Shaka Ndugu Kemet et al and their White
Muslim Masters Humiliated (Again)
Greetings Wesley, I must correct
you as you have never, ever, humiliated me, it would
rather be the contrary, I'm talking about this
video, this is not
a matter of opinion, I refuted your own statements (claims,
allegations) with the Qur'an...
By Wesley Muhammad, PhD
I, along with Sis Dana Marniche and
Bro Tariq Berry, have been documenting with impeachable
sources the Africoid/black context of ethnic Arab peoples
in general and the Prophet Muhammad in particular.
Throwing names in the mix is cool,
however it seems like you need back up, a saying comes to mind "we
don't believe you, you need more people" (lol). It is said
that there are around a billion muslims in the world, not all are scholars/historians/phd's
of course but is that the best you can come with ?
3 persons (including
yourself)...
I have presented my
findings to both the academic and non-academic communities. I have
lectured on the subject at Michigan State University
before my academic peers,
Muslim/Arab and non-Muslim/Arab. That lecture is available in PDF format
on my professional site here:
http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/MSU_Lecture_Site.68174109.pdf
I am aware that the
field of your Doctorate Degree is "Islamic
Studies" but
for someone who not only deals with "Supreme Mathematic" but
also said that "Islam is Mathematic and Mathematic
is Islam" you are in need of an basic arithmetic
wake up call. The manuscript that "Prof. Debra
Higgs Strickland [...] suggests [...] is the image
of the
prophet Muhammad" is from the 14th century.
Muhammad ibn Abdullah is said to have died in the 7th
century. That's about 700 years later!
Then, regarding the Battle of Roncesvalles
that happened in 778,
you show a depiction
dating circa 1370. That
is about 600 years later!
By the way, about the "famous biography of
Muhammad", the author died
about 500 years after Muhammad.
We go from "Jet-black" (p.2) to "dark-brown
complexion" (p.8) when Muhammad ibn Abdullah
is described, which is an opportunity to ask if Dr. Wesley
Muhammad is able to produce a Classical Arabic quote
where Prophet Muhammad is referred with the word
"aswad" rather than words such as "dark", "brown" and
others alike...
It was inevitable that there would be
a backlash. The White Muhammad is to Islam what the
White Jesus is to Christianity: the religious sanction
of a vicious White Supremacy and racism that characterizes
the Muslim East as much as it does the Christian
West. As the whites who have reaped the benefits
of White
Supremacy in the Christian West have fought to preserve
the potency and pseudo-legitimacy of White Supremacy’s
primary religious symbol there, we should expect nothing
less from whites and near-whites who have reaped the
same or similar benefits in the Muslim world. Thus,
the attempt to preserve the potency and pseudo-legitimacy
of Islamic White Supremacy’s chief symbol – the
White Muhammad – against the recent barrage
of evidences that is quickly dethroning this symbol
was
to be expected.
The first real (and real pathetic) attempt in this regard has been accomplished
by an article co-authored by a Pakistani Muslim and a Romanian Muslim,
Waqar Akbar Cheema and Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani. The
article is entitled, “Exposing Wesley Muhammad on Prophet Muhammad's
Complexion: Refutation of NOI’s Racist Theology,” and can
be found both on the Canadian-based Islamic apologetics website, Islam
Dunk TV, here:
http://www.islamdunktv.com/2011/11/exposing-wesley-muhammad-on-prophet_05.html
and on Waqar’s page here,
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/11/wesley-racist-complexion-muhammad-noi.html
Waqar Akbar Cheema, the primary author
of this rather amateurish ‘refutation,’ is
a Pakistani Muslim who operates the Islamic apologetic
website, Let Me Turn The Tables. While he tries to
present himself as a scholar of Islam, his training
appears to be in software engineering, not Islamics.
As we shall see later, his linguistic training doesn’t
bolster his credentials as an ‘Islamic scholar’ either.
Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani
is, as his name suggests, a Romanian convert to Islam.
Nor is his training in Islamics or an equally relevant
field like history of religion, Arabic, etc. According
to his Facebook quasi-bio, he graduated from the University
of Windsor where he studied Bio - Psych and Education,
and he currently teaches in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
So these two are moonlighters in Islamic
scholarship. On the other hand, my training is Religious/Islamic
Studies. I have a BA in Religious Studies, a Masters
in Islamic Studies and a Doctorate in Islamic Studies.
While they are part-time ‘arm-chair’ Islamic
scholars, the entirety of my academic training and
extra-curricular study for the last twenty-one years
has been committed to Religious/Islamic studies. Their
amateurism shines clearly in this above referenced
pseudo-refutation.
Nevertheless, I recommend that everyone
interested in this subject read this ‘refutation’ by
Waqar and Gabriel. Read it, and then read my published
papers on the subject:
“Anyone who says that the Prophet
is black should be killed”: The De-Arabization
of Islam and the Transfiguration of Muhammad in Islamic
Tradition*
http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Muhammad_Article.170121832.pdf
Prophet Muhammad and the Black Arabs:
The Witness of Pre-Modern Chinese Sources
http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Muhammad_Black_Arabs_China_Site.187112134.pdf
I am currently preparing a point-by-point
refutation of this ‘refutation’ and expose
it’s amateurness.
But that is not the point of this writing
today. My interest today is not the white and wannabe-white
Muslim defenders of Islamic White Supremacy, it is
the Black ‘Afrocentrist’ defenders of Islamic
White Supremacy, the likes of Shaka Ndugu Kemet and
others who cling to the white and wannabe-whites’ apologias.
In Dr. Wesley Muhammad's 1st
article addressing me,
he almost spelled my name exatcly (Shaka Ndugu Kmt),
lately Wesley spells it "Shaka Ndugu Kemet" and
thought it is a detail, it is still my name so the
way I write it
have always been Shaka-Ndugu-KMT.
Wesley, as they say "don't hate the player, hate
the game", I am not a "defender of Islamic
White Supremacy", come on now (lol).
You might never change, when something doesn't suit
you you resort to unjustified unflattering labelling...
Shaka Ndugu Kemet happily promotes this Muslim White
Supremacy propaganda in a video he entitled: “Prophet
Muhammad was white: Wesley Muhammad refuted” (http://youtu.be/YkIIor1ZRxk).
Here we see Mr. Afrostyly salivating over the efforts
of white and near-white Muslims to preserve White Supremacy,
all because he has a Jones for Wesley Muhammad.
Wesley, you are recycling right
now, I do not have a "jones" for
no man, this kind of statement don't fit a Phd to
me, but suit yourself.
I guess
Shaka’s thinking is: ‘the enemy of my enemy
is my friend.’ But as we shall see, Bro Shaka
needs to pick better, more trust-worthy friends.
These people you are referring
to are not my friends, I don't know them and I have
never communicated with them as I type.
Nevertheless, they "stood up to the plate"
contrary to your friend who claims
that "Allah is in the Egyptian text" &
"Heru would be the same thing as Allah" but
won't subtantiate his "very
responsible Afrocentric scholarship" (lol).
The whole video is excerpts (with Shaka’s normal annoying commentary)
of Waqar and Gabriel’s article, the link to which is posted in the
description box. Poor Shaka swallowed these pro-White Supremacist tactics
hook, line, and sinker. He thinks (because he wants to) that they have ‘proven’ that
Muhammad was in fact a white man, and that my discussion of the Arabic word
abyad is incorrect. Poor Shaka’s glee is heard the loudest when, @
around 4:55, he quotes Waqar and Gabriel’s claim that I have misrepresented
an Arabic passage from the Syrian scholar al-Dhahabi, the key line - and
sticking point - of which is
which I have translated:
“When Arabs say, ‘so-and-so
is white (abyad),’ they mean a golden brown complexion
with a black appearance (al-hinti al-lawn bi-hilya
suda’)”
And which Waqar and Gabriel translate
“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’,
they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness
(hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda).”
Whose translation is right? Shaka does not know, because he does not know
Arabic. But he chooses to throw all of his support behind the errant
White Supremacist translation because he and the Muslim White Supremacists
both share the same agenda: deny Islam its, as Dr. Ben puts it, “indigenous
African origins.”
Dr. Ben, yes, the "N-word division"
does that ring a bell ? Don't worry, I will remind you during our upcoming
debate should it be finalized since I accepted your challenge...
Since Africans
are knowned to be the first humans on planet earth,
it would be endless to name what originates from them,
try harder to make a point that goes beyond the ordinary...
By the way, Dr. Ben said "Don't
go to Judaism, Christianity & Islam!"
Shaka placed his bet wrongly.
Wagar, the primary author of this ‘refutation’ and
the source of the above translation, does not yet know
Arabic sufficiently well by his own admission. It was
only in April, 2010 that Waqar posted the following
confession online:
“I know English and Urdu fully
but not so Arabic though over two years of extensive
reading has improved my vocabulary a lot and i've got
basic understanding of grammar as well. Hopefully this
summers I take some proper course to improve.”
You see Shaka, Waqar is an amateur in Arabic. He only moonlights as an ‘Islamic
scholar’, for he has no official training in that either. On the other
hand, I have a doctorate in Islamic Studies. I was trained in Classical Arabic,
Modern Hebrew, German, French, and English. I began formal training in Arabic
in 1999. I was reading Classical Arabic texts independently since 2002-2003.
So this is the situation: Shaka privileges the translation of an amateur
in Arabic and Islamic Studies who is committed to preserving the White Supremacy
in Islam against the translation of a professional and peer-reviewed Islamic
scholar with formal training in Arabic, who happens to be his Black brother
and helper in the intellectual fight against global White Supremacy. As is
obvious, Shaka’s decision was totally personal (against me) and ideological
(against Islam). My historical-critical work on Islam has been per-reviewed
and praised within the Academy and without. I have been invited with other
world-renowned scholars to contribute to the highly anticipated Encyclopedia
of Muhammad. The publishers’ invitation to me read in part:
“It would be an absolute delight
if you could contribute towards the volume, even if
your commitments only permit you to make a modest contribution.
The remit of the book is remarkably wide with several
aspects of the volume are specifically related to your
specialism...The volume has attracted interest and
commitments from a large number of leading scholars
and we would be delighted if a leading scholar such
as yourself could also support the project.”
Wesley,
I'm sorry to tell you that but you "sound" like
a sore loser, stating your credentials and your
invitation to make a contribution is not "stepping
up to the plate", why don't you just refute
the
"amateurs" ? (lol)
Allah hates the braying of an ass. I don’t write these words in order
to be vainglorious, but only to highlight the profound subjectivity involved
in Shaka’s salivating over the ‘refutation’ of amateur
Islamic ‘scholars’ (which he can’t judge) over the work
of his brother (which he can’t judge) who IS a recognized and respected
scholar in Islamic Studies. This only clarifies what we already knew: Shaka
is NO scholar. He, like his buddies Waqar and Gabriel, is an amateur who
judges material not based on merit but, like them, based totally on ideology
and personal Joneses. He has completely discredited himself with this latest
salvo and is undeserving of being taken serious ever again. In as much as
Shaka Ndugu Kemet has here effectively ended his pseudo-scholarly career,
I will no more dignify him with a response.
Let me ge this straight Dr. Wesley
Muhammad, you mean to tell me that you will no longer respond to me, ok but
does that
mean on this particular issue that you are writting about or even our agreed
upcoming formal public discussion ?
I know you don't me to tell me that you are so mad
that I quoted an article that you have yet to refute while repeatedly labelling
it as "amaturism" (it should have been even quicker to deal with it), that you
just want to run away from facing me on stage.
I know you're not going to use this as an excuse because the pressure might be
building
up! After our phone
conversation, I have been very careful
when addressing you (even to the point of saying "this is not an attack") just
so that I won't leave room for such kind of escape route...
Speaking more generally, Dr. Yosef Ben
Yochannan, in his trail-brazing work, The African Origin
of the Major ‘Western’ Religions, wrote:
“Africans were involved in Islam’s
creation…But, the Moslem Arabs…have been
for some time recently teaching a sort of religious
history in which the indigenous Africans find themselves
omitted from the historical role they played in Islam’s
origins. They are also excluded from the highest posts
of the administration of Islam in Mecca, which they
had traditionally held from the beginning of Islam
with the Prophet Mohamet, and Hadzart Bila Ibn Rahab…Islam
was no better than Judaism and Christianity, as its
modern administrators attempted to eliminate its indigenous
African founders from the eyes of the faithful, and
the world in general. But history, written history,
once more acted in her own way, and mannerism, as it
clamoured, once again, for Islam’s indigenous
African originators.”
When
did Dr. Ben write that ? It was maybe before he told
Black people not to go to Abrahamic religions. Dr. Ben
also wrote a book entitled "We,the Black Jews"
but he later said "I
followed the Hebrew religion till I got big enough to
know better".
History is indeed clamoring today for Islam’s
indigenous African originators, and any Afrika-centered/Afrocentrist
support given to the desperate and facile
attempts by white and wanna-be white Muslims to stay the hand of history
and preserve the White Supremacy in Islam is as self-contradictory as a
Black Ku-Klux Klansman. Those of us who have studied
and are familiar with the
history of the controversies over Kemet (Ancient Egypt) should be well-schooled
in these tactics and thus not fall victim to them. As the White Muhammad
is the darling of Islamic White Supremacy, White Egypt was the darling
of Western historicist White Supremacy. The path
of uncovering the indigenous
African origins of Islam has been remarkably similar to the path trod in
uncovering the indigenous African origins of Kemet.
The West held up Egypt as the greatest
of white civilizations and thus laid claim to the epitome
of civilizational and intellectual excellence in the
Old World. But the phenomenal work of our great scholars,
most particularly the great Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop, has
effectively snatched Kemet out of the clutches of White
Supremacy by documenting its “indigenous African
origins.” But White Supremacy will ALWAYS fight
back. And so there are attempted ‘refutations’ of
the work of these Africa-centered scholars, such as
Mary Lefkowitz’s Not Out Of Africa: How "Afrocentrism" Became
An Excuse To Teach Myth As History. And despite the
convincing documentation of these warrior scholars,
the ‘scholarly/scientific’ attempt to paint
Kemet as a white civilization continues today. This
is seen most clearly in the case of the King Tut Exhibit
controversy. The world-traveling exhibit, which began
in 2007, featured a forensically reconstructed bust
of the famous boy-king of the 18th Dynasty. The controversy?
The bust was that of a very Caucasianesque King Tut.
The bust was the fruits of the work of three independent teams of forensic
artists and physical anthropologists from Egypt, France and the US. The
bust was created based on data derived from a CT-scan of Tut’s
mummy conducted in 2005. This bust was featured on the cover of National
Geographic Magazine in 2005.
Ironically, the CT-scan data gave no justification for a Caucasian King Tut.
According to Susan Anton, biological anthropologist who led the American
team, the shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African cranium. The
nose of the Tut skull, she said, was likely narrow, but this is not an
un-African trait as many ethnologists have demonstrated. In as much as
it is impossible to determine skin color and eye color from CT-scan data,
the artists’ decision to provide Tut with what they called ‘flesh-colored’ skin,
by which they mean ‘white flesh-colored,’ and hazel eyes
is arbitrary in the extreme.
Now, Africa-centered scholars such as
Diop and Dr. Chancellor Williams had argued that King
Tut was Black. The CT-scan data supports this claim
by suggesting Tut’s indigenous Africaness. In
2010, Dr. Zahi Hawass, head of Egyptian Supreme Council
of Antiquities and leader of the Egyptian bust-team
as well as leader of the whole reconstruction effort,
published a study on Tut’s lineage and cause
of death which added further weight to the claims of
Tut’s Africanness. Hawass’s study affirmed
that the boy king’s father was likely the so-called ‘heretic
king’ Akhenaton, and his grandmother was Queen
Tiye. Both of these are clearly African individuals,
giving Tut himself an undoubted African pedigree.
Akhenaten
Queen Tiye
Yet, when pressed in 2007 to comment on the controversy over the reconstructed
bust, Hawass infamously declared:
“Tutankhamun was not black, and
the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilization as black
has no element of truth…[Ancient] Egyptians are
not Arabs and are not Africans, despite the fact that
Egyptian is in Africa.”
Dr. Zahi Hawass
None of the Africa-centered scholars salivated over Hawass’s, Mary
Lefkowitz’s or other ‘deniers’ denials, even though they
have credentials. Nor should they. Why then accept the denials of Muslim
deniers who lack any relevant credentials? Are Shaka and others subconscious
victims of the White Supremacy/Black Inferiority complex: the unqualified
word of amateur whites and wannabe whites isipso facto more legitimate than
the qualified, credentialed, peer-recognized scholarship of their Black brother?
With all of their ‘Africa’ talk,
some of these people turn out to be closet White Supremacists
themselves.
Now I have talked about Shaka Ndugu
Kemet here, but this Note is not really about him.
"Not really" except that the
sub-title says "Shaka
Ndugu Kemet et al and their White Muslim Masters Humiliated".
There's allegation and there's fact,
the article speaks for himself and I don't mind if
anyone
addresses me, however I find it strange when they act
like they don't.
He represents a thinking and a practice that is unfortunately
too common among some Africa-centered/Afrocentrist
circles today. He may be one of the few loud and shameless
ones, but his is not a minority opinion, even if his
methods are frowned upon.
True Africa-centered scholars and students
- and I definately count myself among that circle -
embrace any and all success in reclaiming another of
Africa's stolen legacies, regardless of our ideology.
History's effort to reveal the indegenous African origins
of Islam today is no greater and no lesser a time of
thanks than was/is her successful (but not yet globally
recognized) efforts to reveal through our great scholars
Kemet's indegenous African origins.
It's hard to
believe that after all that talk, no rebuttal whatsoever
has been presented, even though it has been noted that
Dr. Wesley Muhammad claimed to be "currently
preparing a point-by-point refutation" I
personally though that he would at least come up with
something, especially by the tone of his article. The
same Wesley Muhammad who urged his peers to "pull
up or shut up" is not practicing what he
preaches. Wesley, you are kind of lowering the authors
of the article that I've quoted, and even myself since
you cleary wrote that I am "NO scholar" (capitals
NOT for emphasis), while highlighting your credentials
but you leave it there. That's not a good look. Regarding
you saying that you won't repsond to me, I will put
that on anger, I might call you again shortly but not
too soon because you need to calm down. Because I know
you are not running from our debate that YOU requested
(you "put it out" publicly as you wrote).
And once again even though it is not finalized at this
stage,
it's
only because the timeframe that I proposed and that
you agreed with is not in the near future, for preparation's
purpouses...
Lastly, when you wrote
your article "Kemet's Prison: A Note on the Problem
of Giving Blind Deference to Our Master Teachers",
I didn't trip.
1) I smiled at the fact
that you went from trying to show "slavery in Kemet"
to "prisons in Kemet".
2) You addressed
John Henrik Clarke, I agree that we should not give
blind deference
to him (or anyone else) just like you should not
give blind deference to Elijah Muhammad (from whom
you are
refusing
to admit
mistakes and contradictions), so do not give blind
deference to yourself.
Wesley
Muhammad refuted by Shaka
My
videos about Wesley Muhammad
Wesley's
1st article about Shaka
