in his own filth, and he will sooner be forgotten.

[Thomas Hormby]

"tommy, your droning pontifications abhorring personal attacks and "ad hominem attacks" aside - odd, ain't it, that i never seem to hear that high-minded speech from the caring lefty koolaid drinkers over at kos, making death threats and foulmouthed "we'll hunt you rightwingers down!" fulminations - you're once again dodging a chance to come right out and say it."

Personal attacks don't make your opinion any more clear or convincing.

[Thomas Hormby]

"*not only* are they power-mad fascists"

Even the most strident leftists are not fascists. Fascism is characterized by nationalist fervor not individual rights and certainly not the protection of dissent.

From an essay Benito Mussolini wrote (supposedly it was ghostwritten by an Italian philosopher):

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere. The importance of liberalism in the XIXth century should not be exaggerated for present day polemical purposes, nor should we make of one of the many doctrines which flourished in that century a religion for mankind for the present and for all time to come. Liberalism really flourished for fifteen years only. It arose in 1830 as a reaction to the Holy Alliance which tried to force Europe to recede further back than 1789; it touched its zenith in 1848 when even Pius IXth was a liberal. Its decline began immediately after that year. If 1848 was a year of light and poetry, 1849 was a year of darkness and tragedy. The Roman Republic was killed by a sister republic, that of France . In that same year Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, launched the gospel of socialism."

So not only is Fascism opposed to classical liberalism, the same type that your hero (if you've ever heard of him) Edmund Burke railed against, but it is opposed to the modern liberalism of Napoleon III who essentially invented much of the welfare state so many Americans utilize and rely on.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

[Thomas Hormby]

"you leftists....decline to do so. murmuring about how you "mustn't judge all moslems by the actions of 75% of them", or some such. why so shy? if it were your beloved KKK doing such things to san francisco bathhouse devotees; or radcliffe feminists, there's no way in hell you'd be saying that. not a chance in hell you'd refuse to condemn the lot of them, en masse, for their fellow KKK'ers deeds."

The modern day KKK organizations are essentially racist organizations. The Quran is essentially not a racist document. It happens that some of the regions where Islam is dominant are impoverished and racked with violence.

If your hypothesis was true, however, every Muslim nation would be racked with violence. That's not true. Countries like Malaysia are relatively free democracies. Qatar, the U.A.E. and Bahrain are less liberal (lower case l) but they are productive societies free of terrorism.

Neither religion (Christianity or Islam) are better at maintaining an organized and safe society, historically. While Europe was undersiege during the dark ages and classical texts were lost it was the Muslims (Arabs actually) who preserved them and studied them in cities with running water and street lights. Now, Iraq isn't capable of keeping oil powerplants going and countries like France rely heavily on Nuclear reactors and other clean sources of electricity.

If your hypothesis was correct, then Christian societies would always have been better run (little violence, freedom of dissent and functional government) than their Muslim counterparts, but historically that's clearly not the case.

[larry]

WOW, tommy! that's quite some argument there! the holy alliance! pius IX! mussolini essays! whoo!

clearly, you yearn to be thought of as a deep thinker.

what you *didn't* do was to condemn the barbarians who flog, beat, and execute women & homosexuals & animals as part of the rituals demanded by their bloody little pseudoreligion. not one peep of protest from the "classic liberal", huh? (not to be confused with the left-wing fascists - hilter, mao, pol pot, your beloved mussolini - responsible for the systematic murder of so many tens of millions. i know, i know: those guys were *BAD* liberals. they shouldn't be held against ya.)

by your failure to condemn these acts of barbarism, despite repeated opportunities to do so, i have no choice but to assume that you APPROVE of them. although - being a liberal - you'd never be so bold as to come right out & SAY SO, it's clear you think these atrocities are a Good Thing, as befitting any culural practice that's not american/western.

you hateful misogynist homophobe animal-abuser, you. how can you live with yourself?? how can you look in the mirror each morning?? i truly believe you should move to afghanistan or iran. you'd be so much happier there: gleefully clapping at the hangings of the wiseass teenage girls; hooting happily at the weekly homo floggings; joyously taking your turn slitting the animals throat for the glory of allah, and then hustling home to clean up for the 'death to america' rally. hey! maybe you could fly down to darfur, get in on the mass rapes! i bet they'd let you! i'm pretty sure they have weekend packages!

did 19th century popes have anything trenchant to say about that?

[Thomas Hormby]

"you hateful misogynist homophobe animal-abuser, you. how can you live with yourself?? how can you look in the mirror each morning?? i truly believe you should move to afghanistan or iran."

Personal attacks don't make your opinion any more clear or convincing.

[Thomas Hormby]

"what you *didn't* do was to condemn the barbarians who flog, beat, and execute women & homosexuals & animals as part of the rituals demanded by their bloody little pseudoreligion."

If flogging, beating and executing women was a ritual demanded by Islam then Muslims wouldn't be nearly as prolific, would they?

If the majority of Muslims adhered to the principles you lay out in your posts then Islam would be a negative religion, but they don't. Where do you get your figures that most Muslims believe in flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals (animals can't be executed since they are chattel and not subject to the law)?

There are plenty of liberal (lowercase l) with a substantial Muslim population and several that are majority Muslim (including one of the largest in the world, Indonesia). Most Muslim countries do not adhere to Sharia law, or at least not using the same interpretation that would demand the flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals.

If your hypothesis was correct then the vast majority (or even all) of Muslims would believe in the extremely regressive interpretation of Sharia law.