Yvette Clarke's UnModifying Context, April 23, 2012

Asderathos: The emBoldened parts are the excerpted quotes from the blaze. I see no modifying context. [That said, there is no excuse for threatening any member of government, no matter how deluded]. Of course if taking quotes out of context substantively changing what was meant, was some sort of crime, then every single leftist who's ever spread every BS lie about Glenn Beck, should be in jail. Just sayin~ Leftists are hypocrites.

http://youtu.be/07K4SF_-1Eg <-[Video URLs to actual video, to varify my transcript~]

I think what the tea party has taught all of us is that when you show up, you can make things happen. And I will tell you that uh, that when I first encountered the tea party I thought, 'oh, these people are crazy!' You know, and you would hear people tellin you 'oh they're crazy', but you know what? Crazy showed up. And not only did crazy show up but crazy elected 39 other members to the house of representatives and took alot of people out. So, you know, often times things look a little bit benign and what I'm finding particularly at the federal level now is that if something seems threatening most likely it is. Who would be thinking we would be re-litigating planned parenthood or contraception. Uh you know I thought that these issues were well resolved uh years ago, certainly uh even before the time of my birth. But I see that we are now re-litigating a whole host of issues when it comes to our civil society, and I think these are really civil society issues. I always share with people one of my favorite sort of putting things in context is the YK2, The Y2K scare. Remember, when, you know we were going into the year two thousand and everyone was like, you know 'oh my God' you know get your duct tape, get your water, get your flashlight, get your batteries, because you know, the computers are going to shut down, that life that we know is going to be over. Well I resisted that. I resisted, I said Oh please this is all hype, you know, people are just trying to sell us stuff. But around eleven thirty nine on december thirty first I ran out and got some water just in case. You know, and though that wasn't the Y2K that we thought it would be I think we're in it now. I think as a civil society we are at the point now where we have to determine which direction we take in the twenty first century. A lot of the things that we have been accustomed to, uh particularly as New Yorkers, and as a Nation quite frankly are no longer the pathways to success that we thought they were. So our economy is less industrialized than its ever been, its more technologically driven, but our school systems don't reflect that, our training doesn't reflect that. And so there's a lot that we must do uh to sort of take us there. But what is the social compact that we have one with another? To me, there's just some key things, there's social security, there're medicare, there're medicaid. They're taking care of the least of these amongst us, as part of that social compact. Well I can tell you, all of that is under threat right now. The testing of our water, of our air making sure that we're an environmentally sound civil society, that's all under threat right now, the defunding of the EPA. Even things like, um, the National Endowment of the Arts, you know. I've had the pleasure of growing up in this district of iv[as a] life long resident. And, You know, were it not for the Brooklyn museum, the botanical gardens the prosig pasig park, the brooklyn academy of music, I would dare say that my life would not have been enriched, my parents weren't wealthy. These were the institutions of the community, we could walk there, to the Children's museum. All of these institutions are now seen as luxury items, in the eyes of those who are the majority in the House of Representatives. So its a battle each and every week. I tell people I like to come home directly at the end of each week because I can detox, I can come back and remember why I took on this challenge, why I seek my constituents' support encouragement and guidance. And council, because its truly a battle in Washington right now. You see how beleagured our President has been, they day he swore in, they swore they were gonna get him out. And there's not been a moment of compramise since we've been there. Not a moment of negotiation, its been all been there way or the highway. And they even do it amongst themselves. Uh Just this week we were, uh, trying to pass a cyber security bill out of the house of representatives, I happen to serve on the Homeland Security Committee and I'm the ranking member for cyber security, and they basically dismantled this bill because other committees of jurisdiction where Tea Party members are in leadership, uh just basically got involved with the power struggle with the members of our committee. The chairman of our committee. You wouldn't believe it but Peter King is not, uh, tea party alright, he's not even, uh, well liked, necessarily within his confrence. And so he becomes the low man on the totem pole and all of our safety becomes compramised because Homeland Security has jurisdiction for cyber security yet their bill gets watered down by other committees where more power is being vested. Committees like Intelligence, the Intelligence Committee. So its a power struggle not only with the Democrats and the minority trying to keep the moral compass on the right tragectory but also then its a struggle within the Republican party itself. They're eating their own. They're trying to get as many extreme right

http://youtu.be/WgDpDMz_4gQ

members in the House of Representatives because they believe that they rule the world, and that they're way is the best way, and any other way takes the highway. And that's what we've been dealing with uh whether you look at the uh Ryan, Republican, Ryan budget that just come out, again just highlighting a number of the discretionary spending, our budget has been slashed! We can go from um things like um uh, aid to women infant and children. We can go straight to food stamps. We can go to EPA standards. Everything that we need to underpin and under-gird our civil society is being dismantled, and how's that? By cutting and slashing those discretionary budgets to nothing, to smithereens. They're unable to function as Federal Agencies while laying off and trying to do more with less. So its a real struggle that we face right now, but I'm in the fight. And I think that is what my constituents want most of all. Whether its comprehensive immigration reform which is a very passionate issue for me. I just don't understand how uh uh uh, a nation uh built by immigrants for immigrants gets to the point where it uh-uh-uh, basically turns on itself. Where every other nation that we know of that does not have a vibrant immigration uh policy is basically dying, you know. We have a competitive advantage by having people here who desire to be here who desire to give their skills, their talents, their ability, to the development of our communities and by extension our nation yet there are those who don't see the value in what they bring, not understanding their own immigrant heritage. So its an ongoing challenge just to get uh immigration uh wholesomely dealt with. We need a twenty first century system in the united states Um, we don't need to keep people um, locked in a purgatory or um, of feeling as though they have created a criminal enterprise by being here. Its a civil event. But at the end of the day all of them want to make it good with us. And we do have the ability where criminal activity is concerned to weed out those who pose a real threat to us as Americans, and those who would rather bolster us as Americans, and I, that's what I'm pushing for. I was fortunate to be in the house of representatives when we did pass the dream act. Unfortunately the senate didn't follow through on their end. We lost that by six votes. But again its activism. When the face of immigration is only Latino, well then people don't realize that uh, how it means to all of us as Americans. And so I make my face plain. I think its important they hear someone who doesn't have an accent.

http://youtu.be/jGxP58IQhWM

Better more to have many accents, uh, speak on behalf of those who need this type of relief. Who we as communities, as Americans, need this type of relief. I think there's a type of redemptive value in being able to make sure that younger people that we've invested in already through education are able to go on to college, are able to go on an become the next, uh, person who will cure cancer. Without fear of being deported to nations that they have no knowledge of or understanding of or culture that they really had no exposure to. So that's just really one of my really passionate areas. I also serve on the small business committee and I think that entrepreneurship at every level has been what makes this nation so very fascinating. Its the mom and pop that starts out, that's able to provide opportunities for other talented individuals who wanted to use that talent in the small business. I think we need to diversify our ability to bring as many people on the mainstream in the mainstream in entrepreneurship as we can. And that's very critical to many communities with high unemployment. I mean corporate America is not going to higher everyone and neither do they desire to. And you know I think that it would be great if we could provide more financial support, lending for start-ups, for small business, for women, for minorities in particular, who have really been marginalized in our civil society when it comes to business. So, I started on the small business committee where Amelia Velasquez is the chairperson... well she's ranking member now. I had the opportunity to be in congress when we were the majority for two sessions, so sometimes I lapse on who's chair, who's speaker, when, what have you because uh it was a grand time. Just let me say that. *Laughter* It was a grand time. Uh, but You know what? Its moments like this that keep you humble and keeps your feet on the ground and keeps your finger on the pulse of the people that you represent. Because I'm basically amplifying the dreams the aspirations of those, the desires, of the people that I represent. And this gives me an opportunity to really sound the alarm. I can only amplify the voices of people who understand the significance of what it is to be in a democracy. And so I'm constantly encouraging people, write me, send me letters, give, you know, call me, e-mail me, you know, just show up. Come to Washington. Its so very important. I think that we uh, have uh, sat on the sidelines, and know that you are all active, I don't want to belittle anyone in the room, but I see what happens when people show up in Washington. 

http://youtu.be/14JxNhvKPeM

When I say dealing with the Tea Party, they came up in the hundreds of thousands. So we couldn’t walk outside of our office without tripping over Tea Party members. And these are individuals that had no problems with racial epithets, they had no problem with cursing, spitting and everything else, they came to intimidate members out of passing the Affordable Care Act. That made me more determined to pass the affordable care act. I dunno, maybe its coming from Flatbush Brooklyn. *laughter* I dunno, But the moment that they came in and really just showed the ugliest sides of the United States of America, you can imagine — it was clear to me that we were doing the right thing for Americans. There will always be those in our civil society who, for whatever reason, feel like something is being taken away from them when we give to others. That has always been a challenge in the psyche of many in our civil society. But, you know, you have to save them from themselves despite those inclinations on their side. And so, you know, we have to show them something. We're in the supreme court as you all know, around the affordable care act unfortunately. Uh, while we, you know, feel good about the victory, we were not organizing politically and I think that that was a short-coming on the part of the Democrats, because what they decided to do was retrench themselves and then go into the state legislatures and turn all of these state legislatures Republican and then in twenty ten came in and took care of the House of Representatives. The Republicans, uh, you know, the one thing that I can say about them is that they seem far more focused um, organized, um, in terms of their political agenda and here we are the big tent Democratic party and here we uh, are, uh, intellectuals, and we intellectualize everything. But at the end of the day it will be action that makes a difference. And if there is anything I can do to encourage to inspire to motivate, to get people actively engaged, you know, I was a product of the movement of the sixties, because I was born in sixty four, and I know what activism does. It makes sure the children get a proper education in the public schools. Its a product of the parental involvement and community investment in the public school education. And as a result of that I was able to be re, well educated in New York City public schools. I don't see why it is that um, those type of demands can't be made on the system today. Uh, but it, uh, takes engagement. It takes sacrifice and many parents sacrificed. Many parents gave up their jobs, many parents gave up, uh, you know, uh, so much, There will... *cuts off*.

---

a Q&A without any of the quotes that The Blaze covered, but from the same meeting - http://youtu.be/eBQq7tm7Qs8

Madison's letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831

Qualified General Welfare and Limited Constitutional Powers

Dear Sir,—Your letter of the 3d instant, post-marked the 5th, was not received till the day before yesterday, the 18th. I know not that I can say anything on the constitutional points stated, which has not been substantially said in publications into which I have been heretofore led. In general, I adhere to the remark, that the proper way to understand our novel and complex system of government is to avoid, as much as may be, the use of technical terms and phrases appropriate to other forms, and to examine the process of its formation, the peculiarity of its structure, and the limitation and distribution of its powers. Much of the constitutional controversy which has prevailed has turned, as often happens, on the different ideas attached to the language employed, and would have been obviated by previous definitions of its terms. That the people of the United States formed the Constitution, will be denied or affirmed according to the sense in which the expression is understood. The main question is, whether they have not given to the charter a sanction in a capacity and a mode that shuts the door against all such disuniting and nullifying doctrines as those lately advanced.

If the authority to admit new States be sufficiently conveyed by the text of the Constitution, there would seem to be not more difficulty in the principle of the case than in that of naturalizing an alien, at least where the territory of the admitted State made a part of the original domain. In the case of an acquired territory, with its inhabitants, as in that of Louisiana, the questions belonging to it are questions of construction, turning on the constitutional authority to acquire, and to admit when acquired. You are no doubt aware that such questions were actually raised on that occasion.

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

I have availed myself, sir, of your permission to give a brief answer to your letter, and the rather as the interval between its receipt and your intended departure for the West did not well admit of a long one. Nor, indeed, with more time, could I have added much to it that would not have been superfluous to you, as well as inconvenient at the octogenary age of which I am reminded whenever I take up my pen on such subjects.

With friendly salutations,

---

WikiSource - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_James_Robertson

Of Civility and Civilization by Glenn Beck

GB-R 3-28-12 H2, 11 mins in
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/show/2012-03-28/ 
 

• Glenn: Slavery is more than just the whips and the chains, that's horrible, but it also means your spirit, your opportunity to be who you are, everything. When they take away your ability, tell me, tell me if you're ignorant, how you're not a slave? You're a slave, To everything and everything everybody tells you.
• Stu: Yeah its a metaphorical use. I believe it was Brittany Spears who outlined the idea that "I am a slave for you" and did not actually mean that she would be working for free for a long period of time. I know the media will never actually be able to figure that out, but it is actually true.
• Glenn: Let me, let me, just read this
• Pat: well now that you put it in Brittany spears terms they will be able to figure it out.
• Glenn: Let me take it to Booker T. Washington...
• Glenn: This is "Up From Slavery". Booker T. Washington was a slave, born into slavery, and then said 'don't hate, don't hate, we're free, we are now free! Apply yourself!' He goes on to this beautiful dissertation on 'we are now in a better position. Why if we are not now in a better position now, why then are we taking African Americans and going over as Missionaries to Africa and trying to help them? We're in a better position! Recognize that!'. So he goes on to something that is so very politically incorrect that its shocking. And I checked this morning, its all been revised and edited now. This is the first edition. I want to go back and see what's been taken out of it.
• Pat: Its why they hated him then, and its why, I'm sure, they hate him now
• Glenn: So anyway, he's talking about, look, 'the slave thing was just the way it was', I know, 'just the way it was at the time, don't hate, it was horrible it was an atrocity, etc etc etc. t in one part he's talking about how sometimes you would be selected if the men were away in the masters house you would be selected to go in and stay in the master's house and protect the family. And its a very amazing complex world that he lived in. And, but he said
• Booker T. Washington: The slave who was selected to sleep in the "big house" during the absence of the males was considered to have the place of honour.
• Glenn: Now think how twisted this was, you're a slave.
• Booker T. Washington: Any one attempting to harm "young Mistress" or "old Mistress" during the night would have had to cross the dead body of the slave to do so. I do not know how many have noticed it,
• Glenn: Now listen to this, remember he's saying things you can't even comprehend. That you don't have mallice towards your slave owner. Listen to this. And anyone who went into wallgreens [referring to a flash rob in the name of Trayvon Martin] For anyone who's thinking about this, I don't care what color you are
• Booker T. Washington: I do not know how many have noticed it, but I think that it will be found to be true that there are few instances, either in slavery or freedom, in which a member of my race has been known to betray a specific trust.
• Glenn: I read that yesterday and I thought to myself; 'how many of us can say that, not about our race, but about our family, our community, our company? How many of us can say with assurity, I can tell you that I think your going to have a hard time finding anyone of my family, my company, let alone my race, to betray a trust.' Shouldn't this be what our President is talking about now? Shouldn't our President be asking you to reach higher? To believe in the system of justice? To believe that it exists? To believe that we were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago? That man has evolved, that we have made progress? Isn't that the idea? Or are we still doing lynch mobs, just trading colors!? Lynch mobs are wrong either way! And how is it that we can live in a society where.. I'm telling you right now, if I drop dead of a heart attack in the next two weeks, if somebody goes in and sets anything on fire, I'll haunt you for the rest of my life.. I don't care if President Obama came in and shot me in the head and you saw it on television, if you go and try and rob a Wallgreens in my honor, I'll haunt you for the rest of my life.. or rather for the rest of eternity. I mean that's crazy. Honor, Integrity, Decency, that's how you build a civilization. All the things that are being preached now [from the left] destroy civilization. And I don't know about you but I kinda like civilization. I don't want to go back to the caveman days. I don't wanna go back to boss tweed. I don't wanna go back to slavery. I don't wanna go back to Nazi Germany, Russia, China. Civilization, where people are civil, to have civilization you must be civil. That's being undermined, that's being undermined at the highest levels. Mainly by the President of the United States.

Grover Cleveland's veto of the Texas Seed Bill Feb 16, 1887

http://mises.org/daily/3627
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cleveland's_Veto_of_the_Texas_Seed_Bill

[Of President Grover Cleveland's 584 vetoes, that of the "Texas Seed Bill" (February 16, 1887) may be the most famous. Members of Congress wanted to help suffering farmers in the American West, but Cleveland rejected their bill, citing the limited mission of the general government and arguing that private charity and already-existing government programs should furnish the necessary aid.]

President Grover Cleveland's veto of the Texas Seed Bill (February 16, 1887) is the most famous of his many vetoes; in it he makes the case for limited government and supports the role of private charity.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has, to some extent, already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional, to meet their remaining wants, will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of senators, representatives, and delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our senators and representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

The Alcoran of Mohammed with explanatory notes and a preliminary discourse. By George Sale 1734

POSNER LIBRARY

http://posner.library.cmu.edu/Posner/books/book.cgi?OCLC=1135206

View Book Page Images

http://posner.library.cmu.edu/Posner/books/pages.cgi?call=297_K84K_1734&layout=vol0/part0/copy0&file=0006

---

PROJECT GUTENBERG

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7440

---

GOOGLE BOOKS

http://books.google.com/books?id=vQQ-AAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA43&ots=vfTAKR4vkF&dq=If%20we%20look%20into%20the%20ecclesiastical%20historians%20even%20from%20the%20third%20century%2C%20we%20shall%20find%20the%20christian%20world%20to%20have%20then%20had%20a%20very%20different%20aspect%20from%20what%20some%20authors%20have%20represented&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q=If%20we%20look%20into%20the%20ecclesiastical%20historians%20even%20from%20the%20third%20century,%20we%20shall%20find%20the%20christian%20world%20to%20have%20then%20had%20a%20very%20different%20aspect%20from%20what%20some%20authors%20have%20represented&f=false

---

READ ONLINE TEXT At Answering-Islam.org

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Wherry/Commentary1/index.htm

---

TO THE

RIGHT HON. JOHN LORD CARTERET,

ONE OF THE LORDS OF HIS MAJESTY S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL.

My Lord,

Notwithstanding the great honour and respect generally and deservedly paid to the memories of those who have founded states, or obliged a people by the institution of laws which have made them prosperous and considerable in the world, yet the legislator of the Arabs has been treated in so very different a manner by all who acknowledge not his claim to a divine mission, and by Christians especially, that were not your lordship's just discernment sufficiently known, I should think myself under a necessity of making an apology for presenting the following translation.

The remembrance of the calamities brought on so many nations by the conquests of the Arabians may possibly raise some indignation against him who formed them to empire; but this being equally applicable to all conquerors, could not, of itself, occasion all the detestation with which the name of Mohammed is loaded. He has given a new system of religion, which has had still greater success than the arms of his followers, and to establish this religion made use of an imposture; and on this account it is supposed that he must of necessity have been a most abandoned villain, and his memory is become infamous. But as Mohammed gave his Arabs the best religion he could, as well as the best laws, preferable, at least, to those of the ancient pagan lawgivers, I confess I cannot see why he deserves not equal respect, though not with Moses or Jesus Christ, whose laws came really from heaven, yet with Minos or Numa, notwithstanding the distinction of a learned writer, who seems to think it a greater crime to make use of an imposture to set up a new religion, founded on the acknowledgment of one true God, and to destroy idolatry, than to use the same means to gain reception to rules and regulations for the more orderly practice of heathenism already established.

To be acquainted with the various laws and constitutions of civilized nations, especially of those who flourish in our own time, is, perhaps, the most useful part of knowledge: wherein though your lordship, who shines with so much distinction in the noblest assembly in the world, peculiarly excels; yet as the law of Mohammed, by reason of the odium it lies under, and the strangeness of the language in which it is written, has been so much neglected, I flatter myself some things in the following sheets may be new even to a person of your lordship's extensive learning; and if what I have written may be any way entertaining or acceptable to your lordship, I shall not regret the pains it has cost me.

I join with the general voice in wishing your lordship all the honour and happiness your known virtues and merit deserve, and am with perfect respect,

My Lokd,
Your lordship's most humble

---

TO THE READER.

I Imagine it almost needless either to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery: and if the religious and civil institutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Mohammed, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of, must needs be so; whether we consider their extensive obtaining, or our frequent intercourse with those who are governed thereby. 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 the 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: yet it seems as if there was something more than what is vulgarly imagined, in a religion which has made so surprising a progress. But whatever use an impartial version of the Koran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture: none of those who have hitherto undertaken that province, not excepting Dr. Prideaux himself, having succeeded to the satisfaction of the judicious, for want of being complete masters of the controversy. The writers of the Romish communion, in particular, are so far from having done any service in their refutations of Mohammedism, that by endeavouring to defend their idolatry and other superstitions, they have rather contributed to the increase of that aversion which the Mohammedans in general have to the Christian religion, and given them great advantages in the dispute. The protestants alone are able to attack tho Koran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow. In the mean time, if I might presume to lay down rules to be observed by those who attempt the conversion of the Mohammedans, they should be the same which the learned and worthy bishop Kidder* has prescribed for the conversion of the Jews, and which may, mutatis mutandis [by changing those things which need to be changed], be equally applied to the former, notwithstanding the despicable opinion that writer, for want of being better acquainted with them, entertained of those people, judging them scarce fit to be argued with. The first of these rules is, To avoid compulsion; which though it be not in our power to employ at present, I hope will not be made use of when it is. The second is, To avoid teaching doctrines against common sense; the Mohammedans not being such fools (whatever we may think of them) as to be gained over in this case. The worshipping of images and the doctrine of transubstantiation are great stumbling-blocks 

* In his Demonstr. of the Messias, part 3, chap. 2. to the Mohammedans, and the church which teacheth them is very unfit to bring those people over. The third is, To avoid weak arguments: for the Mohammedans are not to be converted with these, or hard words. We must use them with humanity, and dispute against them with arguments that are proper and cogent. It is certain that many Christians, who have written against them, have been very defective this way: many have used arguments that have no force, and advanced propositions that are void of truth. This method is so far from convincing that it rather serves to harden them. The Mohammedans will be apt to conclude we have little to say, when we urge them with arguments that are trifling or untrue. We do but lose ground when we do this; and instead of gaining them, we expose ourselves and our cause also. We must not give them ill words neither; but must avoid all reproachful language, all that is sarcastical and biting: this never did good from pulpit or press. The softest words will make the deepest impression; and if we think it a fault in them to give ill language, we cannot be excused when we imitate them. The fourth rule is, Not to quit any article of the Christian faith to gain the Mohammedans. It is a fond conceit of the Socinians, that we shall upon their principles be most like to prevail upon the Mohammedans: it is not true in matter of fact. We must not give up any article to gain them: but then the church of Rome ought to part with many practices and some doctrines. We are not to design to gain the Mohammedans over to a system of dogmas, but to the ancient and primitive faith. I believe nobody will deny but that the rules here laid down are just: the latter part of the third, which alone my design has given me occasion to practise, I think so reasonable, that I have not, in speaking of Mohammed or his Koran, allowed myself to use those opprobrious appellations, and unmannerly expressions, which seem to be the strongest arguments of several who have written against them. On the contrary, I have thought myself obliged to treat both with common decency, and even to approve such particulars as seemed to me to deserve approbation: 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; nor can I do otherwise than applaud the candour of the pious and learned Spanhemius, who, though he owned him to have been a wicked impostor, yet acknowledged him to have been richly furnished with natural endowments, beautiful in his person, of a subtle wit, agreeable behaviour, showing liberality to the poor, courtesy to every one, fortitude against his enemies, and above all a high reverence for the name of God; severe against the perjured, adulterers, murderers, slanderers, prodigals, covetous, false witnesses, &c, a great preacher of patience, charity, mercy, beneficence, gratitude, honouring of parents and superiors, and a frequent celebrator of the divine praises.*

Of the several translations of the Koran now extant, there is but one which tolerably represents the sense of the original; and that being in Latin, a new version became necessary, at least to an English reader. What Bibliander published for a Latin translation of that book

* Id certum, naturalibus cgrcgie' dotibus instruct um Muhammedem, forma prsestanti, ingenio callido, moribus facetis, ae pne se ferentem liberalitatem in egenos, comitatem in singulos, fortitudinem in bostes, ac prw csetpris reverentiam divini mimmis—Severus fuitin perjuros, adulteros, homicidas, obtrectatores, prodigos, avaros, falsos testes, &c. .Magnus idem patientiie, charitatis, misericorditr, beneficentise, gratitudinis, honoris in parentrs ac superiores proeco, ut et divinarum laudum—Hist. Eccles. sec. 7, c. 7, lem. 5, et 7.

deserves not the name of a translation; the unaccountable liberties therein taken, and the numberless faults, both of omission and commission, leaving scarce any resemblance of the original. It was made near six hundred years ago, being finished in 1143, by Robertus Retenensis, an Englishman, with the assistance of Hermannus Dalmato, at the request of Peter, abbot of Clugny, who paid them well for their pains.

From this Latin version was taken the Italian of Andrea Arrivabene, notwithstanding the pretences in his dedication of its being done immediately from the Arabic;* wherefore it is no wonder if the transcript be yet more faulty and absurd than the copy.-)"

About the end of the fifteenth century, Johannes Andreas, a native of Xativa in the kingdom of Valencia, who from a Mohammedan doctor became a Christian priest, translated not only the Koran, but also its glosses, and the seven books of the Sonna, out of Arabic into the Arragonian tongue, at the command of Martin Garcia, J bishop of Barcelona, and inquisitor of Arragon. Whether this translation were ever published or not I am wholly ignorant; but it may be presumed to have been the better done for being the work of one bred up in the Mohammedan religion and learning; though his refutation of that religion, which has had several editions, gives no great idea of his abilities.

Some years within the last century, Andrew du Ryer, who had been consul of the French nation in Egypt, and was tolerably skilled in the Turkish and Arabic languages, took the pains to translate the Koran into his own tongue: but his performance, though it be beyond comparison preferable to that of Retenensis, is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions, and additions,§ faults unpardonable in a work of this nature. And what renders it still more incomplete is, the want of notes to explain a vast number of passages, some of which are difficult, and others impossible to be understood, without proper explications, were they translated ever so exactly; which the author is so sensible of that he often refers his reader to the Arabic commentators. ||

The English version is no other than a translation of Du Ryer's and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross, who did it, being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better book ridiculous.

* His words are: "Questo libro, che gii havevo a commune ntilita di molti fatto dal proprio testo Arabo tradurro nella nostra volgar lingua Italiana," &c. And afterwards: "Questo e l'Alcorano di Macometto, il quale, come ho gia dctto, ho fatto dal suo idioma tradurre," &c.

t Vide Joseph. Scalig. Epist. 361 ct 362; et Selden. dc Success. ad Leges Ebra;or. p. 9.

1 J. Andreas, in Prref. ad Tractat. suum de Confusione Sectai Mahometan:*;.

§ Vide Windet. de Vita l'unctorum statu, sect. 9.

"If," says Savary, "the Koran, which is extolled throughout the East for the perfection of its style, and the magnificence of its imagery, seems, under the pen of Du Ryer, to be only a dull and tiresome rhapsody, the blame must be laid on his manner of translating. This book is divided into verses, like two Psalms of David. This kind of writing, which was adopted by the prophets, enables prose to make use of the bold terms and the figurative expressions of poetry. Du Ryer, paying no respect whatever to tho text, has connected the verses together, and made of them a continuous discourse. To accomplish this misshapen assemblage, he has had recourse to frigid conjunctions, and to trivial phrases, which, destroying the dignity of the ideas, and the charm of the diction, render it impossible to recognize the original. While reading his translation, no one could ever imagine that the Koran is the masterpiece of the Arabic language, which is fertile in fine writers; yet this is the judgment which antiquity has passed on it."

In 1698, a Latin translation of the Koran, made by Father Lewis Marracci, who had been confessor to Pope Innocent XL, was published at Padua, together with the original text, accompanied by explanatory notes and a refutation. This translation of Marracci's, generally speaking, is very exact; but adheres to the Arabic idiom too literally to be easily understood, unless I am much deceived, by those who are not versed in the Mohammedan learning.* The notes he has added are indeed of great use; but his refutations, which swell the work to a large volume, are of little or none at all, being often unsatisfactory, and sometimes impertinent. The work, however, with all its faults, is very valuable, and I should be guilty of ingratitude, did I not acknowledge myself much obliged thereto; but still, being in Latin, it can be of no use to those who understand not that tongue.

Having therefore undertaken a new translation, I have endeavoured to do the original impartial justice, not having, to the best of my knowledge, represented it, in any one instance, either better or worse than it really is. I have thought myself obliged, indeed, in a piece which pretends to be the Word of God, to keep somewhat scrupulously close to the text; by which means the language may, in some places, seem to express the Arabic a little too literally to be elegant English: but this, I hope, has not happened often; and I flatter myself that the style I have made use of will not only give a more genuine idea of the original than if I had taken more liberty (which would have been much more for my ease), but will soon become familiar; for we must not expect to read a version of so extraordinary a book with the same ease and pleasure as a modern composition.

In the notes my view has been briefly to explain the text, and especially the difficult and obscure passages, from the most approved commentators, and that generally in their own words, for whose opinions or expressions, where liable to censure, I am not answerable; my province being only fairly to represent their expositions, and the little I have added of my own, or from European writers, being easily discernible. Where I met with any circumstance which I imagined might be curious or entertaining, I have not failed to produce it.

The Preliminary Discourse will acquaint the reader with the most material particulars proper to be known previously to the entering on the Koran itself, and which could not so conveniently have been thrown into the notes. And I have taken care, both in the Preliminary Discourse and the notes, constantly to quote my authorities and the writers to whom I have been beholden; but to none have I been more so than to the learned Dr. Pocock, whose Specimen Historia; Arabum is the most useful and accurate work that has been hitherto published concerning the antiquities of that nation, and ought to be read by every curious inquirer into them.

As I have had no opportunity of consulting public libraries, the manuscripts of which I have made use throughout the whole work have been such as I had in my own study, except only the Commentary of al Beidawi, and the Gospel of St. Barnabas. The first belongs to the library of the Dutch church in Austin Friars, and for the use of it I have been chiefly

* Of Marracci's translation Savary says: "Marracci, that learned monk, who spent forty years in translating and refuting the Koran, proceeded on the right system. He divided it into verses, according to the text; but, neglecting the precepts of a great master, 'Nee vcrbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus Interpres,' &c. he translated it literally. He has not expressed the ideas of the Koran, but travestied the words of it into barbarous Latin. Yet, though all the beauties of the original are lost in this translation, it is preferable to that by Du Ryer."

indebted to the Rev. Dr. Bolton, one of the ministers of that church: the other was very obligingly lent me by the Rev. Dr. Holme, rector of Hedley in Hampshire; and I take this opportunity of returning both those gentlemen my thanks for their favours. The merit of al Beidawi's Commentary will appear from the frequent quotations I have made thence; but of the gospel of St. Barnabas (which I had not seen when the little I have said of it in the Preliminary Discourse,* and the extract I had borrowed from M. de la Monnoye and Mr. Toland, ✝ were printed off), I must beg leave to give some further account.

The book is a moderate quarto, in Spanish, written in a very legible hand, but a little damaged towards the latter end. It contains two hundred and twenty-two chapters of unequal length, and four hundred and twenty pages; and is said, in the front, to be translated from the Italian, by an Arragonian Moslem, named Mostafa de Aranda. There is a preface prefixed to it, wherein the discoverer of the original MS., who was a Christian monk, called Fra Marino, tells us, that having accidentally met with a writing of Irena;us (among others), wherein he speaks against St. Paul, alleging for his authority the gospel of St. Barnabas, he became exceedingly desirous to find this gospel; and that God, of his mercy, having made him very intimate with Pope Sixtus V., one day, as they were together in that Pope's library, his holiness fell asleep, and he, to employ himself, reaching down a book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved to be the very gospel he wanted; overjoyed at the discovery, he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve, and on the Pope's awaking, took leave of him, carrying with him that celestial treasure, by reading of which he became a convert to Mohainmedism.

This gospel of Barnabas contains a complete history of Jesus Christ from his birth to his ascension; and most of the circumstances of the four real gospels are to be found therein, but many of them turned, and some artfully enough, to favour the Mohammedan system. From the design of the whole, and the frequent interpolations of stories and passages wherein Mohammed is spoken of and foretold by name, as the messenger of God, and the great prophet who was to perfect the dispensation of Jesus, it appears to be a most barefaced forgery. One particular I observe therein induces me to believe it to have been dressed up by a renegade Christian, slightly instructed in his new religion, and not educated a Mohammedan (unless the fault be imputed to the Spanish, or perhaps the Italian translator, and not to the original compiler), I mean the giving to Mohammed the title of Messiah, and that not once or twice only, but in several places ; whereas the title of the Messiah, or, as the Arabs write it, al Masih, i.e. Christ, is appropriated to Jesus in the Koran, and is constantly applied by the Mohammedans to him, and never to their own prophet. The passages produced from the Italian MS. by M. de la Monnoye are to be seen in this Spanish version almost word for word.

But to return to the following work. Though I have freely censured the former translations of the Koran, I would not therefore be suspected of a design to make my own pass as free from faults: I am very sensible it is not; and I make no doubt but the few who are able to discern them, and know the difficulty of the undertaking, will give me fair quarter. I likewise flatter myself that they, and all considerate persons, will excuse the delay which has happened in the publication of this work, when they are informed that it was carried on at leisure times only, and amidst the necessary avocations of a troublesome profession.