Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

came to the Prophet as a young man. Shabb is a young man of intermediate age. This is reported on the
authority of four companions, including the Tarjuman al-Qur‟an himself, Abd Allah ibn Abbas. This latter is
the one Imam Ahmad affirmed and made binding on a Muslim‘s faith. He affirmed the following report:
―Qatada < Ikrima < Ibn Abbas < the Prophet: ‗I saw My Lord Blessed and Most High as a young man,
beardless, on him a red/green garment‘.‖ Imam Ahmad argued in his Aqida III that one of the
fundamental principles of the Sunnah (usl al-sunna) is:
To have faith in the Beatific Vision on the Day of Judgment…and that the Prophet has seen his
Lord, since this has been transmitted from the Messenger of God and is correct and authentic. It
has been reported from Qatada, from Ikrima, from Ibn Abbas…And the hadith, in our
estimation, is to be taken upon its apparent meaning (ala zahirihi), as it has come from the Prophet.
Indulging in Kalam with respect to it is an innovation. But we have faith in it as it came, upon its
apparent meaning, and we do not dispute with anyone regarding it.‖
In his Aqida V, Imam Ahmad argued that, ―Belief in that (hadith al-shabb) and counting it true is obligatory‖
for Muslims. Thus, the definer of early Sunni orthodoxy has made obligatory and a fundamental principle
of the Sunna belief in the literal significance of the reports of the Prophet‘s encounter with Allah as a man.
This is why in his madhhab ―man (shabb, shakhs)‖ was an appropriate term for Allah, supported by the
Akhdar or narrations from the Prophet. Thus, Bro Mubaashir‘s claim that ―you cannot find anywhere
where Imam Hanbal argued that Allah is a human being‘ is simply off the mark.
Imam Ahmad was the champion of the Islam of the ―Black Sheep‖ or Black Arabs against the
distortions of the ―White Sheep‖ or Persian and Byzantine converts. The God of this Islam was
unquestionably anthropomorphic and was indeed a man, just not the type of man that Bro Mubaashir
and others assume to be defining for the category (see below). It is demonstrable that Bro Mubaashir is
unfamiliar with Imam Ahmad‘s works and is therefore unqualified to speak on his Aqida. Yet he does just
that, and with such authority as to give one pause. He even felt confident enough to tell us what the great
Imam of Baghdad would have said! This diminishes credibility. While I still maintain that Bro Mubaashir is
an excellent representative of Imam W.D Mohammed and his tafsir, he has proven incredible (i.e. uncredible)
as a representative of the Classical Arabic/Islamic tradition.
II.] Misrepresenting the Qur‟an and Sunna
Unfortunately, the same conclusion is forced upon us with regard to Bro Mubaashir‘s
representation of the Qur‘an and Sunna. He claims that both give ―proof‖ that Allah can‘t be seen (is
invisible) and is not a man. But when we examine the Arabic texts upon which his confidence is based, we
find that they do not at all say what Bro Mubaashir has them say. But let me be clear: I don‘t blame Bro
Mubaashir for these theological interpretations that infringe upon the philology of the Arabic texts. He is
merely following the received or so-called orthodox reading. But therein lies the problem. This ‗orthodox‘
reading of the Qur‘an and Sunna is that of the White Sheep who introduced it into Islam long after the
time of the Prophet. Just because it is ‗orthodox‘ and popular today does not make it authoritative. We are
demonstrating that the Islam of the Prophet and the other Black Sheep was fundamentally different from
the Islam of al-Ghazzali (White Sheep) and those who defer to him in matters of aqida.
1. Invisible Allah?
Bro Mubaashir claims that ―you can‘t see‖ Allah. He bases this claim on two pieces of evidence:
his reading of Surat al-An‘am [6]: 103 and the famous Hadith of Jibril. Regarding the first he says: ―Sura
6:103 states clearly that no vision can comprehend or perceive Him, but He comprehends and perceives
17