It Didn’t Start With bin Laden

[abu afak]

It Didn’t Start With bin Laden
Religiously motivated terrorism against America isn't new — in fact, it dates back hundreds of years.

By Chris Jeub

It may seem like the terrorist war against the United States is only a few weeks old, but radical Muslims’ hatred of our nation dates back centuries. In fact, it’s not the first time America has faced adversaries who were individual renegades instead of allied nations.

President Thomas Jefferson, for instance, faced threats from Islamic pirates who lived along Africa’s northern coast and daily terrorized European ships. When America won its independence, it too became a target for pirates — and Jefferson found himself forced into war.

But war against whom? Unknown pirates? African nations like Tripoli, Tunisia, Morocco and Algiers, which harbored the marauders but did not consider them citizens? Jefferson’s challenge resembles President Bush’s modern-day dilemma. Like today’s terrorists, the 19th-century pirates also were Muslims with an animosity toward Christians dating back to the Crusades.

The Muslim faith took root in northwestern Africa in the seventh century, and for generations the region served as a base for piracy — the looting and confiscation of ships as well as the murder of crew members. In the 19th century, European and American ships sailing around northern Africa paid tolls to the pirates for safe passage. This reign of terror went largely unchallenged until America took the lead — without the initial support of Europe.

War on Christianity

According to David Barton of WallBuilders, a Christian-heritage ministry in Aledo, Texas, the Barbary pirate raids stemmed more from prejudice against Christianity than from economic gain. “The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it always was viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations,” Barton wrote in his 1996 book Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion.

U.S. Capt. William Eaton, in a letter to the secretary of state in 1805, explained why the Muslims were such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.

Indeed, the countries whose ships were attacked — England, France, Spain, Denmark and the United States — all were predominately Christian. Nonetheless, Barton said, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli declared the United States’ religious neutrality, “in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a ‘Holy War’ between Christians and Muslims.” Article XI of the treaty states that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion . . . it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of [Muslims].”

But the 1797 treaty failed, as did others. The Muslims, motivated by religious fervor, continued their attacks.

In 1815, the U.S. government sent a war hero, Stephen Decatur, to negotiate a more forceful treaty. Decatur had demonstrated his ability to thwart Barbary pirates a dozen years earlier; In 1804, on Jefferson’s orders, he led 74 volunteers into the Tripoli harbor and burned the captured American frigate Philadelphia. British Adm. Lord Nelson called the raid “the most daring act of the age.”

In the War of 1812, Decatur, the youngest captain in U.S. Navy history, defeated the British frigate Macedonian and brought the enemy vessel safely to the United States. It was the only captured British ship to be refitted and commissioned in the American Navy during that war.

Perhaps it was his reputation for victory that persuaded Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli to agree to Decatur’s terms and put an end to piracy. Perhaps it was his charm. John Quincy Adams described Decatur as “kind, warm-hearted, unassuming, gentle and hospitable, beloved in social life and with a soul totally and utterly devoted to his country.” Or maybe it was America’s naval power that outmatched Tripoli’s.

Whatever the cure, then, we can only pray that today’s war will rid the world of terrorism as America rid the world of piracy 200 years ago. "

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizen.../A0017918.html

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
[B]It Didn’t Start With bin Laden
Religiously motivated terrorism against America isn't new — in fact, it dates back hundreds of years.

By Chris Jeub

It may seem like the terrorist war against the United States is only a few weeks old, but radical Muslims’ hatred of our nation dates back centuries. In fact, it’s not the first time America has faced adversaries who were individual renegades instead of allied nations.

That's why Muslim slaves were tortured or killed for expressing their religion, to the point that many west African descendants only recently realized their roots.

President Thomas Jefferson, for instance, faced threats from Islamic pirates who lived along Africa’s northern coast and daily terrorized European ships. When America won its independence, it too became a target for pirates — and Jefferson found himself forced into war.

And who was America's ally against these vicious Muslims??? The Islamic Sultanate of Morocco, our first ally! The treaty was signed in 1786.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...y/bar1786a.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...y/bar1786e.htm

But war against whom? Unknown pirates? African nations like Tripoli, Tunisia, Morocco and Algiers, which harbored the marauders but did not consider them citizens?

So in other words you are claiming that the pirates of these nations acted, as did the pirates of England and Spain, by siphoning back a bit of the booty to the royalty?

Jefferson’s challenge resembles President Bush’s modern-day dilemma.

In as much as some of his greatest assistance has come from Muslim countries, that is true. Witness the Pakistani cooperation in the hunting down of Khalid Muhammed, one of Al Qaida's top brass. Witness Pakistani police shot at while guarding the American consulate, prior to saying their prayers. They risked their lives again in pursuit and capture of the attackers. Witness Yemeni security in a shootout with terrorists.

Like today’s terrorists, the 19th-century pirates also were Muslims with an animosity toward Christians dating back to the Crusades.

In as much as the Barbary pirates were coming from the western Mediterranian and the Crusades were fought almost 3000 miles away 8 centuries before. And Bush and Jefferson have different haircuts. But other than that, almost identical. ROFL.

The Muslim faith took root in northwestern Africa in the seventh century, and for generations the region served as a base for piracy —

Actually it didn't take root until the 8th century. I visited the tomb of Moulay Idriss, who is credited with spreading the faith to the Berbers. He established his namesake town in 789 CE. It is on a hill opposite Volubilis. I've been there.

the looting and confiscation of ships as well as the murder of crew members.

Kinda like Blackbeard, Captain Morgan, Jean Laffitte?

In the 19th century, European and American ships sailing around northern Africa paid tolls to the pirates for safe passage. This reign of terror went largely unchallenged until America took the lead — without the initial support of Europe.

But, as we have seen, with the support of the Sultanate of Morocco.

War on Christianity

It's downhill from here. Your premise is blown.

[andak01]

War on Christianity

According to David Barton of WallBuilders, a Christian-heritage ministry in Aledo, Texas, the Barbary pirate raids stemmed more from prejudice against Christianity than from economic gain.

WallBuilders, what an apt title. How about flat earth people?

“The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it always was viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations,” Barton wrote in his 1996 book Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion.

U.S. Capt. William Eaton, in a letter to the secretary of state in 1805, explained why the Muslims were such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.

Whilst the pirates of the Spanish Main had no such inducements. I guess these inhuman Muslims are imune to typical stimuli such as greed. A very pious lot, those pirates.

Indeed, the countries whose ships were attacked — England, France, Spain, Denmark and the United States — all were predominately Christian.

And the attacks took place in the Atlantic and the Mediterranian. Wow, no Hindis or Buddhists to attack? And by this logic, they must have been allied with the Australian aborigines since there is no record of them being attacked. Or perhaps it was that the European ships were carrying a desirable payload. And of course conveniently we don't have any record of whether they attacked themselves.

Nonetheless, Barton said, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli declared the United States’ religious neutrality, “in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a ‘Holy War’ between Christians and Muslims.” Article XI of the treaty states that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion . . . it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of [Muslims].”

Being as this treaty, not mentioned up to this point was signed by the Moroccans, whose ancestors had been driven from Spain by the ever-so-tolerant Spanish Inquisition, it is not surprising that they would eschew a Christian government.

But the 1797 treaty failed, as did others. The Muslims, motivated by religious fervor, continued their attacks.

Greed had nothing to do with it. Unlike the Spanish and the British pirates, these pirates were true to their religion. Yeah, OK.

In 1815, the U.S. government sent a war hero, Stephen Decatur, to negotiate a more forceful treaty. Decatur had demonstrated his ability to thwart Barbary pirates a dozen years earlier; In 1804, on Jefferson’s orders, he led 74 volunteers into the Tripoli harbor and burned the captured American frigate Philadelphia. British Adm. Lord Nelson called the raid “the most daring act of the age.”

In the War of 1812, Decatur, the youngest captain in U.S. Navy history, defeated the British frigate Macedonian and brought the enemy vessel safely to the United States. It was the only captured British ship to be refitted and commissioned in the American Navy during that war.

Hold on! I thought this was a Jihad. How did the British become involved? Are they Muslim too?

Perhaps it was his reputation for victory that persuaded Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli to agree to Decatur’s terms and put an end to piracy. Perhaps it was his charm. John Quincy Adams described Decatur as “kind, warm-hearted, unassuming, gentle and hospitable, beloved in social life and with a soul totally and utterly devoted to his country.” Or maybe it was America’s naval power that outmatched Tripoli’s.

Perhaps it was his secularism.

Whatever the cure, then, we can only pray that today’s war will rid the world of terrorism as America rid the world of piracy 200 years ago. "

You are 12 years old right? There is piracy all over Southeast Asia. Boats are boarded and tourists robbed and killed every year. The only thing that keeps it from happening more often is constant vigilence by the Coast Guards of the world. Is it OK to pray for a Christian victory, and that's not a Crusade? Let me remember that one.

[andak01]

bump.

[abu afak]

I hope you didn't spend too much to more time than usual on your ridiculous, and usual, 'they-did-it-too', apologist post. Your interjected conclusions were, at least... funny, if not logical or incisive.

LOL ..

oh.. please keep 'bump'ing my strings to the top. Thanks

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
I hope you didn't spend too much to more time than usual on your ridiculous, and usual, 'they-did-it-too', apologist post. Your interjected conclusions were, at least... funny, if not logical or incisive.

You whole point is simply ridiculous and incredibly over simplistic. First off, Bin Laden is a Wahhabbi from Saudi Arabia linked to airline hijackings and WDMs. He is part of a small group of political Islamists that claim they are in a jihad in order to influence young people. To use the example of Barbary pirates of the 18th century to prove world jihad is the shakiest thing I've ever seen. Do you have any record that shows that the Barbary pirates never pirated Muslim ships? You make those pirates sound like a bunch of monks with purely religious motives, even though we know that piracy is motivated by greed. And you assume that, unlike the English and the Spanish, the Muslim governments under whose eyes this occurred didn't encourage it so as to get a portion of the booty. In short, as in all your posts you take all human motivations away from the Muslims while humanizing everyone else. I guess Muslims don't have crimes of passion, because according to you, we don't have passion except for jihad. Next you are going to tell me that when a drunken Muslim shoots someone in a card game, they do it for the sake of Allah. Ascribing purely religious motives to pirates and to governments isn't a far shot.

It's funny to you when I point out that the very group you claim we are in eternal jihad with formed the very first alliance with the United States in 1786? An alliance that has lasted to this day, even so far as the King of Morocco, Hassan II recognizing the legitimacy of the state of Israel? By the way, Hassan II is of the same Allouite dynasty that ruled Morocco in 1786. His son Muhammad VI is also our ally in the war against terrorism. And according to none other than Colin Powell, all Arabic countries with the sole exception of Iraq have assisted in the war against terrorism. I guess when the Muslims kill a terrorist, we are contributing to jihad, in your warped little world.

[abu afak]

Another Absurd.. I mean Totally Absurd, response from Anduk

Because the Saudis are Wahabs and the Barbary Pirates weren't, their purpose in Jihad can't be similar?
Utter nonsense.. and the Usual total Lack of Honesty and invalid comparisons from andak.
Mohammed also Robbed Caravans to finance his Budding religion and he wasn't a Wahab or Barabary Either.

I didn't make the Pirates sound "Like a bunch of Monks"; and they did probably rob the Rare Moslim ship too (when things were slow). I did point to an early quote that shows, however, the motive and satisfaction was partly religous in Nature. (and there's more)

Your whole point of trying to separate what is timeless Jihad, because the sect was different over the centuries, is Ridiculous, Not my article's interesting point.

[andak01]

U.S. Capt. William Eaton, in a letter to the secretary of state in 1805, explained why the Muslims were such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.

So Capt. William Eaton had as little understanding of Islam as you do. At least he entertains the thought that they might also be greedy (or in his words 'find so great secular advantages'). Is he referring to the Muslims of the Sultanate of Morocco, or the Muslims that the Sultanate of Morocco helped us to defeat? Because obviously those Muslims were not compelled to continue warring with the Christians, just as they are not at war with Christians today.

In addition to William Eaton, we have the word of the 'Wallbuilders' and yourself, another wall builder.

Because the Saudis are Wahabs and the Barbary Pirates weren't, their purpose in Jihad can't be similar?
Utter nonsense.. and the Usual total Lack of Honesty and invalid comparisons from andak.

I didn't make the comparison in the first place! Your thread title "It didn't start with Bin Laden" attempts to lump the motives of the 18th century Barbary pirates with those of Bin Laden! YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF! Show us that the motives of any pirate anywhere extend far beyond his quest for loot.

While you are at it, find me a passage in the Qur'an that states that war with Christians will guarantee the salvation of Muslim souls. I would extend this to the Hadith as well, but William Eaton's quote says 'revelation' and only the Qur'an was revealed. Is there even one instance where we are told to mistreat 'infidels' who aren't actively attacking and making war on us? If you do a search on Christians and war, you will come up empty handed. There is no such verse.

Qur'an, Surah Baqarah 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So these are the people that we are supposed to be at war with???

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
You whole point is simply ridiculous and incredibly over simplistic. First off, Bin Laden is a Wahhabbi from Saudi Arabia linked to airline hijackings and WDMs. He is part of a small group of political Islamists that claim they are in a jihad in order to influence young people. To use the example of Barbary pirates of the 18th century to prove world jihad is the shakiest thing I've ever seen.

First, you didn't answer my post....

And the Part you did answer is Wrong as usual

Bin Laden is part of a large group called 'Islam'/'Islamists' (take your pick), on a 1400 year Jihad from Hell, under various names from 'Wahab' to 'Barbary' to 'Assassin' to 'NIF' to Hamas' to 'Abu Sayef' to 'Taliban' and 100 others... Many of Which I've documented on this board. The title post being just another in hundreds to do so and further solidify the claim. Far from shaky... except if you're blind, or in denial.





Oh Forgot.. one more thing

Originally posted by andak01

Qur'an, Surah Baqarah 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So these are the people that we are supposed to be at war with???

This is very good news for the current conflict:

Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: The Lord
said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are
northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. .....
Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''
That is God talking.
The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,''--the West Bank.""

(quote previously referenced)

[andak01]

Or maybe if you read again, you would see that the Qur'an is a message for all mankind, not a single race or nation or even religion.

Qur'an, Surah Baqarah 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: The Lord
said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are
northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. .....
Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''
That is God talking.
The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,''--the West Bank.""

PS - Arabs and Jews are desendants of Abraham, so who is "God" giving it too? Arabs or Jews?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by andak01
That's why Muslim slaves were tortured or killed for expressing their religion, to the point that many west African descendants only recently realized their roots.

Actually, Muslim slaves figured less than 10 percent of the total numbers. A small percentage of the blacks began converting in the US in the late 1800's, followed by Muslim immigration that was all but halted with the Asian Exclusion Act and the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act in 1924. The greater numbers converted in the 1960's with Malcom X.

Slave Trade Route

By far, most of the slaves were captured from places like Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria, Angola and Madagascar. Africans from most of these areas practiced the Yorubian and Ifa religions. As the slaves became dispersed throughout the New Worlds their tradition were fractionated and each fraction took on new names like Santeria, Vodun and Candomble as they assimilate the Catholic religion into their own. However most slaves in the southern part of North America took to Christianity but also incorporated some aspects of their Yorubian magickal traditions.

The real discovery of their religious roots, for most descendants of slaves of West African, should be Lucumi; not Islam.

[andak01]

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave04.htm
1716-1756: Average annual number of slaves imported for the American colonies: 70,000, with a total of 3.5 million.

So, by your own estimate of 10 percent, 350,000 Muslims were brought into this country between 1716 and 1756. What happened to their religion as they peacefully coexisted with their tolerant slavemasters?

I've been to Senegal, a country 90% Muslim. And Nigeria is a Sharia state, at least in the North. The Hausa and Fulani are Muslim tribes as are the Bambara, also of that area.

Gambia, whose borders were based on the range of a cannon from a British gunboat on the Gambia river, as far as I know has a very similar indiginous culture to the surrounding area, save it was colonized by the Brits instead of the French. Its borders are entirely inside of Senegal.

[D.Abraham]

abu,

I have one comment. Yes, while it is true of the word "terrorism" to be found back in American dealings, the type of Muslim terrorism of today has much more to do with our ideals and way of living as a society -and our often called "globalization" of the world. We have our fingers everywhere. How and what the Muslim hard-cores wish to see this in it's "totality " is ultimately along with our Israeli support a "probabable cause" for their terrorist actions. Back in the days you commented of along Western Africa's coast and the mirading pirates, the Muslims may have hated or disliked Christians, -American Christians at that but they knew much less of our living and ideals than the terrorists of today. Today they even live amoungst us as our neigbors here in the U.S..
Very good history lesson and good points though Abu. I like it. Thanks.
Sincerely, D.Abraham

[abu afak]

Originally posted by D.Abraham
abu,

I have one comment. Yes, while it is true of the word "terrorism" to be found back in American dealings, the type of Muslim terrorism of today has much more to do with our ideals and way of living as a society -and our often called "globalization" of the world. We have our fingers everywhere. How and what the Muslim hard-cores wish to see this in it's "totality " is ultimately along with our Israeli support a "probabable cause" for their terrorist actions. Back in the days you commented of along Western Africa's coast and the mirading pirates, the Muslims may have hated or disliked Christians, -American Christians at that but they knew much less of our living and ideals than the terrorists of today. Today they even live amoungst us as our neigbors here in the U.S..
Very good history lesson and good points though Abu. I like it. Thanks.
Sincerely, D.Abraham

and thank you D.Abraham

I'm not sure the motivation has changed that much over time.

I think you could easily use the word 'modernization' as well as "globalization' -- or just envy/Jealousy

Moslems.. Arabs in Particular, have turned on their TV's.
They realize.. fairly suddenly, that they are terrible Failures, contrary to the previous false self image and teachings.
Some even wish to make a Virtue of their backwardness and call the Modernized, successful West Corrupt, and call for primitive states and religion.

This mass inferiority complex is part of the Problem, but not the whole one.

See other Articles like

"Tragedy of the Arabs"
http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...&threadid=2721


and "The Core of Muslim Rage"

http://www.bonitabanner.com/02/03/pe...e/d764195a.htm


"Moslems' Dissonant response to the Jews"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1612