|
John Quincy Adams on Islam
John Quincy Adams on Islam
by Dave Miller, Ph.D. The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism, pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life. The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the international circumstances that could potentially impact America adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam. Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767), not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery. After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history: "In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab [Mohammed] of the lineage of Hagar, 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. "Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. 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. "The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus." (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in original) Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy. A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam: "The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet [aka Mohammed] 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." (Blunt, 29:274) No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned: "The fundamental 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 denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge 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." (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added) The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic. REFERENCES Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1amer...nual29blunuoft. SOURCE: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240151 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Sigaba
From a theological viewpoint, it would be fair to say that those individuals who have used Christianity for purposes other than Christ-like behavior, or as a barrier to social progress, are not real Christians. Talking the talk and walking the walk are two totally separate things. You either take a religion as a whole, or not at all. From a social perspective, the general perception of a "religious" individual acting in such a manner leads to misunderstanding of what is truly acceptable in relation to the sacred texts. Perversion or religion on an individual level, even by a minority of the practitioners, leads to a very bad image. The fact that Quincy recognized the danger of Islam so many years ago should serve as sound evidence that there must be dire action taken in the coming years. |
Is it this simple?
Quote:
I admire our founding fathers as well. However, I cannot concur it would be fair to say anything of the like. Religions and Holy Books across faiths can and have been interpreted to justify any purpose, and what is "truly acceptable" changes constantly. War is part of the human condition, and soldiers kill, I am grateful we have troops who fight for American interests. What is Christ like behavior? By taking the religion as a whole are you including the Old Testament, because it is filled with violence, now folks can interpret the though shalt not kill commandment as shall not murder etc. ( perhaps this initial interpretation coincided with a need to raise an army). Or, if as some modern Christians believe, the New Testament supercedes the old since the old was written for Israelis and the new for Christians, Is it as simple as love God and observe the Golden Rule? That is subject to interpretation, but there are violent passages in the New Testament as well, Matthew 10:34-36 comes to mind. We are at war with Islamic terror groups, and if we have to kill them to survive and keep our freedoms, we should. So respectfully, I don't think it's as simple as Good Christian = Peaceful, Good Muslim= Violent. What if it's even simpler, there are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs in every faith? |
Quote:
No one is denying violence in the Bible. Nevertheless, the Jihadists do represent their religion and they represent it well. Islam is unique among the religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers, unlike any other religion. |
Quote:
|
Along similar lines, here is another article by Andrew Bostom:
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
*
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
However - YMMV - but IMO it's much like trying to teach Calculus to a pig, you'll only get frustrated and the pig won't be interested in anything you're saying...and so it goes... Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin * NOTE: The word 'Gawd' purposely ommitted. |
*
|
Quote:
Your attempt at pith is noted. Your attempt to write a condescending reply might have worked better had you read more carefully.*
__________________________________________ * This post is not the first time you have given evidence that you do not read very carefully. Elsewhere on this BB, there is a thread in which you have managed to agree enthusiastically and simultaneously with conflicting view points. IMO, the fact that you still have not yet addressed this tension undermines ever so slightly your intellectual authority to suggest that others might "further" their "education" in any area of study--especially when that advice is offered in a patronizing tone. **As I have intimated elsewhere, I declined invitations from the chair of a department of religion to study religion formally and to pursue divinity as a career path. It is just a hunch, but I think that had I taken that path, I would still have fundamental questions about your willingness to read carefully. |
Quote:
Not everyone has time or inclination to do detailed reading of all of your nuances. Your posts are well-supported and argued, but it does not follow that this equates to effective communication. This is not meant to be a slam (sincerely). We all have to prioritize the intensity of our reading. <shrug> It's just a limitation of the medium. |
How much time do you have?
Quote:
By your tone I would guess you are a Christian. I respect your faith. In matters of faith such as religion, politics, sports teams, and red headed women people tend to have fixed views. While religions promote moral values, they are unfortunately ripe tools for manipulation. As for what is "truly acceptable" changing in Christianity and examples, this is low hanging fruit, in the interests of time I will only hit some of the historical highlights... The Crusades- millions die as European Christians attempt to impose their view of religion on Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians. The Inquisition- torture, burning and chaos sanctioned by the Pope. The Reformation- Protestants emerge, Protestants and Catholics kill one another Colonization/Witch Trials WW2- To clarify there were Christian nations on both sides of this conflict, but the Germans and Italians who plunged Europe into world war and holocaust, were they Christians, Hindus, or Muslims? Before this gets out of hand my point is not to bash Christianity, you asked for instances of what is acceptable changing in Christianity, unfortunately there are similar examples across faiths. So now if you respond with Christianity is good, people who performed these acts were bad, okay but several of these act were led by the leaders of the faith at the time. So I would assume what is "acceptable" has changed? |
SOURCE:
http://www.christian-community.org/l.../crusades.html "So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression--an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. ______ The fact is that the Crusades were a "jihad" in reverse is easily proved by early Christian History. Muslims insist that Christians willingly converted to Islam. Three indisputable facts contradict that claim. 1. For the first 300 years of Christianity. the followers of Jesus would accept torture and death from the Roman Empire rather than forsake their commitment to Jesus. They believed any revocation of their declared faith would earn them a ticket into Hell. There is no reason they would have willingly changed their faith from Jesus to Muhammad except by force. Islam does not promise paradise for believers, as does Christianity. Even Muhammad said he did not know his final reward. That would only be determined on his judgment day. 2. Next, Islam had conquered Spain in addition to North Africa and the Middle East. When the Moors attempted to extend their empire into Europe, they were met at Tours by Charles Martel and were soundly defeated. From that point forward, Islam was pushed out of Spain. So, if Christians willingly converted to Islam, why did they resist it at Tours and push it out of Europe? 3. Christians never would have willingly given up their "holy" cities of Jerusalem and Alexandria. |
Defensive?
Warrior-Mentor,
The Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have holy sites in these lands. Chronologically perhaps the Israelis have the oldest claim. Regardless of religion doesn't it seem wars are ultimately fought over land and resources? How does one define defensive war? I can see how someone would feel the Greeks at Thermopylae were fighting a defensive war when their country was invaded by Persia, or the examples of Belgium in 1914, perhaps Finland or the Poles defending themselves from the Soviets and the Germans respectively in 1939. However when you have English, French and German armies stirred up by the Pope and attacking the Middle East how is this defensive in nature? |
WM - Allow me in part to answer some of akv's questions.
All wars are fought over natural resources. Resources can be defined as mineral, warm water ports, terrain, and human labor to name a few. Irregardless of religion, France and England fought over timber, forests and shipping lanes. Some would argue that the war between Greece and Troy was not over a pretty face, but the expansion of territory, and yes, they shared simular faiths too. Islamic migration beginning in the 8th century was nothing new. We have curtainly seen many wars of idealogy just in the past 100 years. But all wars, including A-stan, Iraq, and yes, here in the USA, we are at war over yet another 'natural resource', our very lives. Wars themselves are defined as High, Mid, and Low intensity conflicts, Guerrilla warfare, war of attrition, etc. Vietnam has been argued as simply as a campaign of the Cold War. Europe is on the brink of collapse, our own system is in jeopardy. If we are to win here or anywhere, we must put out the fires of any idealogy that threatens our survival. That's all. WM, he's all yours. WD |
*
|
Quote:
Richard |
Quote:
I am, however, unwilling to tolerate islam - an ugly, intolerant, racist, totalitarian supremacist ideology. There is a difference. An inspiration to me is Father Zakaria Botros: "My program is to attack Islam, not to attack Muslims but to save them because they are deceived. As I love Muslims, I hate Islam." |
Perception Changes?
Quote:
I agree with your post entirely. As the sole superpower, until someone can defeat our Navy, we just need to be a "spoiling state" and maintain the balance of power. But if that is what it is lets call it just that, instead of proclaiming our current foe as incorrigible be it a nation or a religion, since history has shown todays enemy might well be tomorrow's ally and vice versa. War is part of the human condition, and as an American I want her to do what is in her best interests. Richard made the lucid comment last year that Islam replaced Communism as the new boogeyman. For example, We are at war with the _____. The _____ are a savage, violent, people with a militaristic culture and past. From childhood the _____ ideology and beliefs are immutable, evil, and barbaric. The _____ are a ruthless disciplined enemy, with no regard for the value of life, they kill civilians, they even employ suicide attacks if needed, the _______ culture is simply a treacherous threat to our existence and way of life, the only possible solution unfortunately since this is the way things are and will always be is to wipe the _______ off the face of the earth like some disease, since unfortunately the only good ________ is a dead ________. In the interest of saving time one could fill in the blanks by time period. But notice as national interests continuously change with time enemies become allies and vice versa. 1870 : Comanches, Apaches, Sioux, etc. 1917 : Huns ( Germans), Turks 1941-45 : Japanese, (Germans again if you like) 1945-1991 : Communists 9/11 to current : Radical Muslims 2050 : ????? Wet Dog, this is the only point I am making, and I'm grateful for your service, and that of all of our vets. |
Quote:
I certainly agree a great deal of blood has been shed under the Islamic banner. We are agreed on the demographics of SF as well, which is why I spend a good amount of time on PS.com. IMO both playbooks have good and bad plays, so maybe it boils down to leadership, but people break the rules when necessary. |
*
|
Just as Daniel Pipes and Geert Wilders have their differences, yet Daniel supports Geert in his free speech trail...
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...t=geert+wilder |
Defensive war
Quote:
"St. Louis University scholar Thomas Madden has been exceptionally active in pointing out the widespread conquest and subjugation of Christian lands by Muslim armies prior to the calling of the crusades and, consequently, has like many scholars argued that the crusades were effectively defensive wars. He wrote, Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it.(7)" Source: http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com...ecrusades.html For a more in-depth discussion, see Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades." |
Defensive...
In 1094 what exactly caused Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus to ask western Christendom for help against the Islamic invaders?
The difference between what started the Christian Crusades and Jihad is that the former was a defense against the latter. the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim conquest, the crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZYZ...layer_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSgpk...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweS_...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nOg7...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/user/Occident.../6/C8MCl0bHVXo http://www.youtube.com/user/Occident.../7/tdabtVzZi2E |
YGBSM. Simply put for those seeking a simple explanation - turf wars...and it's still going on. :mad:
Richard |
Robert Spencer on the Crusades:
PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ee4WzxV4c PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msoop3doigk PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GdfAwwYLXw PART 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-wt8Sd1PTc PART 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxrCjyb4x8 |
Quote:
|
In a historically important context, it is interesting to note how Spencer manages to 'skip' the period of the last decade of Muhammad's life and the events of the first century following his death which are critical to the understanding (but in no way acceptance) of the development of Islamic expansionist and conflict-oriented thinking as we know it today. To my way of thinking, it is curious as to why someone as 'educated' as Mr Spencer is purported to be would do such a thing...:confused:
And so it goes...:( Richard's $.02 :munchin |
Quote:
And he doesn't skip it here either: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Mu...4476711&sr=8-1 |
Quote:
Anyone who can handle a needle convincingly can make us see a thread which is not there. - E. H. Gombrich Richard Quote:
|
Balancing the Prophet
Karen Armstrong, FinancialTimes, 27 Apr 2007 Part 2 0f 2 Quote:
|
Karen Armstrong's Islamic Apologetics
by Raymond Ibrahim 10 May, 2007 Quote:
|
Yet again - IMO - the common failure of all sides of this issue is the penchant to study/cite modern Islamic scripture (what I think of - based on readings and a general sense of broad historical perspective - as post-Muhammad Islam) merely as it exists in written form after much editing vs the historical context in which the manuscripts appeared (who, what, when, how) and reasons (why) for which they were written over the several centuries post-Muhammad - a lengthy record of yet another politicized theological hijacking used to foster the nefarious fulfillment of our more baser human behaviors. In this way and to this end, I find Mr Ibrahim's critique of Ms Armstrong falling short of his attempt to summarily discredit and dismiss her scholarship, while also placing into question the merits of his own.
As my wife is wont to say - perception is reality - and, as I have experienced on a number of occasions with life, such may be the case here...with the perception of what Islam is or isn't by so many usurping any chance of our understanding its reality. And so it goes... Richard's $.02 :munchin |
Richard,
Will you be quoting John Esposito as well? Who is Karen Armstrong? Quote:
|
Keep it Filed Away?
Both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Armstrong make interesting points. The prevailing perception of the efficacy of either point of view seems subject to what is politically pragmatic for the time.
In Flags of Our Fathers, James Bradley talks about visiting Japan after college. As a young man he couldn't understand why his father, a gentle and intelligent man couldn't forgive the Japanese or wouldn't set foot in Japan. In time as he learned what his father endured on Iwo Jima he understood how Pacific war veterans could feel this way. It makes me wonder if in 2050 if the US is in global conflict with China, and our NATO allies, particularly Turkey are fighting at our side, if people will perceive Ms. Armstrong's take on the characteristics of Islam to be more sensible than Mr. Spencer's? To quote George Friedman: " There are no friends in geopolitics just shared interests, passion is overrated." |
Quote:
by Carl W. Ernst - William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Who are the publishing firms that publish Spencer's works? Who funds them? Who supports his work? Some information on these patrons is given below (the numbers refer to the citations of the organizations marked in bold in the paragraph above). This information is significant because these books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences. In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics. http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/courses/2...01/spencer.htm And so it goes... Richard's $.02 :munchin |
"blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses"
What? I see just as much of an agenda in the universities as there are in every place, both while I was in College and now seeing my daughter go through what they are teaching.. The universities are not blind at all when it comes to there agenda.. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51. |
Copyright 2004-2026 by Professional Soldiers ®