Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas

5 Resistance, Revolts, and Returns to Africa

210 > 211 Indians, and taught them “bad customs.”1 Nevertheless, Africans continued to be shipped, and in ever greater numbers; and the Muslims among them caught the colonists’ attention. On May 11, 1526, Spain passed the first item in a series of anti-Muslim legislation. A royal decree (cédula) specifically forbade the introduction of “Gelofes” (Wolof) from Senegal, negros from the Levant, blacks who had been raised with the Moors, and people from Guinea. Muslim Rebels The Wolof were the only African population targeted by name. The Spanish settlers had reason to be familiar with them, because the Senegalese had just led the first slave revolt by Africans in the Americas. In 1522, Wolof revolted on the sugar plantation of Admiral Don Diego Colon —Christopher Columbus’ son—in Hispaniola, in the territory of what is today the Dominican Republic. As they went from plantation to plantation trying to rally other Africans, they killed a dozen whites.2 Wolof had also rebelled in San Juan, Puerto Rico; in Santa Marta, Colombia; and in Panama. It appeared as if they were establishing a trend, and so, six years after the first cédula, the Crown issued another, which made reference to uprisings having resulted in the deaths of several Christians and stressed the danger still posed by the Wolof. They were described as “arrogant, disobedient, rebellious and incorrigible.”3 This attitude is consistent with men who, as Muslims, thought themselves free. They could not accept being enslaved by Christians or being forced to convert. Their refusal of their new situation translated into disobedience and rebelliousness and, as noted by the legislators, could not be “corrected.” The arrogance is equally typical of men who, as Muslims, would think themselves better than “infidels” and Christians. The Wolof, in addition, were accused of fomenting trouble by preaching insubordination to the other nations, which were “more pacific and of good habits.” The royal decree also excluded mulattos, Jews, gente bereberisca (a blanket name for Muslims), and moriscos, or Muslims (often Moors from Spain) who had been forcibly converted to Catholicism. These 212 > 213 (1550–1582), Venezuela (1550), Peru (1560), Ecuador (1599), Guatemala (1627), Chile (1647), Martinique (1650), and much later, Florida (1830– 1840).6 Repeatedly, the Spanish settlers and officials blamed the Muslims for their pernicious influence on the Indians. Confronted with a perilous situation, the colonists reacted with ferocity. Very early on, the presence of an African among the Indians was considered a major crime. For having been found in an Indian village in Costa Rica, Pedro Gilofo, a runaway who, being a Wolof, may have been a Muslim, was condemned to death on September 1, 1540; he was boiled alive.7 The colonists had a genuine fear that the Muslims would proselytize among the Indians. These concerns may not have been rooted in reality , but they were strong enough to make the Spaniards try to enforce a rigid segregation of Indians and Africans. Islam did not spread, but the Muslims may have made some attempts to reach out. Accusations and condemnations do not indicate that a deed or offense has been committed , but in 1560 the mulatto Luis Solano was condemned to death and the “Moor” Lope de la Pena to life in prison for having practiced and spread Islam in Cuzco, Peru.8 The Inquisition was very active in the new colonies and vigilantly condemned to death what it called “sorcerers.” Many Africans who dealt in the occult were among its victims. There is little doubt that marabouts involved in the making of protective and offensive amulets, as well as in divination, were killed by the church as a result of their activities. Just overtly retaining Islamic beliefs could lead a person before the Inquisition tribunal. Such was the case, for example, of many Wolof enslaved in Portugal during the sixteenth century, who were denounced for expressing their faith in the superiority of their religion. There is reason to believe that similar cases may have happened in the overseas colonies.9 Disobedience, rebellion, real or potential proselytizing, arrogance, and sorcery—the colonists had to contend with a series of problems that the Muslims posed. An additional one was their use of horses. As horses were unknown to the Indians and the Central Africans, cavalry gave a decisive advantage to the conquistadores and the slaveholders’ patrolmen .10 But African Muslims had been handling horses for centuries; 214 > 215 were trademarks of...