Muslims of America: 2010

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

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