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