Although they are typically seen to represent overwhelming opposites, the Prophet Muhammad and America’s founding fathers shared many common characteristics and beliefs, which can be seen in historical documents. By comparing the speeches and texts that they left behind, we can learn of the similar viewpoints that Muhammad and the founding fathers held on issues pertaining to equal rights and religious liberty.
Prophet Muhammad and the American founding fathers shared an interest in protecting people regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or sexuality. Muhammad, for example, received revelations from God, who directed him to celebrate diversity and cherish it as a staple of Muslim society. Muhammad’s encounter with God would later be recorded in the Quran, which states, “O mankind, We created you from male and a female and made you into tribes and nations that you may get to know each other.”
Furthermore, in his final sermon at Mount Arafat in 632 AD, Muhammad left a code of equality for Muslims to follow. “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab,” he stated, “nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” The Quran and Muhammad’s final sermon show his apathy for judging people based on their beliefs or skin color and his indifference to a homogenous society based on exclusive requisites for belonging.

America’s founding fathers had a similar apathy for determining a person’s societal worth based on ethnicity and heritage. In 1776 several of America’s founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Declaration of Independence, which held a strong and clear position on promoting equality similar to that of the Quran and Muhammad’s final sermon. The second paragraph of the Declaration states that Americans are “to hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” which mirrors the progressive spirit of Muhammad written down over 1,000 years prior to the founding of the United States.
When the American Constitution was ratified in 1787, the founding fathers also put into practice that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore,” which suggests that by law no particular group is to be treated as superior to another group in the United States. Similarly, the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution “prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” which again cements a culture based on civic principles instead of more absolute and ethnocentric requirements.
The founding fathers’ interest in safeguarding equality in diverse circumstances is similar to Muhammad’s concern for tolerance in his multifarious Muslim community. Muslims worldwide and Americans would be wise to remember this balanced approach in finding parity in their own communities today.
Historical documents also show that Muhammad and America’s founding fathers were compassionate men. The depth of Muhammad’s humanity can be found in the Constitution of Medina, a document he created to ensure that the more vulnerable members of society felt safe and protected under the majority Muslim rule. Also referred to as the Medina Charter, Muhammad’s Constitution gave equal rights to non-Muslims living under an Islamic government. “Strangers” in Muhammad’s Muslim society were to be treated with special consideration and “on the same ground as their protectors.” Acting as a social charter for all Muslims to live by, the Medina Constitution helped to actualize the idea of a single community made up of a diverse people living under one government and under one creator.
Ten centuries after Muhammad’s charter, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would adopt a similar societal structure as the basis for their new nation. In 1783, Washington wrote that “the bosom of America is open to receive… the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom [Americans] shall welcome to a participation of all [their] rights and privileges… They may be [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect.”
Likewise Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, wrote in a document for the Virginian colonial legislature that “the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian, and the [Muslim], the [Hindu], and infidel of every decimation” are accepted as equal citizens in the United States. The Constitution of Medina and documents of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson show that welcoming vulnerable groups who are perceived as outsiders is a central component of what it means to be Muslim and American. Muslims worldwide and American citizens should defend the creeds of their founding fathers and fight against prejudice and discrimination in their respective societies.

Muhammad and the American founding fathers were keen to respect Judaism. Muhammad’s Medina Charter singled out Jews, who “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.” Muhammad added in the Constitution that “those who followed [Jews] and joined them and struggled with them… form one and the same community.” Muhammad’s tolerance of Judaism is strikingly similar to that of Washington, who in 1783 wrote in a letter to the Jewish Community of Rhode Island that “the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, [will] continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of their inhabitants.” This tribute to Jews by Muhammad and Washington is an important reminder for Muslims worldwide and Americans in their own struggles against anti-Semitism.
Both Muhammad and the American founding fathers also worked to assure women’s rights. In a time when women had few – if any – rights in Arabia, Muhammad helped liberate women with divinely sanctioned social, property, and marital rights. The Quran states that men and women were created “of a single soul, male and female.” Under sharia, or Islamic law, women were able to own property, freely spend their earnings, and agree or disagree to marriage arrangements – all unprecedented rights prior to God’s revelation to Muhammad. He also requested that men treat their daughters and wives with dignity and respect. “Do treat your women well and be kind to them,” he is reported to have said in a hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad.
In the same disposition, the language of the Declaration of Independence, although written at a time when women were not considered to be equal to men, later inspired American women to fight for their “inalienable rights,” such as the right to own property and vote in elections. Although it did not explicitly verify the human rights of women, the Constitution was later reformed in the Nineteenth Amendment that prohibited voting discrimination on the basis of sex. The on-going struggle of equal rights for women in the United States and around the world is also an effort to reaffirm the democratic outlook of Muhammad and the founding fathers. Muslims worldwide and Americans should commemorate their standpoint by treating women with the utmost courtesy and respect.
The impartial temperament of Muhammad and the American founding fathers is being challenged today by people who proclaim that Islamic principles and American values are incompatible. The example of Muhammad and founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson should remind us of our duty to uphold universal ideals even when intolerant people and dogmatic organizations seek to destroy bridges for mutual cooperation.
Craig, your article revealed what many don’t know about Islam. As you have Shawn, Islamic principles are in conformity with rationale and supercedes what many people think of Islam today. ISLAM never contradicts logic and science. For those of us who see Islam as an oppressive religion against women, please dig further than what you see in the media and hear from friends. The literature is out there and you will be amazed. Kudos Craig for this wonderful article. I wish you could publish full version of the Medina constitution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Mohamed and that’s why I wrote this article. I will post the Medina Constitution sometime in the future. Thanks for your nice comment.
LikeLike
Hi Graig very good article that you gave us to contemplate. i would just like to add a conclusion, the founders of the american constitution if they had met the prophet mohamed peace be upon him they would probably have understood that the application of the sharia of islam is the tool that would make America one of the most powerful nation today without the decadence it currently suffers, for indeed the Sharia of Islam came to supplement High morals.
LikeLike
Not exactly; when Washington says “They may be [Muslims], Jews, or Christians” what he’s saying is ..” I would however prefer middle age to young men” he doesn’t care whether his slaves are black white or brown.
LikeLike
Very interesting and thought promoting argument. It is things such as this that need to be promoted to help combat contemporary orientalism.
LikeLike
I agree! Thanks Dylan.
LikeLike
@ RJ. You forgot some important verses that pertains to you, my friend:-
“And the bond-men of the Most Affectionate ALLAH, are those who walk on the earth modestly and when the IGNORANT address them, they say, ‘Peace’.”. #Holy Quran.
“Say you, O non-believers! I worship not that you worship. And nor you worship what I worship. And I shall not worship what you worshiped and nor you shall worship what I worship. For you, your religion, and for me, my religion. ” #Holy Quran.
Btw, a TRUE Sufi is one who cuts himself of totally from everything\everyone and concentrates fully on his LORD; he is one who is so lost in the divine love of GOD Almighty, that he does not find time to give his OWN views, opinions, look for faults in other religions, look for faults in other people, criticize, demonise , spread hatred, etc etc. etc.
Probably its time for u to truly educate yourself abt the traits, characteristics and the truth of a REAL Sufi!! Peace! 🙂
LikeLike
Sufism is simply the original mysticism of Syria or India – it grew, flourished and spread before Islam even existed. Christian mystics, monks and hermits focused on God and His love, while Buddhist mystics tended to be pantheists. After Islamic conquests, local mysticism simply dressed up as Islam, in order to survive, and soon the mask grew into the face and the mystics begun to be Moslems. That’s why sufism in the West still cntemplates love of God while sufism in the East is barely disguised pantheism.
LikeLike
Worst crap shit ever read.Islam is complete & doesnt need sufism.Sufism has nothing to do with Islam.Muhammad(pbuh) was the last prophet so but natural wasnt the only one.
LikeLike
Excellent article!! We all are the creation of the ONE and Same GOD Almighty. We bleed the same! We all are equal n only piety n closeness to GOD Almighty does raise ones status in GOD’S Sight. Pray n hope we human beings can unite together n spread love for each other, irrelevant of Country, Religion, Race and Cultures.
Say No!! To all future wars! There is nothing patriotic about wars. Its Mass Murders of Innocent fellow human beings.
Say No!! To American Drone Attacks on innocent citizens of other countries. These are brutal killing machines operated by Mad-Men, who have blood on their hands.
GOD Save humanity from these blood suckers!
LikeLike
In his discussion of freedom of religion in his monumental Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Father of American Jurisprudence Joseph Story clarified the meaning of the First Amendment with regard to the priority of Christianity stated:
..the real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government (1833, 3:728, emp. added).
James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, articulated this point succinctly in 1788 in the debates on the wording of the Constitution:
But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices…. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own (Elliot, 1836, 4:194).
Samuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788:
Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves (Elliot, 4:198-199, emp. added). – http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622
LikeLike
> In 1783, Washington wrote that “the bosom of America is open to receive… the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom [Americans] shall welcome to a participation of all [their] rights and privileges… They may be [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect.”
Not true. The last part is not from 1783. It is from a letter written in 1784, instructing a colleague to purchase slaves:
“Dear Sir: I am informed that a Ship with Palatines is gone up to Baltimore, among whom are a number of Trademen. I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me. I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Athiests. I would however prefer middle aged, to young men. and those who have good countenances and good characters on ship board, to others who have neither of these to recommend them, altho, after all, the proof of the pudding must be in the eating. I do not limit you to a price, but will pay the purchase money on demand.”
All he’s saying is he doesn’t care whether his slaves are black, white or brown. It’s got nothing to do with any message of toleration or respect for other cultures.
LikeLike