Muslim Students Association breaks down stereotypes with documentary 
February 18, 2010 by Hannah Birch
Movie demonstrates connections between Islam and America
The Muslim Students’ Association at UNLV asserts that Islam had more of an influence on our country’s history than many think, and on Friday, Feb. 19, they will show you why.
“Prince Among Slaves” is an award-winning documentary about a Muslim African prince that was enslaved in the American South. The film will be shown at the Student Union Room 208 at 7:30 p.m. Admission is free.
The documentary shows a connection between Islam and African Americans with which many aren’t familiar and demonstrates the influence both cultures have had on America’s history.
“It’s like a history of slaves and Islam in a way,” said MSA President Amin Nash. “It’s also the creation of Islam in America. This man had nine kids that were born in America… there could be Muslim blood in almost all of us.”
Although many African American slaves that were originally brought from Africa were Muslim, Nash said few people are aware of this trend.
“Especially after September 11 and the World Trade Center, they started placing these stereotypes on Islam,” he said. “We want to shed a positive light on these people.”
The film will be followed by a discussion with Fateen Seifullah, the prominent religious leader (Imam) of Masjid As-Sabur and Naeem Shalf Jr., the founder of the ILM Foundation.
“We hope it will lead [students] to a newfound knowledge about the history of African Americans and Muslims,” Nash said. “If people have questions, we want to answer them.”
Having been recognized as the best documentary for 2007 by the Black Film Festival, “Prince Among Slaves” illustrates how a man survives harrowing ordeals in the name of family and faith.
The documentary is a true story and follows the character Abdul-Rahman Ibrahima Sori, a Muslim prince from Africa. The 26-year-old slave surprised the farmer that bought him at an auction in the United States by saying that he was the son of an African king who would pay gold for his son’s ransom.
But Abdul-Rahman did not reclaim his freedom until 40 years had passed. He defied the order to return to Africa immediately and instead traveled across the country in a partially successful endeavor to raise funds to free his seven children.
At the age of 67, Abdul-Rahman had freed two of his children before he attempted to return to Africa. He fell ill and died just as word of his return reached his homeland in present-day Guinea, but he remains one of the most well-researched African American slaves to date.
“It’s inspirational, in a way,” said MSA member Fatima Khan. “Hopefully, it will open eyes to the presence of Islam in our country. Especially after 9/11, a lot of people think we’re new to this country. We’ve actually been here a long time… We’re embedded in American history.”
MSA is also embedded in the UNLV community as an organization that promotes a social and faith-based lifestyle.
“We want to have a Muslim and Islamic presence at UNLV. We’re all about promoting peace and collaboration,” Khan said. “There are five different mosques in town… Wherever they need us, we can be there.”
“We’re one huge community,” Nash said, who wished to extend thanks to the MSA members and advisers that made this event and others like it possible.
[This comment was removed for a terms of use violation.]
[This comment was removed for a terms of use violation.]
Nikah, who are you? Where are your sources for these facts? If you’re going to post these things, don’t do it out of hate for a group, actually post something meaningful.
It’s good to see a little good news now and then. Thanks.
As an Atheist, my faith is in the people. You’re all awesome. You’ll figure this out.
Here is the truth about Islam and slavery:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/015-slavery.htm
Arafat, I’ve come across some of your comments before, and I have to say that you have one of the most ignorant, racist, and bigoted minds that I have ever come across. You demean other religions and peoples of the world as “barbaric” while exhalting your own superiority. You act as though only Islam has had violence in its history and totally disregard the violence in your own religion’s history.
I feel sorry for people like you, who have so much hate in their hearts and minds. That hate and sense of superiority actually gives you more common ground with terrorists, than the students of MSA could ever have.
SOH,
You’re right. I’m a vile creature whom only a mother could love. You’ve got me there. You are good at digging up the truth so let’s work together. Why don’t you and I stick to the topic at hand, i.e., Islam, to dig up the truth on it. Isn’t that the topic de jour?
With this goal in mind let me start with the following truth about Islam. Please let us know your thoughts on this.
“The violence in the Old Testament (and there is plenty of it) is limited to those ancient times, places and peoples. Christians were never bound by those violent injunctions, and Jews have not been bound by them since ancient times. By contrast, the violence in the Koran is phrased in general and is valid for all of eternity. For example, when the Koran says that non-Moslems are the open enemy, there is no restriction on that. It means all non-Moslems for all time. There is nothing like that in the Old Testament.”
SOH,
Is this stereotypical of Muslims?
“We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.” — Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003
And what about this?
“Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital. . . . This capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas.” — Hamas MP and Islamic cleric Yunus al-Astal, 2008
Is this sheik a Muslim stereotype? Seems to me he is typical of Muslim clerics so in my book that makes him a Muslim stereotype, no?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/egyptian-muslim-cleric-brothers-we-pray-to-allah-that-we-be-terrorists-if-terror-means-jihad-for-the.html
Arafat, you generalize from anecdote. Of course there are Muslim fundamentalists… just like there are Christian fundamentalists. But I’m sure you’ll find a nifty way to counter that by “digging” up more stand-alone examples or by borrowing from blogs. People like you operate from using biased sources and taking things from out of context. Do you like being so narrow-minded?
“The violence in the Old Testament (and there is plenty of it) is limited to those ancient times, places and peoples. Christians were never bound by those violent injunctions, and Jews have not been bound by them since ancient times. By contrast, the violence in the Koran is phrased in general and is valid for all of eternity. For example, when the Koran says that non-Moslems are the open enemy, there is no restriction on that. It means all non-Moslems for all time. There is nothing like that in the Old Testament.”
That’s complete bullcrap. The Crusades were carried out based on the violent language in the Bible taken out of context. How do you justify that if the violence in the Bible was restricted only to those ancient people of the era of Moses and Jesus?
Just as there are specific references to violence in the Old Testament, so is it in Islam. You are cherry picking, and you have no authority whatsoever in your claim. Or rather, the claim of the person you are quoting.
Is it ok to quote only the nice stuff Jesus Christ said, while pretending he never said anything violent? If I were to pick out everything that refers to violence in the Bible, Christianty would seem like a very violent religion. Context is important, and you’re ignoring that when it comes to Islam. You’re just playing double standards. For every reference to violence in Islam, there is a context – just the same as in Christianity!!!
SOH,
What you write is simply untrue. The Old Testament’s verses in violence are directed toward specific people at a specific time. They are not open-ended as is the case for the verses on violence in the Koran.
As to your picking the Crusades as an example to support your argument your logic is flawed. What follows is the historical facts surrounding the Crusades, something you appear to ignore in your defense of Islam and condemnation of Christianity:
The Crusades
The Muslim Game:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,378th year).
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.