Dean has just linked a review about a book that explores a number of things, one of which I wanted to talk a little bit more about: Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Wars.
I wanted to talk about this because a lot is being made of Congressman Keith Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s copy of the Koran for his swearing into office. However, what isn’t being talked about is why Jefferson had a copy in the first place. To hear Ellison and his handlers tell it Jefferson had one because he was exceptionally open to all religions. As Ellison said to the FreePress (as reported by WND)
…the fact that Jefferson owned the book confirmed that it was "definitely an important historical document in our national history" and he said it "demonstrates that Jefferson was a broad visionary thinker who not only possessed a Quran, but read it."
"It would have been something that contributed to his own thinking," Ellison was quoted as saying.
Additionally:
In an interview with USINFO, Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert went further, saying the choice of Jefferson's Quran was significant because it "dates religious tolerance back to the time of our founding fathers."
"Jefferson was ... one of the more profound thinkers of the time, who recognized even then that there was nothing to fear, and in fact there was strength in recognizing religious tolerance," he said.
I find that very interesting because, well, the facts of history simply do not support it. Jefferson had a copy of the Koran not because he was religiously tolerant but rather, as any good strategist would tell you, to know your enemy is to know their culture.
Prior to the Revolutionary War all American ships flew under the banner of the British Empire. As such they were under the protection of an uneasy alliance between England and the pirating states of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. While the Revolutionary War was waging American ships came under the same protection of the French alliance with the same state. However, by 1783, at the end of the war such protections ended and American ships were openly preyed upon. Eventually Congress, against the protests of Jefferson, agreed to pay the Dey of Algiers tribute and over the next 15 years paid up to 1 million dollars a year.
Ted Sampley, the publisher of U.S. Veteran Dispatch, agreed with Ellison, who used the Library of Congress Quran that Jefferson once owned for his ceremonial swearing-in to Congress, that Jefferson used the Quran for his own thinking, but not with the same result.
"There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be 'gleaned' from the Muslim Quran," Sampley writes. "At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli."
In 1786,
…when Jefferson was ambassador to France, and Adams was ambassador to Britain, they met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from the "Dey of Algiers."
Seeking a peace treaty, based on Congress' vote to pay tribute, the two Americans asked Dey's ambassador why Muslims had so much hostility towards America. They later reported to Congress the ambassador told them Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, 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 (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Additionally,
Gary DeMar, president of AmericanVision.org, added his endorsement of Sampley's interpretation of history.
DeMar cites Joseph Wheelan's book, "Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror," in noting Jefferson said, "Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!"
"So what did Jefferson learn from the Quran? …Unless a nation submitted to Islam, whether it was the aggressor or not, that nation was by definition at war with Islam. It's no wonder that Jefferson studied the Quran. He realized that if Americans ever capitulated, the Muslims would be singing 'From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of A-mer-i-ca,'" DeMar concluded.
For Ellison and his people to suggest that Jefferson studied to Koran for his own personal edification ignores the context which necessitated him seeking out one in the first place. Jefferson read the Koran not because he felt he could draw enlightenment from it but because the enemies of the United States of America felt they did.
Now, the worthwhileness (is that even a word?) of the WND article ends with the last paragraph I quote. In fact that the article continues on as it does, I feel, undercuts the impact of the preceding portion of historical record. Do I have a problem with Ellison’s supporters cheering “Allahu Akbar!” No, not at all. So what if terrorists shout it as well? I don’t care. So-called Christians incite the name of God to do horrible things. Does that mean to incite God’s name at all, for any reason, aligns you with them? Absolutely not. It is stupid for WND to even bring it up.
I felt I needed to say that because what I wanted to talk about was history and Congressman Ellison’s twisting of it to present to the public a version of Jefferson that simply never existed. That is what should be talked about. Anything more than that simply distracts from the point.
