The Moorish Science Temple of America

06/07/2026

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY MOORISH BROTHERS AND SISTERS

Truth Is Never Slander When It Is Supported by Evidence

“The Truth Shall Set You Free.” — John 8:32

Before anyone misunderstands the purpose of this post, allow me to state my intentions clearly.

I am fully aware of Act 3 of the Divine Constitution and By-Laws of the Moorish Science Temple of America, which commands us to proclaim and practice Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom, and Justice, and warns us against falsely accusing our brothers and sisters.

I am also mindful of the Additional Laws given to us by our Prophet, Noble Drew Ali, which instruct us not to speak radically against another member or another organized body.

For that reason, this post is not motivated by malice, personal animosity, or a desire to divide our movement. It is motivated by my obligation as a Sheik to uphold Truth and Justice, two of the five Divine Principles entrusted to us by our Prophet.

The Prophet also taught that we are part and parcel/partial of the Government. While there has been discussion over those two renderings because of differences in historical printings, both communicate the same principle. Moorish Americans are not taught to overthrow lawful government, but to understand their nationality, fulfill their civic responsibilities, and uplift themselves and all humanity.

Prophet Noble Drew Ali also warned us:

“If you are not careful, your own brothers will put you back into slavery.”

I believe that warning is just as relevant today as when it was first spoken. It reminds us that we have a duty to examine every claim with wisdom, scholarship, and discernment. If our people are encouraged to rely upon legal theories that repeatedly fail in court, it is our own people who bear the consequences. That is why this discussion is not about personalities. It is about protecting our people through Truth, Love, Justice, and scholarship.

The teachings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali are too important to be mixed with historical inaccuracies, unsupported legal claims, or selective readings of court records. Our people deserve clarity, not confusion.

Recently, I have seen repeated claims that the Moorish Science Temple of America is an autonomous government, that the phrase “Body Politic and Corporate” proves governmental sovereignty, and that organizations such as “Moorish Law Services” and the “Moorish Department of Land and Property Acquisition” possess governmental or legal authority.

These are extraordinary claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

One of the principal documents being circulated is Moorish Science Temple of America v. State of Illinois, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Case No. 17 CH 04526.

Many have quoted one sentence where the State’s attorney acknowledged that the organization was a “body politic.”

However, they stop reading before the most important part.

The attorney immediately corrected himself. He admitted that he had conflated the concept of a statutory “body politic” with a governmental unit possessing home rule authority. He then clarified that while the organization could be considered a body politic in a limited statutory corporate context, it was not a body politic for purposes of governmental authority or home rule powers.

That clarification changes the meaning of the entire transcript.

If we are going to quote the record, we have a duty to quote the entire record—not merely the sentence that appears favorable to our position.

If these legal theories establish autonomous governmental authority, then we should expect to find published judicial opinions recognizing that authority.

Instead, we find the opposite.

In Moorish National Republic, Moorish Science Temple of America, et al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 10-cv-1047, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. dismissed the claims and explained that organizations such as the Moorish Science Temple of America cannot appear in federal court through non-lawyers.

In Love El v. City of Chicago, Case Nos. 12-cv-2725 and 12-cv-2730, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. again dismissed the claims, holding that many of the issues had already been litigated and could not simply be brought again under different legal theories because they were barred by res judicata.

In Love El v. Bank of New York, Case No. 12-cv-2273, Judge Milton I. Shadur concluded that once the irrelevant material was removed, the filings failed to present legally sufficient claims.

The same pattern continued in California.

In Moorish Science Temple of America, Moorish Law Services, Grand Sheik Love El, Sis. Howell El v. State of California, Yolo County, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02093, Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan recommended dismissal, and District Judge John A. Mendez adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

In Moorish Science Temple of America, Howell El, Grand Sheik Love El, Moorish Law Services v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-02094, the court dismissed the complaint and required the Temple to obtain licensed legal counsel before proceeding.

That ruling deserves careful consideration.

If “Moorish Law Services” possesses the legal authority being claimed, why did the federal court require licensed legal counsel?

If “Moorish Law Services” is truly providing legal services, then members deserve transparency.

Who are the licensed attorneys associated with Moorish Law Services?

In what jurisdictions are they licensed?

Is Moorish Law Services registered or authorized to operate as a law practice where required by law?

Has any court recognized it as possessing governmental authority?

Can anyone produce a published judicial opinion recognizing either the Moorish Science Temple of America or Moorish Law Services as an autonomous government?

Not a Facebook post.

Not a recorded document.

Not a selectively quoted transcript.

An actual judicial opinion.

If one exists, I would sincerely like to read it.

This discussion is not academic.

People make real-life decisions involving their property, finances, court filings, contracts, and liberty based upon these claims.

If those theories repeatedly fail in court, it is our brothers and sisters—not those promoting the theories—who bear the consequences.

As leaders, our responsibility is to educate our people with documented facts, not assumptions.

I stand with Prophet Noble Drew Ali.

I stand with the Moorish Science Temple of America.

I stand with our Divine Constitution and By-Laws.

I stand for Love.

I stand for Truth.

I stand for Peace.

I stand for Freedom.

I stand for Justice.

Those principles require honesty, even when honesty is uncomfortable.

If I have misstated any fact, I welcome correction supported by original documents, statutes, or published judicial opinions. If additional evidence exists, present it. I will gladly examine it with an open mind.

But until that evidence is produced, I cannot encourage my brothers and sisters to rely upon legal claims that the historical record and the published decisions of the courts have not established.

Truth does not fear investigation.

Truth welcomes scrutiny.

Truth is not weakened by questions.

Truth is strengthened by evidence.

May Allah continue to guide us all in the path of Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom, and Justice.

Islam and Peace.

09/03/2026

Was Jesus Married

The Historical Case for Jesus and Mary Magdalene

The question of whether the man known as Jesus of Nazareth was married has been debated for centuries. When examining early Christian writings, Jewish cultural norms of the first century, and texts that were excluded from the Bible, there are reasonable arguments suggesting that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene.

This discussion is not about blind belief or institutional doctrine. It is about examining the historical evidence and traditions that survived outside the later biblical canon.

1 Cultural Expectations in First Century Judaism

In first century Judea marriage was not merely common. It was expected.

Jewish teachers and rabbis were strongly encouraged to marry and raise families. Several rabbinic teachings from the period state that a man who remained unmarried was considered incomplete.

Jesus is repeatedly addressed as “Rabbi” in the New Testament. If he functioned within the role of a Jewish teacher, remaining unmarried would have been highly unusual in that society.

This does not prove he was married, but it makes the possibility culturally plausible.

2 The Unique Role of Mary Magdalene

Mary Magdalene (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) appears prominently in all four canonical gospels:

Gospel of Matthew (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=1)
Gospel of Mark (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=2)
Gospel of Luke (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=3)
Gospel of John (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=4)

Her role is remarkable.

She is present at the crucifixion when many disciples fled.
She is the first person to witness the resurrection.
She is entrusted with delivering the message of the resurrection to the disciples.

Because of this early Christian writers sometimes referred to her as “the Apostle to the Apostles.”

Such prominence suggests she held a leadership position that later traditions may have minimized.

3 Early Christian Texts Present Mary as Jesus’ Companion

In 1945 a collection of early Christian writings was discovered in Egypt known as the

Nag Hammadi discovery (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=5)

Among these texts were:

Gospel of Philip (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=6)
Gospel of Mary (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=7)

These writings portray Mary Magdalene as a central disciple and spiritual partner of Jesus.

The Gospel of Philip contains a notable passage:

“The companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene.”

The Greek term translated as companion is koinonos, a word that can mean partner, associate, or spouse.

The text also describes Jesus showing her affection, which causes tension among the other disciples.

While the manuscript is partially damaged, it strongly suggests a close personal relationship.

4 Conflict Between Mary Magdalene and Peter

The

Gospel of Mary (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=8) contains an important scene.

After Jesus’ departure, Mary Magdalene shares teachings she says she received from him.

The disciple Peter challenges her authority and questions why Jesus would reveal teachings to her instead of the other disciples.

Another disciple, Levi, rebukes Peter and defends Mary, saying that Jesus loved her more than the others.

This passage suggests that Mary Magdalene held a leadership role that some male disciples resisted.

For many historians, this indicates that early Christianity may have contained internal disagreements about authority and leadership.

5 The Wedding at Cana

One interesting theory concerns the wedding miracle recorded in

Gospel of John (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=9) chapter 2.

At this wedding Jesus turns water into wine after his mother tells him the celebration has run out.

Some scholars note that in Jewish weddings the groom was responsible for providing the wine.

In the story Jesus appears to direct the servants and solve the problem.

This has led some researchers to suggest that the wedding may have been his own.

However the text does not explicitly state this, so the theory remains debated.

6 Why Some Texts Were Excluded

By the fourth century the Roman church sought to standardize Christian scripture. This process involved councils such as the

Council of Nicaea (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=10)

Texts associated with alternative Christian traditions were excluded from the canon.

Many of the writings that elevated Mary Magdalene or emphasized mystical teachings were rejected during this process.

As a result, later generations inherited a narrower set of texts that did not fully represent the diversity of early Christian beliefs.

7 Additional Historical Arguments Supporting the Possibility of Marriage

Several other historical considerations are often discussed in academic debates about whether Jesus may have been married.

Silence About Celibacy

If Jesus had been intentionally celibate, this would likely have been emphasized in early Christian texts. Later Christian traditions strongly valued celibacy, yet the gospels never highlight Jesus as an example of celibate life.

Some scholars argue that this silence suggests that marriage may not have been considered noteworthy because it was normal.

Household Language in Early Christianity

The early Jesus movement frequently used household terminology.

Disciples often traveled with family members and spouses. Several apostles, including Peter, are known to have had wives.

This suggests that the early movement did not require celibacy for leadership.

Burial Customs

Jewish burial traditions in the first century were family oriented. Some researchers have suggested that if Jesus had a wife, she would normally have played a role in burial preparations.

Mary Magdalene’s presence at the tomb and involvement in burial traditions has been interpreted by some scholars as consistent with the role of a close family member.

Rabbinical Precedent

Jewish teachers of the period typically married by their early twenties. Because Jesus began teaching around age thirty, remaining unmarried would have been culturally unusual though not impossible.

These arguments do not prove marriage, but they strengthen the possibility.

8 Mystical Teachings Attributed to Mary Magdalene

The texts that portray Mary Magdalene as a spiritual teacher often contain mystical teachings that focus on inner spiritual knowledge.

These ideas are preserved primarily in the

Gospel of Mary (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=11)

In this text Mary describes a vision in which Jesus explains that the soul must ascend through different levels of reality after death.

These levels are often interpreted as symbolic stages of spiritual purification.

The teaching emphasizes that salvation comes through inner knowledge and spiritual awakening rather than external authority or ritual.

Because these ideas challenged emerging church hierarchy, they were often labeled heretical.

9 The Gospel of Thomas and Its Significance

Another important early Christian text is the

Gospel of Thomas (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=12)

This text contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.

Unlike the canonical gospels, it contains very little narrative. Instead it focuses on spiritual teachings.

Many scholars believe parts of this text may be extremely early, possibly preserving traditions that are as old as or older than some canonical material.

Several sayings emphasize discovering the divine within.

One famous saying reads:

“The kingdom is inside you and it is outside you.”

The Gospel of Thomas also contains a controversial final passage in which Peter objects to Mary Magdalene’s presence among the disciples, again reflecting tension about her role.

Discussion of the Evidence

When the broader body of early Christian literature is examined rather than only the later canon, a pattern becomes visible.

Mary Magdalene appears repeatedly as a central disciple, spiritual interpreter, and trusted companion of Jesus. Early texts portray tension between her authority and that of some of the male apostles, particularly Peter. At the same time, the cultural expectations of first century Judaism strongly favored marriage for Jewish teachers.

These factors together raise serious questions about whether later traditions may have minimized Mary Magdalene’s role in the early movement.

Final Position and Conclusion

Based on the preponderance of the historical evidence, my position is that the man known as Jesus of Nazareth was most likely married to Mary Magdalene.

While no surviving document explicitly records the marriage in direct legal terms, the cultural context, textual references, and early Christian traditions together form a body of evidence that strongly supports this conclusion.

The prominence of Mary Magdalene in early traditions, the descriptions of her as Jesus’ companion, the tensions recorded between her and other disciples, and the cultural expectations of first century Jewish society together point toward a relationship that was likely deeper than later canonical texts reveal.

For these reasons, the most reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were indeed married, and that her role in the early movement was likely far more significant than later traditions acknowledged.
Sheik G. Hernandez El

09/03/2026

This is a must watch!

Up until the 15th century the Hijaz was said to have been occupied by black populations who were of the Israelite tribes of Manasseh, Reuben, Ephraim, Judah,...

01/03/2026

ALLAH IS THE GOD OF JESUS

From El to Alaha to Allah The Name Preserved in His Own Words

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Gospels were written in Greek. In two decisive moments, the Greek text preserves his Semitic words instead of translating them away.

Mark 15:34
Ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι
https://www.greekbible.com/mark/15/34

Matthew 27:46
Ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι
https://www.greekbible.com/matthew/27/46

The transliteration is preserved before the translation. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me.”

That cry anchors directly in Psalm 22:1

אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי
https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm

The Aramaic form corresponding to this invocation is ܐܠܗܐ Alaha.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ܐܠܗܐ

The Arabic form is الله Allah.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Allah
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/4428/The_relationship_between_Arabi.pdf

Hebrew El and Elohim
Aramaic Alaha
Arabic Allah

All sit within the same Semitic root family ʾ L H. This is comparative Semitic linguistics, not later theological interpretation.

The English word God derives from Old English God, from Proto Germanic gudan, meaning the invoked one. It is a Germanic translation term for a deity and does not derive from the Semitic ʾ L H root.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/god

The invocation preserved on the lips of Jesus belongs to the Semitic linguistic world of first century Judea.

Now consider the broader textual pattern.

John 20:17
“I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
https://biblehub.com/multi/john/20-17.htm

Mark 10:18
“No one is good except God alone.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A18

In Gethsemane he prays that his will align with the will of the One he addresses. This is language of submission.

Submission to the will of God defines Islam. A Muslim is one who submits. The Gospel narrative consistently depicts Jesus praying to, distinguishing himself from, and submitting to the One he calls “My God.”

Now the historical framework.

Second Temple Jewish expectation included hope for a restored Davidic ruler. The Psalms of Solomon 17 speaks explicitly of a coming son of David who would purge foreign domination. That expectation predates Christianity and reflects Jewish messianic thought in the first century BCE.

Matthew 1 traces Jesus through Solomon back to David. Luke 3 traces through Nathan, another son of David. Within the narrative logic, he stands in Davidic lineage.

In Roman occupied Judea, kingship language was politically explosive. The inscription placed above the cross reads “King of the Jews.” Rome executed for sedition, not for internal theological debate.

Before Jewish authorities he is accused of blasphemy in John 10. His response is to cite Psalm 82:6, “I said, you are gods.” He grounds his defense in Hebrew scripture. The charge before Rome shifts to political kingship.

The ex*****on operates under Roman authority for perceived royal claim.

There is also the Levitical framework.

Leviticus 16 describes the Day of Atonement ritual involving two goats. One is sacrificed. The other bears the sins of the people and is sent away. This scapegoat structure forms part of Jewish atonement tradition.

In the Passion narrative, communal guilt converges onto one individual. The crowd demands his death. He is executed outside the city. The imagery parallels the scapegoat pattern within Torah.

These layers intersect.

Semitic invocation rooted in ʾ L H
Davidic lineage expectation
Roman political charge of kingship
Jewish scapegoat atonement imagery

All converge in the narrative.

The preserved cry “Eloi” sits in the same linguistic stream as El, Alaha, and Allah. The doctrinal formulations of later councils emerge centuries afterward within imperial frameworks, but the textual invocation remains embedded in first century Semitic language.

The manuscripts preserve the sound. The linguistics are documented. The historical development of doctrine is traceable. The political and ritual frameworks are identifiable within Second Temple Judaism and Roman law.

That is text, language, lineage, law, and history aligned.
Sheik G. Hernandez El

28/01/2026

Ancient Egypt and so called African American Lineages: A Continuity of Peoples

Before the Atlantic slave trade there was ancient bidirectional migration between West Africa, the Sahara, the Maghreb, and the Nile Valley. This is not fringe. It is documented in Fulani genetic studies, Berber Taqbaylit and Tuareg studies, Mande migration history, Garamantian Saharan archaeology, Proto-Saharan linguistic continuities, and Trans-Saharan trade routes both pre Islamic and Islamic. The Sahara was not a wall, it was a highway. The populations who later became “West Africans” were not isolated from the Nile Valley nor from Maghribi and Sudanic polities.

Intersection Between Ancient Egyptians and African Americans

There are three major intersection points between ancient Egypt and modern African Americans.

First: Nile, Sudanic, and Saharan Continuum

Ancient Egypt had strong gene flow with Nubia, Kush, Kerma, Meroe, Upper Sudan, and the Western Desert oases. These same regions show genetic and linguistic continuity with Fulani, Hausa, Songhai, Tuareg, Mandé, and Wolof, all of which contribute ancestry to modern African Americans.

Second: Moorish and Maghribi Layer

The Maghreb was not Arab until late. Before and during Islam it was composed of Amazigh, Tuareg, Sanhaja, Zenata, Mande trading diasporas, and Kush*tic and Nilotic footholds. Two major Moorish dynasties, the Almoravids and Almohads, originated from Saharan Amazigh and Sudanese zones. Ancient Egyptian ties to the Maghreb are documented through Libyan dynasties in Egypt during the twenty second to twenty fourth dynasties, Ammun and Meshwesh records, Tamahu and Temehu inscriptions, the Garamantes of Fezzan, and trans Saharan pastoralist cultures. The Moors of Iberia were not Turks, Persians, or Middle Easterners in the modern racial sense. They were overwhelmingly Northwest African and Saharan carrying deep Northeast African ancestry.

Third: Islamic Scholarly Networks

Medieval Timbuktu scholars during the Askia period described Egypt as part of the same Black African civilizational sphere stretching “from the Nile to the Senegal.” This was not political rhetoric but civilizational memory preserved in the Sahelian academies.

So How Close Are African Americans to Ancient Egyptians

Removing ideology and focusing on biology, modern African Americans share ancestry with ancient Egyptians through the Northeast African, Sudanic, Saharan, and West African continuum. The connection is not linear like “Egypt to Ghana to the United States.” It is networked and civilizational and it is genetically continuous in a way that Europeans and Middle Easterners are not. Genomic data shows African Americans carry ancestry from populations that are closest to Upper Nile and Sudanese, closely related to Saharan and Maghribi, ancestrally connected to Lower Nile Egyptians through Sudan and Libya, and not disconnected the way Europeans or East Asians are. Therefore the relationship is not speculative. It is genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and historical.
Sheik G. Hernandez El

28/01/2026

Moorish American Is a Nationality

First I rise to my highest giving all praise to Allah and the highest of honors to Prophet Noble Drew Ali. I would like to extend those honors to the harbinger Marcus Mosiah Garvey and to all of you for when man honors man he honors his Father God Allah.

Moorish American is a nationality because it describes a people who share common ancestry historical memory prophetic lineage symbols civic destiny law and ethnonym. This is how nationhood is recognized in political science anthropology human rights law and international law. National identity is not built on fads or religious membership but on continuity.

Prophet Noble Drew Ali made this clear in his own writings. In the Divine Constitution and By Laws Act 6 states: “With us all members must proclaim their nationality and we are teaching our people their nationality and their divine creed.” He further states: “That they may know that they are a part and parcel of this said Government and know that they are not negroes black people colored folks or ethiopians.” This is the language of nationality and civic identity. A club does not teach nationality. A prophet restoring a people does.

In the Moorish Literature the Prophet also taught: “According to all true and divine records of the human race there is no negro black or colored race attached to the human family.” Negro Black and Colored are not nationalities ethnonyms lineages or peoples. They are labels that arose through denationalization under slavery and coloniality in which Africans and Asiatics were stripped of national names lineage and law and reduced to administrative color codes.

The Prophet then taught the positive doctrine of nationality. In the Moorish Guide it states: “Nationality is free national name and national descent name because we are a free national people.” It further instructs: “We get our nationality through our free national name and our national descent name. This is the name that links us to the nations of the earth.” This aligns perfectly with how international law defines nationality as belonging to a people rather than a bureaucratic category.

Modern law quietly concedes what the Prophet taught openly. The United States Office of Management and Budget in Federal Directive 15 admits that federal racial categories are not scientific or anthropological but socio political. In other words race in the United States is not a biological reality or a national origin. It is a bureaucratic taxonomy.

Anthropology confirms the same. The American Anthropological Association affirms that there is only one human race and racial types are not biological. Africans and Asiatics are not two separate human families but branches of a single ancient human family originating in East Africa and spreading into North Africa the Sahara the Levant and West Asia. This links Sub Saharan North African and Asiatic peoples into one civilizational continuum.

This also corrects a common misunderstanding among outsiders. When the Prophet used the term Asiatic he was not referring to modern East Asian populations like Japanese Chinese or Korean peoples. Asiatic in the Prophet’s language corresponds to what anthropology calls the Afro Asiatic family which includes African and Afro Asiatic peoples such as Hausa Amharic Somali Berber Tamasheq Hebrew and Arabic speaking peoples across North Africa the Sahara West Africa and the Horn of Africa. These populations share linguistic and historical continuity and are not separated by race.

From here we turn to law. Nationality is not race citizenship religion or color. In Black’s Law Dictionary Second Edition (1910) nationality is defined as: “The quality or character arising from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state.” In Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition (1951) nationality is defined as: “Nationality determines the political status of the individual especially with reference to allegiance.” Combined these definitions show that nationality arises from belonging to a nation and determines political personality and allegiance. It does not arise from passports foreign recognition or Moroccan citizenship.

International law agrees. The International Law Commission defines nationality as “the legal bond between an individual and a nation expressing identity belonging allegiance and political personality.” The Montevideo Convention further states that recognition does not create political existence but acknowledges it. Therefore nations exist before recognition.

This destroys the misconception that Moorish Americans must be citizens of modern Morocco. The Prophet’s reference to “descendants of Moroccans” refers to the historic Moroccan Empire and Maghribi Moorish world documented by Abun Nasr Hunwick Messier Brett and others. This imperial Afro Asiatic sphere included what is now Morocco Western Sahara Mauritania Senegal Mali Niger and Andalusia. Moroccan in this sense is imperial and ethnocultural not modern citizenship.

Another misconception claims that Moorish means “like a Moor” due to the suffix ish. This is incorrect. The suffix ish has an ethnonymic function in English as seen in British Scottish Irish Spanish Turkish Flemish meaning pertaining to the people of. Moorish therefore means pertaining to Moors as confirmed by nineteenth and early twentieth century dictionaries.

Historically there is abundant evidence that the peoples carried to the Americas were identified as Moors. African Islamic chroniclers like Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Battuta document Maghribi and Saharan peoples as Moors. Portuguese and Spanish records from the fifteenth century refer to West Africans as Mouros and Moros. European maps labeled coastal West Africa as the “Land of the Moors.” In colonial America there were legal references to “Free Moors,” Moroccan treaty recognition, and consular acknowledgments of Moors as a distinct people.

The papacy also targeted Moors explicitly. In Dum Diversas (1452) Pope Nicholas V authorized Portugal “to invade search out capture vanquish and subdue all Saracens and Moors and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” In Romanus Pontifex (1455) the charter was expanded to lands south of Cape Bojador which includes West Africa. Portuguese chroniclers such as Zurara document the enslavement of “Guinean Moors” in the fifteenth century. This shows that Moors were identified as Afro Asiatic West Africans and were enslaved before the Americas received their first shipments.

Comparatively this situation is not unique. Jews were a nation for centuries before the modern State of Israel. Armenians existed as a nation long before the Republic of Armenia. Kurds are recognized as a nation without a recognized state today. Political science calls this ethno national continuity. The pattern is simple. Nations exist before states. Statehood is not required for nationality.

Human rights doctrine affirms this. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article Fifteen states: “Everyone has the right to a nationality” and “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality.” The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Articles Six and Thirty Three affirm the right of a people to their nationality and to define their own identity and membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. Nationality is treated as an inherent right of peoples not a favor granted by states.

It must also be noted that the Prophet never taught that Moorish nationality grants diplomatic immunity tax immunity sovereign status foreign citizenship embassy privileges or Moroccan passports. These doctrines belong to sovereign citizen ideology and not to the Moorish Science Temple of America. The Prophet taught that we are “a part and parcel of this said Government.” This is the language of civic integration not scofflaw separatism.

Taken together by the Prophet’s doctrine by Black’s Law Dictionary by international law by the historical record of the Moroccan Empire by anthropological and diplomatic usage of the term Moor by papal legal instruments authorizing enslavement of Moors by OMB Directive Fifteen rejecting color as nationality by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is not merely reasonable to affirm that Moorish American is a nationality it is legally and historically compelled.

Further the Prophet’s work was not the invention of a new nationality but the restoration of an existing one to a people who had been denationalized through slavery colonialism and color coding. The Moorish American nationality does not arise from bureaucracy or foreign recognition but from the historical legal and prophetic fact of belonging to a nation.

Therefore under the standards used for every other people on earth Moorish Americans constitute a nation. We are not asking to become anything new. We are returning to who we already were.
Sheik G. Hernandez El