What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Nope otherwise we would not have elected bush and be in iraq.

everyone is free to believe as they wish, actions now are an entirely different matter.
Again, you make fun of them for their beliefs, say that the world is worse off because they have them, then tell me that you don't think they should follow yours? This is a rather dichromatic argument here. Either you think the world would be better without their belief system or you don't.
 
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. 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.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that 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."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm

Southern Man is a masonic noahide QUabalist New Age Zombie-head.
 
Again, you make fun of them for their beliefs, say that the world is worse off because they have them, then tell me that you don't think they should follow yours? This is a rather dichromatic argument here. Either you think the world would be better without their belief system or you don't.


Now how could they follow my belief system when I have none ???
I am not even a buddist like some people. I have no religious beliefs at all.
Why are you confused on this ?
Or are you just being oblique ?
 
Now how could they follow my belief system when I have none ???
I am not even a buddist like some people. I have no religious beliefs at all.
Why are you confused on this ?
Or are you just being oblique ?
I am being direct. The world is either better without their beliefs (therefore they all believe as you do) or it isn't. You are trying to have it both ways. First you say they are stupid because of their beliefs and say that the world is worse off because fo them (promoting your own beliefs) then say that you don't think the world would be better off without their beliefs?


You are using logical fallacy to a penultimate level, one that hasn't yet been reached on this board by other than Watermark having fun.
 
Now how could they follow my belief system when I have none ???
I am not even a buddist like some people. I have no religious beliefs at all.
Why are you confused on this ?
Or are you just being oblique ?


But you have notions of what you think is the best way to live, even if you don't call them religion.
 
But you have notions of what you think is the best way to live, even if you don't call them religion.

Yep but I am not threatening people if they do not follow my way of life.
This has turned into something like the absence of religion being a religion ?

Can I be tax exempt too ?
 
Yep but I am not threatening people if they do not follow my way of life.
This has turned into something like the absence of religion being a religion ?

Can I be tax exempt too ?
It is a belief. I have been careful to say beliefs. Pretending that believing one way isn't a belief is just pretense. You mock them for their religion, you call them foolish, you say the world will be better off without their beliefs then you attempt to say you didn't promote your own beliefs over theirs? Rubbish, you are practically handing out tracts.
 
It is a belief. I have been careful to say beliefs. Pretending that believing one way isn't a belief is just pretense. You mock them for their religion, you call them foolish, you say the world will be better off without their beliefs then you attempt to say you didn't promote your own beliefs over theirs? Rubbish, you are practically handing out tracts.

Bull Hockey. I have no religious beliefs at all.
 
Bull Hockey. I have no religious beliefs at all.
Who said "religious"? You mock them for believing in a religion, this promotes your belief that it is worthless.

Are you taking reading comprehension lessons from CK? Seriously, if you respect other's beliefs then stop mocking them and then pretending you respect their belief. You made it clear how you feel of their beliefs and how "stupit" you thought they were for believing them. How "stupit" it was that "we as people, not as 'mericans" needed to dump those beliefs for yours.

To say one thing, then attempt so say you didn't is dichotomy and fallacious.

Which is it, uscit? Do you respect their beliefs or do you think they are "stupit"? (also read: "wrong", also read: "not like me").
 
Ohh so my beliefs are limited to religious beliefs or lack thereof ?

I just think that many people are degrading the only sure thing we have (this life) with religious beliefs.
 
Ohh so my beliefs are limited to religious beliefs or lack thereof ?

I just think that many people are degrading the only sure thing we have (this life) with religious beliefs.
Right, "degrading"... Okay.

You have stated that they are stupid for believing that way, thus showing you think that only smart people (like you) do not believe. Thus all intelligent people would believe as you do, that there is no such thing as God. Yet you pretend that it isn't promoting that value set when you say it.

I think devaluing people's religions is a mistake. While they do not believe as I do, it certainly doesn't make them stupid.
 
Right, "degrading"... Okay.

You have stated that they are stupid for believing that way, thus showing you think that only smart people (like you) do not believe. Thus all intelligent people would believe as you do, that there is no such thing as God. Yet you pretend that it isn't promoting that value set when you say it.

I think devaluing people's religions is a mistake. While they do not believe as I do, it certainly doesn't make them stupid.

No it does not make them stupid, But I do lash out at them when they intrerfere with my life.

I just ridicule them, and do not try and run their lives.
 
LMAO...........

Sure there would, but they'd all be old bats that BattleBorne would be hitting on. You and me? Not so much.



This from the 'Little Kahuna' who claims he has not been laid in over two years! Hey even mature ladies need love...listen and learn...or stay in your dry spell on the Big Island being just shark bait................
:cof1:
 
ok to play your game Damo, what is the definition of stupit ?
Misspelling a word does not change it's meaning. Your meaning was clear, I questioned you on the meaning, then tried to get you to stand firm on one side or the other. I have never seen anybody who wanted so much to eat the cake that they wanted to keep.
 
Misspelling a word does not change it's meaning. Your meaning was clear, I questioned you on the meaning, then tried to get you to stand firm on one side or the other. I have never seen anybody who wanted so much to eat the cake that they wanted to keep.

Umm mispelling is toppers game, I spelled a word intentionally that does not exist. I checked wikipedia on it :)

"I have never seen anybody who wanted so much to eat the cake that they wanted to keep."

I guess you have not looked in a mirror lately ?

True dat Damo you are most like me in that respect on this bosrd.
 
Back
Top