David Yerushalmi: A Driving Force Behind Anti-Sharia Efforts in the U.S.

One of the driving forces behind Shari’a-related conspiracy theories and growing efforts to ban or restrict the use of Shari’a law in American courts is David Yerushalmi, an Arizona attorney with a record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.

In recent years, Yerushalmi has created a characterization of Shari’a law (i.e., Islamic law) that declares there are “hundreds of millions” of Muslims who are either “fully committed mujahideen” or “still dangerous but lesser committed jihad sympathizers” who, because of Shari’a law, would be willing to murder all non-believers unwilling to convert, in order to “impose a worldwide political hegemony.” Meanwhile, Yerushalmi asserts, the U.S. government itself has consciously chosen to turn a blind eye to this threat.

To combat this alleged threat, Yerushalmi has vigorously opposed all perceived “inroads” of Shari’a law in the United States, even entirely innocuous measures such as American financial institutions creating financing packages designed to be compatible with Islamic restrictions against loaning money at interest.

“American Laws for American Courts”

Yerushalmi’s latest weapon is model anti-Shari’a legislation he has titled “American Laws for American Courts,” developed for a group called the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The group claims that “one of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today” comes from “foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines,” including “Islamic Shari’ah law,” that have been “infiltrating our court system.”

Yerushalmi’s proposed legislation, which claims to “protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shari’ah Law,” has been the basis for anti-Shari’a measures introduced by state lawmakers in several states in recent years.

For example, a bill introduced by Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz in Florida to outlaw Shari’a (and other non-secular or foreign laws) in March 2011 is strikingly similar to Yerushalmi’s model legislation. Both Tennessee and Louisiana actually passed variations of Yerushalmi’s legislation in 2010.

On its Web site, the APPA cites 17 cases where it claims that Shari’a has been introduced in state courts; this is its evidence of “creeping” Shari’a law within the United States.

Yerushalmi has testified in support of the anti-Shari’a legislative efforts based on his proposal. For example, in a hearing before the Alaska House State Affairs Committee in March 2011, Yerushalmi claimed that “today, we are far more likely than ever before to have foreign laws in American courts…There are plenty of occasions in which foreign law informs what Alaskan law could be.”

Demonizing Islam

Yerushalmi has not only actively promoted his conspiratorial vision of Shari’a law, but has also sought to portray all Muslims as a threat. In one March 2006 article, for example, Yerushalmi even went so far as to claim that “Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization…The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies.”

That same year, Yerushalmi founded the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), a “think tank” that has published anti-Muslim, anti-immigration and anti-black materials, as well as New World Order-style conspiracy theories. In 2007, SANE, declaring itself “dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic [of the original founders of the US],” launched a campaign fueled by suspicion of all Muslims.

That campaign, “Mapping Shari’a in America: Knowing the Enemy,” sought to determine exactly what type of Shari’a every single mosque and Muslim religious institution in the U.S. was advocating. A June 2007 press release announcing the campaign indicated that SANE would work to “test the proposition that Shari’a amounts to a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government” by investigating and ranking the adherence to Islamic law of mosques and their associated day-schools throughout the U.S. The statement also promised to “advocate for the criminalization of Shari’a” if it felt its targeted investigation into mosques and Islamic day schools proved such a measure necessary.

SANE also proposed legislation that furthering or supporting adherence to Shari’a “shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison.” It called on Congress to declare war on the “Muslim nation,” which it defined as “Shari’a-adherent Muslims,” and further asked Congress to define Muslim illegal immigrants as alien enemies “subject to immediate deportation.”

Yerushalmi’s Allies and Associates

Since founding SANE, Yerushalmi, who received his law degree from Arizona State University College of Law, has been involved with several notable anti-Muslim groups and campaigns, often providing legal services for them:

■Yerushalmi works closely with Pamela Geller, head of the anti-Muslim Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). For example, in September 2010 Yerushalmi represented Geller and Florida attorney John Stemberger when Omar Tarazi, a Columbus, Ohio, attorney sued them for allegedly saying he had contacts with terrorists. Tarazi had represented the parents of Rifqa Bary, a Christian teenager who fled to Florida, saying she feared harm from her Muslim mother and father. In his lawsuit, Tarazi said Geller wrongly linked him to Hamas. Yerushalmi reportedly incorporated the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), the non-profit organization through which Geller and Robert Spencer publish their blogs. He also defended AFDI ads on New York City buses opposing a planned mosque near Ground Zero that juxtaposed an image of an airplane headed toward the burning World Trade Center with another building labeled “WTC Mega Mosque” and the words “Why There?” Yerushalmi and Geller were also involved in a bus ad campaign in Miami that read: “Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you?”
■Yerushalmi was the attorney for the Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition in New York City, which lobbied for the Bloomberg administration to shut down the Khalil Gibran International Academy, an Islamic school, and requested the firing of its founding principal, Debbie Almontaser.
■In December 2008, the Thomas More Law Center filed suit against the federal government, claiming the government’s loan to American International Group (AIG) was illegal because the insurance company had financial products that the group claimed promote Islam and are anti-Christian. Yerushalmi handled the case for the Center. In an article written around the same time, Yerushalmi even went so far as to suggest that U.S. companies that offer Shari’a-compliant finance measures might violate the Sedition Act.
■Yerushalmi is General Counsel to the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, founded by Frank J. Gaffney. Gaffney has been active in opposing mosque construction and has made several statements about Islam that raise concerns. For example, in a 2009 article in the Washington Times, Gaffney claimed that “there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.” In 2010, the Center for Security Policy published the book Shari’ah: The Threat To America, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team ‘B’ II, co-authored by Yerushalmi. The book repeated Yerushalmi’s theories about a vast Shari’a threat to America.
■Yerushalmi has for many years been associated with the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS), a right-wing think tank based in Israel and the United States, even serving as its chairman for five years, as well as writing a number of articles for it. IASPS now primarily supports the projects of SANE.

Other Hostile Views

Yerushalmi’s main instrument, SANE, is also openly hostile to undocumented migrants in the United States. It advocates somehow sealing all American borders and building “special criminal camps” to house undocumented migrants, where they would serve a three-year detention sentence, then be deported. SANE also argues that the “immigration debate” should take into account that America was “founded and made strong by immigrants from western European countries with Judeo-Christian roots.”

Yerushalmi has also claimed, as he wrote in a 2006 article, that the United States is in trouble because it “rejected its Christian roots, the Constitution and federalism,” and because it “embraced democracy” and multi-culturalism. This has rendered it “incapable” of “overcoming the World State ideology of the Liberal Elites.” These beliefs have caused Yerushalmi to defend people accused of anti-Semitism such as Mel Gibson and Pat Buchanan because they “have the potential to save the West from itself and from Islam.” Liberal Jews, on the other hand, according to Yerushalmi are “the leading proponents of all forms of anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Christian movements, campaigns, and ideologies,” and to argue otherwise one would have to be “literally divorced from reality.” Liberal Jews, according to Yerushalmi, have also destroyed “their host nations like a fatal parasite.”

Nor has Yerushalmi neglected the subject of race. Articles Yerushalmi has written for the SANE Web site argue that the “most of the fundamental differences between the races is genetic.” In a 2006 essay for SANE entitled, “On Race: A Tentative Discussion,” Yerushalmi claimed that “some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones.” He also contended that African-Americans are a “relatively murderous race killing itself.” For Yerushalmi it was obvious: “If evolution and the biologists who espouse the theory are correct, then the idea that racial differences included innate differences in character and intelligence would[,] it seem[,] be more likely than not.”

Source :http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/03/30/david-yerushalmi-a-driving-force-behind-anti-sharia-efforts-in-the-u-s/

Five Myth About Muslims in America

1. American Muslims are foreigners.

Islam was in America even before there was a United States. But Muslims didn’t peaceably emigrate — slave-traders brought them here.

Historians estimate that up to 30 percent of enslaved blacks were Muslims. West African prince Abdul Rahman, freed by President John Quincy Adams in 1828 after 40 years in captivity, was only one of many African Muslims kidnapped and sold into servitude in the New World. In early America, Muslim names could be found in reports of runaway slaves as well as among rosters of soldiers in the Revolutionary War. Muslims fought to preserve American independence in the War of 1812 and for the Union in the Civil War. And more than a century later, thousands of African Americans, including Cassius Clay and Malcolm Little, converted to Islam.

Currently, there are two Muslim members of Congress and thousands of Muslims on active duty in the armed forces. Sure, some Muslim soldiers may have been born elsewhere, but if you wear the uniform of the United States and are willing to die for this country, can you be really be considered a foreigner?

2. American Muslims are ethnically, culturally and politically monolithic.

In fact, the American Muslim community is the most diverse Muslim community in the world.

U.S. Muslims believe different things and honor their faith in different ways. When it comes to politics, a 2007 Pew study found that 63 percent of Muslim Americans “lean Democratic,” 11 percent “lean Republican” and 26 percent “lean independent.” Ethnically, despite the popular misperception, the majority of Muslims in the United States (and in the world, for that matter) are not Arabs — about 88 percent check a different box on their U.S. census form. At least one-quarter, for example, are African American. Anyone who thinks otherwise need look no further than the July 30, 2007, cover of Newsweek magazine, which featured a multicultural portrait of Islam in America.

Muslim Americans are also diverse in their sectarian affiliation. And whether they are Sunni or Shiite, their attendance at religious services varies. According to the State Department publication “Muslims in America — A Statistical Portrait,” Muslim Americans range from highly conservative to moderate to secular in their religious devotion, just like members of other faith communities.

With above-average median household incomes, they are also an indispensable part of the U.S. economy. Sixty-six percent of American Muslim households earn more than $50,000 per year — more than the average U.S. household.

3. American Muslims oppress women.

According to a 2009 study by Gallup, Muslim American women are not only more educated than Muslim women in Western Europe, but are also more educated than the average American. U.S. Muslim women report incomes closer to their male counterparts than American women of any other religion. They are at the helm of many key religious and civic organizations, such as the Arab-American Family Support Center, Azizah magazine, Karamah, Turning Point, the Islamic Networks Group and the American Society for Muslim Advancement.

Of course, challenges to gender justice remain worldwide. In the World Economic Forum’s 2009 Gender Gap Index, which ranks women’s participation in society, 18 of the 25 lowest-ranking countries have Muslim majorities. However, as documented by the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality , Muslim women are leading the struggle for change through their scholarship, civic engagement, education, advocacy and activism in the United States and across the world.

4. American Muslims often become “homegrown” terrorists.

According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, more non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist plots on U.S. soil in 2010. In a country in the grip of Islamophobia — where Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) can convene hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims — this has been overlooked. In 2010, the Triangle Center also found, the largest single source of initial information on planned terrorist attacks by Muslims in the United States was the Muslim American community.

As an American Muslim leader who worked with FBI agents on countering extremism right after Sept. 11, 2001, I fear that identifying Islam with terrorism threatens to erode American Muslims’ civil liberties and fuels the dangerous perception that the United States is at war with Islam. Policymakers must recognize that, more often than not, the terrorists the world should fear are motived by political and socioeconomic — not religious — concerns.

5. American Muslims want to bring sharia law to the United States.

In Islam, sharia is the divine ideal of justice and compassion, similar to the concept of natural law in the Western tradition. Though radicals exist on the fringes of Islam, as in every religion, most Muslim jurists agree on the principal objectives of sharia: the protection and promotion of life, religion, intellect, property, family and dignity. None of this includes turning the United States into a caliphate.

For centuries, most Islamic scholars around the world have agreed that Muslims must follow the laws of the land in which they live. This principle was established by the prophet Muhammad in A.D. 614-615, when he sent some of his followers to be protected by the Christian king of Abyssinia, where they co-existed peacefully. Not only do American Muslims have no scriptural, historical or political grounds to oppose the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is in line with the objectives and ideals of sharia. Muslims already practice sharia in the United States when they worship freely and follow U.S. laws.

In his 1776 publication “Thoughts on Government,” John Adams praised Muhammad as a “sober inquirer after truth.” And the Supreme Court building contains a likeness of the prophet, whose vision of justice is cited as an important precedent to the U.S. Constitution.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the founder of the Cordoba Initiative.

http://theheateddiscussions.blogspot.com/2011/04/five-myths-about-muslims-in-america.html

John Mohammed Butt: The hippie who became an imam

Forty years after following the hippie trail to South Asia, John Butt is still living in the region, and still spreading a message of peace and love - though now as an Islamic scholar.

As our car turned around the bumpy Indian road, a gleaming white marble minaret came into view. My fellow passenger, John Mohammed Butt, could barely contain his excitement.

"Can you see it?" he asks. "It's like the Oxford University of Islamic learning. For me these minarets and domes are just like the spires and towers of Oxford.
Darul-Uloom Deoband
John Butt is the only Westerner to have graduated from Darul-Uloom Deoband

"It's been almost 30 years since I was last here and I am still getting the same thrill. This is my alma mater."

The alma mater in question is Darul-Uloom Deoband, South Asia's largest madrassa, or Islamic school.

Driving through the madrassa gates, we entered a world rarely seen by Western eyes.

Deoband was built in 1866 by Indian Muslims opposed to the then British rule. Little has changed since - winding streets and tiny courtyards lined with stalls selling fragrant chai, bubbling pots of rice and paintings of Mecca.

Everywhere are the Talibs, religious students, young men with dark-eyed fervent expressions carrying books or quietly reciting the Koran.

Source

Yusha Evans - How i came to Islam

Knowledge of Islam in Early America

The text below represents excerpts from a longer article by Azizah al-Hibri entitled, "Islamic and American Constitutional Law: Borrowing Possibilities or a History of Borrowing?" Dr. Hibri is a law professor at the University of Richmond, Virginia, and president of Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. The excerpts provided here give important background on the longer history of how Americans have come to terms with Islam. In the past, as now, there appears to have been a significant disconnect between popular prejudice and the more nuanced understandings of the educated elite.

Hibri's insightful discussion of Thomas Jefferson's knowledge of Islam might be further contextualized by the Unitarian tendencies of most of the "Founding Fathers." Indeed, a prominent minister in New York remarked in 1831, "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The influential second First Lady Abigail Adams wrote to her son, John Quincy Adams in 1816: "I acknowledge myself a Unitarian -- Believing that the Father alone is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ derived his Being, and all his powers and honors from the Father." She continued, "There is not any reasoning which can convince me, contrary to my senses, that three is one, and one three." John Adams himself reportedly considered the notion of the divinity of Jesus an "awful blasphemy." During his term in office, Adams signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, article XI of which reads:

As 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 [Muslims], - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muhammadan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

For more information on the Unitarian tendencies of the Founding Fathers, and for the sources for the above citations, see the articles, "President Adams and the Religious Right" at www.humanismbyjoe.com/Adams_Family_Religion.htm, and "The Religious Affiliation of the Second U.S. President, John Adams" at www.adherents.com.

To view Professor Hibri's full article, see www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw. The following excepts have been divided in two sections, the first describing popular conception of Islam in early America and the second discussing the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson. The subtitles used here are our own creation.

***

I. The Foil of Alleged Islamic Despotism for American Democracy
Islam is often viewed as an "Eastern" or "Oriental" religion, which is in its very essence incompatible with democracy and disrespectful of human rights.1 Its recent visibility in the United States and Europe has not ameliorated this view in any significant way. American Muslim immigrants, for example, are viewed even today as alien to our system of democracy and human rights, and hence somewhat suspect.2 This suspicion is deeply-rooted and has been manifest as early as the eighteenth century.3 During that period, several American novels featured either fictional Muslim spies in America or oppressed Muslim women confined to the seraglio.4

Many eighteenth century authors, from Voltaire to Prideaux and Volney, wrote important works about Islam that were eagerly read in the United States.5 Unfortunately, some authors were not quite concerned about historical accuracy.6 Furthermore, those individuals who contemplated religious views somewhat different from those of the mainstream were branded as "infidels."7 Various books about Islam that appeared in the eighteenth century created an atmosphere of disdain, hostility and distrust of Muslims. Among these books was one entitled The Nature of the Imposture, Fully Displayed in the Life of Mahomet.8 The message of the book was that the combined use of false religion and military power could subdue people.9 Both the book and the message were used by Mathew Lyon, a staunch critic of the Federalists, to attack President Adams.10

Another book, entitled Cato's Letters, an English work which became highly influential in this country, pronounced the Prophet Muhammad a great imposter who deceived and destroyed his people with their own consent.11 In support of their view, the authors cited the Turkish empire and other Muslim states which they claimed forbade printing and thus restricted free speech.12 Other authors corroborated these views directly or indirectly.13 Even Volney, who was a great admirer of old civilizations, noted the state of apathy and indolence that had permeated many Muslim countries.14

Volney and many other writers were concerned about the reasons that contributed to the decline of Islamic civilization. They wanted later civilizations, especially the nascent American society, to avoid a similar fate. Their conclusions varied. Some blamed what they perceived to be the Islamic attitude of fatalism.15 Others blamed what they believed to be the discouragement of free thinking within Islamic civilizations.16 There was, however, general agreement that tyranny, fostered by religion, coupled with the acceptance by the Muslim people of such tyranny, were at the heart of the problem.17 Subsequent discussion centered on how the American system of governance could avoid such a fate.18

Nevertheless, Islamic constitutional precedents played a part in the constitutional debates in the United States.19 For example, Alexander Hamilton argued for giving the federal government the right to impose taxes by referring to the example of the Ottoman empire. He noted that the sovereign of that empire had no right to impose a new tax.20 As a consequence, the Ottoman sovereign permitted the governors of the provinces to impose these taxes, and then squeezed out of the governors the sums he required for his and the state's expenses.21 Hamilton concluded, "[w]ho can doubt that the happiness of the people in both countries would be promoted by competent authorities in the proper hands . . . ?"22

In the debates of 1787, Anti-Federalists, using what they judged to be the example of the despotic Turkish government, argued against a strong central government, and demanded guarantees of individual liberties and religious freedom.23 In particular, Daniel Webster, Patrick Henry and Patrick Dollard spoke of the evils of Turkish despotism.24 Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, saw deeper into the Turkish example, recognizing a complex power structure. He argued that, from one perspective, the Turkish sultan was in fact weak and had limited powers.25 Hamilton then concluded that a strong central government would protect people from oppressive local governments.26

Western commentators on Islam, as external observers, viewed Muslim regimes as embodiments of Islamic principles,27 although, as a later section of this paper will show, nothing could have been further from the truth. This Western misperception of Muslim regimes made it more difficult for most Western authors to understand or present Islam as it was truly revealed in the Qur'an.28 This problem has persisted in various degrees in this country for the last couple of centuries.

While Islam and Muslim countries were understood by the American population from the point of view of the "Other," some Founding Fathers made serious efforts to educate themselves about Islam and its civilizations. Despite these efforts, the Founding Fathers' attempts to avoid what they saw as the underlying reasons for the failure of democracy in Muslim countries were ultimately misdirected: Their misunderstanding of Muslim civilizations was based on inaccurate or incomplete information, which produced unreliable analysis.

II. Early Sympathies to Islam among the Founding Fathers

Many of the Founding Fathers were not as uninformed about Islam as are the rest of us, even today. Indeed, some made a special effort to read about Islam and related ancient civilizations.29 Thomas Jefferson's library contained at least one copy of the Qur'an and was rich with books about ancient civilizations, including Islamic ones.30 Jefferson appeared to consider his knowledge of these matters important for the development of the American model of political governance. In that approach, he was not alone.

Madison, for example, read about ancient confederacies before formulating his own proposal for a federal system in the United States.31 The resulting system, however, was decidedly American. It is, therefore, not surprising that T. J. Barlow reported to Jefferson from Paris that the "federality" of our system of government "is not at all understood in Europe even in theory. The best writers dont [sic] know what we mean by it."32

It is sometimes easy to forget how exciting the period was in which our Founding Fathers lived. It was a period in which they felt that they could design a system of governance from which the rest of the world would benefit.33 They took that responsibility seriously. So, while the general public was referring to Prophet Muhammad as an "infidel" and an "imposter," Jefferson was reading and corresponding with Volney, the author of controversial books on ancient Middle Eastern civilizations.34 Jefferson even quietly translated parts of Volney's controversial book entitled The Ruins, which discusses Islamic civilizations, among others. Jefferson asked Volney to keep this fact confidential, a testimony to the political pressures of the time.35

The Founding Fathers were interested in any precedent, regardless of geography, which could illuminate their work. Patrick Henry, for example, asked the Virginia ratifying convention, "Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey and other countries which groan under tyranny? They have been enslaved by the hands of their own people."36 It was important for the Founding Fathers to lay down the foundation of a system of government which would not breed apathy or result in tyranny. To this end, the example set by the Muslim states was important, given the stature and long history of the Islamic civilization.

Not all that the Founding Fathers read about Islam was negative. Despite popular opinion, some concluded that they needed to have a better understanding of Islam in order to reach a correct analysis. For this reason, Jefferson and others read many books that the public found highly controversial. The first volume of Sale's Koran,37 owned by Jefferson, consisted of the author's exposition and personal assessment of the Prophet Mohammad and the religion he professed.38 In a gesture reflecting public opinion, Sale refers to the Prophet as an "infidel" and an "imposter."39 The thrust of his discussion, however, is to provide a fair assessment of an individual and a religion which was grossly misunderstood in this country. In an introductory statement to the reader, Sale states:

I shall not here inquire into the reasons why the law of Mohammed has met with so unexampled a reception in the world, (for they are greatly deceived who imagine it to have been propagated by the sword alone) or by what means it came to be embraced by nations which never felt the force of Mohammedan arms, and even by those which stripped the Arabians of their conquests, and put an end to the sovereignty and very being of their Khalifs.40

A few pages later Sale adds:

"For how criminal soever Mohammed may have been in imposing a false religion on mankind, the praises due to his real virtues ought not to be denied him."41 Sale concludes that the Prophet's "original design of bringing pagan Arabs to the knowledge of the true God was certainly noble and highly to be commended."42


Sale embarks on a long admiring description of the Prophet's personality and moral character, followed by long detailed chapters on Islamic history, theology, and law.43 In the course of his discussion, he disposes of many of the negative myths about Islam.44 He also compares Islamic law and Islam's historical track record with that of Christianity and Judaism, pointing out that Islam has done no worse than the other two religions.45

Two points made in this manuscript are particularly salient in light of Jefferson's writings. First, Sale points out that Prophet Muhammad rejected the concept of the Trinity and the divinity of the Virgin Mary.46 Jefferson had taken a similar position in his correspondence with William Short.47 Second, Sale states that the Prophet declared that his "business was only to preach and admonish, that he had no authority to compel any person to embrace his religion."48 This point is reiterated by the Qur'an itself, which is translated in the second volume of Sale's Koran.49 Again, Jefferson expressed a similar point of view in his writings about freedom of belief.50

Another author who wrote on such matters was Joseph Priestly.51 Both Jefferson and Adams were not only familiar with Priestly's writings, but may have even encouraged him to write about ancient doctrines.52 In fact, Jefferson ordered a copy of Priestly's book, The Doctrines of Heathen Philosophy Compared With Those of Revelation, for John Adams.53 Both Jefferson and Adams thought, however, that Priestly did not do justice to the topic.54 This critique indicates a certain level of sophistication in the knowledge of the two Founding Fathers of ancient doctrines, a level we are still struggling to acquire in this country today.

Interestingly, in an earlier book, Priestly addressed the doctrine of the unity of God. He argued that the great advantage "Mohammedanism had over the corrupt [C]hristianity" of that time was that it "asserted the great doctrine of the unity of God, against the Trinitarians."55 It therefore appears that, despite the fact that some individuals were quick to brand as "infidels" those who had somewhat different ideas about Christianity, some of the Founding Fathers did not relent in pursuing sources of information on the subject, and speaking out, despite the political fallout.56 This experience no doubt hardened Jefferson's resolve to guarantee freedom of religion for all.

In fact, Jefferson argued that society should be tolerant of the religious practices of others so long as they do not harm the public good.57 He gives the example of killing calves or lambs.58 This appears to be a reference to the Islamic annual custom in which a lamb is sacrificed to celebrate the event where Abraham's son was spared by God and a lamb was sacrificed in his stead.59 If Jefferson was in fact making this reference, then it is possible that Jefferson was thinking of slave practices, since most Muslims in the American colonies at that time were slaves who were brought forcefully from Africa.60 This raises a further question of the extent of contacts between Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, and their slaves, and how many of those were Muslim.

The question of whether the Founding Fathers had meaningful contact with Muslim slaves is not one of idle speculation, since it is established that many of the Muslim slaves were literate and hence assigned to house duties.61 Labor assignments in the house, as opposed to those in the field, would have allowed Muslim slaves to have increased contact with their "masters." Initial inquiry into relationships between colonial masters and slaves has already yielded information that Jefferson, in particular, had extensive contacts with two slaves: Jupiter and Sally Hemmings.62 We do not yet have adequate information as to their religious beliefs or the beliefs of other slaves in the Jefferson household.

Given this historical backdrop, we turn now to the task of presenting a more accurate and genuine understanding of Islam, its basic constitutional principles, and the dynamics of Muslim societies. This task is within reach because contemporary America is very different from, and significantly more free and diverse than, the America of the Founding Fathers. After all, in those early days, most Muslims in America were slaves. As such, they were denied the right to speak freely.63 By introducing Islam from the perspective of an "internal observer,"64 it is finally possible to present Islam accurately and, thus, to properly refute the claim that Islam is inherently anti-democratic and disrespectful of human rights.

Source

The deen show - Revert to Islam James

Tolerance in the Qur’an

Forgive and show indulgence to them!
(Qur’an, 2:109)
Among various prolific misconceptions concerning the religion of Islam, one cannot miss the oft-quoted “Kill them wherever you find them,” characterization of religious intolerance in the Qur’an. This bloodthirsty depiction of Islam is far, far from the truth. Yet, with so much media attention shone on “Muslim terrorists”, contradictory Islamic ideals of religious tolerance might be difficult for Western audiences to believe.
The best solution is to read the Qur’an. Verses granting permission to fight in war, when attacked, can then be read in context. Ideological mud slinging on the internet is rife with quotes like, “Kill them wherever you find them.” If that is the first phrase you read from the Qur’an, of course it sounds like a horrible, unholy book. Yet its beginning is this:“In the name of God, The Beneficent, The Merciful” (1:1).
In the following sections, I will attempt to express the Qur’anic attitude toward religious tolerance. To dispel myths surrounding “kill them wherever you find them”, I first address religious tolerance under conditions of war. Then, what is hopefully the usual state of affairs, part 2 presents a few points from the Qur’an promoting religious tolerance during periods of peace.
Part 1: Conditions of War
“Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”
(Qur’an, 2:190)
Contrary to popular misconception, the Qur’anic verse stating, “Kill them wherever you encounter them” (2:191) does not categorically permit (let alone promote!) killing of Non-Muslims. Rather, this verse was revealed in relation to a specific stage of persecutory war against Muslims in the history of Islam; and its ordinance is obviously confined to warfare. The fourteen-hundred-year heritage of Islamic rule in Arabia and beyond testifies to religious tolerance exhorted by the Qur’an.
And why—if there is any explanation other than deliberate mischaracterization and slander—why can’t critics who use this verse read other general decrees that place strict limits on warfare? For instance, the verse just before it, which says, “But begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors” (2:190). Or the verses just after it, stating, “But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful” (2:192).
Scenarios under which taking a life is permissible according to the Qur’an are extremely limited. The Qur’an permits between-group killing, or “collateral damage”, during warfare in hand-to-hand combat with male, combatant enemy soldiers. In domestic affairs, Islamic law permits execution by judicial sentence in cases of premeditated manslaughter [1]; a tooth for a tooth whether Muslim or Non-Muslim.
In Islam, it is never permissible to attack or kill non-combatant enemy citizens, children, elderly, or women. Non-Muslims not waging war against Muslims possess Islamic state’s protection of their right to life, according to the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an enjoins forgiveness, indulgence, tolerance, and kindness toward Non-Muslims.

Part 2: Conditions of Peace

“Help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty.”

(Qur’an, 5:2)


Quranic Lessons for you: Tolerance in the Qur’an