The Islamic Terrorists of the Founding Era

Posted by LibertyCavalier on February 24, 2011

For those who believe that Islamic terrorists have just recently decided to wage war against America and other free nations, get ready to be blown away. This short history lesson will show how this battle has been waged since before America’s founding.

Enter the Barbary Powers Conflict, which began during the Revolutionary War, and resulted because four Islamic nations, Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli regularly pirated unarmed civilian and merchant ships of the United States and other countries who they claimed were “Christian” (meaning it was the state established religion) nations. This placed the young United States in a precarious situation since they still had no warships. Prior to the Revolutionary War, U.S. ships were protected by the British Navy and during the war they found safety on the seas courtesy of the French. With the Revolutionary War over and no naval force, the Barbary Powers would capture U.S. civilians and seamen, selling the men into slavery and looting their merchandise. [1]

As a result of these incessant senseless attacks, and due to the fact that the U.S. has no Navy or standing Army, the Congress, in 1784, commissioned John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to speak with the Islamic terrorists. [2] Adams and Jefferson questioned the Ambassador from Tripoli and asked him why they were maliciously attacking the United States. They recorded:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [3]

A successful treaty was established with Morocco in 1786, but the other three nations continued pirating due to the admitted religious incentive to create war. [4] The U.S. followed a strategy of appeasement, and despite negotiating many treaties, as well as paying up to twenty percent of the federal budget in of tribute (official extortion) [5], the terrorism continued. When Thomas Jefferson became President he rejected the failed policy of appeasement and stopped making extortion payments. This prompted Tripoli to officially declare war on the U.S. in 1801, the first official war for the fledgling nation. [6] Congress authorized President Jefferson to send armed vessels and a battle ensued until 1805, after which a peace treaty ended the First Barbary War.

However, by 1807, Algiers was pirating once again, and because Jefferson and the nation was focused on the preliminaries to the War of 1812, the U.S. couldn’t respond until 1815. After the war with Britain, President Madison sent warships and the military against Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. The American fleet defeated Algiers, but while a peace treaty was ratified in July 1815, Algiers revoked the treaty once the U.S. fleet left for Tunis. Only after the warships of Great Britain and the Netherlands descended upon Algiers did they sign a new peace treaty. [7] Finally, after thirty-two years of conflict America’s First War on Terror was over.

There are significant lessons to be learned from the Founding Fathers, even on the subject of terrorism. From the very beginning of its inception, Islam has flourished at the hand of the sword. That trend continued during the founding, and still exists today. As a result of this, with the Muslims who believe in the jihad of Islam, appeasement does not work. Jefferson was right, force will be necessary to repel the forces which intend to enslave and subvert. He wrote, “I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the medium of war.” [8]

As Christians, we should continue to pray for those who subscribe to the Islamic ideology. A powerful example of this in action is how Francis Scott Key befriended John Randolph of Virginia. Randolph testified that he was pulled “in favor of Mahomedianism [Islam].” Key gently shared the Gospel with Randolph, and he came to accept Christ [9], despite his prior “natural repugnance to Christianity.” [10] Incidentally, Randolph went on to be a stalwart advocate for his faith. [11] Force will be necessary to fend off the attacks from Islamic radicals, but as far as seeing to a change in their ideology and worldview, we must pray that their eyes will open to the truth.

As Noah Webster said, “Let us reject the spirit of making proselytes to particular creeds by any other means than persuasion.” [12]

References

[1] A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy, Down to the Present Time (Brooklyn, 1828), pp. 70-71

[2] Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh, editors (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. V, p. 195, to William Carmichael, November 4, 1785.

[3] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), Vol. 9, p. 358, Report of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to John Jay, March 28, 1786.

[4] Avalon Project, Treaty with Morocco June 28 and July 15, 1786, (Yale Law School) (at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp).

[5] Wikipedia, “First Barbary War” (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War).

[6] “Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli” (at http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html).

[7] British State Papers (London: James Ridgway and Sons, London, 1977), Vol. 3, p. 516, “Declaration of the Dey of Algiers, relative to the Abolition of Christian Slavery,” August 28, 1816.

[8] Jefferson, Writings, Vol. V, p. 364, to John Adams, July 11, 1786.

[9] Garland, Life of John Randolph, Vol. II, pp. 87-88, in a letter from Francis Scott Key, May-June 1816; pp. 99-100, Randolph’s letter to Francis Scott Key, September 7, 1818; pp. 103-104, Key’s letter to Randolph; 106-107, Key’s reply to Randolph’s letter of May 3, 1819; and pp. 108-109, Key’s reply to Randolph’s letter of August 8, 1819.

[10] Garland, Life of John Randolph, Vol. II, p. 100, to Dr. Brockenbrough, September 25, 1818.

[11] Garland, Life of John Randolph, Vol. II, pp. 99-100, from a letter to Francis Scott Key, September 7, 1818; pp. 100-102, from a letter to Dr. Brockenbrough, September 25, 1818; p. 106, from a letter to Francis Scott Key, May 3, 1819; pp. 107-109, from a letter to Francis Scott Key, August 22, 1819; pp. 373-374.

[12] Noah Webster, An Oration Pronounced Before The Citizens of New-Haven On The Anniversary Of The Independence Of The United States, July 4, 1798 (New-Haven: T. and S. Green, 1798), p. 13.

Posted on 24 Feb 11 by Liberty Cavalier blog

John Adams, Franklin, and other Founding Fathers read the Quran

Akbar Ahmed, the chair of Islamic studies at American University, has advised many government officials, including General Petraeus, Richard Holbrooke, and George W. Bush. He speaks regularly on BBC and CNN, and has appeared on many U.S. shows, including Oprah and Nightline.

To oppose the “burn the Quran” event planned by Pastor Terry Jones, Ahmed wrote an editorial for CNN in which he stated

Not only are the actions of Jones contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are also against the ideals of the American Founding Fathers.

…

The Founding Fathers read and honored the same Quran that Jones is now seeking to burn.

…

[John Adams, America’s second president] showed the utmost respect for Islam, naming the Prophet Mohammed as one of the greatest truth seekers in history.

These statements are utterly opposed by the facts.

John Adams said absolutely nothing of the kind. Correspondence from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is “a military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”

John Adams did indeed own a Quran — the copy he owned contained the following in the preface:

This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible …

Perhaps Akbar Ahmed misspoke, and was referring to John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams? The sixth president, not the second?

No. Here is what John Quincy Adams wrote about the Islamic prophet Mohammed:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. [emphasis in the original]

John Quincy Adams also described the Quran in one of his essays as follows:

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Ahmed also claims in his editorial that “Benjamin Franklin called the Prophet Mohammed a model of compassion.” Ahmed made similar claims on The Daily Show:

I quote the Founding Fathers. … John Adams on the Prophet of Islam: He called him one of the greatest truth seekers in history. (Ben) Franklin called him a model of compassion. And Jefferson had the first Iftaar … and owned a copy of the Quran. … Those Americans who are attacking Islam simply as a terrorist religion or a religion of evil, really need to go back to their own Founding Fathers.

In a March 23, 1790, letter to the editor of the Federal Gazette, Ben Franklin wrote:

Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.

Islam is a Religion of Peace, President Obama Told us so.  So It must be true…

The Qur’an:

Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

Posted on 10 Sep 10 by Politisite

U.S. Court of Appeals forces Islamic Dearborn to allow for the freedom of speech

It’s bad enough that this case had to be fought at all, but the victory is still sweet. “Free Speech Victory in Dearborn, Michigan!,” from Answering Muslims, May 26:

Maybe I shouldn’t say “in” Dearborn, since the city only sought to suppress free speech in this case. An outside court (the United States Court of Appeals) had to impose Constitutional law on the city.

Dearborn hosts an annual Arab Festival on Warren Avenue. During the festival, the street is reserved, but the adjacent sidewalks are not reserved and therefore remain public property. Hence, prior to 2009, many people would distribute pamphlets, DVDs, CDs, etc., on the public sidewalks. However, when Ronald Haddad took over as Chief of Police, he announced that no one would be allowed to distribute materials on the public sidewalks. Indeed, he insisted that no one would be allowed to distribute materials within five blocks of the festival. (He justified his decision by claiming that he needed to keep the area clear for pedestrian traffic.)

From a Constitutional perspective, this was quite disturbing, as the government was officially limiting free speech on public sidewalks. Moreover, those of us who attended the festival noticed that security only enforced the policy on Christians. Muslims remained free to distribute their materials.

Pastor George Saieg, an Arab Christian from the Sudan (who has observed the effects of Islamic law in his home country and therefore understands the importance of free speech better than many of us) decided to take the case to court. The freedom fighters at the Thomas More Law Center (praise God for them) took the case free of charge, and they won.

Lower courts had ruled in favor of Dearborn (i.e. that Dearborn police could stop people from exercising their freedom of speech on the public sidewalks adjacent to the festival). The appeals court reversed the decision on Constitutional grounds. Here are two excerpts:

On the free speech claim, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants and its denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We thereby invalidate the leafleting restriction within both the inner and outer perimeters of the Festival.1 The restriction on the sidewalks that are directly adjacent to the Festival attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The City keeps those same sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive to sidewalk traffic flow than pedestrian leafleting is. Moreover, the prohibition of pedestrian leafleting in the outer perimeter is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The City can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy. . . .

The leafleting restriction is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. In the inner perimeter, the restriction does not serve a substantial governmental interest. In the outer perimeter, the restriction is not narrowly tailored. The defendants therefore violated Saieg’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Absent an injunction, Saieg will continue to suffer irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. As a result, on the free-speech claim, we REVERSE both the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants and its denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs….

Read it all.
Posted by Robert on May 30, 2011 7:28 AM | No Comments

SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL!!!

I recently saw a You-tube video with a lady on it protesting Senator Lindsey Graham’s remarks on Face the Nation in which he denounced Pastor Terry Jones burning of the Koran.  In this video the lady standing in front of an American flag repeatedly calls Lindsey Graham a “Jack-Ass” as she denounces what he said and then proceeds  to burn the Koran herself right there on the video.

I too vehemently disagree with Senator Lindsey Grahams remarks, and I too am sick of the political correctness in this nation in regards to Islam.  And I greatly disdain the concessions we have made to 9/11 criminals and the obvious blindsidedness in regards to Cair, and other Islamic organizations in this country who have obvious ties to Hamas and evil intentions for America and Israel; but, I still do not agree that burning the Koran is the answer either.

Brigitte Gabriel wrote in this excellent article that, “Koran burning is counter productive”;  I agree with that, however, I absolutely abhor how we Americans and the Obama administration have been setting Islamic beliefs above our very own Constitution!  You can also read in Ms. Brigitte’s same article how our military in Afghanistan is forced to wear gloves when they handle the Koran. If that is not cowtowing to Islam, I don’t know what is!

I also read an article in Citizen Warrior not long ago which says, “Every accomodation non-Muslims make for Muslims moves our culture, our beliefs, and our legal systems one step closer to Sharia law”, Citizen Warrior goes on to say, “Forbidding the criticism of any religion is certainly not a precept of a free society or of Western civilization. This means: To whatever degree Islamic supremacists succeed in silencing our criticisms of Islam, to that degree they have imposed Sharia law on non-Muslims.”

We are allowing the Obama administrations policies of making concessions to radical Islam bring us closer to sharia law in this nation!  Anytime we allow anyone’s religious beliefs to take precedence over our First Amendment Rights it is an absolute travesty to every soldier who ever died fighting for that freedom!  Guy Rodgers spoke about how we are empowering our enemy in his article, “Jihad Denial Syndrome”.  Guy said, “What better way to sabotage a nation from within than to dupe its leadership regarding the true nature of, and motivation for, the threat that is arrayed against it?”

So when will we wake up?  When will our administration wake up?   Will it take another 9/11, or will America stop the madness and demand from our current administration that they stand for the constitution that we hold dear?  Will it take all of us to start burning Korans for our administration to acknowledge our own constitution?  I fight back the only way I know how, with the written word.  How about you?  I believe a nation is only as good as its leaders, so unless our current administration has a change of strategy and soon, we had all better be prepared for a fight that will take more than burning Korans.