In a Republican debate in Tampa last September, Ron Paul said:

This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit.  They have been explicit and they wrote and said that ‘we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment …’ 

The audience has already started booing, but it was getting louder, so Paul claimed:

I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing.

But then his next statement made it clear that he really does agree.

At the same time, we have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed then there’s some problem.

For a start, Paul was slandering our military, just like radical leftists including Obama’s “pastor” Jeremiah Wright and the disgraced academic Ward Churchill.  However, it’s hard to think of any war where one side has been so careful to minimize civilian casualties.  One report says:

according to the Iraq Body Count, an authoritative nongovernmental database of Iraqi civilian deaths, fewer than 12,000 Iraqis have died at the hands of American and coalition forces.

Moreover, reports CNSNews, the “IBC recorded 630 ‘non-combatant Iraqi deaths resulting directly from actions involving U.S.-led coalition forces’ in 2008, 80 in 2009, and 32 in 2010.

Paul may have taken a figure of total civilian deaths, which has been documented at 105,324–115,028not “hundreds of thousands”.  But many of those were at the hands of “insurgents” (terrorists), suicide bombers, sectarian violence, and increased crime—i.e. not by our troops.  By comparison, the evil monster Saddam Hussein, removed by our invasion, killed far more.  Even the ultra-left New York Times admitted:

Hussein, was one of the world’s indisputably evil men: he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants—friends on friends, circles within circles—making an entire population complicit in his rule.

But even aside from Paul’s unpatriotic attack on our troops, his position defies all historical reality.  For it is easy to show that Islamists were the aggressors long before either America or the modern state of Israel existed.

Now this is not to say there are not some great American Muslim patriots.   For example, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, former US Navy officer and a past president of the Arizona Medical Association, is a staunch opponent of terrorism, and is disgusted that so many American Muslims are not protesting against the terrorists, or are even justifying them.  And in our long-time ally Great Britain, its first female Muslim Cabinet minister, Sayeeda Warsi (Baroness Warsi), has slammed “the rising tide of militant secularisation” (just like in the Obama administration) and says that “Christianity is a vital part of British life and warns of the dangers of eroding its importance.”  But sad to say, these fine people are in the minority of Muslim spokespeople, and the history I’ll outline below should show why.

The Quran: root of aggression from the beginning

Actually, not quite from the beginning.  The Qur’an is divided into 114 chapters or suras, and these are classified into Meccan and Medinan suras.  According to tradition, Muhammad wrote the Meccan suras in his birthplace Mecca, when his followers were in the minority.  So many of these were actually quite reasonable, and are sometimes used to claim that Islam is a religion of peace, e.g. Sura 2:190–3 says, “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Allah loves not aggressors. … But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.”

But in AD 622, Muhammad and his followers had to escape persecution in Mecca, and fled to Medina—this migration is called the Hijra.  There they gathered their strength.  Just two years, the Muslims defeated a much larger Meccan army at the Battle of Badr.  Although it was a minor skirmish, with fewer than a hundred killed, Muhammad’s good battle strategy turned him from an outcast to a powerful leader.

Other tribes joined his banner, and this was the start of Islamic expansion.  Muhammad himself planned 65 military campaigns and raids, and even led 27 of them in person.

This provides the background for the very different Medinan suras, written when Muhammad had become powerful enough to subdue his enemies, Sura 66:9, the Koran affirms, “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.”   Surah 8:12 says, “ … instill terror in the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks …”

Finally, when considering these two types of Sura, we need to understand one more Islamic concept, that of Naskh. This means “abrogation”, meaning that if two passages in the Qur’an disagree, then the later (Medinan) ones supersede the earlier (Meccan) ones.  The Dhimmis who claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” are deluding themselves, with their futile appeal to peaceful Meccan suras that are superseded under Naskh.

Early Muslim expansion v Crusades

Those Patriots who are Christians might know of the early Christian centers and the places of Paul’s missionary journeys.  E.g. Christians received this name at Antioch, in Syria. The Apostle Paul came from Tarsus in Asia Minor, or what is now Turkey, and the Seven Churches of Revelation likewise.  A few centuries later, North Africa had great Christian centers and produced notable church leaders, such as Athanasius of Alexandria (Egypt) and Augustine of Hippo (modern-day Algeria).

But all these places are now Muslim lands.  Islamofascists turned North Africa Muslim at the point of the sword by the 8th century, then grabbed much of what is now Spain.  Fortunately they were stopped from conquering Europe by the Frankish army led by Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne.  In the Battle of Tours (AD 732), Martel’s infantry army stood firm against Muslim cavalry, and repulsed their repeated charges while inflicting enormous casualties.  The Muslim leader Abd-er Rahman was killed, and the remains of the shattered army retreated back across the Pyrenées, and never returned.

But later, the Muslim Seljuk Turks, invaders from central Asia, wrested Asia Minor from the Byzantine Christians in the 11th century, and the land is now known by the name of the invaders.

In one of my earliest columns, Of mosque-building and Quran-burning: An exposure of leftist hypocrisy, I also documented the typical Islamic “tolerance”.  They would raze a church to the ground and build a mosque on the site, such as the Great Mosque of Córdoba in 10th century Moorish Spain.  Or in Constantinople, they did worse to the great Hagia Sophia cathedral, the most important religious center of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.  They defaced the great Christian artwork and icons, and turned the building into a great mosque.

It was only after four centuries of Islamofascist aggression, that had overrun two-thirds of the Christian world, that the Crusades began.  They were a purely as a defensive action, and to protect Christians in their former lands.  Fortunately some modern historians such as Robert Spencer have worked to rehabilitate the reputation of the Crusaders (see his book Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam).

The Crusaders won some victories, 16-year-old King Baldwin IV decisively defeating a much larger army led by the famous Saladin at the Battle of Montgisard (1177).  However, they were ultimately unsuccessful.  Yet they helped to hold off the aggressors for a time, giving Europe a chance to become stronger and eventually defeat them.  In Part 2, I’ll explain more about more Islamofascist history, including their flourishing slave trade, their piracy that first made an American navy necessary, and how our current President has learned nothing from history.


As shown, Islam, almost from the beginning, has been a militantly aggressive religion, and this militancy is consistent with its own “holy book”.  All this was long before America or the modern state of Israel even existed.  So Ron Paul and those on the radical America-hating left who blame us for Islamofascist atrocities against us need to look for others to blame for those of the past.