“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
Local writer Jeremie Samuel points out Moorish architecture in Pensacola, Florida…“Discover hidden treasures of culture in Pensacola through the Moorish Essence of America’s first port city.” The Moorish Essence of Pensacola indulges in the rich history of exploration and cultural exchange in the port city. Jeremie Samuel, the author, born in Pensacola, analyzes the congruent climate and ecology which cultivates Pensacola in the likeness of Moorish Spain and Morocco. Explorers embarked in quest of the rich territory of Pensacola and Estevanico the Moor, born in Morocco reached her shores in 1528. The Moorish Essence of Pensacola also manifests through the Spanish explorer, Tristan de Luna, who landed at Pensacola Bay on August 14, 1559. He was born in the Moorish province of Borobia in Northern Spain, and 100 Moors were in his fleet on the expedition to Pensacola. The layout of the city’s main districts of Cordova, Seville, and Granada correspond with the great, ancient cities of Cordova, Seville, and Granada in Moorish Spain.
Influence for the “Black Panther” concept derives from the Moor, Thami El Glaoui also known as Hassan El Glaoui, was the son of the Pasha of Marrakech, Hadj Thami El Glaoui – also known as the Black Panther – was born into one of the oldest Berber families in Morocco, who for generations were considered the most fearless warriors of the Atlas region. See Winston Churchill and the Black Panther’s Son Revealed in New Exhib…
Until his death in 1956, the Pasha of Marrakesh was called many high sounding names and he deserved most of them. Among his other titles were “Lord of the Atlas” “The Black Sultan and “The Gazelle of the Sun” He was the most powerful figure in Morocco during his lifetime.
In English-speaking countries he was known as Lord of the Atlas, was the Pasha of Marrakesh from 1912 to 1956. His family name was el Mezouari, from a title given an ancestor by Ismail Ibn Sharif in 1700, while El Glaoui refers to his chieftainship of the Glaoua (Glawa) tribe of the Berbers of southern Morocco, based at the Kasbah of Telouet in the High Atlas and at Marrakesh.
El Glaoui became head of the Glaoua upon the death of his elder brother, Si el-Madani, and as an ally of the French protectorate in Morocco, conspired with them in the overthrow of Sultan Mohammed V. The French relief heavily on Thami el-Glaoui to keep order in southern Morocco and during his heyday many foreign statesmen, including Winston Churchill, were entertained by the Glaoui in Marrakech or his High Atlas palace of Telouet.
The French called him the “Black Panther.” See Maverick Guide to MoroccoRead More
In 1923, a story coming out of New Jersey was picked up by the well-known national literary magazine The Smart Set. A man, claiming to have religious authority derived from his connection to Mecca, had begun a movement for spreading Mohammedanism among the Negroes of the United States. Moslem groups have been started in New Jersey, one of them at Newark, where a mosque has been established. From there the Islamic missionaries will move upon the South The figure leading this movement had, several months earlier, made headlines in various U.S. newspapers. In one front-page article, this man of African descent was depicted wearing a fezand it was reported that he had been proclaiming his movement to be both Islamic and Masonic —a “Mohammedan Masonry”—and spoke of his mystical and Egyptian connections. 2 It was later relayed that he had been leading a number of New York City Muslims in attempting to “win Negroes to their Mohammedan faith by stressing the fact of the absolute equality of races and genuine brotherhood under Mohammedanism, as in opposition to the well-known attitude of white Christians.
The man who was leading this movement went by the name of Abdul Hamid Suleimanand was definitely not the same person as Drew Ali. The findings presented here will show that it is highly probable that Abdul Hamid Suleiman and his movement influenced Noble Drew Ali.Before 1922: The Mecca Medina Temple and Dr. Prince de Solomon The man going by the name of Abdul Hamid Suleiman appears to have first achieved recognition in the public press in August 1922 after he attended the African-American Masonic convention held that month in Washington, D.C. At the convention, he formally presented himself to the leadership of the main faction of the African-American Shriner community, known as the Ancient Egyptian Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (AEAONMS). There, Suleiman communicated to the group’s head, Caesar R. Blake, Jr., his demand for the AEAONMS to come under the protection of what he called the “Mecca Medina temple of Ancient Free and Operative Masons from 1 to 96 degrees,” the “true Shrine,” which, in a later interview, Suleiman claimed to have incorporated himself in New York City, though he gave no date for its incorporation. 8 The news report, which contained a picture of the man, who clearly looked to be of African descent, indicated that he was an “Arabian.” 9
By the end of the month, Suleiman had written a letter to The New York World newspaper providing more information about his background:I, Abdul Hamid Suleiman, of the City of Khartum, Sudan, Egypt, 10 a Mohammedan by birth, Master of the Koran, having pilgrimaged [sic] to Mecca three times and thus become an Eminent High Priest and head of all Masonic degrees in Mecca, Arabia, from the first to the ninety-sixth degree, am now in the United States for the purpose of establishing the rite of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine. 11 …I am here to answer all questions relative to these degrees until I return home to Mecca to enroll the names of the true Shriners of this country. 12 Reporters who interviewed Blake about Suleiman discovered other biographical information: he claimed to be seventy-seven years old, and Blake, who had several conversations with the man,took him to be “what he represents himself to be,” that is to say, he accepted as authentic the biographical details Suleiman claimed. It was also noted that although Suleiman was very dark-skinned, he had “the blue eyes that characterized Egyptians of the purer type.”
A “Mecca Medina Temple of A.F.& A.M.” filed for incorporation on July 15, 1920 in Youngstown, Ohio. 15 Ten years prior to this,on February 4, 1910, it was reported that an African-American Masonic lodge by the exact name referred to by Suleiman had been incorporated in New York City “with the approval of Supreme Court Justice Gerard.” 16 This news brief notes that “[a]mong the incorporators are the Rev.Robert B. Mount and Dr. Prince de Solomon.” 17 On February 20 th , another news brief indicated that a Henry Ratleray of Long Island City was made the director of the organization. 18 I have found no other mentions of a Henry Ratleray. And, while there are a few newspaper r references to a Robert B. Mount, none indicate any Masonic or Islamic ties. Who these two figures are,then, and their relation to any future Islamic movement, therefore, remain uncertain. The name of the third man, however,—the Dr. Prince de Solomon—may provide us with some clues.
The first occurrence is with a Prince De Salomon or De Solomon, listed as a lodger at a building in the twelfth ward of Manhattan in the 1910 census. Here he is described as a single, forty-six-year-old black African who had immigrated in 1908; he was literate (in English, presumably), and in the column titled“occupation” is written the phrase “own income.” 22 This 1910 date, his race, and the New York connection are consistent with the Dr. Prince de Solomon described above. The other census listing is for 1920 (recorded in January of that year); this time the person’s name is Dr. Prince D.Solomon, a single, black, fifty-year-old Arabic-speaking Egyptian. His profession is listed as“minister” and he was residing as a boarder in the town of Mercer in Pennsylvania, just thirty miles from Youngstown, Ohio where, as we have seen, a Mecca Medina Temple would be organized in July of that same year.
The New York World interview In response to Suleiman’s letter, the World sent a reporter to his residence of 143 West 130 th St. where the two talked for four hours. Suleiman told the reporter that he was aware of the white Shriners’ attempts to sue the AEAONMS in order to prevent them from having their own separate Shriner organization; and Suleiman was“arranging to receive” the African-American Masons and Shriners into his “Mohammedan Masonry.” 26 He insisted that African Americans did not have an authentic Masonic charter, but he would “now…make them authentic by virtue of his authority as Eminent High Priest to grant a charter in a Masonry which he declares to be ancient and widespread throughout the Mohammedan world.” 27 Suleiman said that U.S. blacks would be allowed into his group on two conditions: that they vow, “‘by the beard of the prophet,’ that they will live according to the moral code of the Koran,” 28 —“becoming…Mohammedans,” as one newspaper described it 29 —and “that they will pay to Mecca, through none but Suleiman, a proportion of their lodge dues.Read More
Most accounts of Ali’s religious genesis began with his founding of the Canaanite Temple in 1913 Newark, New Jersey without actually probing its veracity and accuracy. Interestingly, Ali himself never utilized the term “Canaanite Temple” in his literature. At best, he indirectly insinuated his pre-1925 beginnings in Koran Questions No. 9 and 10 claiming the MSTA was founded in Newark, New Jersey in 1913 but without actually revealing the name of this proto-MSTA Temple, its exact location or its doctrines. 79 Contrary to Ali’s declaration, his phase of religious leadership did not actually begin in 1913 in Newark, New Jersey as the draft card revealed Drew to be a laborer by the SBC in Port Newark in 1918 .
Rather, this skimpily described religious past was crafted by Ali to suppress his proto-Moorish, Newark identity as Professor Drew and to veil the historical truth that the actual Canaanite Temple was founded by Abdul Hamid Suleiman (1864-?), an immigrant from Khartoum, Sudan who founded the Temple as part of his larger Ancient Mecca-Medina of Ancient Free and Operative Masons, a network of black Mohammedan-Masonic movements operating in various cities in the 1910s and 1920s. 80 Still, Drew’s evolution from Professor Drew to Prophet Noble Drew Ali in Newark City demonstrated Drew’s organizational genius in his (a) shrewd rewriting of the Newark’s historical religious past by erasing Suleiman’s tutelage over the Canaanite Temple and interpolating himself into MSTA literature, (b) his calculated selecting of a potent surname Ali to boost his image among African-Americans, and (c) opportunism in seizing advantage of the disintegrating remains of Suleiman’s Canaanite Temple in 1923 to fashion out the earliest stirrings of Moorish Temple of Science and (d) retaining Mecca-Centric elements of the Canaanite past into the MSTA to attract former Canaanite followers.
In April 1923, the popularity of Suleiman’s colored Canaanite Temple at the corner of Bank and Rutgers St., Newark nosedived when Suleiman and his assistant, Muhammad Ali, were charged and arrested by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for carnal abuse of a follower’s child. 81 With the leaders embroiled in legal matters, a bitter struggle for the temple’s power and purse strings followed. One faction renamed itself as Canaanite Temple No. I, based at 102 Morton St., Newark and legally incorporated itself for the purpose of “ religious worship and teaching of religion, Moslam and Islan ”. 82 Professor Drew, the Egyptian Adept Moslem who resided a mere 3 miles away from Canaanite Temple No. 1 was not oblivious to the confusion within the leadership echelons of Suleiman’s Temple. Amidst the leadership vacuum, Professor Drew reinvented himself as a religious prophet by deliberately suffixing the powerful surname “Ali” that connected him to three important sources of authority in the minds of black urban masses; Caliph Alee (599-661), the imagined founding father of Masonry and son-in-law of Islamic Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Duse Muhammad Ali (1866-1945), an inspirational pan-Africanist Garveyite intellectual who dabbled with Masonry and the incarcerated Mohammed Ali, the influential local chief organizer for the Canaanite Temple. As Canaanite Temple No. 1 had legally incorporated in Newark in 1924, Drew embarked on an evangelical crusade elsewhere under a new Moorish banner to re-structure Hamid Suleiman’s satellite temples in New York and Ohio and travelled to Southern cities of North Carolina, South Carolina and Norfolk, Virginia before establishing his headquarters at Chicago, Illinois in 1925.
Drew’s future silence on Suleiman and the Canaanite Temple from 1913 till 1925 was understandable considering it was not pioneered by him. Narrations of Ali’s days in Newark by MSTA followers involved an amalgamation of truth and reverse role-playing where Ali was depicted as the original founder while Suleiman instigated its breakdown. Sister Eunice El revealed that, “ The Prophet…also founded the Canaanite Temple in the year 1913 in Newark, New Jersey. He had over 900 members. After a period of time, a man came to Newark from Sudan, Egypt teaching languages. In his last speech in Newark, the Prophet said Justice would overtake him the language teacher for scattering his children. It did! He was soon arrested in New York City and jailed on charges of being an imposter .” 83 This was clearly a description of Suleiman who prided himself as a master of the Arabic language to newspaper reporters and was later arrested in New York City in 1927 for fraudulently swindling a customer’s money. Significantly, this meant that Ali was not the founder of the Canaanite Temple and a better estimated starting date of the proto-MSTA movement would be 1923, rather than 1913, as Suleiman’s grip over the Canaanite Temple eroded. Yet in Ali’s radical surgery of the remnants of Suleiman’s temple into the MSTA, he also ingeniously preserved several elements of the Canaanite Temple’s Mecca-Medina blueprint to attract Suleiman’s former followers.
First, Ali’s Koran contained a pictorial insertion of Sultan Ibn Abdul Aziz, the King of Mecca clearly representing a transcended outgrowth of Suleiman’s’ earlier claims to legitimacy through a fez signed by Hassan Hissien, Grand Sherrif of Mecca. 84 Second, Ali’s Koran Questions’ glorified eulogy of Mecca, as opposed to Morocco, in portraying the former as the modern twentieth-century equivalent of the biblical Garden of Eden whose cosmological purity was guarded by angels divulged a spill-over effect from Suleiman’s Mecca-centric proclivities. 85 Third, Ali’s MSTA uncannily paralleled Suleiman’s Canaanite Temple in its firm rejection of Christianity as a pre-requisite prior to membership. Fourth, a popular myth propagated by Ali concerning his travel to Washington D.C to obtain authority to preach Islam appeared to be an exaggerated imitation of Suleiman’s 1922 high profile visit to the capital to convince Caesar R. Blake, the Imperial Potentate of Ancient Egyptian Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine to submerge the latter’s movement into his Mecca-Medina Temple. This particular myth has been another source of contention where different Moorish factions disagreed whether this event took place in 1913 with President Woodrow Wilson, 1925 with President Calvin Coolidge or whether it even took place at all. 86 After Ali’s death, these myths continued to inspire future Moorish leaders to court discussions with American Presidents such as Joshua Traylor Bey who wrote several letters to President Herbert Hoover in 1931 and 1932 before controversially appearing in the White House without an appointment, to no avail. 87
Patrick Bowen’s seminal study of Abdul Hamid Suleiman has reinvigorated the quest to explore Ali’s actual relationship to the Canaanite Temple in Newark further. And my comparative study of Ali’s MSTA structures with Suleiman’s Canaanite Temple suggested that Professor Drew opportunistically reinvigorated the Canaanite Temple from its splintered Mecca-centric leadership in 1923 Newark to a powerful religious Moorish American faith before cunningly rewriting Suleiman out of the religious texts verall, the essay aims at elucidating light on Ali’s past before he adorned the MSTA fez between 1886 and 1924 as Thomas Drew by examining external empirical sources to enhance academic scholarship on black American Islam. Such an approach has engendered an accurate portrait of Ali’s reinvention as Thomas Drew, Eli Drew, Professor Drew and Prophet Noble Drew Ali who transcended socio-economic and religious issues afflicting African-Americans at the turn of the twentieth century.
As Drew essentially rooted from the same socio-economic class as his followers and underwent a similar rural-urban, South-North transition, this allowed him a strategic insight into the psyche of his converts. Ali’s sensitive intuition of the urban African-American spiritual pulse facilitated his successful transformation into a genuine religious leader his converts. Scrutinizing the gulf between the empirical and mythical Ali also demonstrated his skillful evangelizing methods centered on constructing a “new” past to serve his needs as a newly emergent Prophet in black urban America in 1925. While this new empirical portrayal of Ali iconoclastically unraveled deeply engrained Moorish dogma, this should not gnaw away at the religious convictions of present day Moorish believers. Ali’s past as Thomas Drew should not render their myths redundant since the legends clung onto by MSTA followers function as a form of Moorish hadith that preserves the Prophet’s legacy through oral and written chains of transmitted faith. Moorish myths also powerfully connect the contemporary MSTA community to their saviour. Conversely, the reconstruction of Ali’s empirical past should galvanize the faith of contemporary followers in their Prophet.
First, discoveries of Ali’s empirical identity has the potential to bind the splintered community through a common shared heritage and stake in their Prophet’s pre-1925 past as several myths have been a source of discord between different Moorish groups. Second, this revisionist biography rescues Ali’s historical legacy from being an object of scorn from the non-MSTA religious community that has been overly eager in condemning such myths as fictitious legends of fantasy. Contrary to the mainstream critiques of Ali as a dubious sage, the empirical Ali effectively counters such negative caricatures by revealing the uneducated Thomas Drew to be a mercurial Orientalist maverick and genuine prophet who sagaciously tapped on his painful past and sensitively appreciated the shifting religious philosophies to opportunistically invent a new religious structure, the MSTA that successfully catered to the spiritual needs of the marginalized black American underclass in the 1920s.Read More