This is a bit long - hopefully worth reading.
I did some reading over the holidays. I initially thought I was just going to be reading about some US History, the story of the Barbary Pirates, Thomas Jefferson and the march to the Shores of Tripoli. It wound up being a lot more than I anticipated.
First - an interesting tidbit that you can pass along to all your Marine friends. The phrase "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corp Hymn comes from the Tripoli wars. A force of 500 marched 500 miles across the desert to attack and capture the city of Derne with the intent of installing a new sultan. For the day, it was an amazing feat of military accomplishment. The twist that I suspect many Marines don't know or would want to admit is that out of that force of 500, there were only 8 US Marines present and two of them were killed before reaching the fort on the shore. So, even if you don't tell them, every time you hear them proudly singing, remember that only 6 Marines actually made it to the shores of Tripoli.
I read the book - Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates by Brian Kilmeade, a history of the war against the Barbary Pirates. The trouble with the pirates really started in 1784 when the newly formed United States became an independent country. Lo and behold, the tribute money which had been paid by England before the Revolution and France for a while afterwards was no longer there to keep the pirates at bay. Hundreds of US ships were seized and US trade in the Mediterranean was practically shut down. In order to save money, the US had decommissioned all warships after the Revolution, there was no Navy to save us. American merchant ships were helpless.
Early on Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with a representative of one of the pirate lords which quickly showed the impracticality of paying tribute to prevent attacks - the new United States just did not have that much money. Despite it appearing to be a dead end, Adams, being rather bullheaded as he was, pressed harder to learn why. What was their beef with the United States, with all the European powers? I was a little dismayed to read that the justification by the pirates was that their holy book commanded them to attack infidels wherever they could be found, to enslave Christians and Jews, to convert those who would convert, tax those would acknowledge the superiority of their religion and kill however many was necessary to accomplish their goal. Why is it that we never talk about the fact that the Barbary pirates were Muslims who were driven by the same justifications of Islam that we're dealing with today? Today we would call what they're doing "state sanctioned terrorism".
But then I got to thinking...surely 1784 was not the first time this topic had raised it's head? No, of course it wasn't. I won't detail every battle, attack and war, but let's just say that Islam spent the better part of the 7th-10th centuries getting their house in order, in establishing their caliphate. The Western world cares about Islam again in 1077 when the Islamic general Atsiz Awaq forces the city of Jerusalem to surrender, then violates his truce and slaughters 3000 Christians and destroys dozens of Christian churches, kicking off the First Crusade. You may not have connected the dots, but all of the Crusades were reactions to Islamic treachery. Today we'd call it terrorism or genocide, but the source is the same - they believe the Koran commands Muslims to enslave non-Muslims, to convert non-Muslims and to kill any who get in their way.
I've been doing some additional reading - there's some facinating secondary source documents (verified translations of primary documents from ancient Arabic) at
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html.
This paragraph from Robert the Monk in the 11th century describing how the Turks treated Christians sounds so familiar. Its almost like they're doing the same kinds of things today.
They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent.
I can trace notion of submission to Islamic rule and paying a tax in lieu of being killed back to 642, just 10 years after the death of Mohammed. This was during a time when Islam was conquering it's neighbors and very strongly encouraging a large part of the Arab world into Islam. It really didn't affect Europe much until the late 11th century, resulting in the First Crusade as mentioned above.
These issues that the West had with these beliefs in Islam in the past are the same as the issues we're seeing today. The Muslims who practice the original Islamic law are just flat out racist - or whatever *-ist applies to religion. You are either a Muslim or you are inferior. If you are not Muslim, you can be legally enslaved, you can be killed, you can be raped and nobody will care. Those who wish to live in peace may pay the jizya or "peace tax", or if you prefer, pirate tribute. Or perhaps you just like to call it payola, insurance money or a protection racket.
I'm still looking at this. But it appears that this whole thing that ISIS is doing is nothing new. I can trace the same kind of behavior back to at least the 11th century. And I think we have to look to history for our solution. They offer conversion, tax, slavery or death. I think our only option is to reject their game - and the only language they understand is strength.
Show Posts