Saturday, September 03, 2016

Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim Pirates

Back in the Spring of 2007, Christopher Hitchens published an interesting reflection entitled "Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates" in CJ - 'From the Magazine', which I believe stands for a magazine called "Conservative Judaism" (though check to be sure). More recently, Tom Henegham, an "international intelligence expert," posted a related piece entitled "History Lesson: Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim World," which apparently came from an article entitled "History of the USA and Muslims" (NESARA - Republic Now, an 'awareness' blog, Marcy 10, 2016). I'm not sure of the ultimate source. But Snopes reports the contents are 'true' so those, at least, are apparently not controversial.

Here's the story:
When Jefferson saw there was no negotiating with Muslims, he formed what is the now the Marines (sea going soldiers). These Marines were attached to U. S. Merchant vessels. When the Muslims attacked U.S. merchant vessels, they were repulsed by armed soldiers, but there is more.

The Marines followed the Muslims back to their villages and killed every man, woman, and child in the village [This claim has no documentation, so it's accuracy may be questioned.] It didn't take long for the Muslims to leave U.S. Merchant vessels alone. English and French merchant vessels started running up our flag when entering the Mediterranean to secure safe travel.

Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse "… to the shores of Tripoli." This is very interesting and a must read piece of our history. It points out where we may be heading. Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago, the United States had declared war on Islam and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!

At the height of the 18th century, Muslim pirates (the "Barbary Pirates") were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic. They attacked every ship in sight and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.

These extortionists of the high seas represented the North African Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers - collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast - and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic ..

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.

Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, 17 years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America's Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not acknowledge 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."

Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over 20 percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed everything.

Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force.

He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to "cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify".

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line" the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as "leathernecks" for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States....
[Hat tip to J. Shepherd]




The post referred to by Henegham makes its source the book co-authored, supposedly by Brian Kilmeade. Mr. Kilmeade, however, is hardly someone noteworthy for his research scholarship or command of the English language.

Nonetheless, many knowledgeable reviewers noted inaccuracies in the work, especially about John Adams and the navy.

What concerns me, though, is your parroting of the assertion by Henegham that "the Marines followed the Muslims back to their villages and killed every man, woman, and child in the village."

Please, supply sound documentation or testimony that a) Marines actually did such an atrocity of killing other than combatants; and b)if such ever occurred in the war with Tripoli, whether such was authorized in any manner at all by commanders in the field on site or higher authorities.

If a sound source confirming this allegation cannot be found, please expunge it from your site and insist, in print, that it ought to be expunged from other sites.

James Joseph


At the end of the war the United States awarded the possessions to the Ottoman Caliphate.

Catholic Mission


Mohammad in Vatican II
St.Alphonsus Liguori said Mohammad is in Hell. He has gone there like other Muslims. The popes and the other saints said the same.Vatican Council II also says that 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for 'salvation'.Everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church, 'as through a door' (Ad Gentes 7). Mohammad did not have faith and baptism at the time of death.
Being saved with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation.The Church is 'the ordinary means of salvation'( Redemptoris Missio 55).In general all Muslims need to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation; salvation with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14).
We cannot say that Mohammad or a Muslim was saved with the baptism of desire or in invincibile ignorance. Since they are not the ordinary means of salvation.They cannot even be the extra ordinary means of salvation since there are no such known cases in our reality. They cannot be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since they do not exist for us humans in 2016.
If a person in invincible ignorance is to be saved,God could send a preacher to baptize him with water. So there are only Catholics in Heaven. They are there with the Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
To be saved with the baptism of desire etc is a possibility known only to God.There is no such known case in reality, defacto, in 2016.So there cannot be any exception in reality to Ad Gentes 7 or Lumen Gentium 16.
So we cannot meet someone who will be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Since the ordinary means of salvation is entering visibly in the Catholic Church (with faith and the baptism of water ).For us the baptism of desire refers to something hypothetical, accepted only in theory, in principle.It is speculative.
We cannot say that Mohammad was saved in invincible ignorance because the only way to go to Heaven is with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. It is given to adults who have Catholic Faith.Mohammad was not baptised.
Mohammad also was not ignorant of the Catholic Faith. The Qur'an indicates that Mohammad knew about Jesus and the Church.He chose not to enter. The Second Vatican Council (LG 14), says that those who know about Jesus and the Church and its need for salvation and do not enter are on the way to Hell.
The Second Vatican Council (AG 7) is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title outside the Church there is no salvation.
Ad Gentes 7 is in accord with the defined dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.The dogma is based on John 3: 5 and Mark 16:16.
There are no exceptions mentioned in the Second Vatican Council to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council does not contradict the dogma as it was interpreted by the 16 century missionaries or Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
In the present times we do not know anyone who has received salvation through 'good and holy things in other religions' (NA 2) and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. It is not possible to greet someone on the streets of Rome who has received salvation with 'the seeds of the Word' (AG 11) and without 'faith and baptism'. I cannot see someone in Italy or in Heaven who has been saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience(LG 16). Therefore, these references (hypothetical cases) are not exceptions to the dogma extraecclesiam nulla salus as they are often mistaken to be..

Catholic Mission



Everyone needs to convert into the Church through faith and baptism, all need to be visible members of the Catholic Church to go to heaven and avoid hell (for salvation). The Second Vatican Council is in agreement with the popes and saints when they said that Mohammad is in Hell. The official teaching of the Catholic Church, like the magisterial documents, before and after the Second Vatican Council, and including Vatican Council II has the same message.Nothing has changed.
Islam is not a path to salvation. (CDF, Notification, Jacques Dupuis, SJ, Dominus Iesus 20, the Second Vatican Council, AG 7, LG 14 etc.). Muslims need to visibly convert into the Catholic Church to avoid hell. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 845.846, Ecclesia in Eucharistia, Cantate Domino, the Council of Florence in 1441, extra ccclesiam nulla salus etc.).
The founder of Islam, a religion which has good and holy things and which politically is one of the "great religions" like Judaism, was oriented to Hell.
This is a truth of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church still proclaims and teaches exclusive salvation. Since there are no known cases of Muslims or other non-Catholics, saved outside the Church .
Since there are no visible exceptions,there is no basis for a theology of religions or a new ecclesiology.
The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church today, based on the Second Vatican Council (LG 14, AG 7) is still exclusivist .
Vatican Council II has an exclusivist ecclesiology when references to implicit cases are not mistaken to be explicit, when hypothetical cases are not assumed to be objectively visible in 2016 and when LG 16 for example, refers to someone who is invisible and not visible.
Exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, according to Vatican Council II, does not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).
So we need Catholic Mission based on the Second Vatican Council.This is not only a personal opinion. Cardinal Angelo Amato, as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, in an interview with the daily Avvenire, called for mission based on Vatican Council II, which for him is missionary .He specifically mentioned Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7.
Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission


Cardinal Burke does not want to proclaim the Faith and be a martyr

Pertinacious Papist



I appreciate your concern. Since I am simply passing on what I've received here without personal vetting beyond the secondary sources I've supplied, I inserted a caveat following the passage in question declaring that its authenticity may be questioned. Hope that suffices.

For anyone else interested in supplying further detail, I'm open to further emendations.

Kind regards,