"Treaties such as Peace and Friendship that was signed on the Delaware River in the year 1787 bear the signatures of Abdel-Khak and Muhammad Ibn Abdullah. This treaty details our continued right to exist as a community in the areas of commerce, maritime shipping, current form of government at that time which was in accordance with Islam."
This treaty was a part of the Barbary Treaties (i.e. US treaties with North African nations). This particular treaty was between the United States and Morocco, which was written June 23rd,1786 CE (25 Shaban, 1200 AH) and was later ratified by the US in 1787.
Details of this treaty may be found under the heading "Treaty with Morocco, June 28 and July 15, 1786" at the following web link:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm As you will see, this treaty has nothing to do with American Indians or the forgotten, lost sons of Muslim nations. It is a treaty between nations (the US and Morocco) on behalf of those nations and it's citizens.
I believe what Mahir is actually referring to is the "Treaty of Peace and Commerce" of 1787 (
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1786a.htm ) which was negotiated by Al-Tahir ibn Abdul Haq Fannis (Abdel Khak) and Thomas Barclay and later ratified and signed by Sultan Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington. What I mentioned above also applies to this treaty as well. It is a treaty between nations (the US and Morocco) and has nothing to do with American Indians or the lost, forgotten sons of Muslim Nations.
The above deception is part and parcel of the "Moors" shenanigans. These particular treaties have been used by "Moors" as "evidence" in yet another attempt to claim sovereignty from the US and immunity from it's laws by the claim that these Afrocentrists are actually Moroccan citizens and under the authority of the Moroccan Emperor and the authority of these treaties, however, even if they were Moors, the treaties show that they are subject to the laws and penalties of the US if abroad in that land and vice versa. The above treaty of "Peace and Commerce" was for a period of 50 years, so it is really quite irrelevant other than to demonstrate a relationship between the US and Morocco.
And, as could be expected, these Afrocentrists claim that they are the real Moors and that "the real Moors were BLACK!".
"According to a federal court case from the Continental Congress, we help put the breath of life in to the newly framed constitution. All of the documents are presently in the National Archives as well as the Library of Congress."
This statement is so vague it can not even be researched. It is nothing more than an empty claim. What Federal Court case from the Continental Congress is the statement referring to? Do you realize how many documents are in the National Archives and Library of Congress? So where would someone researching this even begin to look and what would they be looking for? In addition to all of that, who is "we" referring to - American Indians, Muslims or American Indian Muslims?
"If you have access to records in the state of South Carolina, read the Moors Sundry Act of 1790."
The Moors Sundry Act was an act passed by the South Carolina State Legislature granting the subjects of the Sultan of Morocco, residing in South Carolina, the same rights as their "white" counterparts, even to the extent of being jurors. This document is available in the SC State Archives in Columbia, SC. Again, nothing to do with American Indians, American Indian Muslims or the lost, forgotten sons of Muslim Nations.
The Moors Sundry Act is used as another justification for these Afrocentric, pseudo-Islamic "Moors" to claim sovereignty and immunity from the laws of the land, but even this document simply grants the Moors rights equal to other "white" citizens of South Carolina, which, back then, would have been considered a special status, but is now common law, except for the Indians of South Carolina though.
"In a future article, Inshallah, I will go in to more details about the various tribes, their languages; in which some are influenced by Arabic, Persian, Hebrew words."
Alhamdulillaah, he never wrote a future article. Perhaps he had ran out of hot air to blow.
As far as the languages go, then there is a necessity for scholars who are both proficient in Arabic, Persian, Hebrew as well as the different Native languages to compare those words and languages. Perhaps words can be similar, but that does not necessarily mean the words have the same meaning which would be necessary if you make the claim that Arabic words are found in Native languages. That Arabic sounding word could just as well be native to that Native language.
I do not know of one scholar who is both proficient in Arabic and any one of the 100's of Native languages. Native language is not something widely taught or sought after, and many tribes are having to make gallant efforts in trying to preserve their languages.
I have read where Dr. Berry Fell mentions that the Pima seem to have an Arabic influence upon their language but nothing was really offered in order to substantiate this claim.