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

reminds me of Matt. 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. John Quincy Adams still shining.........:)

IMO, there is nothing in Dr. Miller's piece that indicates his "awareness of the past" sets his knowledge of American history above that of the "average" American.

• Precisely when have the issues of "multi-culturalism, pluralism, 'diversity,' and political correctness" not "blanketed" American culture?
• For that matter, was there ever a single dominant culture in America during the seventeenth,eighteenth or nineteenth centuries?
• Were those Americans who advocated Indian removal (and worse), slavery, curtailing the liberties of women, nullification, succession, and civil war any less Christians because they used their faith to defend their positions?

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?
 

Wolf07,

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?

Jihad hasn’t changed since its inception.

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.

It helps me to consider Christianity a relationship with the Creator who gave us His operators handbook verified by hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. The story of the Bible is a chronicle of a plan to bring the Messiah into the world to save mankind from SIN. There can only be one truth, all these conflicts and false religions where very accurately prophesied (Matt 24). I think we effect society as Christians because what we are (like Christ). We are supposed to be salt and light in this life.

Along similar lines, here is another article by Andrew Bostom:

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283

Please elaborate as to precisely which theological viewpoint you have in mind.What about the image propagated by those who claim to know best how Christians should interpret the texts and practice their religion?I am not sure I see the reasoning of this argument. Why "must" "dire action" be taken in the near future because someone warned of something centuries ago?

*

IMO - the common failure to study both in the historical context in which the manuscripts appeared and for which they were written - neither being for or by their protagonists - along with how they have arrived at their currently perceived states after much word smithing - makes any such argument tantamount to the 'word of mouth'* scenario illustrated in this Norman Rockwell cover for the Saturday Evening Post.

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.

*

Dr. Mabuse--

Your attempt at pith is noted.

Your attempt to write a condescending reply might have worked better had you read more carefully.*

• My screen name is not "Sigba," but Sigaba.
• I did not raise questions about Dr. Miller's college pedigree. I raised questions about his areas of study in relation to his generalizations about American history and Americans' understanding of that history. (One might have noticed that the post does not highlight his schools.)
• The foundation of Dr. Miller's argument is that the average American does not understand this nation's past. He implicitly argues that he does.
  • It is from his superior understanding of America's past that Dr. Miller asserts the intellectual authority of his argument.
  • In that argument, Dr. Miller suggests that the contemporaneous political, social, and cultural environment prevents Americans from gleaning the wisdom of the Founding Fathers--a historical legacy that he allegedly appreciates and wants to share with his readers.
  • The questions I raised suggest to those who have studied America's past that perhaps Dr. Miller's understanding of American history is not as advanced as he believes.
• To read AKV's post (or mine) and to conclude that either of us are making a comparison between Christianity and Islam is to indicate that you did not understand the points either of us made.
• Your attempt to diminish AKV's contributions to this thread by pointing out where he lives is, bluntly, lazy. In his short time here, AKV has made his positions on GWOT, his views on Islamic theology, and his thoughts on the political sensibilities of the San Francisco area quite clear.
• Your attempt to argue implicitly that your "formal study" of the bible is superior to mine is a straw man. My remarks about Christianity in this thread and elsewhere on this BB have been historical in nature.**

__________________________________________
* 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.

Sigaba, in fairness to those who engage in debate with you, consider that this is a large board with many posts.
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?
 

Dr. Mabuse,

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?