Don't confuse Jefferson's war with pirates with a war on islam. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom that he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I'm quoting Thomas Jefferson now — 'the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.'" . The rancorous public dispute concerning the inclusion of Muslims, for which principle Jefferson’s political foes would vilify him to the end of his life, thus became decisive in the Founders’ ultimate judgment not to establish a Protestant nation.
Excerpted from "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an" <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307268225/?tag=saloncom08-20> At a time when most Americans were uninformed, misinformed, or simply afraid of Islam, Thomas Jefferson imagined Muslims as future citizens of his new nation. His engagement with the faith began with the purchase of a Qur’an eleven years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s Qur’an survives still in the Library of Congress, serving as a symbol of his and early America’s complex relationship with Islam and its adherents. That relationship remains of signal importance to this day. That he owned a Qur’an reveals Jefferson’s interest in the Islamic religion, but it does not explain his support for the rights of Muslims. Jefferson first read about Muslim “civil rights” in the work of one of his intellectual heroes: the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. Locke had advocated the toleration of Muslims—and Jews—following in the footsteps of a few others in Europe who had considered the matter for more than a century before him. Jefferson’s ideas about Muslim rights must be understood within this older context, a complex set of transatlantic ideas that would continue to evolve most markedly from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government. Resistance to the idea of Muslim citizenship was predictable in the eighteenth century. Americans had inherited from Europe almost a millennium of negative distortions of the faith’s theological and political character. Given the dominance and popularity of these anti-Islamic representations, it was startling that a few notable Americans not only refused to exclude Muslims, but even imagined a day when they would be citizens of the United States, with full and equal rights. This surprising, uniquely American egalitarian defense of Muslim rights was the logical extension of European precedents already mentioned. Still, on both sides of the Atlantic, such ideas were marginal at best. How, then, did the idea of the Muslim as a citizen with rights survive despite powerful opposition from the outset? And what is the fate of that ideal in the twenty-first century? This book provides a new history of the founding era, one that explains how and why Thomas Jefferson and a handful of others adopted and then moved beyond European ideas about the toleration of Muslims. It should be said at the outset that these exceptional men were not motivated by any inherent appreciation for Islam as a religion. Muslims, for most American Protestants, remained beyond the outer limit of those possessing acceptable beliefs, but they nevertheless became emblems of two competing conceptions of the nation’s identity: one essentially preserving the Protestant status quo, and the other fully realizing the pluralism implied in the Revolutionary rhetoric of inalienable and universal rights. Thus while some fought to exclude a group whose inclusion they feared would ultimately portend the undoing of the nation’s Protestant character, a pivotal minority, also Protestant, perceiving the ultimate benefit and justice of a religiously plural America, set about defending the rights of future Muslim citizens. They did so, however, not for the sake of actual Muslims, because none were known at the time to live in America. Instead, Jefferson and others defended Muslim rights for the sake of “imagined Muslims,” the promotion of whose theoretical citizenship would prove the true universality of American rights. Indeed, this defense of imagined Muslims would also create political room to consider the rights of other despised minorities whose numbers in America, though small, were quite real, namely Jews and Catholics. Although it was Muslims who embodied the ideal of inclusion, Jews and Catholics were often linked to them in early American debates, as Jefferson and others fought for the rights of all non-Protestants. In 1783, the year of the nation’s official independence from Great Britain, George Washington wrote to recent Irish Catholic immigrants in New York City. The American Catholic minority of roughly twenty-five thousand then had few legal protections in any state and, because of their faith, no right to hold political office in New York. Washington insisted that “the bosom of America” was “open to receive . . . the oppressed and the persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges.” He would also write similar missives to Jewish communities, whose total population numbered only about two thousand at this time. One year later, in 1784, Washington theoretically enfolded Muslims into his private world at Mount Vernon. In a letter to a friend seeking a carpenter and bricklayer to help at his Virginia home, he explained that the workers’ beliefs—or lack thereof—mattered not at all: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews or Christian of an[y] Sect, or they may be Atheists.” Clearly, Muslims were part of Washington’s understanding of religious pluralism—at least in theory. But he would not have actually expected any Muslim applicants. Although we have since learned that there were in fact Muslims resident in eighteenth-century America, this book demonstrates that the Founders and their generational peers never knew it. Thus their Muslim constituency remained an imagined, future one. But the fact that both Washington and Jefferson attached to it such symbolic significance is not accidental. Both men were heir to the same pair of opposing European traditions. The first, which predominated, depicted Islam as the antithesis of the “true faith” of Protestant Christianity, as well as the source of tyrannical governments abroad. To tolerate Muslims—to accept them as part of a majority Protestant Christian society—was to welcome people who professed a faith most eighteenth-century Europeans and Americans believed false, foreign, and threatening. Catholics would be similarly characterized in American Protestant founding discourse. Indeed, their faith, like Islam, would be deemed a source of tyranny and thus antithetical to American ideas of liberty. In order to counter such fears, Jefferson and other supporters of non-Protestant citizenship drew upon a second, less popular but crucial stream of European thought, one that posited the toleration of Muslims as well as Jews and Catholics. Those few Europeans, both Catholic and Protestant, who first espoused such ideas in the sixteenth century often died for them. In the seventeenth century, those who advocated universal religious toleration frequently suffered death or imprisonment, banishment or exile, the elites and common folk alike. The ranks of these so-called heretics in Europe included Catholic and Protestant peasants, Protestant scholars of religion and political theory, and fervid Protestant dissenters, such as the first English Baptists—but no people of political power or prominence. Despite not being organized, this minority consistently opposed their coreligionists by defending theoretical Muslims from persecution in Christian-majority states. As a member of the eighteenth-century Anglican establishment and a prominent political leader in Virginia, Jefferson represented a different sort of proponent for ideas that had long been the hallmark of dissident victims of persecution and exile. Because of his elite status, his own endorsement of Muslim citizenship demanded serious consideration in Virginia—and the new nation. Together with a handful of like-minded American Protestants, he advanced a new, previously unthinkable national blueprint. Thus did ideas long on the fringe of European thought flow into the mainstream of American political discourse at its inception. Not that these ideas found universal welcome. Even a man of Jefferson’s national reputation would be attacked by his political opponents for his insistence that the rights of all believers should be protected from government interference and persecution. But he drew support from a broad range of constituencies, including Anglicans (or Episcopalians), as well as dissenting Presbyterians and Baptists, who suffered persecution perpetrated by fellow Protestants. No denomination had a unanimously positive view of non-Protestants as full American citizens, yet support for Muslim rights was expressed by some members of each. What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job. This book documents, for the first time, how Jefferson and others, despite their negative, often incorrect understandings of Islam, pursued that ideal by advocating the rights of Muslims and all non-Protestants. On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:59:59 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > *Muslims: Nothing has changed in 200 years* > > > > A different type of president then. When Jefferson saw there was no > negotiating with Muslims, he formed what is the now the Marines (sea going > soldiers). These Marines were attached to U. S. Merchant vessels. When the > Muslims attacked U.S. merchant vessels they were repulsed by armed > soldiers, but there is more. The Marines followed the Muslims back to their > villages and killed every man, woman, and child in the village. It didn't > take long for the Muslims to leave U.S. Merchant vessels alone. English and > French merchant vessels started running up our flag when entering the > Mediterranean to secure safe travel. > > > > Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse "To the Shores of Tripoli" > > > > This is very interesting and a must read piece of our history. It points > out where we may be heading. > > Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the > United States had declared war on Islam and Thomas Jefferson led the charge! > > > > At the height of the 18th century, Muslim pirates (the “Barbary Pirates”) > were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic. > > > > They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant > ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote > heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to > pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded. > > These extortionists of the high seas represented the North African Islamic > nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers - collectively referred to > as the Barbary Coast - and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to > the new American Republic. > > > > Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the > protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and > entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. > However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets. > > Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, 17 years before he > would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America's Minister to > France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim > adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid > bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war. > > > > In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of > Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple > case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any > further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a > coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states > into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom. > > > > In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to > Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and > enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards > America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. > > The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman > Adja had answered that *Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, > that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not > acknowledge 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 (Muslim) who > should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."* > > Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim > nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, > including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and > would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the > American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe > passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments > in ransom and tribute amounted to over 20 percent of the United States > government annual revenues in 1800. > > > > Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third > President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a > note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for > every year forthcoming. That changed everything. > > > > Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with > his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the > American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, > and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been > against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, > but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long > enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force. > > He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the > Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never > forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all > vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to "cause to be done all > other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify". > > > > When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and > acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and > the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to > Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up > again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to > the line *"to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn,* and they would > forever be known as "leathernecks" for the leather collars of their > uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim > scimitars when boarding enemy ships. > > > > Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their > prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. > > > > America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact Jefferson, > himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but > fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A > religion based on supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated > violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear > was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater > threat to the United States. > > > > This should concern every American. That Muslims have brought about > women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and > public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from > serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and > Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they > offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain > Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to > the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their > menus; on and on and on and on…. > > > > *It's death by a thousand cuts,* or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and > most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day > across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what > is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our own > culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically > correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda. Sadly, it > appears that today America's STUPID leaders would rather be politically > correct than victorious! > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZG42OW0xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjQ4OTE5MzQ-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNnVvZmNmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NDg5MTkzNA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
