Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad

    Front Page Magazine
    Sept 25 2004

    John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
    By Andrew G. Bostom
    FrontPageMagazine.com | September 27, 2004



    Professor John Lewis Gaddis' recent provocative analysis of the
    origins of `unilateralism' in American foreign policy highlights the
    pivotal role of John Quincy Adams. With candor and humility, Gaddis
    further reveals that his own contemporary assessment, `...is not a new
    interpretation. If you go back and read the famous Samuel Flagg
    Bemis, the very distinguished Yale diplomatic historian from half a
    century ago, Bemis was certainly making this argument about the
    importance of John Quincy Adams.

    But I think this has been lost somewhat in intervening years. So, to
    an extent, I am trying to rediscover John Quincy Adams, in that
    sense.' Bemis extolled Adams' seminal contribution to the formulation
    of U.S. foreign policy:

    `Adams grasped the essentials of American policy and the position of
    the United States in the world more surely than any other man of his
    time. He availed himself of matchless opportunities to advance the
    continental future of his country and the fundamental principles for
    which it stood in the world. Nothing is clearer than that the
    fourteen fundamentals (above reviewed) remained the main tenets of
    American foreign policy during the century following...we may surmise
    that he and the fathers of American Independence as well, had they
    lived to share the troublous times beyond the British Century in the
    science-shrunken smallness of the globe, and to experience the
    extraordinary vicissitudes, combinations, and wars of global politics
    would have joined the diplomatic revolution rejecting Isolation, and
    that he [Adams] would say, as he did say at the time of the Congress
    of Panama: `I do not recollect any change in policy; but there has
    been a great change in circumstances.'...Even if John Quincy Adams was
    not to have another great career, as a crusader against the expansion
    of slavery, this first and mighty achievement, of no less than
    continental proportions, in laying the foundations of American
    foreign policy, would have been great enough for one lifetime.' 1

    Bemis' landmark 1949 review also included a vague footnote referring
    to a work which I located formally in a comprehensive annotated
    bibliography of John Quincy Adams' writings, compiled by Lynn H.
    Parsons 2:

    `Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,
    written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress
    in 1830' [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual
    Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.]

    A brief contribution appeared in the Claremont Review in December,
    2002, purporting to summarize the contents of John Quincy Adams' 136
    pages of analysis (although, curiously, never providing the citation,
    above, for the original essays). Upon reading Adams' full set of
    essays, however, it is apparent that this rather uninformed,
    sanitized Claremont Review piece missed the mark widely.

    John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised
    understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and
    dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

    `...he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a
    part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind...The precept of
    the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the
    prophet of God.'

    Confirming Adams' assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor
    Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955
    treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :

    `Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam's instrument for carrying
    out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if
    not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis),
    at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to
    have declared `some of my people will continue to fight victoriously
    for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the
    anti-Christ'. Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or
    another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim
    community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is
    ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar
    al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is
    reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain
    disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar
    al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The
    universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the
    believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and
    political if not strictly military.'3

    And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the
    non-Muslim dhimmi `tributaries' subjugated by jihad, with this
    laconic statement,

    `The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.'


    Indeed, the famous Shafi'i jurist of Baghdad, al-Mawardi (d. 1058),
    highlights the most salient aspect of the consensus view of classical
    Islamic jurisprudence regarding the vanquished non-Muslims `tribute',
    i.e., the jizya: the critical connection between jihad and payment
    of the jizya. He notes that `The enemy makes a payment in return for
    peace and reconciliation.' Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases:
    (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, however
    `it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them
    in the future.'. (II). Payment is made yearly and will `constitute an
    ongoing tribute by which their security is established.'
    Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If
    the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of
    reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years.4 The
    nature of such `protection', i.e., a blood ransom, is reinforced in
    this definition of jizya written by E.W. Lane, based on a careful
    analysis of the etymology of the term:

    `The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim
    government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them
    protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain' 5

    Adams' staunch anti-imperialism, one of the `fourteen fundamentals'
    of U.S. foreign policy which Samuel Flagg Bemis states, `...we may
    connect with the name of John Quincy Adams more than with that of any
    other man' 6, is consistent with Old Man Eloquent's support for the
    struggle of the Greeks 7 to liberate themselves from the yoke of
    centuries of dhimmitude, imposed by the imperialism of Ottoman jihad
    8. At minimum, in light of the global war on jihad terrorism, John
    Quincy Adams' candid, timeless ruminations should be required reading
    for all contemporary U.S. diplomats and politicians.

    Key annotated excerpts from John Quincy Adams' remarkable series of
    essays, are provided below.

    Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and
    Islam

    "And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world
    hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His
    whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth -
    good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the
    authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that,
    which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in
    the highest... The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over
    the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of
    the human character in the scale of existence...On the Christian system
    of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of
    time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals
    embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole
    promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS
    DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS
    NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)....[pp. 267-268]

    `In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of
    the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the
    powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a
    fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself
    as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over
    an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime
    conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he
    connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was
    himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of
    Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future
    retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards
    and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual
    passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain,
    by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of
    polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as
    a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE
    OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE
    SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)....Between
    these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of
    twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet
    flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false
    prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be
    peace upon earth, and good will towards men.' [p. 269]

    Adams on Jihad War, Dhimmitude, and the Muslim View of Non-Muslims;
    Examples of the Perfidy of Muslim States, Including the Ottoman
    Turkish State

    `As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others
    by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be
    dispelled, and his power annihilated.

    They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of
    almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the
    Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time
    to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a
    succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is,
    perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of
    God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of
    tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive
    promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may
    submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to
    propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it
    can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed
    alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had
    memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref
    had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce
    his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to
    that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as
    well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the
    language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both
    languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them.
    Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the
    war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our
    Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy
    of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article
    stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to
    the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a
    squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey,
    and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he
    disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been
    wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I
    will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my
    power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He
    avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have
    practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of
    men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of
    religion.' [p. 274-275]

    `Had it been possible for a sincere and honest peace to be maintained
    between the Osmanli and his christian neighbors, then would have been
    the time to establish it in good faith. But the treaty was no sooner
    made than broken. It never was carried into effect by the Turkish
    government.' [p. 276]

    `From the time when the disaster of Navarino ref had been made known
    to him, the Reis Effendi [Ottoman diplomat assigned to Russia] had
    assumed the tone of the aggrieved party, and made formal demands of
    indemnity, and the punishment of the offending admirals. He still
    manifested however, a solicitude to prevent the rupture of the
    negotiations by the departure of the ambassadors...' [p. 298]

    `Upon the departure of the ambassadors, the Sultan, who must have
    been, however, unwillingly preparing his mind for that event,
    immediately determined upon two things; a war with Russia alone - and
    a dallying attempt to protract the negotiation, and gain time of
    preparation for the conflict.' [p. 298]

    [From the Ottoman Reis Effendi, to his Russian counterparts] `The
    present friendly letter has been composed and sent, to acquaint your
    excel - lency. with the circumstance; when you shall learn, on receipt
    of it, that the Sublime Porte has at all times; no other desire or
    wish than to preserve peace, and good understanding ; and that the
    event in question has been brought about, entirely by the act of the
    said minister, we hope that you will endeavor, do every occasion, to
    fulfil the duties of friendship.' But precisely at the time when this
    mild, and candid, and gently expostulary epistle was despatched for
    St. Petersburg, another state paper was issued, addressed by the
    Sultan to his own subjects-this was the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of
    December, sent to the Pashas of all the provinces, calling on all the
    faithful Mussulmen of the empire to come forth and 'fight for their
    religion, and their country, against the infidel despisers of the
    Prophet. The comparison of these two documents with each other, will
    afford the most perfect illustration of the Ottoman faith, as well as
    of their temper towards Russia.

    The Hatti Sheriff commenced with the following admirable com - mentary
    upon the friendly profession, which introduced the letter to count
    Nesselrode. `It is well known (said the Sultan) to almost every
    person, that if the Mussulmen naturally hate the infidels, the
    infidels, on then part, are the enemies of the Mussulmen : that
    Russia, more espe - cially, bears a particular hatred to Islamism, and
    that she is the principal enemy of the Sublime Porte.'

    This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the
    infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The
    document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the
    enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the
    ne - cessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to
    them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted
    character of the two religions. The funda - mental doctrine of the
    christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human
    heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is
    no denomina - tion of christians, which denies or misunderstands this
    doctrine. All understand it alike - all acknow - ledge its obligations ;
    and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its
    efficacy has been shown in the practice of christians, it has not
    been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the
    manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war - it has
    softened the features of slavery - it has humanized the intercourse
    of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not,
    indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion,
    but too powerful upon the hearts of christians. Yet they cannot
    indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the
    conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian
    hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master,
    have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of
    the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his
    discourse. [p. 299-300]

    `The last appeal of the Sultan to the fanaticism of his people, and
    to the protection of his prophet, has been vain. He told them, that
    since the happy time of their great prophet, the faithful Mussulmen
    had never taken into consideration the numbers of the infidels. He
    reminded them, too truly reminded them, how often they had put
    millions of Christians to the sword; how many states and provinces
    they had thus conquered, sword in hand.' 9 [p. 302]

    `[More from the Ottoman Sultan's pronouncement to his
    subjects]...`all infidels are but one nation...This war must be
    considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the
    faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a
    duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of
    pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our
    property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which
    the honor of Islamism imposes on us - let us unite our efforts, and
    labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of
    judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in
    this world and the next.''

    Those provinces are the abode of ten millions of human beings, two
    thirds of whom are Christians, groaning under the intolerable
    oppression of less than three millions of Turks. Those provinces are
    in some of the fairest regions of the earth. They were Christian
    countries, subdued during the conquering period of the Mahometan
    imposture, by the ruthless scymetar of the Ottoman race; and under
    their iron yoke, have been gradually dwindling in population, and
    sinking into barbarism. The time of their redemption is at hand.'
    [p. 303]

    `With regard to the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, summoning
    the whole Ottoman nation to arms against Russia, the sultan now
    thinks proper to say, that it was only a proclamation which the
    Sublime Porte, for certain reasons, circulated in its states; an
    internal transaction, of which the Sublime Porte alone knows the
    motives, and that the language held by a government to its own
    subjects cannot b a ground for another government to pick a quarrel
    with it - especially, as the Grand Vizier had, immediately after the
    departure of the Russian envoy, written a letter to the prime
    minister of Russia, declaring the desire of the Sublime Porte till to
    maintain peace. That if Russia had conceived suspicions, from the
    Sultan's address to his subjects, she might have applied amicably to
    the Porte to ascertain the truth and clear up her doubts.' [p. 311]

    Remonstrating Against the Moral Equivalence of Britain and the
    European Powers

    `In the kings [British King, George IV] speech, at the opening of the
    session of Parliament, on the 29th of January, he said that, `for
    several years a contest had been carried on between the Ottoman
    Porte, and the inhabitants of the Greek provinces and islands, which
    had been marked on each side, by excesses revolting to humanity'.'
    [p. 304]

    `Still more extraordinary was it to the ears of Christendom to hear a
    British king, in a speech to his parliament, style the execrable and
    sanguinary head of the Ottoman race, his ancient ally; and denominate
    a splendid victory, achieved under the command of a British admiral,
    in the strict and faithful execution of his instructions, and
    untoward event. But the last member of the paragraph from his
    majesty's speech, which we have quoted, to those accustomed to the
    mystifications of royal speeches and diplomatic defiances, explained
    these apparent disparates. He declares the great objects to which
    all his efforts have been directed, and of which, while adhering to
    his arrangements, he will never lose sight, are the termination of
    the contest between the hostile parties; the permanent settlement of
    their future relations to each other, and maintenance of the repose
    of Europe, upon the basis on which it has rested since the last
    general peace.' [p. 305]

    `And where is the protection to the commerce of his majesty's
    subjects! And where is the determination to launch all the thunders
    of Britain at half a dozen skulking piratical cockboats, driven by
    the desperation of famine to seek the subsistence of plunder,
    assigned in the protocols, the treaty and the communications to the
    Ottoman Porte, as the great objects of his majesty's interference
    between a legitimate sovereign and his revolted rayahs?...In all
    these documents, issuing from the profound and magnanimous policy of
    the British warrior statesman, nothing is more remarkable, than the
    more than stoical apathy with which they regard the cause, for which
    the Greeks are contending; the more than epicurean indifference with
    which they witness the martyrdom of a whole people, perishing in the
    recovery of their religion and liberty...The royal speech of January,
    1828 indicates that in the protocol and in the treaty, the government
    of George IV, had outwitted themselves, and were the dupes of their
    own policy. It presents the singular spectacle of a sovereign,
    wincing at the success of his own measures, and repining at the
    triumph of his own arms. From that time the partialities of England
    in favor of he ancient ally, have been little disguised; and the
    disposition to take side with the Porte has only been controlled, by
    the unwelcome necessity of adhering to the faith of treaties.' [pp.
    306-307]

    `Far from being like the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th December, an
    appeal to the Ottoman people, a bold and candid avowal of the
    precepts of the Koran; it is an utter departure from them, and an
    assumption, equally shameless and hypocritical, of argument on
    Christian grounds.' [pp. 308-309]

    Justice of the Greek Revolution

    `If ever insurrection was holy in the eyes of God, such was that of
    the Greeks against their Mahometan oppressors. Yet for six long
    years, they were suffered to be overwhelmed by the whole mass of the
    Ottoman power; cheered only by the sympathies of all the civilized
    world, but without a finger raised to sustain or relieve them by the
    Christian governments of Europe; while the sword of extermination,
    instinct with the spirit of the Koran, was passing in merciless
    horror over the classical regions of Greece, the birth-place of
    philosophy, of poetry, of eloquence, of all the arts that embellish,
    and all the sciences that dignify the human character. The monarchs
    of Austria, of France, and England, inflexibly persisted in seeing in
    the Greeks, only revolted subjects against a lawful sovereign. The
    ferocious Turk eagerly seized upon this absurd concession, and while
    sweeping with his besom of destruction over the Grecian provinces,
    answered every insinuation of interest in behalf of that suffering
    people, by assertions of the unqualified rights of sovereignty, and
    by triumphantly retorting upon the legitimates of Europe, the
    consequences naturally flowing from their own perverted maxims.' [p.
    278]

    `This pretended discovery of a plot between Russia and the Greeks, is
    introduced, to preface an exulting reference to the unhallowed
    butchery of the Greek Patriarch and Priests, on Easter day of 1822,
    at Constantinople, and to the merciless desolation of Greece, which
    it calls `doing justice by the sword' to a great number of rebels of
    the Morea, of Negropont, of Acarnania, Missolonghi, Athens, and other
    parts 10 of the continent.The document acknowledges, that although
    during several years, considerable forces, both naval and military,
    had been sent against the Greeks, they had not succeeded in
    suppressing the insurrection.' [p. 301]

    NOTES

    1. Bemis, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of
    American Foreign Policy, New York, 1949. pp. 571-572.

    2. Parsons, Lynn H. John Quincy Adams- A Bibliography, Westport, CT,
    1993, p. 41, entry # 194.

    3. Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 1955,
    Richmond, VA and London, England, pp. 63-64.

    4. Al- Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance [al-Ahkam
    as-Sultaniyyah], London, United Kingdom, 1996, pp. 77-78.

    5. E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (London, 1865), Book I Part
    II, Jizya, p. 422.

    6. Bemis, S. F. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American
    Foreign Policy, p. 570.

    7. Ackowledging his earlier position of strict neutrality, while
    Secretary of State, Pappas makes clear how as President (perhaps
    under the influence of Lafayette), Adams came to support the Greek
    cause (Pappas, Paul C. The United States and the Greek War for
    Independence, 1821-1828, New York, 1985, pp. 125-126.):

    `The case of the Greek frigates demonstrated once again America's
    benevolent neutrality toward Greece. Motivated no doubt by
    philhellenic zeal, the United States government came to the Greek's
    rescue in violation of the nation's law and the international laws of
    neutrality. President Adams and members of the cabinet and of
    Congress enthusiastically helped Contostavlos [the Greek national
    seeking warships for his country] and cooperated in passing swiftly
    and discreetly a bill authorizing the government to purchase one of
    the Greek frigates. The American government also cooperated in
    postponing the purchase of the frigate so that Contostavlos could
    deal with the houses, which refused to compromise on their high
    demands. And finally, when Contostavlos was ready to sail with the
    frigate Hope to Greece, President Adams temporarily put aside
    neutrality to allow an armed ship to sail out of New York with
    American officers and sailors...'

    8. Vacalopoulos describes how jihad imposed dhimmitude under Ottoman
    rule provided critical motivation for the Greek Revolution
    (Vacalopoulos, A.E. Background and Causes of the Greek Revolution,
    Neo-Hellenika, Vol. 2, 1975, pp.54-55):

    `The Revolution of 1821 is no more than the last great phase of the
    resistance of the Greeks to Ottoman domination; it was a relentless,
    undeclared war, which had begun already in the first years of
    servitude. The brutality of an autocratic regime, which was
    characterized by economic spoliation, intellectual decay and cultural
    retrogression, was sure to provoke opposition. Restrictions of all
    kinds, unlawful taxation, forced labor, persecutions, violence,
    imprisonment, death, abductions of girls and boys and their
    confinement to Turkish harems, and various deeds of wantonness and
    lust, along with numerous less offensive excesses - all these were a
    constant challenge to the instinct of survival and they defied every
    sense of human decency. The Greeks bitterly resented all insults and
    humiliations, and their anguish and frustration pushed them into the
    arms of rebellion. There was no exaggeration in the statement made
    by one of the beys if Arta, when he sought to explain the ferocity of
    the struggle. He said: `We have wronged the rayas [dhimmis] (i.e.
    our Christian subjects) and destroyed both their wealth and honor;
    they became desperate and took up arms. This is just the beginning
    and will finally lead to the destruction of our empire.' The
    sufferings of the Greeks under Ottoman rule were therefore the basic
    cause of the insurrection; a psychological incentive was provided by
    the very nature of the circumstances.'

    9. Bat Ye'or summarized the impact of the first two centuries of Arab
    Muslim conquests on indigenous Jews and Christians of the Middle
    East, as follows (The Jerusalem Quarterly 1987; Vol. 42, Pp. 84-85):

    `Muslim chroniclers described the ongoing jihad (holy war), involving
    the destruction of whole towns, the massacre of large numbers of
    their populations, the enslavement of women and children, and the
    confiscation of vast regions. This picture of catastrophe and
    destruction corresponds to the period of gradual erosion of
    Palestinian Jewry. According to [the Muslim chronicler] Baladhuri (d.
    892 C.E.), 40,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest,
    after which all trace of them is lost...".

    The six centuries between 640 and 1240 C.E., she further observes:

    `. witnessed the total and definitive destruction of Judaism and
    Christianity in the Hijaz (modern Saudi Arabia), and the decline of
    once flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine
    (particularly in Galilee for the Jews), Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia,
    and Persia. In North Africa, the Christians had been virtually
    eliminated by 1240 C.E., and the Jews decimated by Almohad
    persecutions... notwithstanding some brighter intervals, these six
    centuries witnessed a dramatic demographic reversal whereby the
    Arab-Muslim minority developed into a dominant majority, resorting to
    oppression in order to reduce the indigenous populations to tolerated
    religious minorities...'

    Professor H.Z. Hirschberg includes this summary of a contemporary
    Judeo-Arabic account by Solomon Cohen (which comports with Arab
    historian Ibn Baydhaq's sequence of events), from January 1148 C.E,
    describing the Muslim Almohad conquests in North Africa, and Spain
    (Hirschberg, H.Z., The Jews of North Africa, Leiden, Vol. 1, 1974,
    pp. 127-128):

    `Abd al-Mumin...the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad
    Ibn Tumart the Mahdi [note: Ibn Tumart was a cleric whose writings
    bear a striking resemblance to Khomeini's rhetoric eight centuries
    later] ...captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who
    were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam...All
    the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and
    Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads.
    One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and
    120,000 in Marrakesh....Large areas between Seville and Tortosa [in
    Spain] had likewise [emphasis added] fallen into Almohad hands.'

    Speros Vryonis provides a contemporary Georgian chroniclers account
    of the Seljuk jihad in Asia Minor and Georgia during the late 11th
    and early 12th centuries (Vryonis, Speros Jr. `Nomadization and
    Islamization in Asia Minor', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 29, 1975,
    pp. 50-51):

    `The process itself is described in its essential details by the
    Georgian chronicle for northeast Asia Minor and the adjoining
    Georgian regions. The process which it describes was not unique to
    the northeast, for we see it in the west and the south of Asia Minor
    as well..

    `The emirs spread out, like locusts, over the face of the land...The
    countries of Asis-Phorni, Clardjeth, up to the shores of the sea,
    Chawcheth, Adchara, Samtzkhe, Karthli, Argoueth, Samokalako, and
    Dchqondid were filled with Turks who pillaged and enslaved all the
    inhabitants. In a single day they burned Kouthathis, Artanoudj, and
    hermitages of Clardjeth, and they remained in these lands until the
    first snows, devouring the land, massacring all those who had fled to
    the forests to the rocks, to the caves...The calamities of Christianity
    did not come to an end soon thereafter, for at the approach of
    spring, the Turks returned to carry out the same ravages and left
    [again] in the winter. The [inhabitants] however were unable to
    plant or to harvest. The land, [thus] delivered to slavery, had only
    animals of the forests and wild beasts for inhabitants. Karthli was
    in the grip of intolerable calamities such as one cannot compare to a
    single devastation or combination of evils of past times. The holy
    churches served as stables for their horses, the sanctuaries of the
    Lord served as repairs for the abominations [Islam]. Some of the
    priests were immolated during the Holy communion itself, and others
    were carried off into harsh slavery without regard to their old age.
    The virgins were defiled, the youths circumcised, and the infants
    taken away. The conflagration, extending its ravages, consumed all
    the inhabited sites, the rivers, instead of water, flowed blood. I
    shall apply the sad words of Jeremiah, which he applied so well to
    such situations: `the honorable children of Zion, never put to the
    rest by misfortunes, now voyaged as slaves on foreign roads. The
    streets of Zion now wept because there was no one [left] to celebrate
    the feasts. The tender mothers, in place of preparing with their
    hands the nourishment of the sons, were themselves nourished from the
    corpses of these dearly loved. Such and worse was the situation at
    the time.'...

    By the time [of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, i.e.
    (1083-1125)]...the nomads had effected permanent settlement in these
    regions, moving into the abandoned and devastated areas with their
    tents, families, and flocks of livestock.'

    A. E. Vacalopoulos summarized the devastating impact of five
    centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman jihad campaigns in Asian Minor and
    the Balkans (Vacalopoulos, A.E. Origins of the Greek Nation-The
    Byzantine Period, 1204-1461, New Brunswick, N.J., 1970, pp. 61, 68;
    72-73):

    `At the beginning of the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks forced
    their way into Armenia and there crushed the armies of several petty
    Armenian states. No fewer than forty thousand souls fled before the
    organized pillage of the Seljuk host to the western part of Asia
    Minor. From the middle of the eleventh century, and especially after
    the battle of Malazgirt [Manzikurt] (1071), the Seljuks spread
    throughout the whole Asia Minor peninsula, leaving error, panic and
    destruction in their wake. Byzantine, Turkish and other contemporary
    sources are unanimous in their agreement on the extent of havoc
    wrought an the protracted anguish of the local population...[The Greek
    chronicler] Kydones described the fate of the Christian peoples of
    Asia Minor thus:

    `The entire region which sustained us, from the Hellespont eastwards
    to the mountains of Armenia, has been snatched away. They [the
    Turks] have razed cities, pillaged churches, opened graves, and
    filled everything with blood and corpses...Alas, too, they have even
    abused Christian bodies. And having taken away their entire wealth
    they have now taken away their freedom, reducing them to the merest
    shadows of slaves. And with such dregs of energy as remain in these
    unfortunate people, they are forced to be the servitors of the Turk's
    personal comforts.'

    `From the time the Ottoman Turks first set foot in Thrace under
    Suleiman, son of Orchan, the Empire rapidly disintegrated....From the
    very beginning of the Turkish onslaught under Suleiman, the Turks
    tried to consolidate their position by the forcible imposition of
    Islam. [The Ottoman historian] Sukrullah [maintained] those who
    refused to accept the Moslem faith were slaughtered and their
    families enslaved. `Where there were bells', writes the same author,
    `Suleiman broke them up and cast them onto fires. Where there are
    churches he destroyed them or converted them into mosques. Thus, in
    place of bells there were now muezzins. Wherever Christian infidels
    were still found, vassalage was imposed upon their rulers. At least
    in public they could no longer say `kyrie eleison' but rather `There
    is no God but Allah; and where once their prayers had been addressed
    to Christ, they were now to `Mohammed, the prophet of Allah.' '

    E.G. Browne (A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, 1928, p. 196)
    describes the jihad depredations of Timur [Tamerlane] against the
    Christian populations of Georgia and Asia Minor, at the outset of the
    15th century (A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, Cambridge,
    1928, p. 196):

    `The winter of A.D. 1399-1400 was spent by Timur in Qarabagh near the
    Araxes, and ere spring had melted the snows he once more invaded
    [Christian] Georgia, devastated the country, destroyed the churches
    and monasteries, and slew great numbers of the inhabitants. In
    August, 1400, he began his march into Asia Minor by way of Avnik,
    Erzeroum, Erzinjan, and Sivas. The latter place offered stubborn
    resistance, and when it finally capitulated Timur caused all the
    Armenian and Christian soldiers to the number of four thousand to be
    buried alive; but the Muhammadans he spared.'

    10. John Cartwright, British Consul-General in Constantinople, filed
    the following report from Constantinople May 25, 1822 (in, Argenti,
    Philip. The Massacres of Chios, Described in Contemporary Diplomatic
    Reports, London, 1932, pp. 39-40.)

    `Scio [Chios], with the exception of twenty five of the Mastic
    Villages, was a complete scene of desolation - the air corrupted by
    the stench of dead bodies had produced an infectious disorder on
    board the Turkish Fleet which was daily carrying off its' victims.
    The fate of the unhappy survivors in the Sciote tragedy is miserable
    indeed - the females and children doomed to slavery from which there
    will be but little chance of redemption, as all possible means are
    taken to prevent the sale of them to Christians. The hostages who
    were confined in the Castle of Scio as well as those who were here
    have been put to death.'


    Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is an Associate Professor of Medicine at
    Brown University Medical School, and occasional contributor to
    Frontpage Magazine. He is the editor of a forthcoming essay
    collection entitled, "The Legacy of Jihad".

    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201
Working...
X