Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

In his review Bro Mubaashir displayed honorable attention to and patience with the arguments I
laid out in the lecture, shunning the emotionalism and acrimonious speech that often characterizes this
particular dialogue. For this I am grateful and I pray that I am found equally attentive, patient and levelheaded
in this response. Bro Mubaashir hoped that I would find some benefit in his review; I certainly
did. Despite the erudition exhibited in this review, however, there are three unfortunate trends that mar it
and ultimately render his (counter-) arguments unpersuasive: 1.) the tendency to use straw-man
arguments, where the straw-man is a mischaracterization of my position as articulated in that Philly
lecture 2.) the tendency to juxtapose ―Dr Wesley‘s claims‖ on behalf of the Qur‘an with his claims, but
passing the latter off as ‗what the Qur‘an actually says‘ rather than his own ideological, idiosyncratic
reading of the Qur‘an and 3.) this conflation of the Qur‘an and his idiosyncratic reading of the Qur‘an is
supported by the tendency to man-handle and thus mistranslate and misrepresent Qur‘anic verses and
hadith statements. In these cases Bro Mubaashir tries to pass obvious eisegesis off as strict, non-sectarian
exegesis (tafsir), which it simply is not 4.) Finally, there is in this review the noticeable tendency to
misrepresent the Classical Arabic/Islamic Tradition in general in an attempt to claim prestigious
precedent for his (and the Muslim world‘s today) very non-Semitic view of God. I cannot address every
single point made by Bro Mubaashir- such a response would be long and tedious. I have to be selective
(which even still may seem long and tedious). However, in Part II of this response I hope to address other
matters, such as Surat al-Ikhlas [112] and Surat al-Shura [42]:11.
I.] Misrepresenting the Classical Islamic Tradition
Bro Mubaashir begins his review by echoing the sentiment of Bro Imam Salim Mu‘min that ―the
only way Dr. Wesley's case proves that the followers of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad are not guilty of
shirk is if he changes the definition of the word shirk to something other than what it means.‖ This,
Beloveds, is deflection. The problem is not at all our respective understandings of shirk: we three all agree
that a mushrik is one who associates partners with Allah. The problem is our respective understandings of
―Allah‖ to whom no partners may be legitimately associated. We who adhere to the Islam taught to us by
the Honorable Elijah Muhammad understand that Allah is a man – a divine man rather than a mortal
man, but a man nonetheless. In my most recent book, ―Take Another Look: The Qur‘an, the Sunna, and
the Islam of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad,‖ I demonstrate that this understanding of Allah is
absolutely consistent with the Qur‘an and Sunna when these are no longer read through the lens of al-
Ghazzali and other non-Arab converts to Islam who rejected the Black Arabs to whom the message first
came and their understanding of the religion. These non-Arab converts – particularly the Persians and
Byzantines – introduced a new understanding of God and a peculiar way of reading the Qur‘an so as to
locate this new God therein. I introduced this history in Philly and identified there the great Imam Ahmad
ibn Hanbal (d. 855) as the champion of the Islam of the original Black Arabs against those who tried to
de-Arabize the religion by (among other things) replacing the Semitic God of the Qur‘an with the Greek
God of Hellenism. In my lecture (and book) I emphasized this Black Arab/White convert dichotomy in
understanding Islam because the Prophet pointed it out.
―Zayd b. Aslam related that the Prophet (s) saw a vision and told his companions about it. He
said: ―I saw a group of black sheep and a group of white sheep then mixed with them [until the
white sheep became so numerous that the black sheep could no longer be seen in the herd of
sheep.] I interpreted it to mean that [the black sheep are the Arabs. They will accept Islam and
become many. As for the white sheep, they are the non-Arabs (i.e. Persians, Turks, Byzantines,
ect.)] They will enter Islam and then share with you your wealth and your genealogy [and
become so numerous that the Arabs will not be noticed amongst them.]‖ The Companions
became surprised by what he (s) said. Then one said, ―The non-Arab Persians will enter our land,
O‘ Messenger of Allah?!‖ The Prophet (s) then said, ―Yes. By He Who Has my soul in His Hand,
13