variant 13

Correct -as far as I know, will have a look for a ref - its got a proper name and everything Ijust can't think of it.

Another example is rice and lice with the chinese (well some anyway).

Viti

While I think it probable that Moors were in the Americas (Portugeuses and Spanish sailors were largely Moors), and some may have been absorbed by the various tribes, there is no evidence that they coverted the Native Americans to Islam.

Hazel-rah

And those sailors may have been of Moorish descent, but they more than likely were not Muslim. The Reconquista and the Inquisition, culminating in Ferdinand and Isabella's efforts, took care of that.

beanpie

THE LAST INFO I POSTED WAS BY A NATIVE AMERIACN .

It was NOT from a N.O.I. site.

You are certainly free to "take it or, leave it alone".

beanpie

Moors and Arabs
by Yvonne Clark


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Romans entered West Africa in 46 B.C., they saw Africans and called them Maures, from the Greek adjective Mauros, meaning dark or black. It is from Mauros and the Latin term Marues that the word Moor is derived. Since the inhabitants of North Africa were black, the Romans and later the Europeans called them Moors. It is no coincidence that the land inhabited by the Moors was called Mauritania and Morocco, meaning "Land of the Blacks."

In the beginning of the seventh century, the Arab prophet, Muhammad, began to preach the word of Islam. Consumed with religious fervor, the Arabs sought to spread Islam and conquer the world. By 708, the Arabs had overrun North Africa. Consequently, Moors in large numbers accepted Arabic as the national language and converted to their conqueror's religion, Islam. Interestingly, hundreds of years later, Africans who had been enslaved by Europeans would again convert to their conqueror's religion, Christianity.

After the fall of the Roman Empire (fifth century), Spain was held by a barbaric white tribe, the Visigoths. Though they were Christians, their brand of Christianity was cruel and unjust. For this reason, Spain's Jews, serfs, and slaves looked favorably upon the arrival of a new civilization in which they would be able to live free of persecution.

Tarik, a great African chief, was given the rank of general in the Arab army and sent to raid Spain. On April 30, 711, Tarik landed on the Spanish Coast with 7,000 troops. His troops consisted of 300 Arabs and 6,700 native Africans (Moors). An ancient source, Ibn Husayn (ca. 950, recorded that these troops were "Sudanese", an Arabic word for Black people. ...

http://www.africawithin.com/moors/moors_and_arabs.htm

variant 13

beanpie I don't understand why you posted the above, don't suppose you could tell me?

beanpie

"...The Muslims in West Africa were so intrigued by
what was on the other side of the Great Sea, that they began their
expeditions into the great unknown. Early reports of these travels
are sketchy, but we can be sure that they crossed the Atlantic by 889
C.E.

That was 603 years before Columbus. And that is not counting the
actual physical evidence in the United States today that dates back
even further..."

That was 603 years before Columbus

beanpie

beanpie

"...And for the record, Christopher Columbus, the man who so-called
discovered America, himself declared that his impression of the Carib
people( i.e., Caribbean people) were "Mohemmedans." He knew of the
Mandinka presence in the New World( Muslims) and that Muslims from
the West coast of Africa had settled down in the Carribean, Central,
South and North America. Unlike Columbus, they had not come to
enslave the populations or plunder the land; they had come to trade
and they married among the Natives. Columbus further admitted that on
October 21st, 1492, as he was sailing past Gibara on the coast of
Cuba, he saw a mosque, and remnants of other masjids have been found
in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada...."

Hazel-rah

I assume you're positing this as further evidence that pre-Columbian Arabic peoples influenced native languages.

These folks:
ISAC
are into that sort of theory. I read a couple of books by their authors, and I found their linguistic evidence sadly lacking in adequate analysis and documentation, based on haphazard anecdotes and selective translations.

(Their epigraphic and archeaological evidence I don't have the expertise to comment on.)

Though I welcome more expert opinions on this subject: I personally have my doubts about pre-Columbian visitations to the American continents.

1. The Europeans' presence had a devastating effect on native populations--ghastly numbers of deaths from diseases they had no immunity to; I can't imagine that a similar catastrophe would not have occured had a similar incursion taken place 700 years earlier.

2. The native tribes were in constant flux, with populations moving and migrating all over the regions, different language groups conquering, moving in, being conquered and moving out, every few generations. The tribes who were there for a visit in 889 would not have still been there when Tallahasee and Alabama were named by white settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries.

3. The natives had no written language, and words like "Tallahassee" are the white men's attempt to transcribe the sounds they were hearing. I have seen "Coweta," "Kahita," "Caheta," and "Kaweta," to represent the name of a local tribe. No one can decide on how to spell it, and darn few Muskhogean speakers are around to tell us. I seriously doubt the "allah" in Tallahassee was consciously transliterated.