Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

―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