• Studies

    https://www.thinkoutsidethebeast.com/quote-studies/
    Studies https://www.thinkoutsidethebeast.com/quote-studies/
    Studies
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • I posted this about a year ago with the picture & quote separate and now I put them together in a new meme.

    http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com/2019/09/to-be-truly-human-quotation-from-mn.html

    I posted this about a year ago with the picture & quote separate and now I put them together in a new meme. http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com/2019/09/to-be-truly-human-quotation-from-mn.html
    To Be Truly Human - A Quotation from M.N. Hopkins
    To be truly human, one must be truly Divine. To be truly Divine, one must be truly human. Balance is the key. ©   2018 M.N. Hopkins
    MNHOPKINS.BLOGSPOT.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://epeak.in/2019/09/02/video-captures-priceless-reactions-when-people-learn-bizarre-quotes-are-from-biden-not-trump/
    https://epeak.in/2019/09/02/video-captures-priceless-reactions-when-people-learn-bizarre-quotes-are-from-biden-not-trump/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Inspirational August continues with a quote....

    http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-wolf-returns-to-side-of-lion.html

    Inspirational August continues with a quote.... http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-wolf-returns-to-side-of-lion.html
    The Wolf Returns To The Side Of The Lion - A Quotation from M.N. Hopkins
    Please click on the image to enlarge. The wolf returns to the side of the lion and the once sheep will follow but not as before. N...
    MNHOPKINS.BLOGSPOT.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Business Schools Need More Austrian Economics
    08/15/2019Fernando Monteiro D'Andrea
    In a recent tweet, Philip Kotler, author of the most widely used marketing book in graduate business schools worldwide suggested that the government should be doing much more to reduce inequality.

    To quote Kotler:

    Income inequality keeps worsening. Four ways...


    https://mises.org/power-market/business-schools-need-more-austrian-economics
    Business Schools Need More Austrian Economics 08/15/2019Fernando Monteiro D'Andrea In a recent tweet, Philip Kotler, author of the most widely used marketing book in graduate business schools worldwide suggested that the government should be doing much more to reduce inequality. To quote Kotler: Income inequality keeps worsening. Four ways... https://mises.org/power-market/business-schools-need-more-austrian-economics
    Business Schools Need More Austrian Economics | Fernando Monteiro D'Andrea
    In a recent tweet, Philip Kotler, author of the most widely used marketing book in graduate business schools worldwide suggested that the government should be doing much more to reduce inequality. To quote Kotler:
    MISES.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • In the words of Julius Caesar, “you cannot build an Empire with a Republic.”

    “In order to obtain and hold power, a man must love it. Thus the effort to get it is not likely to be coupled with goodness, but with the opposite qualities of pride, craft and cruelty. Without exalting self and abasing others, without hypocrisy, lying, prisons, fortresses, penalties, killing, no power can arise or hold its own.” Leo Tolstoy

    Now, with those two quotes in mind, take a long good look at Donald Trump.
    In the words of Julius Caesar, “you cannot build an Empire with a Republic.” “In order to obtain and hold power, a man must love it. Thus the effort to get it is not likely to be coupled with goodness, but with the opposite qualities of pride, craft and cruelty. Without exalting self and abasing others, without hypocrisy, lying, prisons, fortresses, penalties, killing, no power can arise or hold its own.” Leo Tolstoy Now, with those two quotes in mind, take a long good look at Donald Trump.
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Inspirational August continues with a quote.....

    http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com/2019/08/never-forget-quotation-from-mn-hopkins.html
    Inspirational August continues with a quote..... http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com/2019/08/never-forget-quotation-from-mn-hopkins.html
    Never Forget - A Quotation from M.N. Hopkins
    Never forget that the gift of Light is to be shared with others. ©  M. N. Hopkins To read more of my quotations, please clic...
    MNHOPKINS.BLOGSPOT.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • "There is nothing in our entire country that doesn’t revolve around Jews, and yet, if you talk about Jews, you get banned from every web service and you get secretly blacklisted on Google.

    You also have all of your finances cut off, you get sued, the media attacks you and literally prints fake quotes from you, and your family gets stalked by FBI agents.

    Then the cops and the Jews hire costumed freaks to march through the streets, and the media tells everyone you’re those people.

    It’s just so exhausting." - Andrew Anglin

    https://dailystormer.name/trump-convinces-israel-to-ban-his-moslems-important-development/
    "There is nothing in our entire country that doesn’t revolve around Jews, and yet, if you talk about Jews, you get banned from every web service and you get secretly blacklisted on Google. You also have all of your finances cut off, you get sued, the media attacks you and literally prints fake quotes from you, and your family gets stalked by FBI agents. Then the cops and the Jews hire costumed freaks to march through the streets, and the media tells everyone you’re those people. It’s just so exhausting." - Andrew Anglin https://dailystormer.name/trump-convinces-israel-to-ban-his-moslems-important-development/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • The side of Rabindranath Tagore that ‘Liberal Intellectuals’ don’t want you to see: Here is what he thought of Islam

    Quite ostensibly, Tagore was not a proponent of the Hindu Right as we understand it today. However, he was certainly not one of the 'secular intellectual elite' of today either.

    Over time, a certain effort has been made by the intellectual Bengali elite to recast cultural icons of yore into stereotypes that fit perfectly with their own imaginations. In their effort, certain Bengali icons who have greatly influenced Bengali culture have been discarded while others have been fashioned as symbols of the supposed inherent secular Bengali culture.

    In this endeavour, icons like Shyama Prasad Mookherjee and Sri Aurobindo don’t find a place for themselves in the pantheon of Bengali stalwarts while those like Raja Ram Mohan Roy do. However, contrary to what liberals would have us believe, the opinions of such icons did not always conform with their fancy notions.

    Rabindranath Tagore is one such Bengali stalwart. Decades after his death, his songs are still sung and heard by every single Bengali Hindu family. His songs, which capture a variety of human emotions, have an entirely separate category unto themselves. ‘Rabindra Sangeet’ it is called. He is indeed an absolute cultural icon and over time, the Bengali intellectual elite has claimed him to be secular to present the ‘highly refined Bengali culture’ to be in stark contrast with the ‘rustic bigoted North Indian culture’.

    However, was Rabindranath Tagore really secular as the term is understood now? Was he really a deracinated intellectual as most of the Bengali elite is now? Let us discard the notions liberals have fed us and make up our own minds on the basis of the legend’s own words.

    From his works, it is abundantly clear that the great poet was not too fond of Islam and Christianity, to put it mildly. He said of them once, “There are two religions in earth, which have distinct enmity against all other religions. These two are Christianity and Islam. They are not just satisfied with observing their own religions but are determined to destroy all other religions. That’s why the only way to make peace with them is to embrace their religions.” (Original works of Rabindranath Vol. 24, page 375, Vishwa Bharti; 1982.)

    In a letter to Hemantabala Sarkar, written on the 16th of October, 1933, quoted in Bengali weekly ‘Swastika’ on 21-6-1999, he says, “The terrible situation of the country makes my mind restless and I cannot keep silent. Meaningless ritual keeps the Hindus divided into hundred sects. So we are suffering from a series of defeats. We are tired and worn-out by the fortunes by the internal-external enemies. The Muslims are united in religion and rituals. The Bengali Muslims the South Indian Muslims and even the Muslims outside India-all are united. They always stand united in face of danger. The broken and divided Hindus will not be able to combat them. Days are coming when the Hindus will be again humiliated by the Muslims. “You are a mother of children, one day you will die, passing the future of Hindus society on the weak shoulders of your children, but think about their future.”

    Rabindranath Tagore also blamed the Muslim community for the everlasting communal tensions between the two communities. Particularly, he blamed the pan-Islamic identity of the Muslim community and their penchant to put their religion over the nation which he claimed stood in the way of peaceful relations between Hindus and Muslims.

    In an interview with Times of India in 1924, which was quoted by the Hindu intellectual stalwart Sita Ram Goel in his book ‘Muslim Separatism – Causes and Consequences’ (1987), Tagore said, “A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims can not confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked (the Muslims) whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they (Muslims) would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them… Even such a man as Mr Mohammad Ali (one of the famous Ali brothers, the leaders of the Khilafat Movement-the compiler) has declared that under no circumstances is it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever be his country, to stand against any Mohammedan.”

    On another occasion, “Swamy Shraddananda’’, written by Rabindranath in Magh, 1333 Bangabda; compiled in the book ‘Kalantar’, he exhorted the Hindus to shed their weakness. “Weakness harbours sin. So, if the Muslims beat us and we, the Hindus, tolerate this without resistance-then, we will know that it is made possible only by our weakness. For the sake of ourselves and our neighbour Muslims also, we have to discard our weakness. We can appeal to our neighbour Muslims, ‘Please don’t be cruel to us. No religion can be based on genocide’ – but this kind of appeal is nothing, but the weeping of the weak person. When the low pressure is created in the air, a storm comes spontaneously; nobody can stop it for the sake of religion. Similarly, if weakness is cherished and be allowed to exist, torture comes automatically – nobody can stop it.”

    He also harboured a very pessimistic outlook about the future of Hindu-Muslim relation. He went on to add, “Possibly, the Hindus and the Muslims can make a fake friendship to each other for a while, but that cannot last forever. As long as you don’t purify the soil, which grows only thorny shrubs you can not expect any fruit.”

    Rabindranath Tagore, simultaneously, harboured great faith in Hinduism. He said, “When two-three different religions claim that only their own religions are true and all other religions are false, their religions are only ways to Heaven, conflicts cannot be avoided. Thus, fundamentalism tries to abolish all other religions. This is called Bolshevism in religion. Only the path shown by the Hinduism can relieve the world form this meanness.” (Tagore, ‘Aatmaparichapa’ in his book `Parichaya’)

    Of course, Tagore’s intelligence means that his opinions were extremely nuanced and it’s quite impossible to capture the entirety of his worldview in a single article. However, one thing is for certain, Tagore was certainly not the ‘secular hero’ the current Bengali elite imagine him to be. If he said the words now that he did then, the stalwart would be immediately labelled as a Hindutva Bigot.

    To be fair, certain Left-Liberals maintain their honesty in this respect and do already label him as Islamophobic and a bigot. That is indeed worthy of much more appreciation than the attempts to recast the great man into something he was not. Pitamber Kaushik, in an article published in Countercurrents (https://countercurrents.org/2019/05/what-did-rabindranath-tagore-think-about-islam) titled ‘What Did Rabindranath Tagore Think About Islam?’, says “an oft-unnoticed facet of this multiarmed polyglot, is remarkable, that of an undeniable bigot.” He adds, “Albeit Tagore did much to overhaul the exploitative social system and was the harbinger of progressive, modernist thought in Bengal, he was no Namboodripad or Nehru. Averse to the Abrahamic religions, and in spite of all ideological reformist endeavours, Tagore harboured an unmistakably soft spot for Hinduism, his religion of birth and upbringing.”

    One certain Saif Khan, writing for the Left-Liberal website Youth ki Awaaz, placed Tagore in the list of ‘Islamophobic Indians‘ (https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/04/indias-islamophobic-icons/). And it is further said, “Tagore’s flawed analogy if repeated by a political leader today would earn him the title of being ‘communal’.” Certain Maulanas, too, claim that Tagore’s ideas are being used to spread hatred against Muslims.

    Tagore was an extremely complicated man born into an extremely complicated era. Unfortunately enough, he became a victim of the newly minted artificially secular regime’s revisionist project. As a consequence, the enormous complexity of the man was reduced to dull shades of black and white and the grandeur of his achievements was reduced to merely a political tool in the hands of vested interests.

    Quite ostensibly, Tagore was not a proponent of the Hindu Right as we understand it today. However, he was certainly not one of the ‘secular intellectual elite’ of today either. More importantly, Tagore’s legacy is not the intellectual property of the current set of deracinated Bengali elite. His music and legacy is cherished by every Indian. When the entire country rises for the National Anthem, they are paying tribute to the nation through a song composed by Tagore. Cultural Icons from the past ought to be celebrated and cherished, to use them as sticks to beat fellow countrymen with is a sheer disgrace.



    https://www.opindia.com/2019/05/the-side-of-rabindranath-tagore-that-liberal-intellectuals-dont-want-you-to-see-here-is-what-he-thought-of-islam/
    The side of Rabindranath Tagore that ‘Liberal Intellectuals’ don’t want you to see: Here is what he thought of Islam Quite ostensibly, Tagore was not a proponent of the Hindu Right as we understand it today. However, he was certainly not one of the 'secular intellectual elite' of today either. Over time, a certain effort has been made by the intellectual Bengali elite to recast cultural icons of yore into stereotypes that fit perfectly with their own imaginations. In their effort, certain Bengali icons who have greatly influenced Bengali culture have been discarded while others have been fashioned as symbols of the supposed inherent secular Bengali culture. In this endeavour, icons like Shyama Prasad Mookherjee and Sri Aurobindo don’t find a place for themselves in the pantheon of Bengali stalwarts while those like Raja Ram Mohan Roy do. However, contrary to what liberals would have us believe, the opinions of such icons did not always conform with their fancy notions. Rabindranath Tagore is one such Bengali stalwart. Decades after his death, his songs are still sung and heard by every single Bengali Hindu family. His songs, which capture a variety of human emotions, have an entirely separate category unto themselves. ‘Rabindra Sangeet’ it is called. He is indeed an absolute cultural icon and over time, the Bengali intellectual elite has claimed him to be secular to present the ‘highly refined Bengali culture’ to be in stark contrast with the ‘rustic bigoted North Indian culture’. However, was Rabindranath Tagore really secular as the term is understood now? Was he really a deracinated intellectual as most of the Bengali elite is now? Let us discard the notions liberals have fed us and make up our own minds on the basis of the legend’s own words. From his works, it is abundantly clear that the great poet was not too fond of Islam and Christianity, to put it mildly. He said of them once, “There are two religions in earth, which have distinct enmity against all other religions. These two are Christianity and Islam. They are not just satisfied with observing their own religions but are determined to destroy all other religions. That’s why the only way to make peace with them is to embrace their religions.” (Original works of Rabindranath Vol. 24, page 375, Vishwa Bharti; 1982.) In a letter to Hemantabala Sarkar, written on the 16th of October, 1933, quoted in Bengali weekly ‘Swastika’ on 21-6-1999, he says, “The terrible situation of the country makes my mind restless and I cannot keep silent. Meaningless ritual keeps the Hindus divided into hundred sects. So we are suffering from a series of defeats. We are tired and worn-out by the fortunes by the internal-external enemies. The Muslims are united in religion and rituals. The Bengali Muslims the South Indian Muslims and even the Muslims outside India-all are united. They always stand united in face of danger. The broken and divided Hindus will not be able to combat them. Days are coming when the Hindus will be again humiliated by the Muslims. “You are a mother of children, one day you will die, passing the future of Hindus society on the weak shoulders of your children, but think about their future.” Rabindranath Tagore also blamed the Muslim community for the everlasting communal tensions between the two communities. Particularly, he blamed the pan-Islamic identity of the Muslim community and their penchant to put their religion over the nation which he claimed stood in the way of peaceful relations between Hindus and Muslims. In an interview with Times of India in 1924, which was quoted by the Hindu intellectual stalwart Sita Ram Goel in his book ‘Muslim Separatism – Causes and Consequences’ (1987), Tagore said, “A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims can not confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked (the Muslims) whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they (Muslims) would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them… Even such a man as Mr Mohammad Ali (one of the famous Ali brothers, the leaders of the Khilafat Movement-the compiler) has declared that under no circumstances is it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever be his country, to stand against any Mohammedan.” On another occasion, “Swamy Shraddananda’’, written by Rabindranath in Magh, 1333 Bangabda; compiled in the book ‘Kalantar’, he exhorted the Hindus to shed their weakness. “Weakness harbours sin. So, if the Muslims beat us and we, the Hindus, tolerate this without resistance-then, we will know that it is made possible only by our weakness. For the sake of ourselves and our neighbour Muslims also, we have to discard our weakness. We can appeal to our neighbour Muslims, ‘Please don’t be cruel to us. No religion can be based on genocide’ – but this kind of appeal is nothing, but the weeping of the weak person. When the low pressure is created in the air, a storm comes spontaneously; nobody can stop it for the sake of religion. Similarly, if weakness is cherished and be allowed to exist, torture comes automatically – nobody can stop it.” He also harboured a very pessimistic outlook about the future of Hindu-Muslim relation. He went on to add, “Possibly, the Hindus and the Muslims can make a fake friendship to each other for a while, but that cannot last forever. As long as you don’t purify the soil, which grows only thorny shrubs you can not expect any fruit.” Rabindranath Tagore, simultaneously, harboured great faith in Hinduism. He said, “When two-three different religions claim that only their own religions are true and all other religions are false, their religions are only ways to Heaven, conflicts cannot be avoided. Thus, fundamentalism tries to abolish all other religions. This is called Bolshevism in religion. Only the path shown by the Hinduism can relieve the world form this meanness.” (Tagore, ‘Aatmaparichapa’ in his book `Parichaya’) Of course, Tagore’s intelligence means that his opinions were extremely nuanced and it’s quite impossible to capture the entirety of his worldview in a single article. However, one thing is for certain, Tagore was certainly not the ‘secular hero’ the current Bengali elite imagine him to be. If he said the words now that he did then, the stalwart would be immediately labelled as a Hindutva Bigot. To be fair, certain Left-Liberals maintain their honesty in this respect and do already label him as Islamophobic and a bigot. That is indeed worthy of much more appreciation than the attempts to recast the great man into something he was not. Pitamber Kaushik, in an article published in Countercurrents (https://countercurrents.org/2019/05/what-did-rabindranath-tagore-think-about-islam) titled ‘What Did Rabindranath Tagore Think About Islam?’, says “an oft-unnoticed facet of this multiarmed polyglot, is remarkable, that of an undeniable bigot.” He adds, “Albeit Tagore did much to overhaul the exploitative social system and was the harbinger of progressive, modernist thought in Bengal, he was no Namboodripad or Nehru. Averse to the Abrahamic religions, and in spite of all ideological reformist endeavours, Tagore harboured an unmistakably soft spot for Hinduism, his religion of birth and upbringing.” One certain Saif Khan, writing for the Left-Liberal website Youth ki Awaaz, placed Tagore in the list of ‘Islamophobic Indians‘ (https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/04/indias-islamophobic-icons/). And it is further said, “Tagore’s flawed analogy if repeated by a political leader today would earn him the title of being ‘communal’.” Certain Maulanas, too, claim that Tagore’s ideas are being used to spread hatred against Muslims. Tagore was an extremely complicated man born into an extremely complicated era. Unfortunately enough, he became a victim of the newly minted artificially secular regime’s revisionist project. As a consequence, the enormous complexity of the man was reduced to dull shades of black and white and the grandeur of his achievements was reduced to merely a political tool in the hands of vested interests. Quite ostensibly, Tagore was not a proponent of the Hindu Right as we understand it today. However, he was certainly not one of the ‘secular intellectual elite’ of today either. More importantly, Tagore’s legacy is not the intellectual property of the current set of deracinated Bengali elite. His music and legacy is cherished by every Indian. When the entire country rises for the National Anthem, they are paying tribute to the nation through a song composed by Tagore. Cultural Icons from the past ought to be celebrated and cherished, to use them as sticks to beat fellow countrymen with is a sheer disgrace. https://www.opindia.com/2019/05/the-side-of-rabindranath-tagore-that-liberal-intellectuals-dont-want-you-to-see-here-is-what-he-thought-of-islam/
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • March 26, 2019
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    By Raymond Ibrahim
    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:


    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it 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 who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).

    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it 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 who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).



    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    March 26, 2019 America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad By Raymond Ibrahim Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it 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 who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it 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 who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    The United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims after the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims. 
    WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

Sponsored

0% INTEREST , NO HIDDEN FEES, NO CREDIT CHECK, 100% APPROVED UP TO $10,000

0% INTEREST , NO HIDDEN FEES, NO CREDIT CHECK, 100% APPROVED UP TO $10,000