President John Quincy Adams: Koran is Filled With Hate

Our founders better understood Islam than our current one appears to. Take our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, for instance. He understood clearly that Islam is a creed built on hate, violence, murder, and conquest. It is NO religion of peace.

Take, for instance, how Adams described Islam in a piece he wrote in the late 1820s. How Adams explained Islam is exactly right.

The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. … 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. … In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab … spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. … He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion. … The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Adams isn’t alone in his characterization of Islam.

The father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, throughly slammed Islam.

Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority…. And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together?…The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied.

As to other founders, John Adams, and Ben Franklin both criticized Islam as a doctrine of war, not a religion.

It is true, of course, that the founders did intend that Americans could practice Islam if they wanted to. There was no thought that it would be outlawed. In fact, some even wrote that Muslims should be allowed to attain political office. After all, we did start the country on the ideal of religious freedom. But no founder felt that Islam was something that should be emulated. None felt that Islam had ideas that should be incorporated in the USA. And Islam played no part in our founding. Those who say it did are bending over backwards–and illegitimately so–to try and shoehorn Islam into our founding.

And it should be remembered that one of our earliest military actions was against Muslims when Jefferson fought the Barbary Pirates.

As an aside–and I’ve mentioned this here before–we also need to shoot down President Obama’s constant claim that Thomas Jefferson held “the nation’s first Iftar dinner” in the White House. The fact is, Jefferson did not observe any such practice. Never, not once.

President Obama has been misleading Americans and America’s Muslims, now, for four years. Until modern times, there have been no Iftar dinners at the White House. Further, there is no long tradition of Muslims having an impact in America. The only real impact that Islam has had on America occurred on September 11, 2001. It is an impact that reverberates today.

Poor Overworked Senators
Conservative Pundit vs. Conservative Pundit?
  • Commander_Chico

    This quote from JQA is a warning and a prophecy:

    Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

    She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

    • jim_m

      And is off topic.

      • Brucehenry

        Maybe so, but if John Quincy Adams should be listened to when he warns us about Muslims, should he not also be listened to when he warns us about going “not abroad in search of monsters to destroy”?

        It seems to me that the second paragraph in the block quote is eerie in its prophecy of US policy since World War Two. Or at the very least can be seen that way.

        • jim_m

          The full quote in context is about the danger of letting the promotion of liberty devolve into the desire to expand dominion. No one is suggesting that the US expand dominion or colonize the ME.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course no one is suggesting that the US formally annex territory or found new colonies, that would be ludicrous. But the US was the world’s hegemon after WW2, and several aspects of that quote are chilling when you consider them in the light of, say for example, Vietnam.

            There the US (she) “involved herself beyond the powers of extrication” in wars of “interest and intrigue” which “assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.” In other words, got herself stuck in a land war in Asia trying to fight a little hot war as part of the greater Cold War struggle against communism.She let a tinpot dictator “assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom” and confused the dick-measuring contest presidents have engaged in since Yalta with our national interest.

            And as the acknowledged or unacknowledged successor to Britain’s role as Western dominator of the Middle East, she certainly allowed the fundamental maxims of her policy to “change from liberty to force,” as we supported tyrants like Mubarak and the Shah and the Saudi royal family in the name of “freedom” whatever that was supposed to mean to the oppressed populations of their countries.

            In a post Cold War, post 9/11 attempt to become the “dictatress of the world,” she embraced torture and preemptive wars of choice, and so is no longer the “ruler of her own spirit.”

          • jim_m

            I suppose you agree with Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, especially the Enemy Alien act which was used in WWII to inter the Japanese.

            Adams was good, but he wasn’t perfect. Actually, he was kind of an asshole.

          • Brucehenry

            John Adams wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts, not John Quincy Adams, you ignoramus.

          • jim_m

            Yes I know. My mistake. I segued into the father there.

          • jim_m

            But since we are talking about JQA, let’s try to square his warning against dominion with his foreign policy. He pursued foreign entanglements and as Secy of State for Monroe developed the Monroe Doctrine. Hardly an example of someone who did not believe in foreign entanglement and in military action overseas.

            While the Monroe Doctrine applies to this hemisphere, back then it was a practical matter of how far a nation could project power. Today we can project power around the globe.

            The point is that while he warned against the projection of power overseas he was not against it empirically.

          • The claim that the founders warned against “foreign entanglements” is simply balderdash.

          • jim_m

            Such was my point. Chico frequently tries to paint the founders as xenophobic isolationists but this was never the case.

          • Commander_Chico

            They were not xenophobic. They were in favor of trade with all nations.

            They were not in favor of getting mixed up in alliances and militarism.

          • jim_m

            You avoided the obvious point I just made in Adams and Monroe. You are dead wrong about what the founders believed. Also note that part of the motivation from Washington was that the US was a small weak nation and foreign entanglements could result in loss of sovereignty for the US. That is no longer the circumstance.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, ignore the words of Washington. You are getting more and more neocon every day, Warner. Your masters must be ordering you to play that tune.

          • You have no clue what Washington said or what he did.

          • Commander_Chico

            You suggest it all of the time. You were a cheerleading chickenhawk for the Iraq war, and now want war with Iran.

          • jim_m

            Then you need to learn the definition of dominion. You’re a dumbass.

          • Show me where I said it. Otherwise STUFU.

      • Retired military

        Remember Chico’s Option E is “Oh look a shiny”

    • Retired military

      The bold must be talking about Hillary

  • ohio granny

    Does Obama lie about Islam being a religion of peace because he is a Muslim or does he lie because he hates America as founded and all she has stood for? Does it make any difference if it is one or both? The truth is he has done and is doing great harm to this country whatever his reason(s).

    • jim_m

      obama is not a muslim. He hates America and has said so.

      • I don’t know that President Obama hates America, but I do know that he isn’t a Muslim, despite any image of him wearing traditional Somali garb during a visit to a Somali community.

        • jim_m

          He hates America as it was constructed, hence his desire to “radically transform” it. He hates our constitution because he says it is “deeply flawed” not allowing the government tyrannical powers over the people. We can presume that if he attended a church where the Pastor screams “God Damn America” that he does not disagree with that sentiment.

          • jim, I believe that you have some valid points.

          • jim_m


        • Jwb10001

          You do not fundamentally transform a country you love.

  • Paul Hooson

    I own a copy of The Koran along with many other major religious book. Like most major religious books including The Bible, I find some passages more pleasing than others, however what of the many passages in The Koran that also promote a message of peace and love? As a rule, most religious leaders and their fath’s promote peace.

    • jim_m

      There are many more passages that promote slaying the unbeliever. You cannot find commands in the bible to slay all unbelievers indiscriminately, nor can you find anyone today preaching a Christianity that says we should do so.

      Islam by and large does not promote peace. It is still stuck in the 7th century in how it treats women, gays and unbelievers. If you want to excuse their actions and make bogus claims that are really not well founded in reality then be my guest. But lets not pretend that the islamic states that are current in this world do not execute women for adultery (including women deemed to have committed adultery by fact of having been raped) or that these states do not execute homosexuals, or that not a few of them prohibit the education of girls and that sharia law treats women as second class citizens as well as unbelievers.

      Not all religions are the same. Islam has a lot of catching up to do to find a place in the civilized world.

  • Commander_Chico

    Maybe that “patriot” guy who planted a bomb in George trying to frame Muslims read this.

    Funny this did not get covered much in MSM. Not really funny, they have to stick to the propaganda narrative. If it had been some retarded Muslim guy sucked into a plot by the FBI, would have been all over Fox and CNN.