Wafubeh (Greetings)! Today, we will discuss how the term Moor finds its origin, not in the Greek word mauros (plural mauroi), but from the Phoenician language. Before we begin, however, I would like to discuss a huge oversight in the research conducted by those claiming to be adherents of “Black Consciousness” along with students of Moorish Science. The problem stems from a misunderstanding in the application of linguistics and etymology. Whoever holds the keys to etymology, holds the keys to world history. I would like for the those reading this article to keep this statement in mind, as a careful review of this statement will reveal how Black Nationalists have fell victim to the schemes of white supremacy in many regards, but especially when it comes to the topic and origin of the word Moor. Let us take a look at one example.
Do you realize how embarrassing it is to hear a Black Nationalist use the term Proto-Indo-European language? Many people engaged in research and “pseudo-scholarship” have often quoted the Proto-Indo-European language in conjunction with the origin of a word as it appears in many etymological reference works. However, there is one problem. The Proto-Indo-European language is a theory. There is absolutely no historical evidence of its existence. So why is it put in reference books?
The Proto-Indo-European language came to life when Sir William Jones observed that Sanskrit was more complex than Greek. Indeed this was a serious problem as European scholars up until this time taught that Greek was the world’s first civilization. However, since Sir Wiliam Jones, who so happen to be a forerunner of Nazi philosophy, discovered that this indigenous language of Sanskrit was more complex than Greek and Latin, he theorized that perhaps so time in man’s early history there was a language, a European language that was the mother of all these languages. Thus, the Proto-Indo-European language was born. Notice what is mentioned in a Wikipedia article on the subject of the Proto-Indo-European language which states:
“As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. Relationships to other language families, including the Uralic languages, have been proposed though all such suggestions remain controversial….Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed they may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian..”
So here we have an example of a language that is made up and has no historical evidence of its existence being quoted in etymological dictionaries and reference books. I’ve been having debates and discussions with linguistics over this clear act of white supremacy with no aid from the “black conscious community” or David Banner. A full report of my notes pertaining to the Racist Origins of the Proto-Indo-European language can be found in a previous article that I wrote. What does this have to do with the origin of the term Moor?
In the same manner that a make-believe language (Proto-Indo-European) is being used in reference books today in order to support the claims of European supremacy, so too did these same reference sources pattern their contents upon the theory that Grece was the world’s first civilization. In other words, during the time that it was taught that Greece was the world’s first civilization, all the etymological reference material was edited to support this claim. So every word and term found in the known indigenous nations were all given Greek origins because to do otherwise would shatter the theory that Greece was the world’s first civilization. So anyone who makes the claim, that the term Moor originated from the Greek word mauros would also be in support of the theory that Greece was the world’s first civilization. The idea that the term Moor came from the Greek term mauros began as a theory and was never proven as a fact. Published in 1859, The Crescent and The French Crusaders by George Leighton Ditson, the author gives a detailed account of some of the “theories” surrounding the origin of the term Moor:
“The Moors, I once supposed, derived their name from Morocco, and I had always associated them in my mind with Morocco leather, and a certain red Morocco hat, and a pair of shoes I had when somewhat small. It did not often occur to me that any other solution than my own of the word Moor, had ever been sought after. To many, a Moor is merely an Arab who inhabits a town, in distinction from those who live in tents. Bochart derives their name from the Phoenician mauharim, signifying the last, or those at the extremity of the earth; but De Broses thinks it comes from the Berber more, a merchant. Dr. Shaw is inclined to the opinion that “moor” is from a Hebrew word signifying a ferry, and applicable to this people, because they lived near a ferry, or strait (Straits of Gibraltar) ; but Passow believes it is from the Greek mauros, black..”
Here we can see that during the 1860’s the idea that the term Moor originated from the Greek word mauros was, in fact, a theory. What I also found interesting about Ditson’s work is that he discusses the existence of a great deal of animosity between Arabs and the Moors, which illustrates that people of that time made a clear distinction between the two groups:
“In my last letter I asked the question: — Did the Moor and the Arab descend from the same parent stock? Against this hypothesis there is an argument of no little force found in the fact that a bitter animosity always exists between these two peoples or races. The Arab accuses the Moor of loving to snuff up the stench of a city, of lacking hospitality, of being like a woman when one talks of powder, and of obtaining a livelihood by selling sugar and spices, and manufacturing trivial things for children; the latter retorts by saying that the Arab is always at war, has no mosques or fountains, and that his prayers cannot be acceptable to God because he neglects the ablutions prescribed by the Koran. When the Arab visits the town, the Moor leaves no means untried to overreach him in trade, thwart him in his plans and get him imprisoned or otherwise punished for the most trivial offences; but woe to the Moor, who passing among the tribes of the interior, gives his enemy an opportunity to retaliate; if he escapes with his life he may thank heaven for a special providence. At no time does this hatred appear to have been allayed, and it is a rare thing to find an Arab who will consent to have his daughter marry a Moor.“
The Word Moor Is Derived From The Phoenician Term Mauharim Not Greek
Now that we are aware of the etymological tricks of bigoted scholarship, common sense would dictate that it is best to seek the origin of the term Moor from a source native to its inhabitants so that the people can account for their own history. See, when you start using fictional languages or supremacist theories for the foundation of etymological reference works, you take away the history of how words enter society from one migrating people to another. According to E.J. Brill’s First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, Volume 5, edited by M. Th. Houtsma, we find the following origin of the term Moor:
“The word, presumably of Phoenician origin, corresponds to the ancient local name of the natives of Barbary reproduced by the Romans as Μαῦρο, Mauri and by the Greeks as Maurusii (Strabo vii, 825).”
In the information cited above, it is clear that the word Moor finds its origins in the Phoenician language and was reproduced by the Romans and Greeks as Mauri and Maurusii. This makes sense as Hannibal Barca was a general of the Phoenician-Canaanite state of Ancient Carthage. Another interesting feature about this citation is that it is based, in part, on the histories written by Strabo, who lived from 63 BC to AD 24, which shows you how far back the history of Moorish people has been recorded. The First Encyclopedia of Islam continues:
“The land of the Moors is MAURITANIA, or Mauretania. This name which has been derived either from a Phoenician word Mauharim “the Westerns” or with more probability a name of a tribe living before the Christian era in North Africa……At a later date, by extending the application, Europeans have given the general name of Moors to the Arabo-Berber peoples of Mediterranean and Saharan Africa. Then gradually they came to distinguish out of this mass the groups with which they came into frequently more contact (Tripolitans, Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans), so that the name Moors came to be limited to people of Spanish (Muslim), Jewish or Turkish origin of North Africa and particularly to the nomads of the Sahara.”
When read with care, we can see how the application of the term Moor by European scholars changed based on contact, but aptly after the fall of the Moorish Empire. Perhaps this too was done to strip the history of a people away. Maybe. Maybe not. David Banner recently stated that he has ‘more important things to think about than the use of the term black, just to paraphrase his response to a Moorish brother. Others may differ.
Categories: etymology, etymology superstition, Mauretania, Moorish Americans, Moorish debates, moorish history, Moorish Nationality, moorish science, Moorish Science and the Necronomicon, moorish science temple, Moors, Origin of the term Moors, Proto-Indo-European Language, science, Scientific Racism, Sir William Jones, Strabo