Daniel Pipes: U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam

November 9, 2006 § 4 Comments

Daniel Pipes tells a tale about a little known treaty between the United States and Muslims although unbeknown to Muslims. This “treaty” was drafted by Joel Barlow the American consul-General of Algiers from 1795-1797. The obscure treaty is not a treaty at all but a pledge as it is not signed by any Islamic authority from Algiers or otherwise. And so I will not call it a treaty but refer to it as the “Promise of 1796” and the promise states,

“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 tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan 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.”

This promise is such *BS* … but this is what Dan “the Pied-Piper” Pipes has to say about it,

“In June 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified this treaty, which President John Adams immediately signed into law, making it an authoritative expression of American policy.

In 2006, as voices increasingly present the “war on terror” as tantamount to a war on Islam or Muslims, it bears notice that several of the Founding Fathers publicly declared they had no enmity “against the laws, religion or tranquility” of Muslims. This antique treaty implicitly supports my argument that the United States is not fighting Islam the religion but radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology that did not even exist in 1796.” (Daniel Pipes)

This “Promise” doesn’t prove a thing nor does it support Pipes’ argument that the United States is not fighting “Islam the religion”. Pipes’ says that the U.S. is fighting “radical Islam” and not “Islam the religion”. What a crock, anyone can see through his forked-tongue rants of double-speak and hypocrisy. Furthermore it should be noted that on the very same blog that published this condescending drivel is a quote by the president saying,

“They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. … If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America’s security, I’d bring our troops home tomorrow.” (G.W. Bush)

I’m tired of these con-men, I am grouping Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and journalists like Pipes in the same category as Churchill, Kitchener, Enver, Djemal, Hussein and the rest of those bumbling morons that ruined the lives of so many at the end of the Great Game and during WWI.


§ 4 Responses to Daniel Pipes: U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam

  • Abu Sahajj I read this post by Daniel Pipes before and at the time remember being very surprised by it.

    Daniel Pipes is considered by some as an “intellectual” if this is the best that he can produce people need to seriously reconsider that title.

    The basic premise of the post is that American/West is innocent of all wrong doing in its interaction with Islam and Muslims. The “treaty”/ promise is used by Pipes as an example of the good nature of United States policy towards Muslims since 1796. And is used as a smoke screen to cover all else that has taken place seen then in relations between the West and Islam.

    I am not one who subscribes to the notion that everything wrong or rancid in the Muslim world is the fault of the West. I truley believe that to some extant Muslims are also to blame for the problems they face. Having said that I do not believe that the West firstly as imperial/colonial powers and more recently as “trading partners” can obsolve themselves of the fact that they have also played a part in the making of Muslim world that we see today.

    I believe Daniel Pipes as an intellectual/propogandist for the notion that America/West is and always has been a force for good in the world is being disingenious. History proves him wrong on multiple occasions.
    There is no doubt however in my mind that there are many who will find his analysis not only plausable but will view it as being the “Gospel Truth”. In that lies the problem.

  • While that treaty is a very interesting thing and I suppose Pipes’ raising awareness about it is an indirect good thing (Pipes being really beyond rational discourse – I actually met the man in Tunisia where he was an invited speaker for the embassy and insulted everyone he spoke to) it is not a paradigm for US-Muslim Country erlations because countries DON’T have relationships with RELIGIONS, they have relationships with OTHER COUNTRIES.

  • DrM says:

    Daniel Pipes? Why even bother? Check this article out. The roots of judeofascism run deep.


  • Dirty Butter says:

    We made lots of “treaties” with the American Indians, too. I fear such papers carried little weight in their day. Hopefully, they mean a little more in today’s societies.

    It is an interesting piece of history, though, that I was not aware of, so thanks for posting it.

    I’m a patriotic American, and I love my country, but I’ve never put a halo on Uncle Sam. It’s unrealistic to think that the USA is, or ever was, perfect, or anywhere near it, in their dealings with other countries, or here at home. But we have had our shining moments, and I, for one, wouldn’t want to live anywhere else in the world today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Daniel Pipes: U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam at SEYFETTİN.


%d bloggers like this: