How Jefferson and other Founding Fathers defended Muslim rights | Hacker News Reader

How Jefferson and other Founding Fathers defended Muslim rights

washingtonpost.com

44 pointssamclemens38 comments

He also became the first U.S. president to deal with "Islamic terrorism":

> Jefferson and John Adams ... 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.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...

It wouldn't be out of place for someone from ISIS to say the exact same thing today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Cool factoid: "The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801."

Here is a quote from George Washington sent to a Jewish congregation in Newport, RI while he and Thomas Jefferson were promoting what is now the 1st amendment. Although Rhode Island had ratified that amendment, "Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia were still debating the amendments in August of 1790 when the President visited Newport."

"For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1]

[1] http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter

What if they support Sharia law in place of American law?

This is really a false argument. The way it works is this. In so far as Sharia law is compatible with county, state and federal laws, it can be practiced. In so far that is not, it cannot. It's that simple. Many small regions have their own local laws, e.g. suburbs, condos, Mormons, Amish, etc.

Ok. And portions of Sharia law are not compatible with country, state, and federal laws. There are people who believe that full Sharia law should apply to Muslims. And some who believe that full Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well. I would consider these stances to fall foul of "giving it on all occasions their effectual support".

Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage.

On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.

What -precisely- are you trying to say?

Stop for a few minutes and try to distill your argument to its essence, then take some time writing an explanation of that argument as clearly as you are able to.

This is amusing. Apparently people took umbrage at an earnest suggestion that a fellow stop for a few minutes to collect his thoughts and phrase his argument in a way that makes it maximally effective. :D

About the same as when Jewish people support Beth Din in place of American law - it's fine so long as American law is also respected.

(There are problems with religious legal systems of women not being able to get divorces; of abused women not getting help and support; and of abused children not getting help and support and the abusers not facing justice).

That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs. We condemn hateful, racist bigots all the time. Rightfully so. Just because said hate is derived from religion does not excuse it from condemnation.

> That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs.

I guess I missed the dance party. All I see is the statement:

"Any US citizen may maintain their own practices just so long as those practices are compatible with US law."

Seems pretty simple and clear to me.

This article highlights the enlightened, thoughtful, respectful discourse which at the basis of the creation of the great nation that is the United States. Things were by no means perfect then. But certainly we can learn from the words and actions of many outstanding characters of the time.

Things are never perfect. The best we can hope for is that people work hard and are good to each other. The founding fathers had their fair share of flaws just like any leader today, and yet they managed to turn a rebellion into something great.

The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity, instead of embracing the source of America's strength: our ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts (and genocical imperialism and slave labor helped too)

The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity

American identity is much more heterogeneous today than ever before, in no small part thanks to ecumenism.

Broadly, yes. But let's not mince words: the white and largely male-dominated subset of Americans see themselves as the vanguards of the true - and dying - standard of what it means to be American. Therefore, they would rather fight scorched-earth against alternative lifestyles and skin colors over the meaning of what makes up an American rather than work together to ensure national prosperity in a turbulent world order.

As long as they are white and christian, yes. This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965?

That is what they are referring to, right?

> This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965?

What?

The stereotype of Asian laborers working (and dying) to build the great Western railroads is grounded in a fair bit of truth. Moreover, San Francisco's Chinatown acquired the Asian residents that lead to its name long before 1965.

I stand corrected: they were just second class citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_imm...

It seems likely that there will always be at least one group of second-class citizens. The overall quality of life for humans appears to be increasing as the decades and centuries go by, but -frankly- I don't see our tendency to create outgroups going away for a very, very, very long time.

Not to be mean, but I'm having some difficulty understanding how your contributions to this subthread are related to the topic broached by rm_-rf_slash.

> instead of embracing the source of America's strength

I am trying to put this narrative into perspective.

Ah.

I expect that -if you make a close study of history-, you'll find that "[America's greatest strength is its ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts as] long as [those people] are white and [those people and ideas are] christian..." is a statement that isn't supported by the facts.

Xenophobia and racism was and is real, yes. But, -culturally and ideologically- the US has been and remains substantially less homogenous and substantially more willing to accept immigrants into its borders than many other countries.

In the US, Muslims have already got more rights than non-Muslims, for example Christian. When you criticize Islam/Muhammad you will be called islamophobe, bigot, racist. When you criticize Christianity/Jesus you will be called progressive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com