Tuesday, April 7, 2020   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Historic painting of African American sold as Philly history museum raises funds

22 October 2011 General 12 Comments Email This Post Email This Post
"Yarrow Mamout" is believed to be the earliest known portrait of a practicing American Muslim.

"Yarrow Mamout" is believed to be the earliest known portrait of a practicing American Muslim.

By Stephan Salisbury, Inquirer Culture Writer

One of the earliest formal portraits of an African American – a well-known oil painting of a kufi-wearing free black man painted by Charles Willson Peale in 1819 – has been sold by the Philadelphia History Museum at the Atwater Kent to the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

The striking portrait of Yarrow Mamout, an elderly Muslim and former slave living in Washington, is the most recent in a string of art and artifact sales made by the history museum, largely to finance its $5.9 million building renovation project.

Timothy Rub, Art Museum director, declined to discuss the painting’s price, but other sources speculated that it would be at least $1.5 million.

Original post: Historic painting of African American sold as Philly history museum raises funds


  1. Alhamdulilah! Exquisite portrait – brings tears to my eyes.

  2. DISCLAIMER: This has nothing to do with this article.

    muhd bennet,

    don’t know if you saw my reply on the muslim saving jews article. let me know if i need to try and recreate it. but anyways just so i have this straight, you are in favor of stoning adulterers given that proper burden of proof is met. same for fornicators, well 100 lashes. what about apostates? in case you did miss it here’s the article on the bangladeshi girl.


    i look forward to hearing more about islam from you.

  3. DISCLAIMER: This has nothing to do with this article.


    muhd bennet,

    yeah i had read this after someone posted it here, months ago. i still don’t think executing surrendered combatants is a good example to set, even if the torah tells you to.

    as for my kabbalah ka’bah mistake, not sure what i was thinking. maybe madonna was on the radio at the time? (let me know if you don’t get that referance, not sure how well you know american pop culture) anyways your corrections are always welcome.

  4. yes very impressive. especially given it was done in 1819. it looks like peele would have been quite established by then. he was a great artist and a great patriot it appears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Willson_Peale

    this man might have been of some stature, or had a lot of money? i guess peele could have just liked his look?

  5. To the disclaimer. I can tell you that in Islam all is not what it seems. If this girl is innocent she will be in the highest level of heaven as she was wrongfully accused and punished. To a person who does not believe in Allah (the Creator of the universe and all that it contains and the Owner of the Day of Judgement) this case of the 14 year old lashed to death would seem the worst travesty of justice, but to believing men and women we know that her death is a mercy from her Creator and she will be rewarded in the hereafter. Just like the Tsunami in Sumatra is another example. To non-believers it was a tragedy and for Muslims who know that a believing man or woman who drowns dies a martyrs death, that will bring the best reward in the hereafter, then we know that this was again a mercy on the people living there, alhamdullilah (all praise is for Allah).

  6. M2,
    Yes I did, so many mistakes in your arguements that pointing them out is almost embarrassing if you read your quotes. You understood when I quoted no compulsion in religion but went on to quote a hadith:
    Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:

    A bedouin came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah’s Laws.” His opponent got up and said, “He is right. Judge between us according to Allah’s Laws.” The bedouin said, “My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, “Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year.” The Prophet said, “No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah’s Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile.” He then addressed somebody, “O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death” So, Unais went and stoned her to death.

    there is no compulsion in religion? talk about contridiction?
    Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

    Read it again. The bedouin asked himself to be judged by Allah’s Laws, Prophet Muhammad did not force this on him. He asked for it in the very beginning of the Hadith. Then you tell me this is a contradiction? Well as I pointed out I can’t correct every mistake you make and it takes way to much time to go back to all these links and answer ur every mistake. Even after correcting Anonymous about the Quran 2:190-194 he still is reproducing it bcuz he can’t see the facts I point out. Quoting Ikrima is also lame bcuz the Quran and Prophet Muhammad did not support these actions. Allah does however mention that it is he who will punish the disbelievers when they die. Don’t tell me the Bible doesn’t talk about punishment of criminals and disbelievers. That just shows bias.

    I agree, that no surrendered combatants should be killed as mentioned b4. Maybe you could not read the huge post. The people executed were the instigators of the wars. They were also Munafiqun (hypocrites) that hid within the Muslim community in order to pass on information to the Meccans. This is what you would call treason. In the USA, treason is punishable by death. If you decided to believe in ur God, and let me worship my God, then there is no problem. When u tell me u r Muslim and want peace (but lie about it and pass on info to my enemies) can I trust you after your treachery has become known? I find out u lied to me and then u say u want peace again? The definition of a hypocrite is a liar or pretender. Prophet Muhammad did not really have a choice bcuz their statements could no longer be accepted as the truth. Remember, Prophet Muhammad forgave the majority of the Meccans. He only punished those who had betrayed the trust.

  7. If you were referring to the Banu Qurayza and not the Banu Quraish (2 different tribe entirely) then this should be even more proof. There were 3 major Jewish tribes living in Medina with the Muslims. They all made and agreed to the treaties made between them and the Muslims. Despite the fact that they were living peacefully with the Muslims, I guess they did not like Prophet Muhammad anymore than Prophet Jesus. They supported the Meccans in surrounding the Muslims and failed. They were prepared to wipe out every last one of them. By the way, the Muslims punished them not according to the Islamic Law, but by the Jewish Law. You will luv this. Prophet Muhammad allowed Sa’d (Muslim, but a former Jew) to carry out the punishment for breaking the treaty according to the Jewish Law. Read the article or go back to Deuteronomy 20:10-14 and you should have nothing to complain about.

  8. M2,
    Thanks for the Bangladesh whip-death article. If you noticed, the Imam’s judgement was not only wrong, it went against the Sharia law. The adulterer man should have been stoned to death (201 lashes is something made up). I thought the girl complied, but if she was raped then of course she is not to be stoned. This goes against the Torah, Bible, and the Quran. The imam was probably bribed or told a dishonest story about the event, since the only witnesses were the man (guilty) and his wife (cohort in deceit). May they burn in hell, for their mischief. I used the word mischief becuz stuff like this counts as mischief.

  9. Daoud,

    “I can tell you that in Islam all is not what it seems”. ok i have no idea what that means? sorry, as mr. bennet points out i’m quite the dolt and need things throughly explained.

    “To a person who does not believe in Allah (the Creator of the universe and all that it contains and the Owner of the Day of Judgement) this case of the 14 year old lashed to death would seem the worst travesty of justice,” yes i see this as a travesty of justice. in fact i that it is the definition of a travesty of justice. to wrongly put someone to death. that is why i’m no longer a supporter of capital punishment. even for treason. but most certainly not for adultry, which i don’t think is even considered criminal in any american state?

    and i find the rest of your statement to be quite disturbing as well. “To non-believers it was a tragedy and for Muslims who know that a believing man or woman who drowns dies a martyrs death, that will bring the best reward in the hereafter”. not to put words in your mouth the way some do to me. but with that logic, if i see a drownding muslim i shouldn’t interfere with god’s mercy? should i help him out and throw him a big stone? so bush did a good thing in his slow response to katrina. few more martyrs made.

    this is what makes some followers of the abrahamic religions so scary. you are more concerned with an afterlife, which may or may not exist, then with this life. well i believe i only have this life so yes, i think wrongly executing people is the greatest travesty of justice.

  10. Muhd Bennett,

    yes i meant the Banu Qurayza, the treasonist jews. the Banu Quraish were muhamad’s tribe. still many pagans within them and fighting the muslims after muhammad’s uncle died and he lost the protection of his clan. sorry, as you can see i strugle mightly with english. so you can only image my easy confusion when dealing with transliterated arabic. yes, i read it was a converted jew who passed judgement according “TO THEIR OWN LAW”. so are you saying we should have jewish law for jews, islamic law for muslims, catholic law for catholics, buddist…etc.etc… i disagree. i believe as a nation there should be one law applied equally to all citizens.

    as for the hadith. i reread it and think there are some interesting observations to be made. first the father when originally told by “the people” that his son should die, he seemed to not want to be judged by allah’s law. paid the ransom. it was after he was told that it was only lashes and banishment for the son. maybe he thought better to get his sheep and slave-girl back. let the boy take his lashes. and the woman never agrees to accept allah’s punishment. it’s her husband who says he will stand by muhammad’s judgement.

    as for my “there is no compulsion in religion? talk about contridiction?” i guess my copy and paste didn’t take? i meant to post a hadith from the book dealling with apostates:

    Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

    Narrated ‘Ikrima:

    Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

    strange? that’s the same volume, book and number? maybe you accidently copied the wrong one. “If you decided to believe in ur God, and let me worship my God, then there is no problem”. if it was only that simple.
    again the main proplem is the broad terms used in the koran and even worse are many of the hadiths. so is that a yes on stoning apostates as well? so if i wright a book or draw some cartoons that muslims believe are making mischief in the land, can they kill me?


    إنما جزاء الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا أن يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذاب عظيم

    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

  11. Muhd Bennett,

    so if my sister married a muslim and she and her husband had a boy and a girl. and they died in a plane crash. if my brother-in-law had a devout muslim brother who went to court to argue agianst florida law which states that the estate should be divided equally between the heirs, their son and daughter, regardless of sex. and he wants islamic law applied, the boy getting two thirds and the girl only one third. and i show up to argue on behave of my niece’s interests. what should happen??

    so much for live and let live?


  12. Muhd Bennett,

    no opinions/answers? feel free to embarass me. surely you can at least call me ignorant and explain how the man is the maintainer of women and that is why the 2 to 1 inheritance and spin that as a good thing, and ignore the rest?

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>