Talk:Moorish Science Temple of America

The article needs some significant editing to clear up NPOV issues, weasel words, generally poor grammar, and lack of coherency. I, unfortunately, have no knowledge of the subject matter (I came here looking for information myself). I could make edits to improve the quality of the writing, but I would be guessing in a lot places, so I'd prefer it if someone with more background could take the first crack. Let me point out some of the problems:

Noble Drew Ali's Beginnings First, this section really isn't appropriate for an article on MSTA. While discussion of the founder is important, the specific details of his life history either belong in a separate article or should be removed. Compare to other Wikipedia article on religion, such as Islam or Latter Day Saint Movement.

Second, a number of weasel words, such as "apparently," "wonder," and "supposedly" appear here. These add POV and obscure the quality of the information. It's okay to state that such and such a source claims that something is true, but not to hedge about whether or not it is true.

Early History and The Death of Drew Ali These sections seems good--relevant information, well-sourced, and readable.

Succession and Schism POV language: "But the truth of the matter" and "The question that baffles the communities," Sentences that just don't make sense: "But neither the less there is no minutes of record to ever prove that E. Mealy El was removed." "In addition to the names also used Moorish Holy Temple of Science Moorish Temple of Science, and the Moorish Divine and National Movement." I have no idea what these mean (they are not grammatically correct sentences). Confusing section: "There has been just recently discovered ... proof to show the Central Authority of the Moorish Science Temple of America." How does this relate to the rest of the section? I don't understand exactly how a court case can determine leadership of a religion. Courts could make rulings about who possesses the rights to use certain names, copyrighted works, or images; or they can determine who has legal custody over an organization (in a business sense), but in a religious sense, the courts would have no jurisdiction. So this section needs to be clarified and better integrated.

The 1930s Chronologically this section is awkward, since the death of Drew Ali falls in this time frame. My guess is that the best solution is to move the Death of Drew Ali and the Schism information here. Also, it is better to characterize periods based upon relevant events, not based upon a decade.

El Rukn connection? No title should have a question mark in it--encyclopedias contain verified content, not questions. I think someone needs to examine the source documents more clearly to determine more specifically how the possible connection is currently perceived.

Practices The whole third paragraph doesn't belong here. It's discussing the history of various Splinter groups, not the practices of any of those groups. This information should either be moved elsewhere or deleted. My guess is that we don't actually need an exact accounting of every single split and splinter--again, compare to articles on other religious denominations. Major events deserve discussion; minor schisms provide too many details. The paragraph also ends with an extreme POV statement that needs to be removed.

Finally, I think this article would strongly benefit from a clearer explanation of what it is that MSTA actually teaches--an "Articles of Faith," "Summary of Doctrine," or other similar information, assuming such information is publicly available.

I'm going to check back here in a week or two and see if anyone else has been able to make any progress on these issues. I would really really prefer someone else with actual source material knowledge start undertaking these edits. As it is now, the page probably should have Warning tags (POV, Weasel Words, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[Lending Assistance with Edits] First, Happy New Year to you all and good morning! I have made edits and included additional external references to the introductory paragraph. Your review and feedback would be greatly appreciated. When I get more time I will take a look at the points raised above as they appear to require more time than I have right now to address.

I have secured a copy of the MSTA's Holy Koran (religious text) and need time to produce a "Summary of Doctrine" for review by this group. From having studied numerous religions, although a practicing Eckist recently, it seems that Noble Drew Ali was attempting to reconstitute what was believe to be an older, more holistic religion that was split into what we call separate religions now; hence the appearance of borrowing from multiple paths. Neser 07 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to help. Unfortunately, some of what you added had to be removed. Specifically, all of this:

A recent article in the American Journal of Human Genetics^[1] which refutes the multiple migration theory may lend some credence to the Moorish Science Temple of America's claim / religious beliefs where it states in the abstract "[...] all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models." It is well known that Paleo Americans do not phenotypically resemble American Indians and precede them in habitation of the Americas. Although prognathic^[2] Moundbuilders are phenotypically similar to Paleo Americans, it does not generally appear that Adherents to the Moorish Science Temple of America ever refer to, or incorporate, or also self-identify as Paleo American or Mound Builder; which would better align scientifically with their religious belief system as a 'science' temple.

The problem is that all of that information, while interesting, is what Wikipedia calls original research. Nothing in either of those articles is related to the MSTA. While it's very interesting that you're able to connect new research in genetics with the MSTA's beliefs, doing so is your own personal analysis, and cannot, as such, be added to a Wikipedia article. If a reliable source makes that connection (i.e., the church itself, a scientific journal, etc.), then we can include that info here. But we cannot present our own original analysis.

Similarly, there is no need for you to go through their Holy Koran and attempt to summarize it. Doing so would again count as original research. In fact, any time you have primary sources, and you interpret what they mean or connect two or more sources together, you're very likely conducting original research. Instead, what you can/should do, is look to secondary sources, most likely written by MSTA itself, that explain the teaching of the primary religious document, and then summarize what those teachings say. Since the MSTA appears to be fractured, we may even need to include more than one interpretation so that we account for all of the factions. But we cannot ourselves engage in the act of reading the original holy document and figuring out what it "really means". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

[Response] I was awaiting to see what the review would be for the portion that you removed, as listed above, as I was not exactly certain whether it would fit directly within the context of this particular article.

Based on first-hand interviews with Sheiks at the MSTA, referring to them as "African-American" in this article is a big No-No. What can be done to amend this article as to comply with their religious beliefs and the Racial Hierarchy Code entry R1.01.052.004? Black is a different code: R3.01. And, it was a surprise to me that "African American" is not the same as "Black" in the hierarchy code either: R3.02.

When asked on what basis they claim R1.01.052.004, they often refer to UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and they appear to be pulling from [a/res/61/295] Article 2 mostly. Neser 07 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article, and bring it here for discussion:

There are three major factions of the Moorish Science Temple.

Charles Kirkman-Bey became the head of what would eventually be the largest group, and which currently claims the name "Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc". Reportedly the largest faction, as of 1996 MSTA Inc. had 130 temples.[39] This faction of the Moorish Science Temple of America has been particularly successful in the prisons.[citation needed]

Another faction developed into the Reincarnated Temples, led by the Prophet’s former chauffeur, John Givens El, who thereafter called himself "Noble Drew Ali, Reincarnated". Givens El, and the brothers Richardson Dingle-El and Timothy Dingle El who succeeded him. Taught that the Prophethood of Noble Drew Ali remained intact. and passed on to them at the death of each before them. Similar to the succession of authority from father to son or grandson in Shia Isma’ili Islam.[citation needed] From the work of the Dingle El brothers came the splits of the Temple No. 13, and the creation of a faction headed in Baltimore, MD, called the Noble Order of Moorish Sufis [2] in Baltimore. Founded by the former Grand Mufti Sultan Rafi Sharif Bey on July 7, 1957, this group later led to the founding of the Moorish Orthodox Church and the Moorish League. The Order of the Resurrection with its Second Heaven Order of four degrees was co-written by Sheik Rafi Sharif Bey and Sheik Timothy Dingle El. This faction has since reportedly split into seven factions, and as of 1994 were represented by 30 affiliated temples.[40]

The third and smallest faction was lead by Bro. E. Mealy El as the Grand Sheik/Supreme Grand Sheik. This faction is still in existence, but with probably the fewest adherents out of the three; this group claims true lineage to the teachings of Noble Drew Ali, and has various followings by a few separate factions formerly held together by Sister D. Mealy El's step-grandson D. Bailey El (ex Grand Governor, now expelled for embezzlement). Succeeded by Sheiks in Chicago that Bailey El appointed prior to his official termination as Grand Governor and Sheik.That particular grand body headed by the Supreme Grand Council.

Currently headed by Grand Sheik and Chairman Emmanuel.Braswell Bey D.M., This group began with a few temples. But throughout the country the Prophet’s temples are re appearing throughout the US and abroad. Their quoted mission is to broadcast the prophet’s original authority to all 4 corners of the earth. In addition, are continuing the works of Noble Drew Ali. Temple #1, #7, #16, #21, #23, #24, #25, #33 and other study groups through out America and Abroad and they included in the States of Alabama, Maryland, Washington D.C., Virginia, Louisiana, New York, California, Ohio, Missouri. Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana and Wisconsin. There are many inquires about the Original teachings of Noble Drew Ali. There are many inquires about the Original teachings of Noble Drew Ali. There are even acquires about the Moorish Divine movement in Africa, Europe and also in Canada and also islands of the off the coast of the Atlantic. The whole purpose of the Moorish Science Temple of America is the uplifting of Fallen Humanity.

First and foremost, none of this is referenced. Second, it is very problematic, especially with this subject, to start talking about the very schisms in the absence of reliable information. The opportunity exists for flagrantly POV edits promoting one "faction" over another. This has to stay out until it can be accurately sourced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20040315000000*/http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/moortemp.htm

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Moorish Science Temple of America, in its contemporary incarnation, is perhaps best known for its prison gangs that operate under the guise of religion. This article wholly elides this aspect of the Moorish Science Temple of America and is thus akin to an article that describes the tail of elephant without reference to the remainder of the mammoth beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.69.190 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find references in Reliable Sources that support this assertion, please use them in the article. Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning, yes. However, it is clearly not the intention of the religious group. None of the teachings support this. Very similar can be said for prison gangs that operate under the guise of Islam or Christianity. What should be mentioned is that this religious group, like any other religious group that free men follow, is open to exploitation. I reject your notion that part of the group turns it into a "mammoth beast". Early movements like this one (which dates back to the 19th century) is what started many of the movements that led to the shift in attitudes towards African-Americans in the mid 20th century. (110.33.252.92 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Sheik Way-El:

I have reverted (removed) your recent edits to Moorish Science Temple of America. Why? Well, They violate a number of rules here at Wikipedia. In this instance, your recent edits are at odds with these particular rules:

• Reliable Sources. Unfortunately, your own self-published book is not considered a "reliable source". This is not to say that the information in your book is not reliable or correct, but rather it means that your book does not qualify as a reference here at Wikipedia because it was self-published.

• Neutral Point of View. Your recent material attempts to prove a number of points (e.g. African-Americans are really Moorish-Americans]]. We need to approach this subject without attempting to prove anything. Just the facts, please.

• Conflict of Interest. Because you are a member of and advocate for the Moorish Science Temple, you may be seen as having a conflict of interest. To quote: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, . . . employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."

I would be happy to work with you on improving the Moorish Science Temple article, but we need to be scrupulously neutral and use "Reliable Sources".

P.S. I love the photo. Great shot.

Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MOORISH SCIENCE TEMPLE OF AMERICA.

Greetings I have recently seen your response on why the article could not be edited on my behalf. The truth of the matter is, mines is the only public book out on the Prophet Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Science Temple of America bearing an ISBN and in the public domain. It is one of the reasons that I wrote the book.

I believe it to be in part, a lack of reason, to let non sourced information stand, and let actual sourced information be allowed. For instance, it says in the opening section:

"A primary tenet was the belief that there was a Negroid-looking population of aboriginal paleo-Americans that existed prior to the transatlantic slave trade that was subsequently confused with African people. Although often criticised as lacking scientific merit, adherents of the Moorish Science Temple of America believe that the Negroid Asiatic was the first human inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. In their religious texts, adherents refer to themselves as "Asiatics".[1] These adherents also call themselves "indigenous Moors", "American Moors" or "Moorish Americans" in contradistinction to "African Moors" or "African Americans"."

There are several things wrong with this section. 1) A primary tenet was the belief that there was a Negroid-looking population of aboriginal paleo-Americans that existed prior to the transatlantic slave trade that was subsequently confused with African people.

Explanation: First and foremost, this cannot be found anywhere in the teachings of the Moorish Science Temple of America as given by Noble Drew Ali. I can personally email you the information that I have, which is the actual documents that have been unchanged since 1927-1928 when they were released. Also, there is absolutely no source for this information and if I edited it, just to change that fact, wiki will remove my edit and ask me for a source, when there is no source given for this particular point and that is completely unfair.

2) Although often criticised as lacking scientific merit, adherents of the Moorish Science Temple of America believe that the Negroid Asiatic was the first human inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. Explanation: Again, this completely lacks any merit and it was allowed to be posted without asking whomever placed it there for its source. This is not taught in the Moorish Science Temple of America whatsoever.

3) These adherents also call themselves "indigenous Moors", "American Moors" or "Moorish Americans" in contradistinction to "African Moors" or "African Americans"." Explanation: This is completely and utterly frivolous as the doctrine of the Moorish Science Temple of America makes no distinction between Moors. Completely erroneous.

There are so many falsified accounts within the article and it is very unfair that the public is allowed to see such a false representation of the truth. I have no problem editing the article in 3rd person. I even set up an alternate account and re-edited the article and still did not remain. You said that you would like to work with me well if there is anything that I can get to you from my end, so that we can have a 3rd party review my book, which is approved by the members of the Moorish Science Temple of America, then please let me know because this article is very misleading. Thank you in advance. Peace Sheik Way-El — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sheik Way-El. I can understand how it seems frustrating when you "know" something is true, and a WP article says something different. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable sources say, and self-published books basically never meet our reliable sources guidelines. No third party review of your book will change the fact that, since it was self-published, it didn't have any sort of editorial oversight. In some cases, if the organization itself published something, we might be able to include that, but we would not, at the same time, remove what other, independent sources said. Another way of saying that is just because an organization makes a claim about itself, that doesn't necessarily mean we accept that claim as the "official" answer.

However, if there are specific things in the text that are currently unsourced, then we can certainly flag them and even remove them. I don't have time to look into all of the details right now, but I'll try to check your points above in the next few days, as well as check the article for unverified claims. Note that I've blocked the second account Sheik Way-El created, and explained to xyr why we don't allow multiple accounts Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have recently seen your response on why the article could not be edited on my behalf. The truth of the matter is, mines is the only public book out on the Prophet Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Science Temple of America bearing an ISBN and in the public domain. It is one of the reasons that I wrote the book.

I believe it to be in part, a lack of reason, to let non sourced information stand, and let actual sourced information be allowed. For instance, it says in the opening section:

"A primary tenet was the belief that there was a Negroid-looking population of aboriginal paleo-Americans that existed prior to the transatlantic slave trade that was subsequently confused with African people. Although often criticised as lacking scientific merit, adherents of the Moorish Science Temple of America believe that the Negroid Asiatic was the first human inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. In their religious texts, adherents refer to themselves as "Asiatics".[1] These adherents also call themselves "indigenous Moors", "American Moors" or "Moorish Americans" in contradistinction to "African Moors" or "African Americans"."

There are several things wrong with this section.

1) A primary tenet was the belief that there was a Negroid-looking population of aboriginal paleo-Americans that existed prior to the transatlantic slave trade that was subsequently confused with African people.

Explanation: First and foremost, this cannot be found anywhere in the teachings of the Moorish Science Temple of America as given by Noble Drew Ali. I can personally email you the information that I have, which is the actual documents that have been unchanged since 1927-1928 when they were released. Also, there is absolutely no source for this information and if I edited it, just to change that fact, wiki will remove my edit and ask me for a source, when there is no source given for this particular point and that is completely unfair.

2) Although often criticised as lacking scientific merit, adherents of the Moorish Science Temple of America believe that the Negroid Asiatic was the first human inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere.

Explanation: Again, this completely lacks any merit and it was allowed to be posted without asking whomever placed it there for its source. This is not taught in the Moorish Science Temple of America whatsoever.

3) These adherents also call themselves "indigenous Moors", "American Moors" or "Moorish Americans" in contradistinction to "African Moors" or "African Americans"."

Explanation: This is completely and utterly frivolous as the doctrine of the Moorish Science Temple of America makes no distinction between Moors. Completely erroneous.

There are so many falsified accounts within the article and it is very unfair that the public is allowed to see such a false representation of the truth. I have no problem editing the article in 3rd person. I even set up an alternate account and re-edited the article and still did not remain. You said that you would like to work with me well if there is anything that I can get to you from my end, so that we can have a 3rd party review my book, which is approved by the members of the Moorish Science Temple of America, then please let me know because this article is very misleading.

Thank you in advance. Peace Sheik Way-El — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sheik, you raise some excellent points. I have attempted to copyedit the opening paragraphs to remove some of this rather strange and un-referenced material. Please let me know what you think. (Sorry for the slow response) Mr. Harman (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Yes, at least that portion is much better because it opened up peoples opinions to a falsity about the man in his movement. I would love to find out other ways to work with you on this article particularly in this troubling time when a people are still being persecuted for what they think they are. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you. Yes, I would love to improve this article. I did a lot of work on it maybe 3 years ago, but there's a lot more needed, including more history from the 1930s and later and more on the essence/practices/beliefs of the MST -- that is to say that the article focuses primarily and almost exclusively on the history.

The article is also in need of a thorough copyedit.

I was also thinking that we could use a modern-day photo of the Moors. That is, like the article, the photos focus on the 1920s. Do you have a recent/current photo or photos you can upload? Maybe it's a photo of a temple service, or just one Moor.

The article presently gives the (incorrect) impression that the MST "was" instead of "is", something that I think needs fixing.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. Anything further? Mr. Harman (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not having heard from you in the past month, I thought I would removed the "disputed" tag. You are, of course, welcome to re-insert this if you dispute some of the material. If you do re-insert, let me know what you're disputing and we can try to fix it. Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps two of them are illegitimate and should not be presented in this way, if at all? __meco (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It says directly in the article:

"...the governors of the Moorish Science Temple of America declared Charles Kirkman Bey to be the successor to Drew Ali and named him Grand Advisor.[27] With the support of several temples each, Mealy El and Givens El both went on to lead separate factions of the Moorish Science Temple. All three factions (Kirkman Bey, Mealy El, and Givens El) are active today."

-- AnonMoos (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When and where did Timothy Drew get the surname Ali from? Is he connecting himself and his movement to Ali, Prophet Muhammad's nephew? As a religious leader this would be an important point to raise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.152.102 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I myself do not know and my research has not given me any insight. Sorry, Mr. Harman (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It saddens me to come to this particular wikipage and see the blatant misinformation. It is as if a 3rd party can publish what they want and present it is as research and it is accepted by wiki. It is like the wikipage on the Moors of Spain. There no main pictures of Moors on that page and gives the reader the illusion that the Moors were Arabians as they are called now and this is just furthest from the truth. This page is so full of misinformation. We have the actual records of the Moorish Science Temple of America and we cannot edit the page even if we have books out which is absurd because there are those who have a vested interest with keeping this page shown just the way it is. The information about the El Rukn's alone, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Moorish Science Temple of America so it baffles me as to why this particle bit of information made it to this page, but nothing truthful at all. I guess we have to pool our resources and create our own online encyclopedia and present unbiased facts. This is unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Because, by definition, an encyclopedia must rely on reliable sources. And books published by the organization themselves almost never meet that criteria. Let me draw an extreme example: North Korea officially claimed that Kim Jong il has played golf exactly one time, and, when he played, he shot 18 consecutive hole in ones. Now, do we report on this as fact? Of course not. Now, I'm not saying the MSTA books are necessarily wrong, but they are undoubtedly biased. As such, we need independent, third party sources. If you have some, we'd be happy to include them. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sheik Way-El -- In English, "Moor" was a vague and loose term which could encompass all the inhabitants of Muslim North Africa... AnonMoos (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That maybe the case but that does not change the fact that the original people called Moors are what are falsely called Africans today. We know for a fact, based on dozens of contemporaneous documentations cited in several works on the subject, that Moor strictly meant those called black or African today and then, because of the popularity of these Moors in Spain, the name became a synonym for Moslem. Anouar Majid, who wrote the book [http://www.amazon.com/Are-All-Moors-Centuries-Minorities/dp/0816660808 We Are All Moors: Ending Centuries of Crusades against Muslims and Other Minorities], also elucidates this fact. Those people came to be known as Moors but in its original representation, a Moor was someone who is falsely considered a black person today and that is what we of the Moorish Science Temple of America represent, what our forefathers were, we are today. Because other people adopted the name, means absolutely nothing, in the English or any other language. --Sheik Way-El 22:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

I removed the rather extensive recapitulation of the article in Journal of Race Ethnicity and Religion for several reasons related to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. First, I can find no references pointing to the author as an authority on the matter of Timothy Drew's history. Second, the Journal of Race Ethnicity and Religion is a new online-only Journal and is, as well, hardly an authoritative source. Third, whole paragraphs were added to article -- way too much. I did insert one sentence describing the article and leading interested readers to the article itself. However, the article is too new and too speculative to devote so much space in the article, which is about the Moorish Science Temple, to this article's finding. Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the citation needed tags were probably legitimate, many were set next to citations. We don't write "so-called blacks", etc. Ironically unsourced material was added at the same time as the citation needed tags. We can use sources other than the official texts of the Temple. Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Or rather Temples, not sure if the texts vary between them. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the edit summaries of people reverting this editor in the past nor the discussions above, but they put forward policy and guideline based arugments. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. Last night, as I sat and read this page, I immediately began to edit many NON-REFERENCED bits of information. I have tried to edit this page in the past and many others pertaining to the Moors (see the Almoravids thread to this same editor/overseer). I would post ^{[citation needed]} and would give reasons why a citation was needed. For instance, Noble Drew Ali NEVER referenced himself as Timothy Drew, he referenced himself as Noble Drew Ali. Not only did he and the membership reference him by this name, the public and the media also referenced him by this name. Proof can be shown in the following newspaper article along with MANY others and yet, this Wikipedia article constantly refers to him as "Timothy Drew" and "Drew." This was not the case when this page was first established. Someone was allowed to come onto this page and edit and now, no one can change it. I find that quite odd.

The use of the name is inconsistent in the article. In some portions he is referenced as Timothy Drew. In others, he is referenced as Drew, and yet still, he is referenced as Noble Drew Ali. There are things within the article that have absolutely NO merit and cannot be found in the organizations religious text or literature. I will list just a few of them here:

• "...and in religious texts, adherents refer to themselves racially as "Asiatics"."

This can be found nowhere in the religious texts of the M.S.T of A. Please cite your citation.

• "Traditionally, it was believed that Timothy Drew was born on January 8, 1886 in North Carolina, USA."

This is not guess work or belief, this is from the man himself and his birthday celebrations were reported in the Chicago Defender which can be evinced below:

Poor scholastic methodology was used in this article. Let us continue...

• "Drew reported that during his travels, he met with a high priest of Egyptian magic. In one version of Drew's biography, the leader saw him as a reincarnation of the founder, while in others, the priest considered Drew a reincarnation of Jesus, the Buddha, Muhammad and other religious prophets. According to the biography, the high priest trained Drew in mysticism and gave him a "lost section" of the Quran."

Who did "Drew" report this to? This can be found NOWHERE in the teachings, literature or oral sayings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali which can be read here

• "This text came to be known as the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America (which is not to be confused with the Islamic Quran)."

This view was obviously inserted by one who holds OBJECTIVE VIEWS to the prophethood of Noble Drew Ali who stated in the M.S.T. of A's religious text that "The fallen sons and daughters of the Asiatic Nation of North America need to learn to love instead of hate; and to know their higher self and lower self. This is the uniting of the Holy Koran of Mecca, for teaching and instructing all Moorish Americans, etc." The full text can be read here.

In this, Noble Drew Ali claimed to UNITE the text as oppose to replace it as this wikipedia article suggests. What this also suggest is that Noble Drew Ali did not bring any Islamic teachings and this too is blatantly false.

• "Drew took parts of his book from the Rosicrucian work, Unto Thee I Grant, and most of it from The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, published in 1908 by esoteric Ohio preacher Levi Dowling."

More poorly stated research with absolutely no citations to back it up. The Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America was compiled using these direct sources:

1. Lost historical information about the true origins and identity of the Moorish Americans, being falsely called black people in the United States of America by the most Noble, Prophet, Drew Ali.
2. 19 of the 182 chapters of The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ By Levi H. Dowling
3. The Economy of Human Life, Complete in Two Parts, Translated from an INDIAN MANUSCRIPT written by an ANCIENT BRAHMIN. 1806 By Robert Dodsley, Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield, John Hill (first published by Dodsley in 1745) [This text was copied by the Rosicrucian order in 1925 so the Wikipedia article is wrong. A link to this text can be found here ]
4. Elegant Extracts: Or, Useful and Entertaining Passages in Prose: Selected for the Improvement of Young Persons: Being similar in Design to ELEGANT EXTRACTS in POETRY. Published in London, 1790. Author unknown. A link to this text can be found here.

Again, this wiki article is poorly sourced and offensive to members of the organization.

• "Drew claimed to have been anointed Noble Drew Ali, the Prophet."

Anointed by who? Citation needed and yet, my edit for a citation needed was removed by this editor. It seems completely bias and it appears as if this article is trying to shed a false light on the organization and its founder by letting anyone come and make non-sourced claims, and not taking into consideration other sources which counter the claims of the books cited in the article.

• "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork."

This is an absolute, and blatant lie and obviously said by an opponent to the organization. No citation was given and yet, this was allowed to be posted on this cite by apparent opponents of the organization. This is false light and slander as Prophet Noble Drew Ali urged members not to eat any meat accept fish. Prophet Noble Drew Ali expressly FORBADE the drinking of alcohol. If such is not changed within this article, we will in fact begin the process of suing wikipedia for allowing these types of statements to stand unchallenged with absolutely no proofs to back them up.

"Drew believed that African Americans were all Moors who he claimed descended from the ancient Moabites (describing them as belonging to Northwest Africa as opposed to Moab as the name suggests)"

Prophet Noble Drew Ali's exact words were "The Moorish Americans are descendants of the ancient Moabites whom inhabited the Northwestern and Southwestern shores of Africa." (Act 6 of the organization's bylaws). He taught that the Moorish people, falsely called "black" people, TRAVELED FROM the ancient land of Canaan and INHABITED West Africa (Ch. 47 v. 6). You can read the full text here. The wording of this article makes it appear as if Noble Drew Ali made up this claim as if people have not migrated since the beginning of recorded history. Not only have peoples migrated, the places they settle, are usually named after the people themselves like the name Mauritania.

I can keep going and going with the blatant misinformation within this article. If these things are not changed, if you cannot find citations for slanderous statements like "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork.", we will be suing this platform for false light as this article makes those interested in our organization not want to join. You have 72 hours to bring your citations or we will commence with a lawsuit in the appropriate venue. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2015 December 13 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious nonsense and the legal threat which has led to the editor being blocked, some of the complaints may have merit but thi article is low on my priority list. Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming that User:Sheik Way-El is the Supreme Grand Sheikh of the Moorish Science Temple of America at http://moorishsciencetemple.org/. Some of his points I agree with and I've revised the section on how the Koran was constructed with an academic source. I've given him information about conflict of interest and hope he will follow them and of course our other policies and guidelines, eg WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. We can of course present the faith's views, but we can't present them as factual, or use terms such as "so-called". There's a plethora of academic sources for this religion.

We don't seem to have much on the three factions, Kirkman Bey, Mealy El, and Givens El nor is it clear which website represents which faction/sect. However it appears that moorishsciencetemple.org relates to Mealy El.

I've added a category for Islamic organizations based in the United States. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Doug. We just want the information to be correct. For instance, where it states:

"Chapters 20 through 45 are from the Rosicrucian work, Unto Thee I Grant and are instructions on how to live, education, and the duties of Moorish Americans."

This was thought to be the source for many years until more diligent research proved that this was not the case, As cited in my comment above, there are 3 other sources besides the words of Prophet Noble Drew Ali himself used to complete the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America, also called the Circle 7 Koran. The specific one in question was ALSO adopted by the Rosicrucian order in 1925 but it predates that order by hundreds of years. I give all of the references in the above comment. Please consider the sources and follow the links provided and you can vet the information for yourself.

We do not want to fight you on this, but we have to, this is our livelihood at stake here. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources on "Unto thee I grant"., more background here and more specific details here. eg "Ramatherio’s “revision" of 1925, with its mention of Egyptian monotheism, is probably the version seen and appropriated by Noble Drew Ali in 1927. However, the Circle Seven Koran does not agree in every respect with the text of the 1986 AMORC edition (which is apparently the second prindng of the thirty-second edition, which was issued in 1979). Drew Ali’s version, aside from obvious changes made by him, contains sentences missing from the 1986 Unto Thee, including passages of a rather pessimistic or puritanical tone. “Be always prepared to give an account of thine action; and the best death is that which is least premeditated," appears as XLTV/23 in the Koran but is missing from the 1986 Unto Thee, for example. It would seem that someone has tried to “liberalize" the message. In other cases the differences are trifling or even baffling.

161 was alerted to this fact by a letter (July 5, 1989) from Clara Campbell, librarian of the Rosicrucian Research Library in San Jose, California. Subsequently M. A al-Ahari also discussed Unto Thee, stating his belief that the Rosicrucian edition (1925) was lifted from an earlier version of Infinite Wisdom, published in 1923 by Dc Lawrence Publishing Co. See letters, op. cit." but see p. 22 also. So we can mention that the Rosicrucian document isn't the original, but I'm not sure what the point would be. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that he used an earlier version. As for "Lost historical information about the true origins and identity of the Moorish Americans, being falsely called black people in the United States of America by the most Noble, Prophet, Drew Ali." we can't state that as a fact. Where can I see this sourced (other than a Facebook page that doesn't seem to be working). This isn't personal, I am not religious. 13:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Peace and Greetings.

On the point of "so-called," in reference to Moors being called "black" is simple. We can cite this as an OBSERVATIONAL FACT that there are no black, white, red, or yellow people on this whole orb called earth. Such names are sociopolitical constructs only. We do not need academia in this regard, we can use our own God-given eyes. If you don't like the term "God," any other superlative will suffice the same.

Now, to revise an article with an academic source should be policy for any venue such as this one HOWEVER, the problem comes in with vetting the sources used in the wikipedia articles themselves. Of course, such a task would be daunting but we cannot ignore other sources just because a few academic sources may have gotten it wrong-- so lets dig into this.

Doug, a Wikipedia editor says:

"Some of his points I agree with and I've revised the section on how the Koran was constructed with an academic source"

In the Wikipedia article it states:

 "In The Aquarian Gospel from the Rosicrucian work, Unto Thee I Grant, and most of it from The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, published in 1908 by esoteric Ohio preacher Levi Dowling."

This is unintelligible but our religion teaches us not to fault man for his mistakes, for he is not perfect and mistakes are apart of human life. In a previous talk article dated about two weeks back, I showed all four of the sources used to compile the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America which now has the nickname "Circle 7 Koran." I will list those sources again:

1. Lost historical information about the true origins and identity of the Moorish Americans, being falsely called black people in the United States of America by the most Noble, Prophet, Drew Ali.
2. 19 of the 182 chapters of The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ By Levi H. Dowling
3. The Economy of Human Life, Complete in Two Parts, Translated from an INDIAN MANUSCRIPT written by an ANCIENT BRAHMIN. 1806 By Robert Dodsley, Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield, John Hill (first published by Dodsley in 1745) [This text was copied by the Rosicrucian order in 1925 so the Wikipedia article is wrong. A link to this text can be found here ]
4. Elegant Extracts: Or, Useful and Entertaining Passages in Prose: Selected for the Improvement of Young Persons: Being similar in Design to ELEGANT EXTRACTS in POETRY. Published in London, 1790. Author unknown. A link to this text can be found here.

Our first focus is the mistaken belief that Prophet Noble Drew derived a portion of the book directly from the Rosicrucian works "Unto Thee I Grant." Academics have made mistakes and many of them have written their works years ago and platforms like Google Books, where literally thousands of old manuscripts can be found, were not readily available to them. With that said, if we have found the source that predates the Rosicrucian adoption of the text, why would these be allowed on the Wiki article and not the new discovery of the older text? The academics got it wrong. I will list the specific works again.

The Economy of Human Life, Complete in Two Parts, Translated from an INDIAN MANUSCRIPT written by an ANCIENT BRAHMIN. 1806 By Robert Dodsley, Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield, John Hill (first published by Dodsley in 1745) [This text was copied by the Rosicrucian order in 1925 so the Wikipedia article is wrong. A link to this text can be found here ]

It would be best if Wikipedia stated, "At first, it was thought that a portion of Drew Ali's Koran was taken from the 1925 book Unto The I Grant however, it appears that this works was based on an ancient Brahmic manuscript, first published in 1745 and republished in 1806. That text can be found here ]"

This is very simple. It is not biased, it is fact. It doesn't matter if I am member or if I am a Grand Sheik of the organization or not when facts are presented in a proper methodological manner and it balances the article as opposed to slants it. What greater source can be used than the actual original text where all other texts derived from? Noble Drew Ali never said that he copied the works from the Rosicrucian order so this is merely guess work by the academics. In this, we can confidently conclude that the Rosicrucian order was not the originators themselves, a claim already admitted to by the order in the previous comment section.

Doug stated:

"As for "Lost historical information about the true origins and identity of the Moorish Americans, being falsely called black people in the United States of America by the most Noble, Prophet, Drew Ali." we can't state that as a fact. Where can I see this sourced (other than a Facebook page that doesn't seem to be working). This isn't personal, I am not religious."

That is appropriate so let us delve into this tersely. In Chapter 47 of our Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Prophet Noble Drew Ali states the following:

9. According to all true and divine records of the human race there is no negro, black, or colored race attached to the human family, because all the inhabitants of Africa were and are of the human race, descendants of the ancient Canaanite nation from the holy land of Canaan. 10. What your ancient forefathers were, you are today without doubt or contradiction. 11. There is no one who is able to change man from the descendant nature of his forefathers; unless his power extends beyond the great universal Creator Allah Himself. [The full text can be read here.

There is your first source. Another source, the Divine Constitution and Bylaws of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Prophet Noble Drew Ali declares:

Act 6. With us all members must proclaim their nationality and we are teaching our people their nationality and their divine creed that they may know that they are a part and a partial of this said government, and know that they are not Negroes, Colored Folks, Black People, or Ethiopians, because these names were given to slaves by slave holders in 1779 and lasted until 1865 during the time of slavery, but this is a new era of time now, and all men now must proclaim their free national name to be recognized by the government in which they live and the nations of the earth, this is the reason why Allah the great God of the universe ordained Noble Drew Ali, the Prophet to redeem his people from their sinful ways. The Moorish Americans are the descendants of the ancient Moabites who inhabited the North Western and South Western shores of Africa. [Read the full text here.]

In the same Act, Prophet Noble Drew Ali declares "The Moorish Americans are the descendants of the ancient Moabites who inhabited the North Western and South Western shores of Africa." In Ch. 45 of the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Prophet Noble Drew Ali states, "2. The key of civilization was and is in the hands of the Asiatic nations. The Moorish, who were ancient Moabites, and the founders of the Holy City of Mecca."

If this is not satisfactory proofs, coming directly from the source, then, do we have to wait for an academic to publish these exact words in their books in order for them to be accepted? And, because a member of any organization points these things out (pertaining to their specific text), should they not be considered ESPECIALLY if they are merely direct quotes as opposed to that member's own opinion if the question is asked "Where did he teach that at"?

And again, what about the name Timothy Drew? A name that the man never used himself. It is only the name on a death certificate but even in that, how do we know his name was Timothy? There are no census records of his birth citing the name Timothy nor, do we find any comparable orthography by the man himself signing Timothy to compare with Noble Drew Ali, the name he did sign and that was publicly recognized by the Chicago newspapers of that day as I have shown just a few comments up. We just want the article to reflect the facts. Many people have written many things about our organization and its founder but most of it was polemical and we can, right in this Talk section, go line for line with proofs, if we must.

And what about the actual historical doctrine of the Moorish Science Temple of America as opposed to its religious theology and philosophy? In every academic text, we find one uniformity and that is "Ali-Drew Ali-Drew, took most of his teachings from the Aquarian Gospel and the Rosicrucian works Unto Thee I Grant." Richard Brent Turner went so far as to call the teachings "Theosophical lore" that had very little "historical value." This taints the pool (fallacy) and takes emphasis off of the historical teachings all because an "academic" said so. However, we have uncovered all but a few of the historical teachings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali pertaining to the Moors, Canaanites, Moabites, Cushites, Amorites, Hittites, Hamathites, etc. Why isn't there a section on this page about our teachings but we can go to other pages of what are considered "cults" and find very broad outlines to their teachings? We have a plethora of academic sources to back up our historical teachings and if Doug or any other Wiki editor would like to do a skype session in the upcoming days so that ONE OF YOU can add the section, then we can surely find the time to make that happen.

We look forward to having a dialog on this page so that we can get this article represented in full. If we are going to cite one source, we should also allow room for alternative sources that may counter that view. The same thing can be said on the Moors page on Wikipedia where the book The Golden Age of the Moors by Ivan Van Sertima is the premier book on that subject, compiling over 400 sources and references from 15 different accredited scholars and yet, we find no references to it on that Wiki page.Sheik Way-El 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)--Sheik Way-El 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, Noble Drew Ali NEVER used the name Timothy Drew. There is not ONE academic source that shows this. This name was used ONCE and that was posthumously on a death certificate. Nowhere do we find any usage of this name by Noble Drew Ali himself. There are no birth records. When you go to the Nation of Islam website, you will see that Elijah Muhammad is mentioned as Elijah Muhammad and not Elijah Poole, his birth name. This article has SERIOUS NPOV issues.--Sheik Way-El 00:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting issue. I'm a bit surprised that you say he never used the name, as your book clearly says he was born with that name and it's hard to imagine he never used it as a child. It would be more accurate to suggest that when he became known publicly he was no longer using that name, but of course we'd need a source. If we can find that we should use it. Anyway, you are right and I've noticed the inconsistent use of his name. I think I've fixed it - I've left Timothy Drew in a couple of places as it seems to make sense there. We should only use 'Noble' once. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

My book was published in 2011, it is now 2016 and a second edition of the book with updated information will be published this year. Still, the fact remains, that he never used this name. You have no sources showing that he used this name. You have no birth records, etc. None of your academics whom you rely on show this either. We feel that the name should not be used to highlight the section but only referenced as a said name. This is a proper methodology.

Also, a section is needed to highlight the teachings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali in more depth.

• What did Noble Drew Ali teach about the Canaanites, Moabites, Hittites, Amorites, Hamathites?

• What did Noble Drew Ali teach regarding the American history and reconstruction era?

• Why did Noble Drew Ali believe that we were enslaved between the years of 1774-1779?

• Who did Noble Drew Ali consider Moslems?

• What were Noble Drew Ali's teachings regarding Jesus and why did he consider Marcus Garvey a harbinger to himself in the same way that John the Baptist was a harbinger to Jesus?

• What did Noble Drew Ali teach about Holy City of Mecca?

• How are the teachings of the Nation of Islam similar to the Moorish Science Temple of America?

• Did Noble Drew Ali make false prophecies? He did claim himself to be a "prophet" so what does this article use to reference this fact?

There are so many questions on the doctrine that needs to be answered. I guess we have to wait for biased and polemical academics to write their opinions on the issue no matter how wrong they are before we can add this section.

Peace --Sheik Way-El 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Starting this section to record my findings on if Noble is a first name or an honorific. At the Moorish Science Temple Site they refer to him as Prophet Noble Drew Ali, Noble Drew Ali, and Prophet Drew Ali. The Prophet Drew Ali name makes me think that Noble is not a first name, as it seems odd to drop his first name, when Prophet is used.

Also, on his bio, he is referred to as: "​The Most Noble, Prophet Drew Ali". With this in mind, I think it is safe to say that the term 'Noble' is an honorific. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

See my talk page. My initial edits assuming "noble" is considered part of his name. Doug Weller talk 05:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW Noble is not unknown as a personal forename—it strikes me as the sort of ‘aspirational‘ name that was popular among the Puritans—so it’s at least plausible it‘s not an honorific per se. The usages mentioned above aren’t entirely conclusive; they might be considered a form of word-play. Are there any sources describing the circumstances under which the name was adopted that might weigh pro or con? Does the group designate anyone else as Noble? I‘m not aware of any formal use in English; the European nobility (and most others) are given more specific titles, so there would seem to be little precedent, if any, for an honorific usage. Care should be taken not to give the appearance of passing judgment on the aptness of a pseudonym; we don‘t avoid calling Josef Djugashvili “Stalin”, despite his not having been made of steel. ;) —Odysseus1479 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I'd forgotten that I had an uncle called Noble Miller. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point User:Odysseus1479, based on that and the bit on Doug's talk page, I've added it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/12/27/moorish-americans-gun-range-maryland/ Moorish Americans take over a rural gun range, sparking a strange showdown] Doug Weller talk 14:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Moorish sovereign citizens are loosely connected to the actual organization, and that's where they got their start, but IMO they are as a group an independently notable subtype of sovereign citizen, and are kind of tangential to this article topic. I think a split off into its own article would be warranted and would improve this one. A lot of the things necessary to discuss Moorish sovereign citizens in depth drag this article away from its focal point (the organization). Though, any split would have to add quite a bit more content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No one has disagreed. I will do it whenever I stop being lazy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Split, but still need to collect more content on them. PLMMJ (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This YouTube video says there are 1 million Moors in the United States as of September 2024. Is that correct? Source: v=VtdC7QuW5Ew 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No. There are maybe a few thousand at most, as the article says. Don't believe everything people put on YouTube. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)