Moors: explain this ? to me
Options
Comments
-
we're not talking about the "sovereign citizen" scam-type Moors, i hope
If you proclaim your nationality, you are 'sovereign'.
Moorish is a nationality.The Moors Sundry Act of 1790 was passed by South Carolina legislature, granting special status to the subjects of Sultan of Morocco, Mohammed ben Abdallah. It recognized Moors as white people with Jury duty as a privilege. Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing blacks and slaves.
Therefore, Moors are sovereign. Same with any other nationality (Irish, German, Saudi Arabian, etc.). There are "? Moors" that trick people into buying nationality packages and ? , as well as agents of COINTELPRO that go into temples and create chaos (like they did with the Black Panthers). Truth is nationality is FREE...! And the Prophet Noble Drew Ali established the Moorish Science Temple of America for Blacks cut off from their ancestors can reclaim their identity.
That's why you have (oh no, dare I say it) do your own research. Know thy self.
So I'm I understanding this right?
If we're to let this treaty define it, this seems to make Moors distinct of blacks and slaves. Therefore, those of us that are not servants, or descendants of servants, of the sultan couldn't claim Moor.They would not be allowed the privileges of being recognized as white and would still be subject to ? laws. Which leads me to assume the moors nation is Morocco as well.
If that's how it is, it's just a bunch of foreigners that get a pass while the rest still get thrown in chains. If a black person can't proof they're of the nation, if theirs not Moor identity to reclaim, what then? Covert or be infidels?
If someone claims "Black" and "Black" only, then they are an infidel. They are anti-society. Everyone in civilized society is a son/daughter of a nation. The Bible even says honor your mothers and fathers. Unless you are from another planet or your people lived in a jungle in uncharted territory as primitive beasts (serious, not joking). "Black" signifies a race, a species. Nothing more. Nothing more at ALL...
All Negros/blacks are Moors. There is no conversion necessary (How can you convert to what you are?). There is no proof necessary. Why prove what the government already knows?
1. They know the Moors are a tribe mixed with Berbers and Arabs. They know the ancient Berbers were Black. Therefore, father of the Moors. Therefore, they must be Moors as well.
2. They forced slaves to forget their previous culture and change their names. Why? To sever their ties with their nation so they could legally be property. These slaves took on the names of Europeans, therefore denying their mothers and fathers aka nations. Therefore, officially "colored people" at law. Fraud. Artificial. Make-believe. They cloth themselves with this artificial covering "? /Black" which in fact identifies nothing.
Because "Black" is an adjective (that is only sometimes capitalized).
Chinese is a pronoun.
Irish is a pronoun.
Moorish is a pronoun.
Spanish is a pronoun.
Mexican is a pronoun.
Black is not, I repeat, is NOT a pronoun. Please stop going out into the world and making us look like fools by accepting this foreign ambiguous brand "Black". Every civilized being on this planet that isn't a brainwashed "American" knows that "black" is an adjective, describing someone as being of dark skin. They know who the Moors are though. They drop hints in all your favorite movies.
In "Wild Wild West", the man says to Will Smith "well aren't you a handsome blackamoor?"
In Robin Hood with Morgan Freeman, they say "The Moor knows all"
In Black Knight, they believe Martin Lawrence to be a French Moor. I know 95% of my people had no idea what the ? they were talking about, and it's sad.
In The Traitor, that Arab tells the darkskinned cat from Sudan (main character, i forget his name), that in regards to fighting for freedom, it's too late for blacks in America "they've already forgotten their history". "Already" because it's barely been 500 years and the black collective in America has completely forgotten who the hell they are. They think they're Europeans. -
-
Nah, I aint done. I say alot of ? but I love talking about history and spreading Truth.
Anyway, I posted SC law not to tell you what laws must be abided by, but instead to show you WHO THEY KNEW TO BE THE MOORS. That is all. Please stop these strawman fallacies.
You're not getting it, dude... Or you're trying to fool lurkers...Sec. 4. The term ? is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient St,' Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free in- *nd
'Con
habitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the ? MUl Asiatics, such as the Lascars. scoi
Of course ? does not embrace the term Moor. BECAUSE MOORS ARE FREE! How is one a Moor? By simply being dark-skinned. How does one claim his rights as a sovereign citizen aka free inhabitant? Proclaim who he is, a Moor! There are legal processes such as written discovery that you can do if you choose to but the main goal is to first come into consciousness.
Most Negros were not given this knowledge on the plantation (it was illegal to even READ!!!), so therefore only knew themselves as Negros as they were taught and force to comply to... But how much force does it take to teach a 5 year old something? Exactly...
I'm glad you've accepted my reference (as you are using it to make a point of your own). It clearly says Moors, Egyptians, etc. are free (which is a redundant phrasing because they are sovereign, aka of a nation). Darkskinned peoples ARE THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF THE EGYPTIANS, MOORS, EVERYONE IN AFRICA.
How can you say Moors are free, but their father's aren't? Does not the same blood run in both? Did not the law you quoted state that these "negroes" are ancient Berbers? Aren't Moors mixed with Berber and Arab? If not (they are, very simple google), then who are they? If you don't know, then why are you making arguments on this subject like you know what you're talking about? -
Look B you in your feelings now. Just relax and stop posting, ima just say this; I'm tired lol.
"Inhabitants" of Africa are free in SOUTH CAROLINA IN 1740 that has no bearing anywhere else and because S. Carolina doesn't hold mulattoes and mestizoes in ? today pretty much means they aren't slaves in 2013. Of course we knew that because slavery was abolished over a century ago (13th amendment). So the book has NO VALIDITY IN ANY COURT OF LAW ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, NOT EVEN SOUTH CAROLINA lol.
All this talk about Moors being mixed Berbers and stuff is irrelevant cuz. It's irrelevant for the reason I already gave IF YOU INHABITED AFRICA THEY CONSIDERED YOU FREE!!!! Simply put: IF YOU WERE BLACK (skin color is "prima facie" evidence against you here) YOU WERE A SLAVE....END OF! No exceptions for non inhabitants of Africa and they give no ? about what you call yourself. BLACK = SLAVE.
How is one a Moor? By simply being dark-skinned.(prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence)
You were a slave breh. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=prima+facie
Stop trying to rationalize with dead racist crackers. -
Nah, I'm not angry or mad or anything if that's what you mean by feelings (i prefer facts). It just is hella awkward when someone isn't getting it and is trying to fire back at you with your own stuff.
Yes, my people were slaves. I honestly think you aren't comprehending what is being said. Or any of the evidence being presented.
The 13th amendment declared INVOLUNTARY servitude as unconstitutional. It didn't grant anyone full citizenship. If you agreed to be ? , then that is voluntary servitude. In the original articles of the 14th admendment , said in section 20 that "AFRICAN SLAVES OR DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES SHALL NOT BE MADE CITIZENS". They are incorporated and granted priveleges.
Dred Scott case says it all. Blacks/Africans were never meant to be citizens. You can't be a citizen claiming that you're Black. It's not possible. You are a colored aka an artificial entity.
The Treaty affirms that you cannot possibly be a citizen of the US as it is a business arrangement for commerce, just like you said. The United States is a foreign CORPORATION conducting trade and commerce on foreign lands. If you do not understand that the "racist crackers" were not indigenous to America but were FOREIGNERS then that is on you. That's something I'd expect to have to explain in AKA Donkey, not Social Lounge. -
Just so your confusion doesn't mislead onlookers, this is false.How is one a Moor? By simply being dark-skinned.
That is like saying a shape is a square by simply being a rectangle.
valid arguments please. -
Nah, I aint done. I say alot of ? but I love talking about history and spreading Truth.
Anyway, I posted SC law not to tell you what laws must be abided by, but instead to show you WHO THEY KNEW TO BE THE MOORS. That is all. Please stop these strawman fallacies.
You're not getting it, dude... Or you're trying to fool lurkers...Sec. 4. The term ? is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient St,' Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free in- *nd
'Con
habitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the ? MUl Asiatics, such as the Lascars. scoi
Of course ? does not embrace the term Moor. BECAUSE MOORS ARE FREE! How is one a Moor? By simply being dark-skinned. How does one claim his rights as a sovereign citizen aka free inhabitant? Proclaim who he is, a Moor! There are legal processes such as written discovery that you can do if you choose to but the main goal is to first come into consciousness.
Most Negros were not given this knowledge on the plantation (it was illegal to even READ!!!), so therefore only knew themselves as Negros as they were taught and force to comply to... But how much force does it take to teach a 5 year old something? Exactly...
I'm glad you've accepted my reference (as you are using it to make a point of your own). It clearly says Moors, Egyptians, etc. are free (which is a redundant phrasing because they are sovereign, aka of a nation). Darkskinned peoples ARE THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF THE EGYPTIANS, MOORS, EVERYONE IN AFRICA.
How can you say Moors are free, but their father's aren't? Does not the same blood run in both? Did not the law you quoted state that these "negroes" are ancient Berbers? Aren't Moors mixed with Berber and Arab? If not (they are, very simple google), then who are they? If you don't know, then why are you making arguments on this subject like you know what you're talking about?
-
You took it out of context though, which made it misleading. In my post it was clear I was referring to Negros, whom I spoke of in the sentence preceding that. Why are you trying to be deceptive?
History lesson time:Circa 1787, Assisted by England, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, France, Germany, Finland and Sweden the United States of America ended their war with the Moors (Moroccan Empire) and signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Emperor Mohammed III (Moorish-Mason). The aforementioned treaty is the longest unbroken treaty in the history of the United States.
from U.S. Moroccan Relations, by Robert G. Neuman, Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco (1973--1976).
On December 1, 1789. The 9th President of the United States George Washington, apologizes to his Masonic Brother Emperor Mohammed III, for not sending the regular advices (tribute: a payment by one ruler or nation to another as acknowledgment of submission or price of protection, excessive tax). Also, President Washington asked the Emperor to recognize their newly formed government. The Moroccan Empire (Moors) were the first nation to recognize the thirteen colonies as a sovereign nation. Allegedly the Emperor agreed to their recognition because 25 Moors were members of the first Continental Congress.
from The Writing of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Source 1745—1799, Editor John C. Fitzpatrick, Volume 30, pages 474—476. -
Nah, I'm not angry or mad or anything if that's what you mean by feelings (i prefer facts). It just is hella awkward when someone isn't getting it and is trying to fire back at you with your own stuff.
Yes, my people were slaves. I honestly think you aren't comprehending what is being said. Or any of the evidence being presented.
The 13th amendment declared INVOLUNTARY servitude as unconstitutional. It didn't grant anyone full citizenship. If you agreed to be ? , then that is voluntary servitude. In the original articles of the 14th admendment , said in section 20 that "AFRICAN SLAVES OR DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES SHALL NOT BE MADE CITIZENS". They are incorporated and granted priveleges.
Dred Scott case says it all. Blacks/Africans were never meant to be citizens. You can't be a citizen claiming that you're Black. It's not possible. You are a colored aka an artificial entity.
The Treaty affirms that you cannot possibly be a citizen of the US as it is a business arrangement for commerce, just like you said. The United States is a foreign CORPORATION conducting trade and commerce on foreign lands. If you do not understand that the "racist crackers" were not indigenous to America but were FOREIGNERS then that is on you. That's something I'd expect to have to explain in AKA Donkey, not Social Lounge.We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/B]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
I've been waiting for that... Let's break down legalese. What is "person"?Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):
* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached - e.g. a body corporate.
You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.
Very few people have capacity in law. Much less BLACK people. The vast majority are incompetent in law. But it's time to stop playing this stupid game with these crackers and start actually learning the law that governs the land we live in. We don't want anyone to give us privileges. We don't want government dependent programs. We demand to be treated as human beings therefore we want our inalienable human rights respected. -
If someone claims "Black" and "Black" only, then they are an infidel. They are anti-society. Everyone in civilized society is a son/daughter of a nation. The Bible even says honor your mothers and fathers. Unless you are from another planet or your people lived in a jungle in uncharted territory as primitive beasts (serious, not joking). "Black" signifies a race, a species. Nothing more. Nothing more at ALL...
All Negros/blacks are Moors. There is no conversion necessary (How can you convert to what you are?). There is no proof necessary. Why prove what the government already knows?
1. They know the Moors are a tribe mixed with Berbers and Arabs. They know the ancient Berbers were Black. Therefore, father of the Moors. Therefore, they must be Moors as well.
2. They forced slaves to forget their previous culture and change their names. Why? To sever their ties with their nation so they could legally be property. These slaves took on the names of Europeans, therefore denying their mothers and fathers aka nations. Therefore, officially "colored people" at law. Fraud. Artificial. Make-believe. They cloth themselves with this artificial covering "? /Black" which in fact identifies nothing.
Because "Black" is an adjective (that is only sometimes capitalized).
Chinese is a pronoun.
Irish is a pronoun.
Moorish is a pronoun.
Spanish is a pronoun.
Mexican is a pronoun.
Black is not, I repeat, is NOT a pronoun. Please stop going out into the world and making us look like fools by accepting this foreign ambiguous brand "Black". Every civilized being on this planet that isn't a brainwashed "American" knows that "black" is an adjective, describing someone as being of dark skin. They know who the Moors are though. They drop hints in all your favorite movies.
In "Wild Wild West", the man says to Will Smith "well aren't you a handsome blackamoor?"
In Robin Hood with Morgan Freeman, they say "The Moor knows all"
In Black Knight, they believe Martin Lawrence to be a French Moor. I know 95% of my people had no idea what the ? they were talking about, and it's sad.
In The Traitor, that Arab tells the darkskinned cat from Sudan (main character, i forget his name), that in regards to fighting for freedom, it's too late for blacks in America "they've already forgotten their history". "Already" because it's barely been 500 years and the black collective in America has completely forgotten who the hell they are. They think they're Europeans.
So why is it the SC Law and GW didn't hold the Moors of the Sultan in the same regard as the other blacks coming in from Africa? At a time where incoming blacks were being forced to forget their identity by the millions, why did the government find it just to allow this particular group of moors to keep their way of life? Why is it, if all blacks are moors, that the continuation of the trans atlantic trade and kidnapping of other moors wasn't considered a breach of that treaty? -
If someone claims "Black" and "Black" only, then they are an infidel. They are anti-society. Everyone in civilized society is a son/daughter of a nation. The Bible even says honor your mothers and fathers. Unless you are from another planet or your people lived in a jungle in uncharted territory as primitive beasts (serious, not joking). "Black" signifies a race, a species. Nothing more. Nothing more at ALL...
All Negros/blacks are Moors. There is no conversion necessary (How can you convert to what you are?). There is no proof necessary. Why prove what the government already knows?
1. They know the Moors are a tribe mixed with Berbers and Arabs. They know the ancient Berbers were Black. Therefore, father of the Moors. Therefore, they must be Moors as well.
2. They forced slaves to forget their previous culture and change their names. Why? To sever their ties with their nation so they could legally be property. These slaves took on the names of Europeans, therefore denying their mothers and fathers aka nations. Therefore, officially "colored people" at law. Fraud. Artificial. Make-believe. They cloth themselves with this artificial covering "? /Black" which in fact identifies nothing.
Because "Black" is an adjective (that is only sometimes capitalized).
Chinese is a pronoun.
Irish is a pronoun.
Moorish is a pronoun.
Spanish is a pronoun.
Mexican is a pronoun.
Black is not, I repeat, is NOT a pronoun. Please stop going out into the world and making us look like fools by accepting this foreign ambiguous brand "Black". Every civilized being on this planet that isn't a brainwashed "American" knows that "black" is an adjective, describing someone as being of dark skin. They know who the Moors are though. They drop hints in all your favorite movies.
In "Wild Wild West", the man says to Will Smith "well aren't you a handsome blackamoor?"
In Robin Hood with Morgan Freeman, they say "The Moor knows all"
In Black Knight, they believe Martin Lawrence to be a French Moor. I know 95% of my people had no idea what the ? they were talking about, and it's sad.
In The Traitor, that Arab tells the darkskinned cat from Sudan (main character, i forget his name), that in regards to fighting for freedom, it's too late for blacks in America "they've already forgotten their history". "Already" because it's barely been 500 years and the black collective in America has completely forgotten who the hell they are. They think they're Europeans.
So why is it the SC Law and GW didn't hold the Moors of the Sultan in the same regard as the other blacks coming in from Africa? At a time where incoming blacks were being forced to forget their identity by the millions, why did the government find it just to allow this particular group of moors to keep their way of life? Why is it, if all blacks are moors, that the continuation of the trans atlantic trade and kidnapping of other moors wasn't considered a breach of that treaty?
Peace, bro, thanks for the questions
It's sooooo much I can say write here man, I'm better off drawing up a lesson plan and doing an hour long YouTube video (which I plan to do very soon).The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda.[1] They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by the Portuguese. After this a certain Captain Clark had them delivered to him, promising they would be redeemed by the Moroccan ambassador residing in England, and returned to their country. Instead, he transported them to South Carolina, and sold them for slaves. Since then, "by the greatest industry," they purchased freedom from their respective masters: They requested that as free born subjects of a Prince in alliance with the U.S., that they should not be considered subject to a State Law (then in force) known as the ? law. If they be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor, they would receive a fair trial by lawful jury.[2] The matter was referred to a committee consisting of Justice Grimke, General Charles Pinckney and Edward Rutledge.
If you want a reference, just read up on Free Moors Sundry Act of 1790... quick google, 3 seconds....
Slaves that were already in America didn't petition.... The vast majority did not know how to read or write, and were put to death if they did...... They weren't trying to hear that "Moor" stuff.. You seen Roots.. What ol girl say to Kunte Kinte? "Yooo man you gotta forget that African jungle ? , we in America and yous a slave"... that ? made my heart sink but anyway........ America depended on this free labor of Blacks...... So They had no intentions at the time of freeing these people because they would immediately lose all that economic power...
But the group of individuals we're talking about actually knew where they were from and I'm sure continued to claim that they were Moor even when they were sold as slaves (........why wouldnt they? they kno they suppose to be free).... Though it is clear, the European didn't play fair... So they ended up buying their freedom (like Chicken George on Roots)... But they were smart enough to know being a free black was complete and utter ? , because blacks are subject to ? Law. And plus they knew they weren't ? /Black. They remembered their nation.
So with that, they were forced to honor their wishes. Now, what kind of loops of fire the Europeans here forced them to jump through in order to finally be recognized, idk. But I take that it didn't go like:
"Ahhhh ? man, you were tryna tell me you were a Moor this whole time? My badddddddddddd g, our hearing jus aint the same no more, my b forreal *daps*"
Yeah, I doubt that. I don't know why they honored it and played fair but the fact of the matter is, they did. It aint like the King at the time had a cellphone, or a jet. Though I'm sure he knew what was going on overseas... Kings could see in Africa how the Europeans faked as Christian missionaries then just took over. They were not oblivious to how American slavery contrasted to the conventional usual form of slavery at the time. At first yeah, but I'm sure they eventually found out. And by then, the Europeans were deep in Africa, conquering everything
I try not to concern myself with reading the minds of others though, because I know that is not possible. I can only confirm their actions. They freed those Moors that declared who they were, even though they really considered all Negros Moors. @jono has even said himself that "blackamoor" is an old term therefore YOU might not know what it means today, but at one point they did.
What did they believe the "blackamoor" to be? "A ? ; a dark-skinned person". a "black Moor". PLEASE do not take my word for it, but look it up yourself. -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
I've been waiting for that... Let's break down legalese. What is "person"?Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):
* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached - e.g. a body corporate.
You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.
Very few people have capacity in law. Much less BLACK people. The vast majority are incompetent in law. But it's time to stop playing this stupid game with these crackers and start actually learning the law that governs the land we live in. We don't want anyone to give us privileges. We don't want government dependent programs. We demand to be treated as human beings therefore we want our inalienable human rights respected.AMENDMENT XV
SECTION 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. -
Interesting.
Do the moors consider the trans atlantic trade to be a crime against muslims then?
If so, do they consider the trans saharan trade to be just as vile or is it justified in their eye's? -
Interesting.
Do the moors consider the trans atlantic trade to be a crime against muslims then?
If so, do they consider the trans saharan trade to be just as vile or is it justified in their eye's?
Slave trade was not restricted to blacks until 1492, when the Moors were finally defeated in Spain (which was then called Al Andalus). Before that, there were slaves of all colors. Everyone was accustomed to it and had been accustomed to it for a long time. Islamic law (which ruled the majority of the major kingdoms prior to the Christians) said that slaves were only permitted if one committed a crime, was a captive of war, or (sometimes) if you were "pagan" or in debt.
^food for thought, this strikingly similar what the US Constitution says today. "Involuntary servitude is abolished except when a crime is committed". Slavery exists here, though tucked away and hidden behind private prison walls but wait i digress
Anyway, no they don't consider it a "crime", because slavery was legal. Many slaves at the time were captives of war, as the Europeans loved to put guns in the hands of one tribe/nation and get them to war and capture people from another tribe. The Europeans would play both sides (sound familiar??? they still play the game) and just reaped the benefits. You can't really blame the nations because 1. they wanted to protect THEIR nation at LEAST and 2. they did not know exactly (at least at first) how ATROCIOUS American slavery was.
Because mind you, while slavery is WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG, prior to 1492, slavery was merely being subject to someone's will. All the lashing, branding, dehumanizing, cutting one off from their heritage, etc. as unheard of and definitely not in the name of Allah. THAT is a crime against Africans. Many slaves weren't even slaves for a lifetime and if they were, they're children would be made free. Many slaves could just convert to the religion and be free. Though it's important to remember, many were captives of war, so to succumb to the enemy's will was disgraceful.
A good book that details this is called Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas. It doesn't detail Moorish culture at all (they actually unknowingly do by speaking about "marabouts" who were Africans spreading Islam through West Africa), but it does get into detail about what I said above. I actually quoted it a long time ago on the IC, let me see if I can find it... -
here we go.... funny thing is, I posted this in response to one of your posts trying to tell you the difference between slavery! lol... we forget tho, sall good..
Source: Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas by Sylviane A. Diouf"African slaves were used as porters, soldiers, palace guards, domestics, and concubines but mostly as agricultural laborers. They either lived with their owner's family and worked partly for their master and partly for themselves or were settled in slave villages to work as sharecroppers. In these arrangements, their status resembled that of the European serf, as historian John Thorton points out: "African slaves were often treated no differently from peasant cultivators, as indeed they were the functional equivalent of free tenants and hired workers in Europe." In addition, "slaves were often employed as administrators, soldiers, and even royal advisors, thus enjoying great freedom of movement and elite lifestyles." The absolute chasm that existed between the slave and the slaveholder in the Americas was unknown in Africa. Several European travelers who were familiar with the American system expressed surprise at the "leniency" of the African model."
"The adoption of Islamic law had a decisive effect on slavery in West Africa, for it significantly reduced the causes for enslavement while at the same time encouraging manumission. Islam neither condemned nor forbade slavery but stated that enslavement was lawful under only two conditions: if the slave was born of slave parents or if he or she had been a "pagan" prisoner of war."
"The application of Islamic law concerning slavery had a profound effect on manumission. The Koran makes ample provisions for the freeing of slaves, as a mark of piety or charity or for expiation. Therefore, the manumission rate in the Islamic world was systematically higher than anywhere else. Conversion to Islam was a prerequisite for emancipation, though it did not result automatically in liberation. However, once a Muslim, the slave could use channels of liberation defined by Islamic law: ransom, self-redemption, exchange, or manumission."
Slavery is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. The only ? anyone should have to serve is THE ? , THE Supreme Being, THE Creator.
But if you are asking the difference between American and Arab/Asian slavery, here you go.
This is not to big up Islam either! Christian Moors (though some were just forced to convert to stay in Spain) were MORISCOS. They exist!
This is a National and Divine Movement, not a religious cult to get you to worship another Allah, Jesus, or Mohammed. Prophet Noble Drew Ali used Islamic law to protect Moors in America. -
Throw some fun lil photos up here for you guys:
The paintings are actual old paintings of Moors and the real photos are well... yeah
-
"If I could just get you all thinking again, you would save yourselves."
-Noble Drew Ali
-
In Spanish, MORena used to mean "pretty black girl" before it meant "dark haired girl" (3 second google is all it takes, my friend please do not believe anything until you look it up). Just as the European woman became the epitomy of beauty in America, it was a time when the Black woman was the sweetheart of the nation!
O beautiful Sister, if you would just remember yourself! -
There are far more resources you can find to support your Moorish heritage, do not feel like you can only use what I have posted!
"Study, Study, Study!, and when you have studied well and would ask me what to study next, I would reply; Study Yourselves!
-Noble Drew Ali
http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Beethoven.htm
Essay by Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn
Beethoven: Revealing His True Identity
What specifically is being referenced, is the true identity of Ludwig van Beethoven, considered Europe’s greatest classical music composer. Directly, Beethoven was a black man. Specifically, his mother was a Moor, that group of Muslim Africans who conquered parts of Europe--making Spain their capital--for some 800 years.
In order to make such a substantial statement, presentation of verifiable evidence is compulsory. Let's start with what some of Beethoven's contemporaries and biographers say about his appearance. Frau Fisher, a close friend of Beethoven, described him with “blackish-brown complexion.” Frederick Hertz, German anthropologist, used these terms to describe him: “Negroid traits, dark skin, flat, thick nose.”
Emil Ludwig, in his book “Beethoven,” says: “His face reveals no trace of the German. He was so dark that people dubbed him Spagnol [dark-skinned].” ? Giannatasio del Rio, in her book “An Unrequited Love: An Episode in the Life of Beethoven,” wrote “His somewhat flat broad nose and rather wide mouth, his small piercing eyes and swarthy [dark] complexion, pockmarked into the bargain, gave him a strong resemblance to a mulatto.” C. Czerny stated, “His beard--he had not shaved for several days--made the lower part of his already brown face still darker.
.............
Included in this amazing discussion is a reference made of Beethoven’s teacher, Andre de Hevesy, in his book, Beethoven The Man. “Everyone knows the incident at Kismarton, or Eisenstadt, the residence of Prince Esterhazy, on his birthday. In the middle of the first allegro of Haydn’s symphony, His Highness asked the name of the author. He was brought forward.
“‘What!’ exclaimed the Prince, ‘the music is by the blackamoor (a black Moor). Well, my fine blackamoor, henceforth thou art in my service.’
“‘What is thy name?’
“‘Joseph Haydn.’”
We have all been fed false information for reasons previously mentioned. It is no secret that scholars, writers, critics, advertisers and Hollywood have changed history for their own specific reasons. -
this is not really something that i "think," regardless of the purpose of each person believing it. people are in jail as a result of believing this stuff. the legal opinions regarding it are pretty well established at this point. and i say this not to be sarcastic at all, but this is LITERALLY the same thing yokel white supremacists have been running with --and failing at being successful with-- for decades.I'm sorry that you think the mission of Drew Ali's Moorish Divine and National Movement is a "sovereign citizen scam".
ask all the guys who have gone to court talking this "Moorish national" game how well it's gone for them.
i know at the end you went immediately over to the "typical G&S poster" personal attack because, frankly, it's hard to argue a bunch of word salad mumbo-jumbo carries any legal weight and thus it's easier to attack people who question, so hey, that's cool and all. -
Whenever you Africans start claiming they started something, Europeans are quick to say "Yall always wanna act like yall started everything!! GTFOH You were just slaves and barbarians!!"
They jump to that quick because they know that we introduced damn near all of the civilization that they lacked.
Enjoy this short excerpt from The Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima
Moors brought civilization to Europe, while Christians took pride in not taking baths and throwing their feces in the streets
-
Know as much as you can
that means study study study
don't believe believe believe like we been doin (history channel, public school, CNN)
all it take is one good book to open your eyes and I guarantee you you will be hooked on gaining more and more knowledge just like me
What did the slavemaster tell the slave?
"No, gimme that book! You don't read! If you read, you be like me!"
Knowledge is power! do YOUR OWN RESEARCH. The Europeans got you LAZY watching YOUTUBE DOCUMENTARIES (half of em dont even have valid sources for their claims) and the HISTORY CHANNEL making you feel like you dont need to READ. People like me provide sources and references to validate our claims but understand there is MUCH more information even in just those sources that you're missing out on -
I was aware of most the info you just posted already, so i cant argue that youre telling us anything wrong. The info bout the SC law, the treaty, and GW's letter was some new ? to me however.
It strange that they didn't consider that treaty violated once they found out what slavery was really doing over here. It leads me to wonder if they were some how benefiting from it as well. I wonder what affect bringing the hypocracy of this matter to light would have internationally.
Though if what you referenced in the movie, "Traitor", is the general mind set perhaps thats why. The protagonist was Don Cheadle. Good movie BTW. However, you quoted it wrong. The "forgot their history" scene was in reference to the american colonist being viewed as terrorist to the British during america's conception. It had nothing to do with african descendants and their moor roots.
Appreciate, that. -
we're not talking about the "sovereign citizen" scam-type Moors, i hope
Got damn you still on this site ? ? Whats good?
