New Mexico Legal Last Will And Testament Form For A Single Person With Minor Children: Fill & Download for Free

SHARIA AND JIHADThese 2 terms are very much misunderstood by Non-Muslims. There I will explain them in detail.Shariah is a misunderstood and misused concept. Critics of Islam frequently employ terms like “creeping shariah” to stoke fear amongst the masses. The Park 51 controversy and the increasing media focus on Islam provide an opportunity to educate Americans about the true teachings and practices of Islam concerning shariah.Shariah literally means “a path to life-giving water,” and refers to a defined path upon which all God-fearing people are advised to tread. It is grounded in the recognition of God’s existence. Shariah presupposes that there is a God. God reveals His desire of how man should shape his destiny, and God’s will is manifested in the form of certain laws or principles. These laws or principles constitute shariah.Shariah is not unique to Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah. In the United States, for example, our legal system already permits some narrow civil matters to be settled through alternative dispute resolution. Among such alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinical law courts. American Jews routinely go before beit din to arbitrate real estate deals, divorces and business disputes.In Islam, shariah can be divided into five main branches: ibadah (ritual worship), mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), adab (behavior)> (morals and manners), i’tiqadat (beliefs), and ‘uqubat (punishments). Islam prescribes certain laws or principles that govern all five main branches. At its core, shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society.The Qur’an does not specify any specific form of government other than a beneficent one that is based on adl or absolute justice:“Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression. He admonishes you that you may take heed.” (16:91).There is no mention of religion in this verse. Pluralism and religious tolerance are Islamic values. The Qur’an stresses: “There is no coercion in religion” (2:257). Legislating shariah would mean imposing practices on people who do not share the underlying beliefs behind those practices. Shariah mandates the strict practice of absolute justice regardless of differences in faith, race, creed or any other distinction. True Islamic teachings, as practiced by the Prophet of Islam, promote a secular government with equal rights and privileges for its citizens and a separation of mosque and state. For example, the Prophet of Islam famously applied Talmudic law in resolving disputes among the Jews.Unfortunately, certain Islamic countries have failed to observe the precondition of absolute justice before imposing shariah. Instead, they have unjustly imposed shariah as an instrument of power and control. Western nations scrutinize and magnify these examples. Countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have enmeshed religious extremism with political power resulting in a brutal brand of governance they brand “shariah.”Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.Religion should not be the business of the state. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah has a clear vision that religion should not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man.These principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice, tolerance and love for mankind. The law of one’s homeland has predominance over all other laws. True shariah is conducive to a system of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights and minority protections and dispenses absolute justice for all people.Islam and TerrorismIt is unfortunate that Islam, the religion of peace, hope, harmony, goodwill and Brotherhood had been badly tarnished by the perpetrators of various terrorists acts and barbarism as seen in recent years.The purpose of this presentation is to set forth the teachings of Islam so that manifestations of various terrorist acts are fully exposed in the light of Islamic teachings under whose shelter these activities are being committed.DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND ETHICS OF WARAccording to the Islamic Holy Book – the Quran, God has bestowed honour on every individual irrespective of skin colour, race, nationality, etc. Freedom is one of the great favours of God and its deprivation is a great misery. Under the Islamic dispensation, no one can be made a captive without a just cause. Prisoners can only be taken in the event of a regular declared war or battle and not for any other reason or under any other pretext. The Holy Quran specifically states:It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. If you take captives, except in regular fighting, you will be regarded as desiring the goods of this world, while ALLAH desires for you the Hereafter. And ALLAH is Mighty, Wise (8:68)This verse cuts at the root of not only slavery practice in years gone by but also demolishes any supposed justification of modern day hostage-taking and hijacking of innocent people not involved in actual combat.In his farewell address the Holy Prophet of Islam gave special instructions regarding good treatment which should be meted out to prisoners. The Holy Prophet said:O men, you still have in your possession some prisoners of war. I advise you, therefore, to feed them and to clothe them in the same way and style as you feed and clothe yourselves ….. To give them pain or trouble can never be tolerated.More specific commandments on the ethics of war and treatment of prisoners are contained in the fifth verse of the forty-seventh chapter of the Quran. This comprehensive verse can be paraphrased as follows:“When engaged in a regular battle, it should be fought bravely and relentlessly. War can be continued till peace and freedom of conscience are established. Prisoners are to be taken judiciously. Free men cannot be deprived of their liberty without a just and reasonable cause. When war is over, prisoners should be released as an act of favour or on taking ransom or by negotiating a mutual exchange.”In the history of Islam all these methods have been used for releasing prisoners. A novel method to get release was that the educated prisoners could teach reading and writing to those who were illiterate, in lieu of ransom.This verse further strikes at the roots of those who would justify modern day terrorism in the name and under the banner of Islam.Envoys are privileged people in the Islamic system. They enjoy full personal immunity. They are not subject to political ransom, no matter how worthy the cause may be, and to kidnap them is a heinous crime. They must not be killed, molested or maltreated. There are numerous instances from the Holy Prophet’s life which illustrate the application of these principles.Thus Islamic scriptural commandments and the precepts of the Holy Prophet of Islam concerning diplomatic immunity are free from ambiguities. In a nutshell, taking hostages and maltreating envoys and private citizens in any shape and form is totally foreign to the teachings and doctrines of Islam. In other words, the philosophy of Islam totally rejects terrorism.CONCEPT OF JIHAD IN ISLAMThrough the actions of some elements, the western world visualizes a wrong concept of Jihad (Holy War). The word Jihadconjures up the vision of a marching band of religious fanatics with savage beards and fiery eyes, brandishing swords and attacking the infidels.Jihad in Islamic terminology means to make an effort, to endeavour and to strive in a noble way. Over the centuries this meaning of Jihad has been obliterated or at least diluted. The critical juncture in the Islamic world requires reviving and recapturing the true and pristine meaning of Jihad.Jihad can be divided into two broad categories. First is Jihad-e-akbar. This is Jihad against one’s own person to curb sinful inclinations, i.e., purification of self. This is the most difficult Jihad and hence in terms of rewards and blessings is the highest category of Jihad.The second is Jihad-e-asghar. This is Jihad of the sword. This is communal Jihad and presupposes certain specific conditions. The Quran speaks of fighting only against those who first attack Muslims and this is the very condition laid down in other verses of the Holy Quran as well. The so-called verse of the sword in the Islamic scripture is often taken out of context as if it inculcates an indiscriminate massacre of all unbelievers. The Quranic words such as kill whatever you find them apply only in cases where the enemy has first attacked Muslims and apply to those unbelievers and enemies who break their oaths and firm agreements. They do not apply to unprovoked wars and battles. To interpret these verses in any other manner would be a travesty of the lofty ideals of Islam. There is not a single instance in the life of the Holy Prophet where he offered the alternative of the sword or Islam to anyone.The Western media and even some scholars sometimes ignore the distinction between these two aspects of Jihad. It must be remembered that the Holy Quran does not make Jihad, the holy war, in context of an article of faith. The sayings and traditions of the Holy Prophet render it into a formula for active struggle that invariably and incorrectly tended towards a militant expression. Modern day terrorism is contrary to the purview of the real spirit of the Islamic Jihad.The presentation of Islam as a crude and barbaric religion which gives itself the right to cause unwarranted human and material suffering and destruction under the guise of Divine authority, is not the kind of Islam we find in the Holy Quran and in the precepts of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him!)PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN ISLAMAmong the attributes of God, the Holy Quran mentions that He is the Source of peace and the Bestower of security (59:23). The establishment of peace and maintenance of security must, therefore, be the constant objective of all Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Every pursuit and activity which disturbs peace is severely condemned in Islam. We find specific injunctions in the Holy Quran:And create not disorder in the earth after it has been set in order…. (7:57; 11:86; 29:37)Mischief and wickedness are condemned in several other verses and Muslims are commanded to work wholly for peace.Islam draws attention to factors which tend to disturb or destroy peace and order, and deprecates them. Domination of one group by another in the domestic sphere, or of one people by another in the international sphere is a potent cause of disturbance of peace and is therefore strongly condemned. Economic exploitation of one people or country by another inevitably leads to domination by the exploiters, and develops into a potential threat to peace. The Holy Quran prohibits such exploitation and an economy based on exploitation cannot be beneficial in its consequences, nor can it endure.Islam visualizes an association of strong and stable states allied together in the pursuance of peace, freedom of conscience and the promotion of human welfare. Treaties or covenants between nations may have to be drawn up which should be done in a straightforward language and should not be evaded or repudiated under the temptation of securing some advantage. In case of difficulties and disputes, it is the duty of Muslims to bring about a peaceful settlement and adjustment.The Holy Quran teaches that God has sent His revelation to all people from time to time. Many of prophets of the Old Testament are mentioned by name and so is Jesus who with other prophets is honoured and revered by all Muslims. Indeed, the Quran requires belief in the truth of all these prophets. Islam is thus unique and distinct in requiring an affirmation in all prophets wherever they appeared and therefore it seeks to bring about reconciliation between the followers of different faiths and to establish a basis of respect and honour among them. The Quran says:Surely, those who believe and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians – whichever party from among these truly believes in ALLAH and the Last Day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon then nor shall they grieve (2:63)The same message is repeated in 5:70. The basic unity of the followers of all faiths is emphatically stressed in the Holy Quran and the creation of discord and disunity by terrorism or otherwise has no place in Islam.In the domain of international relations, religion and inter-religious relations occupy an important position. Unfortunately, comparatively little attention is paid to this aspect of human relations. It is assumed that religion is a private matter for each individual and should, therefore, have no direct connection with the political, social aspects of life. This assumption is not justified. Islam being an egalitarian religion, is not just a personal faith, but an all-encompassing codes of values and conduct. Islam is and will be a vital factor in human relations and there is a good ground of hope that it might progressively become more effective in promoting unity and accord rather than continue to be required on the part of religious and political leaders to achieve that goal.I must conclude by saying that whether peace or war, acts of terrorism are not only condemned in Islam but are also pointedly declared alien to the teachings of Islam which in fact means peace through the submission to the Will of God, the Lord of all human beings. Only through conformity to Divine laws can we hope to achieve the ideal of a secure world free of terrorism.You are right these ideologies which are wrongly tied up with Real Islam are causing problem in free and diverse societies.Fake Islamic Teachings which are Propagated by some misguided Islamic Scholars are fueling Terrorism in the world.Who has has created Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, and other islamist groups?Western Nations have created these Groups and funding them and giving them arms to defame Peaceful Islam and hiding behind this excuse and thinking this their right to destroy Gulf Nations and other Muslim Countries.Now I come toward Women Rights in Islam.WOMEN IN ISLAMSurely, men who submit themselves to God and women who submit themselves to Him, and believing men and believing women, and obedient men and obedient women, and truthful men and truthful women, and men steadfast in their faith and women steadfast, and men who are humble and women are humble, and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their chastity and women who guard their chastity, men who remember Allah much and women who remember Him – Allah has prepared for all of them forgiveness and a great reward. (Ch. 33, v. 36)The passage that has just been recited was from the Holy Qur’an, the book which Muslims believe to be the word of God in its entirety, revealed to the Holy Prophet (saw). In this verse, God Almighty tells us that by following a certain way of life, both men and women can attain to the same spiritual heights. There are no double standards in Islam, the requirements of piety are the same: submission to God, true belief in God, obedience to God, truthfulness, steadfastness in the faith, giving alms or charity, fasting, and remaining chaste. If these conditions are met in constant remembrance of God, then both men and women can achieve nearness to God and the same spiritual status. In the Holy Qur’an, God tells us:Whoso does good whether male or female, and is a believer, shall enter Paradise and they shall not be wronged a whit. (Ch. 4,v. 125)Before I continue, however, I want to give you a brief introduction to Islam.Being a convert who was born and raised a Christian, I realise that your understanding of Islam is either limited or contains a lot of totally erroneous information. Also, if I talk about the role of women in Islam it will make no sense without a basic understanding of the religion. I am going to ask you to put aside your paradigms for the next hour or so and to keep your mind open to new ideas.I will pose some questions and I will present to you different alternatives. We will play a game of what if? What if you are not here today by chance? What if what you hear today is the truth and could be the beginning of a whole new life for you? Bear with me patiently for a while. You have been given an outline of my speech with spaces in which to take notes or write questions. So please hold your questions until I have completed my lecture.If you are a Christian, you believe in all the prophets mentioned in the Bible and Old Testament, don’t you? Now, did it ever become a source of wonder for you that the prophets as far as you know were all Jewish? It would seem odd that God found pious people worthy of prophethood only in the Jewish nation, even though all races and people of the world are God’s creation. Also, the message of Christianity was conveyed throughout the world only after Christ.Do you think it makes sense that God in His Infinite Wisdom would have let the people of Africa, of China, of Australia, of the Americas, and so forth fumble in ignorance without any guidance until the advent of Christ?Another question which I like to pose to you is this. Why is it that people that belong to different religions throughout the world hold so dearly to their beliefs? After all, there are learned people in every community who have accepted the major religions of the world.Now, try to visualise the world as a pie. Each segment of society or community is represented by a slice of the pie. Each group declares that their religion is true. The Christian community to which many of you belong claims that God only chose prophets from the Jewish community. I was in my early teens when I started to wonder about such questions.As I look in front of me, you will notice that my field of vision is limited to a certain angle of this room. If I don’t move my head, I can visually detect only a certain segment of the room. To me that is reality, is it not? Is it only reality? Of course, not. There are people and objects that are not within my field of vision. This is exactly the position in which followers of different religions are, including those of you who are Christians. In order to see all the reality available in this room, I would need to be standing from a different position, perhaps higher up, near the ceiling.Islam provides the only logical and sensible answer to this problem of equity and justice. After all, we will all agree that God is Just, is He not? And to assume that God only sent guidance to one group of his creation so that during the 6000 years or so of the history of the Old Testament, only the Jews were correctly guided, does not seem to fit our concept of God’s absolute justice.Now, again, I will ask you to lay aside your paradigms. Paradigms are ideas that you have always held to be absolutely true simply because you were taught those ideas from childhood. Paradigms affect our perception of reality. We filter and interpret information received through our senses and reject and do not notice information that does not confirm our paradigms.A simple illustration: If I believe that dogs are cute and friendly and a dog comes into this room and barks, I will interpret it as a message that he likes me and wants to play. If I believe that dogs are mean and vicious, I will interpret the bark as a sign that the dog wants to bite me. Same evidence, filtered through different paradigm. The world being flat was another paradigm. Another example was the advent of Jesus Christ. The Jews of the time, having interpreted the Bible literally, expected him to be a worldly king who would liberate them from Roman domination. It took twelve disciples and a handful of others who laid aside that old established paradigm and, as Jesus asked them to do, took another look at the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the advent of the Messiah, and lo and behold, they were able to accept Prophet Jesus as the Messiah.Asking you to lay your old paradigms aside for just one hour, I will give you the following information. When Jesus gave his message, he made two important points. The first one is that the people of his time were not ready to receive the message of God in its entirety: ‘I have yet many things to say unto you and you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you unto all truth; for He will not speak of His own authority, but whatever He shall hear, He will speak’ (John 16: 12-13). Also, he told the Jews, ‘The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits thereof’ (Matthew 22: 42-43). The kingdom of God, or the gift of prophethood, was taken away from the Jews and given by God to the descendant of Prophet Abraham’s first son, Ismael, that is the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) who came to bring to mankind a complete code of law, contained in the Holy Qur’an.The Message of Islam provides the view from the ceiling I mentioned earlier because the Holy Qur’an claims to contain ‘a message … for all the worlds’ (8:128) while all other previous religions specifically mentioned that their message was addressed to a specific group of people. For example, Jesus Christ declared: ‘I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 14:24).God explains in the Holy Qur’an that all the people of the world received divine guidance in the form of prophethood.And there is a Guide for every people… (Ch. 13, v. 8)And for every people there is a Messenger… (10:48)Verily, We have sent thee (the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw)) with the Truth.Duties to God, and duties toward fellowmen. Since we would expect Islam to provide a more refined spiritual guidance, we would expect the precepts of Islam to be also in keeping with what human beings have discovered through years of progress. To name a few, 1500 years ago, Islam declared that all men are created equal (an idea expounded by the French philosopher Rousseau around the year 1750). To quote the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw),… Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any rights, any superiority to claim over another. You are as brothers. O men, your God is One and your ancestor is one. An Arab holds no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a White over a Black person, nor vice-versa, but only to the extent to which he discharges his responsibility to God and man. Only the God-fearing people merit a preference with God.The pursuit of knowledge (education) was stressed for both sexes:The pursuit of knowledge is a duty to every Muslim, men and women. (Hadith)The Holy Prophet of Islam (saw) told the world that God had especially entrusted to him the task of safeguarding the rights of women.Islam gave women rights that the non-Islamic world has given to women only within the past 200 years: the right to inherit property (from their husbands, their parents, their next of kin), the right to own, keep, and manage their own property, the right to ask and get a divorce in case of ill treatment or abandonment from the husband, the right to remarry, the right to obtain an education.The responsibility for the maintenance of the wife and children was placed on the husband (only recently have child support laws been made and enforced in this country). Remember that Islam was revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) by God 1500 years ago. In the United Kingdom, it was only in late 1882 that the first Married Women’s Property Act was passed by Parliament, and before that, a woman could not hold property on her own, independently of her husband, and in Italy as late as 1919. Misconduct was accepted in English law as cause for divorce only in 1923. Abandonment was accepted as cause for divorce in New Zealand only in 1912. In Tasmania, 1919, in Victoria, 1923, in Cuba, 1918, in Mexico, 1917, in Portugal, 1915, in Norway, 1909, in Sweden, 1920, in Switzerland, 1912, divorced was allowed for various forms of mistreatment.But Islam had proclaimed and enforced the rights of women since approximately the year 600 only through revelation from God, not as a result of women having to fight for their rights. As American Justice Pierre Craibites had rightly observed:Muhammad (saw), 1300 years ago assured to the mothers, wives, and daughters of Islam a rank and dignity not yet generally assured to women by the laws of the West.A principle of change which has been discovered recently is that change in organisations takes place effectively only when the change is directed at the entire organisation rather than at individuals. Islam takes this very view. The dictates of Islam that have to do with men and women and children will change the entire society, not just the individual. You will agree that it is better to raise a good child in a good neighbourhood, isn’t it? Would any of you want to spend a lot of time raising your child and then would you go and live in a gang-infested environment? Of course not!Another paradigm which I ask you to lay aside at this time is that, as a society, you have all the answers. The society in which we live presently, with increasing number of broken homes, single parent homes, drugs, murder, illegitimate births, child abuse, general lack of morality, certainly lack of spirituality, should be a source of shock to all of us. Is this the ideal society? Is this the environment in which we want to leave our future generations?Are conditions improving or getting worse? If indeed we believe in God and an afterlife, is the society around us conducive to the achievement of this goal? If what you have is not so great, stop hanging on to the belief that you are the only one who can find solutions. Now, let’s stop putting money into government funded programmes to prevent child abuse, use of drugs, unwanted pregnancies, murders. These programmes do not work. Listen to a different alternative, one that works.Islam’s approach is proactive (not waiting for problems to occur then trying to find solutions). Islam’s approach is positive. There are more than 700 commandments of positive things to do in the Holy Qur’an and a few things not to do. Islam’s approach is systematic. It addresses change in the entire society, not just in the individual. These three conditions make Islam educationally sound. Islam gives a system for producing maintaining a social climate in a society that is conducive to allowing human beings to achieve the real goal of their creation which is the worship of God (Allah is the same God that people of all faith understand to be the Creator and Supreme Being):O ye men! worship your Lord Who created you and those who were before you, that you may guard against evil. (Ch. 2, v. 22)The dictates of Islam create a good moral individual but in addition, Islam which is from God Who, of course, understands the nature of the humanity He has created, realises that this good individual must be placed in a very moral society so that his energies are not spent fighting off evil, but instead, are spent in progressing in nearness and communion to God in preparation of the life to come. If you believe in God and in an afterlife, then a great portion of your time should be spent in preparation for that next life. When you want to prepare for a race or a championship fight or for an exam or for getting a job, you spend years, hours in preparation, don’t you? I asked someone at work what she did to prepare for the next life. She answered ‘I go to church on Sunday.’ Is it really enough?For the individual, Islam prescribes a minimum of five daily prayers which progressively bring human beings closer and closer to God, and a recipe of spiritual foods contained in the Holy Qur’an. When you do weight lifting, don’t you follow a strict programme of regular exercise coupled with a diet rich in nourishing foods? Islam then tells human beings how to regulate their relationships with one another within the content of the family, the society, and humanity.The great and noble quest that, we as human beings undertake in this life in search of our Creator, must approach it as brothers.Surely, all believers are brothers.Human society must provide internal support for its individual members:And help one another in righteousness and piety; but help not one another in sin and transgression… (Ch. 5, v. 6)We are all in this together, all of humanity! God, in His Infinite Wisdom, has created humanity in a wonderfully, diverse and complementary manner. Men and women are diverse in their respective faculties and capacities.Our Lord is He Who has endowed everything with its appropriate faculties and then guided it to their proper use. (Ch. 20, v. 51)God has fashioned mankind according to the nature designed by Him, there is no altering the creation of Allah. (Ch. 30, v. 31)Men and women are equal in the sight of God, but in view of the differences in their nature, they have been assigned different roles for the smooth functioning of the human society. Women have the unique ability to bear children and to nurture them. Men are physically stronger. Look at the cover of the latest Newsweek magazine. This article discusses brain wave research which shows how differently men and women think and feel and how different parts of the brain are affected differentially for the same mental function. Women are one segment of humanity. In an Islamic society, women can occupy three positions.First as a daughter, her importance is such that the Holy Prophet of Islam (saw) tells us: ‘He who brings up his daughters well, and makes no distinction between them and his sons, will be close to me in Paradise.’Secondly, a woman can be a wife. The character of men in an Islamic society is established in relationship to their treatment of women. ‘The best from among you is one who behaves best towards his wife.’ (Hadith)Thirdly, in her role as a mother, Islam has placed women at a higher status than men. ‘Paradise is at the feet of the mother.’ Islam recognizes the great role that women play in upbringing of the children and that the future of mankind and of societies depends on mothers. The paradise mentioned by the Holy Prophet (saw) refers to both the social paradise that can be achieved in Islam and the heavenly paradise. Therefore, mothers have been placed at a position of the highest respect. As a covert, I can testify to the profound respect (almost unimaginable if you are not a Muslim) which is accorded to mothers in Islamic homes.People who sell or teach, people who aim to effect behaviour changes in others, need to fulfill three conditions in order to be effective. First they must sell themselves, that is gain trust and credibility; for example real estate sales people are told that it is not the house that they must sell to their customers, it is themselves. Secondly, they must constantly model the behaviour which they want others to adopt. As a teacher trainer, I constantly tell my staff that they must ‘walk the talk’. The third and most vital condition is that the teacher must have high expectations of the learners. Therefore, in order for mothers to effectively mould humankind in the highest mould of excellence required by God, they must share the high expectations of that God has for his creation:Verily, We have created man in the best make. (Ch. 95, v. 5)And they must become those fortunate beings under who feet paradise can be earned.If an organisation such as an university entrusts the training of students to teachers, would you not expect that organisation to also provide adequate training for the teachers, good schools or places for the training to take place, and also, good job opportunities after the training is complete?You would expect nothing less from God, the Almighty Creator. The dictates of Islam that have to do with behaviour of women are the training of this crew of teachers of mankind. The family unit provides the setting for this teaching to take place, but the society which is the workforce of life where the teaching is practiced must also be regulated and maintained in the best of ways.Teaching is not effective unless the teacher has credibility and respect. Both need to be earned. Can you respect someone who does not behave in a respectable fashion? Can a child behave well unless you accompany your teachings with good modelling? Of course not. Therefore, the high respect which God commands us to hold for women in Islam also dictates that women have to behave with utmost dignity and piety in order to become the most respected and honoured segment of our society. It is sort of the ‘Noblesse Oblige’ concept of the French. Those of higher nobility are under constant obligation to behave in the best of ways.Ask yourselves this question. ‘Why did nuns used to dress very modestly and cover their heads?’ Because they were supposed to be very noble and very pure. In both the Old Testament and the Bible, a head covering is prescribed for chaste women (Genesis: 24:64, 65; 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6). A paradigm which comes from misinterpretation of the Bible is that Eve was responsible to make Adam sin, therefore there is an implication in Christianity that women are impure and that association with them diminishes a man. That is why priest and nuns were told not to marry if they wanted to be close to God. Islam denies the theory of the original sin, and rejects monasticism as a human invention. God tells us in the Holy Qur’an that all human beings are created pure and that both men and women are capable of achieving the highest degree of spirituality (high expectations).Going back to the question of modest dressing, nuns dressed modestly because they did not intend to marry therefore did not want to attract the attention of members of the opposite sex. But Islam wants all women to be pure, and all men also, no double standards in Islam. What you wear affects both how you feel about yourself and how others view you. For example, at my school, which is not air conditioned, the principal always wears a suit, no matter how hot it is. Teachers and parents know that well dressed children feel good about themselves, and teachers subconsciously view them as well cared for and treat them better. Well dressed children do better in school. Many public schools are now adopting uniform policies for the students because wearing a uniform puts the student in a learning mood and makes the teachers view them as potential learners. This affects both the student and the teacher’s behaviour so that the entire atmosphere becomes conducive to learning. Also, even in my childhood, women used to wear veils when they entered the church which points to the relationship between dress and attitude.Islam prescribes modesty for both men and women in order to maintain a pure Islamic society. As a matter of fact, the responsibility to create and maintain this society starts with men:Be chaste and your women will be chaste (Hadith).It is a society in which the institution of marriage plays a vital part. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) says, `Marriage is my way.’ The Holy Qur’an describes the relationship between husband and wife in a beautiful manner:They are a sort of garment for you and you are a sort of garment for them.A garment embellishes, protects, safeguards, gives dignity and honour. It’s a beautiful relationship based on love and respect and characterised by grace:Consort with them graciously… (Ch. 4, v. 20)In order to allow women the opportunity to fulfill the challenging obligation of producing these moral individuals who will become members of the Islamic society, the responsibility for providing for the family has been placed on men. They are appointed as protectors of the members of their household.Men are appointed guardians over women… (Ch. 4, v. 35)Wives have rights corresponding to those which husbands have, in equitable reciprocity, though, in certain situations, men would have the final word and thus enjoy a preference. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Ch. 2, v. 229)When you married, God appointed you trustees of those rights (of your wives). You brought your wives to your home under the law of God. You must not, therefore, abuse the trust which God has placed in your hands. (Hadith)Just as in any system, different individuals are assigned different roles for the optimum functioning of the system, similarly, in the family unit, man is the head of the household. This does not imply superiority or inferiority in any way, just difference in roles because the functions men and women each play in the family unit are different. For example, in the school where I work we have the principal. The staff shares in decision making through committee work but the suggestions always receive the final approval or disapproval from the principal. No one would ever think of disobeying the principal because he has final accountability, therefore he must have the freedom to make the ultimate decisions. In the family unit, the men bears the ultimate responsibility for providing that pious and safe haven of love and comfort called the Islamic home within which paradise is formed under the feet of mothers during the course of the sacred task of the moral upbringing of the children. In return, men receive obedience and support from their spouse. God instructs parents to pray for the success of this sacred duty, because seeking God’s help through prayer is a necessary precursor to every endeavour of a Muslim:Lord, grant us of our spouses and our offspring the delight of our eyes and make us a model (family) for the righteous. (25:75)Therefore, in order for a society to be a pure society, both men and women should think, dress, and behave in ways that allow pure thoughts and actions to dominate the way of life and create a social climate conducive to the achievement of the real goal of life, the achievement of communion with our God, our Creator. Physical attraction between men and women is good and pure only within the context of the sacred institution of marriage. In the Holy Qur’an, God tells us:Of His Signs is that He has created for you of your own kind that you may find peace of mind through them, and He has put love and tenderness between you. In that surely are Signs for a people who reflect. (30:22)To fulfill the natural need for love and comfort, God established the family unit as a safe and healthy place for the experience and manifestation of these normal needs. God also tells us how men and women should behave with people other than their immediate family:Say to the believing men that they restrain their looks and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Surely, Allah is Well-Aware of what you do. And say to the believing women that they restrain their looks and guard their private parts, and that they display not their beauty or their embellishment except that which is apparent thereof, and that they draw their head-coverings over their bosoms, and that they display not their beauty or their embellishment save to their husbands, or to their fathers, or their sons, or the son of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, (all men that are not possible for a woman to marry) or women who are their companions (decent women), or those that their right hand possesses, or such of male attendants as have no desire of women, or young children who have not yet attained knowledge of the hidden parts of women. And that they strike not their feet so what they hide of their ornaments may become known. And turn ye to Allah all together, O believers, that you may prosper. (24: 31, 32)God asks us to follow these injunctions for our own benefit. A pure society will result not only in salvation but in prosperity. What would you choose, a society where men and women respect one another and help one another achieve nearness to God, or would you prefer the present society? Let’s face reality. Women have no respect in this society. Just turn on the radio, you will hear how men talk about going to the beach to look at women, free ladies’ night at the clubs; we see surveys in major magazines where more than half of American men report being sexually aroused on the job daily by the way women dress themselves; teen pregnancies, rape, youth suicide, runaways, adultery, divorce on the rise, broken homes; another survey of Time Magazine reports that men between the ages of 25 to 40 have 6 to 9 sexual partners; picture the scenes on college campuses, especially where there are dorms, is this really the society in which you, your children, your future generations want to spend the short time we have on this earth to prepare for our eternal life?As a woman, I pity women in this society. From early childhood, they are taught that their main asset is their physical attraction (think of teen beauty pageants; there are now cheer-pom squads for girls even in elementary schools). They are made to believe that they must parade their physical beauty, spend hours working out in the gyms to shape their figures only to display them at the beaches, all this demeaning compromise so that eventually they will catch a husband. Once they do, they continue to display their attractiveness outside the home, only to be complimented by men other than their husband, or sexually harassed on the job, generally starting the slide into the path of adultery, divorce, broken homes, etc… Enough is Enough.In Islam, a women need not compromise her dignity, her integrity, her high self-esteem at any time. She thinks, behaves, and dresses modestly. She is respected by all members of the society, particularly men. She displays her beauty for her own husband, not providing a free show for all to enjoy:..and display not your beauty like the displaying of the former days of ignorance … (33:34)Here is the key word `ignorance’. If you walked in an area where prostitutes were parading, would you not feel pity for them and understand that they chose this way of life out of ignorance, because of low self-esteem learned from bad childhood experiences? The Holy Prophet of Islam (saw) tells us:When you are contemplating a certain course of action, reflect first upon its consequences; if they are good persist, if they are bad desist.Modest behaviour, of which clothing is only one part, is worth the effort. Why would we, as women, who are entrusted the great responsibility of teaching all of mankind the ways of our Lord, why would we ever want to cause indecent thoughts in the mind of our fellow men who are our brothers in the sight of God. In an Islamic society, men and women help each other achieve goodness, they are not devilishly tempting one another.The believers, men and women, are friends one of another. They enjoin good and forbid evil and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat (tax for the poor), and obey Allah and His Messenger. It is these whom Allah will have mercy. Surely, Allah is Mighty, Wise. Allah has promised the believers, men and women, Gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide, and delightful dwelling places in Gardens of Eternity, and the pleasure of Allah, which is the greatest bounty of All. That is the supreme triumph. (9:71-72)The symbolic description above refers to paradise which Islam tells us is a condition of nearness to God which can begin to be reached here on earth, the river flowing under the gardens of paradise refers to the never ending, continuously progressing nature of the quest for the pleasure of God, which is in fact, heaven.Modest behaviour includes not only how we dress, but how we think, how we address others:…So be no soft in speech, lest he, in whose heart is a disease, should feel tempted; and speak decent words. (33:33)God understands that all men do not feel tempted every time they look at a woman, however indecently she may be dressed. But we have no way of knowing the inner state of morality of others.Islam, as I mentioned earlier, takes a proactive and systematic approach to the establishment of morality in an upright society. Regulation of behaviour between men and women is only one of the preventive dictates of Islam. Others include no intoxicants at all so that human beings are always acting with a clear head and able to make responsible choices. Remember the goal is to produce individuals who eventually achieve communion with God. Of course, production of such individuals in large numbers, who would be the rule rather than the exception, can only be achieved in an upright society where spiritual thriving is the norm.Earlier, I referred to the fact that principals in schools, bosses in organisations, always dress the part. This clothing does not make them the bosses. It is symbolic of their role in that organisation. In the Qur’an, God explains the essence of Islamic purdah or covering which embodies the attitude of both men and women and is reflected in dress, behaviour and is in turn positively affected by dress and behaviour. When, as a teacher, I see the sad consequences of immoral behaviour perpetuated by behaviours of parents learned by children, I realise that it is a vicious circle. I like to think of the Islamic system as the `pious circle’.O children of Adam, we have indeed sent down to you raiment to cover your nakedness and to be a means of adornment, but the raiment of righteousness – that is the best. That is the commandment of Allah, that they may remember. (7:27)The eventual goal is the righteousness of the hearts. Look around you and see morality declining and a system that is not working. Islam offers a system that works. Women play a vital part in this complex and refined system. You know that the more frequent the opportunities for social interchange between men and women, friendships, dating, parties, and so forth, the more likely chances are that the natural attraction which God has placed between them will result in relationships that are bound to endanger morality in a society. Islam restricts this free and unrestrained intermixing of the sexes. Believe me, it is a lot more of a restraint on men than it is on women. And women are protected from all kinds of molestation. Molested individuals lose their sense of self-esteem and unless they undergo lengthy therapy they are usually unable to form stable relationships.In this society, I view women as suffering from Psychological Molestation Syndrome (PMS) because of the way they are treated as sex objects by the media, at school, on the job, and unfortunately, sometimes in their own homes. The resulting self-esteem of women is low as evidenced by the fact that they allow themselves to be continually exploited in this fashion. Therefore, unless we change the entire system and allow women to gain the self-esteem and respect God provided for them through Islam, stability of relationships between wives and husbands, between mothers and children will continue to be endangered.When I taught High School students, I would become so saddened by the plight of those teenagers. They felt pressured by society to date. A few girls and a few boys in a class of twenty five would get all the requests. The rest would always feel unhappy, living in constant fear of not being asked out, and often I saw that girls who were finally asked would be ready to give up everything for fear of losing the opportunity. But when relationships of a more serious nature developed, most of the time, they would end up in tremendous heartbreaks, then a process of healing followed in which the teenager hardened and lost this wonderful softness which would have been so critical in forming an enduring relationship in a marriage. After a few of these relationships and ensuing heart breaks, there was nothing left of these poor souls. What would these broken hearted, mended, patched human beings have to contribute to the great task of motherhood. How would you expect individuals who had been exposed to so much to be contained in a relationship with a single partner?Don’t you see that it is the very system that you have created which contributes to the progressive degeneration of your social system? Don’t you see that the divorce rate, unwanted pregnancies, lack of commitment to the institution of marriage, all these ills are increasing day by day. Women are so exposed and available that men are losing their attraction for them, and homosexuality, children molestation are becoming more and more common. Unlimited and unrestricted pleasures bring no happiness, indeed they result in unhappiness and instability throughout the entire society. It’s like drug usage, the more you take, the more and stronger drug you need to get the temporary but potentially deadly thrill.As I mentioned earlier, you cannot affect change by targeting individuals or different aspects of a system. You must create change by changing rules that govern the entire system. The rules must be proactive and preventive in nature. The dictates must be positive and include a large number of behaviours that progressively lead to the targeted change. The change proposed by God in the Holy Qur’an will produce a healthy society where goodness becomes a source of pleasure and happiness. Islam promotes strong emotional attachments in relationship between wife and husband, parents and children, siblings, extended families which provide comfort and support and result in happiness, peace of mind and heart, harmony, trust, and stability. In such a society, the natural human need to be loved and to love is fulfilled in so many chaste ways that the individual is satisfied.A few years ago, I felt so lucky to be a woman in Islam that I became overwhelmed by my Beloved God’s goodness toward me. I have, by the grace of God, pious and wonderful children, a wonderful husband, a wonderful son-in-law who is also a convert, and I can see Islam at work creating heaven daily in front of my own eyes. I cannot wait until the time that more and more Americans adopt Islam. Americans are so kindhearted, welcoming, sympathetic, generous human beings, they will, God willing, make the best of Muslims.

DUELING IN EARLY AMERICAViolence as Part of Regime ChangeIt is a dictum of history that, “all revolutions devour their own children.” Any cursory study of the topic appears to bear out this claim. Certainly a pattern of violence notoriously appeared in the French Revolution of the late eighteenth-century, and this pattern was repeated in the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution that followed in the twentieth century. It is logical if regrettable that during a period of major upheaval when a long-standing government has been overturned, and the old channels of power and its expression have been destroyed, that a period of experimental violence would follow as disparate factions grab for dominance and settle old debts. But in America, at least, there was no Reign of Terror; there was no corresponding period of organized domestic violence among our burgeoning political factions.Thomas Jefferson famously said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” But he was remarkably chary with his own. He also supported the bloody excesses of the French Revolution long after his contemporaries had backed away in horror. So here in America, while we clearly had the rhetoric, not so the widespread or politically targeted bloodshed.There are undoubtedly several reasons for this. For one thing, we had a unique viewpoint regarding our politicians and politics. In the beginning, belonging to a party or a faction was actually considered to be just plain wrong. Factions were presumed to be corrupt. Therefore engaging in “politics” was evil, and being called a “politician” was a mortal insult. Men of good conscience and ability were expected to think independently for themselves, be guided by their principles, and then act for the common welfare. Our Constitution was actually written and our government formed with absolutely no conception of political parties. By the same token, for most of our history it was considered wrong to campaign for the presidency. The applicable maxim was, “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.” Only in the openly venal 20th century did our presidential candidates begin to openly campaign for the job.George Washington never considered himself to be a member of any political party, and he would have been deeply outraged by anyone who suggested otherwise. Today historians classify him as a Federalist because of his beliefs and policies. This general abhorrence of politics and distaste for political faction would certainly have had a dampening effect on the passions of the earliest participants in our political system. But while keeping politics personal might have solved some problems, it would have exacerbated others. In a time when the abstraction of political parties was avoided, or at least viewed with suspicion, a proportionately greater burden would have been borne by the individual. It would have proved difficult, if not impossible, to separate one’s personal persona from a civic persona, or personal honor from a public reputation. What mechanisms existed in the early republic to resolve these challenges to belief and character? The answer was just one—the private duel.History of DuelingDueling had certainly existed in the Colonies long before the War of Independence, and was always the preferred method for gentlemen to settle affairs of honor. In fact, dueling came to our shores along with the pilgrims. The first recorded American duel took place in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1621, between Edward Leicester and Edward Doty, both of whom were actually servants rather than gentlemen. In this particular instance the weapons were swords and both parties were only mildly injured.The rules for dueling were fairly simple, and a code duello with 25 rules was established in Ireland in the 1770s, and widely used here. The injured party chose a “second” to act as a go-between. The second delivered the challenge to the “injurer,” who could apologize at any time and end the matter. Alternatively, the injurer could accept the challenge, in which case he got to pick the weapons, the time, place, and conditions for the duel. His second would meet with the injured party’s second to arrange the details.In America, the dueling weapon of choice was most often the smooth-bore flintlock pistol. Since these weapons were highly inaccurate and prone to misfire, this meant that the chances of anyone being killed were usually pretty slim. Duels were usually not fought to the death. With swords, “first blood” was often considered to be enough to satisfy honor, while with guns a single inconclusive volley was often judged sufficient to end the matter. On the other hand, a severe blow to one’s honor might demand a more drastic outcome, with as many as five volleys or more. And in those days there was an omnipresent threat of septicemia and even a minor wound could prove fatal—so there was inevitably a genuine degree of risk.Famous DuelersAfter the American War of Independence, political, as well as private duels became relatively commonplace. A politician’s personal honor was inseparable from his political reputation, so public attacks, no matter how partisan, often demanded redress upon the field of honor. Samuel Johnson expressed it well: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” Many of our most famous political and historical figures fought duels. For example, a signer of the Declaration of Independence named Button Gwinnet was killed in a duel with General Lachlan McIntosh. Three framers of our Constitution were killed in duels—Gwinnet, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and Alexander Hamilton. Dueling was common enough in these early days for both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin to feel compelled to publicly condemn the practice.A famous duel occurred in 1802 between DeWitt Clinton (see below) and John Swartwout, a close friend of Aaron Burr’s.Clinton was challenged by Swartwout, who claimed he had tried to cast aspersions on his good friend Burr. The duel was fought with pistols and went on for five rounds. Swartwout was shot twice, once in the ankle and once in the thigh, but he refused to quit unless Clinton would sign an apology. It ended when Clinton simply refused to shoot any more holes into the wounded man. Swartwout survived and was one of Burr’s seconds in his later duel with Alexander Hamilton. Clinton went on to become the Mayor of New York City and a famous Governor of New York State.Hamilton and BurrThe prototypical American political duel took place on July 11, 1804 between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton has come down to us as the good guy, while Burr is portrayed as the villain of the piece, but the actual details are well worth a closer look. For starters, both participants had a staggering amount in common. At least one historian has suggested that they each viewed the other as his “evil twin,” and the idea bears serious consideration. Both Hamilton and Burr were short, slight, and good looking, and both flattered themselves to be ladies’ men, although Burr undoubtedly had better cause. Both had genuinely distinguished careers as army officers in the War of Independence, both saw more than their share of front line action, and both had served as aides-de-camp to General George Washington. Hamilton stayed in this position for four years, becoming one of Washington’s most trusted advisors, while Burr apparently didn’t get along with the great man and only lasted for two weeks.After the war the two were friends—each had a successful practice as a lawyer in New York City. They moved in the same circles, attended the same parties, dined together, and even occasionally worked the same cases—sometimes in consultation, and sometimes as opposing counsels. In the end it was politics that came between them, with Hamilton founding the Federalist Party, and Burr becoming a prominent Republican. Both were budding financiers—Hamilton founded the Bank of New York, while Burr founded the Bank of the Manhattan Company, which later became the Chase Manhattan Bank. Both men were ambitious over-achievers. Hamilton rose as high as becoming the first Secretary of the Treasury and later was briefly appointed as the commanding general of the United States Army. Burr’s military career peaked as a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army and he was the third Vice President of the United States.They first fell afoul of each other in 1791, when Burr (see above), then attorney-general of the state of New York, defeated Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law and became the Senator from the same state. In the presidential election of 1800, when Burr was tied with Jefferson in the Electoral College vote, Hamilton intervened. He threw all of his influence against Burr, even though it meant that the House of Representatives then elected Thomas Jefferson as president. Hamilton was the head and founder of the Federalist Party at the time. Since Jefferson was his life-long rival and the head of the opposing Republican Party, Hamilton’s reason for challenging Burr was clearly personal.Even with Hamilton’s help, it took a whopping 36 ballots for Jefferson to defeat Burr for the presidency. When Jefferson did gain the office, Burr became vice president, but Jefferson never trusted him again. Realizing that his future as a Republican was now dim, Burr tried to redeem his political fortunes by running for the governorship of New York. He was resoundingly beaten by a complete unknown, largely due to a smear campaign launched by Hamilton. Burr’s patience was already wearing thin when he was informed that Hamilton (see below) had expressed a “despicable” opinion of him. This, by the standards of the day, was unforgivable.Burr wrote repeatedly to Hamilton asking for an explanation of this remark. It was well understood by all that a failure to produce a satisfactory explanation or an apology would result in a duel. No one was more aware of the consequences than Hamilton—just three years earlier his son Philip was killed in a duel while defending his father’s reputation. Still, Hamilton responded to Burr’s increasingly urgent requests with several rounds of lawyerly hairsplitting and weasely prevarication. His reaction is a bit mystifying, even to this day. If he wasn’t prepared to explicitly repeat his insult, and he clearly wasn’t, then he could quite easily have deflected all consequences merely by suggesting that he had spoken in error. But he did neither. In the end Burr had no choice but to challenge his rival to a duel. At that time, there was simply no other mechanism for equitably resolving this conflict, and it would surely have been fatal to Burr’s status to allow such a blatant insult to stand.In 1804, dueling in New York was enough of a problem to have already been outlawed—the punishment for a conviction on the charge was severe—death. But it still occurred so often that the woodsy plateau of Weehawken, just across the Hudson was a regular meeting place for gentlemen to settle each other’s “hash,” along with their differences. At least eighteen duels are known to have occurred there. New Jersey had also outlawed the practice, but didn’t prosecute the crime quite as aggressively as her sister state across the Hudson.Whatever Hamilton’s true intentions, his chicanery now becomes quite Machiavellian. The night before the duel he penned a verbose statement descrying the practice of dueling and denying any intention of actually shooting Burr. But everything he did subsequently seems to contradict this testament. As the challenged party, Hamilton had the right to choose the weapons. At dawn the next morning, he showed up with a particularly large-barreled and lethal set of matched pistols. These particular pistols, crafted by a famous gunsmith named Wogden, had already exercised a powerful effect on the lives of the two principals. Five years earlier they were used in a duel between Burr and one of Hamilton’s brothers-in-law, and miraculously Burr’s only injury on that occasion was to have one of the buttons on his coat was shot off. But make no mistake, these pistols were thoroughly lethal.These were also precisely the same pistols used in Philip Hamilton’s fatal duel, which also had taken place at Weehawken. Additionally, these pistols, which still exist, each had a secret and optional hair trigger setting. Exerting the necessary ten pounds or more of pressure on a trigger could easily cause a pistol to wiggle in one’s hand—spoiling the aim. But a hair-trigger eliminated problem Since this setting was unknown to Burr, Hamilton would have retained a considerable advantage over his opponent. The pistols were actually the property of John Barker Church, Hamilton’s close friend and brother-in-law, and one of Hamilton’s sons were named after him. But Church was also a business partner of both Hamilton’s and Burr’s. Lastly, Burr had actually engaged in another duel with Church four years before, but on that occasion no one had been injured and they had used pistols supplied by Burr, since he had been the challenged party.In keeping with the customs of dueling, each participant brought an official “second” to the event. Burr’s second was his long-time close associate William Van Ness and they were accompanied by Samuel Swartwout, another Burr intimate. Van Ness, an attorney and prominent Republican, had worked hard back in 1800, in a vain attempt to swing the presidential vote in the House for Burr instead of Jefferson. In 1803 Van Ness actually wrote a book defending his friend from the charges of his enemies. Future president Martin Van Buren later served in his law office.Swartwout was another close ally of Burr’s in the New York State political scene, and he was also involved in Burr’s later notorious adventures. Like Burr, he too would be arrested for treason, but the charges were quickly dropped. Swartwout later became a close associate of President Andrew Jackson, who appointed him to the position of Collector of the Port of New York. But he is best known to history for his participation in what became known as the Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal. Swartwout supposedly embezzled something in the neighborhood of $2 million and fled to Europe, replaced as Collector by one Jesse Hoyt. Several years later it came to light that Hoyt too, was possessed of sticky digits. This episode became the origin of an old expression which has since fallen into disuse—any person who stole federal funds and fled to another country in the hopes of evading extradition was said to have, “Swartwouted out.”Hamilton’s second was Judge Nathaniel Pendleton and they were accompanied by Dr. David Hosack. Pendleton was a Revolutionary War veteran and prominent attorney who had been appointed to a federal judgeship by George Washington. Hosack, a native New Yorker was a renowned physician, as well as a leading educator and botanist. Ominously, the good doctor had also ministered to Hamilton’s son Philip, when he was fatally injured three years earlier in a duel at precisely the same spot.Burr’s party arrived on the scene around 6:30 am, and they busied themselves with removing underbrush from the field of fire. Hamilton and his companions appeared about 7:00 am, carrying the fateful pistols with them as was Hamilton’s right as the challenged party. Peculiarly, and adding to the confusion later, at the duel’s climax these seconds turned their backs on the principals and did not actually watch the exchange of fire. All participants were concerned by the legal niceties of the event and if called upon to testify they wished to be able to truthfully claim that they had seen nothing. And it’s surely no coincidence that of the six participants, three were lawyers and one a judge.Just before the two adversaries squared off, Hamilton carefully pulled on a pair of spectacles—obviously unnecessary if he planned to miss. Hamilton also carefully balanced the pistol in his hand and repeatedly sighted along the barrel—more strange behavior if there was no violence in his heart. Also, there was a well known and commonly used tactic of the day for saving face and throwing away a shot rather than shooting at your opponent. It was called deloping, and required the duelist to hold his pistol pointed to the side in an obvious manner. If a duelist telegraphed his intentions in this way, his opponent was honor bound to do the same. By all witness accounts, Hamilton never chose to delope.In the event, two shots were definitely fired, separated only by a second or two. The first shot seems to have been Hamilton’s. He fired high and severed a branch above Burr’s head. Burr apparently took an extra second to aim and his shot caught Hamilton in the lower abdomen. Hamilton immediately dropped his pistol and crumpled to the ground. Burr appeared to be horror stricken by the result and in concern started to approach his fallen adversary, but he was then hustled away by William Van Ness. When Dr. Hosack drew near him, Hamilton whispered, “This is a mortal wound, doctor,” before fainting away. When Hamilton regained consciousness, he told Hosack to be careful as his pistol was still loaded and added that “Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at him.” This suggests that Hamilton may have been his own victim. Due to the hair trigger he had set, he might have discharged his weapon somehow without realizing what he had done. But under the circumstances, Hamilton’s written and verbal statements must be viewed with enormous suspicion.Burr was always convinced that Hamilton had done his best to destroy his career and then to kill him, and many historians share the opinion that Hamilton’s written statement was merely a malicious attempt to ruin Burr in the event that Hamilton lost the duel. If so, Hamilton succeeded. Burr’s bullet not only killed his hated rival, but also dealt a death blow to his own political ambitions. The stricken Hamilton was rowed back across the river and taken to the home of a friend in Greenwich Village, where he died the following day.Burr was charged with Hamilton’s murder in both New York and New Jersey, but was never brought to trial. After briefly fleeing the unexpected uproar with a trip to South Carolina, Burr returned to finish his term as Vice President with probity and dignity. Even his enemies reportedly cried at his farewell speech. But despite these crocodile tears, his political career was over.Burr Treason TrialSeveral years later Burr was tried for treason at President Jefferson’s insistence. Burr was apparently trying to retrieve his fortunes by engaging in military adventurism in either Mexico or the Southwest. He may have had the goal of forming an independent state, or of carving out a principality and then returning to the U.S. in triumph. (If so, then he was ahead of the curve—in the future other defeated politicians would move West in an effort to reinvent themselves and revitalize their ambitions—Sam Houston and Davy Crockett come to mind.) Whatever Burr’s intentions, there was never any genuine evidence against him and accordingly, despite Jefferson’s best and quite partisan efforts, he was acquitted. But the older Burr (see below) was never able to regain the former eminence he enjoyed in his younger years. His reputation would have been served better if he had died dramatically with Hamilton. He returned to New York to practice law and slowly sank into gray obscurity.Andy Jackson, Frontier DuelistWhatever his repute as a statesman, in his lifetime Andrew Jackson was well known as a hot-tempered and vengeful man—quick to take offense, and quick too, to resort to violence. In addition to the fact that in that day political passions tended to run high, Jackson’s personal life was a considerable source of aggrievement to him. The delight of his existence was his wife, Rachel, née Donelson, and the loving couple was joined together in marriage in 1791. The problem was that at that moment Rachel was still married to her first husband, and so she was technically guilty of bigamy. Apologists posit that communications were quite imperfect in rough and tumble frontier Tennessee, and that Rachel had sincerely believed that her divorce was complete when the papers had merely been filed. But there is also evidence that she cohabited with Andrew and titled herself as “Mrs. Jackson” even before the wedding took place. In any event, proprieties being what they were, a nasty little scandal ensued. A second marriage ceremony was conducted in 1794, after Rachel’s divorce was finalized. Despite the belated resolution, this affair provided a permanent chink in the armor of this cranky and belligerent politician. And it was impossible that an imbroglio as juicy as this would not be used repeatedly by Jackson’s adversaries.Only two are well documented, but “Old Hickory” claimed to have fought the prodigious total of fourteen duels over his career. Considering a character as preternaturally touchy as his, this gory aggregate offers no serious strain to credulity. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in these brouhahas that in later life it was said that he “rattled like a bag of marbles.” While politicians usually fought duels with the goal of protecting their reputations, this tactic could also backfire. In 1806, the young Andrew Jackson fought such a duel with Charles Dickinson. Dickinson had published an attack on Jackson (Rachel again), and Jackson had typically responded by issuing a challenge to a duel. The outcome would be notorious and the effects long-lasting.Jackson’s pistol failed to go off while Dickinson’s bullet wounded his adversary. Under the code duello, this exchange should have ended the matter, but Jackson was incensed. He cold-bloodedly pulled back the flintlock and fired again, this time striking his opponent dead. By the rules governing “affairs of honor” this was pretty close to outright murder. Dickenson’s bullet had lodged close enough to Jackson’s heart that doctors refused to remove it. For the rest of his life it occasionally caused “Old hickory” to cough up blood. Another lasting result was the damage that the Dickinson duel did to Jackson’s reputation. Contemporary judgments were somewhat arbitrary, but in this instance Jackson was commonly felt to have crossed the line of gentlemanly conduct. But overall, and unlike Burr, Jackson’s penchant for violence and his many exercises in defense of his honor enhanced rather than hurt his standing. Andrew Jackson is the only American president known to have killed another man in a duel. And on the very last day of his presidency, the cantankerous Tennessean expressed but two regrets, that he “had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun.”By the time of the Burr-Hamilton duel, the custom was already falling seriously out of favor in the North. A number of anti-dueling organizations had formed, and ministers and public officials were regularly speaking out against it. Prosecution had become vigorous. But the practice was much more resilient in the South. Interestingly, the majority of Southern duels were fought by politicians and lawyers. Legislators, judges, and even governors used dueling to sort out their disagreements, and politicians regularly continued their “debates” on the dueling ground. South of the Mason-Dixon Line, a man who refused a duel was punished by being “posted”—a notification of his cowardice was either printed in a local newspaper or hung up in a local place.John Randolph, Jefferson’s Eccentric CousinOne of the most interesting politicians of the early republic who also dabbled in dueling was John Randolph of Roanoke. A scion of one of Virginia’s leading families, Randolph was a first cousin to President Thomas Jefferson, and the nephew of Edmund Randolph, the first Attorney General of the United States and the second Secretary of State. Tall and lanky, as a young man John was good looking, but an unusual disease described as a form of “tuberculosis” left him smooth cheeked, high voiced, and probably sexually impotent. He spent most of his career as a gadfly Congressman, although he also served one term as a U.S. Senator.Randolph was an eccentric character, famous for his “flashy” dress, often showing up in the House booted and spurred and swishing a riding crop. Wherever he went he would often appear surrounded by his slaves and a frolicsome pack of hunting dogs. He was always a notable speaker, and at his best he could be a highly effective orator—he would become famous for his invective. When an opponent in the House had the temerity to imply that he was sexually incapable, he responded in an aristocratic Southern drawl, “You pride yourself upon an animal faculty, in respect to which the negro is your equal and the jackass infinitely your superior.” In criticizing the appointment of a politician he felt unqualified to the position of Secretary of the Treasury he commented, “Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded; no, not when Caligula’s horse was made Consul.”As would be expected of such a volatile character, living in such times, Randolph fought his share of duels, often with little cause. While attending college as a young man, dueling was considered to be an essential part of a Southern gentleman’s education. Randolph had a dispute with a fellow Virginian student over nothing more weighty than the pronunciation of a word. Still, they fought a duel to settle the matter and Randolph shot his opponent, who luckily survived.Under the code of dueling, the greatest insult of all was to refuse a challenge on the grounds that your antagonist was too far beneath you to merit a response. In 1807 Randolph refused to duel with the notorious General James Wilkinson, the commanding officer of the U.S. Army. The irate Wilkinson responded by “posting” Randolph for cowardice. Randolph, who had seemingly spoken ill of Wilkinson, held his object in such contempt that he felt he owed him no explanation—Wilkinson possessed no honor to be tarnished. He coldly replied, “I cannot descend to your level.” The posting by Wilkinson was entirely ineffective in damaging Randolph’s reputation. The general was a particularly shady character who had been revealed to a paid agent in the employ of the Spanish government and who had also conspired with Aaron Burr in the latter’s aborted scheme for conquest in the Southwest.One of the major issues in Randolph’s political career was a notorious swindle called the Yazoo Land Fraud. Even when he chose not to duel, his passions ran high. He had a violent argument over this issue with an individual named Wright, whom he clearly felt to be wrong. In a quaint letter he asks one of his seconds to arrange the affair without bloodshed. “I threw a tumbler at him, which hit him in the head. He returned, and, while my friends very kindly pinioned me, struck me twice in the face. You will oblige me by settling matters with him, or his friend, as soon as may be, in such a way as you know calculated to give me ease.”Despite his bellicosity, Randolph actually had decidedly mixed feelings towards dueling. He thought the mechanism was used too often and too lightly, but that ultimately the practice was a necessary evil. In another letter he said, “Abolish dueling and you encourage bullies as well in number as in degree, and lay every gentleman at the mercy of a cowardly pack of scoundrels. In fine, my good friend, the Yahoo must be kept down, by religion, sentiment, manners if you can—but he must be kept down.”Late in his career, long painful illnesses seemed to have taken a toll on Randolph’s mental stability and his enemies had occasion to accuse him of insanity. In this period he had a serious falling out with the famous Henry Clay, who challenged Randolph to a duel in 1826. Randolph immediately accepted. At the event he was oddly attired in a long dressing gown, which Clay managed to put two bullet holes in, while Randolph himself managed to perforate Clay’s own coat. Meeting in mid-field, Randolph remarked to Clay that he now owed him a coat. The “Great Compromiser” responded, “I am glad the debt is no greater.” With honor served, the two quickly restored their former cordial relationship. Among Randolph’s many friends were Francis Scott Key, composer of our National Anthem, and Thomas Hart Benton, the famous Congressman and Senator from Missouri. Coincidentally, Benton, a seminal figure in early nineteenth-century American politics was also a violent and touchy man, famous for his own duels. We’ll come back to him.Commodore Decatur, Naval DuelistProbably the most popular dueling site in America was located at Bladensburg, Maryland. Dueling was strictly illegal in the new capital of Washington, D. C., and the laws were strictly enforced. But for a time Maryland offered no such encumbrances and Bladensburg was just across the Potomac. One of the most famous Americans to duel there was the renowned Commodore Stephen Decatur, a sterling figure and one of the very greatest heroes of the United States Navy. Dueling was amazingly commonplace in early nineteenth century navy as Decatur’s life illustrates.One particular story of Decatur’s first voyage as a midshipman aboard the frigate U.S.S. United States bears telling. The ship was on duty in the Mediterranean Sea, and Decatur had become close friends with another midshipman named Richard Somers. One day he and Somers playfully mocked each other, but overhearing, the other midshipmen aboard demanded that Somers challenge Decatur for his supposed insult. Instead, Somers challenged all of the messmates and requested Decatur to serve as his second. Decatur tried to assuage the situation, but Somers was adamant. In a scene reminiscent of The Three Musketeers, Somers challenged all of the ship’s complement of midshipmen, arranging to meet each officer at subsequent hours.In his duel with the first midshipman, Somers was wounded in the left arm. In his second duel he was “pinked” in the thigh and fainted from the blood loss. Decatur offered to take his place, but the defiant Somers refused. Firing from a sitting position he still managed to wound his third opponent, whereupon the other officers acknowledged his courage and the affair ended. In light of subsequent events, it’s fascinating to note that Decatur’s training officer at the time was First Lieutenant James Barron, ten years his senior. Describing their close relationship, Decatur was to say, “I was more indebted to him than my own father.”Decatur fought his own first duel in Philadelphia in 1799, while a young lieutenant, still stationed aboard the United States. This time the Chief Mate of a British Indiaman made the mistake of making a number of derogatory remarks about Decatur and the American navy. When the man refused to apologize, Decatur challenged him to a duel. The young lieutenant was a crack shot and he contented himself with wounding his adversary in the hip.In 1801 the First Barbary War began, when Jefferson opted to send a U.S. naval force to do battle with the Barbary States rather than to continue to pay tribute to them. In 1804, Decatur distinguished himself in this conflict by taking the captured Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor and setting fire to the ship, depriving the pirates of her use. For his feat, Decatur became the youngest man in American naval history to hold the rank of captain. He fought heroically in further fleet actions and the following year the Bashaw of Tripoli surrendered. The dashing Decatur married young Susan Wheeler, the daughter of the mayor of the naval town of Norfolk, Virginia. She was a great beauty and quite vivacious—her earlier suitors had included Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, and that ubiquitous roué, Aaron Burr.In 1807, the notorious Chesapeake-Leopard Affair took place, an international incident which would eventually lead to Decatur’s final duel. In June of that year the frigate U.S.S. Chesapeake set sail under the command of Commodore James Barron and headed for the Mediterranean Sea. Shortly afterwards they were accosted by the British frigate, H.M.S. Leopard, whose captain demanded to search the American ship for British naval deserters. Barron properly refused and shockingly, without warning the Leopard opened fire, savaging the Chesapeake, killing three of her crewmembers and wounding eighteen others. Have just left port, the Chesapeake was unprepared for battle and could not return fire. Barron struck his ship’s colors and was forced to allow the British to board him. The Chesapeake eventually limped back to port with two crippled masts and twenty-two shot holes peppering her oaken sides.As a consequence, Commodore Barron was court-martialed and Decatur was ordered to serve on the board. Barron was disgraced—the court found him guilty of “unpreparedness,” and he was barred from command for a period of five years. As a final insult, the navy appointed Decatur to command the refitted Chesapeake. By the time the War of 1812 broke out, Decatur was now captain of the 44 gun frigate U.S.S. United States. In a famous battle he defeated and captured the British frigate H.M.S. Macedonia. Decatur also served with distinction in the Second Barbary War of 1815.In October of 1818, Decatur was asked to serve as a “second” in a duel between his good friend Oliver Hazard Perry, another renowned hero of the War of 1812, and Marine Captain John Heath. Heath fired and missed, while Perry declined to shoot. The seconds performed their part in smoothing things over, both parties agreed that honor had been satisfied, and the affair ended without casualty. But Decatur’s next duel would not end so felicitously.In 1820 Commodore James Barron challenged Decatur over remarks the latter had made regarding the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of thirteen years earlier. Barron had just returned to the U.S. after a number of years in “exile” in Copenhagen, and was now seeking reinstatement in the navy. Decatur, among other officers, blocked this return to duty, and so Barron chose to call him out. At this point in time dueling between naval officers was so prevalent that it was actually causing a serious shortage of qualified personnel. In Decatur’s case, the dangers of the duel were magnified by the sinister element of betrayal.Barron’s second was Captain Jesse Elliott, a pugnacious fellow well known to dislike Decatur. But Decatur’s second was his erstwhile friend, Commodore William Bainbridge. Decatur was too generous of nature to realize it, but the older Bainbridge was jealous of his fame and not inclined to do him any favors. Under the code of dueling, the first duty of the principals’ seconds is to resolve the affair peacefully, if this is in any way possible. Not only did Elliott and Bainbridge make no serious effort to do this, but the details they arranged virtually guaranteed that the encounter would be lethal.The combatants met at Bladensburg on March 22nd, at a popular dueling venue known locally as “The Valley of Chance.” They faced off at the extremely close range of only eight paces. Both men fired simultaneously, and not unexpectedly, both were badly wounded. Decatur tried vainly to staunch his wound and said, “Oh, Lord, I am a dead man.” Lying in a puddle of blood Barron told him that he forgave him from the bottom of his heart. As his opponent was carried away, he cried out, “God bless you, Decatur.”Decatur died at 10:30 that night in his elegant mansion on Lafayette Square, near to the White House. Barron was lucky enough to eventually recover from his wounds. Decatur’s funeral became a national event, with President James Madison prominent among the mourners. Afterwards, the reprehensible conduct of the seconds became known and Decatur’s widow spent many years vainly pursuing justice for “the assassins.” At his death the naval paragon was only forty-one. Barron would eventually be reinstated, but he was never to command a ship again.Senator Thomas Hart BentonThomas Hart Benton was born in 1782, and in his long life he served five terms as the powerful Senator from Missouri, and he was also the leading exponent of westward expansion—the policy that would become known as “Manifest Destiny.” But Hart’s beginnings were a bit more checkered. In 1799, while studying law at the University of North Carolina he was expelled after admitting that he had stolen money from his fellow students. Those same students jeered him as he left the campus and he responded colorfully by saying, “I am leaving here now but damn you, you will hear from me again.” He eventually moved his family to Tennessee, completed his legal studies, and became a state senator. There he attracted the attention of Andrew Jackson.During the War of 1812, Benton received a commission as a lieutenant colonel and became General Jackson’s aide-de-camp. But both Benton and Jackson were famed for their belligerence, and only a year later there was seriously bad blood between the two. This resulted in a nasty fracas which contemporaries quaintly described as a “tavern brawl,” but which today would undoubtedly be classified as a “fire fight.” In any event, it never came close to rising to the civilized level of a duel. On September 4, 1813, Thomas Benton and his brother Jesse arrived in Nashville, Tennessee and went to the City Hotel. Each of the brothers was carrying two pistols. Immediately afterwards, Jackson also entered Nashville, accompanied by John Coffee and a young man named Stockley Hays, who had been with Aaron Burr on the latter’s infamous expedition to the Southwest. All were heavily armed. The action that followed was confused, but this is roughly what took place.Jackson and Coffee approached the hotel’s porch where Benton was standing, and the general brandished a whip, shouting, “Now, defend yourself you damned rascal!” Jackson drew a pistol but was shot from behind by Jesse Benton. Thomas Benton fired twice more at Jackson as he toppled over. John Coffee took a shot at Benton and missing, tried to grapple with him. Benton staggered and fell backwards down a flight of stairs. Stockley Hays tried to skewer Jesse Benton with a sword cane, but the point caught on a button and the narrow blade snapped. Jesse then attempted to shoot Hays but his pistol misfired. When the smoke cleared, Jackson’s left shoulder had been shattered by a bullet and the wound was serious enough to have nearly required an amputation. But when doctors attempted to perform the operation, the steely “Old Hickory” replied, “I’ll keep my arm.”In 1815, Benton moved to the new Missouri Territory. Describing himself, he once said, “I never quarrel, sir, but I do fight, sir, and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir.” Two years later he proved the truth of this. In 1817 he engaged in a bona fide duel with an opposing attorney named Charles Lucas. They first clashed in court, calling each other liars. At a later date Lucas accused Benton of being ineligible to vote, and the colonel had responded by dismissing Lucas as a “puppy.” Lucas then formally challenged Benton to a duel. The practice was already illegal, so they met on a sandbar in the middle of the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri. It was called “Bloody Island” because of the many duels it had hosted.They fought with pistols at thirty paces, but the first volley was ineffective. Their arguing continued and they met again the following month. On that occasion, only nine feet apart, Benton fired first and fatally wounded Charles Lucas. Benton went on to have a highly impressive career as one of the senators from the new state of Missouri. He and Jackson managed to put their personal differences aside and became political allies. Benton’s steadfast championing of the gold standard earned him the nickname of “Old Bullion.” He pushed tirelessly for westward expansion and was the author of the first Homestead Act. John C. Frémont, “the Pathfinder,” became his son-in-law. He was also an advocate of the intercontinental railroad and the new invention of the telegraph. One of his most famous utterances was, “Benton and the people, Benton and Democracy are one and the same sir, synonymous terms, sir…” On his deathbed, nearly forty years after the event, Benton regretted the killing of Lucas.Abe LincolnOne of the most unlikely duelists of early America was a gangly fellow from Illinois, named Abraham Lincoln, who was actually challenged to a sword fight by a state official named James Shields. Lincoln had adopted a number of pseudonyms and under them published a series of satirical letters mocking Shields. But in this case, as in so many others, a woman would be central to the quarrel. Doubtless inspired by her beau’s wit, young Mary Todd and a friend wrote several more letters which unfortunately strayed across the boundary from satire to outright insult. Shields blamed Lincoln for all of this and immediately challenged the “Rail Splitter.” Unwilling to be disgraced and anxious to impress his betrothed, Lincoln accepted.As the challenged party it was Lincoln’s privilege to choose both the weapons and conditions for the duel. Accordingly he selected cavalry broadswords and in hopes of limiting the damage he dictated that the contest be held in a large pit, with a board separating the two combatants. On September 22, 1842 the two met to settle the affair. Lincoln deliberately occupied himself by slashing off branches from a high tree limb. Noticing how much longer the lanky Lincoln’s arms were than his own, Shields began to have second thoughts. Lincoln’s seconds did their part by using every blandishment to soothe Shields. Lincoln explained that he had not actually penned all of the letters and apologized for the entire misunderstanding. Shields accepted and became a prominent U.S. Senator. Lincoln, too, reportedly went on to a career in politics.Dueling Winds DownUltimately, it was the Civil War that marked a precipitous decline in dueling, particularly in the South where it had still been prevalent. Evidently this national bloodbath served to cool the warm passions and perpetual quest for gentlemanly honor that were for so long hallmarks of the American Southland. Certainly by the 1870s social standards had changed and political and personal honor were no longer identical. By that point there were other, more peaceful mechanisms in place for defending one’s good name and reputation.By contrast, in Europe the practice of dueling still thrived until they had their own epiphany after the apocalypse of the first World War. But during the early days of our republic, when the nation’s growing pains might so easily have turned to excess and resulted in politically directed bloodshed on a wide-spread scale, dueling seems to have absorbed this excess energy and vitriol and served to make the American scene a safer and more stable place. And it will likely remain the mootest of points whether today’s politicians are more genteel than their counterparts of old, or just totally lacking in even pretensions to honor.