Stop calling it Thomas Jefferson's Koran

In the news: "Newly elected Detroit congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, is going to use Thomas Jefferson's Koran for her swearing-in ceremony."

Let’s get the facts straight.

Fact: It is not Jefferson’s Koran. It is Mohammed’s Koran.

Fact: Jefferson owned a Koran to understand and defeat the Islamic Barbary Pirates. How many members of Congress have read the Koran & Sunna from cover to cover or have any idea what is written on these pages?

Fact: We have evidence of our forefathers' reference to the Koran: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, March 28, 1786

Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran in which over 20% written in Medina is about violent jihad.

Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that has 17% of its text from Mohammed's time in Medina devoted to Jew hatred.

Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that says that Muslims are superior to all and the non-Muslim (Kafir) is lower than animals. It also says a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir.

Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that says wives can be beaten.

Fact: Ms Tlaib is disingenuous when she says ““I believe in secular government...“ According to Islamic doctrine, a Muslim must be governed by the Allah-inspired Sharia, because Kafir (man-made) secular laws are not worth following. So either she is not a good Muslim or she is using taqiyya, sacred deception, to advance Islam.

Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a book that declares our U.S. Constitution is NOT the highest law of the land.

In short, Rashida Tlaib, by swearing her oath on a Koran, commits an act of sedition.

 

I'm a bit confused over the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that the Quran in the ceremony is not the one Jefferson owned? Or are you saying that Jefferson owning a Quran is not reason to call that Quran "Jefferson's"?

 

If Jefferson owned a Koran then that Koran is Jefferson's.

The Congressperson was sworn in using Jefferson's Koran.

 

See spot run.

 

I agree, it was Jefferson's.
However that probably is not the point of the article.

To add some tidbits though
People say Jefferson knew about Islam because he had his Qur'an.
Actually he did not, His was the first English translation, and he had no way to know the proper way to read it.
He also had no Sunnah.

 

Glad we got that settled.

 

At Monticello, I do not recall the docent speaking of any Koran. He did mention that Jefferson's library is the founding books of the Library of congress, I believe he said. The remaining books at Monticello are not all that many. Those of you in VA owe yourself a visit to Monticello.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefflib.html

"By 1814 when the British burned the nation's Capitol and the Library of Congress, Jefferson had acquired the largest personal collection of books in the United States. Jefferson offered to sell his library to Congress as a replacement for the collection destroyed by the British during the War of 1812. Congress purchased Jefferson's library for $23,950 in 1815. A second fire on Christmas Eve of 1851, destroyed nearly two thirds of the 6,487 volumes Congress had purchased from Jefferson."

 

That depends on how hard headed you are.
It is not Jefferson's Qur'an anymore.
It belongs to the government

 

OK so we don't have it settled.

 

Then why did you make that the title of the thread? Or have I still misunderstood what argument you're trying to make?

 

The genitive is the case (or function) of an inflected form of a noun or pronounshowing ownership, measurement, association, or source.
(https://www.thoughtco.com/genitive-grammatical-case-1690887)

Genitive doesn't have to mean current ownership. I mean, I don't own my mother, but I don't see that that means I couldn't say that she's *my* mother.

 

You probably misunderstood it.

 

Are you implying it is George Sale's Qur'an.

Regardless, that is not the important part of the article, but rather the content of the book she uses, and the anti American aspects of it.
Personally, I don't think any religious book should be used.
She is elected to serve the people, not her favorite "sky daddy".

 

But it was Jefferson's koran

 

In this case, I guess the book came from Jefferson's collection, and thus is associated with Jefferson, making "Jefferson's" a perfectly reasonable way to describe it. Nothing's keeping you from calling it George Sale's (although I guess that'd be less unique, given that there are several copies of his and only one of Jefferson's, but that's a practical point).

Well, it's the part I responded to, mostly due to it being the title and topic of the thread.

I don't particularly think any religious book should be used either, but that's sort of beside the point, isn't it? In my estimation, using a religious book is probably less of a problem than any successful attempt in removing it would be. I'm happy for congress to prove me wrong on that point, but I am not so much an idealist that I value the symbol higher than the ruckus it could cause.

 

I think this point of the argument is nothing but childish.

There are other factors far more important.

Just for the sake of conversation, chose any of the owners during it's existence and say it is their Qur'an, and you are right.
but then move on to the other points of the issue.

 

hellooooooooo.... the point here is that in the mind & belief system of the person being sworn in is in question because the book she 'believes' in denounces america, so in her mind she's allowed to do whatever to circumvent and destroy america... get it? she's pledging allegiance to that book and it's beliefs

personally, i never agreed with being sworn in with any 'bible' , what use is having an atheist placing their hand on a 'bible' and telling them to swear to tell the truth or uphold the law? it's preposterous!!!

 

Bingo.

While some religions are better than others, some are pure evil.

But here she is spitting in the face of America.

 

and it goes un-noticed, by the weigh side

 

But we are clear it was Jefferson's koran?

 

who cares, i'm sure many 'collectors' have 'unusual' books, doesnt mean they believe in them...

 

I see you are not following this.
At one time in it's existence it was.

 

He also had no way of knowing the correct way to read it, and had none of the sunnah.
You can't learn much about Islam by just reading the Qur'an, and much of what you did learn is wrong.

 

Everything in the Koran is also in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud but a lot less of the Talmud BS is in the Koran. And the Bible isn't much better.

 

Actually people think of the Qur'an as the words of Islam, when they are only 14 percent of the writings.
And the majority of the writings are not in any other books.
There are far more incidents of violence, hatred, sex, murder, thievery, etc. in the Islamic texts, than any other religion.