The Founders and Islam
There’s been a discussion in the comments section about the attitude of the Founders towards Islam, and how it relates to freedom of religion, and I thought I’d add some background.
At the outset, when the principles of freedom of religion were being established in Virgina in 1779, and Jefferson and Madison were discussing them (later to be the basis of the First Amendment of the US Constitution), Jefferson felt that freedom of religion should:
…comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
This was despite the fact that the Founders must have known, for example, the history of the Crusades and later of the Gates of Vienna.
In 1786, when the fledgling US was dealing with the Barbary pirates, by whom many US and European ships were seized and their crews sold into slavery, the initial reaction of the US was this:
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…
…Jefferson and John Adams [later] 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.
Plus é§a change, plus c’est la méªme chose.
Later, as president, Jefferson launched a war against the pirates and was successful. But he never had to deal with anything approaching large numbers of Muslim arrivals to this country; at the time, Muslim immigrants were few and far between, nearly nonexistent. The fight was almost wholly an external one, and so the question of whether Islam’s tenets disagreed with our Constitution, and what to do about that in terms of immigration, did not really come up.
And then there was John Quincy Adams, not exactly a Founding Father (although we might call him a Founding Father’s Son). In 1830 he wrote, in the context of discussing the Russo-Turkish wars:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. ”¦He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between [Islam and Christianity]”¦a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture”¦While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”¦(Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.)”¦.
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274)”¦
I’ve been able to locate the entire passage, and the rest of the essay is an elaboration on the differences between Christianity and Islam, as well as a discussion of Russia’s (a Christian nation’s) war with the Ottomans. In the essay, Adams does not discuss the prospect of Muslim immigration to this country, still extremely rare at that time, and what it might mean. So he never had to come to any conclusions about freedom of religion in this country, and whether it included the freedom to practice a religion he had described in such a manner.
[NOTE: In a footnote to his essay, Adams describes (page 379 in the complete text) the negotiation of a Barbary War treaty in Algiers, when the American signers assumed that the English and Arabic translations were the same. Wrong! The Arabic translations apparently contained an extra clause omitted in the English version, which required payment of the very sort of tribute the treaty was meant to end.]
The Arabic translations apparently contained an extra clause omitted in the English version, which required payment of the very sort of tribute the treaty was meant to end.]
What’s the big deal. Lying to infidels oi ok.
A couple of decades ago I mused about sin, and such. If “sin” can only occur when one does something one believes is wrong, then what can one conclude about non-Christian behavior by a non-Christian? But that isn’t quite the way I was thinking of it at the time.
At the time, I wondered about people who thought stealing from “others” was not only okay, but admirable. Likewise, ambushing and killing them. For short, whether or not it is exactly correct, let’s call these people “Comanches.” Is their behavior sinful?
I decided I wasn’t wise enough to reach a conclusion on whether or not they were sinful. Clearly, though, they did not make good neighbors.
From what I’ve read, Islam says it’s perfectly okay to lie to outsiders, even “people of the book.” Seems to me we’ve seen ample evidence of this.
To me, then, we have justification for being very picky about which Islamists are admitted to the US. While here they may practice their religion except to the extent it violates law. Pointed questions about how they intend to practice their religion, and how they will comply with our laws, will be asked prior to admission, and any lying will be grounds for deportation at any later time, along with revocation of citizenship.
Perhaps we need a new “citizenship” classification to handle children born in the US of non-citizens, or those who become non-citizens (see above), which allows deportation with their parents, if that becomes necessary.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/another-history-of-islam-and-the-crusades/#comments
To find Islam’s strengths and weaknesses, one needs to go all the way back to their origins.
Fortunately for the West, other people did that and put it on a video.
What a great, great post by neo!
Loved that JQ Adams quote.
The key takeaway for me is that Mohammed was a fraud but a genius. He disguised his murdering warlord socio-political system as a religion. So how could he lose? His followers had an extra incentive to fight. Paradise was guaranteed. It also gives the warriors the belief that they have God on their side in the fight against inferior infidels.
The sooner the West strips Islam of the status of a religion the better off the world will be.
Key issue: What religion advocates murder?
Engineer:
The lying, duplicitous nature of Islam absolutely demanded an air tight agreement with Iran on nukes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslims pulled that same trick again regarding translations. JFK certainly not the guy to do that deal. Iran launching missles already.
We are the biggest idiots in the Universe if we lift sanctions and give Iran back their $150b.
Iran will have nukes within two years.
All:
I had to laugh in that September 2014 post I predicted King Kennedy’s ruling on SSM. That wasn’t hard.
Polygamy is coming. That’s a lock in 4-6 years; sooner if Hillary wins.
It’s so upsetting some going down with their writing by reading the history and using it with some mixing colour to make it more tragic to get their hidden goals with their voices start out reflecting inside hatred, that cann’t get out of it or forgot their suffering.
The “Hippocrates” now articulating some how using their suffering in their past history by trying to downgrading our time and our future.
It’s very sad & disturbing that this posts clearly one of those, while many times the writer talking and posting their history and suffering till today, same time using same tactic to apply to other mankind. Let refresh her memory here & here
Does not matter of the religion, just bringing few links to illustrate and refresh the mind of the writer about her own land history how bad and brutal like Indian massacre of 1622, it’s all about power.
Battles & Massacres of the Indian Wars
A MASSACRE IN THE FAMILY
The Great California Genocide
My Life as a Muslim in the West’s ‘Gray Zone’
Fred,
Thank you for providing a excellent example of an intellectually dishonest, “useful idiot”.
Your links are biased toward portraying native Americans as innocent victims, rather than as savage and mercilous.
Nor is portraying Muslims as oppressed, honest.
Adams sure nails it. Mohammed “proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.”
They are linked together, the two clauses in that quote. Cause and effect.
Grounds for terminating its status as a religion and getting us off the First Amendment hangup, I should think..
Is a religion a religion protected by the Amendment just by proclaiming itself a religion? We deserve some criteria. It will probably take about 50 years unless Dems continue to stack SOTUS.
Uh, SCOTUS, obviously.
Oops, that wood be “merciless”.
OMG! ‘would’ goodnight all.
Is it at least mildly amusing to watch as PresidentIWonPenPhone vomits up from his omniscience yet another declaration what Islam is, and that is nothing to do with Islamic violence or terrorism, whereupon many voices in political opposition to IWonPenPhone leap to question where is his license to define Islam, and that should be left to Islam or Islamists? — where now we have perhaps some of these same opponents to IWonPenPhone asserting to a certitude that Islam is no religion whatsoever? Seems like to have potential to amuse anyhow, up to, say, a chortle if not all the way to a belly-laugh.
@ Cornhead
That’s a great insight right there. In medieval England, there was a symbiotic relationship between the church and state, but they were separate entities. The state would give land and money to the church, and the church would give moral sanction to the state. Knowing the evils of a system like that, our Founders forbade a state sponsored religion in the Constitution. I don’t think they ever considered that both the religion and the power of the state might come in a single package.
“I don’t think they ever considered that both the religion and the power of the state might come in a single package.”
Oh? They had no idea why Athens chose to put Socrates to death then?
@ Engineer
I think there’s an objective standard that you can go by to sort all that out. In order for people to live together peacefully in a society, they have to agree to certain rules, like not killing each other, not stealing from each other, etc. etc. People have to agree not to initiate the use of force against each other. If they can’t do that, then they don’t belong in a civilized society.
snopercod; Engineer:
See this post.
Here’s an excerpt:
Please read the whole thing.
Neo– As usual, you’re way ahead of us. Thanks for the link.
Cornhead:
Who is this “JFK” you refer to? Probably not John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1917-1963, but I can’t think of another JFK prominent enough to refer to by initials.
bof: That would be John Forbes Kerry.
Neo: In re-reading your 2008 link (it has been 8 years!), I am struck by “Judaism posits that there are such laws for all cultures and all peoples.”
I know nothing about the Talmud and the history and facts of Jewish law.
But it seems to me these laws, if universal in intent, can be deemed part of Natural Law, which is not man-made and is universal.
1. Wow! Another great neo-neocon post. What a talent: neo-neocon writes interestingly on such a wide variety of topics. Today she knocks it out of the park three times on three different subjects-history, politics and dance.
2. bof: I cannot tell whether you were being sarcastic or not when you wrote “Who is this ‘JFK’ you [Cornhead] refer to? Probably not John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1917-1963, but I can’t think of another JFK prominent enough to refer to by initials.”
In the event you were not being sarcastic, I’m pretty sure Cornhead was referring to John Forbes Kerry. Seems awfully sad that our current secretary of state has the same initials as our beloved 35th president.
If you were not being sarcastic, then I agree with your implied judgment that Kerry certainly is undeserving of the prominence he has received.
This is a good resource for John Quincy Adams’ thoughts on Islam, as posted by Dr. Dave Miller:
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1142
neo-neocon quoted Jefferson (indirectly) from 1785 and John Quincy Adams from 1830. Jefferson and Adams’ observations were similar to those of Winston Churchill in 1899 (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War) (emphasis added):
Those observations of Islam from 117 years ago, 186 years ago, and 231 years ago are all consistent with what we observe today.
Some “idiot” who thinks they’re “intellectually” smarter than others, they are blind and deaf, they do hear only their voices.
Calling the “links are biased”, so let be smart let us you’re finding by providing “None” biased inks, by doing so you elevating our mind, then add richness for the discussion, rather than been idiot.
No one can change written history, only you objected or discarded but the evidences their on your “New Land” that discoverer long before your hero Columbus, however go do your homework about Native American genocide
do not fogot Abu Ghraib it part of your very pleasant “Not Biased” history
Neo:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace;
JEWS, The Legacy of Antiquity
The Formation of a Persecuting Society by R. I. Moore
Neo:
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.
So, Who Did Discover America?
They were “Mussulman ” so did they killed millions as your brothern the Christian?
So they left this job for you, the beheading and taken the skin off or Tongs all other sort, it’s there in your written history……
Forget about it, Fred at 4:34, we are not buying into your guilt trip. No matter how outrageous Muslims behave when they experience any blow back whatsoever from the victims they always respond the same way with self-pity as if you were the victim. What one almost never sees from any Muslim, including you, is genuine concern for the people who are being hurt by your religion. Muslim behavior is so stereotypical and so predictably self centered that it falls into the behavior pattern that one would expect from a society of sociopaths. Although a society of sociopaths seems unthinkable to Westerners, it is entirely possible that in a society which degrades the gentleness of women and which emphasizes violence might be so damaging to children that by the time they reach adulthood they lack the ability to empathize with other people. The pity is that because you are unable to put yourself into other people’s shoes, you probably can not see that in yourself.
In the link you provided is the following statement:
“I worry about her growing up in a place where some of the people who are seeking the highest office in the land cannot make a simple distinction between Islam and ISIS, between Muslim and terrorist.”
Why is it the kaffirs’ duty to distinguish between the Islamic State and the religion called the religion called Islam when they both promote Sharia law which are both determined to extirpate our right to exist as free people? It’s not. It’s your responsibility as a Muslim to come to us and show us the passages in the Koran and the Hadiths which tell Muslims to love non-Muslims and which contain passages from Mohammad which condemn the way ISIS treats non-Muslims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/my-life-as-a-muslim-in-the-wests-gray-zone.html?_r=0
Dennis,
Fred can’t show you later, peaceful passages that would abrogate (by Islam’s own doctrine) the violent passages because they don’t exist. He’s at best ignorant and at worst a liar. Either way the truth remains.
By posting passages from John Locke, I’ve made it clear what I think. John Locke is correct, freedom of religion has limitations. When your religion demands that you hurt me and mine, then your religion has no right to exist.
Fred, I serious in my challenge. I’d like for you to produce the evidence that ISIS is not Islamic and that Muslims in general repudiate Sharia law. That would go a long way towards appeasing the rest of us.
sdferr,
Islam’s tenets, doctrines and behavior declare itself not to be a religion. Unless you wish to posit that the worship of evil qualifies as a ‘religion’. And by any rational standard, ‘Allah’s’ commands as to how Muslims are to treat women and non-Muslims, as well as it’s death penalty for apostasy are… evil.
Not to mention, “By its fruit shall you know the tree”.
What has Islam brought the world during its 1400 years?
All I can come up with is, “conquest”.
Not the tree I want to rest under.
Information age is making certain people dumber.
Only those with common sense can move with prosperity in the future. While Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, California collapses – I move to raise crops, chickens and be self sufficient
Although a society of sociopaths seems unthinkable to Westerners
There’s always the Aztecs, but humans like to pretend things don’t exist because they never lived with them.
Cornhead:
“an air tight agreement with Iran on nukes”
See UNSCRs 687, 1441, et al from the Gulf War ceasefire that set the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441). The disarmament standard for Saddam’s regime remains the gold standard for disarmament.
Yet the suspect measures in the Iran deal are notable for their contradiction of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance”. The Iran deal apparently incorporates the changes that Saddam’s advocates had called for the disarmament standard for Iraq so that the UN inspectors would certify Iraq despite Saddam’s regime not actually reforming its behavior.
Hans Blix, unsurprising, endorses the Iran deal because he was opposed to OIF. Yet the finding by Blix’s UNMOVIC team of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” in the UNSCR 1441 inspections was the principal casus belli for OIF. Blix’s anti-war solution? Not callng for Iran to disarm to the strict standard that was mandated for Iraq. Instead, Blix supports a looser standard that will make it easier for weapons inspectors to certify Iran – whether or not Iran actually, reliably disarms.
That there is not an “an air tight agreement with Iran on nukes” is a direct consequence of the stigmatization of OIF.
Establishing the prevalent false narrative of OIF set up the political conditions for the same opponents of the US-led Gulf War ceasefire enforcement to assert their preferences and disqualify the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” gold standard.
In order to toughen up on Iran, you first need to re-lay the foundation by setting the record straight on the Iraq intervention.
Pingback:Just call me Mr. Irreverent | If You're Left
Eric, Blix was on the UN child rape squad and maybe Oil for Food pay roll.
Oops, the payroll of child rape squads, although Hans might also have participated directly.
I had this very discussion with a progtard on a forum. Here’s an interesting bit:
“A prominent member of Adams’ cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, protested the language of article 11 before its ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800: “The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that ‘the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’ What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.”
A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805, superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.“[16][17]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Later_dissent
Sure, Fred, a prisoner forced to wear woman’s underwear on his head is exactly the moral equivalent of a prisoner’s head being sawed off with rusty knife. Got it!
And what the hell does who discovered America or Indian genocide have to do with what we are talking about?
P.S. Fred, “discover” doesn’t mean “found first.” It means “found first and did something about what he found so that the knowledge was usable.” The laws of gravity always existed; Newton discovered them because he was able to codify, do useful things with, and disseminate what he had found. Maybe a Chinese or Muslim did find America before Columbus — we know the Vikings did. But they packed up and left and never told anybody about what they had found, so it remained for Columbus to discover America.
Only imagine what “not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” meant in truth, and meant seriously, while not intended in any way to trample upon the cross, but rather, merely to state the plain fact of the matter. Christians’ pride (such as that of James McHenry) may seem to demand a falsehood which the writer and then the ratifiers of that earlier treaty were unwilling to commit, despite that they too were Christians, and a falsehood which those who took unnecessary offense and then drove the truth of that earlier statement away from the later treaty’s revised language were willing to commit. The lived political origins of the United States are certainly entangled in the religious pieties of the people then living, which the political discoveries leading to the actual political order of the United States were not in the same respect. Machiavelli was no divine nor was Thomas Hobbes: these revolutionary political thinkers both were critical contributors to the political order which emerged during the early Enlightenment as the modern natural right theory embraced by the founders and framers. (And they aren’t much mentioned today, Machiavelli and Hobbes — the latter of whom, by the way, carefully conceals his relation to the former. Especially let’s don’t mention Machiavelli, whose name had been linked by others with the devil himself: Ol’ Nick. Why? Perhaps because the Church doesn’t much like either Machiavelli or his collaborator Hobbes! They’re both opponents of the Church, opponents who see the institutional Church meddling in politics where it doesn’t belong; they’re both suspect of being critical of Christianity! So little wonder there.) Right? But by all means, let’s have the Pope tell us how to redistribute wealth in order to serve justice.
One may say from the Christian cosmological or ontological point of view that in one respect in particular the shear existence of the United States is dependent on the whole of creation created by the Christian deity. Which, fine — though we notice any other self-regarding religious believers may say as much about the relation of the whole world to their own plonked down cosmic creator: but for our god, none of these. But then just as much may be predicated by the Christian of the Communist government of China in the same respect as is predicated of the United States, i.e. that its mere existence is owing to the existence of everything created by the Christian god; or may be said of any government whatsoever at any time whatsoever, owing to the dependency of every being to the creation by the god of any and all beings in the whole — even said to the Muslim government with which the United States was engaged in negotiation in the late 18th and early 19th century, although on diplomatic grounds that wouldn’t be mentioned owing to the diplomat’s refusal to give overt and gratuitous insult — our god created you, so your god is either our god or your god is nothing but a phantasm derivatively created by our god.
I tried not to respond to those as I mentioned in my previous comments are naive and Blind & Deaf like R….S…
First, to clear my points with some historical facts.
The humankind history tell us there were many genocides and crimes done to humankind before 1400 ago and after, if you go reading my links without naivety or personal ignorance, you will find that Roman even Babylonian before them, followed by Persian destruction of Babylonian Empire , the atrocities of The Battle of Baghdad in 1258 when Mongol leader Hulagu Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan. captured, sacked Baghdad, and burned. Many historical accounts detailed the cruelties of the Mongol conquerors, or take recent history Hitler genocides and crimes, S could you consider all of those who done it due to religion attached?
Could we consider Hitler genocides and crimes putting the blame on Christianity faith?
Could we consider Indian genocide putting the blame on Christianity faith?
Could we consider Iraq war and the aftermath of human losses due to direct and indirect causes on GW Bush, putting the blame on Christianity faith?
So my point is 1400 years past, yes there is blood was shattered on the earth, why you thinks today ISIS represent Islam? just because they say so?
You need to do your homework and try to ask any nearby friend, neighbor from Islamic faith, you will find by yourselves the right answer.
Finlay let me guess right, R…S… one of those prison staff or interrogators in Abu Ghraib prison, one off those well trained and masters of humankind atrocities in name of Freedom?
RS, looks you thinking comes not from that part on the top of your body, your thinking comes from your As*.Got it!
Holy Bible Versus Holy Quran ‘Dit Is Normaal’ Experiment Casts Light On Prejudice
Fred, I don’t know why you think genocide is relevant to the question of what America’s founding fathers thought about Islam, but let’s go over your ridiculous statement.
1. What religion were the Mongols? Did they ever say they were fighting in the name of the Mongol religion? Hitler was anti-Christian, so were the genocides committed by the Nazis in the name of anti-Christianity? Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean the Nazi genocides were committed in the name of vegetarianism?
2. Hitler said his war and genocide was on behalf of the German Volk. Why should I not believe him? Stalin said his massacres were creating the “new Soviet man.” Why should I not believe him? ISIS says they’re acting in the name of Islam. Why should I not believe them?
3. I don’t have to ask my Muslim neighbor what the Quran says, I can read it for myself. Besides which, when President al-Sisi of Egypt goes to Al-Azhar University, the most important and prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning in the world and tells the scholars there that they have to reform Islam and eliminate extremism, Jihadism, and terrorism from Islam, I’ll take his word that those elements are present in Islam.
4. You still haven’t told me how making a prisoner at Abu Ghraib wear women’s underwear on his head, or bark like a dog, or be posed in sexual positions is the same as the rapes, beheadings, and crucifixions carried out by ISIS.
Taqiyya won’t work here. Try the truth.