Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Americaís Earliest Terrorists
National Review Online ^ | 12/16/05 | Joshua E. London

Posted on 12/16/2005 7:28:11 AM PST by Jacksonville Patriot

America’s Earliest Terrorists Lessons from America’s first war against Islamic terror.

By Joshua E. London

At the dawn of a new century, a newly elected United States president was forced to confront a grave threat to the nation — an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim terrorists. Worse still, these Islamic partisans operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states ruled by ruthless and cunning dictators.

Sluggish in recognizing the full nature of the threat, America entered the war well after the enemy’s call to arms. Poorly planned and feebly executed, the American effort proceeded badly and at great expense — resulting in a hastily negotiated peace and an equally hasty declaration of victory.

As timely and familiar as these events may seem, they occurred more than two centuries ago. The president was Thomas Jefferson, and the terrorists were the Barbary pirates. Unfortunately, many of the easy lessons to be plucked from this experience have yet to be fully learned.

The Barbary states, modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghrib (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt. With the advance of Mohammed’s armies into the Christian Levant in the seventh century, the Mediterranean was slowly transformed into the backwater frontier of the battles between crescent and cross. Battles raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished.

The Maghrib served as a staging ground for Muslim piracy throughout the Mediterranean, and even parts of the Atlantic. America’s struggle with the terror of Muslim piracy from the Barbary states began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, and continued for roughly four decades, finally ending in 1815.

Although there is much in the history of America’s wars with the Barbary pirates that is of direct relevance to the current “war on terror,” one aspect seems particularly instructive to informing our understanding of contemporary Islamic terrorists. Very simply put, the Barbary pirates were committed, militant Muslims who meant to do exactly what they said.

Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador 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 who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar?

The candor of that Tripolitan ambassador is admirable in its way, but it certainly foreshadows the equally forthright declarations of, say, the Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1980s and the Sunni Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, not to mention the many pronouncements of their various minions, admirers, and followers. Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel.

America became entangled in the Islamic world and was dragged into a war with the Barbary states simply because of the religious obligation within Islam to bring belief to those who do not share it. This is not something limited to “radical” or “fundamentalist” Muslims.

Which is not to say that such obligations lead inevitably to physical conflict, at least not in principle. After all peaceful proselytizing among various religious groups continues apace throughout the world, but within the teachings of Islam, and the history of Muslims, this is a well-established militant thread.

The Islamic basis for piracy in the Mediterranean was an old doctrine relating to the physical or armed jihad, or struggle.

To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam — that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war — at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.

The point of jihad is not to convert by force, but to remove the obstacles to the infidels’ conversion so that they shall either convert or become a dhimmi (a non-Muslim who accepts Islamic dominion) and pay the jizya, or poll tax. The goal is to bring all of the Dar al-Harb into the peace of the Dar al-Islam, and to eradicate unbelief. The Koran also promises rewards to those who fight in the jihad, plunder and glory in this world and the delights of paradise in the next.

Although the piratical activities of Barbary genuinely degenerated over the centuries from pure considerations of the glory of jihad to less grandiose visions of booty and state revenues, it is important to remember that the religious foundations of the institution of piracy remained central.

Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.

In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary states’ interaction with Christendom.

In times of conflict, America tends to focus on personalities over ideas or movements, trying to play the man, not the board — as if capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, for example, would instantly end the present conflict. But such thinking loses sight of the fact that ideas have consequences. If one believes that God commands something, this belief is not likely to dissipate just because the person who elucidated it has been silenced. Islam, as a faith, is as essential a feature of the terrorist threat today as it was of the Barbary piracy over two centuries ago.

The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad — a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time, and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah.

Obviously, and thankfully, not every Muslim is obligated, or even really inclined, to take up this jihad. Indeed, many Muslims are loath to personally embrace this physical struggle. But that does not mean they are all opposed to such a struggle any more than the choice of many Westerners not to join the police force or the armed services means they do not support those institutions.

Whether “insurgents” are fighting in Iraq or “rebels” and “militants” are skirmishing in Chechnya or Hamas “activists” are detonating themselves in Israel, Westerners seem unwilling to bring attention to the most salient feature of all these groups: They claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

It is very easy to chalk it all up to regional squabbles, economic depression, racism, or post-colonial nationalistic self-determinism. Such explanations undoubtedly enter into part of the equation — they are already part of the propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis. But as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came to learn back in 1786, the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; barbary; barbarypirates; islam; jihad; pirates; presidents; radicalmuslims; terror; thomasjefferson

1 posted on 12/16/2005 7:28:13 AM PST by Jacksonville Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot
Islam, as a faith form of murderous dementia is as essential a feature of the terrorist threat...
2 posted on 12/16/2005 7:31:09 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

3 posted on 12/16/2005 7:37:57 AM PST by Alice au Wonderland (I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot
" ... armed jihad — a mainstream Muslim doctrine."

Rather clear and convincing.

Of course, as I am a sinful Christian, I do not believe in turning the other cheek, and the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Keep your weapons well cleaned and oiled.

4 posted on 12/16/2005 7:39:58 AM PST by G.Mason (Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark ... Marine Corporal Jeffrey Starr, KIA 04-30-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot; RhoTheta

Interesting read. Thanks!

5 posted on 12/16/2005 7:48:30 AM PST by Egon (By the way, I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot

"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

Forgot about that. Thanks. Great reminder.

6 posted on 12/16/2005 7:49:40 AM PST by wizr (Fear not death. Christ lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot

Of course this historical moment is refered to in the Marine Corp Anthem "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our countrys battles on the land and on the sea"

7 posted on 12/16/2005 7:49:43 AM PST by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot

From the Treaty of Tripoli that ended this war:

" Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


8 posted on 12/16/2005 7:57:00 AM PST by Blzbba ("Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart" - Ashe, Housewares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot

"Study the past if you would divine the future." Confucius 500's B.C.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana 1863 -1953

9 posted on 12/16/2005 8:04:14 AM PST by infool7 (Ignorance isnít bliss its slavery in denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Aap aap ahh dap dap!!!!!
It's a religion of peace
It's a religion of peace

It aint Slim W, but this'll gitr done!
Kill A Commie For Mommie

Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

10 posted on 12/16/2005 8:32:12 AM PST by rawcatslyentist (Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous---Hobbes the Tiger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot
Indeed, many Muslims are loath to personally embrace this physical struggle. But that does not mean they are all opposed to such a struggle any more than the choice of many Westerners not to join the police force or the armed services means they do not support those institutions.

One of the best analysis I've read in awhile.
11 posted on 12/16/2005 8:49:00 AM PST by BJClinton (Mommas don't let your babies grow up to be sheephearders...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacksonville Patriot

Islamists. ....still crazy after all these years.

12 posted on 08/29/2006 3:17:23 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson