Message from Dr. Umar Johnson

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
I was kind of on the fence about some us being Moors but I think that it could possibly be true especially considering the fact the White Arabs that are currently living in Morocco are not indigeneous to North Africa. The Arabs came into Africa beginning in 639-698 AD. They conquer Morocco in the 8th century. So it doesn't take a genuis to figure out that one of the main reasons why some many 'Black' Noors/Moroccians came into America was because they got pushed out by the White Arabs.

If the White people here start telling us to go back to Africa I guess I will have to convert to being a Moor and live in Morocco.
 
So much ether and knowledge being dropped in here. This thread is refreshing especially amongst all the ignorant threads of falsehoods.
 
Jungz;5670585 said:
Portraits of Moroccans by Spanish artist José Tapiro y Baro (1830-1913)

tumblr_mizc1zdmdn1rqkjy0o6_500.jpg

Damn that is Omar's great ancestor, wonder if he robbed bad ppl too and told them "much oblige"
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Xtra;5682204 said:
Perfect;5671264 said:
Ajackson17;5671240 said:
Dna tracings can find your tribes through matriachal and patriachal sides.

Woooord, where do I do this and how much does it cost?
Its a sale at 23andme.com shit is only $99...when i did mines it was $300 i suggest folks jump on it cuz i was hot when i seen that sale a couple months later. It was worth it tho.....

Which tribe(s) came out as your ancestors?

 
Judah Back;5671151 said:
kzzl;5670994 said:
I think niggas should hold off on the whole " we moors" thing. Black americans are the descendants of lost tribes. Focus on finding out YOUR ancestry. Your tribal heritage. If its even possible for us to go back that far.

It could lead you to find that your ancestors were victims of islamization at the hands of moor invasion/slave trade. Them muslims had them chain gangs popping centuries before the white folks got put on. You'd just be trading one devil for another.

Also, it seems that the term moor was mainly used to describe the non-european. A generalization. They didnt care to take into the account the vast amount of diversity in africa for the most part. The word could even be considered deragatroy for some. Like me calling all hispanics mexican.

If the shoe fits where it. But for some of us, it might be deeper than that.

More misleading information... You may not be doing it intentionally; maybe that is what you were taught in school. But what you said here is not true and misleading.

For one, slavery was not always whips, chains, and degradation of a people. That is American slavery. American slavery was very unique.

African and Muslim slavery was vastly different. Allow me to give you an excerpt out of the book "Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas" by Sylviane A. Diouf. There is a section in this book talking about Islamic law and African slavery, I will type up a few excerpts:

"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."

ok i dont feel like typin any more but yeah, there are alot more differences that could be listed but maybe this will intrigue you and encourage you to do some of your own research.

So the fact that Arabs castrated male slaves and used female slaves as concubines makes it better than American slavery. A slave is a slave. It is wrong no matter how you put it. Islamic law means nothing when left in the hands of people who put profit before God. And goes a long way to explain why the Islamic enslavement of Black africans continues to this day.
 
A lot of the Slaves in Africa prior to the year 1500 were Prisoners of War. Another Portion of the slaves were folks who were in debt or a slave through family ties.

The Slaves were regulated to slave towns guarded by the Kings Army. They were the ones who worked the Markets throughout the cities and towns for the merchants.

Some Kings were extremely paranoid and did not like having educated free men as soldiers for fear of a coup...so some Kings aimed at having armies with nothing but slaves who could rise only as far as an advisor to the king or maybe even a governor but they could never be king.

Some slaves were just kidnapped from their homes without owing any debt or losing in any war, some were just made slaves in order for a group of people, a tibe of people or the kings people could trade for goods.

Aside from Books, Slaves were the hottest commodity in Africa.

Whites were slaves too, only thing is they were not good slaves because they would die from hard labor.

White slaves were good for Ransom and as concubines in Harems or Sex Houses.

The Moors along with Indians and Asians had all been to America, Peru, and the Carribean before the Europeans.

When they came they came to spread culture not to conquer.

The European came to the Americas to conquer it. And when they came be sure that their are first hand accounts of Moors...Islamic moors being there...not in large communities, but here and there they would encounter moors who had intertwined their lives with the natives.

Be sure to Check my Campaign, Donate a Dollar! Grab a Perk!Its for a good cause!
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/its-just-us-entertainment
 
This is my thing with it:

Honestly it seems like this whole Moors/Egyptians were Black!/Blacks were the secret rulers of Norway!....is some subliminal way for American Blacks to claim some sort of type of proud history since the history that is taught to us is in America revolves completely around slavery.

And I understand that. Because history matters. The greatest predictor for where you are going is where you have been/what you have done. The ability to reflect upon a proud ethnic history provides consolation in dark times, unity and is proof that your people have accomplished things, that they mattered and as a result, you matter. The more successful nations in the world often time leaned on their shared history, national pride and characteristics in the midst of utter collapse.

Not to mention the fact that over time, American Blacks developed a linked relationship with Africa. Despite Africa's vast size and diversity, it became a shorthand icon for our heritage/identity. especially due to the ill attitudes Europeans cultivated about it during the peak of colonialism.

But here's the problem(s) to me:

Niggas try to claim every single "good part" of the ENTIRETY of African history. This doesnt make any sense whatsoever given that Africa is BIG AS FUCK. I'll be damned if Ill be repping the Moors or bigging up the Egyptians or even particularly care on how they are portrayed in movies because most likely I have no relation to these motherfuckers. I'm an American Black and we are mostly descendants of western Africans and these other motherfuckers probably didnt look like us.

Western Africa is where our lineage most likely lies. That's where our history is.

So if/when i'm actually motivated enough to research the history of my people outside of America, ill start there.

To be so enthralled with the histories of people that you most likely have no lineage with is an insult to your actual ancestors who probably were just as impressive of a people.

And quite frankly, American Black history is epic in and of itself. IDGAF if slavery is a huge part of it, we went from slaves to having one of us in the White House. Things are far from perfect in the Black community, but from where we started to where we are now is an accomplishment that we shouldn't ever forget or take for granted.
 
Last edited:
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ;5670463 said:
We put way too much emphasis on what we choose to call ourselves. The world sees us as black and treats us accordingly whether were Christians, Muslims, Moors, Israelites etc. Also our history is meant to serve as a beacon that encourages us. We must recognise that our glorious past is just that, the past. It's important to know the accomplishment of our ancestors. However what we accomplish in this present moment is of greater concern.

Goat.
 
MalikAbdul;7264175 said:
Judah Back;5671151 said:
kzzl;5670994 said:
I think niggas should hold off on the whole " we moors" thing. Black americans are the descendants of lost tribes. Focus on finding out YOUR ancestry. Your tribal heritage. If its even possible for us to go back that far.

It could lead you to find that your ancestors were victims of islamization at the hands of moor invasion/slave trade. Them muslims had them chain gangs popping centuries before the white folks got put on. You'd just be trading one devil for another.

Also, it seems that the term moor was mainly used to describe the non-european. A generalization. They didnt care to take into the account the vast amount of diversity in africa for the most part. The word could even be considered deragatroy for some. Like me calling all hispanics mexican.

If the shoe fits where it. But for some of us, it might be deeper than that.

More misleading information... You may not be doing it intentionally; maybe that is what you were taught in school. But what you said here is not true and misleading.

For one, slavery was not always whips, chains, and degradation of a people. That is American slavery. American slavery was very unique.

African and Muslim slavery was vastly different. Allow me to give you an excerpt out of the book "Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas" by Sylviane A. Diouf. There is a section in this book talking about Islamic law and African slavery, I will type up a few excerpts:

"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."

ok i dont feel like typin any more but yeah, there are alot more differences that could be listed but maybe this will intrigue you and encourage you to do some of your own research.

So the fact that Arabs castrated male slaves and used female slaves as concubines makes it better than American slavery. A slave is a slave. It is wrong no matter how you put it. Islamic law means nothing when left in the hands of people who put profit before God. And goes a long way to explain why the Islamic enslavement of Black africans continues to this day.

I ain't even know I posted in this. And this nigga called me wrong, with nothing to correct me, just so he could filibuster and cape for Islam.
 

Members online

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
58
Views
96
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…