Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

7.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response Part III, Section I
As-salaam Alaikum Dear Family
In this the final part (itself divided into two parts) of my response to Bro Mubaashir‘s review of my lecture,
I would like to first reiterate my appreciation for this discussion and its participants. It was long overdue
and, despite the objections of some, it is productive and of great value, I sincerely believe, for the future of
Islam in America. Before addressing Bro Mubaashir‘s comments, I feel compelled to respond to some
comments made by other participants to this discussion, in particular Bro Muhammad Abdur-Rahman
and Bro Imam Salim Mu‘min. Bro Khalid Abdullah Islam‘s rants about cognitive disorders I won‘t
dignify with a response.
Bro Imam Salim has said:
―Allah is not tauheed. Tauheed suggests the coming together of many parts to become one. It is in the
second form. Allah is not the coming together of many parts. The tauheed is in the creation and Allah is
not creation. The creation, though it appears diverse it has its unity, that is it comes together as one within
its many parts. I do not have to elaborate if you know Arabic.‖
Well, Beloved, I do know Arabic. And while elaboration on your statement is not necessary, justification
for it is. As I read it I was reminded of the early Sunni principle: takyīf in negation is as erroneous as takyīf
in affirmation. That is to say, it is as errant to say how Allah is NOT without clear textual support as it is
so say how He is without such support. Your statement is an articulation of your own theology, which is
fine as far as that goes. But no longer can such idiosyncratic theologies be conflated with the Qur‘an itself
or masquerade as true Islam‘ and be set up as the criterion by which all other readings of the Qur‘an are
judged. That charade is over. For example, why is your understanding of Tawhid and its relation (or not)
to Allah to be preferred over, say, that of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal? In rejecting a claim not too different
from yours made by the Jahmiyyah of his day who claimed that he and his Traditionalist Sunni colleagues
were polytheists because they affirmed the literal reality of Allah‘s many anthropomorphic Attributes
(Sifāt), Imam Ahmad said in his al-Radd ala l-zanadiqah wa l-jahmiyah:
―By saying that Allah was ever-existing in all His qualities, are we not truly describing the one
God in all His qualities? We gave the following example: Tell us about the palm tree. Is it not
made of stump, stem, fibre, foliage, leaves and pitch, and for all its attributes has it not one
name? Likewise, Allah, who is to be compared to what is loftiest, is one God in all His
qualities…And again, Allah referring to an infidel called al-Walid b. al-Walid b. al-Mughira al-
Makhzumi, said: ‗Leave me to deal with him who I created, one (wahid) (Q 74: 11)‘ The one so
named had eyes, ears, a tongue, lips, hands, feet and many members, and is yet named ‗wahid‘,
all his qualities notwithstanding. Likewise, Allah, who is to be compared to what is loftiest, is
with all His qualities one God.‖
The Islam of this paradigmatic Black Sheep included an understanding of Tawhid that could
accommodate an anthropomorphic deity with all of His anthropomorphic ‗parts‘. Forgive me Bro Salim if
I am inclined to privilege his understanding of Tawhid over yours. It‘s not personal, just academic.
Bro Imam Salim further opines:
―All of the verses of the Qur'an have their explicit meaning and implied meaning. We have the two
readings. The second reading becomes transcending, that is the ta'weel which is only known by Allah.
31