The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

WHEN TEDDY ROOSEVELT BANNED MUSLIMS FROM AMERICA

The bill would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world.” 

 
 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.”  The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors"  whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-...

Tags: Polygamy, Western, an, as, assault, on, values

Views: 15

Replies to This Discussion

Muslims will tell you a Muslim man can have up to four wives at a time, based on Sura 4:3. Strictly speaking that is not the complete truth, as a Muslim can also have unlimited concubines and can have sex with "women their right hands possess". (Sura 23:5-6; 33:50,52; 4:24; Sura 70:29-30). Regardless, though, Mohammed recited a verse in the Qur’an (Sura 33:50) that made an exception for one individual: himself. Why is that?

‘Aisha remarked, "It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire." Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 8 no.3453-3454 p.748-749.

On the other hand, a Muslim told me that every marriage was for humanitarian or alliance purposes. ‘Aisha and some wives were daughters of powerful chiefs Mohammed need the support of. Others such widows, "taken care of" by Mohammed after their previous husband died. I asked, incredulously, was the Muslim really taught that every marriage was for those reasons? When he said "yes", then I said, "what about Safiyah and Zainab bint Jahsh? Since he was not aware of those, other Muslims (as well as non-Muslims) might not be either. As to the accuracy of the sources of my information, it all comes from either the Qur’an itself or authoritative hadiths of Sunni Islam.

Mohammed’s Wives

Here is a list of wives of Mohammed by the Muslim scholar Ali Dashti. He probably based much of this on an earlier list in the History of al-Tabari vol.9 p.126-241. It should be mentioned that scholars and Hadiths are not entirely agreed on the wives of Mohammed. For example some hadiths (not Bukhari or Sahih Muslim) mention a couple of wives of Mohammed that he divorced, and these are not shown here. Nonetheless, Ali Dashti’s list, while perhaps not entirely agreed upon as being comprehensive, shows many of the wives. Following this is the evidence from the hadiths, independent of Ali Dashti, for these relationships. 
1. Khadija/Khadijah bint Khuwailid/Khywaylid - died first 
2. Sauda/Sawda bint Zam’a 
3. 'Aisha/Aesha/’A’ishah - 8 to 9 yrs old, 2nd wife 
   'Aisha's Slaves 
   'Aisha and the Battle of the Camel 
4. Omm/’Umm Salama/Salamah 
5. Hafsa/Hafsah 
6. Zaynab/Zainab of Jahsh 
7. Juwairiya/Jowayriya bint Harith (captive) 

9. Safiya/Safiyya bint Huyai/Huyayy bint Akhtab (captive) 
10. Maymuna/Maimuna of Hareth 
11. Fatima/Fatema/Fatimah (briefly) 
12. Hend/Hind (widow) 
13. Asma of Saba (Sana bint Asma') 
14. Zaynab of Khozayma 
15. Habla? 
16. Divorced Asma of Noman / bint al-Nu’man 
¾slaves / concubines ¾ 
17. Mary the Copt/Christian 
18. Rayhana/Raihana/Rayhanah bint Zayd/Zaid 
¾uncertain relationship - 
19. Divorced Omm Sharik 
20. Maymuna/Maimuna (slave girl?) 
21. Zaynab/Zainab the third? 
22. Khawla / Khawlah 
23. Divorced Mulaykah bint Dawud 
24. Divorced al-Shanba’ bint ‘Amr 
25. Divorced al-‘Aliyyah 
26. Divorced ‘Amrah bint Yazid 
27. Divorced an Unnamed Woman 
28. Qutaylah bint Qays (died right away) 
29. Sana bint Sufyan 
30. Sharaf bint Khalifah 
31. Women of Mohammed’s Right Hand 
Mohammed Turned Some Women Down 
Some Women Turned Mohammed Down

¾ Ali Dashti missed at least nine possible other wives.

Mohammed married 15 women and consummated his marriages with 13. (al-Tabari vol.9 p.126-127)

Bukhari vol.1 Book 5 ch.25 no.282 p.172-173 said that [at one time] Mohammed had nine wives.

http://muslimhope.com/WhyDidMohammedGetSoManyWives.htm

Muhammad: A Rapist

Muhammad allowed his men to rape the women captured in raids. However, after capturing the women, Muslims faced a dilemma.  They wanted to have sex with them but also wanted to return them for ransom and therefore did not want to make them pregnant.  Some of these women were already married.  Their husbands had managed to escape when taken by surprise and were still alive.  The raiders considered the possibility of coitus interruptus (withdrawing from intercourse prior to ejaculation).  Unsure of the best course of action, they went to Muhammad for counsel. Bukhari reports:

Abu Saeed said: “We went out with Allâh's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.  So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allâh's Apostle who is present among us?"  We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." [1]

Notice that Muhammad does not forbid raping women captured in war.  Instead, he indicates that when Allâh intends to create anything, nothing can prevent it.  In other words, not even the absence of semen can prevent it.  So Muhammad is telling his men that coitus interruptus would be futile and ill-advised because it would be an attempt to thwart the irresistible will of Allâh.  Muhammad does not say a word against the forced insemination of these captive females. In fact, by criticizing coitus interruptus, in effect he supported forced insemination. 

In the Qur’an, Muhammad’s god made it legal to have intercourse with slave women, the so-called “right hand possessions,” even if they were married before their capture.[2]  

Juwairiya:

Ibn Aun has narrated: “I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.” Bukhari 3.46.717    (see also Muslim 019. 4292) 

Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.   

Juwairiya was one of the captives during the raid of Banu Mustaliq. When all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers, Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of Haris, the leader of the clan.

The Islamic site muslims.ws writes: “She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation". The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet paid the amount of ransom and married her.”  

First he raids a population without warning because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. The narrator says,  “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.”  Prevailing practice?  Didn’t Muhammad come to show people the right way?  Why should he follow the evil prevailing practices of a people whom he called ignorant?  By doing so, he set the example and those evil practices became standard practices of the Muslims for ever.

The narrator says that upon seeing Juwairiyah the Prophet was “moved”. Methinks that movement must have happened in his male organ because his heart seems to have remained cold and unmoved. Although Muslims call this marriage, I call it rape.

 

Safiyah 

Safiyah was a beautiful 17 years old Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops raided Kheibar. She was the daughter or Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Medina , whom Muhammad had beheaded two years earlier along with the men of Banu Quriaza. The tribe of Banu Nadir had been already banished from Medina and their properties were confiscated.

Safiyah had married to her cousin Kinana, who was a young Jewish leader of Kheibar. When Muhammad raided that fortress, he killed its unarmed men and captured the rest. A Jewish traitor, (reminds me of Noam Chomsky) to gain Muhammad’s favor and be spared from death, told him that Kinana was the treasurer of the town and that he used to hide the money in some ruins. Muhammad ordered Kinana to be tortured to reveal the whereabouts of the treasures and killed him.

Then he asked the prettiest woman from amongst that captives to be brought to him. Ibn Ishaq writes: "The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went.  Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaibar chief, and two female cousins: [sisters of Kinana] the apostle chose Safiya for himself.  The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims.  Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way.  Safiya's female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads.  When the apostle of Allâh observed this scene, he said, 'Remove these she devils from me.'  But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her.  So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own.  The apostle reprimanded Bilal, saying, 'Hast thou lost all feelings of mercy, to make women pass by the corpses of their husbands?'”

Safiyah was taken to Muhammad’s tent. Muhammad wanted to have sex with her on that very night, only hours after torturing to death her husband. She resisted his advances. That night Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of Muhammad. When, in the early dawn,  Muhammad saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, I was really afraid for you on her account". (Ibn Ishaq, p. 766)

The next day Muhammad covered Safiyah with his mantle, an act signifying that she is now his. Safiyah was groomed and made-up for Muhammad by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik and was taken to Muhammad who married her in a mock marriage ceremony and raped her that night. Muslims call this marriage. I call that rape. I am certain not many young women would like to jump into bed with an old man who happens to be the murderer of their father and husband and many other relatives. That poor woman had no choice; therefore that marriage was nothing but a mockery of this sacred institution. At that time Muhammad was close to sixty years old.

Rayhanah

Another victim of Muhammad was Rayhana, a 15 year old girl from the tribe of Banu Quraiza. Muhammad massacred all the men of that tribe. Then women were brought to him to pick and he chose Rayhana. Rayhana never married Muhammad and unlike Juwairiyah and Safiyah never feigned being a Muslim to have an easier life. She preferred to remain a sex slave rather the wife of the murderer of her father, brothers and uncles. .  

 

[1] Bukhari, Volume 5, Book59, Number 459.  Many other canonical hadiths recount how Muhammad approved intercourse with slave women, but said coitus interruptus was unnecessary because if Allâh willed someone to be born, that soul would be born regardless of coitus interruptus.   See the following: 

Bukhari 3.34.432:  “Narrated Abu Saeed Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allâh's Apostle he said, "O Allâh's Apostle!  We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?"  The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it.  No soul that which Allâh has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” 

Sahih Muslim is another source considered factual and accurate by virtually all Muslims.  Here is Sahih Muslim 8.3381:  “Allâh's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about 'azl, (coitus interruptus) whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allâh intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).”

Muslims also consider Abu Dawood highly accurate and factual.  Here is Abu Dawood, 29.29.32.100:  “Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus.  He called a slave-girl of his and said, ‘Tell them.’  She was embarrassed.  He said, ‘It is alright, and I do it myself.’  Malik said, ‘A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission.  There is no harm in practicing coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission.  Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife does not practice coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.’"

See also Bukhari 3.46.7185.59.459,  7.62.135,  7.62.136,  7.62.137,  8.77.6009.93.506  Sahih Muslim 8.3383, 8.33888.33768.3377, and several more.  

[2] Qur’an, 4:24: “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allâh ordained (Prohibitions) against you.” 
 Qur’an, 33:50):  “O Prophet!  We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to thee.”
 Qur’an, 4:3:  “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.”

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service