Muslim "Blowback"....in 1786? Muslim Violence Against the US is Not New

Advertisement

Your Ads Here

Fighting the Barbary Pirates

A few posts back I wrote about the "blowback" theory of Muslim violence.  Adherents to the theory believe that Muslim violence is not related to Islam, or its teachings, tenets or beliefs.  They believe that Muslim violence against the west is merely a reaction to past American aggression, or "blowback."  Both Ron Paul and one of his former advisors, Robert Pape, believe this theory.  Pape wrote a book on how we can stop Islamic violence by not having any military presence or supporting any other country's presence in Islamic lands.  The book is called "Cutting the Fuse."

I believe the "blowback" theory is bunk.  While the presence of infidel soldiers in Islamic countries and the support of Western countries for the supposed "occupation" of Islamic lands (e.g., the very existence of Israel) may provide a further motive for jihad attacks, the fact is that the Koran commands aggressive war against infidels even in the complete absence of any infidel "aggression" against Muslims. Muslims attack us because of Islam, because they are commanded to do so by their prophet and holy book, the Koran. Our sin is merely that we are not Muslims, that we do not accept Muhammad as a valid prophet.

Muslim violence and aggression against the United States is not new.  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Muslim pirates were attacking our shipping, stealing cargoes and ships and enslaving our sailors.  These were the infamous "Barbary Pirates," operating out of Tripoli (now Libya) and neighboring Islamic states.

Lawrence Auster of View From the Right wrote to me and supplied these facts:  In 1786, John Adams and Jefferson, then our ambassadors to Britain and France, met the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, and asked him why his government was so hostile to the United States even though it had done nothing to provoke any such animosity.  Adja answered them (as they reported to the Continental Congress):  "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 [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."  

Doesn't sound much like "blowback" does it?  There was then, as there is now, a religious reason for Muslim aggression.  President Jefferson sent the navy and the marines to fight the (Muslim) Barbary Pirates in Tripoli in 1804, to stop them from attacking and pirating our commercial shipping.  Our military response to Islamic states, then as now, results from Muslim aggression, terror and murder.  The "blowback" theory is false.

President John Quincy Adams, who was President from 1825 to 1829 didn't believe in "blowback" either.  He wrote this about Islam:

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

President Adams also wrote this about Islamic violence and aggression:

"….Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet [Muhammad] shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

Advertisement

Your Ads Here