The Forum > Article Comments > Misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood > Comments
Misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood : Comments
By Irfan Yusuf, published 23/2/2007One can't help but to compare the barrage of abuse faced by the Sheik Taj Al-Din Hilali (perhaps deservedly) with the indifference to Professor Raphael Israeli's offensive remarks.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Page 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- ...
- 45
- 46
- 47
-
- All
Since the 17th century, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli had been largely independent Muslim states, run by military strongmen and financed by plunder, tribute, and ransom. The monarchy of Morocco was equally well known by the time of the Barbary Wars for supporting piracy.
In 1785, the Dey (ruler) of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded US$60,000 in ransom for their crews. The then-American ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks.
In 1786 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
"The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven".
Why do I bring this up? Because the answer of the Tripoli ambassador echoes much of the contemporary Islamist view of the West today. The Islamist hatred of the infidel West precedes any of the actions that the Americans (or others) might have undertaken in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Comprenez-vous?