American Indian Muslim Debunks "Cherokee Blac

General > Frauds

<< < (2/4) > >>

educatedindian:
"For the most part, not many people are aware of the Native American contact with Islam that began over one thousand years ago by some of the early Muslim travelers who visited us. Some of these Muslim travelers ended up living among our people."

Yes, unfortunately this is true, and may be one of the few authentic statements in the whole of the treatise, "Digging for the Red Roots". This information is something that is not widely known among Indians, Americans or Muslims, and in some cases may be purposely being concealed. There is enough authentic and scholarly references to Islamic presence in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus without the need to embellish, exaggerate and lie concerning such information.

"For most Muslims and non-Muslims of today, this type of information is unknown and has never been mentioned in any of the history books."

I wouldn't say never mentioned, more like... not widely available. So where can this information be found? Few scholars have taken up this task, and probably one of the best books relating to this subject would be by Dr. Berry Fell entitled "Saga America".

Much of the information regarding Pre-Columbian Islamic contact would be ignored unless someone is specifically looking for it.

Most Americans seem as if they would rather accept the status-quo historical indoctrination rather than be exposed to something that could potentially "rock their world". Not only does the typical US history textbooks leave out such information as Pre-Columbian contact in the Americas by other nations and peoples, but they also leave out large, relevant, factual portions of the history that they do address and would rather report tales of George Washington "chopping down the cherry tree" than truthful "no holds barred" history.

Just look at the American Indian and the official version of "American History". They have pretty much relegated us to museums, tipis and buckskins. They make our history seem to be nothing more than attacking wagon trains, Indian Wars, and how to plant corn. Or they make it seem our history is nothing more than meeting and greeting the "Pilgrims", celebrating "Thanksgiving", Squanto, how Europeans were the greatest thing to benefit Indians since fry bread, and some more planting corn. All depends on which version of history they want to offer.

"There are many documents, treaties, legislation and resolutions that were passed between 1600s and 1800s that show that Muslims were in fact here and were very active in the comunities in which they lived."

These treaties were initiated between the British Colonial Government, and then the American Government after them, between those governments and Muslim Nations and their citizens as will be shown. This does not imply that these particular nations had contacts or influence upon American Indian nations, but it does prove that Muslims have had a presence in this country even in Colonial times. So Muslims have just as much right to be here in America as some Euro-Americans whose families came over later than these Muslims.

educatedindian:
"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 s

educatedindian:
Any person who wishes to engage in such research shouldn't approach it with an agenda or try to pound a square peg into a round hole. The Muslim is truthful and so should be his research.

"Almost all of the tribes vocabulary include the word Allah."

Again, just another baseless claim. Which tribes have the word Allah as part of their vocabulary? And who went among the more than 500 tribes to see? And as for the tribes that have the word "Allah" in their vocabulary, does Allah in their language mean the same as Allah in the Arabic language?

"The traditional dress code for Indian women includes the kimah and long dresses."

Some may say that I am nit-picking, but what is a kimah? I do not think that Mahir actually knows that a Muslim woman's "head covering" is called a khimar because he is not even a Muslim, and probably only heard it in passing and that is why he referred to it as a kimah, unless he means that traditional Indian dress includes a cap (kimah) for women instead of a Muslim woman's traditional khimar, which he assumes to be "traditional Indian dress".

I have never witnessed such a thing as Indian women wearing Islamic "caps", but Allaahu ‘alam. I believe the "kimah" he is referring to are actually quilts and any other typical head covering which were worn by Indian women in cold weather. Head coverings are not unique just to Muslim women.

Indian women, including Cherokees, take great pride in their hair and generally do not cover it up unless there is a need to such as bad weather. I have never seen any Indian woman with her hair covered, in the past or present, unless it was due to cold, inclement weather.

As far as long dresses are concerned, this has not always necessarily been the case. Our way of dress has evolved just as we have evolved (no inference to the "theory of evolution" intended here). How Indian woman dressed during early contact is different from how they dressed in the 1700's, is different from how they dressed in the 1800's, is different even in how they dress today. So "traditional" dress is not always necessarily traditional. Even the "traditional" Cherokee "tear dress" is not traditional as it does not even pre-date the Trail of Tears, i.e. "Removal", which occurred in the late 1830's. The tear dress of today is fashioned after a tear dress that has it's origin from the late 1960's, and has undergone modifications even to this day.

"For men, standard fare is turbans and long tops that come down to the knees. If you were to look at any of the old books on Cherokee clothing up until the time of 1832, you will see the men wearing turbans and the women wearing long head coverings."

Long shirts were not uncommon back then and had nothing at all to do with Indians or Islam. Those types of shirts were typical depending on someone's style of dress. Those long tops actually had a European origin. Today, the "traditional" shirt of a Cherokee man is the "ribbon shirt" which definitely is not long or coming down to the knees.

educatedindian:
As far as the turbans are concerned, this was adapted by the Cherokee after a delegation of them visited England's Royal Family and decided they should cover up their tattooed heads because the English were terrified by such a sight, so they borrowed the wearing of the turban from some royal servants who happened to be Muslims from India. The Cherokees brought back this form of head dress with them and it ended up becoming fashionable among the Cherokees. The Cherokee gave the turban their own unique "style".

To prove this point that the turban was not indigenous to the Cherokee, we can look at some pictures of Cherokees before the adoption of turbans:

http://www.cherokeehistory.com/cwy_engl.jpg

Three of seven young Cherokees, who were escorted by Sir Alexander Cuming to England in 1730 to meet King George II. The Cherokees signed articles of friendship and commerce with representatives of the British Crown. One of the Cherokees was Oukanaekah, later named Attakullaculla or the Little Carpenter.

http://www.cherokeehistory.com/ostenaco.jpg

Ostenaco was a war chief who, in 1756, joined the English in a campaign against the French-allied Shawnee during the Seven Years War ("French and Indian War). His warriors were abandoned by the British troops when their provisions were lost while crossing a swollen river. His band "confiscated" horses from the ungrateful Virginians who retaliated by killing 24 of his party. A period of retaliatory raids began between the Cherokee and colonists. In 1762, the Cherokee captured Fort Loundon (near present Venore TN). Eventually, devastation of the Cherokee country by large colonial armies forced the Cherokee to sue for peace. Lt. Henry Timberlake volunteered to stay with the Cherokee to improve Cherokee-English relations. Ostenaco, along with Stalking Turkey and Pouting Pigeon, visited London in 1762 to see King George III accompanied by Lt. Henry Timberlake and interpreter, William Shorey, who died in route.

http://www.cherokeehistory.com/cunne_~1.jpg

Cumnacatogue (also known as Cunne Shote, Stalking Turkey or Standing Turkey) was one of three Cherokee chiefs who travelled to London in 1762 to see King George III. He was the nephew of the Chief "Old Hop" who was also know as Standing Turkey. (Pictures taken from www.cherokeehistory.com)

I believe Mahir gets his assumption of a Cherokee Islamic dress from a famous painting called the "Trail of Tears" by Robert Lindneux in 1942 (see below). Notice the women's head coverings. What must be understood is that these 12,000 or so Cherokees were forcibly marched from the Southern Appalachian Mountains some 1200 miles to eastern Oklahoma, in the middle of winter, losing over 4000 Cherokee kin and family members along the way. Keep in mind that this is an artist's conceptualization of his own interpretation of what a scene from the "Trail of Tears" may have looked like, and it is not based on an actual eyewitness account by the artist as the painting was created over 100 years later!

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t029/T029042A.jpg

"Trail of Tears" as painted by Robert Lindneux in 1942 CE.

"The last Cherokee chief who had a Muslim name was Ramadhan Ibn Wati of the Cherokees in 1866."

It is hard to tell whether Mahir is referring to a "last Cherokee chief" or a "last Cherokee chief with a Muslim name". There is no "last Cherokee chief" as the Cherokee still have "chiefs" to this day. As far as the "last Cherokee chief with a Muslim name", then who were the other Cherokee chiefs who supposedly had Muslim names?

There is no such Cherokee chief named Ramadhan Ibn Wati in all of Cherokee history. The chief of the Cherokee in 1866, who I believe Mahir is alluding to, was General Stand Watie, who, although being chosen by a faction "mix-bloods" as their chief, was not the principle chief of the Cherokees - which was Chief John Ross.

John Ross' Cherokee name was Guwisguwu. He was born of a Scottish father and a 1/4 Cherokee mother. And, like the overwhelming majority of mixed-bloods, was a Christian, to the extent of being a professor of that religion.

Stand Watie's father's name was Oo-wati in Cherokee, meaning "the ancient one". His father was also a Christian and went by his Christian name of David Oowatie. His mother was half-Cherokee, and was also a Christian and known by the name Susannah. Chief Stand Watie's Cherokee name was Takertawker, which means "he stands". Stand Watie, who was also a Christian, was given the Christian name of Isaac, however, he preferred the English version of his name "Stand" to the name Isaac. Later, the "Oo" was dropped from "Oo-watie" and the family name became Watie (sometimes being spelled Waite).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version