Talk:History of Islam in the United States

Notwithstanding any actual early Islamic adventurers or slaves in America, it stands today that the vast number of Muslims in America are participants or descendants of African-Americans involved in the "Black Power" movement of the 60s and 70s. Brothers fighting for freedom from the White establishment were aware that the FBI would surveil their every move. Based on a sophomoric understanding of U.S. law, they adopted Islam as a religion to restrict the government's ability to surveil them. Thus the founders of the main Islamic movement in America were felons seeking to avoid the law. It is no wonder that the good name of Islam was tarnished in the eyes of most Americans. Some of the claims made in the current version of this article need to be be reviewed for accuracy and factualness. There is simply no evidence to back up claims about early Muslims, and whether slaves were muslim or not etc.. Clearly the first mosque not having been built until 1919 is quite telling about the history of Islam in the US or the lack thereof. The lack of evidence regarding any Islamic practice in the US by alleged Muslims prior to the 20th century and the lack of mention of such history by noted ,recognized and sympathetic historians such as Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, or even Bernard Lewis on the subject raises serious doubts as to the claims made in this article.--CltFn 07:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you provide sourced counter claims instead of a flawed logical argument? Given the nature of this early history it is more than likely that there would not have been a recognizable mosque until 1919. A handful of visitors, slaves and an American convert aren't groups of people I'd look for to erect institutional religious buildings. I can't attest for the accuracy of this history, but your arguments don't particularly prove anything.PelleSmith 14:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The early slaves were not Muslim nor descendant from Muslims and they were more likely than anything to have been animists. They were captured in Africa by Muslim Arab slave traders and sold into slavery to foreing slave traders. Muslims would generally not enslave their own kind, which is a strong argument for the slaves not having been Muslim. Furthermore there is no historical records of any slaves with Qur'ans or islamic texts, or records of Islamic prayers or practices or beliefs.--CltFn 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop elaborating arguments based on tenuous propositions. History isn't based on conjecture. Why don't you bring in some references from known historians ... they could be Africanists or historians focusing on slavery, or maybe just historians. Animism isn't really an acceptable category of religion anymore--hasn't been for years. In fact its associated with colonialism. Where do you get that most of the slave traders were "Muslim Arab(s)?" By they way if you go to slavery or simply read something about the history of slavery you will see that "(t)hose captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors." So even if this ridiculous insinuation about the ethnicity and religion of all slave traders is true your logic does not follow. Restrictions against enslaving other Muslims do not necessarily translate into practice, particularly when dealing with nominally Islamic converts in Africa. You should cite the claims you've made about there being "no historical records" because as stated you're just slinging around unfounded claims. Again I don't know if the cited sources in this entry are correct or not but this kind of senseless disruption is just rhetorical nonsense without some reference to documented history.PelleSmith 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also why should we assume that black African Muslims (if they did get shipped over to the Americas) had written religious texts with them, or that they had the ability to recreate such texts when they came to the Americas? Why would we assume that they could read and write in Arabic or even speak Arabic? It would be much more probable to find evidence of religious practice, though all religious practices of African slaves were publicly suppressed in the colonies. Of course despite that the entry provides sources for the documentation of such practices. Again provide a sourced counter claim instead of just extrapolating on basic facts.PelleSmith 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a blog from a instructor (he doesn't have a PhD) of religious studies debunking the idea that there were more than a handful of Muslim slaves in N. America (though even he admits that there is evidence of a handful ... just not the high percentage reported in this entry). Of course as a blog its not a good source, but at least it may provide a starting point for you to find some sources. He may be correct, but he unfortunately doesn't provide sources for the counter claim either only his own historical arguments ... again published in blog format which is not acceptable as a source itself. See here. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this guy seems to blog pretty predominantly in a distinct POV not particularly favorable to Islam. Also, I can't find anything published by him by searching ATLA (the main religion database), and as I mentioned he doesn't have a PhD. He seems predominantly to be a blogger.PelleSmith 17:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed , the blog article expresses the exact point I made above. Where do I get that most slave traders were Muslims? , well , my statement is that most slaves were captured by Muslim slave traders in Africa and many sold to Atlantic slave traders ( who were not muslim}. One notable source is Bernard Lewis' book Race and Slavery in the Middle East. I will probably have to pull out my copy of the book and get insert those references when I get some time. --CltFn 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2001, a peer-reviewed academic journal, there is an article titled "The Islamic Origins of Spanish Florida’s Ft. Musa". The author, Samory Rashid, discussed Fort Musa, a fort that existed 2 miles north of St. Augustine from 1738 to 1812, established by the Spanish. From page 209 of the journal:

Little attention is devoted to the fact that many of the skilled laborers who built St. Augustine for the Spaniards appear to have been Muslims (Moors) whom Spanish authorities took great advantage of, during their conquest and colonization of the Americas. Sultana Afroz articulates a similar view by noting ‘[t]he ummah [community] of Muminun [believers] from Al-andulus [Spain] was to comprise the discoverers and conquerors of Columbus’ entourage’.

Which lends much credibility to the statement that there were Muslims in America in the Columbus-era. Pepsidrinka 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some obscure writer makes a statement like that does not mean its true. Where is the evidence to back it up? There is none. You could also say that the first slaves were aliens from Mars as it would have just as much credibility. --CltFn 11:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the word of one writer doesn't make the statement true and it would be nice to see the primary sources for this material. Does the author reference them? That said, CltFn's comparison is complete hyporbole. Can we try to work through this productively?PelleSmith 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the fact that it is mentioned in a peer-reviewed academic journal, as opposed to some silly comparision that CltFn brought up. As last I checked, we are here to bring source, not make original research. There are many sources that state that there were Muslims in present-day America prior to the 19th century. When I get a chance, I'll find some more sources. Pepsidrinka 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above I am compiling the sources and reading the currently sourced materials in the article and as I suspeoted , the statements in the article are not accurately representing the content of the sources. I will document this is due time as I need some time to get through them. Currently I am reviewing the 45 page essay "Muslims in Early America". The Journal of Southern History sourced in the article. My main dispute with the content of the article as it stands is that it attempts to represent what is merely hypotheses and conjectures as openly admitted by the authors referenced , as though they were facts. For example in the introduction of the paper by Michael Gomez Muslims in Early America referenced in the article he clearly states the following:

This essay is a preliminary study of Islam in early African American history. Because of the limited data available at this stage of research, the arguments presented are necessarily more tentative than conclusive

Example of misrepresented statements currently in the article:

More than 50% of all slaves brought to America came from areas under the influence of Islam

What the author actually said:

slightly over 50 percent of Africans imported to North America came from areas in which Islam was at least a religion of the minority

Perhaps this is just a case of poor interpretation of the content of the sourced article but I find these "misrepresentations" repeated through out nearly every section of the article. What are we to make of statements like The first mosque in America was probably build by Albanian Muslims in 1919 in Maine? A statement which is traced to CAIR in the reference. This sort of statement is misleading and can easily be taken to mean that it actually was built in 1919 in Maine when all that CAIR said was that it was probably built in 1919 ( actually the article said 1915). Next thing you know the statement is turned into the first mosque WAS built in Maine in 1915. Should we mention another author' statement : that the first mosque was built in 1919 but it was then abandonned in 1920 as most of its members had converted to Christianity ref: Islam in America by Jane l Smith page 56 Cambridge University Press. Now that is another twist on the topic isn't it, should that be mentioned? Like I said earlier, this article is going to need some honest fact checking and review.--CltFn 05:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of possible source materials for the early history portion of this entry. Please add to it:

• Austin, Allen. 1984. African Muslims in Antebellum America: A Sourcebook. New York: Taylor & Francis.

• Austin, Allen. 1997. African Muslims in Antebellum America: Transatlantic Stories and Spiritual Struggles. New York: Routledge.

[http://www.amazon.com/African-Muslims-Antebellum-America-Transatlantic/dp/0415912709/ref=sr_1_2/002-3073524-0763207?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187541693&sr=1-2 Amazon link]

• Diouf, Sylviane A. 1998. Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas. New York: New York University Press.

• Lovejoy, Paul. 1994. "The Central Sudan and the Atlantic Slave Trade." In Paths toward the Past, edited by Robert Harms. Atlanta: African Studies Association Press.

PelleSmith 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've read a significant part of the book by Diouf. Unfortunately, it mixes history of Muslim slaves in the Carribean with those in what evnetually became the United States. Thus, I haven't added content from it, due to fear of irrelevency.Vice regent 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estevanico of Azamor was not a Muslim. Someone is trying to misquote a book written in 2001 in Beyrut as a source. to assert that he was a Muslim . A full examination of Azamor's background is to be found in Estevanico, Negro Discoverer of the Southwest: A Critical Reexamination by Rayford W. Logan and to be found on Jstor. This inquiry in 1940 provides a comprehensive examination of all historical evidenciary records of Estevanico of Azamor including the journals of the other members of his party --CltFn 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show us how it is misquoted before using that as a rationale for removing cited text. No offense, but your word alone doesn't exactly instill me with confidence. The fact that an older book has no reference to this is also superfluous to your claim ... and especially suspect given how much time has lapsed since then. What do we know about discoveries in terms of primary documents here?PelleSmith 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think I'm misquoting the source. Since i don't have the book on me, I'll have to go to the libarary and provide you with a quote that suggests this.Vice regent 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile, here are some sources google produces.Estevanico: Explorer says he was Muslim, while ESTEVANICO says he was a Moor from Morocco (likely, but not definetly, Muslim). America’s Extensive Islamic Heritage Detailed in Exhibitions indirectly says that he is part of "America’s Islamic heritage".Vice regent 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read sources that say that he could have been a Moor by reason of birth in Morocco or a Berber but none that said that he was Muslim , ( besides Muslim revisionist blogs etc). Furthermore he was a slave amonsgt a spanish catholics crew , the story goes that he was befriended by the Captain and expedition members which I would think somewhat unlikely to have happened had he been a muslim considering the historical period he was living in . Furthermore there was never any evidence of any Islamic belief or practice in any of the journals of the crew throughout the expeditions, even after he was on his own, a free man. Clearly some 20th century Muslim propagandist have sought to make a connection with Islam to establish some sort of Islamic foothold into the early history of America. This is however nothing more than hypothesis and conjecture masquarading as fact.Could he have been Muslim , maybe or maybe not , its just that there is no evidence to support that he could have been. Historians seem to generally agree that he was born in Morroco , but does that make him a moor and by derivation Muslim , particularly if there is no evidence to support it amongst the many journals written by the members of the expeditions he travelled with for years.Thus he should not be listed in the article as a Muslim. --CltFn 05:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it offensive that you call reliable sources "Muslim propagandist[s]". You said: "there is no evidence to support that he could have been [a Muslim]". Is this your original research, or actually supported by a scholar? If it is the latter, please bring forth your sources. Thank you.Vice regent 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed the source at the beginning of this section:Estevanico, Negro Discoverer of the Southwest: A Critical Reexamination by Rayford W. Logan and to be found on Jstor. The enchanted learning website is not a reliable source , its someone's web site . Just because its on a web site does not mean something is true. Anyone can publish whatever they want on their website. As far as interpretation of historical events it has to be based on evidence, not on hearsay. --CltFn 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your source never addresses the issue of religion at all. The argument Logan makes is that Estevanico was not an Arab or a Moor, but of African decent. The argument is entirely ethnic in nature. In his conclusion he writes:

"The weight of the evidence seems also to lead to the conclusion that Estevanico was a Negro in the North American sense of the word."

It needs to be noted as well that Logan wrote this article in 1940 and that he, as an African American historian actively engaged in recovering his own heritage is just as likely to want to portray Estevanico as a "Negro in the North American sense" as a Muslim scholar is to want to portray Estevanico as a "Moorish Muslim." It seems impossible to say for sure that Estevanico was or was not a Muslim. The idea that he is a Moor clearly seems controversial however, given Logan's piece, and unless some later argument that deal's directly with Logan's can be convincingly added here at the very least we need to reflect the fact that Estevanico only might have been a Muslim, and/or simply that his ethnic and religious identity are uncertain.PelleSmith 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And the section that discusses Estevanico should reflect what you have just said.--CltFn 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true "In 1587, a shipload of Muslim Moriscos landed and settled in the coastal towns of South Carolina, Eastern Tennessee and along the western belt of North Carolina mountains." then where were the mosques or evidence of Islamic practice. These people were free and not impeded in following their faith. Yet they left no evidence anywhere of Mosque or the practice of Islam. They settled in the mountains , they could have built mosques with little contact from the outside world.--CltFn 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the strange arguments based upon some supposed "logic." Why should there be evidence of mosques? In fact why should we even assume they kept their practices up? Why should we believe that they kept their beliefs even past one generation? Stop trying to throw red herrings into sourced claims with naive logic. Find other sourced claims.PelleSmith 11:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they Muslims?Even the trader that first came from Arab to Indonesia which has been lost for months still faithful

12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And its not a matter of strange arguments as PelleSmith would say but simply a matter of common sense and a reality check. Without these one might be prone to believe that the moon is made of green cheese just because someone has found a source for the claim. Why should there be evidence of mosques? Because it would support the claim that is being made and the lack of mosques or even traces of Islamic practice raises serious doubts as to the historicity of such claims. --CltFn 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that mosques were built or that they have withstood the test of time. Again why would anyone assume that? That's ridiculous. I don't know if the claim you are attacking is true or not but my point is that you can't just apply some "logic" that doesn't have any contextual precedent to whatever historical period you want. Also please stop mocking other editors.PelleSmith 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the mosques were destroyed or razed. It may be that no archaeologist has ever bothered looking for them. There are so many possibilities.Vice regent 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More likely they never existed because no Muslim ever landed in the coast of the US in 1587.--CltFn 12:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am merging this article back into Islam in the United States per the consensus on that talk page at the beginning of the month. Please do not unmerge it again without discussion or major expansion. Yahel Guhan 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was concensus. Please nominate this article for deletion if you think it shouldn't exist. But I think that this is a notable and expandable topic.Vice regent 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the article due to the excessive consensus on Talk:Islam in the United States. Almost everyone supported a merge. I'd rather have this title redirect here rather than waste everyones time going through the afd process. If the section gets big at Islam in the United States, then we can create a sub article. As long as the article is as short as it is right now, the topics need to be merged. Yahel Guhan 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most votes for a merger were given before 20 July. But since then the article has grown.[1]Vice regent 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not enough. If you want, re-open the discussion there, but for now, stick to the consensus. Yahel Guhan 02:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]