1 2 3
There are Arab sources and quite frankly: who would you expect to have the sources on those encounters? The Arabs and the Native Americans, or post-Columbus historians? <<
I would expect some tangible _evidence_ to be available to current historians and archaeologists.
For the Norse, we have the L'Anse aux Meadows settlements, and the sites in Greenland.
For the Polynesians, there is some evidence of ships island-hopping as far as Chile (sweet potatoes and chicken bones).
But the sites that you link provide no evidence beyond ambiguous interpretations of second-hand accounts. Thus they are viewed as unsupported by mainstream historians and archaeologists.
But this is entirely irrelevant to discussing the quote, so we should stop.
9/26/2010 6:27:57 PM
Double post. Oops.
9/26/2010 6:28:49 PM
There is evidence. There are writings, insriptions and even names of cities and Native American tribes. The most important information I find though is the books and journals which are detailed in that article. The evidence is there. And those articles and books have been written by current historians. That is the reason Obama said what he said. You think he just said that stuff without being told about it? You think he was just making stuff up?
But you're right. We might move onto a whole other discussion. Best to just comment on the idiocy of Spencer and leave. So, ciao.
9/26/2010 6:37:42 PM
Oh, anonymous Muslim crackpot, you are very amusing. You've fallen for the same sort of loopy fables and tortuously "creative" reinterpretations of history that also posit alien astronauts in Peru and Atlantean airplanes in the Neolithic. If there's such vast evidence of ancient Muslim contact with the Americas, where's all the remains now? Where are all these great mosques and Muslim native tribes?
... Oh, right: They're all hidden by THE GRAND CONSPIRACY! The conspiracy that suppresses evidence about everything. Boogaboogabooga, blahblahblah. Heard it. But I don't doubt that you'll claim I'm just part of the plot myself. We're all in on it, you know.
And if you felt no need to claim primacy, you wouldn't have fallen for such nonsense in the first place. Unless you're just naturally gullible.
9/26/2010 6:44:09 PM
If by "Muslims" you mean "Arabs" [as most idiots think] then that might be tough, but if we're just talking about people of the Muslim faith then I'm sure there are plenty in all categories. Unfortunately for you there is no religious monopoly on anything.
9/26/2010 6:49:52 PM
Who says im a Muslim anyway? Who said anything about grand mosques being built? Who said anything about a conspiracy theory? Who said anything about Muslim Native tribes? Oh, you mean those Native American tribes where the Muslims integrated and became a part of the tribe?
If all you're going to do is make up stuff about me being some Muslim conspiracy theorist nut who believes that there is a vast conpiracy covering up Muslim history.... You'd be so wrong I could only facepalm. But you have already shown you dont actually care what actual historians have to say about the matter. And thats fine with me. You see: I dont care. All I'm doing is putting the information out there. Information I came across trying to find out just how far back Arab/Muslim relations with the Americas go. If people are interested in that, they can follow the links. If they arent, well, then they can just not follow them. I didnt post those links or "fall" for the information because I'm a sucker for primacy as you put it. Like I said, I dont really care who was where first.
Conspiracy? Nah. I dont believe in aliens in Peru. I also laugh at people thinking that Atlantis was a real place. But oh well, enjoy.
9/26/2010 6:54:53 PM
>>Anonymous: That is the reason Obama said what he said. You think he just said that stuff without being told about it?<<
I think he was referring to early Muslim inhabitants of the colonies, such as van Salee, to Jefferson's writings and the Treaty of Tripoli, and to notable Muslim Americans more recently - he mentioned Fazlur Khan in particular in a speech he gave in Cairo a while ago. Speculation about pre-Columbian voyages doesn't enter into it.
And now I go.
9/26/2010 6:54:54 PM
Hmm, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say or maybe I wrote it wrong about that particular aspect. I meant that Obama knows about or was told about Muslims history from the post-Columbus era. So yes, by that I did mean that he would know about the Muslims among the slaves. And also, him being the first black President of the USA, I think he might consider the Civil Rights Movement and the Muslims who were in there together with the Christians to be have done "extra-ordinary things".
9/26/2010 6:59:43 PM
Is it just me or does every fundie post bashing Muslims have to involve people agreeing with the nutcase speaker in question, leading to flame wars between two sides of people who don't know history? To say that Islam has not had a connection with the United States since its inception is patently false. To ignore the link between the final Abrahamic religion and U.S. history is to ignore the multitudes of Muslim slaves taken to work in the U.S. including Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori, Omar Ibn Said, Peter Salem (who fought in the Revolutionary War) and Bilali Mohammed. Among the carvings on the U.S. Supreme Court building is Muhammad, sitting next to Hammurabi, Moses, John Marshall, Napoleon, Confucious and Sir William Blackstone. Islam and Muslims have always been a part of American life, though one must remember that they were and still are a minority religion which sometimes makes it easy to forget such things. And Robert Spencer is nothing but a hack pseudohistorian and xenophobe as can be evidenced by his claims about Islam and the U.S. as well as his little quip about airport security.
9/26/2010 7:28:24 PM
Your "sources" said that, dimwit, if you'd actually bothered to read them. Your "actual historians" who are standing jokes to ... well, actual historians, who also
laugh at Robert Spencer.
As for your rearguard claim of studied indifference, you do an awful lot of obsessive ranting for someone who doesn't really care.
9/26/2010 7:34:10 PM
Yes the grand Mosque made out of an old burlington coat factory that's supposed to be a Muslim community center a few blocks away from the WTC site.
9/26/2010 7:45:38 PM
You'll find you are the dimwit here. Mroueh only refers to one mosque and remnants and ruins in his article which have actually been found and with Quranic inscriptions.
Nothing about grand mosques or a conspiracy to cover everything up. You want to see what you want to see, and thats fine. Which historians are a joke? Are their sources wrong? How are they wrong? You're digging yourself into a deeper hole. But hey, maybe thats your fetish.
Keep building up that straw man, my friend.
Hmm, come to think of it some people might take mypost to be something like what you described, while that was certainly not the intention. What I was saying was that Obama is not wrong when he says Muslims and Arabs have had a long connection with America. Not that they were intimately involved with the creation of the USA.
9/26/2010 8:05:57 PM
What is this, I don't even...
9/26/2010 8:18:42 PM
"Barack Obama gave U.S. Muslims a grand mosque at Ground Zero..."
This is the pinnacle of language distortion. Right here! What really happened, of course, is that plans for a proposed Muslim community center two blocks away from Ground Zero have come under fire from conservative and anti-Muslim ideologies, leading to the President's endorsement of the project as a constitutionally supported sign of good faith between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans.
But instead of the truth, we hear people controlling the discourse, making sure everyone discussing a topic uses language that frames reactionary ideologies in the best possible light. There is no "Ground Zero mosque," certainly no "grand" mosque, and what is
there, our president did not propose. (Not that it would have been bad if he had, beyond being something of a waste of the president's time.) I know this has been said before, but liberals need to work on taking back the political language. If we don't, we can look forward to even more domination by an extremist Republican party and a conservative Democratic "opposition," with no representation at all for supporters of the "radical" ideas of tolerance and secularism.
Edit @ Thinking Allowed:
It's called Park51
, and it looks like a box. It's not actually a mosque, although I think there was a mosque in it.
9/26/2010 8:24:09 PM
From the Wiki
Many of the slaves brought to colonial America from Africa were Muslims. By 1800, some 500,000 Africans arrived in what became the United States. Historians estimate that between 15 to 30 percent of all enslaved African men, and less than 15 percent of the enslaved African women, were Muslims. These enslaved Muslims stood out from their compatriots because of their "resistance, determination and education"
It is estimated that over 50% of the slaves imported to North America came from areas where Islam was followed by at least a minority population. Thus, no less than 200,000 came from regions influenced by Islam. Substantial numbers originated from Senegambia, a region with an established community of Muslim inhabitants extending to the 11th century.
Michael A. Gomez speculated that Muslim slaves may have accounted for "thousands, if not tens of thousands," but does not offer a precise estimate. He also suggests many non-Muslim slaves were acquainted with some tenets of Islam, due to Muslim trading and proselytizing activities. Historical records indicate many enslaved Muslims conversed in the Arabic language. Some even composed literature (such as autobiographies) and commentaries on the Quran.
So there's that...
9/26/2010 8:51:54 PM
Bwahahaha! Check your sleeves for hay, anonynut. "If you only had a brain ...."
Ah, yes, your "Quranic inscriptions." And on whom does your esteemed source rely for this wonderful proof? Barry Fell, a biologist who went off the deep end and decided he was an epigrapher. He began seeing ancient inscriptions on every gravel he picked up - such as the Arabic inscriptions to which you refer, rejected by real epigraphers as forgeries or random scribbles and scratches.
But it was a crowded New World, according to Fell; he "found" inscriptions from Celts in West Virginia, Hittites in the Amazon and Phoenicians everywhere, in addition to your Imaginary Muslim pioneers. And guess who else swallows Fell's ramblings as eagerly as you do, claiming them as just as much proof for their own pet theories: acolytes of Atlantis.
So don't make too much fun of the whackos who rave about lost continents - you're in exactly the same league.
9/26/2010 9:46:36 PM
For someone who claims to be indifferent and not a Muslim, a certain Anon seems to be taking this far too personally.
9/26/2010 10:00:37 PM
Oh no! How dare Obama say platitudes?!
9/27/2010 12:29:16 AM
By "always been part of America", he means "there have always been Muslims here, even though they're distinctly in the minority".
9/27/2010 12:50:03 AM
The Koran that Jefferson had was a figment of our imagination?. Let alone the treaty of Tripoli?
9/27/2010 1:21:09 AM
The list of Muslim Founding Fathers isn't much shorter than a list of Jesus-believing Church-going Christian Founding Fathers of any note.
9/27/2010 2:17:34 AM
@BJD - those numerals were Indian weren't they? And those came to the Middle East and Europe first before we colonized the new world.
9/27/2010 3:28:09 AM
@ Brent - that man was a Ducthmen - of dubious reputation btw - even the Dutch wanted to kick him out.
I'm not sure what considerable contribution this man made to America.
9/27/2010 3:30:34 AM
"Will Obama provide us with a list of the Muslim Founding Fathers, the Muslim heroes of the American Revolution,"
It would have as much truth as your claim that the founding fathers were members of you little extremist cult.
9/27/2010 5:22:15 AM
First of all, assuming that quote is real, he was obviously referring to the fact that freedom of religion has always been part of America, so in theory Muslims could have lived in this country since whenever. The fact that there was hardly any emigration from the Muslim countries to the U.S. until recently proves nothing. By that logic, any ethnic group which did not immediately move to the United States is barred from entry, which is un-American.
The Muslims who are not terrorists (which is the vast majority) should not be forbidden from entering the United States. The Christians who are terrorists should be forbidden from the United States, and the same goes for Muslim terrorists, or Hindu terrorists, or nationalist terrorists in the Balkans and Caucasus. The point is, how come it's only Muslims as a whole who are considered to be terrorists by your reasoning?
The stuff in the last paragraph has been refuted many times before, so I won't do more work than I have to.
9/27/2010 5:48:25 AM
1 2 3