A rational look at America's first foreign engagement with Islam

[Type Username Here]

Wanted your opinions about the following. Jefferson wrote this:

“We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us 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.

{Letter from the commissioners, John Adams & Thomas Jefferson, to John Jay, 28 March 1786}”

Adams wrote the following:

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 .

Granted, Adams and Jefferson were at the time at the helm of a new nation, and dealing with Barbary Pirates so I'm sure they we're not the most objective of people (even if Jefferson spent time translating the Qur'an into English, the first in America I think). I'm sure they were salty.

What I'm curious is that they lay a lot of the same criticism we hear today, and report hearing things from a Muslim that someone from ISIS or other extremist groups might say today. Of course, these writings predate American intervention in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia (as we know it today), Israel (as we know it today) and so on.

Are we ignoring this when we simply just lay it down at the feet of America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the wars in the Middle East? I'm not saying those things didn't play a major role, they surely did, but is it really the reason the ideology itself exists? Or has it always existed in some form.

Your thoughts please.

Napoleon, please stay out of this thread.

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

what does it say in the qur'an and siraah?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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.​

From the GOAT Hitchens:

What Jefferson really thought about Islam.

 

[Type Username Here]

what does it say in the qur'an and siraah?

It says a lot of things.

005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

009.038
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.

061.004
YUSUFALI: Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Book 001, Number 0030:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.

I can keep going if you wish

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

Of course, these writings predate American intervention in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia (as we know it today), Israel (as we know it today) and so on.

Ignore history. Only the West is responsible for bad things.

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

Ignore history. Only the West is responsible for bad things.

oh shut up Raj.

 

[blackzeus]

Wanted your opinions about the following. Jefferson wrote this:



Adams wrote the following:


Granted, Adams and Jefferson were at the time at the helm of a new nation, and dealing with Barbary Pirates so I'm sure they we're not the most objective of people (even if Jefferson spent time translating the Qur'an into English, the first in America I think). I'm sure they were salty.

What I'm curious is that they lay a lot of the same criticism we hear today, and report hearing things from a Muslim that someone from ISIS or other extremist groups might say today. Of course, these writings predate American intervention in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia (as we know it today), Israel (as we know it today) and so on.

Are we ignoring this when we simply just lay it down at the feet of America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the wars in the Middle East? I'm not saying those things didn't play a major role, they surely did, but is it really the reason the ideology itself exists? Or has it always existed in some form.

Your thoughts please.

Napoleon, please stay out of this thread.

Islam as a CONCEPT is f*cked up. Not in like people misconstruing it's principles. Like it's literally f*cked up. Jesus came to STOP all the bullsh*t happening in the Old Testament. STOP the eye for an eye that STILL exists in Islam. Islam is like gangrene festering in your extremities in it's nascent form. You either treat it early, or wait until it's too late and have to chop it's arm off. With that said, the West is at fault here too. Palestine, Syria, Iran, Iraq were for the most part peaceful places until Western interference came to play. In the hood it's drugs and guns, in the Middle East it's oil and guns. There's no big money in peace. Big money is in instability, in war. So while Islam has a part to play in the cultural norms in the Middle East, you can't put the blame squarely on Islam for all the recent events occuring in the world

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

One of the main issue is the vagueness and contradiction of the message (depending on the period/context).

For example, there's a distinct difference between Islam pre and post hijra (the migration to Medinah). Pre-hijra was mostly about calling people to Islam and aligning with jews/christians as the righteous successor of those religions, post-hijra contains more calls for jihad and righteous confrontation and rejection of jews & christians as they didn't accept Islam.

It's also vague.. The 1st verse you mentioned @Type Username Here follows God's order to the children of Israel to not kill unless in case of someone killing another one and causing mischief in the land. So does the verse mentioned targets muslims or the Israelites? What's msichief in the land (technically it could even be the rejection of Islam)? Is it still valuable in our era or just during Islam's early days (it mentions those who opposes the prophet(s))...etc

 

[JahFocus CS]

Islam is expansionist just as Christianity has been throughout history. Both are proselytizing religions that have converted by the sword.

ISIS has no 16th-century analogue, for example, though. This type of Wahhabist jihadism is a distinctly modern phenomenon.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

One of the main issue is the vagueness and contradiction of the message (depending on the period/context).

For example, there's a distinct difference between Islam pre and post hijra (the migration to Medinah). Pre-hijra was mostly about calling people to Islam and aligning with jews/christians as the righteous successor of those religions, post-hijra contains more calls for jihad and righteous confrontation and rejection of jews & christians as they didn't accept Islam.

It's also vague.. The 1st verse you mentioned @Type Username Here follows God's order to the children of Israel to not kill unless in case of someone killing another one and causing mischief in the land. So does the verse mentioned targets muslims or the Israelites? What's msichief in the land (technically it could even be the rejection of Islam)? Is it still valuable in our era or just during Islam's early days (it mentions those who opposes the prophet(s))...etc

why do you go through such lengths to interpret it? The fact that we have to do this in the first place is NOT a boon to your argument.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Islam is expansionist just as Christianity has been throughout history. Both are proselytizing religions that have converted by the sword.

ISIS has no 16th-century analogue, for example, though. This type of Wahhabist jihadism is a distinctly modern phenomenon.

So Sayyid Qutb just made it all up, huh?

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

why do you go through such lengths to interpret it? The fact that we have to do this in the first place is NOT a boon to your argument.

Because we're trying to have some kind of serious and rational debate in here. Posts like "Islam is purely the most evil of evils" or "Islam is perfect and ISIS has no relation to it" are simply pointless.

Plus, in islam, there's something called Asbab An-nuzul (in arabic but roughly translate to 'the causes of revelation') and are important to have some kind of context as to why certain verses exist and certain actions were made.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Because we're trying to have some kind of serious and rational debate in here. Posts like "Islam is purely the most evil of evils" or "Islam is perfect and ISIS has no relation to it" are simply pointless.

Plus, in islam, there's something called Asbab An-nuzul (in arabic but roughly translate to 'the causes of revelation') and are important to have some kind of context as to why certain verses exist and certain actions were made.

yet if I mention taqiyya, ya'll say thats out of context too

 

[JahFocus CS]

The WOAT just can't help himself, holy shyt.

 

[tstone]

“We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

Did the native Americans and Africans slaves in the United States know about this? Why do blacks give a fukk about the opinions of the founding fathers of the United States and trust there statements.