Islam In Europe

[Michael]

Note: After serving 2 years those women were release a couple months ago.

 

[Michael]

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, 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 [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Really, some things change and some things stay the same. And this was the 1700s. Well, I'm sure they weren't "real" Muslims. Everyone knows "real" Muslims only preach peace - unless you're a singing girl making fun of a fat prophet, well then the gloves come off...

 

[GeoffP]

See, that's the thing again: I can criticize the US, socialism and other socialists, atheism, Christianity and even Western society, but on the flip it's all tu quoque. People have to accapt criticism of their system more; I'm trying to do so, and I don't always succeed. Anything else leans towards supremacism.

 

[abu_afak]

True, the Barbary Pirates had predecessors- but..

It Didn’t Start With bin Laden

Religiously Motivated terrorism against America isn't new — in fact, it dates back hundreds of years.

By Chris Jeub
2003

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

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

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

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

War on Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link expired but was:
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizen.../A0017918.html

 

[Michael]

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


In essence this is the exact same thing my Iranian buddy said to me about why the Persian and Byzantine fell to the Muslim Arabs. Exactly the same thing.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Weren't those pirates who looted the Vatican?
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro45.htm

No it was part of a larger concerted effort that began in the seventh century

The first attacks from Islamic ships to Sicily, then part of the Eastern Roman Empire, occurred in 652: they were Arabs from Syria, led by Mu'àuia ibn-Hodeig (Mu`āwiyah ibn Hudayj) of the Kinda tribe, and remained on the island for several years. The Byzantine exarch of Ravenna Olympius also came to Sicily but were unable to oust the invaders, who returned to Syria after collecting a large amount of booty.

A second expedition occurred in 669. This time the strong, ravaging force consisted of 200 ships from Alexandria. They sacked Syracuse and returned to Egypt after a month of pillaging. After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (complete around 700), attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, the last two times meeting with a substantial Byzantine resistance.

The first true conquest expedition was launched in 740: in that year the Muslim prince Habib, who participated on the 728 attack, and his son Abdurrahman, after a successful siege of Syracuse, were ready to conquer the whole island when they were called back to Tunisia by a Berber revolt. A second attack in 752 aimed only to sack the city......

You could just as well call any invaders pirates.

 

[Michael]

Oh sock that's different for any number of reasons:
1) They weren't real Muslims as real Muslims follow Islam a religion of only peace.
2) If it did happen, which it didn't, it was purely defensive in nature.
3) They didn't harm anyone when they did sack a city, which they didn't do and if they did do they weren't real Muslims, they were pirates. Probably Xian pirates at that!

etc... etc... etc...


Note: the Crusades were not committed by Christians, because real Christians follow Christianity a religion of pure snow white peace. If the Crusades did happen it was purely defensive in nature, or to regain that which was stolen, anyway they didn't happen, but if some where to think that they did happen then it was only as a defense. When the Crusaders sacked a city, which they never did do, they never harmed a hair on a Muslims head, they were simply let in to the shouts of joy - finally infidel Muslims could hear the only absolutley true belief that can possibly exit.... Christianity.

 

[DeepThought]

I absolutely loathe people who are intolerant, I'm very tolerant of all tolerant people. Of course they must be tolerant of all the things I am tolerant of and intolerant of all the things I am intolerant of.

We all saw how tolerant you Indians were a couple of years ago when you mass murdered hundreds of Muslims and the Indian police just stood by and watched.

Muslims are safer in the West.

 

[S.A.M.]

No it was part of a larger concerted effort that began in the seventh century



You could just as well call any invaders pirates.

Sounds very similar to what the Vikings did actually, or Taimurlang on several occasions in India.

 

[S.A.M.]

Excepting the tiny compromising detail of:



Did the earlier tradition include islam? Oone can hardly complain about the European response - they were merely following an even earlier tradition they learned from 870 AD onward.



And their women and children, yes. Ah, the Golden Age. Well...more of an off-yellow for some people, apparently. At least you attribute precedence to the Ottomans, though.

abu_afak: Excellent comparison. The tolerance of political islam in all it's logic and understanding. Well...for some people, anyway. One out of two isn't bad, you know. Brothers all.

Well does the US NOT support the women and children of Israel? Thats news to me.

And what does what one pirate said in 17-whatever have to do with what another did in 18-whatever?

Besides look at where they originated

Following the conquest of Granada by Spain and the expulsion of the Moors in the late 15th and early 16th century, many Muslims from Spain emigrated to the coastal cities of North Africa. Under the tutelage of first the Islamic Mamelukes of Egypt and later the Moslem Ottomans, they together with local Arab and Berber tribes formulated Jihad expeditions called Riazzas to disrupt Christian sovereigns and capture the coveted white European women for the brothels of East. Under the power of the Ottomans in the 16th century, who organized the privateers into jihadis, the Barbary pirates became most powerful in the 17th century, until declining in the face of European power throughout the 18th century

 

[S.A.M.]

All the "tolerance" dripping in this thread. Makes one emotional, it does. Especially considering how equal the credence is to all beliefs. Awesome!

No one sided beliefs here, nosirree

 

[S.A.M.]

We all saw how tolerant you Indians were a couple of years ago when you mass murdered hundreds of Muslims and the Indian police just stood by and watched.

Muslims are safer in the West.

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

^^^look at all the recruits campaigning on their behalf.

 

[John99]

All the "tolerance" dripping in this thread. Makes one emotional, it does. Especially considering how equal the credence is to all beliefs. Awesome!

No one sided beliefs here, nosirree

Think its possible Sam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

 

[John99]

Concessions will need to be made.:itold:

 

[Baron Max]

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

Maybe Muslims should ask themselves why there is "Islamophobia" sweeping the western world. And maybe they should try to do something to resolve that.

Baron Max

 

[Vega]

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

^^^look at all the recruits campaigning on their behalf.

Al-Qaeida couldn't have said it better than that!!!

 

[GeoffP]

Sounds very similar to what the Vikings did actually, or Taimurlang on several occasions in India.

Which then makes it justified? Yes, yes: our rejection of islamic violence but the tacit acceptance of the ongoing atrocities of the Vikings must seem quite two-faced to you, I'm sure.

Well does the US NOT support the women and children of Israel? Thats news to me.

I was referring, rather, to the slavery of women and children of Europe by the Barbary pirates.

And what does what one pirate said in 17-whatever have to do with what another did in 18-whatever?

?? Odd. I thought it was your point a few posts back that they did have something to do with one another. My point was that the Barbary pirates were doing it because they felt they had an overt religious license to do so.

Besides look at where they originated

...yes, in the expulsed invaders of Spain. Not sure what you're getting at here. They felt the best way to get their territory back was to enslave the actual inhabitants? Well...I guess they had political islamic precedence to back up their argument. And anyway, any MSA-sponsored tafsir of Sura 9 will illustrate the important...ah, humanitarian reasons for enslavement and forcible confinement. It was really all for their own good.

I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world.

Yes, indeed! Don't become aware of the issues, or fight back, because that just causes more jihad. Instead, you should submit...which creates more jihad. Absurd.

 

[Atom]

I'm not surprised that he's an Atheist as well as being very glib.

A lot of what he says rings true...

"I admire anyone who’s genuinely trying to achieve spiritual enlightenment and live a peaceful life. But religious dogma is a barrier to that. The last thing a dogmatist wants is for anyone to be enlightened, any more than a pharmaceutical company wants anybody cured.’ Or, as Condell puts it on his website: ‘Religion disapproves of original thought the way Dracula does sunlight.’

 

[Atom]

As with a lot of Atheists he seems to want some form of Utopia on Earth...we've seen the same with George Bernard Shaw re. Communism and HG.Wells re. Eugenics and Nazism.

Maybe he needs to visit the Middle East and have a few bombs land on him to realise that people don't become fanatics by mere whim alone.

 

[GeoffP]

They become fanatics - quite often it seems - via religious indoctrination, or resurgence later in life. But - and I regret to say this - not all religions so inculcate this position.

(More succinctly, Atom: what bombs were dropping on Malaysia? Pakistan? This century? Last century? The 12 ones before that? What bombs dropped on Mohammed, personally?)