Op-Ed: Disproving the Idea that Muslims Were in Texas Before Texas Became a State
(The Alamo Has No Islamic Connection)
By Wm Gawthrop, Ph.D.
The claim that Muslims were meaningfully present in Texas before statehood collapses under scrutiny. The historical record is clear: there were isolated individuals, not communities; incidental presence, not institutional influence. Yes, figures like Estevanico and enslaved West African Muslims passed through or existed within the territory. That is the full extent of the evidence. No settlements. No mosques. No continuity. No system.
There is zero evidence of Islamic influence on the foundational structures of pre-1845 Texas. Law was Spanish and Mexican civil code, enforced through Catholic authority. Architecture was mission-based, ecclesiastical, and military—derivative of European forms, not Islamic design. Culture was defined by Catholicism, Indigenous traditions, and later Anglo-Protestant settlement. If Islam had any structural role, it would appear in legal records, built environments, or enduring cultural practices. It does not.
The distinction is decisive: presence is not influence. Enslaved Muslims, stripped of agency and continuity, did not transmit institutions, law, or culture. Spanish colonial systems may have carried distant, filtered remnants of earlier Islamic knowledge, but by the time Texas was settled, those elements were fully absorbed into European frameworks and no longer identifiable as Islamic. There is no direct line of transmission—only historical residue at best.
Modern claims asserting significant Muslim presence or influence in pre-statehood Texas are not evidence-based. They are narrative constructions—identity-driven, politically useful, and historically unsubstantiated. They expand isolated facts into civilizational claims without documentation, artifacts, or continuity.
Final judgment: Pre-1845 Texas contains trace individuals, not a traceable Islamic footprint. No institutions. No systems. No legacy. The record is not incomplete—it is definitive.
Background
Documented, Evidence-Based Presence (Limited but Real). There is credible historical evidence that some Muslims were physically present in Texas (or Spanish Texas) before statehood, but in very small numbers and not as organized communities.
Spanish colonial period (16th–18th century). Spain expelled or forcibly converted Muslims after 1492, but Some Moriscos (Muslims forced to convert to Christianity) came to the Americas. For example:
Estevanico (Mustafa al-Zamori), a Moroccan Muslim, was part of early expeditions in the Southwest (including areas near Texas in the 1500s). While Estevanico was present as an individual, there was no Muslim community or institutional presence.
Enslaved West African Muslims (18th–early 19th century). A significant percentage of enslaved Africans brought to North America were Muslim (estimates 10–20%) and some were present in Spanish and later Mexican Texas. This is the strongest evidence of pre-statehood Muslim presence in Texas but they were enslaved individuals, not organized religious communities.
Weak or Unsupported Expansive or Revisionist Claims. There are claims—sometimes circulated in activist, identity, or ideological contexts—that Muslims were in Texas “in significant numbers” or had settlements. There is No credible historical evidence of Muslim towns, Mosques, Organized daʿwa activity, or any other Institutional Islamic presence.
Unsupported Claims That Early Explorers or Native Americans Were Muslim. There is no mainstream scholarship or early histories supporting the claims that Native tribes had Islamic origins or that Spanish expeditions were secretly Islamic.
Why These Narratives Are Advanced. The Islamification process relies on
- Identity anchoring. Attempting to establish that “We were here before the modern state.”
- Counter-narrative to “outsider” framing. Pushes back against the idea that Muslims are recent arrivals.
- Political/cultural positioning. Used to normalize presence, legitimize influence, and shape historical memory.
Legal, Political, and Institutional Influence. Pre-1845 Texas operated under Spanish colonial law (Las Siete Partidas, Recopilación de Indias), Mexican civil law traditions, and Catholic ecclesiastical authority
There is no evidence of Islamic legal doctrines (e.g., Sharia, fiqh schools) being adopted, referenced, or embedded. No Muslim officials, jurists, or advisory roles are documented in Texas governance structures. If Islamic law had influence, it would appear in legal codes, court records, or administrative practice. It does not.
Architecture and Built Environment. The built environment is dominated by Spanish mission architecture, Catholic churches, Presidios, and ranch structures. While Spain historically absorbed Islamic (Moorish) architectural influences, those influences were filtered through centuries of Christian Spain and not consciously transmitted as Islamic architecture. There were no mosques, no Islamic geometric programs or inscriptions, and no identifiable Moorish design intentionally deployed in Texas. What we have in Texas is derivative European architecture, not Islamic architectural transmission into Texas.
Culture, Religion, and Social Practice. Dominant systems were, and remain Catholicism (Spain and Mexico, Indigenous belief systems, and Anglo-Protestant settler culture (later period)
Muslim-associated individuals (e.g., Estevanico, enslaved Africans). Beyond these, there is no evidence of sustained Islamic worship; no evidence of Mosques or prayer spaces, and no evidence of religious transmission across generations. The presence of one identified individual and enslaved Africans without continuity produces no durable cultural footprint.
Science, Medicine, and Knowledge Transfer. Knowledge systems in Texas are derived from Spanish colonial practices, Indigenous knowledge, and European medical traditions. Spain historically transmitted Islamic-era knowledge (medicine, mathematics, irrigation), but by the time of Texas colonization, these were fully integrated into European knowledge systems. They are not identifiable as “Islamic” in operational use. This is third and fourth order diffusion and not a direct Islamic contribution to Texas.
Music, Art, and Intellectual Life. Texas cultural production originates with Spanish/Mexican folk traditions, Catholic religious art, and Anglo frontier culture. There is no identifiable Islamic musical traditions, artistic motifs, literary or philosophical texts, or educational institutions. No artifacts, no texts, no lineage means no measurable contribution.
Bottom Line. Pre-1845 Texas shows only Individual Muslim-associated presence (e.g., Estevanico, enslaved Africans) and zero evidence of system-level Islamic influence. Islam did not function as a civilizational input into pre-1845 Texas.
Bibliography
Barker, E. C. (1898). A complete history of Texas for schools, colleges, and general use. S. C. Griggs & Company.
Helm, M. S. (1884). Scraps of early Texas history. Telegraph Book and Job Establishment.
Wharton, C. R. (1948). The Republic of Texas: A brief history of Texas from the first American colonies in 1821 to annexation in 1846. Houston Printing Company.
Yoakum, H. (1855). History of Texas: From its first settlement in 1685 to its annexation to the United States in 1846 (Vols. 1–2). Redfield.
If every Muslim in Texas had arrived only yesterday, that wouldn’t make them any less deserving of the same rights and respect we extend to tenth-generation Texans.
While the op-ed makes a valid point that there were no formal Islamic institutions (like mosques or courts) in pre-1845 Texas, the article suffers from significant methodological flaws, an outdated bibliography, and a “strawman” argument that attacks claims mainstream historians do not actually make.
Here is a breakdown of the key flaws in the piece’s historical reasoning and evidence:
1. Reliance on Severely Outdated Sources
The most glaring academic flaw is the bibliography. The author relies entirely on 19th-century and mid-20th-century texts:
• Yoakum (1855), Helm (1884), Barker (1898), and Wharton (1948) were written during eras when Texas history was documented almost exclusively through a Eurocentric lens.
• These older texts systematically overlooked, ignored, or minimized the history of enslaved populations, Indigenous peoples, and non-European individuals.
• By ignoring modern, peer-reviewed 21st-century scholarship on the African diaspora and Atlantic history, the author misses substantial contemporary research regarding the specific identities and cultural practices of enslaved Muslims in the Americas.
2. The “Strawman” Framing
The article spends a lot of energy refuting highly expansive claims—such as the existence of “Muslim towns, mosques, or organized missionary activity” and the idea that Native American tribes had Islamic origins.
• Mainstream historians do not claim these things.
• By setting up these extreme, fringe theories as the primary target, the author creates a “strawman argument.” It allows them to easily debunk a radical claim while avoiding a more nuanced conversation about the actual, documented subaltern presence of Muslims.
3. Dismissal of Mudéjar (Moorish) Architectural Influence
The author argues that because Moorish design elements were filtered through centuries of Christian Spain, any architectural remnants in Texas are merely “historical residue” and “fully absorbed.”
• Architectural historians widely recognize the Mudéjar style—a blend of Christian and Islamic artistic styles originating from Muslim craftsmen in Spain—as a distinct and conscious influence in Spanish colonial architecture.
• Elements of this style traveled to the Americas and can be seen in Texas missions (such as specific geometric patterns, arch designs, and decorative brickwork at Mission San José in San Antonio). Dismissing this lineage entirely minimizes a tangible cultural connection.
4. A Narrow, Institutional Definition of “Influence”
The op-ed operates on a rigid definition of historical importance, arguing that because enslaved West African Muslims were “stripped of agency,” they left no “durable cultural footprint.”
• Modern social history recognizes that “influence” is not just top-down (laws, official buildings, and rulers). It is also bottom-up.
• Enslaved Muslims brought deep agricultural expertise, linguistic influences, and distinct cultural practices that subtly shaped the early American landscape. Defining history solely through formal state institutions automatically erases the contributions of marginalized groups who were legally barred from building their own institutions.
If you are interested in exploring this topic further, would you like me to look up modern peer-reviewed studies on enslaved Muslims in the American South, or trace the specific Mudéjar architectural elements found in San Antonio’s Spanish missions?