• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Obama Claims Islam Part Of Founding; Here’s The Truth In The Founders Own Words

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
President Obama has continually asserted that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of the United States since its founding. Obama claims that Muslims have made significant contributions to building of this nation. The claim is laughable to anyone who has studied US history. Historian David Barton spoke to Glenn Beck and tore the president’s claims apart.

Barton found the first real contribution any Muslim made was in 1856 (80 years after the founding) when then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis hired one Muslim to help train camels in Arizona. Not exactly a resounding contribution, since the plan to fight Native Americans via camelback was soon dismissed.

But Muslims did have an influence on early America, and that influence was one of a foe. After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.
After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible.

Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”

By the time Jefferson became president the Barbary coast was extorting 25% of US GDP and attacks were still occurring. Jefferson wasted no time in signing a war powers request which launched the US’s entire naval fleet to wage war on the Barbary pirates. The US Marines were born. Jefferson saw the fleet off, ordering the US sailors to chase the pirates all the way to Tripoli, giving rise to the famed verse from the US Marines’ anthem.


http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...eres-what-our-founders-wrote-about-mussellmen
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
As most of our history books attest, white historians like David Barton, have a bad habit of erasing those who don't look and think like them as of any "significance" to American History.

So why should we trust him when so many of the other white historians have written an incomplete version of America's history?
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What Obama means is that one of our first wars was with Islam. The notion that there were Islamists in the colonies is absurd. Europe had just turned back the Islamic hordes at the time of the Protestant Reformation and the knowledge of Islamic barbarism was widespread in Europe.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
As most of our history books attest, white historians like David Barton, have a bad habit of erasing those who don't look and think like them as of any "significance" to American History.

So why should we trust him when so many of the other white historians have written an incomplete version of America's history?

So you are saying that there was a significant Muslim influence in the founding of our nation?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
President Obama has continually asserted that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of the United States since its founding. Obama claims that Muslims have made significant contributions to building of this nation. The claim is laughable to anyone who has studied US history. Historian David Barton spoke to Glenn Beck and tore the president’s claims apart.

How many slaves who built so much of this country, especially in the South were Muslims when they were brought here?

It is true one of our first wars, well it was more of a successful blockade, was with the pirates on the North African coast.

The Muslim presence in the Americas began at least since Cristóbal Colón’s maiden sea voyage, in which many Moors accompanied him in 1492.

As many as one-fifth of all slaves introduced to the Americas from Africa in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were
Muslim.


http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1715&context=sjsj
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
As for Davis Camel Corps, the camels were supposed to be used in a logistics role. At the time, the alternative were ox\horse\mule drawn wagons and pack mules\horses. Camels were thought to be a better fit for the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona. It was a nice bit of outside the box thinking. Jeff Davis was a decent Secretary of War. To bad, he tried to be the same when was POTCSA.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
Barton found the first real contribution any Muslim made was in 1856 (80 years after the founding) when then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis hired one Muslim to help train camels in Arizona. Not exactly a resounding contribution, since the plan to fight Native Americans via camelback was soon dismissed.

It's hard to take an article like this seriously when it's documented that there were at least a few muslims that fought in the Revolutionary War. Is it the author's intent to minimize the contribution of a soldier fighting for America's freedom by saying that it wasn't a "real contribution"?
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So why should we trust him when so many of the other white historians have written an incomplete version of America's history?

We shouldn't trust anybody who writes anything, should we? Everyone has biases. As for what you mean by "incomplete version of America's history" [italics mine], only you (disregarding the divine or supernatural) know. On another thread, though, you did say the first riots in America were committed by white men-- inevitably meaning that the natives, for their thousands of years before, had never, at any time, rioted. But rioting was one thing that probably led to the demise of Cahokia, which had been the largest city by population (=> 40,000) until Philadelphia surpassed it about 1780.

BTW David Barton is not a "historian," supposing that was your implication in reference to him among "other white historians."
 

PreachTony

Active Member
As most of our history books attest, white historians like David Barton, have a bad habit of erasing those who don't look and think like them as of any "significance" to American History.

So why should we trust him when so many of the other white historians have written an incomplete version of America's history?

There is a saying that goes "the winner writes the history book." Whether you like it or not, those in power will be the ones who record the history. Consider the entry of Israel into Canaan. We have the biblical account, recorded by Moses, Joshua, et al. It wasn't until circa 1890 that archaeologists discovered a set of tablets at Tell el-Amarna containing many letters written from provincial governors to the Egyptian court, requesting aid against an invading army sometimes referred to as the Habiru or Khabiri. The winners wrote the history. (NOTE: The Habiru/Apiru are not always associated with the Hebrews, though the time of the letters roughly coincides with the time of the Exodus.)

However, I am glad to see that you didn't let an opportunity to take a shot at "white" people go to waste.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It often is. It ignores the many black slave owners as if there were none.

I hadn't really thought of it....but you're right. I don't think I've ever read a history book (in school anyway) that highlighted not only black slave owners but also black slave traders. Our "history" is often agenda driven, perhaps now more than ever.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Islam is violently opposed to almost everything that the "Great Satan" stands for so how could Islam at the same time contributed? It defies logic and lacks historical evidence, not that such matters concern the pompous Obama.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is a saying that goes "the winner writes the history book." Whether you like it or not, those in power will be the ones who record the history. Consider the entry of Israel into Canaan. We have the biblical account, recorded by Moses, Joshua, et al. It wasn't until circa 1890 that archaeologists discovered a set of tablets at Tell el-Amarna containing many letters written from provincial governors to the Egyptian court, requesting aid against an invading army sometimes referred to as the Habiru or Khabiri. The winners wrote the history. (NOTE: The Habiru/Apiru are not always associated with the Hebrews, though the time of the letters roughly coincides with the time of the Exodus.)

However, I am glad to see that you didn't let an opportunity to take a shot at "white" people go to waste.

I myself have a higher view of Hebrew Scripture than you do because I believe that the Hebrew Scripture was written by God Himself.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
So you are saying that there was a significant Muslim influence in the founding of our nation?

I don't know if I'd say influence. I just don't think the President's statement about Islam being woven into the fabric of the nation was incorrect.

There were Muslims here when the Europeans came because they brought them. There had already been Muslim expeditions to this country before the first settlers. There were Muslims who fought in wars with us, who took care of the kids, etc.

I think people try to write off their contributions if they weren't in positions of great authority. But they were here and contributing to the foundation of the country as were Blacks and Native Americans.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
There is a saying that goes "the winner writes the history book." Whether you like it or not, those in power will be the ones who record the history. Consider the entry of Israel into Canaan. We have the biblical account, recorded by Moses, Joshua, et al. It wasn't until circa 1890 that archaeologists discovered a set of tablets at Tell el-Amarna containing many letters written from provincial governors to the Egyptian court, requesting aid against an invading army sometimes referred to as the Habiru or Khabiri. The winners wrote the history. (NOTE: The Habiru/Apiru are not always associated with the Hebrews, though the time of the letters roughly coincides with the time of the Exodus.)

However, I am glad to see that you didn't let an opportunity to take a shot at "white" people go to waste.


It was not taking a shot at anyone. You guys want to be real, then let's be real. And the statement has historically been true about who writes history.

But when last I checked, there were no "wars", per se of Whites vs Blacks or Muslims in this country, unless white people have de facto considered themselves at war with those groups.

So why is the history of this country so overwhelmingly whitewashed? Why are the contributions of Whites traditionally highlighted while everyone else is virtually removed?

I mean folks have a problem with the President saying that Islam is woven into the fabric of the nation. It is. The majority may not want to admit the contributions of some of those others. But they were historically there.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, Islam would not have had a problem with slavery because Islam still practices slavery today. Islam would not have baked a cake for sodomites because Islam executes them. Islam would not have considered women as equals because Islamic women are systematically mutilated to de-feminize them.
 
Top