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

[larry]

well, time to check in on ol' tommy's latest attempt to deny he favors the systematic islamic abuse of women, homos, and animals.....knowing the liberal tendencies towards wordiness and obfuscation, bet he'll have to post at least twice.......

hmmm.....yep: 2 posts; the usual pompous drivel professing dislike for the style of speech that i take directly from the good, tolerant liberals over at kos....yep; absolute refusal to condemn moslems for the barbaric brutalities towards women/homos/critters.....

yep. same ol' same ol'. tommy still thinks systematic moslem abuse of defenseless innocents to be a *good thing*. he just wants to cover it up with a meaningless discussion about small "L" liberalism vs. the big "L" type. have you checked into the weekend 'rape' packages in darfur with the mosque's travel agent yet, tommy?

[Thomas Hormby]

You're not responding to my question. How could Islam be a fundamentally bad religion if the majority of its adherents would endorse the flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals?

Where do you get your numbers that the majority of Muslims believe in flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals?

[larry]

now why would i "repond to your question", thomas, when you never got around to answering mine? well, to be fair, actually ya DID answer the question of "whether or not you condemn the systematic, institutionalized moslem brutality (including killings) of women, homos, and animals."

by your frequent and never-ceasing refusal to address this; much less (god forbid) condemn it, you have shown that you actually *approve* of it.

i've demonstrated this for you quite a few times, now, tommy....and still you pretend it doesn't exist. obtuseness of this magnitude is not all that common: is your last name by chance "zoolander"?

BTW, if you can get someone to help you operate the computer, you might google the name "nazanin fatehi". she's the girl who was sentenced to hang by an (islamic)("religion of peace")(they're actually quite modern, and moderate, and reasonable, you know. they're just like us!) a court in iran awhile back. her crime? she fought off a gang-rape attempt. (what? what's this? but moslems don't *do* gangrapes! isn't that what you said, tommy?)

she actually got off easy. they *stone* women convicted of adultery in moslem countries, you know. google "amina lawal", if you dare. gotta go! say hi to derek!

[Thomas Hormby]

"i've demonstrated this for you quite a few times, now, tommy....and still you pretend it doesn't exist. obtuseness of this magnitude is not all that common: is your last name by chance "zoolander"?"

Without cited facts you've proven nothing. How many Muslims flog, beat, and execute women & homosexuals? If it's the majority of Muslims (or even a significant percentage) then I would naturally condemn Islam just as quickly as I would condemn Scientology or other sects. But a majority of Muslims do not believe in these things so I don't need (or want) to condemn them.

[Mick]

“The [Arab] Ambassador [speaking to Thomas Jefferson] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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” (qtd. in FSM Editors).

Thomas Jefferson was serving as America’s minister to France at a time when “As many as a million and a quarter Europeans had been enslaved by Muslims operating out of North Africa.”

Jefferson’s willingness to fight against the Muslim terrorists of Tripoli and the Barbary Coast gave America wonderful tales of Naval and Marine Core heroism and courage. “Outnumbered 10 to 1, [General William] Eaton and his men sent the defenders flying. After bitter street fighting, the Marines secured the fort. Lt. O'Bannon raised the American flag to the cheers of the sailors aboard the U.S. ships, witnesses to the first time the Stars and Stripes was ever raised in victory on foreign soil” (Seitz)

www.cybermick.com/romans

[Thomas Hormby]

I guess it's safe to assume that Larry has no facts to back up his deathcult hypothesis.

[Thomas Hormby]

Looks like the thread is dead, but one last point/quote:

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 tranquillity, 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.

From the treaty of the Barbary Wars while we were still governed by the founding fathers.

[Russki]

Thomas, I'd be more than happy to bring the thread back for you since Larry has moved on. Words in a diplomatic statement, i.e. treaty, are typically lawyer drivel. The deathcult hypothesis has historical basis in every century since 622 AD. That was when Mohammad started his first jihad. And for the record, jihad is not an inner struggle for peace.

your comment
"They [evangelical christian ] are much more a threat to our secular democracy than a bunch of semi literate muslims who are too stupid to know they are being bamboozled about their own history, culture and religion."

Would not agree that a majority if not all of muslims believe in (1) the Prophet Muhammad (2) that the Prophet Muhammad was the perfect individual (3) that they should strive to emulate the Prophet Muhammad in every aspect of life? If you do not agree, you do not understand the Islamic religion.

With that said, the Prophet Muhammad order Rabbi Kinana of Bani al-Nadir to be tortured until he surrendered the treasure of his village. The Apostle gave orders to al-Zubary bin al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has", so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the Apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head. That is in the biography of the Prophet Muhammad. A very old muslim text. Not some newly written, hijacked, bamboozled history of Islam.

You argue without fact.

622-632 Muhammad's wars of conquest to expand Islam

By 661 the next 4 Caliphs had expanded Islam by the sword from the western half of what is now Saudi Arabia, to a swath of land from Tripoli in North
Africa over to Afghanistan.

By 750 it stretched from Morroco over to India, into Spain. Slaughtering men, women, and children in every village after every battle.

You need to do your homework if you want to make blanket statements about the passiveness of Islam.

Peace be upon you.

[George, Texas]

To all of you: ALL organized religions are a waste of time and energy. The ALL try to achieve a goal of total control over their "flock". The issue here is whether you want a NEW America modeled after the current radical islamic order. Whereby you will have no rights or freedoms of any kind. Islamic rule will be a dismal life for all except the top clerics. You will be forced to submit to worship as raghead does. Yes raghead, i said it and I don't care. Christianity has at least evolved to be a peaceful religion. The values of the 10 Commandments are solid good rules to live by. If everyone, regardless of religious beliefs or NOT, could just live by half of those common sense rules. Then the world would be a much better place for all. Islam on the other hand hasn't changed, and THEY preach hate and death to anyone that is not following Islam. So yes we do have a valid issue with elected officials that follow a doctrine that does not have any use for America or democracy. Islam does not respect human rights. Islam has a mission to control the world, as did Hitler. We allowed Hitler to fester and grow. We should not make the same mistake twice. Gays will not survive in an Islamic state. So be careful what you wish for, liberals. You just don't seem to understand that. There is a growing faction that wants to Kill everyone in America and everywhere else that does not follow precisely the Islamic teachings. That group is using ISLAM and twisting it to server their purpose. Bottom line, we are being attacked. They do not want to negotiate. They want us dead. Period. They probably just want better digs. Thats what thousands of years in the desert will do to you. They are all insane. We should just nuke the whole middle east and end the crap. That is exactly what they would do to us.

[SB]

The tributes were some sort of maritime tax to swell the revenue of a state. Any other interpretation is out of context. Thomas Jefferson paid a one time tribute of $60,000 to get 600 Americans released very much at odds to what Gen.Eaton was doing to get the 600 released. He not only undermined the work of Eaton but Eaton had to escape as he let down all those who helped him. He died a dejected man in US at an early age.

Regarding George Sales translation of The Quran, it is considered the most nototiorious as that pontif did not do justice to a divine book by intentionally and unintentionally distorting the translation and poisoned our mimds against Islam. Islam has to be studied by what Islam is not by what you see Muslim States inaction that gives rise to terrorism. One must read Martin Ling's "Muhammed" to get a truer picture of the Moslem prophet.

[Me]

yyy is a complete moron. Radical terroists who hide behind the Koran and Islam, and call themselves Muslims, do deserve to be rounded up and exterminated. Can anyone possibly find a useful purpose for people who only have the desire to kill innocent civilians in the name of their faith? Anyone? When was the last time innocent civilians were rounded up and exterminated in the name of Christianity? 50 years? 100 years? Yesterday? Well, you can go back for thousands of years and find Muslims killing unarmed civilians in the name of their faith. WTF?

[Me]

Oh yeah, Thomas Hornby is a freaking idiot also.