Did George Washington write about Muslim soldiers or relations with Muslim-majority states?
Executive summary
George Washington did write a small number of discrete, practical comments that mention "Mahometans"—notably a 1784/1785 instruction about hiring laborers for Mount Vernon in which he said he did not care whether workmen were "Mahometans" so long as they were good workmen [1] [2]. The documentary record does not show a sustained body of writings in which Washington theorized at length about Islam or mapped a policy toward Muslim-majority states, though later historians and institutions have emphasized his tolerant phrasing and the presence of Muslims in early America [2] [1].
1. Washington’s explicit wording about “Mahometans” and Mount Vernon
In a March 1784 letter asking an aide to hire craftsmen for Mount Vernon, Washington wrote that "if they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists," language that is preserved in Mount Vernon’s documentary account and cited by the Library of Congress as Washington’s clearest explicit reference to Muslims in his writings [1] [2]. That sentence is the core primary-text basis for claims that Washington "wrote about" Muslims: it expresses a practical indifference to religion in labor relations rather than a theological engagement with Islam [1].
2. Evidence of Muslim presence in Washington’s world and army
Scholars point to names, personal histories, and at least a handful of individuals—enslaved people and possibly soldiers—whose origins or naming practices suggest Islamic backgrounds at Mount Vernon and among Continental forces, and institutions like Mount Vernon and the Library of Congress note this as context for Washington’s tolerant language [1] [2]. Some secondary accounts argue that men such as Sambo Anderson were likely of West African Muslim heritage and that a few soldiers of the Revolutionary era may have been Muslim, which helps explain why Washington’s remark about "Mahometans" resonates in modern readings [1] [3] [4].
3. Relations with Muslim-majority states: practice more than polemic
The record collected in these sources shows diplomatic and commercial contact between the young United States and North African polities—Morocco being the most prominent example—but the attributed material links diplomatic exchanges and respect between American officials and Moroccan counterparts rather than a corpus of Washington’s own ideological writing about Muslim-majority states [5]. Secondary pieces highlight U.S.–Morocco correspondence and note mutual respect in official exchanges, yet the sources do not present an extended Washington manifesto on relations with Muslim polities; instead they show pragmatic statecraft and broader Founding-era arguments for religious tolerance [5].
4. How historians and commentators interpret his words
Modern writers and institutions have used Washington’s Mount Vernon line as evidence of personal tolerance and as symbolic proof that the Founders contemplated Islam’s place in the republic; the Library of Congress frames this as founders "prepared to make a place" for Islam, while popular and advocacy writers cast Washington as friendly to Muslim presence [2] [5]. Critics and cautious historians note limits: there is no clear evidence the Founders knew the religious convictions of enslaved persons, and Washington’s tolerance in a hiring instruction is not the same as active advocacy for Muslim rights or a developed policy toward Muslim-majority states [2] [6].
5. Conclusion — limited, practical references, amplified by context
The simplest, documentable answer is that Washington wrote at least one explicit line welcoming "Mahometans" as workmen and presided over a social and diplomatic context in which Muslims and Muslim-majority polities appeared in American life; he did not, however, leave a large body of theoretical writings about Islam or extensive policy pronouncements about Muslim-majority states in the sources assembled here [1] [2] [5]. Interpretations vary: some stress principled inclusivity and diplomatic respect [2] [5], while others caution that the historical record is uneven and that Washington’s remarks are practical and limited in scope [6].