World Magazine -- Reading recommendation (Barbary Pirates)

World Magazine blog ^ | June 21, 2006, 09:42 AM | Marvin Olasky

[MenckenMojo]

I asked Joshua London to describe for Worldmagblog readers his new book, Victory in Tripoli. He wrote that it “tells the story of America’s first interaction with the Muslim world over 200 years ago, under Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Not surprisingly, this is also the story of America’s first experience with Jihad (in the guise of Muslim piracy against Christians). This conflict, America’s first war on terror, gave birth to the United States Navy and Marine Corps, and essentially plunged the young United States headlong into the convoluted world of Old World mercantilist geopolitics, foreign affairs, and Middle East intrigue. Although little known today, this conflict was one of the defining challenges, forcing the young republic to ‘sink or swim’ with the world’s super-powers. Thus, this is also the story of how the United States was compelled to fashion its own course, based on its own principles, and relying largely on its own resources—and in the process forged a path that other nations were to follow.” Frontpagemag.com did an interview with London that’s worth reading.

[MenckenMojo]

There was also a very intelligent and worthwhile review essay by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom that appeared in Frontpagemag.com.

[Publius6961]

But whatever stratagem may be used to aid our measures, it is certain, that there is not access to the permanent friendship of these states, without paving the way with gold or cannon balls; and the proper question is, which method is preferable.

I vote for cannonballs.

As stated almost two hundred years ago, "Millions for defense! Not one cent for tribute!

[Publius6961]

Indeen it is an excellent essay. Finally, a more than superficial look at the historical atrocities of Islam, and the cowards who perpetrated them.

Very little has changed. The only difference that I can see is that they no longer carry off slaves...

[zimdog]

“tells the story of America’s first interaction with the Muslim world over 200 years ago[...]"

Overlooking the United States' first interaction with the Muslim world, when Morroco, in 1777, was the first country to recognize our independence.

...and, of course, overlooking the colonial era when thousands of Muslims were brought to America from Africa as slaves.

[livius]

The review is excellent and really worth reading. Plus ça change... Although I guess the secret is that Islam never changes: it is the same bloodthirsty, tyrannical cult that it was 1400 years ago, and we simply, like many others before us, refuse to admit this and go on foolishly hoping that we will be the ones to get the leopard to change its spots.

[livius]

Actually, they were generally sold by Muslims and had first been captured and forcibly converted by Muslims. But don't let that get in the way of the "religion of peace" vision.

[zimdog]

Actually, they were generally sold by Muslims and had first been captured and forcibly converted by Muslims.

In some cases, yes.

But don't let that get in the way of the "religion of peace" vision. Given the fact that almost every African slave kidnapped and taken to America was "purchased" by a willing Christian doesn't stop me from seeing Christianity as a religion of peace.

[MenckenMojo]

QUOTE: Overlooking the United States' first interaction with the Muslim world, when Morroco, in 1777, was the first country to recognize our independence. ...and, of course, overlooking the colonial era when thousands of Muslims were brought to America from Africa as slaves.

Actually, your point is off-base. If you read the book, you'll discover that although Morocco recognized our independence, it was not based on any official interaction of any sort. Morocco didn't meet with us, and we didn't meet with Morocco. In fact, the first Barbary pirate attack against post-colonial American shipping, in 1784, was done at the direction of the King of Morocco because he was upset that we never affirmatively responded to his overtures or sent an ambassador following his recognition of our independence. So, there wasn't any actual diplomatic (or military) interaction surrounding Morocco's recognition of our independence. The book details all of this actual history rather well. Also, just as an aside, the overwhelming majority of African slaves taken by Americans were NOT Muslim.

[zimdog]

In fact, the first Barbary pirate attack against post-colonial American shipping, in 1784, was done at the direction of the King of Morocco because he was upset that we never affirmatively responded to his overtures or sent an ambassador following his recognition of our independence. So, there wasn't any actual diplomatic (or military) interaction surrounding Morocco's recognition of our independence.

The reason for the taken the Betsey hostage was to speed the negotiations of a friendship treaty (ironically). The US had favorably responded in 1780 to the Sultan of Morocco, writing :

The U.S. Government sent its first official communication to the Sultan of Morocco in December 1780. It read: We the Congress of the 13 United States of North America, have been informed of your Majesty's favorable regard to the interests of the people we represent, which has been communicated by Monsieur Etienne d'Audibert Caille of Sale, Consul of Foreign nations unrepresented in your Majesty's states. We assure you of our earnest desire to cultivate a sincere and firm peace and friendship with your Majesty and to make it lasting to all posterity. Should any of the subjects of our states come within the ports of your Majesty's territories, we flatter ourselves they will receive the benefit of your protection and benevolence. You may assure yourself of every protection and assistance to your subjects from the people of these states whenever and wherever they may have it in their power. We pray your Majesty may enjoy long life and uninterrupted prosperity.

[zimdog]

"Also, just as an aside, the overwhelming majority of African slaves taken by Americans were NOT Muslim."

what's your point?

[bornacatholic]

“Slay the idolaters” Qur’an 9:5

“The spoils of war belong to Allah and his messenger” Qur’an 8:1

“I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” Qur’an 8:12

“You will soon be invited to fight against a nation of mighty prowess. Fight them until they submit” Qur’an 48:16

“Strike off their heads” Qur’an 8:12

“Besiege them” Qur’an 9:5

“Strike off every fingertip of them” Qur’an 8:12

“Fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” Qur’an 8:39

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah” Qur’an 9:29

“Urge the believers to war” Qur’an 8:65

“Until they pay the tax, acknowledge superiority, and are in a state of subjection” Qur’an 9.29

“Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed” Qur’an 22:39

“Take then captives” Qur’an 9:5

“So when you battle the unbelievers, then smite their necks until you have overcome them, and then make them prisoners” Qur’an 47:4

“Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you” Qur’an 22:16

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be killed or crucified, or their hands and feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned” Qur’an 5:33

“Lie in wait for them in every ambush” Qur’an 9:5

*Feel free to select and post from the New Testament anything within a million light years of what the Koran Commands. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Mohammed was the Prophet of War, and, as Mr Trifkovic noted, Mohammed was part John Gotti, part David Koresh.

[zimdog]

if you want to take scripture completely out of context (which you seem to do), revelation 1:18 is an interesting one.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

[bornacatholic]

The Qu'ran quotes aren't in "context," huh? What was I supposed to do, type out the entire Koran?

Obviously, EVERYTHING Jesus says is interesting. That tautology aside, what does Apocalypse 1:18 have to do with the violence and death commanded by the Koran? Jesus NEVER Commanded His Apostles or Disciples to Kill anyone.

Now, feel free to try and explain away the Koranic Commands. As you well know, there are MANY others of similar charcater I can (and prolly will) post.

And that is just the Koran. I haven't even started on the Sunna and the Hadiths :)

[zimdog]

no the context comes from the fact that surahs 8 and 9 were "revealed" during a period of war between muhammad's muslims and the polytheists in mecca. the revelation verse was to show that if you take scripture out of context (both textual and historical) you have jesus saying that he is the lord of hell and death. as you well know, that's not the point of the bible.

[bornacatholic]

Ayatollah Khomeni.... Islam makes it incumbent on al ladult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world...Those who know nothing of Islam pretends that Islam counself against war....There are hundreds of other Qurani c psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents menm from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a cliam."

Do you think you are more qualified than was Khomeni?

Would Al-Azhar agree with you or Khomeni?

What about Sahih Bukhari?

We both know the Verse of the Sword trumps everything. Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive and beseige them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, them leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful (Sura 9:5)

Sura 5:59 calls Christians and Jews pigs and swine

The fact is Naskh reinforces the applicability of ALL the violent Quranic surahs and all the Sunnah violent statements and All the violent teachings of the Hadiths. There are NO Suras which negate the Verse of the Sword.

Finally, we Christians know the authors of the New Testament were inspired. The author of the Koran is God Himself and His teachinsg are valid for all times and places, obviously. The "we must place it in historical context" is, to me, an obvious dodge.

But, if you desire to say that God's Commands are not for all time, be my guest. If you want to say that Mohammed was wrong, be my guest

[bornacatholic]

The Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi,... every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children,women,and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to Islamic religious law, and an Islamic Commandment. from his Marytrydom Attacks that Strike Horror into the Hearts of the Enemies of Allah speech.

[bornacatholic]

Mohammed is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers. Sura 48:29

[VOA]

bump

[zimdog]

Do you think you are more qualified than was Khomeni?

Yes.

Would Al-Azhar agree with you or Khomeni? What about Sahih Bukhari?

The question is not would agree with me but which rather who among us agree with God.

[zimdog]

The author of the Koran is God Himself and His teachinsg are valid for all times and places, obviously.

I don't subscribe to that, but if you think the Qur'an is God's word, you are certainly free to do so. However, having seen the exegeses you've posted here, I will not hesitate to report you.