We can't make a tenable assertion as to whether or not the FF would consider Islam a religion "worth protecting". As such assertions like that represent what we personally feel or believe rather than fact.

As to what the battles with the Barbary States, those were after the creation of the U.S. and as such can't be used to support a claim that it influenced what they considered protected by the constitution. It should also be noted that the actions which occurred along the Barbary Coast were the result of privacy not of religious origin. Also that the first nation to formally and publicly recognize the United States of America as a soverign nation was the muslim nation of Morocco - on the states along the Barbary Coast.

Indeed it can, and has been, argued that your assertion is the inverse of the known history. For example, John Locke said "neither Pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion." where "Mahamedan" is what we now refer to as Muslim. Jefferson himself referenced this in his work. Notable also is that Jefferson owned a copy of the Qu'ran for a decade prior to writing the founding documents, so to imply he wasn't well versed on it borders on absurdity in my opinion as he was known to be a very intellectually minded man. Jefferson was not a "fan" of the religion, but that didn't stop him from advocating strongly and publicly that they should not be treated as less than Christians or Jews based on their religion.

Washington, also, specifically noted Muslism were considered on par with Christians when he wrote to a friend that a person's religious beliefs are not of consideration in hiring: “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 Atheists.” Note as well he also specifically mentions atheists as well.

Where people often go wrong with a surface review of the available material is in mis-applying the sentiments expressed. Often many of the founders, to include signatories in the ratification of the constitution, express their doubt that a Muslim, Jew, or Atheist would be elected. This is not the same as preventing (or "not protecting") them.

Where people of today go wrong is in conflating tolerance for a given religious belief or non-belief as the same as accepting or equating it. Religion isn't the only area today's society has this problem in, but it is a pretty big one. When you review the period's literature they speak of actions making the difference, not beliefs. They had been religiously persecuted and thus knew what it was like to be put down, to be excluded, and to be attacked based not on their actions but instead on their beliefs.

A belief, like a gun, does nothing it can not act in it's own. The founding fathers through their actions and words demonstrate an understanding of this fact, and separate a person's beliefs from their actions. To claim religious liberty was intended to only apply to Christians and Jews is to ignore the facts of the era and apply personal desire by conversion of statements from one category to another. Conversely those who argue that the FF actually sought out to include and incorporate Islam or Muslisms are making the very same mistakes and fallacies.

Regardless of which particular mysticism the founders had in mind when writing about religious freedom, the point is that they all agreed that an individual had the inalienable right to choose their religion (or lack there of) without ANY sort of preference, prevention, or punishment from government. That is called a principle. What you are espousing is simply forcing one's own narrow views and preferences on there through the strong arm of government.

I think you have a good point!

IMHO, Islam is not a religion, it's a governing body. The Koran being it's Constitution or it's complete set of rules and regulations for the life of the people that participate willingly or unwillingly. Therefore I believe our founders could not have accepted it because it does not allow for the freedom of or from religion.

Please clarify the difference. I thought having at least a respect and understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy was a prerequisite here... Or am I mistaken?

As the Klingons would say, "Kapla!", or "To your success" as well.

I disagree with that whole heartedly.
That sounds more like a liberal, not a libertarian.

But wasn't it still privately owned property with some rules of conduct for people to be invited on the property? Kind of like when you invite people into your home?

Very true. Which would mean in that sort of country one land owner would not be able to restrict another land owner from inviting anyone they choose to their property for any reason (excluding criminal criteria).
There is no collective "right" of the cultural, religious, or racial majority to restrict those who are different from them from seeking employment from their neighbors who do not have the same hang ups.

A great majority of land in the US is owned by the gov't.

Well, that would certainly be different. Then it would have to be by invitation only. :-) I'm trying to wrap my head around a totally privately owned country.

That's a good idea and worth trying to achieve. The space habitats in Schulman's The Rainbow Cadenza are a somewhat more thought-out version of it.

I'm thinking, though, that any such proposed new state should be pretty small (as the Gulch was and as most primitive tribes were). This is primarily because most versions of libertarianism would rely heavily, if not entirely, on the mechanism of reputation in order to stop fraud and some kinds of theft -- and reputation stops working once you live in a society large enough that you can effectively disappear, at will, without losing your possessions or your lifestyle to do it. I'm thinking any "Gulch" should be limited to around 150 families. If it gets bigger it should split itself.

This would imply some sort of federation in order to produce a state large enough to be capable of defending itself in the modern world.