In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy...

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

B-but I thought you guys said Islam was peaceful? A-America's to blame here right guys?

Meanwhile in Morocco:

"Muhammad III, or Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdallah, came to power in 1757 and ruled until his death in 1790. Prior to his reign, Morocco had experienced 30 years of internecine battles, instability and turmoil. During the 33 years Sidi Muhammad ruled he transformed the politics, the economy and the society, putting development of international trade high on his agenda and restoring power to the sultanate. This served to quickly bring respect to Morocco on the international scene.[3] Central to his pursuit of international trade was the negotiation of agreements with foreign commercial powers. He actively began seeking one with the United States well before the war with Great Britain was settled in 1783, finally got America's attention in 1784, and warmly welcomed Thomas Barclay's arrival to negotiate in 1786. The treaty signed by Barclay and the sultan, then by Jefferson and Adams, was ratified by the Confederation Congress in July 1787.[4] It has withstood transatlantic stresses and strains for more than 220 years, making it the longest unbroken treaty relationship in United States history.[5]"

Whataboutery at its finest

Whataboutery would be "b-but the US enslaved blacks and genocided the native Americans! Plenty of Christians practiced piracy and thought they could plunder and enslave heathens! Conquistadors!"

This is pointing out that while one of the Barbary Coast kingdoms claimed it was their holy duty to capture the ships of infidels, in the same year another kingdom was signing a treaty of friendship with the infidels.

That doesn't make any sense.

1786 was still in the heyday of Barbary pirates, Muslim North African pirates that kidnapped between 1 million and 1.5 million Europeans from Italy, France and Spain and sold them into slavery.

Fuck them and their religion.

>1786 was still in the heyday of Barbary pirates, Muslim North African pirates that kidnapped between 1 million and 1.5 million Europeans from Italy, France and Spain and sold them into slavery.

>pirates act like pirates
>it's because of their religion
wew lad
with that logic you can insult christians as well becase of central/south american piracy

>those Muslims were bad but what about these other Muslims
>not whataboutery
Wew lad

Are we being raided? What the fuck is with all of the Islam threads?

>My Muslim neighbor is a cunt, Islam is a cancer
>Okay, my other Muslim neighbor is very nice but what does that have to do with anything?

/pol/ trying to spread it's bullshit

>my imaginary neighbour anecdote trumps a thousand years of recorded history, the writings of the religion itself and the teachings of the hadith
wew lad

A thread pointing out Islam has always been aggressive is hardly "/pol/ bullshit". The First Barbary War is a direct refutation of the claim Islam is only aggressive due to American imperialism

>people make war
>therefore their religion made them do it
yea ok

then i guess christians are violent for commiting 2 world wars

It's not an anecdote it's pointing out the contradiction of your argument.

You post one case of historical aggression from an Islamic nation and then say that Islam is inherently violent.

Yet literally at the exact same time as the example you posted there was also an Islamic nation strengthening friendships with non-muslim foreign powers. A treaty that still stands today.

By the exact measure you use to prove your argument, it can be rebuked.

>implying you had any of that
You used one (1) quote from a 19th century apologist for North African piracy. I replied with another anecdote about a 19th century North African kingdom.
It's your fault for using such laughably weak evidence that a simple anecdote reduces it to absurdity.

>thread about H I S T O R Y
>FUCKING /pol/
You cuckbois ever heard the one about the boy who cried wolf?

>19th century
18th, rather.

t: /pol/

B-b

A-a

disgusting

I don't know was Hitler using the Bible to justify his oven fetish?

>apologist for piracy
Did you even fucking read it? I assume you know what an envoy is?

I didn't say Islam was violent. I said this board constantly falls over itself to portray Islam as peaceful.

As the thread once again proves

>the aggression of three Islamic States is rendered absurb because of the actions of one other Islamic country
You're a fucking idiot. The Barbary slave trade had very little to do with piracy and a lot to do with the Koran

Not any more than WBC does.

t. Mohammed

I don't go on /pol/ but that doesn't mean I like muslims

Last I checked the WBC doesn't cause wars or kill people they're just annoying retards

>he honestly can't figure out the metaphor

People with autism should be gassed.

>I said this board constantly falls over itself to portray Islam as peaceful.

Are you fucking delusional? This board has almost as much anti-Islam sentiment as /pol/. Just because some people are actually providing counter-examples doesn't magically mean Veeky Forums "falls over itself to portray Islam is peaceful."
When you have discussions with historians you're liable to find some people who realize history is more nuanced than this black and white worldview of absolutes you're desperately trying to cultivate. History's kind of fucking inconvenient for that because human beings are remarkably inconsistent in applying ideology.

>You post one case of historical aggression from an Islamic nation and then say that Islam is inherently violent.

There could hypothetically be zero recorded Islamic violent attacks in history, and the religion itself would still be violent, because the authoritative scriptures literally are violent.

Personally, Muslims who are peace-loving and kind make me wonder how religious they really are, same with Jews and Christians, because as someone who as read the OT/NT and The Qur'an I'm surprised we haven't had a nuclear war already.

Did the pirates use quran to justify their plunder? guess not too.

>The Barbary slave trade had very little to do with piracy and a lot to do with the Koran

Is that why Protestant pirates of the 16th and 17th century literally operated out of the same ports as the Barbary corsairs, because that's also in the Koran?

Maybe they were just pirates who made a living out of piracy, from the emir who skims off the top of their raids in taxes to the merchant who buys stolen European goods at low prices to the shipyards that ran complex insurance industries based on the risk of each pirate ship to the farmer who made extra money in his off-season by joining a crew?

You don't have to be /pol/tard to hate Islam.

>then i guess christians are violent for commiting 2 world wars
Nazis actually hated Christianity but they mostly stuck to it because the majority of Germans were Christian and they weren't changing and also much of their support came from rural heavily conservative Christians. But otherwise most of the nazi high leadership saw Christianity as a Jewish religion that made Germanics weak and impotent and they wanted to go back to Nordic paganism which was more violent and aggressive.

And Kaiserreich hardly liked Christians in general. I mean they did wage Kulturkampf against them.

I know Quran allows for killing and enslaving non believers (but forbids Muslims enslaving Muslims) but I don't know about plundering. But considering even raping non believer women is fine I'd wager a guess that Quran probably doesn't give a shit as long as its for Islam/not against Muslims.

Islam is the biggest threat to mankind.

>the authoritative scriptures literally are violent

And I'm supposed to take it on your authority that the Qua'ran preaches violence significantly more than comparable texts?

Before you go full autism, just provide a source for your claims.

The religion of piss

>I know Quran allows for killing and enslaving non believers
no
> But considering even raping non believer women is fine I'd wager a guess that Quran probably doesn't give a shit as long as its for Islam/not against Muslims.
also no

unless you give source i classify it as fake n gay

Islam is literally the only religion people have to bend over backwards to justify as peaceful. Why is that? Perhaps a religion who's very name means submission might have violence built in?


You will never see someone bending over backwards to show Christians as peaceful, or Bhuddists, or Hindus, or Jainists, or Zoroastrians or anyone really. Because they don't have to.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)

...

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

It's almost as if public perception is biased :0

Their faith sanction misdeed upon the outgroups. This behavior is lawful evil and Muslims have to like rob a liquor store or shoplift pork to be in deviation is a bad Muslim. You can be as much of a shitlord other wise.

1.read the whole sura instead of just the verse
2. realize you're stupid

>submitting to god is not ok

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

i just read it in arabic

nowhere it says slave girls or booty

it says "what your right hand got"

NOTICE; right hand means yossr, (aka ease) aka consent

it basically says get married to women who consent

do more research

How about I don't read the Surah of your pissant Stone Age religion? And submitting to anything is wrong. Here's some food for thought Mehmet, the Middle East didn't get fucked up until Islam arrived on the scene and every nation in which Islam has taken root has slid backwards. Don't hold up the "golden age" either, you were only made great because scholars from outside the Muslim world came in.

>How about I don't read the Surah of your pissant Stone Age religion?
don't argue with me if you don't want to do research on something you're talking about

>and submitting to anything is bad
>submitting means following the orders of god
>this is bad

ok

Funny how you can't provide why the Middle East turned into a shithole after the rise of Islam. And here's a tip, your God isn't the God of Abraham. You're entire religion is nothing more than a crafty merchant taking advantage of idiot pagans barking at the moon in Mecca. I hope to God above global warming picks up so the entire region can fry and you're religion can be relegated to the dustbin of history with the rest of the savages.

That passage literally goes on to state that it only applies to the prophet.

>it became a shithole after the rise of islam
quite the opposite

>sodomy, cuckoldry, faggotry, etc etc
>thievery,usury
>killing and sacrificing
>sixty thousands trillion tribes in-fighting
>everyone prays to fucking statues

>islam came
>all those tribes get united
>caliphs rule, no more bullshit
>expands into north africa, and even unites the berbers
>islamic golden age comes

literally without islam the arabic golden age wouldn't happen because everyone would be killing each other over tribe bullshit

and meanwhile nords still fucking and worshipping trees, south europeans still recovering from the fall of rome, and every other part of rome killing each other

I can easily figure it out but if you want to play act the retard I will too.

And fuck off back to /pol/

Mate are you fucking crazy? Read this thread. Apologists everywhere.

>black and white view
Like Islam has toward infidel's you fucking pleb

>barbary slave trade was just piracy I swear
Go read a book

>1583620
I really dislike this "religion of peace" talking point. It seems to me to serve only as a segue to virtue signaling. If you're a critic of Islam you say its not and segue to your criticisms. If you're an apologist then you say it is and go on to make your defense of the faith.

I've read several, especially on North Africa. Go read a book and not a """""book""""""

>religion of peace

George Bush is the guy that came up with that phrase.

That's what all political memes boil down to. It's why it's so popular on the chans, because it's free (you)'s. Literally the only thing more effective is shitting on a console or saying "You're a big guy."

Do you know what an apologist is?

>Every single Muslim was the same person

Many people within the Barbary States wanted to commit piracy. Therefore, they legitimized themselves by taking passages of the Quran as backing for their actions.

By that same token, just about every Muslim regime in history has used some element of the Quran to legitimize whatever they're doing. The Quran is a long fucking book. There's a lot of statements in it, some of which contradict each other.

The fact that the Barbary Pirates tried to legitimize their piracy by religion says more about them than it does the religion that they inherited from their ancestors.

>I've read this thing and it makes me angry
>If you read it in context you'll see you have no reason to be angry
>no I don't want that
You're worse than SJWs I swear

Its used often irl as well though.

Really makes yo considerate some topics

You accidentally stepped out of Reddit and ended up here
Feel free to go back

Instead of whining about apologists, actually refute their claims. How about that for a change, huh?

It's almost as if public perception is based on which religion is running holiday goers over and rioting, killing and executing journalists in the name of pedophile.

>I hope to God above global warming picks up so the entire region can fry and you're religion can be relegated to the dustbin of history with the rest of the savages.
Not that I wouldn't want to see complete erasure of Islam from the pages of history but just remember where those people will go once the Middle East is uninhabitable. Hint: it won't be India or Central Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.