http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/

 


Jefferson's Quran: What the founder really thought about Islam.


By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2007, at 3:05 PM ET 

 <http://www.slate.com/id/2157352/> It was quite witty of Rep. Keith
Ellison, D-Minn., to short-circuit the hostility of those who criticized him
for taking his oath on the Quran and to ask the Library of Congress for the
loan of Thomas Jefferson's copy of that holy book. But the irony of this,
which certainly made his stupid Christian fundamentalist critics look even
stupider, ought to be partly at his own expense as well.

In the first place, concern over Ellison's political and religious
background has little to do with his formal adherence to Islam. In his
student days and subsequently, he was a
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR200609100
0951.html> supporter of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, a racist and
crackpot cult organization that is in schism with the Muslim faith and even
with the Sunni orthodoxy now preached by the son of the NOI's popularizer
Elijah Muhammad. Farrakhan's sect explicitly describes a large part of the
human species-the so-called white part-as an invention of the devil and has
issued tirades against the Jews that exceed what even the most fanatical
Islamists have said. Farrakhan himself has boasted of the "punishment" meted
out to Malcolm X by armed gangsters of the NOI (see the brilliant
documentary  <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109339/> Brother Minister: The
Assassination of Malcolm X, which catches him in the act of doing this). If
Ellison now wants to use his faith to justify an appeal to pluralism and
inclusiveness and diversity, he needs to repudiate the Nation of Islam, and
in much more unambivalent terms than any I have yet heard from him.

As to the invocation of Jefferson, we know that when he and James Madison
first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and
basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the
preamble began, "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free."
Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words
"Jesus Christ" for "Almighty God" in this opening passage and were
overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean
that Virginia's representatives wanted the law "to comprehend, within the
mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." Quite right, too,
and so far so good, even if the term Mahomedan would not be used today, and
even if Jefferson's own private sympathies were with the last named in that
list. 

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having
to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary
states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of
the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria,
Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all
shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels
were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into
slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially
difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal
Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli,
negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "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." This has often been taken
as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for
secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the
payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by
Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to
London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he
extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to
Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] 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, and that every Mussulman who should be
slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. 

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to
add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli-and another paid to
himself-would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that
it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim
states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And,
even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and
Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of
his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of
kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic
justification or not.

Jefferson did not demand regime change of the Barbary states, only policy
change. And as far as I can find, he avoided any comment on the religious
dimension of the war. But then, he avoided public comment on faith whenever
possible. It was not until long after his death that we became able to read
most of his scornful writings on revelation and redemption (recently cited
with great clarity by Brooke Allen in her book
<http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/15666367
52/> Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers). And it was not until
long after his death that The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was
publishable. Sometimes known as "the Jefferson Bible" for short, this
consists of the four gospels of the New Testament as redacted by our third
president with (literally) a razor blade in his hand. With this blade, he
excised every verse dealing with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and
other puerile superstition, thus leaving him (and us) with a very much
shorter book. In 1904 (those were the days), the Jefferson Bible was printed
by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected
members of that body. Here's a tradition worth reviving: Why not ask all new
members of Congress to swear on that?

And here's a tradition worth inaugurating: The Quran repeats and plagiarizes
many passages of the New Testament, including some of the most fantastic and
mythical ones. Is it not time to apply the razor and produce a reasonable
Quran as well? What could be more inclusive? What could be a better
application of Jeffersonian original intent? 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to