[Vision2020] Tolerance for Islam in the Early American Republic

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Good Morning Visionaries:

Below are my remarks at the Islam Symposium yesterday.  I saw Kate Baldwin there, but I didn't have a chance to ask her why she did not write a story about Chaplain Yee's moving talk Friday night about his illegal imprisonment because of false charges.

I was also disappointed in the turn out at both events.  I saw very few faculty there and very few church people.  Even my own UUs did not turn out.

Nick Gier

TOLERANCE FOR ISLAM 
IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC

Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim congressman, received permission from the Library of Congress to use Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Qu’ran on which to take his personal oath of office. 
 
A Republican colleague from Virginia welcomed Ellison to House with a threat to deport him, assuming that his constituents had mistakenly elected a terrorist who had illegally entered the country.  The fact is that Ellison’s family has been in this country since 1742. 

Muslims have lived in America since the importation of slaves from West Africa.  Jefferson once defended the sacrifice of lambs, which most likely indicated that some of his slaves were Muslims celebrating the feast of Eid.

Jefferson’s copy of the Qu’ran, published in 1764, in was translated by George Sale.  In his commentary he condemns Muhammad as an “infidel” and “an imposter.”  After he got this off his chest, Sale offered Jefferson and other readers a fairly accurate description of the Islamic religion that does not support either of these charges.

•	First, Sale rejects the idea that Islam was spread primarily by the sword.  Indeed, he reminded Jews and Christians of their own violent histories. Sale also translated the passage from the Qu’ran that states that there is no compulsion in religion. 

•	Second, Sale praises Mohammad for “bringing pagan Arabs to the knowledge of the one true God,” a remarkable contrast to most Christians today who believe that Allah and Jehovah are completely separate deities.  We need only think of Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who told his Virginia congregation, in his army uniform, that his god was bigger than Allah.

James H. Hutson, chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, did a search of his documents and has offered the following instances of tolerance for Muslims in the early American Republic:

•	On June 7, 1776 the Continental Congress passed a resolution declaring that “true freedom embraces the Muslim and the Hindu as well as the Christian.”  

•	In1786 the Virginia legislature, by a large majority, voted against attempts to exclude Jews and Muslims from a bill protecting religious freedom.  

•	Hutson also cites a petition from citizens of Chesterfield County, Virginia, who were concerned about “not becoming our own enemies and weakening this infant state” by excluding Jews and Muslims.

This expression of tolerance is remarkable considering the fact that America’s first foreign enemies were Muslim terrorists, the Barbary pirates of the Mediterranean.  Fear mongers spread rumors that these pirates would invade America and sell their captives into slavery.

The earliest Muslim form of government was a federation of Muslims, Jews, and pagans that Mohammad brought together for “common defense and peacemaking,” much like the “common defense” and “domestic tranquility” that our own federal government is charged to provide.  

This Muslim Constitution is called the Charter of Medina of A.D. 626.  It provided for religious freedom and the “right not to be found guilty because of the deeds of an ally,” a decisive break from ancient laws that made the sins of others your own. In addition, the people of Medina were secure in their own homes, similar to our Fourth Amendment protections. 

Early Muslim government was based on elections, broad deliberation (including women) and consensus, the protection of minorities, and appeal to the wisdom of experience and learning. While the emphasis on reasoned deliberation has not been completely lost, the rule of force dramatically came into the play with the assassination of the third caliph in A.D. 656, and a switch to hereditary rule, which as been the norm in Muslim countries for centuries.

So, with regard to the question of whether Muslim countries can become democracies, the answer is definitely affirmative, as long as they recover the ideals of the Charter of Medina and the democratic principles embedded in the Qu’ran.  Indeed, Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia are well on their way in doing just that.