The Sophistry of Dr. Ben on Islam

The book The African Origins Western Religions, Dr. Ben states that “Religion is the deification of culture.” This statement while not without merit is inadequate for understanding Islam. It is true that all religions have a cultural and historical context from which they emerge. However, this does not always translate to deification. The Arabs fought against Islam and inherent to the message of the faith are statements from the Prophet (pbuh) himself that explicitly renounce Arab supremacy. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his final sermon khutbat ul wada declared that “There is no superiority of the Arab over the non-Arab nor any superiority of the non-Arab over the Arab.” The Arabs violently opposed Muhammad (pbuh) because of his message, and his tribe offered him the position of king if he recanted. If Islam was merely an act of nationalism, then why did he reject their offer? It would have been an easier path to power. Also, why did the Arabs oppose it so vehemently on the grounds that it disrespected the religion of their ancestors? Such shallow origin theories about Islam can only be described as lazy and clumsy. There are easier and more effective ways of launching a nationalist movement. Why go through the trouble of creating a 114-chapter book without the ability to read and write, just to unite combative Arab tribes who fought you every step of the way and offered to give you the power they claim he sought if he stopped his religious movement?

Dr. Ben also alleges that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) started a new religion to get rich but the Prophet (pbuh) was poor throughout his mission and died in such a state. In fact, his material lifestyle was diminished as a result of his prophethood. He was married to a wealthy business woman and upon announcing his prophethood they lost everything. Even having to flee Mecca. We learn in the ahadith that it was forbidden for the Prophet (pbuh) to receive charity. If Muhammad (pbuh) invented Islam for worldly gain, why then would he impose restrictions on himself from attaining such gain?

Where is this nationalist impulse in the Quran? Where is the cultural imperialism in the ahadith? These books state that all of humanity are the descendants of two non-Arabs Adam and Eve and so humanity is one. If the Quran were an Arab nationalist book, would it not have said that all Arabs have a common ancestor? The Unlettered Prophet is described as a Mercy to all of mankind. In surah Al-Hujjurat, it says: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (49:13) Again, following Ben’s logic that this is an Arab nationalist book, why then does it not say ‘O Arab’ instead of mankind? Aside from the basic fact that this statement is in Arabic, neither this verse or any other in the entire book can be interpreted as apotheosis of Arab culture.

There is an iteration that ‘There is no Islam without Arabic and there is no Arabic without the Arabs.’ This statement recognizes that there is a cultural context in which the religion emerged but even in regards to this association the Arabs are denied superiority. Regarding the native speaker, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “Verily the one who recites the Qur’an beautifully, smoothly, and precisely, he will be in the company of the noble and obedient angels. And as for the one who recites with difficulty, stammering or stumbling through its verses, then he will have twice that reward.” The Arabic language is privileged as the language of the Quran, but the native Arabic speaker is not. In this hadith the foreigner is actually being elevated above the native. This is diametrically opposed to Arab nationalism.

Lastly, Islam as a social movement made war on Arab culture and the Arabs made war against Islam. Each Arab tribe had their own deity. These dieties filled the Ka’aba. When Muhammad (pbuh) conquered Mecca his companions, many of whom were not Arab, destroyed the tribal dieties. It was pre-Islamic Arab religion deified Arab culture and it was Islam that launched an assault on their cultural idolatry. The Arabs opposed Islam precisely for this reason.

The cynical answer to the afore-questions is that Muhammad (pbuh) had designs on conquering the whole world under the banner of Islam and therefore to bring humanity under the thumb of the Arab race, but this never happened. As stated the followers of Muhammad (pbuh) were not all Arab but were former slaves, Ethiopians, Persians, and Caucasians. The wars between the Muslims and the unbelievers in Arabia were literally wars between the pagan Arabs and the ethnically diverse Muslims. These wars disrupted Arab ethnocracy. And of course there are the admonishments that Muhammad (pbuh) gave to the Arabs such as in the Khuṭbatu l-Wadā known as the ‘Last Sermon.’ He said: “O people, your Lord is One, and your father is one: all of you are from Adam, and Adam was from the ground. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most God fearing: Arab has no merit over non-Arab, other than godfearingness.” The Arabs’ hostility toward Muhammad (pbuh), the heavy non-Arab presence among Muhammad’s (pbuh) companions (most of which were Africans), its privileging the foreign tongue over the Arabic native, the racial inclusiveness of the Quranic message, and the explicit renunciation of ethnic and racial supremacy in the hadith make these claims about Islam being Arab nationalism ludicrous. After all, the religion was first welcomed and given safe haven in Africa while the Arabs tried to squelch it.