“In 711 A.D., the Black Moors and others sailed across the straits of Gibraltar and invaded Europe. They stayed in Iberia for centuries. Although they could be brutal at times, their efforts helped lift Europe out of the ‘Dark Ages’ and ushered in the Renaissance. In 705, al Khina was defeated and killed. Her defeat was feasible only because of the lack of unity among the various black groups. In any case, her death was a terrible blow to Africans. Hassan Bin Numans successor, Musa ibn Nusair, completed the conquest of North Africa, including Morocco, with the exception of Ceuta. Among those African chiefs who converted to Islam was one Tarik, later governor of Mauritania. He had fought valiantly against the Arabs before his capture and conversion to Islam in order to preserve his life ad still maintain his position as general. A great warrior, he was to play a prominent role in the Moorish conquest of Spain.” See Moorish Europe By Aylmer von Fleische
The Moors were by no means the first Blacks to have invaded Europe. In addition to the Grimaldi Man, known to have entered Europe in prehistoric times, around 700 B.C. the Nubian, Taharka, then a general and not yet king, invaded Spain where he was known as Tarraco., Al Makkary in his work, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, recounted how Spain was once hit by a terrible drought. That was over 3,000 years ago. Later, on, Africans who had staged an abortive revolution were expelled and left for Spain, settling at modern day Cadiz under the leadership of Batrikus, his Latin name. His African name is unknown. Everywhere they went they set up civilizations, staying and ruling Spain for over a century before being uprooted by the Romans. During the fifth century, the Romans began to lose Spain to the ‘barbarian’ tribes such as the Alans, Suev and Vandals who occupant the North, Southern and Western parts of the country. By the end of the seventh century, the Visigoths had extended their rule all over the Iberian Peninsula.” See Moorish Europe By Aylmer von Fleische
“The earliest of dwellers of Arabia were themselves black, referred to by various names such as Kushites, Adites, Thamudites or Vedoids. With the encroachment of Whites and Asiatics, known as The Red Race to the Arabian Peninsula, the original black inhabitants were pushed back to the south western arts Oman, Yemen and Hadramaut, known as Arabia Felix or Hay Arabia. Black Dynasties in early Arabia included those of the Mineans, the Sabeans and the Himyarites. Himyar was a descendant of Cush through Seba. The relationship between The Red Races, of the North and the black Arabians was tenuous at best.”
“However, the inevitable amalgamation occurred between the different races in the peninsula. Mohammed’s ethnic group, the Koreysh, claimed to be descendants of Ishmael through Hagar. A carving of a huge head near Medina with unmistakable African features is widely believed to be that of Ishmael. The black Koreysh ethnic group itself is said to be a branch of one of the oldest dynasties of Arabia, the Kinana. A major division into two ethnic groups later occurred, and the lateral branch of the family is said to have the Koreysh, claimed to be descendants of Ishmael through Hagar. A carving of a huge head near Mediina with unmistakable African features is widely believed to be that of Ishmael. See Moorish Europe By Aylmer von Fleische The black Koreysh ethnic group itself is said to be a branch of one of the oldest dynasties of Arabia, the Kinana. A major division int two ethnic groups later occurred, and the lateral branch of the family tree is said, to have mixed with “The Red Race,” creating in effect the Abid Shem family, ancestors of the Harb, the Abu Sofian, the Muawiya and the great Ummayyah family.”
“Despite all the mixture, it is clear tht eh dusky skin was still much in evidence among the Ummayades. The historian, Toynbee, has said: “The Primitive Arabs who were the ruling element of the Umayyad Caliphate called themselves ‘the swarthy people’ with a connotation of racial superiority and their Persian and Turkish subjects ‘the ruddy people’ with a connotation of racial inferiority. Black Africans have left their mark on the early history of the Arabian Peninsula.” See Moorish Europe By Aylmer von Fleische In Dr. Wesley Muhammad, PhD’s article “Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?” he gave the following excerpts from, Black Arabia and The African Origin of Islam (2009).” Click Here
“In his work, Islam’s Black Legacy: Some Leading Figures (1993), Mohammed Abu-Bakr includes among 62 leading Black figures of Islam the Prophet Muhammad himself. Abu-Bakr rightly notes: According to Muslim tradition, Prophet Muhammad descended in a straight line from Ishmael’s second son Kedar (Arabic: Qaidar), whose name in Hebrew signifies ‘black’…From the sons of Kedar inhabiting the northern Arabian desert, sprang the noblest tribe in Arabia, the Koreish (Quraish), the tribe from which Prophet Muhammad descended.” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“As we have also discussed above, the Arabian Qedar were a black tribe akin to the equally black Nabateans, and these two were in someway related to the Quraish, the black tribe par excellenceof ancient Makka. As Robert F. Spencer remarks: “It is said that the Quraish explained their short stature and dark skin by the fact that they always carefully adhered to endogamy.” al-Jahiz (d. 869), the important Afro-Iraqi scholar of ninth century Baghdad, noted in his KitabFakhr al-Sudan ala al-biyadan (The Boast of the Blacks over the Whites): The ten lordly sons of Abd al-Mutalib were deep black (dalham) in colour and big/tall (dukhm). When Amir b. al-Tufayl saw them circumambulating (the Kaaba) like dark camels, he said, “With such men as these is the custody of the Kaaba preserved.” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“Abd Allah ibn Abbas was very black and tall. Those of Abu Talibs’s family, who are the most noble of men, are dark skinned, black and tall (sud).” This report is important for our discussion, not only because Abd al-Mutalib and his ten black sons were pure Arabs, but also because they are also the family of the Prophet, Abd al-Mutalibbeing his paternal grandfather. The Syrian scholar and historian al-Dhahabī (d. 1348) too reported that Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Prophet Muhammad’s first cousin, and his son, Alī ibn AbdAllah, were “very dark-skinned.” Alī ibn Abu Talib, first cousin of the Prophet and future fourth caliph, is described by al-Suyuti and others as “husky, bald…pot-bellied, large-bearded…and jet-black (shadīd al-udma).” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“Ali’s son, Abu Jaffa , according to Bin Sad’s (d. 845), described Ali thusly: “He was a black-skinned man with big, heavy eyes, pot-bellied, bald, and kind of short.” This convergence of blackness, nobility and Quraishī ethnicity is further demonstrated in these lines attributed to the seventh century CE Quraishī poet, al-Fadl ibn al-Abbas, called al-Akhdar al-Lahabi “The Flaming Black”. Al-Fadl is the Prophet Prophet Muhammad’s first cousin and he said: “I am the black skinned one (al-Akhdar). I am well-known. My complexion is black. I am from the noble house of the Arabs.” Ibn Manzour (d. 1311) notes the opinion that al-ahkdar here means aswad al-jilda, ‘Blackskinned’, and signifies that al-Fadl is from the pure Arabs, “because the color of most of the Arabs is dark (al-udma).” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“Similarly Ibn Berry (d. 1193) said also: “He (al-Fadl) means by this that his genealogy is pure and that he is a pure Arab (arabi mahd ) because Arabs describe their color as black (al-aswad).” Thus, al-Fadl’s blackness (akhdar) is the visual mark of his pure, Quraishī background, being born of a pure Arab mother and father. The Quraish consisted of several sub-clans. Abd al-Mutalib and his descendents, including Prophet Muhammad, belonged to the Banu Hashim. Henry Lammens takes notice of “les Haśhimites, famille où dominait le sang nègre” (“the Hashimites, the family where Black blood dominated”).” See Moorish Europe By Aylmer von Fleische “Lammens remarks that they are généralement qualifies de آدم = couleur foncée” (“generally described as adam =dark colored”).” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“But the Banu Hashim were not the only sub-clans noted for their blackness. The Banu Zuhra, the tribe from which the prophet’s mother, Amina bint Wahab, hailed, was likewise noted for its blackness. See for example the famous Saad ibn Abī Waqqās (d.ca. 646), cousin of Amina and uncle of Prophet Muhammad. He is described as very dark, tall and flat-nosed. Prophet Muhammad, it should be noted, was quite proud of his uncle Saad whose military contributions we shall discuss below. We are told that once Prophet Muhammad was sitting with some of his companions and Saad walked by. The prophet stopped and taunted: “That’s my uncle. Let any man show me his uncle.” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“This blackness of the Quraish tribe is not insignificant to the religious history of Islam. The Quraish were the custodians of the cult of the Kaaba in pre-Quranic Makka and at religious ceremonies they would declare nahnu ahlu Allah (“We are the People of Allah”) and throughoutArabia they were known as ahlu Allah, the People of Allah. In other words, the black tribe par excellence was also the Allah-tribe par excellence and custodians of the cult of the Black Stone. Nevertheless, or rather as a consequence, Prophet Muhammad’s greatest struggle was with his own kinsmen, this black, Allah-venerating Quraish tribe. In the end, however, it would be the black Quraish that became the foundation of Islam in its inception, at least in the short term. Not only were the Sunni caliphs drawn from them, but the Shiite Imams, descendents of the black Alī ibn Abu Talib, were likewise black Quraishi Arabs.” See Was The Prophet Muhammad Black or Caucasian?”
“Britons began their seaborne trade in the Mediterranean basin and the east Atlantic during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and repeatedly found themselves, merchants and sailors alike, clashing with Turks and Moors. At the end of the sixteenth century, numerous Britons were taken captive in regions extending from the Ottoman Levant and the North African regencies to Morocco, all the way to the Atlantic half a century later (1640), there were “thousands” of captives in Algiers and Sale, according to an Act of Parliament. But by the beginning of the eighteenth century, Britain had succeeded in establishing its control over the major commercial and maritime zones, and although captives continued to be taken (mainly as a result of the ship wreck), their numbers declined dramatically, ending completely at the beginning of the nineteenth century.” (Page 1)
“Numerous literary critics have written about the impact of captivity on British “identity,” “hybridity”, “multiculturalism,” and “performativity,” while others have interpreted Elizabethan and Jacobean literature (drama in particular) in the light of captivity. Historians have studied the captivity of Europeans in the early modern Mediterranean and Atlantic, emphasizing its violence and anti-Christian motivations, and extrapolating from the seizure of Britons (and Continental Europeans) a casus belli that resulted in the European commercial and maritime domination of the basin.” (Page 1)
“Notwithstanding the pillage committed by all parties, Christian and Muslim alike, and notwithstanding the indiscriminate nature of captivity in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic the scholarly and popular focus has been chiefly on North Africans and their Islamic anti-christian design. Such focus has led to parallels with recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere thus the baginos of the seventeenth century in North Africa have been compared to the Stalinist Gulag, while the Muslim pirates of early modernity have been seen as precursors of modern day Middle Eastern terrorist and of Somali pirates.”(Page 1)
“It’s unfortunate that the study of North African and Mediterranean captivity has been underpinned, as Gordan M. Sayre has noted, by geopolitical events since 2008. For, allusions to contemporary geopolitical events ignore historical specificity and invoke the Orientalist doctrine, described by Edward said, that all Muslims are alike in their position to the West, that their actions never change, and that the piracy of the Mediterranean Algerians in 1608 continues among the Somalis of the Indian Ocean in 2008. (Page 1)
Such comparisons raise serious historiographical concerns about the ideological motives of captivity scholarship since those motives do not remain confined to the ivory towers of academic agreement or disagreement Muslim piracy, slavery, and terrorism serve in stoking contemporary Islamaphobia because they ignore completely ‘Christian piracy, slavery, and “terrorism” (per Janice E. Thomson) that occurred at the same time in the same waters. With the exception of a few careful historians whose work I will be citing frequently, scholars and popular authors continue to demonize the “Barbary Corsairs,” and by extension Muslims, at the same time that the media entertainment industry romanticize ‘Christian’ corsairs.” (Page 1)
“The pirates of the Caribbean, who were contemporaries’ o the “Barbary Corsairs,” have been celebrated in theme parks in Disney Worked, in “Pirates’ Dinner Adventure” in Orlando, Florida, and in the Johnny Depp film sequence Pirates of the Caribbean. No denunciation of the ‘Christianity’ of those pirates is on record, neither now or in the early modern period when numerous reasons were presented t the King Charles II in 1670 why “privateers should not be wholly discontinued in the West Indies. The focus on captivity and piracy by the Barbary Corsairs’ that excludes the concurrent captivity and piracy by the ‘Christian Corsairs’ serves to confirm a binary between evil and good, Muslim and Christian, African and European.”(Page 1)
Captivity of ‘Christians’ by ‘Muslims’ has become one the dominate motifs in the study of early modern relations between the ‘West’ and ‘Islam’ in the same manner that the accounts of captivity of English colonist by Indians in Cotton Mather’s Decennium Luctuosum (1699) became, as Louise K. Barnett has observed, “the central experience of white-Indian relations. Although the white colonist forced Indians out of their lands, theological and scholarly studies have remained focused on the whites who were captured by the Indians and on their ordeals and tribulations. As Pauline Turner Strong has argued, the number of Indians captured by the Colonist was by far higher than the number of colonist captured by the Indians, and that “it is in large part through….the suppression of the colonist’ role as captors of Indians that the selective tradition of captivity has gained its ideological force” in American studies.” (Page 1)
A similar suppression has dominated the study of British and other European captives in North Africa, and as in scholarship on North America where the “heathenism” and “savagery” of the Indian precipitated suppression of the Indian perspective, so in the prevailing scholarship on ‘Muslim’ captors and ‘Christian” captives. From R.L. Playfair’s work about North Africa with its ominous title, The Scourge of Christendom, to the many book blurbs and titles about “Christian slaves” and “Muslim masters,” there is emphasis on irreconcilable religious polarization that captives shape to much of the critical body of literature on the “Barbary Corsairs” and allows for the continued use of the term “Barbary coast” in contemporary scholarship, a term that was never used by the North Africans themselves and that does not appear on any modern atlas.” (Page 1)
First the Euro Christian did not see only Muslims as their adversaries to be captured, tortured, and enslaved. Jews too were captured, making the Muslim and the Jew fellow victims of the ‘Christian Master.’ In their piracy and privateering, Western Europeans captured Jews from North Africa, selling or exchanging hem in the manner they did Muslims. After, all in the early modern Islamic world lived the largest number of Jews in the world, spread from the interior of Morocco all the way to the Ottoman Levant and beyond. In North Africa, Jews were employed at court, were sent as diplomatic emissaries and a Jew serving the Moroccan ruler (Mulay Zaydan) turned pirate and captured three Spanish ships.”
There were many occasions when Jews appealed to Muslim authorities to help them against Europeans: Mulay Ismail (reg. 1672-1727) defended and supported their causes in Morocco, as did the Beys and Deys of the regencies. Actually, when Ismail sent Hayyim Tulidanu as ambassador to England, he indicated clearly that the Jew was a “dhimmi of our house,” and because he was of “our house,” he was to receive all honor due to an ambassador. A letter from the British consul in Algiers described how “Turks, Moors and Jews” demanded justice from the Dey “on score of a British Satia freighted by their friends from Tunis to this place.
In 1751, and at the signing of a treaty between the British Consul-General, William Petticrew and Sidi Muhammad of Morocco (reg. 1757-1790), the latter insisted on an article that his “Subjects, whether Jewish or Muslim, should not be prohibited from living and working in Gibraltar.” In December 1715, George Paddon, the British ambassador to Morocco, wrote from Gibralter: In this Garrison [Gibraltar] of Moors and Jews about the Number of our Captives in Mequiness, Subjects of Mulay Ismail & some of those Jews Principals who have the handling of the Emperors Money and pay him yearly use for the same. The only way to make them weary…is to use the Jews here as the poor Christians are used in Barbary rather worse…to seize on their Goods, they being all belonging to the Moors, to put in Prison the Chief, making the others work at the fortifications, to keep all manner of Trade from them, in ships to hover on the Coasts and what should strictly examined & under pretext be brought in & rummaged well for contraband Goods… the Jews at Mequiness fr the sake of their Brethren here would help in procuring a lasting Peace. I wish the Jews in my Power I have & am well assured that the Chief of the Jews at Salee & one Pettet a French broken Merchant have been the sole occasion of our Rupture.” (Page 5-6)
The capture and enslavement of Jews by Europeans encouraged an English resident in Morocco to inquire in 1716 from secretary of state, after an English ship had been seized by pirates, “whether he may not size the Moors & Jews Inhabitants of Gibraltar by way of Reprisal for the cruel usages of British Captives. Because Jews were part o the North African politics, they were viewed by Europeans as part of the enemy and therefore legitimate slaves. Secondly, the Christian slaves on board the Muslim galleys were rarely Easter Christian Arabs or Greeks-unless they were living in west European countries. In the period under study and in the eastern Mediterranean of the Ottoman Empire lived the largest indigenous Christian population outside Western Europe. A French captive in Algiers in 1619 wrote that 3,000 families of free Christian merchants (presumably Catholic) and 179 Greek (Orthodox) families were living in the city and over 20,000 free Christians in other parts of North Africa, outside the Spanish and Portuguese colonies.” (Page 5-6)Read More
WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly declared its opinion that the congressional enactment known as the civil rights law, of February 27, 1875, is not in accordance with the United States Constitution, and consequently inoperative as a measure for the protection of the negro in his manhood rights; and whereas, the customs and traditions of many of the States in the Union are inimical to the negro as a man and as a citizen, he finds neither in the common law nor in the sentiments of his white fellow citizens, [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] that full protection which he has earned by his loyalty and devotion to the nation in its hour of extreme peril; Page 44 THE RESOLUTIONS. See Henry McNeal Turner, 1834-1915. The Barbarous Decision of the United States Supreme Court Declaring the Civil Rights Act Unconstitutional and Disrobing the Colored Race of All Civil Protection.
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. [See Introduction to Moorish Race and Nationality.]”And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more [p408] uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the [West] coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic.
“And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor (Study the History of the U.S. Department of Labor) was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time. The legislation of the different colonies furnishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact. Taney left out the legal understanding as to Moors demonstrating a legal distinction because he was well aware of the treaties between Great Britian and Morocco, that Moors were in the United States and that the Constitution to which he himself as a White man was bound to respect has a Supremacey Clause making treaties the Supreme Law of the United States i.e. Federal law. [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] Click here to read Scott v. Sandford
Abraham Lincoln Represented a Moorish plaintiff from Portugal in William Dungey (plaintiff) v. Joseph Spencer (defendant). The newspapers referred to William as “Black Bill”. Lincoln Successfully argued: “My client is not a Negro, though it is a crime to be a Negro–no crime to be born with a black skin. But my client is not a Negro. His skin may not be as white as ours, but I say he is not a Negro, though he may be a Moore.”
“Mr. Lincoln,” interrupted Judge Davis, scarcely able to restrain a smile, “you mean a Moor, not Moore.” “Well, your Honor, Moor, not C.H. Moore,” replied Mr. Lincoln, with a sweep of his long arm toward the table where Moore and I sat. “I say my client may be a Moor, but he is not a Negro.” On October 18, 1855, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and granted Dungey $600 in damages plus court costs of $137.50. Lincoln charged a $25 fee, which Lawrence Weldon considered minimal. See Introduction to Moorish Nationality and Status.
The Negro in the New World By Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston states: “When the Portuguese discovers, urged on by Prince Henry of Portugal, had rounded Cape Bojador, and after reaching Rio d’Ouro in 1435……” In his Footnotes it says “This is the reason why blackamoor in English, Morioan in Dutch, Morian in German, Moro in Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian and Moriaud in French were early names for Negroes. “Negro”, a Spanish word, did not come into common use in England till the nineteenth century.” Here the author clearly acknowledges that Moors were given the name Negroes during the era beginning the Atlantic Slave Trade.
The lecture is an exploration of the African and Afroasiatic heritage of the Moors and their lost heritage in North Africa and Spain. For More Information Click Here (This is a free event. Lecture powerpoint presentation). To the Left is a photoof Shluh Berbers of Morroco are a mixture of Masmuda and Sanhaja people. The Moors (Mauri) in the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans were described as wearing bands around their heads, and it looks as though some things about them haven’t changed. In ancient times the name Shluh is Sylli or Psylli in Greek, hence the name of the Masaesyles or Masaesylli and Masylli of Numidia. See The Moors – Part I A Lecture. The address is Masjidullah, Inc. 7401 Limekiln Pike, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19138 (215) 424-8022 email@example.com
The Ancient Moors were indeed black as coal or brown as wood or tree bark complexion(s) and color(s), however the term itself does not mean Black or Negro, as English dictionaries would give the untrained mind the delusion of or as your so called scholars and teachers may have taught you. What they have done is replaced the true meaning of the term with the complexion or skin color description as to the people in thier efforts to implement White Supremacy into literature which requires the duty to Blacken or strip dark skin people of their Moorish heritage i.e. continuing Massa’s Religious Conversion which requires Name and Heritage stripping aka Denationalization.
They want you to feel comfortable identifying under badges of Slavery branded upon Moors starting in 1441 A.D. such as Negro and Black, when these two terms that are only found on Slave Records and revisionist history books written in effort to create Black Pride in those learning about the history, heritage and culture of the Moors, who claim it as Black History instead of Moorish History, it was Black authors who accepted the badges of slavery as a suitable Political i.e. Racial Identity following behind White Supremacist authors. These same Black authors chose to ignore the use of the “Black Caste/Badge of Slavery” as only being employed in Slave Records and accepted it as an identifier for various Indigenous and Ancient Nations, Kingdoms and Tribes. However, the truth can be colored over but it cannot be removed. The reason you see Negro and Black in dictionaries defining Moor is because the authors of the dictionaries were on board with branding Moors as Negro and Black.
The first source I present that Moor means Westerner is Philip Khuri Hitti (فيليب خوري حتي in Arabic), (Shimlan 1886 – Princeton 1978) was a Lebanese American scholar and authority on Arab and Middle Eastern history, Islam, andSemitic languages. He almost single-handedly created the discipline of Arabic Studies in the United States. In his work History of the Arabs first published in 1937, contended that the term “Moor” has a geographic designation meaning Western.
Hitti spent 10 years writing this book he provided that “The Romans called Western Africa “Mauretania” and its inhabitants Mauri (presumably of Phoenician origin meaning ‘Western’) whence [the] Spanish Moor [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.”
I’ve just read your excellent article “MOOR MEANS WESTERNER NOT “BLACK, NEGRO OR COLORED”. A small point, it’s a pity it is illustrated with a picture of an Assyrian Geni which has nothing at all to do with the Amorites or Phoenicians. The Assyrian and Babylonian word for ancient Syria and the Mediterranean coast was Amuru (I’m an ex-Assyriologist) and I think your description of it’s misuse good. However, the picture is not of a Phoenician or an Amorite, but definitely originates from an Assyrian relief, i.e., in the East. The Assyrians lived in Iraq near modern day Mosul and they certainly originated the word. Just trying to be helpful. If you research Assyrian reliefs you’ll see where I’m coming from. Thanks. – John Bruce.
The origins of the term is not elusive like most claim and do not go back to Death and all these frivolous notions many people have come up with today on Youtube. The arrogance within the ignorance is remarkable, among some of these bogus scholars and educators, you even have people on the Hidden Colors video purporting to be educators telling people that Moors means Black, this is because they do not deal with technicalities, the fact that English Dictionaries from the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and early 19th century use Black and Negro and sometimes Black man merely demonstrates who it applied to versus specifically meaning that Moor means Black or Negro, what it shows is that the writers of the English Dictionaries were on board with the Stripping of Name and Heritage Scheme, they branded Moors as Negroes and Blacks, thus it was significant to define Moor as Negro and Black in their dictionaries so the English descendants would not forget who the term Moor applies too i.e. the People now identified as Negros and Blacks.
The Second Source provides that its derivation from the Semitic etymon Mahourím, “People of the West,” those who say that source is questionable are usually unaware as to the Phoenician/Canaanite origin to the term Roman “Maure”, and the Greek “Mavros” whcih gave birth to the Romance languages (German, English, French, Spanish, etc), the Arabic al-Mar is extremely rare and is alleged to not occur in Andalusi Arabic sources which I think is irrelevant because the Moors (Maures) were a Nation composed of many tribes before the Andalusian Era in general. Mauroi is late Greek and may have been derived from the Latin ethnic name Mauri. Following the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C.E., the term mauri was used to indicate the tribes inhabiting the Roman provinces established in Ancient Mauretania, corresponding to modern-day western Algeria and northeastern Morocco.
In the Latin Middle Ages, Mauri referred to a mixture of Berbers and Arabs inhabiting the coastal regions of Northwest Africa. In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, Mauri became Moros (Maures in French). More commonly, however, it was a racial designation for dark-skinned or black skin peoples, as in its English usage, which is seen as early as the fourteenth century. The source article explained the term “Moor” as background to Menocal’s Ornament of the World and Maalouf’s Leo Africanus. See the article by David Assouline reprinted from The Oxford Encyclopedia …
Now as to my Third Source demonstrating the relationship between “Moor” and “Westerner”. The Normans re-took Sicily in 1061, establishes trading relationships with northern Africa, and employed Africans in their armies. Fredrick II, for example no only used such warriors but placed them in his bodyguard. These African guards, together with African musicians and animal keepers, as well as the Emperor’s African personal attendants, formed part of the imperial processions. An African Johannes Morus, was appointed vizier of the Kingdom of Sicily. (The etymology of the word Moor is uncertain, it can be traced to the Phoenician term “Mahurin” meaning “Westerners”; See Encyclopedia of the World’s Minorities By Carl Skutsch The fact that the West is called the Maghrib should also ring a bell.
Finally for the Fourth Source: “The the Mediterranean and south-western European ports. They were the foremost among the ancient merchants. They inhabited only a narrow strip of the northern coastline of Palestine. The area was originally settled by Amorites (meaning “Westerners”), who were not necessarily Hebrews, but were a kindred people. They were Semitic, or Shemitic people, that is, they claimed descent from Shem. Although they later became very mixed with the descendants of Ham, such as the Canaanites, they had a high proportion of fair skinned, fair-haired Shemitic peoples, from whom Abraham and his family came. When Israel later settled in the Promised Land, many Israelite’s, mostly from the tribes of Dan and Zebulun, joined with them in their seafaring enterprises. In this way the forerunners of the later Israelitish migrations reached the British Isles, and they had settlements in Spain and Portugal. The Phoenicians had included Canaanites and Jebusites, as well as Israelites, but the rulers of the Phoenician and Carthaginian nations were of the Semitic stock, as we may guess from the story of Hiram, King of Tyre, in Phoenicia. He was of great assistance to King Solomon of Israel in his temple building operations of the Temple. If Hiram had not been of the original Amoritic or Shemitic stock, it is unlikely that he would have been so friendly and helpful to a king of Israel. http://www.ensignmessage.com/phoenicians.html See WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS AND CARTHAGINIANS? By Valerie Martlew, U.K.