A quibble that's increasingly becoming a major gripe

Can we agree that the holiday we celebrate annually on July 4th in this country should be referred to as "Independence Day," not "the 4th of July"? I mean, we don't refer to Christmas as "the 25th of December," nor our own birthdays, nor our wedding day as "the 23rd of March" (randomly chosen date) or whatever. December 25th and July 4th are dates on the calendar which mark two great occasions for celebration in this country, the birth of Christ and the birth of the nation respectively. Personally I think we do a disservice to our founders and the epoch when we use the calendar date July 4th as synonymous terminology with the event which we're celebrating, or which we're supposed to be celebrating.

As John Quincy Adams, on the 61st occasion for celebrating Independence Day in this country, so ably said in a speech delivered to the citizens of Newburyport:

Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.

Perhaps my traditionalist friends will at least agree with me (and with Mr. Adams) on this point. Indeed, as Mr. Adams put it, our most joyous and most venerated festival, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, returns on this day, the calendar date July 4th. The festival itself is not the same as the date on which we celebrate it.

Notwithstanding that, here's a Wikipedia article on the Declaration of Independence that you might find interesting.

Addendum:

Here's the first paragraph from the Wiki entry:

The United States Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress. (emphasis added)

Happy Independence Day!

Read More

Dr. Andrew Bostom on John Quincy Adams On Islam, cont.

It suddenly occurred to me while reading over the original entry under this title that I had inadvertently ommitted a passage from Dr. Bostom's article which I had intended to include in the body of the post. Alas, no harm done, I'll just put it here:

Adams writes:

...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... (emphasis mine)

Bottom line? John Quincy Adams not only knew jihad, he knew Islam and what it requires of its followers, at all times, under all circumstances, everywhere. Not what it admonishes them to do, but what it requires of them, perpetual warfare on all infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. It only makes provision for appeasing the victors over it on a false and delusive promise of peace whereby the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the necessities of defeat only while the obligatory command to propagate the Muslim creed by sword cannot be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed by two methods, fraud or force, otherwise known respectively as taqiyya and jihad. But the command of the prophet being always obligatory on Muslims, one or the other of these methods (whichever necessity or opportunity dictate) must always be employed in the unceasing struggle to conquer the world for Islam.

Let us hear the conclusion of the matter:

The only way for us to protect ourselves against the designs of the Muslims is to begin to discuss and ultimately implement a plan of action specifically designed to frustrate and overthrow their designs. Indeed, a plan designed to frustrate and overthrow not only the designs of the Muslims on us, but a plan that ultimately eliminates any avenue and means we've provided them to invent, plan, develop, and carry out their designs on us. In other words, separationism, or something comparable to it.

Read More

Dr. Andrew Bostom on J.Q. Adams On Islam

(Update: I've added Dr. Bostom's list of FrontPage articles on Islam to the On Islam section in the left sidebar of this blog.)

Until a few days ago, admittedly, I did not know who Andrew Bostom was, and since I did not know who this man was, neither did I know of his contribution to Western scholarship on the nature of Islam.

I've spent the better part of the day trying to educate myself on this man Andrew Bostom, mainly through reading his articles at FrontPageMagazine. I also read the Wikipedia article on Mr. Bostom which states in part:

Bostom's writings are characterized by meticulous referral to primary sources and extensive documentation.

Ya think?!

I had to laugh at that when I first read it. For if you know nothing of this man Bostom, and you follow my links to his articles, you're going to learn quick, fast, and in a hurry that this description of what characterizes Dr. Bostom's witings is, well, right on the mark. Had I read the Wiki article prior to delving into his articles, which was not the case, I would have been more prepared for what I was about to receive. But I digress...

The main point of this entry is to point you to one of Dr. Bostom's FrontPage articles, John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad, in which Dr. Bostom states the following regarding J.Q. Adams's understanding of Islam.

Dr. Bostom writes:

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

“…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.”(emphasis mine)

Let us examine that last statement in the Adams quote again. "The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God." There are two ways to read this statement: (1) The precept of the Koran is that Mahomet is the prophet of God," and, (2) The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God.

In other words, the first pillar of Islam is non-negotiable, applying to all peoples everywhere, all the time. Either you acknowledge that Mohammed is the prophet of God, or the whole Islamic world is commanded in their holy book to wage violent and perpetual jihad against you.

Is this not what we've been saying around here for ... how long now? Is this not precisely what makes Islam, and therefore Muslims, completely and utterly incompatible with the West, which we've been saying as well.

But Quincy Adams has further insights:

Dr. Bostoms writes:

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement,

“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”

But perhaps the best part of the whole article, at least for me, is Mr. Adams's comparison/contrast of Jesus Christ and his religion with Mohammed and his religion:

Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and Islam

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]

“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.” [p. 269]

So Adams sums up the contrast between Christ and Christianity, and Mohammed and Islam in this way: The essence of Christ's doctrine is to exalt the spiritual over the brutal part of man's nature. Whereas, the essence of Mohammed's doctrine is to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of man's nature. Is anyone else seeing a problem here? Adams sums up the problem this way in the conclusion to the preceding paragraph:

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.

Now I ask you, is there any hope that in our lifetimes, or during the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, or during the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren, that the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet Mohammed, as Quincy Adams aptly puts it, shall not furnish motives, many many motives, to human action, specifically to those of the Arab variety?

Tell ya what, if you're a liberal don't answer that.

Read More