Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the ancient Mystery system or other doctrines, Allah tells Muslims to judge all things by the criteria of the Qur'an. What Muslim would leave the proofs of the Qur'an and pick up another doctrine in an attempt to refute or avoid what the Qur'an clearly says? Sura 2:16 says they trade guidance for error, but they realize it not.‖ This response is problematic on a number of grounds. First, the disagreement between Bro Mubaashir and myself over this issue is NOT whether the Qur‘an is the ultimate criterion of truth or not: we are both on that same page. Rather, the disagreement (from my perspective) is over whose understanding of the Qur‘an is consistent with its philological and traditio-historical context and thus should be privileged. Bro Mubaashir speaks of my alleged ―attempt to refute or avoid what the Qur‘an clearly says,‖ as if he has established (rather than just assumed) that Q 112:3 is a muhkam or clear verse and that he correctly understands the implications of its ‗clear‘ meaning. Even if we grant that ―He is unbegotten‖ is a clear statement – no one gave birth to Him - it does not follow that we necessarily understand exactly how this applies to Allah‘s divinity, nor does that mean that we can extrapolate from this ostensibly ―clear‖ statement and make other non-Qur‘anic claims about what Allah is or is not. Bro Mubaashir and others assume they can, but it is exactly these assumptions – not the Qur‘an – that I am refuting. What I have demonstrated with this example drawn from our Sacred Science of Kemet (not ―paganism‖ as Imam Salim calls it) is the spuriousness of the operating assumption in this orthodox reading of this verse that, because Allah is unbegotten, this necessarily proves that He is not anthropomorphic. This assumption is shown to be a logical fallacy when the Qur‘an is placed in its traditio-historical context, a context that includes the Sacred Science of Kemet. It is ironic that such an important intellectual from Imam W.D. Mohammed‘s community, Bro Mubaashir Uqdah, would take such objection to my invoking Kemetic Sacred Science to understand something in the Qur‘an. It is ironic because it was this very community that produced the late Baba Rafiq Bilal (d. November 28, 2008) who co-wrote with Thomas Goodwin the groundbreaking book, ―Egyptian Sacred Science in Islam: The Sacred Science of Ancient Egypt as revealed in Al-Islam (1987).‖ The great Professor Dr Wade Nobles, who wrote the forward to the book, says that it is a ―thoroughly supported bridge between Islam and the Ancient Kemetic understanding of the most Holy of Holies.‖ Despite my issues with some of the claims made in the work, it is a trailblazer and reflects most positively on the type of erudition that Imam W.D. Mohammed inspired in his followers. It is a travesty, in my opinion, that this work is not more well-known among that community, among the NOI, and among African American Muslims in general. According to Bilal and Goodwin‘s research, ―a serious study of the ancient religion of Egypt and the religion of al-Islam reveals the two to actually be different expressions of the same truths (p. 147)‖. The study of these two traditions convinced Bilal and Goodwin that: ―God Almighty presented essentially the same truths to the pre-historic Egyptians who built the fabulous civilization upon the principles of the Sacred Revelation, as He presented thousands of years later to Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah in the Holy Qur‘an. Holy Qur‘an is the purification and refinement of this ancient system of knowledge. The truth from God is one truth. In order to convey the body of knowledge which they received, the ancient Egyptians developed the most elaborate educational system in the history of man. Prophet Muhammad, the unlettered Prophet (the Umi Prophet) received and transmitted the same body of knowledge through revelation many thousands of years later…‖ Bilal and Goodwin document the nexus between the Qur‘anic lexicon and historiography and Kemetic Sacred Science. They document that: 40
―Within the pages of the Holy Qur‘an, wrapped in the ancient Arabic language are preserved the following aspects of Egyptian history and sacred science (among others): 1: Concept of God, Nature and Knowledge…‖ Bilal and Goodwin‘s discussion of the harmony between ancient Kemetic and Qur‘anic notions of God is of particular significance to our dialogue. They write: ―An examination of the earliest religious writings known to man, indicates that the original concept of monotheism was the Egyptian ‗Neter of Neters,‘ or ‗Great Principle,‘ or ‗Great God‘. This ‗Neter of Neters,‘ is often described as ‗unknowable‘ and ‗unseeable [rather: unseen]‘…In the earliest of texts, the archaic Egyptians give tribute to the ‗Great God‘ from which all creation emanated. The principles which ‗the Great God‘ created out of ‗Himself‘ are then named and placed in their proper place in creation. In the Papyrus of Nes-Amsu, British Museum (no. 10,188) a rendering of the creation in the Book of Knowing the Evolutions of Ra and of Overthrowing Apepi illuminates the earliest monotheism. In it, the Great God…says: ‗I am he who came into being in the form of the god Khepera and I was the Creator of everything which came into being; now when I HAD COME INTO BEING MYSELF, the things which I created and which came forth out of my mouth were very many…Heaven did not exist, and earth had not come into being and creeping things had not come into existence in that place and I raised them from out of Nu from a state of inactivity. I found no place there whereon I could stand. I worked a charm upon my own heart and I laid a foundation in Maat, and I made every form. I was One by Myself…there was no other being who worked with me‘.‖ Bilal and Goodwin follow this up with a quote from the early Egyptologist E Wallace Budge affirming that ‗Khepra‘, the name of a dung-beetle, symboliszed the Great God because, among other things, it represents the idea of self-production! Indeed, the idea of the Creator God, who was understood to be a divine anthropomorphic being, being self-produced was a prominent theme in this Kemetic Sacred Science. An inscription from the Theb. Tomb 157 reads: ―O Ra who gave birth to righteousness, sovereign who created all this, who built his (own) limbs, who molded his (own) body, who created himself, who gave birth to himself.‖ Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a perfect analogy to the God of the Qur‘an AND the Sunna, who is anthropomorphic, indeed a divine man (shakhs), but who is also unbegotten, i.e. self-originated. This nexus between ancient Egyptian Sacred Science and the Qur‘an documented by Bilal and Goodwin, as well as by the late great Cheikh Anta Diop, completely justify my decision to read Surat al-Ikhlas in the context of ancient Egyptian Sacred Science. I thus did not ―leave the proofs of the Qur'an and pick up another doctrine in an attempt to refute or avoid what the Qur'an clearly says,‖ as Bro Mubaashir alleges. Rather, I turned to an essential part of the traditio-historical context of the Qur‘an itself in order to shed some light on what Qur‘an says. And I make no apologies for doing so. Bro Mubaashir then raises some philosophical objections to my argument. He says, ―Think about it, what does it really mean to self-create yourself? First of all, if G-d is a man, a human being, where did he exist when he created himself? I mean, he would have to create himself, before he could create the universe and the earth with water and air so he could breathe. Did he float around in the abyss? I guess you could say that when he created himself, he created everything else at the same time. In this way, when he manifested, so did the earth, air, and water, so he had air to breathe and water to drink too. To say "he" created "himself' implies that "he" existed before creating "himself." The act of creation is an action and an action must have an actor or doer. Action cannot exist in a vacuum. Therefore, if "he" created, 41
Page 1 and 2: Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? The Long O
Page 3 and 4: ARGUMENT 1 First, Dr. Wesley refers
Page 5 and 6: your Allah is one Allah. So stand t
Page 7 and 8: "He ran the race." "He ran up the b
Page 9 and 10: He adds to his case by saying that
Page 11 and 12: Allah, only to turn around and say,
Page 13 and 14: In his review Bro Mubaashir display
Page 15 and 16: 1. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal affirmed t
Page 17 and 18: came to the Prophet as a young man.
Page 19 and 20: Sunna is a formless, invisible God
Page 21 and 22: Salaam Bro Dr Wesley Muhammad 3.] D
Page 23 and 24: ―When the Prophet tells his peopl
Page 25 and 26: This issue of the significance of t
Page 27 and 28: ―So if it is said (by the believe
Page 29 and 30: When Imam Mubaashir stated; ―As a
Page 31 and 32: 7.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response P
Page 33 and 34: ownership rights over this Islam th
Page 35 and 36: secondary meaning ―He manifested
Page 37 and 38: 9.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response P
Page 39: people say, ―He (God) is solid,
Page 43 and 44: Salaam 12.] Kyle J. Ismail -Respons
Page 45 and 46: 14.] Dr Wesley Muhammad Response As
Page 47 and 48: To negate an act of the past we may
Page 49 and 50: Fakhr al-Din Razi (d. 1209) who, am
Page 51 and 52: which He bestowed on Mary, and a sp
Page 53 and 54: After all, how could we believe thi
Page 55 and 56: things, whoever says any of which,
Page 57 and 58: We are all familiar with the Greek
Page 59 and 60: Your positions were well laid out a
Page 61 and 62: Muslim and thus was an advocate of
Page 63 and 64: different opinions between the Saha
Page 65 and 66: Ru‘ya, with one possible exceptio
Page 67 and 68: In the Pushkin State Museum of Fine
Page 69 and 70: the sociological enigma of the mode
Page 71 and 72: 23.] Imam Salim Mu‟min Response t

Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?