It is very clear to me that
- Our Founders Were Not Fond Of Muslims
- John Quincy Adams see also wiki
John Quincy Adams described the Quran in one of his essays as follows:
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.
" (1767 – 1848) was the sixth President of the United States. He was also an American diplomat and served in both the Senate and House of Representatives.
…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.[67]
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.[68]
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.[69]
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.[70] [From the Ottoman Reis Effendi, to his Russian counterparts] ‘The present friendly letter has been composed and sent, to acquaint your excellency. 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 commentary 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 especially, 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 necessary 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 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.[71]
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.”[72]
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 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.[73]
*****
- John Adams (1735 – 1826) was an American Founding Father and the second President of the United States (1797–1801). The following is taken from the preface of the Qur'an owned by him:
This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible …
*****
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826) was the third President of the United States, and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was one of the most influential Founding Fathers, known for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States.
In reference to the Islamic slave trade of Americans and Europeans by the Barbary states, Jefferson asked Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. He answered:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.[120][121]
Indeed, in a letter date June 26,1822, Jefferson had this to say about Islam in a passage regarding Calvinism:
"Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy in London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Qu’ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
Jefferson later went to war with the Barbary states.
*****
War or tribute are not considerations between "friends", "allies", 'comrades'...and Islam was never part or parcel of the American fabric. The identity "Barbary" is simply interchangeable with "Islamic" and the picture of relations between Islam and the USA reveal an acrimonious affair - at best.
- VQR, A National Journal of Literature & Discussion, ISSUE: Autumn 1944
"Mellimelli: A Problem for President Jefferson in North African Diplomacy" By Julia H. Macleod
(go read the whole thing - 16-MINUTE READ)The recent political tribulations of the Department of State in dealing with North Africa must have stirred the ghosts of early Secretaries to ironic laughter. If Mr. Hull thought he had a headache in Algiers, Tunis, or Tripoli, he might have taken grim comfort in contemplating the greater trials of his predecessors; for the pirate states of the Barbary Coast were an unmitigated nuisance to the governments of the first four Presidents of the United States, and they drove more than one Secretary of State to profane and undiplomatic language. Compared with the irritations endured by Secretary James Madison, for example, Mr. Hull’s troubles were but as the buzzing of gnats; and President Roosevelt’s problems in North Africa may be complex and disturbing, but President Jefferson often found diplomacy with that area a downright personal annoyance.
As long as the American colonies were a part of the British Empire, merchant ships from Boston, New York, or Philadelphia enjoyed the protection of His Majesty’s royal navy. But after the Fourth of July, 1776, American merchantmen found themselves fugitives from countless perils on the high seas. The Barbary pirates were a particular menace to commerce in the Mediterranean. In 1799 President John Adams sent out consuls to Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli and began a long and costly sequence of diplomatic horse trades designed to buy off the pirates. Eventually, as all the world knows, the American navy resorted to arms and won at the point of its guns what the infant nation had been unable to purchase—immunity from piratical depredation.
- More Clements, UMich.edu: Barbary introduction :
At a time when water was the most economically viable way to transport goods, the Mediterranean was vital to American prosperity. Presidents Washington and Adams chose to pay exorbitant tributes to the Barbary powers, though the bribes failed to ensure full protection from piracy and were subject to the whims of the Bashaw of Tripoli, the Bey of Tunis, the Sultan of Morocco, and the Dey of Algiers. With tribute prices escalating, the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson bypassed Congress and sent the nation’s fledgling navy to confront the Barbary powers. In 1815, President James Madison sent a naval force to the Mediterranean to finish what Jefferson started, and finally put an end to the Barbary piracy.
This online exhibit highlights the Clements Library’s best holdings related to the Barbary Wars. Featured items include manuscripts, books, maps, and engravings documenting the United States' first interactions with the Arab world and the early development of the U.S. Navy. The heart of this material comes from three manuscript collections:
- The Tobias Lear papers
- the John Rodgers papers and
- the Isaac Chauncey papers.
Together, these collections document the highest level of naval and diplomatic decision-making during and after the wars. Additionally, the exhibit relies on several other manuscript collections that contain discussions of and references to early American activities in the Mediterranean. Also showcased is the Clements' collection of 19th-century Barbary captivity narratives, books that informed and inflamed the American public on the home front, as well as images of the naval conflict and maps of the region. We hope that the exhibit will draw attention to an often-neglected episode in American history, and inspire researchers and enthusiasts to pursue new discoveries at the Clements Library.
Project archivist Philip Heslip identified and compiled the manuscripts and collections used in this exhibit in conjunction with his work on the manuscripts division's National Endowment for the Humanities processing grant "Landmark Events in the Early American Republic."
*****
Now, let's put to rest the misinterpreted 200 year old invite to an Arab diplomat to join Jefferson for dinner, mischaracterized as the first State Iftar – no such religious accomodation was made at all . . .
Dealings with Mellimelli, Colorful Envoy from Tunis
May as well remember this muhammedan cretin as “smelli-smelli” since
” guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious”
due to his
“generous use of scented rose oil “
olfactory masque easing fulfillment of his
“. . .request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations . . .”
As for the sunset request for dinner with Jefferson . . .
Jefferson’s invitation to the President’s House on December 9 changed the time of dinner from the usual “half after three” to “precisely at sunset.”
Northeast ‘Dec. 7th Earliest Sunset Of The Year’
This would put the time of sunset, on December 9th, 1805 at 4:46pm, a total of one hour sixteen minutes later than usual. Hardly a remarkable alteration considering the lack of technology for travel, preparation and presentation of a state sponsored dinner.
Regardless, Jefferson eventually came to his senses and took care of business with America’s First War on Terror @ The Halls of Tripoli.
OOOOOORAH!
*****
- Benjamin Franklin had his own personal feelings:
Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it. (Franklin Papers - March 23, 1790 letter to editor of the Federal Gazette)
There is an overlooked ‘teachable moment’ of American History, of which the anniversary falls within February’s “Black History Month” lesson plan. Most students are aware of President Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to abolish slavery. Too few of these students are aware that the works of “Theodore Parker” greatly influenced Lincoln, nor that this influence linked back in history to our nation’s Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin on the very same issue, going back in history to 12th of February 1790 .
*****
- When the Founding Fathers Faced Islamists
An added bonus of this lesson reveals the awareness our founding fathers had about ISLAM and SLAVERY.
"Theodore Parker" [1810-1860] wrote the book, “Historic Americans”, in which he writes about founding father, Ben Franklin, abolitionist extraordinaire, quoting the Koran in defending his abolition petition to Congress. You can read the book on line here: http://tinyurl.com/aa96dnm
- Page 27:
You see the young nation in its infancy. “Hercules in his cradle, “ said Franklin; but with a legion of the mystic serpents about him. If the rising sun shines auspicious, yet the clouds threaten a storm, long and terrible. “
Page 33
VI. Franklin, an old man of eighty-four, is making ready to die. The great philosopher, the great statesman, he has done with philosophy and state craft, not yet ended his philanthropy. He is satisfied with having taken the thunderbolt from the sky, bringing it noiseless and harmless to the ground; he has not yet done with taking the sceptre from tyrants. True, he has, by the foundation of the American state on the natural and inalienable rights of all, helped to set America free from the despotism of the British king and Parliament. None has done more for that. He has made the treaty with Prussia, which forbids privateering on land or sea. But now he remembers that there are some six hundred thousand African slaves in America, whose bodies are taken from their control, even in time of peace – peace to other men, to them a period of perpetual war. So in 1787, he founds a society for the abolition of slavery. He is its first President, and in that capacity signed a
Page 34
petition to Congress, asking “the restitution of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage;” asks Congress “that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.” This petition was the last public act of Franklin, the last public document he ever signed. He had put his hand to the Declaration of Independence; to the treaties of alliance with France and Prussia; to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, now he signs the first petition for the abolition of slavery.
Between 1783 and 1790 what important events had taken place! For three years he had been President of Pennsylvania, unanimously elected by the Assembly every time save the first, when one vote out of seventy-seven was cast against him. He had been a member of the Federal Convention, which made the Constitution, and, spite of what he considered to be its errors, put his name to it. Neither he, nor Washington, nor indeed any of the great men who helped to make that instrument, thought it perfect, or worshiped it as an idol. But now, as his last act, he seeks to correct the great fault, and blot, and vice of of the American government – the only one which, in seventy-six years, has given us much trouble. The petition was presented on the 12th of February, 1790. It asked for the abolition of the
Page 35
slave trade, and for the emancipation of slaves. A storm followed; the South was in a rage, which lasted till near the end of March. Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, defended the “peculiar institution.” The ancient republics had slaves; the whole current of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, proved that religion was not hostile to slavery. On the 23rd of March, 1790, Franklin wrote for the National Gazette the speech in favor of the enslavement of Christians. He put it into the mouth of a member of the Divan of Algiers. It was a parody of the actual words of Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, as delivered in Congress a few days before; the text, however, being taken out of the Koran. It was one of the most witty, brilliant, and ingenious things that came from his mind. This was the last public writing of Dr. Franklin; and, with the exception of a letter to his sister and one to Mr. Jefferson, it was the last line which ran out from his fertile pen. - written only twenty-four days before his death. What a farewell it was! . . .to be continued
This old man, “the most rational, perhaps of all philosophers,” the most famous man in America, now in private life, waiting for the last angel to unbind his spirit and set him free from a perishing body, makes his last appearance before the American people as President of an abolition society, protesting against American slavery in the last public line he writes! One of his wittiest and most ingenious works is a plea for the bondman,
Page 36
adroit, masterly, short, and not to be answered. It was fit to be the last scene of such a life. Drop down the curtain before the sick old man, and let his healthy soul ascend unseen and growing.
*****
As an added bonus consider the following:
What George Bush, circa 1830, knew about Islam
Since the 18th century, American founding fathers and scholars have been aware of deeply-rooted Islamic violence, terrorism, intolerance and hatred toward other Muslims, as well as non-Muslims.
Early American leaders and thinkers were endowed with deep appreciation and unique knowledge of global history, international relations, ancient cultures, ideologies and religions. They spoke and wrote candidly about global threats, including the Islamic threat.
In 1830, New York University Professor George Bush, the great-granduncle of George H. W. Bush, considered one of the most profound American scholars of the mid-19th century, published "The Life of Mohammed." He was not concerned about political correctness, was low on delusion and top-heavy on realism. His 1830 reference to the Islamic threat was consistent with the 2012 state of intra-Muslim atrocities, hate-education, tyranny, anti-U.S. stormy Arab winter, intolerance of criticism, global Islamic terrorism in general and suicide bombing in particular.
According to Professor Bush, ”[Muhammad] promised robes of silks, marble palaces, groves and fountains and beautiful virgins to those who fought for the faith … offering his enemies the alternative; the Koran or the sword. … It was inflamed by zeal for a religion which assured the soldier of victory now and paradise hereafter. The permanence of this religion is now apparently secured by education … in regions where freedom of thought is unknown [pp. 155-6].
“O prophet of God, I will beat out the teeth, pull out the eyes, rip open the bellies and cut off the legs of all who shall dare to oppose thee [pp. 36-37]. … [Muhammad] was cruel on principle. He did deliberately what other men do from impulse. … The ambition which tramples on the right of men to think or to live is the greatest of human crimes. … The sword is the key of heaven and hell. A drop of blood shed in the cause of God is of more avail than two months of fast and prayers. Whosoever falls in the battle his sins are forgiven … and the loss of his limbs shall be replaced by the wing of angels [pp. 103-4]. … Hatred of Christians and Jews is rooted in their hearts from childhood [p. 137]. …
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist church (1703-1791) preferred clarity over ambiguity when describing Islam: "Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it … have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws. … Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind."
Thomas Jefferson studied the Quran to become more knowledgeable about a chief enemy — the Muslim Barbary pirates who plundered American ships, enslaving Americans and demanding protection money and ransom for their release. During 1784-1789, while Jefferson (the third president of the United States) was ambassador to France and John Adams (the second U.S. president) was ambassador to England, they met with the Barbary ambassador to London in an attempt to stop the anti-US piracy. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman told them:
“[Piracy] was founded on the laws of the Prophet, as it was written in the Koran; that all nations which had not acknowledged [Islam’s] authority were sinners; that it was [the Muslims'] right and duty to make war upon them and enslave them as prisoners, and that every Muslim slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
John Quincy Adams, sixth U.S. president (1825-1829), wrote after his presidency and before his election to Congress in 1830: “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. [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. Between [Christianity and Islam], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…." (Blunt, 29:274).
In 1916, 26th U.S. president Teddy Roosevelt observed: "Wherever the Mohammedans have had a complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared" [ditto, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism ...]."
In 2012, U.S. policymakers should benefit from the experience of early U.S. leaders and thinkers — whose observations have been vindicated by the recent turmoil in Arab lands — avoiding the lethal trap of political correctness in their assessment of the Islamic threat.
*****
- The US Constitution vs. shariah law