Obama’s Strategy to Deal with Militant Radical Islam in the Middle East

TheEducatorGodTrust

National Motto [Click to enlarge]

Radical Islam

The Obama Administration thinks we Americans are too stupid to understand the nuances of their thinking, Yet they also think the “uneducated” and “jobless” ISIS members do. Amazing, is it not?

Eric Holder complains “we spend more time talking about what do you call it as opposed to what do you do about it…you know? I mean really, you know, you know! If Fox [News] didn’t talk about this they’d have nothing else to talk about, it would seem to me. You know Radical Islam, Islamic Extremism, you know, um, (sighs heavily) I’m not sure an awful lot is gained, by, um, by saying that”

I can assure mr. Holder, Fox News spends much more time talking on what we do about it, than they do on what the administration is calling it. They also talk about how little the Obama administration is doing about it, as well as what should be done about it, with numerous military experts, generals, colonels, special ops, and various other experts, including Muslim reformers, experts on Muslim history and culture, ex-administration officials, diplomats, etc.

However the problem lies with the Obama administration, the reason the question of why Obama, and the people in his administration is even raised, is because of the fact Obama and his administration are doing as little as possible to prevent it. Obama and his administration are doing so little to stop the spread of Islamic extremism, not only are people of his own party also raising the question, even extreme leftist democrats are starting to take issue with it.

I see and hear all of these news people, political pundits etc., on Fox News or elsewhere, who strain their brains trying to analyze why Obama and his administration will not name the enemy, as they exist, they also ask why the admin is not doing more to stop the spread of the militant Muslim fanatics.

The Obama administration also says we need to change the economic outlook of the Muslim terrorists and the ideology that causes them to be terrorists. Wouldn’t that require “occupation” of those countries where the ideology is prevalent, and the control of those same countries economy? For years the Islamic administrations in those countries have failed to stop the Imam’s from spreading their extremist ideology, and have failed to control the corruption of their economies participants or governments who commandeer the relief funds, food, etc. that are given by other countries, meant to go to help the people. It is only reasonable then to come to the conclusion, all of this will require occupation forces, just as it did in Germany and Japan after World War 2. Isn’t it liberals and the democrats who have always accused Americans of being occupying forces or somehow Imperialistic? If the leaders in the Muslim world could be trusted to take on the ideology that creates Islamic terrorists, or have failed to grow their economies in order to benefit the people enough, where they do not turn to terrorism because of their poverty? How else do they propose to accomplish all of the incredibly clever nuanced strategy they promote?

If you look at Obama and the history of his administration, since he took office you can only conclude one thing. I will get to that conclusion later in this article.

Getting into history as I do, I tend to look, not only at the present, but also the past. This helps to give me a better understanding of the why, what, and where of something, so I can come to the correct conclusion, or at least one that is close to being correct.

Obama at the recent prayer breakfast referred to the Christian Crusades when talking about what is taking place in the Middle East with ISIS / ISIL, as if the Crusades that happened 900-1200 years ago, somehow justified the atrocities committed by present day Islamic Muslim terrorists. He also failed to mention, the crusades took place after 4-5 centuries of Muslim aggression, attacks that make today’s Muslim terrorists look like pikers. Note, the day before the prayer breakfast he had a meeting with various Muslim leaders in the White House, who the administration refused to name. Then within days after the prayer breakfast we are faced with a new ISIS / ISIL video showing the mass beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt, by militant Muslim savages who made the ISIS video and titled it. “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross.” In the video an ISIS member with an American accent said among other things.

“Oh people, recently you have seen us on the hills of Al-Sham and Dabiq’s plain, chopping off the heads that have been carrying the cross for a long time, and today, we are on the south of Rome, on the land of Islam, Libya, sending another message. All crusaders: safety for you will be only wishes especially if you are fighting us all together. Therefore we will fight you all together. The sea you have hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden’s body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.”

This coming from Libya where Obama in 2011 took part in military action to remove Gadhafi saying when he did. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Libya, also touted by Obama as one of the successes of his foreign policy in the Middle East. Kind of amazing he doesn’t use the same kind of language when talking about the Islamic terrorists.

The war in Libya was preceded by protests in Zawiya, 8 August 2009 and finally ignited by protests in Benghazi beginning on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, which led to clashes with security forces that fired on the crowd. The protests escalated into a rebellion that spread across the country,with the moderate Muslim forces opposing Gaddafi establishing a governing body, the General National Congress, whose President [Mohamed Yousef Magariaf] came to the U.S. and did an interview on CBS’s “Face The Nation” with Bob Schieffer on September 16, 2012. This interview was in reference to the terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This interview was also the same day Ambassador Susan Rice did her infamous five Sunday talk shows blaming a youtube video, nobody ever watched until the Obama administration started blaming it on the video “The innocence of Muslims” whose creator, they promised would be jailed or punished.

In this interview the Libyan President Magariaf] was asked by Schieffer about the attack in Benghazi, among the things Schieffer asked was whether the attack was preplanned, if the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and where the attackers were from. Magariaf told him, yes the attack was preplanned [i.e. not spontaneous or part of a protest], the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and it was planned and carried out by mainly foreigners, and some of them were definitely from Algeria and Mali.

Directly after having the Libyan President on, Schieffer then introduced Susan Rice “And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?” Susan Rice after referring to a non-existent FBI investigation went on to tell him according to the best intelligence they had,  it was a spontaneous protest, brought on by the video and the attackers had no connection to al Qeada.

As a side note: It would seem to me, the best intelligence would come from the President of Libya, who Schieffer had just interviewed before Rice.

What a slap in the face this must have been to the Libyan President, who had just told Schieffer it was al Qaeda, and a preplanned well organized attack. No wonder he and the Libyan government refused to let the FBI in to conduct an investigation until a month after the Benghazi attack.

Add to this the fact Obama refused to assist the fledgling moderate Muslim Libyan government, after helping them depose Gadhafi by bombing Libyan government forces. You begin to then wonder, why Obama helped them in the first place, if he was just going to leave Libya’s fledgling government, military, police, etc., to deal with the Radical Islamic Jihadis after Gadhafi’s overthrow and death, without assistance from the U.S.

We then go back to the Iranian Green revolution of 2009-2010 when moderate Muslim students, business owners, and others rose up against the tyrannical Iranian Mullah’s, and the government they have imposed in Iran. Out of all the moderate Muslim uprisings in around the world that took place after Obama took the presidency, the Muslims who rose up in Iran were truly moderates who wanted to overthrow the radical Muslims in power.

What did Obama do to encourage or help those moderate Muslims during the Green Movement in Iran? Not a thing, not a word of encouragement, not humanitarian aid, no condemnation of the radical mullah’s and their government henchman, nothing. This seemed strange, the whole world was clamoring for him to speak out, give some encouragement, something, anything!

When young people in Egypt started protesting and calling for change in 2011, Obama encouraged them a little, after refusing to for weeks or months. It wasn’t until the Muslim Brotherhood members took over the government in Egypt, that Obama became really supportive of the Egyptian movement. Then when the people rose up against the Muslim Brotherhood led government, Obama once again did little to encourage the protesters or take up their cause, angering many of the Egyptian protesters. This seems strange since the Muslim Brotherhood is known for its ties to terrorism, and other Islamic Jihadi organizations. Then however, you look at Obama and his administrations ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, its associates and members and you begin to understand.

The reason news journalists and political pundits on places like Fox news, keep asking the seemingly asinine questions, like why does Obama refuse to refer to mass beheadings, and other atrocities as Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, etc., it is because Obama does very little to stop Radical Islam. In fact Obama does little to encourage the truly moderate Muslims, take Syria for example, or any of the other moderate Muslim movements. He does little or nothing to encourage, aid, or assist the moderates, and does little or nothing to stop the radical extremist Muslims. Look at Yemen, which just a few weeks or months ago Obama was holding up as a beacon of his successful foreign policy.

Speaking of Syria, we have heard numerous politicians and political pundits from the GOP and the democrats since the beginning of the “moderate” Muslim uprising in Syria: We’ve heard them say, the reason Obama, his administration and Congress weren’t doing anything to support the moderate rebels is because, they are having such a hard time identifying them. Why is it so hard to identify the “moderates”? If the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate, why is it so hard to identify them? When Ali Khamenei the “Supreme Leader of Iran” shouts “death to America” this week, the Obama administration said Khamenei is saying it for “Domestic Consumption”. So what the Obama administration are really saying is the majority of Iranians are militant Islamic Muslims bent on Jihad and the leaders of Iran are really moderates who say these radical things to appeal to the vast majority of Muslims in Iran.

Let’s get back to the comments Barrack Hussein Obama made at the recent prayer breakfast, where he referred to the crusades in medieval times. You’ll notice Leftist democrats and Muslim terrorists use the same tactics, techniques, or same talking points when referring to events, past or present.

Obama’s sympathy is always with the enemies of America, especially the radical Muslim element. Leftist democrats also refuse to call out radical Muslims or refer to them as Islamic, and refuse to condemn Muslims, for what they do in reference to Sharia Law. This is because, leftist liberal progressive democrats serve the same master as the radical Muslims, both groups believe in forcing their beliefs, ideas, views, and ways on others who disagree with them, oppose them, or are part of the general population just trying to live their lives. Both groups also believe in punishing and / or destroying those same people, when those people say, do, or are in noncompliance with the beliefs, rules, etc., the leftist democrats or radical Muslims espouse.

Look at Obamacare that was “forced down the throats of the American people”. Look at what the media, especially the main stream leftist media did to Sarah Palin or any other number of conservative or christian republicans. Look at what they’ve tried to do to Ted Cruz, I don’t care who you are, you have to admit Cruz and Palin are the only ones who have shown they would actually change the way Washington DC works. Not change as Obama did, i.e. more of the same, only on steroids, but real change to the bureaucracy, change that brings it in subjection to the American people, instead of the American people being subjected to the dictates of faceless non-elected bureaucrats.

This leads us back to the news journalists, pundits, etc., mainly on the right or centrists when it comes to politics. The reason people like O’Reilly and others twist themselves in knots trying to understand why Obama does what he does, and says what he says, when it comes to radical Islam; It is because: They can’t bring themselves to believe, the American people actually elected a president who hates America, what it stands for, the principles of its founding, you name it. Let’s not forget Obama and his administrations attacks on conservatives and war against traditional Christian American values and the Bible. You know those Americans Obama referred to among his rich friends as “clinging to their guns and religion”. Funny he has never said that about the fundamental Islamic Muslim terrorists.

Why do you think Obama has done more to stir up racial, class strife, and other grievances  between various groups of Americans than he has done to unite the people and the country? He uses stronger words, and shows greater animation when talking against conservatives, than he ever does when speaking about the Islamic Muslim terrorists! If the terrorists from al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, (or violent extremists as Obama likes to say) If, as Obama says, the Arabic terrorists are not Muslim, and they do not represent the “religion” of  Islam; Why are the U.S. State department, Pentagon / Defense department, and the Obama administration giving the terrorists / enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba copies of the Koran, Islamic Muslim prayer rugs, prayer beads, and giving them Islamic meals, etc?

When I take all of this into consideration, I can only conclude Obama hates America, and as he said he would in his book, he stands with the Muslims, he just failed to add radical, when he spoke of the Muslims he would stand with. All part of that great fundamental change he referred to…

Obama’s strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism is for America to lose, why else would he go to congress to get an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that ties not only the hands of the military, but also the hands of the next president, who would have to get a new authorization 3 years after the American people have become even more war weary in the first year of his / her administration?

Some other things I have noted: Rudy said “Obama doesn’t love America” the media throws a fit because they believe this is wrong or it is somehow saying Obama is unpatriotic. Yet Obama himself called his predecessor “unpatriotic” the media and the democrat party compared him to Hitler, wrote a book about killing him, and said numerous other outrageous things about him personally. Obama himself has numerous times said all Americans who don’t want to be taxed more are unpatriotic. The democrat party have said numerous completely outrageous things about Tea Party participants, conservative or christian republicans, yet you never hear the media throw a fit about it.

You have democrats throw a fit when a republican or conservative call Obama a Muslim or even question that he considering his numerous actions against traditional christians, conservatives, etc. and his obvious sympathy for Muslims. Why do they get outraged when people call Obama a Muslim when they are constantly telling us Muslims are good peace loving people. Then you had Obama say “America is no longer a Christian Nation” yet along with the outrage shown when he is called a Muslim, Obama and the media turn themselves in knots trying to convince the American people he is a christian.

Then we can all remember the Democrat National Convention where they voted 3 times whether “God” was going to be part of their party platform, the majority of convention goers voted “No” and finally the 3rd time amid the majority of the members there hissing and booing, the convention managers declared they had “voted” to add “God” to their party platform. Of course this was during election season and they were trying to convince Americans they believed in “God” and that Obama is a christian.

Why doesn’t the democrat party “own it” why do they not stand by what’s in their hearts. Why will they not admit they hate or at the very least greatly dislike the way America was founded, the principles the USA was founded on, and the obvious fact we were, are, and hopefully will always be a nation where the majority of the people are guided by christian principles. Why doesn’t the democrat party finally just own how they really think and feel? They have been accusing republicans and conservatives of being cowards, why don’t the democrats just own who they are? Cowards by any chance?

Obama is an embarrassment to our historic allies and a malleable dunce to our historic enemies!

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

PTSD: The Final Battle by Helen Love

USMC

This is a freelance article by Helen Love

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Final Battle For Many Brave Troops

Many troops are surviving difficult and unspeakable traumas on the battlefield, only to return home and face another battle, this time against an enemy that has no face. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is generally brought on as a result of witnessing terrifying or life threatening events, and no situations fits this scenario more than being in a war zone. Recent statistics suggest that as many as four out of five veterans of the Vietnam War suffered with post-traumatic stress disorder at some point in their lifetimes after they had returned home and reintegrated into normal society after the war. From the more modern wars that are fresher in the public’s collective consciousness, it has been found that at least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan was veterans have suffered from or are suffering from either PTSD, depression or both. However many senior members of the military expect that this figure will rise significantly, and that the mental effects of operating within the theater of war on our brave troops is much more dramatic than was originally expected.

Understanding Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Although the symptoms and the severity of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder differ from person to person, some of the key characteristics of the condition include experiencing severe anxiety, suffering from flash backs of the traumatic event and having nightmares or uncontrollable thoughts. It is perfectly normal to experience any or all of these symptoms after you have witnessed a traumatic event, but if the symptoms last for more than a couple of weeks, then it’s likely that you are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and may well need help and support to overcome the condition. Your doctor is likely to propose a treatment plan that combines medication to lessen and control your symptoms in conjunction with therapy to help you process and overcome the traumatic events that have caused your PTSD.

Notable Historic Cases of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

It’s important to remember that suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is nothing to be ashamed of. Notable historic military leaders, such as Alexander the Great are thought to have suffered from the illness. After having spent most of his life engaged in various battles, Alexander the Great ended his life as an alcoholic who was highly suspicious of everybody around him and easily alarmed. At the end of his career he his pathological suspicion meant that he had all of the lieutenants that had served immediately under him killed. Although the term didn’t exist at the time, in modern terms it is clear that his years on the battle field had left Alexander the Great with severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

In a comparatively more recent example of warfare induced Post Traumatic stress disorder, research has also revealed that hero and founder of modern nursing Florence Nightingale (sometimes called ‘The Lady of the Lamp’) also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder on her return from the Crimean War. Conditions for the nurse were unimaginably hard: she was working for 20 hours every day, and dealt with the most troublesome and difficult patients herself, dealing with conditions such as frostbite, gangrene and dysentery on a daily basis. Once the war was over and Florence returned home, her personality was completely changed. She displayed symptoms of anorexia, chronic fatigue, insomnia, irritability and then took to her bed for thirty years, simply not being able to find a reason to get up. Again, although the condition wasn’t  discovered and categorized at the time, all of this symptoms are key indicators of post-traumatic stress disorder and several scholars have confirmed it is clear that Florence Nightingale also suffered from the condition.

The point is that no one is immune from the risks of developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: the illness is not discriminatory, and it affects people from all lifestyles and backgrounds. There is no shame in struggling with PTSD, particularly if you have returned from serving your country in the theater of war. What is important is that you recognize the signs of condition, and seek help as soon as possible, so that you can get your life back on track and achieve the happiness you deserve.

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

History of the “Christian” Crusades

Origin of the word Assassins.

Origin of the word Assassins. [Click to enlarge]

Not withstanding the historic problems we have had in the United States of America with Muslim “extremists” attacking, raping, killing, and enslaving our citizens. There is a long history of the same in Europe, Asia, Africa, Russia, the Baltics, etc. going back to the time of Mohammed, who himself was the 1st Muslim Islamic terrorist, murderer, killer and pedophile.  I offer here a short timeline of events that led up to the so-called Christian Crusades, that began when Muslims would not stop their continuous aggression towards Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. The spread and growth of Islam has always been accompanied by the sword, killing, raping, beheading, torture, abuse, etc. Muslims have always been extremists since their inception.

History of the “Christian” Crusades

635 A.D. Three years after Mohammed’s death, Muslim forces captured Damascus where St. Paul was going when he had his dramatic vision and conversion.[Book of Acts 16:9] 460 years before 1st Crusade.

636 A.D. Muslim forces take al-Basra, southern Iraq, largely Christian at the time. Killing, raping, beheading, enslaving and forcing conversions to Islam. 459 years before the 1st ‪#‎Crusades‬

637 A.D. Muslim forces take Antioch near the modern city of Antakya, Turkey where the disciples of Jesus were first called “Christians”. 458 years before the 1st Crusades.

638 A.D. Muslim forces take Jerusalem, the Holy City of both Christianity and Judaism. Killing, raping, beheading, crucifying, & enslaving Jews and Christians. 457 years before the 1st Crusades.

639 A.D. Muslim forces invade Egypt, at the time a largely Christian country, again committing the same atrocities and abuses Muslim “extremists” do in the present day. 456 years before the 1st Crusades.

642 A.D. Muslim forces take Alexandria 2nd largest city in Egypt destroying its famous Great Library in process. 450 yrs before Crusades

650 A.D. Muslim forces take Cappadocia (in modern day Turkey). Killing enslaving Christians & forcing conversions 445 years before Crusades

652 A.D. Muslim forces launch attacks against Sicily, they eventually conquer it in 827 A.D. 443 years before Crusades

668 A.D. Muslim forces launch the first siege of Christian Constantinople (Byzantium), many more were to follow 427 yrs before Crusades

711 A.D. Muslim forces begin the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain) 384 years before the Crusades

715 A.D. Spain completely conquered by Muslim forces (an occupation that would last for more than 700 years) 380 yrs before Crusades

715 A.D. Muslim forces begin to invade Christian France 380 years before the Crusades

732 A.D. Muslim forces finally stopped at Tours, Northern France, by Charles The Hammer Martel, 363 yrs before Crusades

792 A.D. Muslim forces launch a jihad led by Hisham Spain’s Muslim ruler against France Christians killed, raped & enslaved 303 yrs before Crusades.

838-972 A.D. Muslim forces take Frejus near Cannes, use it as a base to raid France & Northern Italy. 257 yrs before Crusades

838-972 A.D. Christian pilgrims to Rome are frequently robbed, murdered and kidnapped by Muslim slave traders operating in the Alps, 257 yrs before Crusades

846 A.D. After nearly two centuries of increasing raids on south Italy Muslim forces sack Rome desecrating the tombs of St. Peter & St. Paul, destroy many churches and carrying off hundreds of slaves. 249 years before the 1st Crusades.

848 A.D. 3rd Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees, invades France, once again destroying towns, cities, killing & enslaving 247 years before Crusades.

848 A.D. 3rd Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees, invades France, once again destroying towns, cities, killing & enslaving 247 yrs before Crusades

870 A.D. Muslim forces capture the island of Malta, Killing, enslaving & torturing Christians. 225 years before 1st Crusades

873 A.D. Muslim forces launch massive slave raids in Calabria Italy, leaving it devastated & depopulated; 222 yrs before 1st Crusades

878 A.D. Muslim forces destroy city of Syracuse, Sicily’s historic city killing most inhabitants & enslaving survivors 217 yrs before Crusades

935 A.D Muslim forces capture the city of Genoa, Northern Italy, Killing, enslaving & torturing the inhabitants 160 years before Crusades

976 A.D Fatimid Caliph of Egypt sends repeated military expeditions to Southern Italy for slaves and booty 119 years before 1st Crusades

1004-14 A.D. 6th Fatimid Caliph destroys 30,000 Christian churches seizing their lands & possessions 90 years before 1st Crusades

1003-09 A.D. Muslim raiders increase attacks on the Italian coast including Pisa & Rome from their base Sardinia 90 years before Crusades

1009 A.D. Muslim Caliph Mad Hakim destroys Church of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem orders Christians to wear heavy wooden crosses, forces Jews to wear heavy wooden calves around their necks. 86 years before Crusades

1010 A.D. Mad Muslim Caliph Hakim orders Christians and Jews to accept Islam (convert) or leave his dominions. Muslim forces capture the city of Cosenza, in Southern Italy Killing, beheading, raping & enslaving inhabitants. 85 years before 1st Crusades

1056 A.D. Three hundred Christians are expelled from Jerusalem and European Christian pilgrims are denied access to the (rebuilt) Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 39 years before the 1st Crusades.

1071 A.D. Muslim forces crush the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert, taking the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes, prisoner. 24 years before the 1st Crusades.

1076 A.D Muslim forces (Seljuk Turks) conquer Syria a Christian country at that time Killing, crucifying, raping & enslaving. 19 years before Crusades

1077 A.D Muslim Seljuk Turks take Jerusalem, slaughtering over 3000 Christians & Jews. 18 years before 1st Crusades

1077 A.D. Muslim Seljuks attack Christian pilgrims killing enslaving 1000’s & denying Holy Land access to European Christians 18 yrs before Crusades.

1st Crusade 1095 A.D. Christian Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus sends a letter to Pope Urban II asking for help to stop Muslim attacks. the Council of Clermont is formed, Pope Urban II calls for European Christians to defend Constantinople and reopen access to the Holy land, especially Jerusalem.

Lest you think the followers of Mohammed have changed since the inception of the Islamic “religion” here’s a  little note from the past.

1611 revolt Dionysius the PhilosopherDionysius the Philosopher led an eventually unsuccessful revolt against the Ottomans, seeking to establish a power base at Ioannina. Dionysius was flayed alive, and his skin, stuffed with straw, was sent as a present to the sultan at Constantinople. The other principal conspirators were said to be punished in various ways, some were burnt alive, others impaled, and yet others sawn asunder.

Ancient Historian John Foxe in his “A History of the most distinguished martyrs: in various ages and countries” gives us the following accounts; It is amazing when reading Foxe’s accounts, after 13 1/2 centuries the Muslims have done little to change their tactics, both “moderate” and extremists.

PERSECUTIONS IN TURKEY. ACCOUNT OF MAHOMET.

Mahomet [i.e. Mohammed] was born at Mecca, in Arabia, A. D. 571. His parents were poor, and his education mean; but by the force of his genius, and an uncommon subtlety, he raised himself to be the founder of a widely spread religion, and the sovereign of kingdoms. His Alcoran [i.e. Quran / Koran or writings of Mohammed] is a jumble of paganism, judaism, and Christianity. In composing it, he is said to have been assisted by a Jew and a Roman Catholic priest. It is adapted entirely to the sensual appetites and passions; and the chief promises held out by it to its believers of the joys of paradise are women and wine. Mahomet established his doctrine by the power of the sword. “The sword,” says he, ” is the key of heaven and of hell. Whoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven him: his wounds shall be resplendent as vermillion, and odoriferous as musk: the loss of his limbs shall be supplied with the wings of angels.” He allowed that Christ was a great prophet and a holy man; that he was born of a virgin, received up into glory, and shall come again to destroy Antichrist.

He, therefore, in his early career, affected to respect the Christians. But no sooner was his power established, than he displayed himself in his true colours, as their determined and sanguinary enemy. This he proved by his persecutions of them in his life-time, and by commanding those persecutions to be continued by his deluded followers, in his Alcoran, particularly in that part entitled, ” The Chapter of the Sword.” From him the Turks received their religion, which they still maintain. Mahomet and his descendants, in the space of thirty years, subdued Arabia, Palestine, Phoenicia,Syria, Egypt, and Persia. They soon, however, broke into divisions and wars amongst themselves. But the princes of the Saracens, assuming the title of sultan, continued their rule over Syria, Egypt, and Africa, for the space of about 400 years, when the Saracen king of Persia, commencing war against the Saracen sultan of Babylon, the latter brought to his aid the Turks. These Turks, feeling their own strength, in time turned their arms against their masters, and by the valour of Othman, from whom the family who now fill the Turkish throne are descended, they soon subdued them, and established their empire.

Constantinople, after having been for many ages an imperial Christian city, was invested, in 1453, by the Turks, under Mahomet the Second, whose army consisted of 300,000 men, and, after a siege of six weeks, it fell into the hands of the infidels, and the Turks have, to this day, retained possession of it. They no sooner found themselves masters of it, than they began to exercise On the inhabitants the most unremitting barbarities, destroying them by every method of ingenious cruelty. Some they roasted alive on spits, others they starved, some they flayed alive, and left them in that horrid manner to perish; many were sawn asunder, and others torn to pieces by horses. Three days and nights was the city given to spoil, in which time the soldiers were licensed to commit every enormity. The body of the emperor being found among the slain, Mahomet commanded his head to be stuck on a- spear, and carried round the town for the mockery of the soldiers.

ATTACK ON RHODES.

About the year 1521, Solyman the First took Belgrade from the Christians. Two years after, he, with a fleet of 450 ships, and an army of 300,000 men, attacked Rhodes, then defended by the knights of Jerusalem. These heroes resisted the infidels till all their fortifications were levelled with the ground, their provisions exhausted, and their ammunition spent; when, finding no succours from the Christian princes, they surrendered, the siege having lasted about six months, in which the Turks suffered prodigiously, no less than 30,000 of them having died by the bloody flux. After this, Solyman retook Buda from the Christians, and treated those who were found there with great cruelty. Some had their eyes put out, others their hands, noses, and ears cut off. Pregnant women were ripped open, and their fruit cast into the flames, while many children were buried up to their necks in the earth, and left to perish.

PERSECUTIONS IN THE STATES OF BARBARA. [i.e. Barbary States]

In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers. The conduct of the Algerines towards them is marked with perfidy and cruelty. By paying a most exorbitant fine, some Christians are allowed the title of Free Christians; these are permitted to dress in the fashion of their respective countries, but the Christian slaves are obliged to wear a coarse grey suit, and a seaman’s cap.

The following are the various punishments exercised towards them: 1. If they join any of the natives in open rebellion, they are strangled with a bow-string, or hanged on an iron hook. 2. If they speak against Mahomet, they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. 3. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive, or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire. 4. If they kill a Turk they are burnt. 5. If they attempt to escape, and are retaken, they suffer death in the following manner: they are hung naked on a high gallows by two hooks, the one fastened quite through the palm of one hand, and the other through the sole of the opposite foot, where they are left till death relieves them. Other punishments for crimes committed by the Christians are left to the discretion of the judges, who usually decree the most barbarous tortures.

At Tunis, if a Christian is caught in attempting to escape, his limbs are all broken; and if he slay his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

Fez and Morocco conjointly form an empire, and are the most considerable of the Barbary states. The Christian slaves are treated with the greatest rigour: the rich have exorbitant*ransoms fixed upon them; the poor are hard worked and half starved, and sometimes, by the emperor, or their brutal masters, they are murdered.

MASSACRES BY THE SARACENS.

Forty-two persons of Armorian, in Upper Phrygia, were martyred in the year 845, by the Saracens, the circumstances of which are thus related:

In the reign of Theophilus, the Saracens ravaged many parts of the eastern empire, gained considerable advantages over the Christians, and at length laid siege to the city of Armorian. The garrison bravely defended the place for a considerable time, and would have obliged their enemies to raise the siege, but the place was betrayed by a renegado. Many were put to the sword; and two general officers, with some persons of distinction, were carried prisoners to Bagdat, where they were loaded with chains, and thrown into a dungeon. They continued in prison for some time without seeing any persons but their gaolers, having scarcely food enough for their subsistence. At length they were informed, that nothing could preserve their lives but renouncing their religion and embracing Mahometanism. To induce them to comply, the caliph pretended zeal for their welfare; and declared, that he looked uponi converts in a more glorious light than conquests. Agreeably to these maxims, he sent some of the most artful of the Mahometans, witTi money and clothes, and the promise of other advantages which they might secure to themselves by an abjuration of Christianity; which, according to the casuistry of Ihose infidels, might be made without quitting their faith; but the martyrs rejected the proposal with horror and contempt. After this they were attacked with that fallacious and delusive argument which the Mahometans still use in favour of themselves, and were desired to judge of the merits of the cause by the success of those that were engaged in it, and choose that religion which they saw flourished most, and was best rewarded with the good things of this life, which they called the blessings of heaven. Yet the noble prisoners were proof against all these temptations; and argued strenuously against the authority of the false prophet. This incensed the Mahometans, and drew greater hardships upon the Christians during their confinement, which lasted seven years. Boidizius, the renegado who had betrayed Armorian, then brought them the welcome news that their sufferings would conclude in martyrdom the next day: when taken from their dungeon, they were again solicited to embrace the tenets of Mahomet; but neither throats nor promises could induce them to espouse the doctrines of an impostor. Perceiving that their faith could not by any means be shaken, the caliph ordered them to be executed. Theodore, one of the number, had formerly received priest’s orders, and officiated as a clergyman; but afterwards quitting the church, he had followed a military life, and raised himself by the sword to some considerable posts, which he enjoyed at the time he was taken prisoner. The officer who attended the execution. being apprized of these circumstances, said to Theodore, e You might, indeed, pretend to be ranked amongst the Christians, while you served in their church as a priest; but the profession you have taken up, which engages you in bloodshed, is so contrary to your former employment, that you should not now think of passing upon us for one of that religion. When you quitted the altar for the camp, you renounced Jesus Christ. Why then will you dissemble any longer? Would you not act more conformably to your own principles, and make your conduct all of a piece, if you came to a resolution of saving your life by owning our great prophet?”

Theodore, covered with religious confusion at this reproach, but still unshaken in his faith, made the following answer: “It is true,” said he, “I did in some measure abandon my God when I engaged in the army, and scarce deserve the name of a Christian. But the Almighty has given me the grace to see myself in a true light, and made me sensible of my fault; and I hope he will be pleased to accept my life as the only sacrifice I can now offer to expiate my guilt.” This pious answer confounded the officer, who only replied, that he should presently have an opportunity of giving that proof of his fidelity to his master. Upon which. Theodore and the rest, forty-two in number, were beheaded.

MARTYRDOM OF TWO LADIES.

Two ladies of distinction, Mary and Flora, suffered martyrdom at the same time. Flora was the daughter of an eminent Mahometan, at Seville; from whence he removed to Corduba, where the Saracen king resided, and kept his court. Her father dying when she was young, Flora was left to the care of her mother, who, being a Christian, brought her up in the true faith, and inspired her with sentiments of virtue and religion. Her brother being a professed enemy to Christianity, and of a barbarous and savage temper, Flora was for some time obliged to use great caution in the practice of such virtues as must have exposed her to a persecution. She was too zealous to bear this restraint long; for which reason she left Corduba, in company with her sister. Her departure soon alarmed her brother, who guessed her motives, and, in revenge, informed against several Christians of Corduba; for as he did not know whither his sister was gone, he determined to wreak his vengeance on such Christians as were present. When Flora was informed of these proceedings, she considered herself as the cause of what the Christians had suffered at Corduba, and having an interior conviction that God called her to fight for her faith, she returned to-that city, and proceeded to the persecutors, among whom she found her brother. “If,” said she, “I am the object of your inquiry, if the servants of God are tormented on my account, I now freely offer myself to your disposal. I declare, that I believe in Jesus Christ, glory in his cross, and profess the doctrine which he taught.” None of the company seemed so much enraged at this declaration as her brother, who after some threats, struck her; but afterwards endeavoured to gain her by expressions of pretended kindness.

Finding her insensible to all he could say, he insinuated, that Flora had been educated in the religion of Mahomet, but had renounced it at the suggestion of some Christians, who inspired her with the utmost contempt for the great prophet. When she was called on to answer to the charge, she declared she had never owned Mahomet, but sucked the Christian religion in with her milk, and was entirely devoted to the Redeemer of mankind. The magistrate, finding her resolute, delivered her to her brother, and gave him orders to use his utmost endeavours to make her a Mahometan. She, however, soon found an opportunity of escaping over a wall in the night, and of secreting herself in the house of a Christian. She then withdrew to Tucci, a village of Andalusia, where she met with her sister, and they never separated again till her martyrdom.

Mary, who was martyred at the same time, was the daughter of a Christian tradesman at Estremadura, who afterwards removed to a town near Corduba. When the persecution began under Abderrama, king of the Saracens, in Spain, Mary’s brother was one who fell a victim to the rage of the infidels on that occasion. Mary, hearing of his martyrdom, and filled with confusion at being left behind by one so much younger than herself, went to Corduba, where, going into a church, she found Flora? who had left her retreat on the same motive. On conversing together, and finding they acted upon the same heroic principles, and proposed the same glorious end of their labours, they agreed to go together, and declare their faith before the judge. Accordingly they proceeded to the magistrate, when Flora boldly told him, she looked on Mahomet as no better than a false prophet, an adulterer, and magician. Mary also told the magistrate, that she professed the same faith, and entertained the same sentiments as Flora, and that she was sister to Walabonzus, who had already suffered for being a Christian. This behaviour so much enraged the magistrate, that he ordered them to be committed to prison for some time, and then to be beheaded: which sentence was executed on the 4th of November, A. D. 850.

Sources; Various writings on history.

Founder of Christianity vs Founder of Islam

John Quincy Adams quotes regarding the Gospels of Christ

John Quincy Adams regarding the promises of the Christian gospel [Click to enlarge]

1 John iv. 1-3: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

The spirits and their utterances are to be tried by their attitude to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Anointed and sent of the Father, the Saviour of the whole world, in whom God is well pleased.

John Quincy Adams quotes in regards to reading the Holy Bible

John Quincy Adams in regards to reading the Holy Bible [Click to enlarge]

Christian Spectator Vol 1 excerpt; I Am not a Mohammedan i.e. Muslim, Because; Author unknown

I Am not a Mohammedan,—1. Because I cannot allow to the prophet of Arabia the character which he assumed, and which his followers ascribe to him :—in oilier words. I cannot admit that Mohammed was the most illustrious of all the messengers sent from heaven to our world. I should thus exalt him above all the prophets and apostles; above the Son of God himself. This I should also do, not only without reason, but in opposition to most weighty evidence.

The appearance of Mohammed, certainly his appearance in the character which he assumed, is no where foretold in the sacred scriptures, which even his followers acknowledge to be diviue. This is by no means true, with regard to the Lord Jesus Christ. Long before his incarnation, his appearance, his character, the circumstances of his life and of his death, had been minutely detailed by prophecy. If the pretensions of Mohammed were well founded, why is not the same true, at least in a degree, with respect to him ?—why do the sacred pages contain so many predictions concerning him, who was to be born at Bethlehem, while nothing is said of him, who was to be born at Mecca? This is altogether unaccountable on the supposition, that the latter of these, surpasses the former in the dignity and importance of his character. I will not assert that no allusion is had to Mohammed in the prophetic parts of scripture; but if he is mentioned at all, it evidently is under the appellation of the false prophet.

Mohammed performed no supernatural operations, foretold no future events. The world is entirely destitute of evidence, that he ever did the least thing beyond the natural powers of man. For a long season, he made no pretensions of this kind. At length, to silence the demands of his opposers, and allay the apprehensions of his friends, he professed to have effected certain marvelous absurdities by supernatural assistance. But these things, beside being strangely inconsistent and self contradictory, want the proofs essential to establish a miracle. They were not performed in the face of day, nor under the eye of spectators,—consequently were never, like the miracles recorded in scripture, exposed to examination by the senses. These wonderful works, gained no general credit, even among those who lived at the time when tbey were said to be wrought; the story of them, was believed only by a few among the ignorant multitude; little dependence was placed on them by the prophet or his followers. If Mobammed was the most distinguished of all the messengers seut from God to men, how happened he to be destitute of this most important test of his divine mission?

I remark again, that the personal character of Mohammed, affords convincing evidence, that his high pretensions were unfounded. The prophets and apostles, who have spoken to men in the name of God, have uniformly been men of holy lives. For the Most High, to employ persons of any other description in this manner, would be inconsistent with all our ideas of his character. How then can we suppose that a man given up to debauchery, a man contemptible for the profligacy of his life, should be selected by Jehovah, as his most distinguished ambassador to our world? Such a man was Mohammed. This fact is abundantly supported by history, and is alone sufficient to destroy all belief that he was a true prophet; it clearly stamps him as an impostor. Mohammed’s retiring from public view for a season, and pretending in his seclusion to commence a reformation, and to receive certain secret communications from the invisible world, instead of diminishing, greatly increases our distrust in his assumed character. Such a course was admirably suited to promote the corrupt designs of a wicked and artful impostor.

I am not a Mohammedan—2. Because I cannot allow to the Koran, that respect, which belongs to the word of God. The difference between these books is vastly too great to admit the supposition, that both came from the same author. Their different style shews at once, that they are derived from different sources. The contrast between the Bible of Christians, and that of Mohammedans in this respect, is eloquently given by Mr. Gibbon, a man certainly not void of taste, nor prejudiced in favor of the sacred oracles. Of the Koran he says—”The harmony and copiousness of style, will not, in a version, reach the European infidel; he will peruse, with impatience, the endless incoherent rhapsody of fable, precept and declamation, which seldom excites a sentiment or idea, which sometimes crawls in the dust, and is sometimes lost in the clouds. The divine attributes exalt the fancy of an Arabian missionary; but his loftiest strains must yield to the sublime simplicity of the book of Job, composed in a remote age, in the same country, and in the same language.”

With regard to the most important religious doctrines, the Koran is still more diverse from holy writ. In the sacred scriptures we are clearly taught the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and are assured that it is only by his obedience unto death, that any of our race can be pardoned and received into favor with God. In the Koran, Christ is declared to be only a man like ourselves. So far, is he said to be, from dying on account of human guilt, that even the fact, that he died at all, is denied. According to this book, the sufferings of the Saviour were only in appearance, and men, instead of needing a vicarious atonement for their sins, may, by a trifling restraint from open vice, become interested in the divine favor, and entitled to the happiness of heaven. Nor is the heaven promised, less different from the heaven of the scriptures, than the means of obtaining h. While the Christian expects a heaven, where he will be free from sin, where he will be entirely divested of every sensual appetite, and be happy only in the enjoyment of God, the Mussulman is taught to look for a paradise, great part of whose happiness will consist in carnal indulgence. Thus diverse, thus directly opposite, are the doctrines of the word of God, and those of the Koran of Mohammed.

Nor do these volumes bear a nearer resemblance, when we contemplate the morality which they inculcate. The former enjoins upon men, the restraint and the correction of their disorderly passions and propensities; requires them to be holy as their Father who is in heaven is holy; lays the foundation of morality in the heart, and inculcates love and benevolence towards all mankind. Wherever the precepts of the gospel have been obeyed, friendship and peace have prevailed, and the human character has been refined and exalted. Precisely the reverse of this, is true of the Koran. It is, in every respect, such as might be expected from its author. It requires no mortification of corrupt affections, no subduing of wicked passions, no guarding of the heart from sin. On the other hand, it encourages the indulgence of envy, pride, ambition, and sensual desire. Instead of breathing peace on earth and good will to men, it speaks misery and extermination; it literally declares war upon the human race.— Hence, in a moral view, the Koran has ever carried with it pestilence and death. Wherever its principles have been reduced to practice, man has been rendered the foe of man, and has sought the mischief and the ruin’ of his fellow;—in a word, the doctrines of this book, are, in a high degree, adapted to debauch and to brutalize the human character. Other points of difference between the sacred scriptures and the Koran, might be mentioned; bat enough has been said to shew, that if one of these books is what it purports to be, the other must be a forgery. Hence, before I can be a Mohammedan, I must regard the word of God as a fable; but then my Mohammedan creed would be imperfect, since Mussulmans [Muslims] profess to acknowledge the divinity of the holy scriptures.

As a further objection to Mohammedanism, should be mentioned the manner, in which this religion was originally propagated in the world. At first, it was established by fraud and deception, afterwards by fire and sword. It was never, like the religion of Christ, addressed to the understanding and the conscience of men, and spread in opposition to the corruptions of the human heart, and the power of civil authority. Islamism, however, was never proposed for investigation; it lays its strong hold in the depravity of man; has ever been supported by the arm of the magistrate, and has erected its bloody trophies over the miseries and desolations of the world.

Thus, whether I consider the personal character of Mohammed, or the want of prophecy and of miracles in his support; when I reflect on the style, in which his instructions are delivered; on the doctrines which he taught; the morality which he inculcated, or the manner, in which his religion was spread,—when I contemplate these things together or apart, I find abundant reason, why I cannot lay my hand on the Koran and cry,— “Ala, there is but one God, and Mohammed is his prophet.”

John Quincy Adams quotes regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ

John Quincy Adams regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ [Click to enlarge]

Extract from A Missionary’s Letter to a Muslim friend

Attitude of the Quran to Christ.

Testing the Quran thus, it is found to be characterized by a certain veiled hostility and studied depreciation of him. While it admits his perfect sinlessness and prophetic character, it bitterly denies his divinity, and all implied in his being the Son of God. I will quote a passage at random, a sample of countless others.

Sura XLIIL, Surat al Zukhraf, Ornaments of Gold, v. 59: “Jesus is no other than a servant, whom we favored with the gift of prophecy; and we appointed him for an example unto the children of Israel.” V. 63: “And when Jesus came with evident miracles, he said, Now I am come unto you with wisdom, and to explain unto you part of those things concerning which ye disagree.”

It is not strange that, while Muslims say much of their love and honor for the Lord Jesus, he is to the Shiahs only one of one hundred and twenty-four thousand prophets, all considered sinless, Adam and Noah being among the number. The Sunnis recognize a hundred and forty-four thousand. Neither is it wonderful that so few of them take the trouble to familiarize themselves with the life and teachings of one who, as they suppose, was only a prophet for the Jews.

In the light of the great discrepancies and flat contradictions existing between the Bible and the Quran, I beg you to examine with the greatest care the foundations of Islam, remembering that your salvation depends upon arriving at the truth. Are you prepared to venture all on the word of one man, or even one angel, when that word plainly supersedes and abrogates the well-established revelations which preceded it? The former systems of religion are like a strong castle founded on a rock, and standing “four square to every wind that blows”; but Islam, resting on the authority of one witness, rather resembles a pyramid poised on its apex.

Jefferson quote concerning the advantages of serving Jesus

Thomas Jefferson concerning the advantages of Jesus [Click to enlarge]

Words of Jesus

Let us look at the words of Jesus, for to them he appealed to authenticate his divine character and mission. Leaving out those spoken by him, as we believe, through the prophets before his birth, and the apostles after his ascension, we will confine our attention to the utterances of his brief ministry of three and a half years.

The wisdom of the whole world has produced nothing like them; they unlock the mysteries of time and eternity, bring ” life and immortality to light,” and satisfy alike the loftiest demands of the intellect and the deepest cravings of the heart. How inimitable his parables! how perfect his precepts, wonderful in condensation and scope! What stores of comfort and instruction in every word, whether uttered in formal teaching or in the familiar intercourse of daily life!

Teachings of the Quran.

But when we turn to the Quran we are reminded of the saying, “What is true is not new, and what is new is not true.” The great doctrines of the unity and holiness of the Creator, his wisdom, justice, and mercy, sin and judgment, the resurrection of righteous and wicked men, heaven and hell, had long before been so fully set forth in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures that no additional revelation was needed. Had the knowledge of sacred books been diffused as it should have been, the Arabs could never have made the mistake of supposing these cardinal truths to be revealed for the first time. We must confess this to have been the fault of the Christian Church, which, having left the simplicity of the faith for image and relic worship, and received for doctrines the vain traditions of men, had forgotten to preach a pure Gospel, and neglected the last command of her Lord to teach all nations his words and works. She paid the penalty of disobedience in being powerless to prevent the rise of the new persecuting religion which was destined to prove her mortal enemy.

“What was true was not new.” Nothing, absolutely nothing, is added by the Prophet in the way of information or enforcement, while many of the old truths are belittled, misstated, and contradicted.

“What was new was not true”: the change of base from Isaac to Ishmael, from the Jew to the Arab, from Jerusalem to Mecca, from Jesus Christ to Muhammad, from salvation by grace to salvation by works, cannot be accepted. The new views of God, the new terms of salvation, the new regime of force, the mechanical character of the new obedience, are all inferior to the light, life, and liberty of Christianity. How, then, can we believe they emanate from the same source? He who has known the liberty of a son in the Father’s house cannot but hesitate when called to assume the station of a slave bowing beneath the inscrutable will of a far-off and unapproachable Master.

George Washington quote concerning the guidance of God.

George Washington quote concerning the guidance of God in his life [Click to enlarge]

Prophetic Gifts and Saving Grace.

We have already adverted to the gifts of prophecy and miracle abounding in the Lord Jesus, but in Muhammad conspicuous by their absence; but we must not lay undue stress on these as primary credentials of a true prophet.

The Old Testament, in the example of Balaam, and the New in that of Caiaphas, show us that, anomalous as it may appear to us, God can use wicked men to utter true prophecies. Of miracles, we see no reason to doubt that they were wrought by Judas as well as his fellow-apostles when Christ sent them out “with power and authority over the devils, and to cure disease.”

Matthew vii. 21-23, our Saviour says: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Matthew xxiv. 24: “There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

2 Thessalonians ii. 9: “Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders.”

Those whose trust is based only On the evidence of prophecy and miracles, or what appears to be such, may build on a sandy foundation, and in the decisive day of trial find themselves overwhelmed by fearful and remediless disaster. God, in his mercy, has provided us with a criterion by which to judge the pretensions of those who profess to be his representatives.

James Monroe quote concerning the blessings of God.

James Monroe concerning the blessings of God. [Click to enlarge]

Test of True Prophets.

Matthew vii. 15-18: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” The supreme test taught and met by Christ himself is personal holiness of character. He spoke of himself as coming, not to destroy, but to fulfil the law of God. If we accept his own word, he as divine was the author of the moral law, yet we never find him taking up a position of superiority to its requirements. On the contrary, we recognize in him the only human being who has ever completely kept the commandments in letter and spirit. Perfect in love to God and love to man, he ” brought in an everlasting righteousness ” sufficient to satisfy all demands of justice, and, as imputed to those who trust in him, able to save even ” unto the uttermost.”

James Madison quote regarding the Rights of Conscience

James Madison regarding the Rights of Conscience. [Click to enlarge]

Sinlessness of Christ.

He set a faultless example to his followers, offering to God a perfect obedience to his will, and to man a wondrous devotion, even laying down his life for the guilty race with which he identified himself. We have the testimony of his disciples to his sinless perfection, men associated with him for three and a half years on the familiar terms of close intimacy. Much of this time was spent in touring: on the road, or in the crowded conditions of Oriental village hospitality, so trying to ordinary friendship. They saw him weary, hungry, exposed to strong provocations. They saw him when the popular tide ran strong in his favor, and again when it ebbed, and most of his followers left him, in danger, betrayal, and death. Looking back on all, they deliberately tell us his life sustained his professed character, and he was indeed a sinless man. Not only their word, but the record of his words and actions as we have it, bears them out in their assertion. Tried by the most exacting standard of modern morality, he is without fault. His friends had every opportunity to judge him by the highest criterion, not the ability to utter beautiful poetry, which even depraved men often possess, but the power to lead a holy life.

We have seen his enemies dogging his steps with keen eyes of hate and prejudice, but unable to find any accusation against him. We have seen the infidelity of nineteen centuries scanning his life, eager to discover some flaw in his moral perfection, but compelled, like the Roman judge, to declare, ” I find no fault in him.” Those who reject him as a divine Saviour are lavish in praising him as the ideal man, the unique flower of humanity. The worst reproach brought to-day against Christians is that they are not like their Master, Jesus of Nazareth, the obscure Jewish carpenter, dying early as a criminal and an offender against Roman law. He who bore the punishment of a slave on the accursed cross furnishes to-day the standard by which all men are judged, while he himself is judged of no man.
John Adams quote regarding Christianity

John Adams regarding Christianity [Click to enlarge]

Morality of Muhammad.

What a contrast to Muhammad, who, setting up a far inferior code of morals, giving indulgence to the weaknesses of the flesh, and proclaiming liberty to its lusts, could not himself observe the law he promulgated as from God! On the ground of his prophetic office he claimed to be superior to its requirements and exempt from its penalties, and it is notorious that he freely acted on this principle.

Readers of the Quran are familiar with the Suras, which specially excuse him from observing the marriage and divorce laws of Islam, though they appear to most persons sufficiently elastic to satisfy any one. To cite but one instance. Sura XXXIIL, Surat ul Ahzab, the Confederates, v. 49-57: ” O Prophet, we have allowed thee thy wives unto whom thou hast given their dower, and also the slaves which thy right hand possesseth, of the booty which God hath granted thee; and the daughters of thy uncles, and the daughters of thy aunts, both on thy father’s side, and on thy mother’s side, who have fled with thee from Makkah, and any other believing woman if she give herself to the Prophet, in case the Prophet desireth to take her to wife. This is a peculiar privilege granted to thee above the rest of the true believers. We know what we have ordained them concerning their wives and the slaves which their right hands possess; lest it should be deemed a crime in thee to make use of the privilege granted thee; for God is gracious and merciful. Thou mayest postpone the turn of such of thy wives as thou shalt please; and thou mayest take unto thee her whom thou shalt please: and her whom thou shalt desire of those whom thou shalt have before rejected; and it shall be no crime in thee. This will be more easy, that they may be entirely content and may not be grieved, but may be well pleased with what thou shalt give every one of them. God knoweth whatever is in your hearts: and God is knowing and gracious. It shall not be lawful for thee to take other women to wife hereafter, nor to exchange any of thy wives for them, though their beauty please thee, except the slaves whom thy right hand shall possess; and God observeth all things. O true believers, enter not the houses of the Prophet, unless it be permitted you to eat meat with him, without waiting his convenient time; but when ye are invited, then enter. And when ye shall have eaten, disperse yourselves, and stay not to enter into familiar discourse; for this incommodeth the Prophet. He is ashamed to bid you depart, but God is not ashamed of the truth. And when ye ask of the Prophet’s wives what ye may have occasion for, ask it of them from behind a curtain. This will be more pure for your hearts and their hearts. Neither is it fit for you to give any uneasiness to the Apostle of God, or to marry his wives after him forever, for this would be a grievous thing in the sight of God. Whether ye divulge a thing, or conceal it, verily God knoweth all things. It shall be no crime in them, as to their fathers, or their sons, or their sister’s sons, or their women, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to them unveiled: and fear ye God, for God is witness of all things. Verily God and his angels bless the Prophet; O true believers, do ye also bless him and salute him with a respectful salutation. As to those who offend God and his Apostle, God shall curse them in this world and in the next, and he hath prepared for them a shameful punishment.”

V. 60-61: “Verily if the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is an infirmity and they who raise disturbances in Medina, do not desist, we will surely stir thee up against them to chastise them; henceforth they shall not be suffered to dwell near thee therein except for a little time and being accursed: wherever they are found, they shall be taken and killed with a general slaughter.”

It is not from unfriendly or neutral historians, but from his own apologists and eulogists, we learn how fully the Prophet availed himself of his exceptional matrimonial privileges. “It is said, in his youth he lived a virtuous life. At the age of twenty-five he married Khadijah, a widow forty years old: and for five and twenty years was a faithful husband to her alone. Shortly after her death he married again, but it was not till he had reached the mature age of fifty-four that he became a polygamist, taking Ayesha, a child of seven or eight years, daughter of Abu Bekr, as rival of Sawda. In his fifty-sixth year he married Hafra, daughter of Umar; and the following year, in two successive months, Zeinab bint Khozeima and Omm Salma; a few months after, Zeinab, wife of Zeid, his adopted son. In the same year he married a seventh wife and also a concubine. And at last, when he was full three score years of age, no fewer than three new wives, besides Mary the Coptic slave, were within the space of seven months added to his already well-filled harem.”* The injunction touching his obnoxious neighbors, the Jews of Medina, we learn from Muslim historians, was carried out by assassination and banishment of his opponents, whole tribes being expatriated or exterminated.

John Adams Quote regarding Christians

John Adams regarding Christians [Click to enlarge]

Force as a Means of Propagandism.

While Islam has not been a religion propagated solely by the sword, it is a well-established matter of history that a large part of its success has been by force of arms. As we have seen, the Quran permits and commands believers to put the enemies of Islam to death. It is written in the Hyat ul Kuloob of the birth of Muhammad: “On that night under the name of the Prophet, in every Torat, Inj eel, or Zabour in the world, a drop of blood appeared, signifying that he would be a prophet armed with the sword.”

We find it impossible to associate such ideas with the personality of the Lord Jesus. In him what meekness, obedience, reverence for the Father, purity, zeal, hatred of sin, combined with infinite love for the sinner and matchless self-sacrifice! In Muhammad what growing pride, ambition, love of power, self-glorification! His apologists are never weary of reminding us how far he rose above his contemporaries, the idolatrous Arabs who surrounded him. Do they not admit the weakness of their cause by thus measuring him from that which was confessedly a very low standard instead of by that perfect ideal of manhood which had been given to the world almost six hundred years before? If he were a true prophet, we have a right to expect higher moral and spiritual attainments than we find in his predecessors. If he were not a true prophet sent of God, what was he? We read the earlier Suras, and admire the lofty thoughts and exalted descriptions of God, imperfect though they seem when placed beside our inspired Scriptures. Turn then to the later Suras, and mark how the commanding personality and central figure has become that of the Prophet himself. He dominates everywhere; we are not suffered for a moment to forget him. The Almighty, relegated to the background, has become an infinitely great and powerful shadow of Muhammad, constantly ministering to the Prophet’s glory, and promptly complying with his desires. A tradition says that Ayesha once said to him: “How kind your God is to you! Verily he always does whatever you wish!” The archangel Gabriel speeds from heaven—for what? To reveal some wondrous depth of divine wisdom, some sweet secret of eternal love, some new incitement to holiness, benevolence, purity? No, verily, but to say to the Prophet, if his wives are not content with his treatment and provision for them, he is permitted to divorce them and God will give better ones in their places. Or he comes to adminish visitors not to indulge in loud conversation before Muhammad’s door, to enter unbidden, or prolong their stay. He comes to vindicate the reputation of one wife, to reinstate her in the affections of her suspicious husband, and to rebuke the jealousies and contentions of the rest of the harem. One cannot help thinking if a prophet, and the greatest of prophets, could not manage his polygamous household without such frequent intervention and aid from above, what can ordinary men do under like circumstances? One fact stands out clearly: Muhammad is evidently the principal figure in his own estimation, and everything, angelic visits included, is made to subserve his glorification.

Thomas Jefferson quote regarding his Bible

Thomas Jefferson regarding his Bible [Click to enlarge]

Superseding of Jesus as Saviour.

We understand from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that God accepted and commissioned the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, the only Mediator between man and his Maker. In him he found a perfect righteousness, which by faith could be imputed and imparted to the sinner, a perfect example of the obedience man owes to God, a perfect sacrifice to take away the guilt of sin and bear its punishment. God gave to Jesus the promised sign of acceptance by raising him from the dead on the third day, and causing him to ascend to heaven in the sight of his disciples. He was afterward seen in vision sitting at the right hand of the Father, waiting, as had been predicted of him, till his enemies should be made his footstool. When and why did God reject this Holy One whom he himself had chosen, and with whom he was well pleased—with whom he had covenanted with an oath, sworn by himself, that all kingdoms and tribes should serve him, and of his kingdom there should be no end? If the Lord was faithful, as we know he was, even unto death, why should God remove him from his office and introduce another scheme of salvation for mankind? Was not the divine law of perfect love to God and love to man, which Jesus taught and practised, the highest and best rule of life of which we can conceive? Is it not sufficient to transform earth to heaven and sinners to saints? What need had man of Muhammad? What need of Islam?

Thomas Jefferson quotes regarding the character of Jesus Christ

Thomas Jefferson regarding the character of Jesus Christ [Click to enlarge]

Muslim Intolerance.

As you know,  Islam is the paramount faith; the adherents of other religions only exist on sufferance, theoretically with no rights, in a semi-servile state, dependent on the mercy of the dominant race. No Muslim is allowed to change his belief, on pain of death, nor is he permitted to hear of or investigate the truth of any other religion.

Thomas Jefferson quotes regarding Morality and Religion

Thomas Jefferson regarding Morality and Religion [Click to enlarge]

Christianity in Great Britain.

About the same time that the conquering sword introduced Islam into your country, the Gospel entered the British Isles with no weapon save the “sword of the Spirit,” the Word of God. It came with persuasive love and power to a people far below the grade of the civilization of your ancient land, a race little removed from the level of savages, wild and idolatrous. You have asked, Where are the modern miracles of Christianity? Surely the mental, moral, and spiritual change wrought by the Bible on the Anglo-Saxon race, and the manifest blessings they have enjoyed since they accepted Christ, may answer your question.

It is true that Christian countries contain much of crime and evil, because no nation, as such, has yet become thoroughly Christian. The kingdoms of this world are still ruled by Satan; they are not yet the kingdoms of God and of his Christ. No church even in its entirety is a perfect exemplification of the character and teachings of its Divine Founder. The tares flourish among the wheat, which itself is not yet fully matured and ready for the garner. No individual Christian even has attained to the perfection which is set before him. The sins of so-called Christendom are black enough, but they constitute no part of our religion; indeed, they are flagrant transgressions of it, and as such always strongly for, bidden. But polygamy, slavery, divorce, religious war, disregard of the rights of non-Muslims, are vital and essential points of Islam, practised by its founder and commander in its sacred book.

It is not fair to judge your religion by the conduct and character of all its adherents. I do not wish you to form an opinion of Christianity from the lives of many who profess and disgrace its name. Let us compare those who have most truly received and most deeply drunk of the spirit of their respective faiths, who most carefully regard the precepts and most closely imitate the founder of their religion. We fear no such comparison of the true Christian with the true Muslim.

Nor do we fear any examination of the two religions as to their power of renovating and purifying the heart, of sustaining in the trials and exigencies of life, and of conquering in the dread hour of death. You have tried Islam many years, but, after all, confess it has brought no real peace to your soul. You have said, did you not fear to rush unbidden into the presence of a justly offended God, you would gladly throw aside life as a burden too heavy to be borne. But the Christian’s inheritance is peace, left to us by the last words of our Saviour—John xvi. 33: “These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” The Christian endures the ills of life without a murmur, sustained by a secret joy; in his cross is a hidden sweetness, since its heavier weight is sustained by an invisible companion and lightened by an enduring hope. He knows his trials are ordained by infinite wisdom and love, to secure his final perfection and harmonious relation to God; he anticipates endless holiness and happiness in the society and under the rule of his adored Redeemer. 1 Peter i. 8, 9: “Whom not having seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

Volumes of evidence might be adduced to show the holy lives and triumphant deaths of Christians. My own eyes have repeatedly seen how

“Jesus can make a dying bed
Seem soft as downy pillows are.”

Nay, more, the departing believer often experiences such rapturous joy, such foretastes of eternal bliss, that death is no more death, but truly “swallowed up in victory.” The wondering eyewitnesses of such a scene can only exclaim, ” Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his.” And why should not he rejoice who can say, ” The eternal God is my refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms?” “Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever.” “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”

In the New Testament the Christian is never spoken of as dying, for the brief sojourn of our Lord within the realm of death has robbed the enemy of his terrors. Christ is risen! his body rests in no earthly grave: “He is ascended on high, leading captivity captive.”

But the body of Muhammad has long lain at Medina, and the pilgrimages made to his tomb and to those of his successors tell us that your hopes rest on dead saviours, who could not rescue themselves from death and the grave.

Thomas Jefferson quotes regarding God's Divine Will

Thomas Jefferson regarding God’s Divine Will [Click to enlarge]

Islam in Death.

You know better than I what hope or comfort your religion offers in the last hour to the trembling spirit, bowed under a load of guilt and apprehension, and what are its consolations for the survivors. I have seen the deep gloom cast by the mention of death on your people, the unreasoning terror they manifest on its occurrence in their homes, and have heard the wild cries of anguish when the blow has fallen, and they seem to “mourn as those without hope.” That event must indeed be invested with dark forebodings to those who dare not say of the dead that their immediate salvation is assured. I have heard them comfort themselves with the assurance that whoever recites the Muslim Creed in death, the Kalima Shahidat, “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Apostle of God,” will find his sins fall from him as the leaves of a tree in autumn. But, alas! if the analogy were true, when the tree buds again, its leaf and fruit will be unchanged. He who has no guarantee of a radical change of nature must needs fear that, as he has sinned here, he will continue to do so in another world. Where sin remains, must remain alienation from God, punishment and sorrow.

The traditions which we may take as representing the popular belief are far from reassuring. In the Hyat ul Kuloob is written that Salman, the freedman of the Prophet of God, before his death, went to a cemetery to interrogate the dead. “One in his grave began to speak, saying, ‘ Lo, I hear thy words, and will quickly answer. Ask what thou wilt.’ Salman rejoined, ‘ O thou that speakest after death and its sorrows, art thou of Paradise, or of hell?’ The dead replied, ‘I am of the number on whom God has bestowed favor and in his mercy introduced to Paradise.’ Salman said, ‘Thou servant of God, describe to me what thou hast experienced.’ He answered, ‘Verily, cutting the body to pieces many times with shears is easier than the agonies of death. Know thou the Most High had bestowed divine favors on me in this world, and I had well discharged my duties. I read the Quran, and was very dutiful to my father and mother. I avoided what was forbidden, and feared to be unjust and oppressive to servants. Night and day I took pains and strove to find out and do what was lawful, through fear of standing before God to be questioned. The angel of death now approached and gradually drew my soul from my body. Every pull he made was equal in agony to all the pains under heaven. This continued till he reached my heart, when he signed to me with a dart, which, if he had laid upon the mountains, would have melted them, and forcibly drew my soul from my nostrils.'” He then tells of his burial, of the dreadful ordeal of examination by the two angels Munkir and Nakeer, who question him of his faith and practice. Of the latter angel he says, “He then laid me down in the grave, and said, Lie like a bridegroom. At my head he opened a door to Paradise, and at my feet a door to hell, and said, See what you will enjoy and what you are saved from. He then closed the opening to hell and expanded the gate of Paradise, from which its delightful perfume was wafted to me. He then enlarged my grave as far as the eye could see, and left me.”

 
Benjamin Franklin quotes concerning the Holy Bible

Benjamin Harrison concerning the Holy Bible [Click to enlarge]

State of Muslim Women.

Of one feature of Islam I am, perhaps, better fitted to judge than you, with your limited circle of female acquaintance: that is, the effect it produces on the character and condition of woman. As a rule, where the provisions of the law are strictly carried out, only your wife, mother, sister, and daughter can speak with you freely and with unveiled faces. You are not permitted to see the countenances of even cousins and relatives by marriage; all conversation or association with them is watched and guarded with suspicious espionage. You have not concealed from me your very unfavorable estimate of your countrywomen, even while you acknowledged them capable of better things. But you have never lived in a Christian land, and you must pardon me for saying your ideal of womanhood cannot be so high as if you had seen it developed under the influence of light, liberty, and equal legal and moral rights. Remembering how often we are shocked beyond expression by the unintentional coarseness and unconscious vulgarity, the low standard of thought and morals betrayed by your best, most amiable, cultured, religious ladies in even a short, ceremonious call; remembering howling mobs of ragged village women, wild with curiosity, steeped in ignorance, shameless of speech and manner, and contrasting them with the same classes in Christian lands, we are forced to ask, Whence this difference? Forgive me if these criticisms seem harsh, though these women speak of themselves more severely than I should venture to do. “We are beasts, we are donkeys, what do we know? what can we do?” Their husbands seem generally to regard them as a necessary evil, something to be ashamed of, and kept in the background as much as possible. Seeing this, our sisters, many of them so beautiful, talented, attractive, gifted by nature with every requisite of a graceful and virtuous womanhood, we are filled with indignation at their imprisoned and degraded condition, treated as if unworthy of honor or confidence, perpetuating their own ignorance and superstition not only in their daughters, but in their sons. But such is the condition of woman, and even worse in non Christian lands. Jesus alone has brought her into a life of light, liberty, and usefulness. We have learned to love and pity many of these women, and have entered into the shadow where they dwell under a habitual consciousness of inferiority and contempt. We have seen their bitter tears and vain struggles on the entrance of a rival in their homes, we have heard their complaints of their prophet and their attempts to console themselves with the thought that the Christian woman, if happier here, is doomed to the flames of hell, while their sorrows will earn for them the joys of Paradise. We know the insecurity of their position, liable to divorce at the pleasure of their masters, thus taught to separate their interests from those of the husband, according to the proverb, “Bring a wife, bring an enemy.” How often jealousy, deceit, intrigue, and the worst passions of the human heart poison and destroy the happiness which God intended to spring from the family institution! It is not always thus: there are homes where the wife is loved and respected, the husband honored and obeyed, where there is no fear of rivalry or desertion, no strife between the children of different mothers. But such rare examples exist in spite of your religion, and only testify that home happiness is inseparable from permanence and sacredness in the marriage relation. A family fully governed by Christian principle must needs be pure and peaceful; one ruled by the precepts and permissions of the Quran must be like that of Muhammad himself, vexed with jealousy, dissension, suspicion, discontent, and scandal; without any convenient Gabriel to lend a hand in its management. No race can expect to seclude, suppress, and keep in ignorance half of its number without paying a fearful penalty. If a young Muslim is educated, enlightened, where can he find a home companion to understand, to sympathize with him, to prove herself a true helpmeet? Blindfolded, you stretch your hand into the darkness to grasp that of an unknown wife, with whom, as a rule, you have never exchanged a word, or even seen her face; of whose tastes, qualities, and temper you are perfectly ignorant, and who may cause you untold misery. The saddest part is that the harem, the curtain, the veil, the ignorance of women, are essential if society is not to become worse. No greater misfortune could befall Muslim women in their present state than to be put in possession of the privileges enjoyed by their Christian sisters. What causes this difference between the two? Why can one woman be trusted to make no improper use of her freedom, while, as the whole fabric of Muslim society seems to testify, the other cannot? I remember a Muslim gentleman, truly attached to his beautiful wife, an educated woman, by the standard of this land, and a true companion to him. He said once: “I would gladly see my wife free as the Christian ladies are. The veil and the harem curtain are no pleasure to me, I can trust her; but the state of society is such, it would, not be safe, I should be killed for her sake.”

 
William Penn founder of Pennsylvania quotes concerning Christianity

William Penn founder of Pennsylvania concerning Christianity [Click to enlarge]

Fundamental Teaching of Christianity.

But let us come to that which fundamentally distinguishes true Christianity from all other religions. We say, true Christianity, because much that goes by that name is counterfeit, a baptized heathenism, often possessing much in common with Islam and idolatry. The unique doctrine of the Bible is that of the new birth. By this we understand that a lost and ruined sinner, totally unable to help himself, may be made over, have another chance, begin again. Nay, more, that by God’s free grace, he may attain a higher condition than if Adam had not sinned, becoming “an heir of God,” ” a partaker of the divine nature,” dead to sin for evermore, alive to righteousness. Jesus brought us this blessed hope, and, by the gift of his indwelling Spirit, makes this new life a matter of personal consciousness to myriads of men, women and children, who know and can witness that they have received and enjoy it.

Under the influence of Christ, the drunkard becomes abstinent, the libertine chaste, the murderer loving, the thief honest, the liar truthful. As the Muslim says of the good he cannot attain, “Satan will not let me,” the Christian says of the evil from which he is withheld, “Jesus will not let me.”

Our Lord, constantly working these spiritual miracles, lives on the earth to-day as a personal force of infinite power, a real and present personality to his obedient subjects.

Does the Quran offer us any substitute for this doctrine, or does it even recognize its necessity? Search its contents from beginning to end, and you will see guilty man practically left to be his own savior.

Benjamin Franklin quotes regarding those who quarrel about Christianity

Benjamin Franklin regarding those who quarrel about Christianity [Click to enlarge]

Christianity Judaism Developed.

Till Christ appeared, this transcendent mercy of God to the sinner was conserved, lying dormant, as it were, concealed within the ceremonial law and the rigid observances of Judaism, as the germ within the seed, the bird in the egg. His magic touch evoked the light and beauty of Christianity, the flower and crown, the full development of what was first entrusted to the guardian care of Israel, then thrown open to all the world. The types and shadows then vanished; the ceremonial law was no longer needed. Men learned “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”—Rom. xiv. 17. They understood “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of man but of God. “Hebrews ix. 8-12:” the first tabernacle was as yet standing, which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience: which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time of reformation. But Christ being come, a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!”

The ceremonial law, we must not forget, was given only to the Jews, and none were bound to regard or observe it, or could do so acceptably, except born Jews by birth and proselytes. We are taught it was given to meet a temporary want: to show man his need of a Saviour; and to prefigure an atoning sacrifice yet to be offered.

John Quincy Adams quotes regarding the Christian Faith

John Quincy Adams regarding the Christian Faith [Click to enlarge]

Salvation by Faith Taught from the Beginning.

Yet, from the beginning, God left not unrevealed to man the true way of salvation, nor allowed him to suppose it could be attained by his own efforts. These were aptly typified by the frail, withering fig leaves with which Adam and Eve labored to hide their nakedness after the fall. A pitying God clothed them with the warm and durable skins of innocent animals, whose blood flowed before the gift could be made. Have you never wondered that of all animals, man alone is compelled to use artificial coverings? Is there here no hint of a spiritual truth, that he has no merit of his own, and must receive his robe of righteousness, imputed and imparted from God as a free and undeserved gift, if he would not suffer eternal shame?

Salvation by faith: not the intellectual assent to dogma, but the loving and obedient trust of the soul, tried and found to control the life, linking the frail finite creature with the Holy and Infinite Most High by a living bond—this is the very warp and woof of Old and New Testaments. Four times their pages repeat, “The just shall live by faith.”

Four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the Mosaic law, it was said of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6: “And he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Christianity returns to Abraham, but Muhammad’s search for truth never brings him to the land of Canaan and the promised possession of Mount Zion. Like Ishmael, he wanders in the desert of Arabia, and coming to Mount Sinai, hearing only the law given to Moses, and that imperfectly, accepts it superficially, apprehended as the best God has for man. He hears the ready response of the people to Jehovah’s awful demand for perfection, and answers with them in their hasty ignorance, “All that the Lord hath said, we will do and be obedient.” He is ready to join them, or rather to make an independent promise of his own, taking the place in God’s house of a sinner saved by his own works and a vague confidence in what he calls the mercy of God. He fails to remark that after their rash promise, Moses sprinkled them with “the blood of the covenant,” a significant intimation of the only road to acceptable obedience.

The Christian is a son, twice born, once of the flesh, again of the Spirit. He has his place in the house, not as a hireling, but by birth. Long ago, for those who could see, this was enacted in parable when Ishmael and his mother were sent portionless away from the tents of Abraham, as told in the twenty-first chapter of Genesis, and explained Gal. iv. 22-26, 29-31: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman by promise.”

“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants: the one from the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. But as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
John Quincy Adams quotes  regarding the Glory of the Revolution

John Quincy Adams regarding the Glory of the Revolution [Click to enlarge]

“What Shall I Do to be Saved?”

The one question our race is ever laboring to answer is, “How shall man be just with God?” Turning to Islam with this query, we are referred first to dead works of the flesh, already thoroughly tried and found inadequate to meet the case. As well return the radiant flower to the discarded husk which protected its germination, or compress the soaring, singing bird in the narrow confines of its outgrown shell! Failing the obedience required, man is to trust to a vague hope of the mercy of God, earned by repentance, not necessarily a forsaking of sin, but a sense of regret, evinced by tears and other outward demonstrations. But, alas! who knows when he has repented enough? If God is merciful, he is also just; the sentence has never been repealed, “The soul that sinneth, he shall die.” This means the eternal cutting off the sinner from the source of true life, and finds its ready illustration in the dry and lifeless branches we use for fuel.

Has Muhammad shown his worthiness to displace Jesus, and Islam to supersede Christianity? If it be God’s last word to man, it should as far surpass our religion and its Founder as he excelled Moses and his dispensation. Equality is not sufficient; the inference of superiority cannot be tolerated for a moment.
John Milton quotes regarding Jesus and Christianity

John Milton regarding Jesus and Christianity [Click to enlarge]

True and False Religions.

To my mind, all religions fall into two classes. In the first, God saves his ruined creatures by free grace, by the merits and death of his incarnate Son, “imputed to us and received by faith alone.” A heart renewed and transformed by so great love ascribes the glory to him alone. In the other, man is glorified as his own savior, his own righteousness, or that of other mere creatures, laying God under obligation to save and grant him eternal felicity. Salvation is not a gift, or only partly so; it becomes a debt owed by the Creator to the possessors of accumulated merit, which, they fondly believe, outweighs their actual transgressions. These views, held under a great variety of outward forms, are characterized by a low estimate of sin. They ignore the hereditary taint and corruption of our nature, wherein lie boundless possibilites of disobedience to God and disorder to his creation. They overlook the fact that not only does the law require us to refrain from its violation, it expects of us perfect obedience to its commands, and conformity to its spirit. To the helpless penitent, trusting the authenticated Saviour provided by divine love and wisdom, full forgiveness is granted; of him who prefers to be saved by his own righteousness, or that of unauthorized mediators, or by his own sufferings in purgatorial flames, the debt will be exacted to the very last farthing. We shall not be measured by the low standard of not having been as bad as we could, but by the higher one of the law’s demand for absolute moral perfection. He who failed of being what his Maker meant him to be will be rejected, and his good qualities and deeds may be likened to the two or three grains of silver found in a counterfeit coin, which do not persuade any one to accept it as genuine.

The only man who has ever fully met all the requirements of the divine law of perfection is the Lord Jesus Christ; only as identified with him can we hope for safety.

You have sometimes expressed the hope that both our religions may finally prove to be true— yours for you, mine for me; that all men, if only sincere and obedient to their respective faiths, may, by diverse roads, meet at the same goal. One or two doubtful passages in the Quran may seem to encourage this idea, in the case of Jews and Christians, but the Bible does not countenance it for a moment. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”—John xiv. 6. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”—Acts iv. 12. These are but two of many unequivocal utterances which have made Christianity the most fervently hated religion in the world. It must be all or nothing: it “brooks no rival on the throne.” As you know, Islam occupies exactly the same position, but carries it to the extent of declaring herself divinely commissioned to destroy those who reject her claims. Instead of the “foolishness of preaching,” or rather perhaps to reinforce it, she uses the logic of the sword. This is no empty threat, or unapplied theory. In large tracts of the fairest portions of Europe, Asia, and Africa it has been enforced in tears and blood and fire; the shrieks of the captive and clanking chain of the prisoner have echoed back its war cry, and emphasized its intolerance of all faith but its own. No, my friend, our religions are enemies to the death, and must so remain to the end: no uncertain one; for Christianity, though by her nature and laws debarred from contending with an arm of flesh, has her own peculiar weapons with which she must finally conquer. Your kindness of heart would fain hope a better fate for those whom you esteem and love, and who obstinately reject your religion. But that faith itself offers them nothing but eternal hell-fire.

I beg you to be assured this letter is written with none but the kindest feelings to your country and its people: a race possessing many fine qualities, and ability to be a blessing to the world, a country dear to me as my own, the home of my deliberate choice. Nor is there any thought of boasting, or fancied superiority. When the Anglo-Saxon recalls his savage and debased heathen ancestry, he has no cause for pride, only for deep humility and thankfulness. And should he not be among the foremost to communicate the blessings he has received to every nation, at any cost, even to the sacrifice of life itself?

How deeply should I regret to have learned so much of the unrest and hopelessness of your life, were there no remedy to offer! Knowing of such a remedy, having tried it myself, I cannot but urge it upon you. It may, it is true, cost you all your earthly possessions; you may, as others have done, literally lay down all, but Jesus is worth it!

The heart is the citadel of our life, the controller of the springs of thought and action. The head may assent to overpowering evidence, but the heart only yields to personal experience. You are not invited to a religion, an intellectual persuasion, a human society, but to a personal relation with a personal and ever-present Friend, found of all who seek him with the whole heart.

The whole world is well lost to him who has discovered the love of God in Christ, the priceless pearl, the hidden treasure, our joy, our life, our crown, and our eternal portion. May you seek and be found of him, and find in him the Good Shepherd of the wandering sheep!

End of excerpt from letter

Muslim Fanaticism

Mohammedans have earned for themselves throughout the world the title of ” fanatics,” as a consequence of their wild words and actions in connection with the Faith, once delivered to them by Mohammed. The feeling amongst Moslems has been and is, that they are the chosen of Allah, that they are the appointed instruments of God to bring all men, even by the power of the sword, to the knowledge of the only true faith. Consequently woe be to the individuals, communities, or nations, that will not listen to the call to accept Islamism with all its forms and ceremonies!

It is true that at the present time the power of Mohammedanism, is a conquering religion, or the desire to conquer still remains, and the old feeling of intolerance and fanaticism is probably everywhere almost as strong as ever it was.

In my researches into the history of Mohammedanism I have met with many instances of fanaticism, some of which I would now mention, as they will help us to understand what Islamism really is in the intensity of its wild faith and zeal. Fanaticism in war may well come first. Mohammed, though in the early days of his career a man of peace, and an advocate of mild measures in the propagation of truth, eventually developed into a man of war, and a stern and enthusiastic propagator of Allah’s religion by the sword.

The later books of the Koran teem with passages which counsel strong measures to be taken with infidels. It is written: “Fight against those who believe not in God until they pay tribute by right of subjection, and are reduced low.” And again: “When ye meet the infidels, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them.” And then it is added: “As for those who fight or fall in defence of God’s true religion, He will not suffer their deeds to die. Verily, God loveth those who fight for His religion.” “Paradise,” it was declared, “is under the shadow of swords.” “The sword,” it was asserted, “is a surer argument than books.”

Is it to be wondered at that a people thus taught should have grown to love war as the very breath of their nostrils, and to revel in it with a fanaticism that was cruel as the grave? Even before the Prophet died his terrible injunctions began to bear fruit, and after his death the fighting spirit raged throughout Arabia, and the Moslems went forth conquering and to conquer. From the Caliph to the meanest servant or slave in Islam the fanatical creed was accepted, that “the sword was the Key of Heaven and Hell, that a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, were of more avail than months of fasting and prayer.”

Fanaticism in war showed itself not merely in the determination to overcome an enemy, but in the ardent wish, if Allah willed it, to die on the field of battle, as thus to be “martyred “in the cause of God was believed to be the most certain way of obtaining the highest joys of eternal life in the world beyond the grave.

Listen, for example, to the words of an Arabian youth, whom a fond mother and sister vainly sought to persuade from adopting the profession of arms. His parting speech to those who loved him was: “Hold me not back, nor grieve that I leave you! It is not the delicacies of Syria or the fading delights of this world that have prompted me to devote my life in the cause of religion. But I seek the favour of God and His Apostle: and I have heard from one of the companions of the Prophet that the spirits of the martyrs will be lodged in the crops of green birds, who shall taste the fruits and drink of the rivers of Paradise. Farewell! We shall meet again among the groves and fountains which God has provided for His elect.”

I have read of another case of a warrior who on the field of battle fought with reckless fury, raving, as he slashed right and left with his sword, about the joys of Paradise promised to all true believers who fell in the wars of the Faith. “Methinks!” he cried aloud, so as to be heard above the din of arms, “Methinks I see the black-eyed girls looking upon me; one of whom, should she appear in this world, all mankind would die for love of. And I see in the hand of another a handkerchief of green silk, and a cap of precious stones, and she beckons me and calls out: ‘Come hither quickly, for I love thee !'” Scarcely had the fanatic thus spoken when a javelin pierced his heart and despatched him to his vaunted elysium. And these two instances are but types of countless thousands in Islam whose fanaticism has exceeded all bounds in the race for martyrdom in a jihad, or holy war.

Besides the joy of fighting for the Faith, and the incentive of the pleasures of Paradise for the valiant, the fanaticism of Mohammedans has been deepened and strengthened by the doctrine of predestination, as taught by the Prophet, or at any rate as believed by the Faithful. The ‘Koran says in one place: “The fate of every man have we bound about his neck;” and in another, “No soul. can die unless by the permission of God, according to what is written in the book containing the determination of things.”

Mohammed inserted these passages after the temporary defeat of his followers at Ohod, to inspire them with fresh courage. He represented to the Faithful that the time of every man’s death is decreed and determined by Allah, and that those who had fallen in the battle could not have avoided their fate had they stopped at home, so there was no reason to grieve unduly, or to be discouraged and disheartened.

Thus did the Prophet instil into the minds of his soldiers a belief in Fate, and under this persuasion did Moslems engage in battle without anxiety or fear, believing that what would be must be, that no one could die before his time, and that no human sagacity or foresight could evade the hand of death if the moment had been preordained. We can see how such a doctrine of predestination spurred the Faithful on to deeds of recklessness, and made the early soldiers of the Crescent men to be dreaded beyond the ordinary run of adversaries, for they were fanatics.

One of the most remarkable of these warrior-fanatics was Kaled, who was employed by Abu Bekr and Omar in the wars in Syria. He was a man who added superstition to his belief in fate, for he was wont to declare that a special providence watched over him, and that as long as he wore a certain cap which had been blessed by Mohammed he was invulnerable to all the darts of the enemies of Islam. And truly it seemed as if he bore a charmed life, for though in every battle he rushed into the thickest of the fight, and was ever surrounded by dangers, he always marvellously escaped, and in a good old age died in his bed.

The exploits of this fanatic in the siege of Damascus are almost beyond belief. He rushed madly at every antagonist, generally singling out the strongest and the bravest, and he was always conqueror. On one occasion, after a desperate struggle with a bold Christian General, which left him exhausted, a fresh adversary spurred his charger to attack him. A companion in arms, the gallant Derar, seeing the exhaustion of Kaled, called out to him: “O Kaled, repose yourself for a moment, and permit me to supply your place,” but the reply he got was: “Not so, good Derar; if I needs must rest, it will be in Paradise. He that labours to-day will rest to-morrow.” At the word he sprang upon his foe, and hurled him lifeless to the ground. Kaled by such deeds earned for himself the title of “The Sword of God.”

But the doctrine of predestination can influence in two ways: It can make fanatical cowards as well as fanatical braves. And in these latter days it seems in Moslem countries to be producing a weak and degenerate race. The belief in fate is as strong as ever, but it now takes the form of lazy, instead of active, fanaticism, and it is striking at the root of all enterprise and progress. As one writer has said: “Many Moslems positively refuse to exert themselves, while they excuse their natural indolence by declaring: ‘Everything is determined: what is to be will be: if God intends that we should become rich we shall become so without any personal exertion : if He intends that we shall be poor, poor we shall have to remain, despite our labour.'” Thus the doctrine of predestination as held by Mohammedans is baneful, whether in war or peace, for when exercised in the sphere of the former it produces a hard and cruel race of warriors, and when in the sphere of the latter, a race of weak and helpless citizens.

Fanaticism has shown itself very markedly in the department of teaching, and especially in the teaching of the truths of the Koran. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures has ever been part of the orthodox creed of Islamism. Some of the Faithful at various times have questioned the doctrine, and have even striven to show that the Koran contains passages that contradict each other, and therefore cannot be infallible: but such liberal views are far from common.

In every age Moslems, as a whole, have been most dogmatic in their teaching, and perfectly fanatical in their enforcement upon others of what they have conceived to be truth. Take for example the time of the Abbasides of Bagdad. The author of “Islam under the Caliphs of Bagdad,” says, “Every one who either in act or word questioned a single syllable of the Koran was regarded as an infidel, and was in peril of being torn in pieces by the devout.”

Then to look at an earlier period. Omar, the second Commander of the Faithful, delighted in teaching the law, and would brook no interference from doubters or cavillers. There is a characteristic story told of him when he was on his famous journey from Medina to Jerusalem, when the latter city was subjected by the Moslem arms. The Caliph often stopped by the way as he passed through Arabia and Syria to administer justice and expound the Sacred Koran. Usually a crowd gathered round him to see and hear the grand old man. On one occasion he took for his text a few words from the Koran which assert that those whom God shall lead in the right way are secure from all harm, but that those whom He shall lead in the way of error are doomed to punishment. As Omar enforced these pregnant lessons a grey-headed man in the audience disturbed the flow of the preacher’s utterance by remarking aloud, “Tush! God leads no man into error!” The stern, fanatical Caliph deigned no direct reply, but turning to his body-guard, he said: “Strike off that old man’s head if he repeats his words!” The preacher met with no further opposition.

One of the most fanatical acts on record is associated with the name of Omar—I refer to the destruction of the Alexandrian Library. I know that the story has been gravely questioned of late years. Gibbon and others have made light of it, but still the tale was believed for centuries, and it has not yet been proved false, and it is certainly just such a deed as a fanatical Moslem prince like Omar might have committed.

“The Alexandrian Library was formed by Ptolemy Soter, and placed in a building called the Bruchion. It was augmented in successive reigns to 400,000 volumes, and an additional 300,000 volumes were placed in a temple called the Serapeon. The Bruchion, with the books it contained, was burned in the war of Caesar, but the Serapeon was preserved. Cleopatra, it is said, added to it the library of Pergamus, given to her by Marc Antony, consisting of 200,000 volumes. It sustained repeated injuries during various subsequent revolutions, but was always restored to its ancient splendour, and numerous additions made to it. Such was its state at the capture of Alexandria by the Moslems.” The famous library was, in fact, the finest in the world.

The story goes that Amr, the Conqueror of Egypt, and the leader of the Moslem armies, had his attention drawn to the Library by the learned Greek known as John the Grammarian, to whom Amr had granted many favours. John asked that the books might be given to himself, as the Moslems would probably have no use for them. The General was inclined to gratify the wish of the Grammarian, but his rigid integrity refused to alienate anything without the permission of the Commander of the Faithful, to whom he at once wrote. The answer which Omar is generally believed to have sent was inspired by the ignorance and zeal of a fanatic. It ran: “If these writings of the Greeks agree with the blessed Koran, the Book of Allah, they are useless, and therefore need not be preserved; if they disagree, then they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.”

Washington Irving, commenting on this extraordinary message, says: “Amr, as a man of genius and intelligence, may have grieved at the order of the Caliph, while as a loyal subject and faithful soldier, he felt bound to obey it.” Consequently the command went forth to seize and to destroy, and the valuable manuscripts and books were distributed as fuel among the five thousand baths of the city of Alexandria, and, it is said, so numerous were they, that it took six months to consume them. Thus perished by a deed of Moslem fanaticism much of the learning, the arts, and the genius of antiquity.

Fanaticism in Moslem lands is not confined to men, but is as strong or stronger amongst women. Notwithstanding the disabilities and hardships under which women labour in Islam, they cleave with blind enthusiasm to the teaching of the Prophet of God, hugging to their breasts the Book which has made their degradation an article of faith and binding throughout the ages.

And little children too are veritable fanatics. Lane, in his “Modern Egyptians,” tells us that from their earliest days Moslem boys and girls are taught to hate “infidels” with a perfect hatred. It must be remembered that in the eyes of Mohammedans all are infidels who are not of the true Faith—that is, Islam. Let me quote a prayer that is now in use amongst the children of Moslems. Lane translates it thus: “O God, destroy the infidels and polytheists, thine enemies, the enemies of Islam! O God, make their offspring orphans, defile their abodes, cause their feet to slip, and give them and their families, and their children, and their possessions and their race, and their wealth, and their land, as booty to the Moslems.” What an awful prayer to put into the mouths of boys and girls! Little wonder that the rising generation, like all preceding generations in Islam, regards the world with eyes of anger and hate!

A little incident that happened in my own experience may not be unworthy of notice. I was travelling at the time in Palestine, and was drawing near the ancient city of Hebron, once so famous in Jewish history, but now in the possession of Moslems. The day was hot, and I had ridden far, and was suffering from thirst. Suddenly I espied by the wayside a maiden, perchance of seven years of age, tripping gaily along with a waterpot poised on her head in Eastern fashion. I hailed her and made signs for a drink of water. That she understood me perfectly was clear, but to my surprise she was not prepared to grant my request. Now, usually in the East, if the traveller can get nothing else, he can get a drink of water from the people he sees, for it is considered churlish indeed to refuse such a necessary of life.

However, the heart of the little maiden at Hebron was closed against all not of her own Faith. And so insulted and enraged was she that I should have even presumed to ask anything from her, that she put her hands up to her head, and in a tempest of indignation dashed the unoffending waterpot to the ground. Then pointing to the spilt water, she declared, with oaths and curses, so my Dragoman told me, that she hoped that thus would my blood ere many days be spilt and sink into the ground. For the time being the maiden was a little fury, and I was convinced that the fanaticism of the people of Islam was, even amongst the juvenile members of society, something to be carefully watched by travellers, or dangerous results might follow. The inhabitants of Hebron or, as it is now called, El-Khalid, are notorious for their fanaticism, and by their conduct they belie both the ancient and the modern name of their city, which names, being interpreted, mean, “the Friend.”

Sometimes the evil results of the fanaticism of Mohammedans have not been confined to strangers, but have made themselves felt within their own borders; as, for instance, in those sad cases of regicide which have been so common in Moslem countries. As we have seen in the course of these Studies, Omar, Othman, and Ali, three of the Commanders of the Faithful, fell victims to the mad zeal of some of their own followers, who conceived that they were doing God and Islam service by despatching the Caliphs with their daggers.

The truth is fanaticism is an uncertain instrument to use: it is a two-edged tool which it is dangerous to handle. The leaders of Mohammedanism in all generations have found that they have not always been able to control the fierce spirit they have called up, and they have been taught by a terrible experience the truth of that saying: “They that take the sword shall perish by the sword.”

I wonder sometimes whether Mohammedans will ever learn that their best interests lie in realizing the great truth of the Brotherhood of Humanity. There can be no peace, no prosperity, and no real happiness in Islam, until the feelings of cruel religious fanaticism nurtured by the Koran have been replaced by feelings of brotherly sympathy and love for all nations and peoples.

Sources: “Islam and Christianity or the Quran and the Bible: A letter to a Muslim friend,, by a Missionary” by G. Halliday published 1901
Studies in Mohammedanism, historical and doctrinal by John J. Pool; published 1892
Picture quotes taken from various writings of the Founding Fathers of the United States

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams Explain Why Muslims Turn to Terrorism

Jefferson quote concerning the advantages of serving Jesus

Thomas Jefferson concerning the advantages of Jesus’ mission  [Click to enlarge]

Background

The first countries to declare war on the newly formed United States were the Muslim Barbary States of North Africa….From 1783, until the Presidency of George Washington in 1789, the newborn Republic had no strong central authority, and that is when the Barbary pirates struck.

In 1784 Congress voted to send Thomas Jefferson to Europe in order to join John Adams and Benjamin Franklin who were already there.  These three Ministers Plenipotentiary [Ministers Plenipotentiary: a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country.] were tasked with negotiating various treaties with other nations / states that would benefit the United States of America in her infancy. These treaties needed to be negotiated due to the colonies breaking away from the mother countries and gaining independence from Britain in the American Revolutionary War of Independence.

These treaties allowed for transactions of commerce with other nations, and in the context of the Barbary States were negotiated to stop the attacks on American merchant ships, the capturing, ransoming, and enslaving of American sailors by the Musselmen or Barbary pirates {i.e. Muslims] who believed it their god-given right to “tax”, kill or sell into slavery non-believers as the Ambassador of Tripoli told Thomas Jefferson, when Jefferson asked him on what grounds the Barbary state Muslims felt they had a right to attack unprovoked the ships, sailors and merchants from other nations. [See letter from Jefferson & Adams to John Jay dated March 28, 1786, relating their conversation below; According to the appeasers in the democrat party and Obama, Muslim Terrorists have been misinterpreting the Qu’ran for centuries. The Barbary states started attacking vessels of Christian nations and the nations themselves almost since they killed, enslaved and conquered the Roman Catholics and other christian governments in the Muslim Conquests of North Africa]

Before I go further: In the last year I have heard two different ex-jihadi Islamic terrorists refer to what the Islamists taught them. Not only were they taught by the mosques that they would go to paradise and have 72 virgins. They were also taught that if they died while killing the infidel, [non-Muslims] not only would they go to heaven “without judgement” so would all of their family. Now that’s a pretty strong teaching , if you were already of such loose morals, you could kill those who were doing nothing to harm you, it would be a strong draw. For the White House to suggest the Muslim terrorists commit atrocities because of they have no jobs, or they come from poor neighborhoods etc., is just ignoring the facts. The Muslim who beheaded the woman in Moore Okla., had a job, the Ft. Hood shooter had a career. the 19 hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Towers were mainly from rich or well-to-do families. So we can brush that aside, as an excuse for their behavior.  They are motivated by a religion that promotes ungodliness, selfishness and that reflects the basest thoughts and feelings of humanity. They are not motivated by economics, unless those economics help them in their jihadist cause.

If we analyze why this would be a draw to the Muslim terrorists, who without conscience commit the brutal acts they do in the name of their god. It is because they are selfish individuals to begin with, they also are susceptible to their basest lusts. Inspired because of the 72 virgins they will receive after death shows their basic lusts. Never mind all of the women and little girls they have been raping or forcing into marriage, the 72 virgins should be enough to convince people that these Muslim terrorists are motivated by their fleshy. carnal nature. The fact they are drawn by the teaching they will go to heaven “without judgement” shows how they are motivated by selfishness, which is also a part of mans carnal nature.  As I have said elsewhere, the Islamic terrorists are following in the footsteps of Mohammed who was the original and first Islamic terrorist.

The story of Mohammed’s aggression has been documented in detail by his biographers, – surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperadoes, assassinations of opponents, blackmail. He ordered the expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medina, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion  He organized no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

At the Battle of Badr, Mohammed after gaining the victory ordered those slain, who he considered “infidels” to be buried in a well in the area of Badr, as his Muslim followers were dumping the dead bodies of those they had killed, Mohammed is said to have stood at the mouth of the well and naming the dead one by one, demanded of them if they had found the promises of God true, as he had done. “You were a bad kindred to your prophet,” said he; “others declared me true, but you called me a liar and drove me from my native place, while strangers gave me protection.” The Muslim followers interrupted him by asking if he addressed the dead. “They hear me as well as you do”, he replied, “although they cannot answer, and they now find true what I formerly declared to them.” This shows Mohammed was also motivated by self-aggrandizement, which is also a base trait of the carnal man.

I’ve heard various Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others talk about how there needs to be a reformation of, or in Islam like there was in Judaism or in Christianity. One thing about the reformation in Christianity. Christian reformation happened to 1. get the sacred scriptures into hands of the people, and 2, to get back to the simplicity of Christ’ teaching and to follow his example and words. How can a reformation of Islam do the same as the Christian reformation, if people continue to follow example of Mohammed and the Quran? It would seem to me, if you want a true religion of peace, with a man of peace to follow, real reform of Islam would be Christianity! If you have reform of Islam and get rid of all the teachings of fundamental Mohammedeans you would have to discard the Quran, or else you take the risk in the future of young men reading the Quran & once again following the example set forth by founder. The founder of Islam being Mohammed, just how do you reform Islam into a religion of peace when its founder was a man of war? The growth and spread of Islam has always been accompanied by the sword. It is a teaching that appeals to what is base & corrupt in man.

Extract from the Secret Journal of Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 1784

“Mr. John Jay was elected Secretary for Foreign Affairs, having been previously nominated by Mr. Gerry. On motion of Mr. Hardy, seconded by Mr. Gerry,

Resolved, That a Minister Plenipotentiary be appointed in addition to Mr. John Adams and Mr. Benjamin Franklin, for the purpose of negotiating treaties of commerce.

Congress proceeded to the election, and the ballots being taken; Mr. Thomas Jefferson was elected, having been previously nominated by Mr. Hardy.

Instructions [were sent] to the Ministers of the United States for making peace with Great Britain, dated May 30th, 1783.

Instructions [were sent] to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, empowered to negotiate a peace, &c, dated the 29th of October, 1783, May 7th, 1784, and May 11th, 1784.

On the report of the Committee, to whom was recommitted the report on sundry letters from the Ministers of the United States in Europe, Congress came to the following resolutions:

Whereas, instructions bearing date the 29th day of October, 1783 were sent to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, empowered to negotiate a peace, or to any one or more of them, for concerting drafts or proposition for treaties of amity and commerce with the commercial powers of Europe:

Resolved, That it will be advantageous to these United States to conclude such treaties with Russia, the Court of Vienna, Prussia Denmark, Saxony, Hamburg, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Tuscany, Rome, Naples, Venice, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Porte.

The attitude of Muslim terrorists has scarcely changed since the time of Mohammed. Again, according to the appeasers in the democrat party and Obama, Muslim Terrorists have been misinterpreting the Qu’ran for centuries.

LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONERS [Jefferson & Adams] TO JOHN JAY.

Grosvenor Square, March 28, 1786.

Sir,

Soon after the arrival of Mr. Jefferson in London, we had a conference with the Ambassador of Tripoli at his house.

The amount of all the information we can obtain from him was, that a perpetual peace was in all respects the most advisable, because a temporary treaty would leave room for increasing demands upon every renewal of it, and a stipulation for annual payments would be liable to failures of performance, which would renew the war, repeat the negotiations, and continually augment the claims of his nation; and the difference of expense would by no means be adequate to the inconvenience, since 12,500 guineas to his constituents, with ten per cent. upon that sum for himself, must be paid if the treaty was made for only one year.

That 30,000 guineas for his employers, and £3,000 for himself, was the lowest terms upon which a perpetual peace could be made; and that this must be paid in cash on the delivery of the treaty, signed by his Sovereign; that no kind of merchandizes could be accepted.

That Tunis would treat upon the same terms, but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.

We [Adams & Jefferson] took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.  [Note they clarify “nations who have done them [i.e. Muslim Barbary States] no injury”]

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet [i.e. Mohammed]; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged 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 [Muslims] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

That it was a law that the first who boarded an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valor and enterprize; that it was the practice of their corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them; that he verily believed the devil assisted his countrymen, for they were almost always successful. We took time to consider, and promised an answer; but we can give him no other than that the demands exceed our expectation and that of Congress so much that we can proceed no further without fresh instructions.

There is but one possible way that we know of to procure the money, if Congress should authorize us to go to the necessary expense; and that is to borrow it in Holland. We are not certain it can be had there, but if Congress should order us to make the best terms we can with Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco, and to procure this money wherever we can find it, upon terms like those of the last loan in Holland, our best endeavor shall be used to remove this formidable obstacle out of the way of the prosperity of the United States.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Paul R. Randall, Esq., at Barcelona. The last from Mr. Barclay was dated Bayonne. It is hoped we shall soon have news from Algiers and Morocco, and we wish it may not be made more disagreeable than this from Tunis and Tripoli.

JOHN ADAMS, THOS. JEFFERSON.

Overview of actions by Thomas Jefferson, the first President to declare war on Muslim Terrorists

Muslims who kept attacking the people of the United States for no other reason than the teachings of their false prophet Mohammed told them too. The Islamic Terrorist Muslims didn’t need the excuses the democrat party, Obama and the liberal leftists in the United States now give them, Muslim terrorists need no further provocation than the fact the United States of America exists, the people in the U.S.A. are not followers of Islam, the U.S.A. is founded on Christian principles, we are infidels and therefore are to be subjugated, enslaved, or put to the sword. It is really that simple, we exist, therefore we are their enemies.

Begin overview:

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect “American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects.” After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000. Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully “endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation.” Jefferson argued that “The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace.” Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. “Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association,” Jefferson remembered, but there were “apprehensions” that England and France would follow their own paths, “and so it fell through.” Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.” “From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money,” Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them.” Jefferson’s plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States’s relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is “lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever,” the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli. When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli’s demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: “To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . .” The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli’s pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, “The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship.” In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.

WAR WITH BARBARY COAST ALGERINE PIRATES

The cowardice of the Muslims were exhibited back then, just as it is today. The Jihadists attack only those who are ill equipped to defend themselves or attack only by subterfuge, then they hide behind women, children and civilians. Until very recently the so called moderates had not stood against the Jihadis with the rest of the world. 

Overview of War with the Barbary Muslim States

Congress declared war on Tripoli during the first Presidential term of Thomas Jefferson who as shown above was completely against paying tribute to the Muslims to keep them from attacking American interests. Jefferson wanted to annihilate them. See Thomas Jefferson First Annual Message as President December 1801

While we were thus broadening our territories at home, we were having trouble abroad with no less formidable enemies than Algerine pirates who infested the Mediterranean Sea, and all the coasts of southern Europe. The Barbary States, you know, comprise the countries of Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli, and are formed of a narrow strip of land in northeastern Africa. They are inhabited by Moors, Turks, Arabs, and a sprinkling of Jews. The principal religion is that of Mohammed, and they were sworn enemies to all Christian nations. For years the pirates of the Barbary States, or, as they were generally called, ” Algerine pirates,” had been a terror to every merchant vessel who came to trade with the countries near the Mediterranean. Any unlucky, ship, which found itself near the Atlantic coast of Africa, might see at any moment an odd-looking boat with long lateen sails, swooping down upon her from some sheltered inlet or harbor, where she had lain at watch for her prey. In a twinkling she would sail alongside the merchantman, grapple her, drop her long sails over the vessel’s side, and a host of swarthy, turbaned Moors, with bare, sharp sabres held between their teeth, belts stuck thick with knives and pistols, would come swarming over from sails and rigging, boarding their prize from all sides at once. The merchantman, with a crew untrained to fighting, would surrender. Every man on board would be made prisoner, and carried to Algiers or Tripoli to be held for the payment of a large ransom. If this sum were not paid they were sold as slaves in the public marketplaces.

It is wonderful [amazing], when we read of this thing, to see the terror in which these miserable, half clad pirates held half a dozen European nations. Italy feared them as a mouse fears a cat; Holland and Sweden trembled at the name of Algiers; Denmark paid them yearly a large tribute; the only nation of whom they stood in awe was England. For her, they had some respect, as one of their proverbs, “as hard-headed as an Englishman,” testifies.

When the pirates found America had become an independent nation, they immediately made demands on the government to pay them tribute. The Emperor of Morocco, Dey of Algiers, Bey of Tunis, and Bashaw of Tripoli (such were the high sounding titles of these squalid potentates) all thought they had found a new nation weak enough to submit to their piratical demands. And at first the United States did submit in the most astonishing manner. They sent consuls to the Barbary States to arrange on the amount of money or presents to be given these rulers to buy their favor and exempt our ships from their plunder. General Eaton, an officer who had served in the Revolutionary War, was one of these consuls, and very indignant he wiis at the manner in which his government submitted to the demands of these barbarians. When he called to see the Bey of Tunis, he was ordered to take off his shoes in the anteroom, and enter In his stocking feet. When he approached the bey in the stifling little den only eight by twelve, which served for grand audience chamber, he was ordered to “kiss his majesty’s hand.” “Having performed this ceremony,” says the bluff old soldier, “we were allowed to take our shoes and other property and depart, without any other injury than the humiliation of being obliged in this way to violate one of God’s commandments and offend common decency.”

These potentates of Barbary were constantly begging. They asked for ships, gunpowder, arms, cloth, and jewels from our consuls. General Eaton says, while he lived in the consulate at Tunis, not only the bey, but his minister and half a dozen officers of his court, sent for their coffee, spices, sugar, and other groceries, to the American house, demanding it as tribute. Once the bey saw there a handsome looking-glass, for which he sent next day, and the American consul could do no better than pack it off to him. If he refused to comply with any demand, the bey threatened to let his pirates loose on the American trading vessels. Here is a specimen of the letters sent by this prince of pirates to the Danish consul.

“On account of the long friendship subsisting between us we take the liberty to give you a commission for sundry articles, naval and military, which I find indispensable. I give you six months to answer this letter, and one year to forward the goods. And remember, if we do not hear from you we know what steps to take.”

As demand followed demand, and our consuls found it was like filling a bottomless tub with water to satisfy these fellows, they began to demur.

“When will these demands end?” asked United States Consul Cathcart of the Bashaw of Tripoli. “Never! They will never be at an end,” answered the bashaw, coolly. “Then I will declare war on my own responsibility,” said the consul. And so finally war was declared.

In 1804 the American squadron, under Commodore Preble, was sent into the Mediterranean, and bombarded the city of Tripoli. they arrived shortly after the pirates had captured the American ship Philadelphia. The officers and crew of the captured vessel were taken to Tripoli and a ransom of five hundred dollars a head placed on each man. The Philadelphia was anchored in the harbor in plain sight of the town.

One of the officers on Preble’s ship, young Stephen Decatur, begged to be allowed to destroy the Philadelphia, in order that the pirates might not be able to use her in their war against the United States. Permission was given him, and Decatur took a party of picked men and started on his adventure. He first captured a boat belonging to the pirates which was loaded with a cargo of women slaves they were sending to the markets of Constantinople. This vessel he fitted up and new baptized The Intrepid. She sailed into the harbor of Tripoli one midnight with all her crew, Lieutenant Decatur, except the man at the helm, lying flat on their faces on the deck. The ship was hailed, but her captain gave plausible answers till they reached the side of the Philadelphia. In a moment Decatur and his crew had boarded her, and throwing over the deck pitch, tarred cloth, and all sorts of combustibles, set fire to her. Before the enemy had recovered from their surprise, the Intrepid with all sails spread was outside the harbor, which was lighted up as brightly as noonday by the burning ship. Decatur lost not one man, while the Tripolitans lost twenty, or nearly that number, who were surprised on the ship, and part of whom were drowned from leaping off the burning vessel.

DecaturPhiladelphia

Decatur burning the Philadelphia

In the mean time General Eaton Eaton forms a convention with Hamet, the expelled bashaw of Tripoli, for the subjugation of that government: an army is raised in Egypt, and Eaton appointed general under Hamet: from Egypt they cross a desert 1000 miles in extent, to Derne, a Tripolitan city on the Mediterranean, which they attack and carry, in which Eaton is wounded, another battle is fought, and Eaton again victorious, June 10, 1805: the bashaw offers terms of peace, which are, acceded to, and 200 prisoners were given up.

[graphic]

Lieutenant Decatur

The American valor in this war had the good effect of convincing the pirates that the United States was not a country to be trifled with. They said we were too much like the English, and for the present no more demands were made for either ships or jewels as presents, by these autocrats of the seas.

  On the breaking out of the war between the United States and England in 1812, the Algerines and their associates seized all the American ships that came in their way. On the conclusion of peace, in 1815, the United States’ government determined to put an end to the disgraceful system of piracy by the Muslim Barbary States. An American squadron under Commodore Decatur was dispatched to the Mediterranean. Two Algerian ships of war were taken by Decatur, immediately after passing the Straits of Gibraltar. He then suddenly made his appearance before Algiers.

  The Dey, terrified by these unexpected movements, was glad to make peace on any terms, and a treaty was dictated by the American commodore. The Dey was compelled to make indemnity for the spoliations committed on American commerce, to renounce all claim of tribute from the United States, and give up all the Christian prisoners without ransom. The other Barbary powers were struck with a panic at the fate of Algiers, and agreed to the same terms. Thus the United States of America was the first Christian nation that threw off the disgraceful servitude of paying tribute to the pirates of the Mediterranean.

 The European nations were ashamed any longer to submit to the yoke, and the Congress of Vienna resolved to put an end to Christian slavery in Barbary. In pursuance of this determination, a British fleet, under Lord Exmouth, bombarded Algiers in 1816, and compelled the Dey to submit, as he had done to the Americans.

 The Barbary states after this remained quiet; but in 1827 the French became involved in a quarrel with the Algerines, and in 1830 a powerful armament was sent from France, which took possession of Algiers. The Dey was deprived of his authority, and allowed to go into exile’ in foreign parts. The French established themselves permanently in the city.

A note from the Ancient Historian John Foxe;

It is amazing when reading Foxe’s accounts, after 13 1/2 centuries the Muslims have done little to change their tactics and techniques, both “moderate” and extremists.

PERSECUTIONS IN THE STATES OF BARBARA. [i.e. Barbary States]

In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers. The conduct of the Algerines towards them is marked with perfidy and cruelty. By paying a most exorbitant fine, some Christians are allowed the title of Free Christians; these are permitted to dress in the fashion of their respective countries, but the Christian slaves are obliged to wear a coarse grey suit, and a seaman’s cap.

The following are the various punishments exercised towards them: 1. If they join any of the natives in open rebellion, they are strangled with a bow-string, or hanged on an iron hook. 2. If they speak against Mahomet, they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. 3. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive, or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire. 4. If they kill a Turk they are burnt. 5. If they attempt to escape, and are retaken, they suffer death in the following manner: they are hung naked on a high gallows by two hooks, the one fastened quite through the palm of one hand, and the other through the sole of the opposite foot, where they are left till death relieves them. Other punishments for crimes committed by the Christians are left to the discretion of the judges, who usually decree the most barbarous tortures.

At Tunis, if a Christian is caught in attempting to escape, his limbs are all broken; and if he slay his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

Fez and Morocco conjointly form an empire, and are the most considerable of the Barbary states. The Christian slaves are treated with the greatest rigour: the rich have exorbitant ransoms fixed upon them; the poor are hard worked and half starved, and sometimes, by the emperor, or their brutal masters, they are murdered.

Sources: The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America from the signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, dated September 10, 1783; to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789. Published under the direction of the Secretary of State, from the original Manuscript in the Department of State, conformably to an Act of Congress, approved May 6,1832.
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe by Gerard W. Gawalt, Library of Congress online.
Islam vs the United States by Niall Kilkenny, 2009
A History of Africa by Samuel Griswold Goodrich; 1850
The History of Our Country from Its Discovery by Columbus to the Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of its Declaration of Independence. by Abby Sage Richardson; 1875

Copyright © 2010 – 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™