Marcus Garvey: The Moorish-American Perspective (Part II)

Peace and good will to all!  This blog is pursuant to part one of this series which can be found here.  You might want to read the former to be fully abreast in the ideology being demonstrated. Without further due, I bring you the Moorish-American scholar, Azeem Hopkins Bey.



O.K. Stephens Bey: Why do you think so many people are knowledgeable about the works of Garvey, yet so many lack knowledge of the works of Noble Drew Ali?

Azeem Hopkins Bey:

We will not squander precious time explicating who knows more about whom, because that is irrelevant. However, we do acknowledge the fact that not all UNIA members and followers of Marcus Garvey entered the doors of the Moorish Science Temple of America. This is a fact of life; not all people are going to accept the truth which was brought by Prophet Noble Drew Ali. The circumstance is analogous to the state of affairs during the contemporary of John and Jesus. Although John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for the coming of Jesus, not all disciples of John the Baptist accepted the teachings of Jesus, moreover some even denied the divinity and prophethood of Jesus. There exists a religious group known as “Mandaeans,” who practice “Mandaeism” (sometimes Mandaeanism). Mandaeism is practiced primarily in southern Iraq and the Iranian province of Khuzestan, as well as among a small diaspora population in Europe, Australia, and North America. Mandaeism is a monotheistic religion which honors Adam, Abel, Seth, Enosh, Noah, Shem, Aram, and especially John the Baptist as prophets. They describe Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as false. Mandaeans consider John the Baptist to be God’s most honorable messenger. John the Baptist plays a large part in Mandaean writings. Mandaeans highly revere him and claim to have some remote connection with his original disciples. They believe John the Baptist was the last and greatest of the prophets. While Mandaeans agree that he baptized Jesus they reject the latter as a savior or prophet. They view John as the only true Messiah.

O.K. Stephens Bey: So are you alluding to the notion that many Asiatics misunderstood the true purpose of Marcus Garvey?

Azeem Hopkins Bey: 
Yes, Over the years there has been great debate waged over whether or not Marcus Garvey and Prophet Noble Drew Ali were ever acquainted with one another. This great debate has been put to rest in light of new revealed information and research. There is concrete evidence that Marcus Garvey and Prophet Noble Drew Ali encountered one another. One particular incident was documented by the Chicago Defender Newspaper in 1927, while Marcus Garvey was in the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta Georgia. This encounter reveals the fact that Marcus Garvey was not opposed to Prophet Noble Drew Ali’s divine program, contrarily he was please with the Holy Prophets program. The encounter has been documented by the Chicago Defender newspaper, November 19th 1927. The article reads as follows:

Noble Drew Ali Returns After Long Visit South

Noble Drew Ali, Prophet, Founder and head of the Moorish National Divine Movement, has returned to the city after an extended visit in the South. Prophet Ali motored from Chicago to Atlanta, Ga., where he spent a few hours visiting Marcus Garvey in the federal prison. Mr. Garvey was very much pleased with the splendid uplift work being done by the Moorish Divine Movement. The organization has launched a drive for more members. 

Persons desirous of learning of the great work that is being done are asked to write Prophet Ali, 3603 Indiana Ave., Chicago Ill. Phone Douglas 5909. 

Stay Plugged for Part Three!!!

Why Marcus Garvey Wouldn't Support the M.S.T.of A (Part 2)

The push for Asiatics in America to have a nationality is most necessary. However, just what nationality would be appropriate is a perplexing philosophical conversation. In all respect, I admired Drew Ali's attempt to give Asiatics a nationality. However, it proved futile and this is nothing less than a fact. Only the smallest percentage of Asiatics refer to themselves as "Moorish-Americans" and I believe the cause of that is because the term simply does not fit the match.

The African scholar, Wayne B. Chandler, states that the term Moor can be traced to 46 B.C. Herein, we have a Roman army that entered West Africa referring to black Africans they encountered as Maures from the Greek adjective "mauros," which simply meant dark or black. Meanwhile, the Greeks who approached east Africa called the black Africans they encountered Ethiops. Ethiop is inherently Greek and stems from the words aithein {to burn} and ops {face}, i.e. burnt face. However, these are simply terms that ancient Europeans labeled Africans, and they simply were NOT nationalities. It should be mentioned that there were all kinds of different ethnic groups of Africans stemming from different places. They merely were adjectives that described the physical nature of the humans they saw {black or dark skinned}.

"The broad use of the term Moor begs the question: Who were the real Moors? Or as Chancellor Williams queried with a recognizable tinge of frustration, "Now, again, just who were the Moors?" He continues, " the original Moors, like the original Egyptians, were black Africans [emphasis added]. As amalgamation became more and more widespread, only the Berbers, Arabs and coloureds in the Moroccan territories were called Moors." -Source- African Presence in Early Europe

If one reads between the aforesaid lines, he would learn that the term Moor was NEVER a nationality. It was given to us by a foreign race for lack of a better classification. Herein lies the problem in Moor being used as the modern day nationality for displaced Africans in America.

Now to place it even more clear cut, lets use an example. An Irish-American can trace himself back to Ireland. An Italian can trace his bloodline directly to Italy. In contrast, can African-Americans trace their lineage to Morocco? By in large, the answer is no. A nationality connects a citizen of a nation and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the citizen and protection by the state. With this comes things such as a common language, traditions, religion, etc. Bluntly put, the term Moorish-American does not embody those principles.

From the M.S.T of A's Koran Questionaire: "Why are we Moorish Americans?" "Because we are descendants of Moroccans and born in America." However, today's Asiatics don't necessarily come from descendants of Moroccans, especially when history notes that there were many tribes originating from many different parts of Africa when the term Moor was coined. In other words, there were Africans that lived in Western Africa who weren't necessarily Moroccans then.

Now if you want to be a Moorish-American, be that. But it strikes me odd that the top African scholars of our time never confirmed Drew Ali's notion or idea. This is not to say the term is a bad thing, but it indeed divides Asiatics even more than we already are. To that degree, it's no different than a West Indian Asiatic shunning blacks in America. It is no different than an African from Africa looking down on a African American. This is real talk, and as my previous blog mentioned, Garvey would have despised this notion. He mission was to inform us that AFRICA is our birthplace and ALL of us should be united.

Again, this is not to offend Moors, but man knows not by being told, and at some point, you have to ask yourself why the M.S.T.of A often is associated with more drama and conflict than anything else. National membership is low in all branches and branches bicker with each other so much, you often wonder will they simply fall off the tree. This is factual, coming from yours truly because like Dr. Dre said, I've been there, done that.

Learn the history of the Moors, see the potential in what we are capable of and apply that to the now. But, in my opinion, the term Moorish-American holds know weight at all. Based on the number of Moorish-Americans in America, it looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way.

*Picture Courtesy of www.killingthebuddha.com

Why Marcus Garvey Wouldn't Support the M.S.T.A? (Part 1)

*This blog is not intended to create confusion amongst members of the M.S.T.of A nor give the M.S.T.of A, a bad reputation. This blog's purpose is to invoke critical thinking and upstanding interpersonal relations between all who might comment or take something away from the knowledge concealed. I encourage all Moors to comment and defend your square, as this is merely my opinion---and as you know, everybody has one.

Question: If Marcus Garvey was the "John the Baptist," or the forerunner of the so called prophet Noble Drew Ali (founder of the Moorish Science Temple of America), why do they have conflicting messages? Show me were John the Baptist said something contrary to what Jesus brought. And after all, I didn't choose those words, Noble Drew Ali did. In chapter 48 of the Circle 7 Koran, we read:

"In these modern days there came a forerunner of Jesus, who was divinely prepared by the great God-Allah and his name is Marcus Garvey, who did teach and warn the nations of the earth to prepare to meet the coming Prophet..."

BUT, while reading"Selected Writings and Speeches of Marcus Garvey," something struck me as odd.

In "The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey Volume 2 (speech entitled Who and What is a Negro)," Garvey speaks against the very philosophy that Drew Ali brought to Asiatics. More specifically, I believe that Garvey would refute the term "Moorish American." Allow me to present some evidence from Garvey himself:

"If we were Negroes when we were down under the heel of oppression then we will be Negroes when we are up and liberated from such thralldom." -Marcus Garvey

In short, in this speech, Garvey notes that European scholars often isolate groups of blacks [Africans] because of some accomplishment they have achieved and classify them as non-negro. On the flip side, if Drew Ali was the prophet all our people had hoped for, a nationality better than "Moorish-American" should have been revealed. The term in itself is simply not accurate, and on it's face, Ali did a poor job of explaining the details of why we are Moorish Americans. Moreover, it is divisive. When people become members of the M.S.T. of A, they are no longer black. Ali taught Asiatics that black means death (he also taught that white means God). Subsequently, you have "Moors" who attempt to convert "blacks" to Moorish Americans. See how confusing this gets?

"Imagine a dark colored man in the middle of Africa being anything else but a negro." -Marcus Garvey

Undoubtedly, the Moors would have to admit that the forerunner sought to unite ALL Asiatics, and sought to include no division thereof. However, when Drew Ali appeared, he brought MORE confusion to the condition of the black man, women and child, in the sense of nationality.

" That is why the nationality of the Moors was taken away from them in 1774 and the word negro, black and colored, was given to the Asiatics of America who were of Moorish descent, because they honored not the principles of their mother and father, and strayed after the gods of Europe of whom they knew nothing. (Circle 7 42:17)"

But is the term Moor a nationality? In part two, I will explore the term Moor (and prove that the term is extremely ambiguos), and prove it is not a concise enough word to be classified as a competent nationality.

*pictures courtesy of nessence.com and whitescarver.com

"Abe Lincoln: A Victim of Righteous Justice"

The more I read the book Dred's Scott Revenge by Andrew Napolitano, the more I realize that Abraham Lincoln was a supreme racist. Moreover, he was not an emancipator, he did not care about the rights of slaves (not to the least) and he felt the "white" race or European peoples, as I like to call them, were inherently superior to the African race!! Way to go Abe! They did a good job of sweeping your dirty history under the rug.

Lincoln was a sellout to his own people. He had a knack for arguing both sides of the issue. But inherently, like most whites in the South at the time, he supported slavery. From the looks of it, Lincoln was hated by the South because he just wasn't bold enough to put his foot down and wave the flag of slavery.

Now, to show you what time it is...peep this:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races lifting together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
-Abraham Lincoln (Source Dred Scott's Revenge)

Dang! What kind of Wheaties was he eating? Now grant it, I knew Abe wasn't the saint they made him out to be before reading this book, but I had no idea he was this much of a bigot. The last place a man like this should be is in the oval office. Sad, Sad, Sad.

But justice is something to be reckoned with and it seems that everything spun out of control for Mr. Lincoln. Trying to appease the North while inherently supporting the South just didn't seem to work out. Therefore, it was his rightful fate to be the first president to be assassinated. When you deem any group of people inferior, when you attempt to change God's law of all humans being equal, there's no telling what you are opening yourself up to. In Lincoln's case, it was a shot to the cranium with a Philadelphia Deringer. That's one heck of a gun to-couldn't have been much left of his brains and that's fair since he was using it correctly anyway. Hitler had some of the same pretenses towards the Jews-however he beat 18 assassination attempts. In the end, he killed himself.

But all in all, you can't deny that African peoples around at the time saw through Lincoln's antics. And while a lot of the country mourned his death, I'm sure many slaves thanked God for justice being served. Ironic indeed-wouldn't you agree?

*Picture courtesy of www.topicsites.com*

"Steve Mcnair: Could Polygyny Have Saved His Life?"

"A Peculiar form of polygyny was practiced among Western peoples in early Mesopotamia, and among the Greeks and Romans, in the form of concubines and prostitution, but it was dehumanizing to women...[it] was carried over into early America with enslaved African American women and continues in contemporary times in various forms"
Dr. Patricia Dixon-founding Pres. of National African American Relationships Institute (NAARI)

The story of Steve Mcnair is unfortunate and sad. However, in the words of Slick Rick, "these types of things happen everyday." The only exigent factor in Mcnair's circumstance is that it cost him his life. Whats more interesting is Mcnair's reputation amongst his community. It seems like his actions didn't fit his character. In fact, even considering his erroneous actions, from what I saw, people close to him only had good things to say about the type of person he was.

Well, with no pun intended, if he was Solomon, this would have never happened. I've had talks with my friends about polygyny, and I usually get rash feed back. But when Mcnair hit the ethers, perhaps it brings more relevance to the notion. The fact is, Mcnair was missing something in his life and his search stopped when he met Sahel Kazemi (even though some press sources say he had another mistress which instigated the incident). And yes, I know that true happiness comes from within, but he was only human (born to make mistakes) and at the time, he saw something that brought him a certain level of contentment that he obviously didn't have.

And yeah, I know it may not seem appropriate to pull the race card out on this issue, but here it comes anyway. Polygyny, at one point, was the norm in societies all over the globe. I know the ladies don't want to fathom their ancestors practicing it-but wake up, smell some Sanka, read a book, and catch up to speed. As you can expect, our humanatarians from the Causcas mountains put an end to polygyny by deeming it unacceptable (got to love how they put the smack down). The iron hand came when fathers of the Christian church backed them up 100%.

"It was not until after the 15th century, with European world conquest and domination, that the idea of polygyny as an inferior marriage practice and monogamy as the superior marriage practice came to dominate the world."
Dr. Patricia Dixon- Associate Professor of African American Studies @ Georgia State University

So if you really want to go back to your roots, brothers and sisters, then you'd realize your lineage lines you up with families that had numerous wives and one male. Moreover, at this time in history, we were in control of our destiny, without the yoke of European culture dragging us down! If Steve Mcnair could do it all over again, I'd bet he'd take the option.



According to Dr. Patricia Dixon in her book, "We Want for Our Sisters What We Want for Our Selves (African American Women Who Practice Polygny by Consent), polygyny is still practiced in western societies. She proports that now polygyny is practiced under the myth of monogamy. Think it's a joke but names like Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Sanford, Eric Benet, Sen. John Ensign, and Dr. Martin Luther King (to name a few) proves her estimation to be precise at best.

On the contrary, when Africans practiced polygyny, it was open, whereas no deception was involved. It was used as a form of nation building (i.e. Abraham), and it had numerous advantages over monogomy. Even Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, so long as Allah comes first and all our loved equally, up to four women per male is permissible. Our brother in the pic has three wives with children and they all look happy.

Maybe, just maybe, when Billy got busted, Caucasians began to regret they eradicated polygyny from being an acceptable practice in marriage. I guess the governor of Carolina would affirm that notion. Meanwhile, in America, the practice is so remote to the founders of polygyny, (people of dark hue) it seems as if we didn't introduce the practice to society. I guess we'd rather just get women behind our lady's back, in deception, rather than deal with the fact that polygyny is part of our great ancestreal heritage. According to Dr. Dixion, that's the European way!

And to show you how the cards turn, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, took the practice and ran with it! Makes sense to me, after all, his revelation of Jesus in America came from Egyptian tablets (yeah right)! Once the Causcasian comes through waving the flag, watch out-you might forget who you are!

In conclusion, Steve Mcnair's death is tragic, but at one point, his actions would have never led to the consequences he received in 2009. When you lose sense of your history, you lose a sense of who you are, and when you lose that you you've lost knowledge of self. If only we could turn back to the east and recognize our stolen legacy. Yes, Steve Mcnair was searching for something, but as Africans in America, aren't we all?

*Picture courtesty of MandikaPeople.com*