Something often heard within the “Black Conscious Community” is that the Moors, here on this land, are denying their Africanity or Sub-saharan roots, whatever that means. See Did Treaties between Murakush/Moroccans and Europeans influence how U.S Citizenship is determined? United States Naturalization laws? And how does it relate to Federal Directive 15? on this site, for it deals with the Sub-Saharan mythos.
What they are really trying to say is that Moors have severed their connections to the continent of Africa, and or heritage, customs, etc… upon adopting Islam. This has been one of the claims often made by various “Afro-centered” people on Blogtalk Radio, Youtube, and various other social networks, in attempts to discredit the Moors within the “African American” community at large. Claims such as this, have prevented people of Moorish Descent, from dealing with their status situation.
This is just one of the many accusations that’s has been made against the Moors over the years. Mainly, by those who call themselves “Kemites,” who in 2012 are integrating Black Power Philosophy into the ancient religion of Maat, to condemn religion; mainly the three monotheistic religions. They have used Chancellor Williams Destruction of African Civilization as their Bible to completely condemn the whole Moorish Community when George G.M James, in his book Stolen Legacy, say’s, that the Moors “were the custodians of the ancient Egyptian mysteries”.
What’s funny about their usage of the late Chancellor William’s Destruction of African Civilization , page 91 of Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima, in the footnotes makes reference to page 221 of Chancellor’s book who confirms the true identity of the co-called “Blacks” as Moors, as well as them being the same people as the Egyptians. He says,
“Now, again, just who were the Moors? The answer is very easy. The original Moors, like the original Egyptians, were Black Africans. As amalgamation became more and more widespread, only Berbers, Arabs and Coloureds in the Moroccan territories were called Moors while the darkest and black-skinned Africans were called “Black-a-Moors.” Eventually, “black” was dropped from “Blackamoor.” In North Africa, and Morocco in particular, all Muslim Arabs, Mixed breeds and Berbers are readily regarded as Moors. The African Blacks, having had even this name taken from them, MUST CONTEND FOR RECOGNITION AS MOORS” (see footnote below)
Another thing that is constantly being brought up is that the Moors were involved in the destruction of the Songhai empire, and other kingdoms or provinces throughout Africa, as if the Moors weren’t from the continent. This will be dealt with in depth in a future blogs , inshallah. They also like to assert that it was the Moors fault for saving the Europeans, teaching them science, and how to eat with utensils. Although the the ancient Kemites (Egyptians) taught the Greeks way before the Moors even started dealing with Islam. This is common knowledge and is also in the Book Stolen Legacy mentioned above. They also say that, ” if the Moors wouldn’t have saved them they would have died.” And that the Moors are responsible for the condition of our people here and in the motherland because “If the Moors didn’t teach the Europeans a.k.a the “white man” nothing then he would not have took over Africa, and drained it’s resources”.
When it comes to the treaties they like to use the Native Americans as an example, saying” they mean nothing (treaties) because the U.S. broke treaties with Indians so they don’t care about the difference between the infringement of a treaty right and actual breaking of the treaty i.e. the governments of the nations in treaty parting from the agreement” So they assume that if one Moor is violated that the treaty is broken which is just not the case. But if they studied treaty law, then they would know better.
What one should realize is that this whole argument is centered around slavery, and derives from the fact that many “Blacks” as they like to refer to themselves, tend to point the finger at everyone else for their enslavement during the Atlantic Slave Trade. All, but their own people (except for the Moors, who they have alienated) , namely the so called Africans in West Africa, who have played a very significant role in the African holocaust by their own admission. For example, the Probe Ministries website at www.probe.org wrote a whole article on the subject in the late 90’s. The article says in part,
“The president of the West African nation of Benin has a message for African-Americans: His compatriots are sorry for their ancestors’ complicity in the slave trade. During December, he’s going to tell them that at a special Leadership Reconciliation Conference on his soil.
An often-overlooked facet of slavery’s ugly historical stain is that black Africans sold other black Africans into slavery. When rival tribes made war, the victors took prisoners and made them indentured servants, often selling them to white slave merchants. Tribal animosity seethed.
Benin president Matthieu Kerekou says intertribal hostility over the slave trade still exists. Many of his people have never seen descendants of their forebears who were shipped off to the Americas.”
“Johnson [Brian Johnson, an African-American living in Virginia, heads a U.S. sponsoring group COMINAD (Cooperative Missions Network of the African Dispersion) and works with many black churches.], says President Kerekou’s mission has a spiritual flavor motivated by the president’s own recent commitment to Christ. “In the same way that God offered forgiveness by presenting His Son, who was offended first,” Johnson notes, African-American church leaders want to offer forgiveness to the descendants of their ancestors’ captors. Both the president and the pastors hope to effect reconciliation and to provide an example to help ease global racial tensions.” 
This topic is also one that will also be dealt with in future writings.
So now the only thing for Moors to do is to address these claims. But of course from a Moorish Perspective, because the Moorish point of view is the only point of view that matters in this case.
Why is the Moorish point of view the only one that matter? First and foremost we have to look at the fact that within the Moorish paradigm, law is of the utmost importance, and is very significant to overstanding how Moors view certain things. Especially, when it comes to the misnomers applied to, and or the labeling of Moors as negros, blacks, African, etc… by the Europeans, and any other people for that matter.
So when we analyze it from a “Moorish P.O.V”, and that is from a legal stand point, we come across the concept of self-identification. Self- identification is how you see yourself or identifying yourself with someone or something else. OMB (office of management and budget) Director, Sally Katzen stated in a 1997 article published by CNN says,
“The principle we thought very important is self-identification, I think that it is almost beyond dispute that an individual should identify himself or herself rather than have someone else do it.” 
The Draft Inter-American Commission Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, states that,“Self-identification as indigenous shall be regarded as a fundamental for determining the peoples to which the provisions of this Declaration apply.”  So indigenous peoples, and in this case the Moors definitely reserve the right to identify themselves. Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples elaborates on the meaning of self-identification by stating that,
“1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.”
Along with the right to identify one’s self, is the right to self-determination. And it is important to bring up the right of self-determination because those less familiar with International Law, tend to view Moors who exercise this specific right, as doing something “new”, “foreign” or even “illegal” depending on who you speak with.
Wikipedia defines self-determination in part as “ the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference.” Then the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994), Which can be found at the University of Minnesota , Human rights Library, says in article 3 says, ( 7 September 2007 )
“Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” 
In Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on March 23, 1976 states that, “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development…” See the Sundry Free Moors Act of 2012 title IV section 424 for more. 
In the Study Guide for the Rights of Indigenous peoples they define self-determination as “The right of a cohesive national group (“peoples”) living in a territory to choose for themselves a form of political and legal organization for that territory.”
It is very important to cite from the international instruments to put an end to all of the confusion about the Moors, and their struggle to become autonomous, to set up their own institutions, tribunals, etc… But it is also crucial to this particular topic as well. As mentioned above, many misinterpret what is actually taking place here. When it concerns the Moors, people tend to take phrases like “challenging Jurisdiction” to mean going against the U.S when Moors are doing nothing but trying assert their rights based on international treaties and related instruments that pertains to us and are ON THE BOOKS. Moors are doing nothing different from what foreign nationals or even citizens among other ethnic groups within the U.S. are doing all the time.
They want to interpret the Moors exercising their rights to self-determination as some sort of “buck” at the system, but in the same line will accuse every Moor of being in cahoots with the Europeans in conquering Africa. As to the claims that Moors are “bucking” at the system, for one, Moors have been constantly reminding the courts, and the public in general that we have a Treaty of PEACE AND FRIEND SHIP with the U.S. If one does not know or understand what a treaty is then it is suggested that you look it up!
On that note, it’s funny that the detractors would knock the Moors for “standing on their square” when most “Blacks” do not have any defense against the system they claim is constantly oppressing them. Neither do those with these “African supremacy power” doctrines advocate expatriating from the country that they are presently enslaved to. That is, whether they choose to admit it or not.
Plus it is clear that the above instruments allows for indigenous peoples, within the bounds of the law to do the things you see Moors trying to do for self and kind. This was also the vision or the goals of many of our leaders, teachers and guides of the past, such as Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad and Noble Drew Ali to name a few.
Now without getting into all of the technicalities of what and who are the indigenous people, It would suffice that We provide a couple of more bars from the Draft Inter-American Commission Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to lend some clarity to how the Moors are indigenous to this land (North America). Of course with the understanding that Moors were being brought here unlawfully to America as slaves since the 1500’s if not earlier. Many are just assuming that the term “indigenous peoples” as far as America goes, ONLY applies to the people they are calling “American Indians” or “Native Americans”, without understanding it’s meaning in the context of international law.
But it says in the instrument,
“ In this Declaration indigenous peoples are those who embody historical continuity with societies which existed prior to the conquest and settlement of their territories by Europeans. (alternative I) [as well as peoples brought involuntarily to the New World who freed themselves and cultures from which they have been torn]. (alternative 2) [, as well as tribal peoples whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations]..” 
Note that it says, “as well as peoples brought involuntarily to the New World who freed themselves and cultures from which they have been torn.” This can be construed to mean the so-called Negro or African being based on the circumstances behind him being here. It definitely refers to the Moor. The distinction between the Moor and African is being made here based on the fact that Moors are the only ones off of the continent presently called Africa who are trying to free themselves and cultures from which they have been torn. Especially in light of the fact that Moors throughout the U.S, despite their differences, have been the only ones fighting to defend their rights to self-identify.
The Moors have been the only ones fighting to defend their rights to exercise their religion and to express their cultures. Moors have been the only ones teaching expatriation from the system, and or renouncing U.S citizenship, irregardless of the fears some may have about making that move, as is often reflected in their rhetoric. Because the negro is legal a slave, he’s dead in the eyes of the law, and basically doesn’t have any rights that the white man is bound to respect (see Dread Scott v. Sandford) .
Make no mistake about it but since Moors have been claiming aboriginal status this has been construed to mean that we are all related to the American Indians or are the original Indians, which is not necessarily true. Of course there is evidence of a Moorish/Islamic Presence here pre-Columbus, and obviously Moors almagamated with natives in many instances. Moors definitely have history on this land, but this communiqué isn’t meant to address that here in depth. See Title II, section 206 of the SUNDRY FREE MOORS ACT OF 2012; Moorish American Indigenous History.
When we look at the 1943 Anniversary edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica  it says that the American Negro is a new biological and cultural product. Meaning that before those brought here as slaves actually started mixing with others races or ethnic groups, the various different tribes taken were already mixing with each other prior to hitting these shores. In the source it clearly states that his (the Negro) “African ancestors represent tribes as divergent as the several peoples of Europe.” Various tribes are named that were from provinces covering large parts of Central and Western Africa, and“…Amongst them were Arabs and Moors from the northerly coasts…” So just this one source, without having to introduce loads of information mentions the existence of Moorish blood within the veins of this “new biological product” who became known as the “Negro”.
This will suffice. Because we just cannot expect the source to come straight out and admit that many of the populations named from the various provinces of Central and especially in the Western parts of Africa were actually Moors, with or without “Arab” blood; from a European standpoint. Also note the Encyclopedia distinguishes Moors from Arabs which will be elaborated on later. Jose Pemiente Bey on his youtube, The Legacy of the Moors , says that “Africans” as far as East Africa were considered to be Moors. But again that is another topic.
While I’m on the above source I would also like to note that European claims of being Americans would of fell on deaf ears among the scholars and writers of the encyclopedia’s and dictionaries of the late 1800’s-early 1900’s, particularly readers of Websters. In other words their own dictionaries contradict these frivolous claims, which is nothing more than wishful thinking at best!
When you read further into the Britannica it mentions the admixture of European and Native American blood as being added to the fusion of the already diverse genetics of the various other tribes, which contributed to the make of this “new-being” so to speak. This source also lends credence to our indigenous claims. Fact is , that many of us do have various degrees of Native American blood which is often denied by the lighter complexioned members of many of the tribes, who has set the criteria on who should be considered Indians, and who are allowed to be in their tribes. There has been a double-standard in this regard, because most of the “Aryan” looking “Indians” are as native to this land as they are native to the continent of Africa, but are being recognized as such. And here we see the power of self-identification.
But another inescapable fact is that those who they are calling “Africans” have been here prior to the European explorers. All it would take is a look at recent history, and can see traces of West Africans here since the early to mid- 1300’s. Thus would technically be indigenous to this land. Because even when trace the haplogroups (which will be touched on in part 2) no one can really tell the Moor ( particularly those from West Africa) of today if his recent ancestors was here or there simply because we been here so long.
Now back to the question. Are Moors trying to deny their Africanity? As stated above we would have to look at it from a Moorish perspective because the international instruments mentioned above basically tells us that no one can define us but ourselves! And this just makes sense, even if these instruments didn’t exist. No one can define another person. Who is more qualified to tell you who they are but the person him/herself!
With the various theories about the origin of the word Africa that is being thrown around, it is important to make one thing clear. Ir-regardless of where the word came from, the fact is it was only being applied territorially in the Northern part of Africa. Wikipedia tells us that “It roughly comprised the territory of present-day northern Tunisia, and the small Mediterranean coast of modern-day western Libya along the Syrtis Minor. The Arabs later named roughly the same region as the original province Ifriqiya, a rendering of Africa”.  It further goes on to state that the land used for the province was the site of old Carthage.
“The land acquired for the province of Africa was the site of the ancient city of Carthage. Other large cities in the region included Hadrumetum (modern Sousse, Tunisia), capital ofByzacena, Hippo Regius (modern Annaba, Algeria). The province was established by the Roman Republic in 146 BC, following the Third Punic War. Rome established its first African colony, Africa Proconsularis or Africa Vetus (Old Africa), governed by a proconsul, in the most fertile part of what was formerly Carthaginian territory.”
According to The 1911 Classic Encyclopedia, “The Romans gave the name of Africa to that part of the world which the Greeks called Libya (At131). It comprised the whole of the portion of the African continent known to the ancients, except Egypt and Ethiopia.” So this part was known as Libya at one point in history. With that said, it is worth mentioning that this issue doesn’t seem to have been debated by any of the brothers who brought us scholarship, such as John G. Jackson , Ivan Van Sertima, etc… it is clear where Africa was situated at geographically. Nor is this being debated by many European Scholars.
Africa came from Romana Africa or Africa Romana (as far as it being applied to a landmass), after the destruction of the old city of Carthage in 146 B.C. (page 160, Introduction to African civilization by John G. Jackson) and did not apply to the other parts of the continent now commonly known as Africa! Point Blank, Period! Not in its original application.
This is very important to note because for one, most of those amongst our people who are fancying themselves as “Africans”, and who look at Moors as the enemy or some kind of traitors to the continent, overlook that the Moors would technically be THE AFRICANS!!! And that would of course be according to the Romans because based on the writings of Afro-centric scholars as you will see below, the natives did not refer to it as Africa, no matter who the Romans took the name from. So everyone outside of the northern part of Africa, just cannot lay claims to the word as a form of national identity or whatever they are using it as today.
Proof of this, you will discover if you dig, because it is a jewel, can be found on page xxiv, in the forward section of Blackman of the Nile and His Family by Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan. It mentions how Dr. Ben felt that it was important to re-introduce some of the Ancient names of the continent prior to it being called Africa. It says that “Alkebulan is the name the Ancient Moors and Ethiopians themselves called the continent that is today known to us as Africa…” Note: by almost all accounts Ethiopians and Moors are recognized as being the same people. A page from Elia Levita’s 16th century Yiddish-Hebrew-Latin-German dictionary contains a list of nations, including the word “כושי” Cushite or Cushi, translated to Latin as “Aethiops” and into German as “Mor”. 
In fact, in the same book Dr. Ben offers a Histo-Geopolitical Graph of what? ALKEBU-LAN (4,241 B.C.E-1600 C.E) which shows the names, descriptions of kingdoms & empires, events, personalities, religions, etc… It also goes on to cite the different names that Egypt was known by historically, which is of lesser significance for this work. But….He doesn’t refer to it as Africa, and this is one of the most cited Afro-centric scholars by the Afro-minded to date! 
Now here’s where the problem comes in. The Moors reject African as a Nationality, or as a socio-political identitiy, race or whatever. And for good reason too. The “so-called Africans” (I use the term So-called Africans to apply to all those born outside of the territories that the term was originally applied to) seem to have a big problem with this. Which doesn’t make sense because if the Moors aren’t calling it Africa then why are they?
To begin, as far as the continent presently known as “Africa” is concerned, when you know the history and educate yourself on recent discoveries in genetics and understand haplogroups you would be able to see that Moors have “right of Blood”(jus sanguines) and “right of Soil”( jus soli) to the entire continent, ir-regardless of what you want to call it!
Another thing is as it relates to the developments of modern science and genetics, those populations that are often considered to be aliens to and destroyers of the continent by the Afrocentrist, such as the Berbers (Moors) are actually native to the continent! ( See the video on this site, “Black North Africa Vs. White North Africa here, on this site.) Because many within the “Conscious Community” choose to view everything from black and white lenses, it never occurs to them that what they are calling “African Genes” are very diverse. And that Race is just an illusion. 
Now the term African is very vague at best because various countries make up the continent of Africa, and each one is its own entity. So say, if one came from Mozambique, then that is what they will tell you. Where is Mozambique? Southeast Africa…Okay but It’s in Africa, so why not use African? Why? Cause one is from Mozambique. Another person may be from Ghana or from Algeria. A person who tells you they are from Africa isn’t telling you but part of the story. Because the next question is will more than likely be, “well, what part of Africa?” These are all different countries or nations within Africa who’s citizens bear different nationalities , cultures, etc… although each place is made up of various ethnicities. So trying to use African as a nationality makes no sense because Africa like America consists of many nations and your nationality is predicated on the nation one has allegiance to, which could be any of the many countries over there.
But many will tell you those are current geo-political designations and they divided up the territory in the scramble for Africa, or the Berlin conference (1884) . As true as that may be, one should remember that historically although we all trace back to a common root, people from the nation of Ghana were culturally different from other peoples from Africa. Differences existed even amongst the various tribes that lived within that nation itself. The fact is culturally, linguistically and in some instances biologically, many of the tribes, nations, etc… were different. And saw themselves as so prior to any pale- Arab or European. To bring it up to date, lets look at the Rwanda situation and the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi . But this is just one reason for Moors not using Africa as a Nationality, national origin, and or a national identity of some sort.
Secondly, we all know that Africa was first used by the Romans to name a territory or stretch of land (which was also known as Libya by the ancient world) and then it was applied later to the peoples. Here, no argument will be presented about the word Africa being derived from the Afri (native peoples in that jurisdiction at that time), which is certainly possible. But the question remains…did the Afri refer to themselves as Africans, prior to or after the Romans applied the term to that specific region in North Africa? Better yet, did the Afri call the land mass they lived on Africa? As you seen above, based on Dr. Ben’s book many of the indigenous, and well known groups of Africa called it Alkebulan. When confronted with this type of questioning, the Afro-Minded will usually respond with the question ( not answers) which would usually be… “well didn’t the Romans or the Greeks first coin the term Moor?” “And if so, what is the difference if they were both words coined by the European nations?”
Before we get around to addressing this question let us take a look into the Afri briefly. Who were the Afri? According to page 72 of, Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Religions, by Julian Baldick, citing the Christian theologian Tertullian, who was born at Carthage around 160 and died around 225 in his attack on the religion of those of Carthage says that the Afri are BERBERS of the territory of Carthage! So the Afri are also a group of MOORS! Also on the same page, next line he mentions the Mauri as being the “NON-ROMANIZED” inhabitants of Africa. Things that make you say HMMMM….
The above quote from Julian Baldick’s book is also very interesting in light of the fact that the Moors are constantly accused of being “Europeanized” by many simply because Moors had certain treaties and or agreements with them, particularly the U.S. So what is it? Are Moors “Arabacized” or “Europeanized”? History shows that the Mauri as well as some of the other tribes, who collectively became known as the Moors were the ones responsible for running the Romans up out of Africa in later years. And on that note , the new fad is to say that “ the Moors are Arabicized” implicating that the Arabs are not from the same vien. More will be touched on in another blog.
So since the origin of the word Africa has been shrouded in mystery and conjecture and scholars don’t seem to able to agree on the source of the word, We shall introduce information coming from a book called Juilius Africanus Chronographiae, page 53, by Sextus Julius Africanus, Martin Vallraff and William Adler just to offer a different view.
“From the tribe of Shem arose a man of the race of giants. He was given the name Cronus by his father, after the planet of that name. He first revealed how to rule or exercise kingship over the Assyrians. He had a wife Semiramis, also called Rhea from whom he had a son who was surnamed Zues, also known as Picus, who married his own sister Hera. Cronus also had another son named Afer, to whom he allotted the land in the direction of Libya.”
Further on it says that the Afri were named after Afer. Now from the footnotes dealing with the above section,
“Afer is thus the eponymous father of the Afri (Africans). Cf Cleodemus Malchus (in los., ant. Lud. 1,239,4-8), who identifies him with Afer, son of Midian and grandson of Abraham and Keturah (gen. 25-1-4).”
Now many will disagree with this source right off the bat, but it’s being introduced only for those interested in investigating it further. It’s not being proposed as the actual source of the word in question, but just an alternative view based on ancient sources. Because some sources will say that the name Africa came from the Roman god of “the west wind” who’s name was Africus . One thing one can draw from all of this is that term Africa seems to be of Roman Origin.
Of course most Afro-centered brothers and sisters like to use the old “Af-rui-ka” theory in attempts to trace the word back to Kemet. Because the late English National who was a poet, socialist and self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey was the one who first came up with the above claim. What those who use this mythology don’t understand is that in An Introduction to the Opus of Gerald Massey by: Charles S. Finch III, 2006 says that,
“Massey even derived an Egyptian etymology for the Roman word Africa from the Egyptian af-rui-ka which literally means ‘to turn toward the opening of the Ka.’ The Ka is the energetic double of every person and ‘opening of the Ka’ refers to a womb or birthplace.” http://gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cmc_nile_genesis.htm
First thing one would have to ask themselves is how did Massey derive an Egyptian etymology (root) for the Roman word Africa if Africa is a Roman word? What process did he use? What hieroglyphics has he studied to lead him to this conclusion? The source is telling us that the “Ka is the energetic double of every person…” but it doesn’t tell us the meaning of ”af” or “rui”, which has lead to even more innovation by people who take this as truth. But this is just another one of the things they have used just to lay claims to a Roman word because no one has proven without a shadow of a doubt that its a indigenous name.
A website at http://www.temehu.com/libya.htm called Temehu also introduces a possible source of the word Africa and also confirms that Africa was once known as Libya as mentioned earlier, as well as the Afri being Moors,
“Libya was also the name of the Goddess known to the Greeks as the Goddess Libya, and also of the whole continent before the Romans named it Africa after the Berber Goddess Afri. In mythology, the Goddess Libya had three sons by the Libyan Sea-God Poseidon: Belus, Agenor and Lelex. King Belus ruled at Chemmis or Chamesis of Leo Africanus, Agenor migrated to Cana’an (the Middle East), and Lelex became king of Megara. The wife of Belus Anchinoe, daughter of the Nile-god Nilus, bore him three sons: Aegyptus, Danaus and Cepheus, and one daughter: Lamia, the Libyan Snake-goddess. The myth relates an interesting “deception tale” in which Danaus was sent to rule Libya where he had fifty daughters, and Aegyptus, who had fifty sons, ruled over Egypt.”
Map of Ancient Libya, showing the locations of the native Libyan Berber tribes of Ancient Egypt.
The above ancient map of Libya, which is over 2000 years older than the colonial map ( which you can find in the link above) shows there was no Egypt, just a huge expanse of land known to classical geographers and historians as Libya, to the extent that the name Libya also came to designate the whole of the continent of Africa.
Now back to the first question raised above concerning the Afri. Did the Afri refer to themselves as Africans, prior to or after the Romans applied the term to that specific region in North Africa? To answer the first question and to be on the safe side, lets address if the Afri referred to themselves as Africans prior to the Romans, and the answer is obviously no since the word “African” or even “Africa” in the modern usage of the word simply did not exist then.. Now after it was named Africa it sure is possible being that African became a cognomen for those dwelling on the newly designated territory. AFRI IS NOT AFRICA OR AFRICAN! THESE ARE three DIFFERENT WORDS.
Secondly, did the Afri call the land mass they lived on Africa? The answer to that should be clear in light of the fact that the continent which is now known as Africa was formerly known as Libya! And as mentioned above the land was also being called “Alkebulan” by the Ancient Moors, Ethiopians, etc… So it is not feasible that even the Afri called the land Africa, when it is commonly held that the Romans named it after encountering the people (Afri) who dwelled there.
Now one can dig up tons of sources in attempts to try to disprove the claims that Moor comes from Greek” Mauros” and means Black. But it doesn’t take tons of books (written by Afro Centric scholars who draw from the European scholars most times anyway) to apply a little bit common sense. Before we apply a little reason to this, one thing should be considered by those who like to make this an issue, Moors and “Afro-minded” people alike before we move on into a series of other questions.
IF ACCORDING TO THE AFRO-MINDED THE WORD AFRICA WAS DERIVED FROM A NATIVE PEOPLE CALLED THE AFRI ( which is not the debate at this point), AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THAT. THEN WHY CAN’T THE AFRO MINDED ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE GREEKS AND ROMANS COULD HAVE CAME UP WITH THE TERM MAUROS FROM THE NAME OF THE TRIBE KNOWN AS THE MAURI? The Online Etymological Dictionary gives us some insight and provides us with a valid argument on this particular issue. NOTE: WE AT THE MURAKUSH SOCIETY WAS AMONG THE FIRST ONES TO USE THE SOURCE BELOW AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CLAIMS THAT THE GREEKS NAMED MOORS….
Its definition of Moor states,
“North African, Berber,” late 14c., from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus ”inhabitant of Mauritania” (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros ”black” (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people’s name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for “Negro;” later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.”
Above it clearly says that from the Greek you get “Mauros” “perhaps a native name, or else cognate (In linguistics, cognates are words that have a common etymological origin) with mauros “black” (but this adjective only appears in LATE GREEK and may as well be from the people’s name as the reverse).” So it stands to reason from this etymological definition , that “mauros” as an adjective came along later. And if it came later on down the line then it didn’t exist as an adjective at that time, therefore Mauri was in existence prior to “mauros’, and prior to African. That is why the definition is saying, that it , “may as well be from the people’s name as the reverse”. Meaning that the Greek Mauros and Roman Maure, which phonetically sounds the same as Mauri could have been a mispronounced form of the people’s name. This is critical because if further investigations ever prove this to be true than the whole “Moor means Black”, especially in reference to the Mauri goes out the window. This is not to say that Mauros doesn’t mean Black, but this just strengthens the argument for those of us who say that it doesn’t. By the way the Greek alphabet ” arose from the Phoenician script, and was in turn the basis of the Latin, Cyrillic, Coptic, and many other writing systems”, and the punic language comes from the Pheonicians who were not what we would call “white people” today.
Although some may debate this, the claim is not one based on denial of the linguistics just to find proof for Moors claims. No! This must be investigated because when you look into the various different dictionaries of the definitions of Moor or Mauros (particularly Greek lexicons and such) you will discover that two meanings are often given as the meaning. Some will say it means “Black” and some will say it means “Dark”, then some will give both meanings for the word. This tells me there is some degree of confusion. Surely the words Dark and Black aren’t the same in English. How about in Greek? We trust that investigation in this area will be done in the future.
The Romans called Western African Mauretania and its inhabitants Mauri (presumably of Phoenician origin meaning ‘Western’) whence [the] Spanish Moro [and the] English Moor. The Berbers, therefore, were the Moors proper, but the term was conventionally applied to all Moslems of Spain and North-western Africa.”……The “Moorish” people, as the blacks were described in the pre-Islamic era were noted for their skin color by such descriptive phrases as “black as melted pitch ‘ and “blacker than ink” quoted by Van Sertima in his book ‘Golden Age of the Moor’. In certain well-known European epics and histories, the phrase “black as a Moor” was used from Roman times until the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages, masqueraders used to blacken their faces “so they might better pass as Moors” and they would dance such dances as the Morris dance of England and the Moresca (dances apparently named after and derived from the Moors).
Speaking of the Roman word “Maure” it should be noted that in Senegal (Western Africa) there exists a tribe of people known as the Mauri or Maure. Actually it’s spelled exactly like the Roman word “Maure”. This brings to mind what Herodotus said about the Roman army, and how they met people who they referred to as Maure in circa 46 B.C in West Africa, (African presence in Early Europe). According to the Encyclopedia Britannica online, there is an article entitled Senegal River (river, Africa), which says, 
“…Soninke (Serahuli) dominate. Villages average about 300 people except in the delta, which is sparsely settled. Throughout the area near the Sénégal River small groups of Fulani and Mauri(Maure or Moors) are found.”
Also in another work cited in the above link, on the Ethnic Groups in Senegal it reads,
“The Diola and the Malinke constitute a small portion of the population. Other small groups consist of such peoples as the Soninke, rulers of the ancient state of Ghana; the Mauri, who live primarily in the north of the country; the Lebu of Cape Verde, who are fishermen and often wealthy landowners; and the Basari, an ancient people who are found in the rocky highlands…”
On the website Pray Way, It says about the Maure in Gambia,
“The Maure of Gambia reside in one of the smallest nations in West Africa. Except for its Atlantic coastal region, Gambia is completely surrounded by Senegal. It has a tropical climate with a rainy season from June to October. The Gambia River, a major trade route in West Africa, runs through the center of the country.
The Maure are a nomadic group who probably migrated from Senegal to the Gambia River for trade purposes. They are 100% Muslim and some of them are the descendants of the Wolof of Senegal. Even though English is the official language of Gambia, the Maure speak their own Arabic language known as Hassani.” 
The same source touches on the beliefs of this Moorish tribe,
“Virtually all of the Maure of Gambia are Malikite Muslims. They faithfully adhere to the laws of the Koran. The Maure acknowledge two main Islamic brotherhoods: the Qadiri and the Tajani. The Qadiri is the most widespread group and is characterized by many secret societies that are saturated with mysticism.”
Lastly it goes on to say that “Most of the Maure in Gambia are a mixture of Arab-Berber-Negroid. They are very proud of the fact that their origin can be traced to the Arabs.” I also offer as an exhibit, a Youtube to show you how these Moors or Maure look. 
Now some will automatically try to use the source from Prayway.com as evidence that Moors are denying their Africanity because it says, they are very proud of the fact that their orign can be traced to the Arabs. That doesn’t speak for Moors in general just those of Gambia that they are dealing with in the post, but the implications which could arise are resented. If anything it is out of love for Islam. Because many of those tribes are mixed Arabs and Africans their paternal line links them to Arab Ancestry. But this does not suffice to prove that Moors here, on this land, or all Moors in general resent their so-called African ancestry.
Henry Louis Gates has a series called “Wonders of the African World” which can be viewed on Youtube in which he visits different parts of Africa. In one part of the movie he goes to the Swahili Coast among other places. He interviews people who were obviously what we would call “Black” here in America, phenotypically; who were proud of the fact they can trace their ancestry back to the Arabs, Persians, etc…Some on the land claimed that the Uswahili (fusion of African and Arab culture) was purely Arab culture, and some said it was African culture , and embraced that part of their lineage. So making the claim that all Moors are in denial of their so-called Sub-Saharan heritage is futile because its just a generalization at best. 
Let’s take the Marabouts of western Africa for example who are Islamic teachers or guides who practice syncretic forms of Isam. Wikipedia says,
“Muslim religious brotherhoods (Tariqah in the Sufi tradition) are one of the main organizing forms of West African Islam, and with the spread of Sufi ideas into the area, the marabout’s role combined with local practices throughout Senegambia, the Niger river valley, and the Futa Jallon. Here, Sufi believers follow a marabout, elsewhere known as a Murshid (“Guide”). Marabout was also adopted by French colonial officials, and applied to most any imam, Muslim teacher, or secular leader who appealed to Islamic tradition.” 
“The mystical tradition in Islam, known as Sufism appears somewhat syncretic in nature, not only in its origins but also in its beliefs since it espouses the concepts of Wahdat-al-Wujud and Wahdat-al-Shuhud that are, to a great extent, synonymous to Pantheism andPanentheism and sometimes Monism although the traditional Islamic belief system reject them and stress on strict monotheism calledTawhid.” 
By the way, “Syncretism is the combining of different (often contradictory) beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism may involve the merger and analogising of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.” For further reference Kunta Kinte was a descendant from a line of Marabouts from Gambia. See the blog entitled “On the N.D.A” on this site.
Since the above source also mentions Futa Jallon as one of the places in which you can find Marabouts, let’s introduce an interesting article from Islamicamagazine.com, written by Saleha N. Ghani, entitled A Prince Among Slaves. About Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori who was sold to a plantation in Natchez, Mississippii after being captured around 1788, as a result of W. African Powers warring over the trans-Atlantic slave trade. He also was from Futa Jallon, Timbuktu. Although this particular article offers a lot good information on the life of the Prince, one particular part is necessary to quote for this blog,
“Slavery stripped Africans of their identities; names were changed and families were torn apart. Abdul Rahman came from a culture where long hair marked one’s beauty and farming and was considered beneath him, but in Natchez his owner cut his hair and expected him to work in the fields”
The thing that is significant about this is that in most countries of the Islamic world, long hair is forbidden, and is punishable offense. According to one source , “… culturally, some Muslims are opposed to men having long hair as it is also important in Islam to have clear differences (in appearance) between sexes. And generally these cultures encourage women to have long hair and men to have short hair.” A simple search will reveal more sources that corroborate the above. (Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi Afsaneh (2005) Encyclopedia of Woman and Islamic cultures : Family, Body, Sexuality and Health., Volume 3, Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, page 35)
The point being made is that in Abdul’s culture long hair was common, and permissible, whereas most orthodox Muslims, would have looked at it with disdain. Based on this, among other things, the so-called “Arabs” throughout the centuries have justified their discrimination of the so-called “
Africans”. They will accuse darker Muslims who practice elements of their culture of not practicing “pure Islam”, but as you will see, based on hadith, that Brother Rahman’s long hair or dreadlocks, plaits or tresses wouldn’t have invalidated him being a Muslim. This only proves that Moors, particularly in that part of Africa, (cause Abdul Rahman was indeed a Moor, like others from Futa Jallon) was practicing a syncretic form of Isam. And at the same time was manifesting elements of his culture via his long hair, which were more than likely dread locks. This is despite prohibitions against it.
So irregardless of the fact that the rulers of the Islamic world, particularly in Egypt view men who wear their hair long as “Homosexual”, Sahih Muslim says in book (hadiths) 30, number 5773 that,
“Qatada reported: I asked Anas b. Malik: How was the hair of Allah’s messenger? Thereupon he said: His hair was neither very curly or very straight, and they hung over his shoulder and earlobes.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7 Book 72 Number 788, says,
“Narrated Al-Bara’: I did not see anybody in a red cloak looking more handsome than the Prophet Narrated Malik: The hair of the Prophet used to hang near his shoulders. Narrated Shu’ba: The hair of the Prophet used to hang down to the earlobes.“
Now one must be made aware that Sahih Al Bukhari’s collection of hadith is considered the most authentic in the Islamic world. Sahih Muslim is considered to have the second most authentic collection of hadith. Both are highly acclaimed by Sunni Muslims throughout the world.
A book entitled, How tomorrow precedes yesterday: Visions of time and location of authority by Karen E.Smid, says on page 10,
“ Disputes over the form and significance of practices are therefore a natural part of any Islamic tradition, and Muslims in Fouta Djallon have been as engaged in these disputes as Muslims everywhere else (Asad 1986:16) Syncretic arguments that presuppose that ways of practicing Islam in Africa are less pure than those in more ‘central’ locations also discount the lengthy history of Islamic practices in the Western Soudan region. Archaeological evidence suggests that people in the Western Soudan have been in contact with Muslims from across the Sahara desert since the tenth century ( Insoll 2003:322) Oral tradition includes reports of kings of the second empire in the region having converted to Islam in the 12th century. (Levtzion 1985:162) Excavations of a few urban major urban centers found evidence of non-Islamic continuing alongside Islamic ones after the conversion, but dropping of dramatically by the 15th century. (Insoll 2003:232).” 26
What must be understood is that what some modern Arabs are now calling pure Islam is based on their cultures and traditions, etc… which almost never is cross referenced with the Quran to check the accuracy of what is being promoted. In fact there is hadith reported by Sahih Muslim (Book 30 Number 5773), that says prophet Muhammad wore long hair, which is worth mentioning. We, here at Al Murakush Society promote Tawhid or the Oneness of Allah, and no polytheism of any kind. But at the same time sometimes what people think is polytheism isn’t. Things aren’t always what they seem. For example, Muslims from the Nation of Islam are often accused of not practicing real Islam. Besides the issue most orthodox Muslims have in regards to Master Fard being called Allah, their members are accused of not making five daily prayers for example. Edward E. Curtis’s book, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960-1975 disproves this starting on page 132. 
Some non- islamic African religious systems are monotheistic. A quick reference is Akhenaton from Ancient Kemets 18th dynasty, beacuse he established monotheism, and was opposed by the priest of Amen-Ra. Let’s even look as far as southeast Africa briefly. One of the largest ethnic groups of Mozambique is the Makua tribe or people. A paper called, EXCERPTS OF MAKUA TRADITIONS (Fr.Kazimierz Kubat, Br.Edwin Mpokasaye) gives us a little insight into this, particularly on the polytheism issue,
“These people had to squat at the shrine and call their “Mluku” (God) by the customary names intended to give honour to him. The problem facing the villagers was normally mentioned and God was asked to help or avert problems. Makua people believed that God was the creator of the world and mankind and that there was nothing above Him. God was normally called by several customary names in Makua tribe. They would refer to him as “the only who pays every person according to his merit, the saviour of mankind and guardian and protector.” They normally made up names designed to give Him honour. Makua people maintain strongly that they trust in God-”the invisible one” and dispute bitterly claim that before the arrival of the Arabs and the white man Makuas were pagans and worshipped trees and idols. They claim that such claims saved the interest of the foreigners and contributed to the massacre of the Makua system of worshipping which ultimately erased makua culture.” 
Another interesting article comes from the website afrikaworld.net. The name of the article is,” Islam and African Tradition ~A thousand-year cohabitation and the resulting compromises”, written by Josef Stamer. Stamer, byt the way uses excerpts from ”Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Estella, 1995, pp. 121-125. It touches on Islam in “Sub-Saharan” Africa, and its coexistence and even intermixture with the indigenous tribal traditions and or religons on the continent. It corroborates Kubat and Mpokasaye work, Excerpts of Makua Traditions above when it says,
“The direct relation with God is rarely explicit but the belief in one God, Who is Creator and Good, underlies everything else. God does not intervene in the day-to-day affairs of life. These are governed by other invisible forces, good or evil, from whom it is possible to win favours through the ritualised experience of the ancestors. Strict observation of the rites and taboos and total solidarity within the group are the best guarantee of group survival and the transmission of life to numerous descendants. Seen from the outside, constraint and fear seem to be the dominant notes of traditional African religion, but this would be to forget that it offers an overall framework of security in an often very hostile environment, where only the survival of the group ultimately counts.”
In the article it also speaks of the syncretism, and how Islam and traditional African belief, cultures, etc… did not conflict with each other. Both were embraced. Islam didn’t eradicate African culture so to speak, but both were enjoined and practiced within indigenous communities contrary to popular belief. Make note of the fact that he stresses the fact that the “Centralization of one God” is a common theme among many indigenous African religons. So the article also says,
“And indeed, in all the difficulties of life for the African uprooted or disillusioned with his traditional socio-religious universe, Islam offers a new framework, as all-embracing, as secure and as reassuring as the old one. A new solidarity within the Muslim community replaces the village and tribal solidarities without changing the laws and habits of life of the group. New prescriptions and prohibitions replace the old ones, without the need to try and understand their deeper meaning. The only real novelty is the centralisation of the worship on God, especially in the ritual prayer. But this does not exclude other ritual practices from existing alongside – and for a long time – in order to appease the intermediate powers. African Islam has never expressly forbidden these. On the contrary, given the central place of the sacred Koranic text in Islam and the impossibility for most Africans of gaining direct access to it, since they do not know Arabic, the more or less qualified custodians of the Scriptures have themselves become the new intermediaries, sought out and feared, who replace the healers, the fetishists and the other members of the secret societies without which traditional religion could not function. “ http://afrikaworld.net/afrel/islam-afritradition.htm
Even when you look into pre- Islamic Arabia, Allah existed prior to Islam, and he was a creator deity. One of the most important things that the prophet Muhammad did was reestablish the worship of the creator deity (Tawhid) because his people were worshipping the many gods within the Kaaba. But that’s another topic.
What is being brought to the light here is the fact that historically Moors were not “Arabicized” like many like to claim. And they aren’t in this day and time. Syncretism is also existent in the Moorish Science Temple of America, as evidence in their acknowledgement of all the prophets, down to Buddha and Confucious,. They also have elements in “Moorish Science” that come from other religions. The syncretism between African indigenous spiritual systems and Islam proves this. And there are other ways to prove that Moors are not in denial that they come from and have cultural as well as genetic ties to those from that continent, the syncretism is just one form of evidence. Although we Moors do not deny the connections to the “Motherland” , we don’t deny our connections to the lands across the “”Land of God”. WE’RE JUST NOT AFRICANS!!! Also, it is also worth mentioning that, strictly adhering to the tenants of the religion of Islam doesn’t allude to “arabization” of people who do. People don’t normally accuse Chinese people for wanting to be Arabs just be cause they practice Islam or any other ethnic group or race for that matter. Not that We, here at Al Murakush Society support any type of syncretism or deviation from, innovation, or the desecration of Islam in any form, but reality is reality. A peoples culture most times is going to give Islam or any religion for that matter a different flavor,so to speak, but the principles, precepts, etc…stays the same. Salaam
http://books.google.com/books?id=gAC81Tsh2bwC&pg=PA91&dq=recognition+as+moors+destruction+of+african+civilization&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gOHvT-KnE4bM9QSpxNmeDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=recognition%20as%20moors%20destruction%20of%20african%20civilization&f=false Golden age of the Moor, page 91
 The 1943 Encyclopedia Britannicca , the anniversary edition