Muslim Travel Ban? There Has Never Been an America Without Islam or Muslims
That’s the headline for an article by Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR in Michigan, here.
I am an American Muslim, and like thousands of American-Muslim families, my family has been in America for over 10 generations. I am also one of tens of thousands of American-Muslim military veterans. I served honorably in the U.S. Navy, earning two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement medals while deployed abroad. Like other service members, I swore to uphold our Constitution.’
I am an American Muslim, and like thousands of American-Muslim families, my family has been in America for over 10 generations[!]. I am also one of tens of thousands of American-Muslim military veterans. I served honorably in the U.S. Navy, earning two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement medals while deployed abroad. Like other service members, I swore to uphold our Constitution.
A handful of Muslims, not even a half-dozen, are known to have served in the Revolutionary War; 292 Muslims apparently served in the Civil War; perhaps as many as 15,000 Muslims, it is estimated (there is no way of knowing, since “Muslim” was not a category on dog tags), served in World War II, and in recent years, 0.45% (5,500) of soldiers in the American military have been Muslims. This is less than half their share of the general population. And let’s not forget that many, possibly most of them, are Black Muslims (that is, members of the Nation of Islam, which is not recognized as Muslim by orthodox Sunnis or Shi’a). If we were not to count Black Muslims as part of the population of orthodox Muslims, the Muslim percentage of the military today would be much less, possibly 1/3 or 1/4 of 1%. The Pentagon has made great efforts to recruit Muslims, but the results are not impressive. It is doubtful, pace Dawud Walid, that there now are “tens of thousands” of Muslim military veterans.
It is in defense of our Constitution and its promise of religious freedom that I joined several other American-Muslim citizens in suing President Donald Trump within days after he issued his first Muslim-ban executive order in January 2017 because it is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Our lawsuit, as are the many others filed against the Muslim bans, is about religious freedom for all.
Trump’s Muslim bans are clearly intended to exclude Muslims from the United States. Indeed, the underlying message of the third Muslim ban is the same as that of the original Muslim ban: that Muslims are somehow less American than people of other faiths.
However, as one of millions of African-American Muslims whose ancestors were brought to our shores centuries ago, I know this is based not only in malice and hatred but also in ignorance of basic American history.
There has never been an America without Islam and Muslims. Islam is rooted in America from its earliest beginnings. Muslims are indigenous to the American story. American Muslims have helped build our nation and have been part of America since before it was a nation.
This business about Muslims always “being part of America’s story” is now a staple of Muslim propaganda. The claim sometimes starts with Christopher Columbus. Muslims explain that the two Pinzon brothers, one of whom was the captain of the Nina and the other the captain of the Pinta, were Moriscos (Moors who converted to Christianity). There is no evidence for this. A further claim, that Columbus employed two Muslims in his own crew, one as an interpreter and the other as a navigator, has been made by Muslims who failed to realize that both men, though they knew Arabic, were in fact conversos — Jews who had converted to Christianity. Finally, some Muslims insist that signs of Islam was already to be found in the Caribbean before Columbus arrived. Columbus, they claimed, said that he had seen a “minaret” on one of the Caribbean islands; in fact, what he reported was that he had seen a hill “that in shape resembled a minaret.” That’s a big difference.
The same kind of baseless claim is made by Muslims who insist that 30% of American slaves were “Muslims.” This figure keeps being repeated, from website to website, but if you take the trouble to track down the story to its lair, you discover that no reputable historian has endorsed it, that it seems to be a figure plucked out of thin air, and so often repeated by Muslims, each serving as an authority for another, that the claim has taken on a life of its own on the Internet. There are a handful of stories, about a dozen slaves with “Muslim-sounding names,” which may have some basis in fact. But even if those dozen Muslim slaves came to these shores, they arrived without Qur’ans, had no mosques, nor madrasas, that is, had no way, in short, to hand their Islam on to others, including their own children.
If 30%, or 15%, or even 5% of the slaves had been Muslims, wouldn’t many have recorded it? Yet we do not find any accounts by non-Muslim slaves, taking note of all these Muslims. More telling, wouldn’t the slave owners have noticed all these supposed Muslim slaves in their midst? Isn’t it likely that if 30%, or even 10%, of the slaves were Muslim, this would have been cause for considerable comment? A handful of reports, about a dozen named Muslim slaves, is the most history has recorded. Why should we now believe the numbers being bandied about, without sources, by Muslims intent on backdating, and greatly magnifying, the Muslim presence in America?
Yet here is Dawud Walid, self-assuredly repeating a tall tale as the truth:
Up to 30 percent of enslaved Africans brought to these shores during the transatlantic slave trade were Muslim—banned from practicing Islam by slave masters. Today, millions of American Muslims are descendants of those brought here in bondage centuries ago.
“Millions of American Muslims are descendants of those brought here in bondage”? This is preposterous. That would only be true if we were to accept his figure of “30% of slaves were Muslims” — for which, it cannot be too often repeated, there is no evidence. If Dawud Walid offers no credible evidence that “up to 30 percent of enslaved Africans were Muslim,” he also fails to offer any evidence that Muslim slaves were “banned from practicing Islam by slave masters.” He tells us that there were millions of supposed Muslim slaves, and yet he he cannot provide even one example of a Muslim who was “banned…by slave masters” from “practicing Islam.” Why?
Despite this, mainstream news and entertainment media have, for years, falsely portrayed American Muslims as outsiders despite Islam’s and Muslims’ history in America. Now Trump has tried to exploit this misrepresentation and to further that false idea when promoting his Muslim bans.
Walid writes as if he has irrefutably made his case — without feeling the need to supply any sources — about this supposedly rich early history of Muslims in America. If it was so rich, where were the dozens or hundreds of mosques we would expect to find in the 18th and 19th centuries? What we know about mosques in America is this: there are two rival claimants to being the very first purpose-built mosque in the United States. One is a tiny structure erected in 1929 in Ross, North Dakota. Another, the so-called Mother Mosque, was built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in 1934. If those are the first mosques in America, dating from 1929 and 1934, just how far back can Islam be found in this country? And how many Muslims were there actually in America in 1860, or 1900, or 1930?
This week, the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to the Trump administration’s blatant bigotry. This decision green-lights religious and ethnic discrimination that runs counter to the inclusionary principles that our country aspires to.
Rather than reinforce the notion that America welcomes people regardless of where they were born, what they look like or how they pray, the Supreme Court instead upheld a ban, driven by anti-Muslim sentiment.
The hysterical tone of bigotry unleashed is entirely unwarranted. The Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii does not “green-light religious and ethnic discrimination.” As Chief Justice Roberts said, the Proclamation issued by the President was directed at the question of information-sharing — countries deemed too lax in this area were put on the list, and so, too, were those countries that demonstrated some connection to, by harboring or promoting, terrorists. Any country that demonstrated an improvement in its information (i.e., intelligence) gathering about its citizens could be removed from the list. That’s exactly what happened to Iraq and Chad, taken off the list when they demonstrated better information-gathering about their nationals. Again, one more time: if the ban were, as Dawud Walid wants us to believe, “driven by anti-Muslim sentiment,” why were 95% of the world’s Muslims exempted? And why were two non-Muslim countries included in the ban? And why were two Muslim countries dropped from the ban?
The Supreme Court has been wrong on major decisions before, and the Roberts court has joined that sad legacy.
In the case of Dred Scott, the court ruled in favor of slavery, and in the case of Korematsu, the court permitted the incarceration of thousands of Americans and their families and children based on their Japanese ancestry.
Dragging in Dred Scott and Korematsu, two Supreme Court decisions that are now universally deplored, in order to suggest that Trump v. Hawaii is similarly deplorable, is meretricious. Trump v. Hawaii is not about race or religion, but about national security, and whether the President was within the scope of his authority in denying entry to people — not Muslims, people — coming from countries where the security vetting apparatus was deemed, not by the President but by several government agencies, to be insufficient. And that’s all it was about.
In the Muslim-ban case, Trump v. Hawaii, Trump set out to ban Muslim families, and the highest level of our judiciary just allowed it to happen, empowering this president and future administrations to discriminate on the basis of religion.
This week’s decision attacks Muslim communities and opens the door to government- and court-sanctioned discrimination of other ethnic and religious groups.
The Muslim bans aren’t just about denying visas to people from certain Muslim-majority countries. They also take away the constitutional rights of American citizens, including those whose ancestors have been in America for centuries.
There has been no “taking away the constitutional rights of American citizens.” No American citizens, coming from anywhere, are affected by the travel ban as set out in Proclamation 9645. Has Dawud Walid actually read the Presidential Proclamation by which the citizens of seven countries were barred from entry? Has he read Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion? Here is the most important part of that opinion, explaining the basis of Proclamation No. 9645:
“…The President issued Proclamation No. 9645, seeking to improve vetting procedures for foreign nationals traveling to the United States by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the infor- mation needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present a security threat. The Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight [now seven] foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. …After a 50-day period during which the State Department made diplomatic efforts to encourage foreign governments to improve their practices, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen [Chad and Iraq have now been dropped from, and Somalia added to, the list] — remained deficient.
With his words and actions, the president has sent the message to American Muslims that they are less favored by the federal government than Americans of other faiths. This is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause.
But the travel ban was not based — no matter how many times Dawud Walid insists — on a ban on Muslims. It was a ban on travel from countries that had “deficient information-sharing practices and presenting national security concerns.” Two of these countries are non-Muslim; five are majority Muslim. But the author keeps forgetting, and needs endlessly to be reminded, that 52 of the 57 Muslim-majority nations are unaffected by the ban. Also unaffected are Muslims who wish to enter the United States from any of a dozen European countries. Keep reminding the dawud-walids of this world: 95% of the world’s Muslims remain entirely unaffected by the travel ban.
The bigoted message sent by the president has also caused American families and children who are Muslim, as well as those perceived as Muslim, to become targets of increased hate attacks and discrimination.
Does the writer have any evidence that Muslims have “become targets of increased hate attacks and discrimination” because of this Proclamation about national security? Let him present it. And let’s make sure that the claimed attacks were not made up by, or carried out by, Muslims themselves, which is a phenomenon we have frequently encountered before.
Our Constitution begins with the principle of freedom of religion, which, as a nation, we continue to strive to make this foundational principle into reality. No one should fear for their safety because of the color of their skin or how they pray. Since we have no authority to dictate to people how they should pray, we cannot ban people based on their religion. Smearing an entire group of people based on how they worship God is fundamentally wrong.
Here the author is dragging in all sorts of unproven worries. Why does he attempt to suggest that Muslims “fear for their safety”? What “fear” do Muslims feel for their safety in this country? Given how many Muslims keep knocking at the gates to be admitted to the United States, it seems that that “fear” is being grossly exaggerated by Dawud Walid. Doesn’t he have it backwards? Isn’t it non-Muslims who have been attacked repeatedly by Muslim terrorists, and who are justified in “fearing for their safety,” not just in America, but in Europe? He talks about how “we cannot ban people based on their religion.” If he reads the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Hawaii, he will see that no one was being banned “based on their religion” — if they had, not 5 but 57 Muslim countries would have been included in the ban, as would all the Muslims now living in Europe.
We will continue to fight for Muslim families and communities, to pursue legal avenues on behalf of impacted people and to demand that legislators take action to end the Muslim ban.
The author apparently doesn’t realize that once the Supreme Court makes its decision, there is no further “legal avenue” of appeal. As for his “demand” that legislators “take action to end the Muslim ban,” all any country needs to do to remove itself from the ban is to improve its “systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals.” Two Muslim states, Iraq and Chad, did just that, and were promptly taken off the list. But that’s not the kind of information that Dawud Walid wants you to know, for it undermines his steady tam-tam about implacable anti-Muslim bigotry.
Most importantly, we will continue organizing, mobilizing and defending Muslim communities from bigoted policies—whether or not they are endorsed by the Supreme Court.
Proclamation 9645 reflects the considered opinions of many people in many different departments having to do with national security, on the thoroughness with which other countries conducted their own information-gathering, and information-sharing, with the American government. It was those analysts, from the Departments of Homeland Security State, and Defense, and not President Trump, as so many seem to believe, who decided what countries should be placed on the list. We can and must repeat endlessly: only 5 of 57 Muslim nations are on this list; no Muslims from Europe are affected by the ban; no Muslims who are American citizens are affected by this ban. Keep one figure in mind when arguing with others about the so-called “Muslim ban” — 95% of the world’s Muslims are unaffected by this ban. Ask Muslims who claim to have been victimized to explain that.
But don’t try to argue with Dawud Walid. He’s beyond any appeal to fact or reason. He knows. It must be terrible for him to have to live in a police state, led by the anti-Muslim bigot Donald Trump and his private islamophobic Gestapo. Walid will not give up but will soldier on, will endure life in America, terrible as it must be for Muslims like himself. He will fight until this country — his country, for his family, he assures, goes back 10 generations — becomes true to its ideals. A profile in courage and idealism, is Dawud Walid. He can do no other.
Mac-101 says
The big question is, is it MAIN part of Islam that every Muslim must do ALL they can to help establish the Universal Caliphate and implement Sharia Law throughout the world. If this is the case, which I believe it is, then NO Muslim can be a loyal American Citizen and truthfully swear to “Defend and Protect the Constitution, against ALL enemys, Foreign and DOMESTIC!”
Terry Gain says
Exactly right. Which is why Muslim immigration must be banned if we are to preserve our way of life.
J D S says
If one is Muslim…believes and follows the teachings of the Koran and hadath and of many. many imams clerics or whatever their religious leaders may be called, then that Muslim has no alternative but to be a terrorist in DEED or THOUGHT……Otherwise Muslims who don’t believe and think all the rhetorical acts in islam, should be in the streets protesting what those who really believe and put into action Islamic sword teachings.
Hindu American says
Boycott Bigotry!? Hey, we here at JW believe in that, too.
common sense says
Tommy Robinson is out, interview with Carlson is on Fox news. Crazy story mistreated by his own country for “breeching the peace”.
gravenimage says
Yes–a very good interview. You can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBuWIDPVaP8
Wellington says
Another thorough article by Hugh Fitzgerald. Well reasoned and good information as usual.
As for the specific matter of boycotting bigotry, then how can one not want to boycott Islam since it is possessed of huge amounts of bigotry towards all who are not Muslim (or those who dare to cease being Muslim), as evidenced by the Islamic texts themselves, examples from the Koran itself being Sura 98:6 which refers to Jews and Christians “as the vilest of creatures,” Sura 60:4 which calls upon Muslims “to despise the unbelievers until they accept Allah only,” and Sura 4:89 which instructs Muslims “to seize and kill those who leave the way of Allah,” i.e., leave Islam.
Oh yeah, Islam is full of bigotry (full of something else as well) and so I am all for boycotting it. Forever.
Terry Gain says
No ideology is as bigoted and xenophobic as Islam. In order to preserve our way of life we must stop tolerating the most intolerant of all ideologies.
J D S says
In this day and time What other religion tries to force itself upon others as does Islam…thinking theirs is the only God given religion. ( Join islam or die by the sword ) which only came along around 1400 years ago..Find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus says join or die by the sword.
somehistory says
More lies, repeated again and again in order to convince the public… who are unaware of the truth of the matter… that the country would not exist without islam; is better off with islam; owes its beginnings and its history to islam.
Telling lies and retelling them, does not make them become truth.
This lwalid and his ilk want people to succumb to the idea, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” In other words, he’s saying, “You can’t beat us and you may as well realize that and join us as we take over.”
These lies are just another part of their warfare.
somehistory says
“Thousand” wish there could be a ban on islam with its evil and its lies promoting the evil..
Someday, this wish will come true. (Revelation 21)
Walter Sieruk says
The need for a national travel ban concerning all those unvetted Muslim migrants who desire to enter the United States of America is very important. This may be yet better explained by one of the fables of Aesop which is entitled THE FARMER AND THE VIPER. So here it is “Once in ancient Greece there was a farmer outside on a very cold winter day walking in if field to make sure that everything is in order and as it should be. The farmer came upon a half-froze viper about to die from the bitter cold. The kind yet foolish farmer took pity on the viper and in an action of kindness put it his is vest jacket to warms and up and thus save its life. The viper warned up revived and then bit farmer through the vest jacket. So the kind but foolish farmer died a slow painful death in awful agony because he felt sorry of the viper and saved it life.” The point to this fable is the no amount of kindness will chance an evil and dangerous nature.
So it may be with those many Muslim immigrants who want to enter the USA. It only takes of few jihadist/vipers inflect jihad terrorism of awful murderous disaster on different cities of this nation.
Walter Sieruk says
Concerning the security and safety of America people as well as peaceful visitors this nation and this topic of a travel ban from terrorist hotspot countries in important. This subject had been, somewhat, explained in the book, by Robert Spencer which his entitled THE COMPLETE INFIDEL’S GUIDE TO THE KORAN. For on page 230 it informs the reader “Immigration. Since there is no completely reliable way to tell any given Muslim believer takes the Koran’s dictates about warfare against Infidels literally, immigration of Muslims into the United States should be halted.”
In addition, on page 232 of the same book read “The willful blindness of Western leaders threatens us all, and the very survival of free societies.” Therefore, First, it should not be forgotten that most of the jihadist al Qaeda operatives who were the hijackers and mass murderers came from Saudi Arabia . Second, don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …” Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.
FYI says
He knows about his “prophet” right?
He surely must do.If he wants to “boycott bigotry”he should look at his own creed.
he need to start with…islam.
SAHIH MUSLIM 3901
muhammed:the man who SOLD black people into slavery(2 for the price of 1)
“allah’s apostle said.”sell him{..another slave..}to me”.and he bought him for TWO BLACK SLAVES”
“..and he bought him for TWO BLACK SLAVES”.TWO.
One ..would be bad enough but it happens to be TWO;what does that say about perfect mo’s attitude to black people??
So that is TWO sold for the price of one.
“Peace be upon him”?How on earth would anyone say pbuh knowing what muhammed did?
It appears that muhmmed was terribly intolerant…perhaps Black muslims should boycott his bigotry.
Let’s not forget allah’s comment about the Jews “Apes to be despised and hated” k2:65.Isn’t that.. bigotry?
alalh the anti-semitic,misogynist,racist bigot.
Yes,let’s “Boycott Bigotry”:Starting with muhammed and allah’s unholy koran.
Emilie Green says
Dawud Walid writes, “I am an American Muslim”
Muslim Americans?
Like unicorns, they don’t exist. Neither do Muslim British, or Muslim Canadians, or Muslim French, and so forth. So maybe they have in hand all the paperwork of superficial citizenship, but all of that would have been falsely, fraudulently, obtained through lying.
Muslims prove this point over and over again. And they state it over and over as well. Namely, that they are loyal only to Islam, and to nothing else. Affirmed by the Orlando shooter, by the Fort Hood murderer, by the Boston Bombers, by the Paris Bombers, by the 911 hijackers, the countless murders by Muslims in Europe (Lee Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, et alia) and on and on. Explaining why Muslims can never be trusted and never be considered loyal Americans, British, Canadians, French, Italian, Australian, and so forth. They represent an enemy living among us.
Here in America, as elsewhere, Muslims are out for colonization and conquest. They cannot be considered Americans because of their adoption of Islam, and their wish to impose it on us. By force, since they will follow their 1400-year practice, should we decline their we-won’t-be-taking-no-for-an-answer “offer” to adopt Islam. Shariah (total government) and American constitutional principles (government contained/controlled by the people) couldn’t be farther apart. To the Muslim no man-made law could ever be superior to the Shariah considered by them to come directly from their Allah.
Is it possible to conceive of a Muslim American? No way. At best and at most they can only be described as “Muslims who live in North America,” but they are not Americans in the heart, where it counts. I’m gladdened to see more and more real Americans are seeing Muslims for the danger that they are.
StellaSaidSo says
Exactly right, Emilie Green. It is simply not possible to be both a loyal Muslim AND a loyal American (Briton/Australian/Canadian/etc). Anyone who swears allegiance to ‘Allah’ and his demonic ‘prophet’ is BY DEFINITION a traitor to his adoptive country.
Terry Gain says
+ 1 million trillion
Thanks Emilie.
gravenimage says
+1
Mark Swan says
When anyone uses a hyphenated version when calling themselves Americans,
it is probable or likely, they see the American part as secondary.
gravenimage says
So often true, Mark.
vlparker says
There’s not a damn thing wrong with banning muslims anymore than there would be a damn thing wrong with banning nazis.
Terry Gain says
As evil as Naziism was and it was truly evil, Naziism did not claim to be a religion and Naziism was therefore less dangerous than Islam.
common sense says
As noted, verified and proven 100’s of times over, Islam is overtly bigoted and authoritarian as was Obama for punishing certain journalists and the tea party with fraudulent IRS investigations into it’s members plus so much more.
Our President Donald J Trump has simply used his authorized power (of our most beloved and beautiful constitution) as backed by the supreme court to enact safety measures on travellers from suspect terrorist hotbeds. Trump did not have CNN shut down or send anyone to violently attack fake news reporters or anything even relatively close to what Obama, Mussolini or Hitler did. The left are the true bigots against American citizens ask any immigrant from Cuba or S. America, they’ve seen this movie and it ends bad.
I think we all see the bigotry against America and how our enemies try to project their hatred upon us as if it emanates from us all while keeping some of those ignorant people safe from exactly what it is that will do us harm. I’m very tired trying to explain this people out here on the WAAAY left coast. Infuriating….rant over.
Cheers and happy Friday!
Niemoller says
So when will Dawud Walid boycott himself? What exactly would that look like?
mortimer says
Sharia law is in stark contradiction to the American constitution. Anyone who says otherwise is a horrible liar.
Sharia law is opposed to most modern human rights codes and most of Sharia law is even illegal in most Western countries.
gravenimage says
+1
GrumpyMel says
It’s more likely that 30 percent (or more) of those African slaves who were brought to America were CAPTURED and SOLD by muslims as part of the North African slave trade, not that they were muslims.
CogitoErgoSum says
Patriotism will mean nothing to the children of these “patriotic” Muslims once their numbers reach the point where they feel confident enough to start fighting for the imposition of the jizya as commanded by Quran 9:29. Today’s patriotic Muslim is the parent of tomorrow’s “martyr” for Allah who will teach you the true meaning of Submission.
gravenimage says
Very true.
Shelley Bayless says
I’m not buying that CRAP about Muslims in the Revolutionary & Civil War! More “taqiyya” lies & twisting history to suit your purposes! I’m Black & i know I’m not rascist! If that country exports TERRORISTS then NO! YOU AIN’T GETTING IN! PERIOD! Using the “rascist” card won’t work anymore!
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Shelley Bayless.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
The headline on the linked-to article says “There Has Never Been an America Without Islam or Muslims”. Such a bold claim cannot be made concerning Arabia, which was without Islam or Muslims prior to the birth of Muhammad (pbuh). This claim about paleo-Muslims in the New World might seem like the claim of some Mormon-like Islamic sect, but they have evidence on their side. Witness the distinctive halal slaughter technique of the Muslims in ancient Aztlan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG8WqEyXIyc
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Muslim Travel Ban? Really?
………………..
Thanks to Hugh Fitzgerald for exposing this tripe.
As for Dawud Walid’s ludicrous claim that his (presumably consistently Muslim) family has been in America for “over 10 generations”, what are the chances that they really date back to the 1750s or earlier here?
somehistory says
My guess is nil.
Perhaps he’s counting all those “generations” where the mother’s of the next generation were only 10 or 12 years old.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
Also, isn’t Dawud Walid’ Nation of Islam? That only dates back to 1930. I doubt his family was Muslim any time before that.
Mark Swan says
Dawud Walid is a fanatic, who is currently the Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI).
gravenimage says
True, Mark. He’s a nasty piece of work.
granddaddy says
According to Muslims, they invented everything, discovered everything, and knew everything originally. It is only because of them that the West can do anything right. The only thing we haven’t gotten right yet is being a third world country for fourteen centuries. Islam knows all about that.
“This is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause.”
Only if you consider Islam to be a religion. How a “religion” can call its followers (Muslims) to commit murder and then call itself a religion is really for those who know nothing about religion.
Terry Gain says
Yes of course, even Abraham, Moses and Jesus were Muslim. I fully expect that in the fullness of time Muslims will claim that Einstein was a Muslim.
If Muslims wish to claim that Obama is a Muslim, I will not argue against that claim as it seems to me the preponderance of evidence is that he is.
gravenimage says
Terry, you aren’t wrong:
“Iranian Cleric: Albert Einstein Was Shiite Muslim”
https://www.haaretz.com/iranian-cleric-einstein-was-shiite-1.5330683
Of course, in real life Muslims would have gleefully murdered this great man for being Jewish. But they are happy to claim him now. Ludicrous claim.
Savvy Kafir says
Even if Muslims had been here since the Mayflower came over, they still need to go. It makes no difference.
Their ideology is inherently incompatible with human rights and free societies — and if they ever have the numbers to impose their will on the rest of us, they will waste no time in proving that.