Post by osmansharif on Nov 15, 2011 15:03:59 GMT -5
Allah and Amun-Ra: Slave Gods?
By Dr Wesley Muhammad (c) 2011
Chancellor Williams and Yusef Ben Jochannan, among other Africentrist scholars, have insisted in the past that Islam is, viz-a- viz African Peoples, a slave religion. The claim is generally that African peoples are Muslims today primarily because Arab Muslims were deeply involved in the African slave-trade. While the latter point is certainly true and of great significance, it is not the case that Islam was first encountered by African peoples through the Arab slave-trade. First, as was demonstrated, African peoples originated Islam in Arabia and brought it back to Africa in the 7th century. Secondly, there was relatively minimal forced conversion to Islam of Africans on the mainland before the 19th century. Before then the religion - apart from the empire – spread throughout Africa rather peacefully.
The institution of slavery is found throughout the ancient world and existed in traditional African society from antiquity to the modern world. It thus comes as no surprise that it is found in North East Africa, i.e. Arabia, at the time of Muhammad. The Qur’an assumes its existence and does not ban it outright. Apparently like Ma'at of ancient Egypt, Islam was not deemed incompatible with the institution. Instead, like the Egyptian ‘Negative Confessions’ which stipulated proper 'Maatic' behavior with regard to (among other things) slaves, the Qur’an does "enunciate precepts and injunctions aimed at mitigating the condition and encouraging manumission." The early Muslims therefore did, like other Africans, participate in the institution. But there is something very important regarding this early Muslim practice of slavery which often goes unnoticed: the preferred slaves for these African (Black Muslims) were whites. As Dana Marniche explains:
“¼people that were fair-skinned were recognized by Arabs as descendants of subject peoples and slaves¼ the idea of blacks in Africa being the predominant slaves of the Arabs comes from not knowing the history of the peninsula or in fact not being able to read Arabic, otherwise it would have been recognized that the Arabs were usually designated as "black" and "dark brown"¼ We know the Arabs were so predominantly black in color that even the term "white" in earlier days, according to Arabic linguistic specialists ¼ meant a black man with a clear skin¼ On the other hand many black Africans have been brought into Arabia as slaves more recently in the last several centuries. Many of the people that were taking black slaves from Africa were in fact not Arabs in the strict sense of the word but rather Muslim Iranians, Iraqis, [Turks], "white" Syrians and other "Arabized" settlers or inhabitants in the Near East, Arabia and North Africa¼Most slaves¼before the fall of Constantinople (Istanbul) in the 15th century were "whites" coming from the north and mixing with the very dark-skinned black and near black groups of people known as "Arabs" in Spain, North Africa and the Near East. ¼thus, many Arabic speaking historians asserted up until the 14th century that the Arabs equated slave origins with fair skin or vice versa.”
The Muslim slave trade from Africa, to the extent that it happened in the early period, "involved a steady but relatively small flow over a millennium." The more the Islamic world was Aryanized, however, the more the newly introduced anti-black sentiments shaped the institution of slavery in the Muslim world, until eventually (by the seventeenth century) the term 'slave', ‘abid, came to mean 'Black person'. The horrible 'East African Holocaust,' as the East African Slave Trade in the hands of Muslims has been called, was dominated by those 'Arabized' whites noted by Marniche, such as the notorious Omani ruler Sayyid Said b. Sultan (d. 1856) who controlled the East African trade from Zanzibar in the 19th century. The East African Holocaust, therefore, was not the result of the Islamization of Africa, but of the Aryanization of Islam.
While some pro-Black ‘Black Arabs’ were involved in the enslavement of other Africans, I have in the past noted that this should be seen in the context of the broader phenomenon of the indigenous African institution of slavery that goes as far back as ancient Kemet. I have documented that ancient Black Egyptians (Kemetians) enslaved other Africans (e.g. Nubians) in the name of Amun-Ra (see www.theblackgod.com/Kemet%20Reality%20vs%20Romanticism.pdf ). My point is not to apologize for the institution of slavery, either Muslim or Yoruba or Kemetic. My point is to highlight the double standard and self-contradiction of a pillar of the Afrocentrist critique of Islam.
Recently a good brother who does, as far as I can tell, very responsible Afrocentric scholarship, offered the following challenge to my argument. His challenge was actually to the case I made in the following video clips:
youtu.be/sngrlDb7z3o
youtu.be/asLdCWWTrJA
I post my Brother’s challenge here and my response:
Challenge:
“there is a definite critique that could be laid in the original lecture which I think many understand intuitively, but cannot articulate intellectually. The primary critique that many African-Centered individuals have against the Abrahamic faiths is that slavery is promoted and sanctioned by the Creator (God) or the primary prophets of those traditions. Given the quote in the lecture in the first link by Pharoah Thutmose III, one couldn't argue, given the data presented at the lecture, that Amen-Ra sanctions or approves such activities. The dialogue in the text is given by Thutmose, not Amen-Ra. So the response would be, well that's Thutmose speaking; who said that he was "the" representative of Amen-Ra (Amandla in many African languages)? In other words, this could be argued to be the speech of an individual (not of a spiritual tradition) who invokes the name of God during a time of war. Thutmose III is not presented as a priest, but an Army general and political leader. This is expected language from a leader of a military during a time of war. So for the equation to be balanced, one would have to find primary Egyptian texts in which God (imn-ra, Hrw-Wr, Wsr/jsr, mA'a.t, etc.) sanctions or commands such actions.
So while there was definitely Black African on Black African war and atrocities, one can't argue that the promotion of one's religion was the reason for the actions. This is at the heart of the debate. Because if people feel compelled to murder, war, loot, pillage, etc., because "God" said so, what recourse do you have against God? How do you make God responsible for giving the order? It's different to charge an individual up like Hitler. We understand that Hitler acted alone, although he invoked God often. However, one would be hard pressed to argue God commanded Hitler to commit genocide. That's not the case Biblically speaking, for example, and it is this which is the issue; not whether Blacks kill other Blacks.”
My Response:
Peace Brother. I appreciate your comments. I absolutely agree with you when you admit that “untrained methods such as (Shaka Ndugu Kemet’s) gives Afrocentricity a bad name.” Afrocentric scholarship – and I like to think that I am a contributor to this – must be more sound and critical in its methodologies. Even some conclusions of such luminaries as Dr Clarke and Dr Ben must be reconsidered and revised in as much as they were founded on quite unsound methodological principles. What the likes of such E-scholars like Shaka and others do makes a mockery of what those men (i.e. Dr Ben, Dr Clarke, etc.) have done and contributed. But true Afrocentric scholars need to speak up (as you have) and disown these people and their ‘scholarship’. As a Muslim scholar (as well), I make a point to disclaim the dogmatic Muslim ‘scholarship’ that is out there – both Black Muslim and so-called Orthodox scholarship. It too is more often than not completely lacking in sound methodology.
While I understand your critique of the points I made in my lecture and appreciate you addressing what I actually said rather than a twisted sound-bite, I respectfully disagree with your critique. I believe it inadequately and unfairly represents both the so-called ‘Abrahamic traditions’, in particular the Qur’an’s and Muhammad’s position, as well as the ‘Ma’atic’ tradition.
You say Beloved:
“The primary critique that many African-Centered individuals have against the Abrahamic faiths is that slavery is promoted and sanctioned by the Creator (God) or the primary prophets of those traditions. Given the quote in the lecture in the first link by Pharoah Thutmose III, one couldn't argue, given the data presented at the lecture, that Amen-Ra sanctions or approves such activities. The dialogue in the text is given by Thutmose, not Amen-Ra. So the response would be, well that's Thutmose speaking; who said that he was "the" representative of Amen-Ra (Amandla in many African languages)? In other words, this could be argued to be the speech of an individual (not of a spiritual tradition) who invokes the name of God during a time of war.”
There are a number of problems with this critique.
1.] It unjustly insinuates that the Qur’an and Muhammad promote and sanction the enslavement of Black people, which was the point of my talk. Nowhere in the Qur’an is the enslavement of Black people “promoted and sanctioned”. Yes, it tacitly approves the general institution of slavery by stipulating well-treatment of slaves; but so does Ma’at. In the Papyrus of Nu, one who enters the Hall of Ma’at must declare his innocence of a number of sins, including confessing: “I have not vilified a slave to his master”. Here, like in the Qur’an, the legitimate existence of the institution is assumed, and only improper treatment of slaves is proscribed. But nowhere in the Qur’an is there the slightest advocacy of the enslavement of Black people. Regarding statements put in the mouth of Muhammad via hadith, both positions are attributed to him: there are those racist statements advocating enslaving Blacks attributed to him by slave making Muslims of the medieval period. There are also anti-racist, pro-black statements attribute to him. Each statement must be critically analyzed on its own terms to trace its origin and determine its authenticity. But the conflicting positions and ambivalence precludes our making the claim that Muhammad “promoted and sanctioned” the enslavement of African people. The Qur’an never did.
2.] The distinction you draw between the alleged position of “the Creator (God) or the primary prophets” on the one hand and the actions and statements of the Egyptian Pharoah on the other, is methodologically flawed. Firstly, from a strictly historical-critical perspective, the Qur’an and the Ma’atic texts of Kemet are of the same nature: they are the both alleged ‘Divine Words’ written by men (and women?) who believe in the God(s). Thus, critically speaking, the Qur’an as we have it cannot be said to be the articulated position of “the Creator (God),” only the position attributed to God by recorders and transmitters of the messages Muhammad believed he received from God. This, again, narrows the differential gap between the Qur’an and, for example, the Pyramid Texts. Both are, ultimately, the words of men in the name of the gods.
Second, the pharaoh is not less but more of a representative of Ma’at and the Gods, e.g. Ra/Heru, than Muhammad is a representative of Allah. The Pharoah, as the very House of God and God incarnate, is a representative of the will of the gods in a way Muhammad is only claimed to be much later in the development of Islam when, under the influence of mystical hagiographies, he becomes an exaggerated saint. Thus, what the Phoroahs do in the name of the Gods is much more indicative – from the Ma’atic perspective – of the will of the Gods than what you suggest Beloved. Statements and activities of Tuthmose III in the name of Amen-Ra is even more relevant to the discussion I initiated than is the statements and activities of later Muslims, mainly (though not exclusively) white converts to the religion. Now, as you correctly pointed out in a footnote to your comment, in my lecture I quote the statement of Djhty, one of Thutmose III’s generals, rather than the words of the Pharoah himself. In this case your words here may have some force: “In other words, this could be argued to be the speech of an individual (not of a spiritual tradition) who invokes the name of God during a time of war.”
However, this ideology of Amun-Ra as the real conqueror and enslaver of Nubia was very poetically articulated by the pharaoh himself on the walls of the Great Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnack. The Poetic Stela of Thutmose III, a black granite stela now in the Cairo Museum, celebrates and gives context to Thutmose III’s conquests. The god Amun-Ra is presented affirming to the king that his military successes are all the work of the God, including the brutal slaying of the conquered peoples. The Pharoah (God incarnate) declares:
This ideology of Amun-Ra as the real conqueror and enslaver of Nubia was very poetically laid out on the walls of the Great Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnack. The Poetic Stela of Thutmose III, a black granite stela now in the Cairo Museum, celebrates and gives context to Thutmose III’s conquests. The god Amun-Ra is presented affirming to the king that his military successes are all the work of the god, including the brutal slaying of the conquered peoples:
“Thus speaks Amun-Ra, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands…
“My son, my defender, Men-Kheper-Ra (prenomen of Thutmose III)…
I shall establish your power and the awe of you in all the nations…
The nobles of every foreign land will be united in your fist…
I shall shackle the Nubian archers by ten thousands of thousands.
And the men of the North by hundreds of thousands of captives…
I have come to empower you to crush the eastern lands:
You will tread down those who dwell in the regions of God’s Land (Ta-Neter)…
I have come to empower you to crush the bowmen (of Nubia); Nubia as far as Shat in your possession.”
Here, the words of the God himself are inscribed in his holy temple, and he is empowering the Pharoah Tuthmose to crush and enslave Nubians. Where are there similar words of Allah? Not in the Qur’an. In what Masjid will we find Allah’s words inscribed empowering a caliph to crush and enslave the Sudan? Nowhere.
Not only do we have these inscribed divine words of the God Amun-Ra, we have pictorial depictions of the God receiving slaves. In a XII Dynasty mural from Medinet Habu, Thebes, Pharoah Ramesses III is depicted presenting to Amun-Ra Libyan and Levantine prisoners of war to be used a slaves on temple grounds and elsewhere (See photo). It must be emphasized that these were mainly Black captives, as the Levant was still a Black land at this time. Where is there a similar depiction of Allah receiving black slaves from a caliph or sultan?
There were times when the Temple of Amun became the seat of oppression in Nubia. A decree of the Pepy I (c. 2325 BCE), the third pharaoh of the VI Dynasty, prohibited Nubians from entering the temples. On the Shrine Stella of Ineny (c. 1350), mayor of Thebes under the XVIII Dynasty king Thutmose I, Ineny mentions seeing Nubian captives given “to the endowment of Amun at the time when wretched Kush was overthrown.”
Also informative is the Semna Inscription of the viceroy Merimose of the XVIII Dynasty, under Amenhotep III (1402-1364 BCE), speaking of a campaign into Nubia that resulted in slaughter and enslavement, all in the name of Amun and Heru:
“The might of Nibmatre took them in one day, in one hour, making a great slaughter … not one of them escaped; each one of them was brought … The might of Amenhotep took them; the barbarians among them, male as well as female, were not separated; by the plan of Horus, Lord of the Two Lands, King Nibmatre, mighty bull, strong in might. Ibhet had been haughty, great things were in their hearts, (but) the fierce-eyed lion, this ruler, he slew them by command of Amun-Atum, his august father; it was he who led him in might and victory.”
There is then listed an inventory of spoils from this military campaign COMMANDED by Amun-Atum and planed by Heru, Lord of the Two Lands:
“List of the captivity which his majesty took in the land of Ibhet, the wretched:
Living Kushites 150 heads
Archers 110 heads
Kushite women 250 heads
Servants of the Kushites 55 heads
Their children 175 heads
Total 740 living heads
Hands thereof 312
United with the living heads 105242”
You say Brother:
“So while there was definitely Black African on Black African war and atrocities, one can't argue that the promotion of one's religion was the reason for the actions. This is at the heart of the debate. Because if people feel compelled to murder, war, loot, pillage, etc., because "God" said so, what recourse do you have against God? How do you make God responsible for giving the order?”
Nowhere in the Qur’an does God (or the human speakers for him) gives such an order. We do find, however, Persian Muslim literature of the 10-11th centuries that claims that Allah wants Blacks dead, for they/we are the enemies of God and Islam. But we cannot say on this basis that “Creator (God) and primary prophets” of Islam “promotes and sanctions” the enslavement of Black Africans. We have much more authoritative Kemetic sources explicitly depicting Amun-Ra “compelling murder, war, loot, pillage, etc,” than we have in Islam. So, a much stronger case can be made for Amun-Ra as a slave God, than can be made for Allah. However, I don’t make either claim. This is the claim I made:
“Just as the Church in the American South and the Masjid in Zanzibar were centers of African slavery and seats of oppression, so too were the Temples of Amun both in Nubia and in Kemet. In these texts and images the god Amun-Ra is directly linked to the enslavement and slaughter of African peoples (Nubians), in much the same way Christ Jesus will be in the hands of the European traffickers in enslaved Africans and justifiers of the practice. If anyone can be called a ‘slave-god,’ it is certainly this god! Yet, that would be a very irresponsible position to hold. Because murderers invoked the god does not mean the god himself is a murderer! This logic will no doubt immediately resonate with most people. However, when it comes to Islam and Allah, the logic is inoperative with much of these same people. Allah is held responsible for all of the evil deeds of those that say they believe in him. This is a double standard that must be exposed and done away with. If Ma’at and Amun-Ra should not be judged on the basis of the anti-African, murderous and enslaving policies of Tutankhamun, then Allah and Islam should not be judged on the basis of the slaving practices of Sayyid Said b. Sultan, the notorious Omani Arab who controlled the “East African Holocaust,” i.e 19th century CE slave trade based in Zanzibar.”
By Dr Wesley Muhammad (c) 2011
Chancellor Williams and Yusef Ben Jochannan, among other Africentrist scholars, have insisted in the past that Islam is, viz-a- viz African Peoples, a slave religion. The claim is generally that African peoples are Muslims today primarily because Arab Muslims were deeply involved in the African slave-trade. While the latter point is certainly true and of great significance, it is not the case that Islam was first encountered by African peoples through the Arab slave-trade. First, as was demonstrated, African peoples originated Islam in Arabia and brought it back to Africa in the 7th century. Secondly, there was relatively minimal forced conversion to Islam of Africans on the mainland before the 19th century. Before then the religion - apart from the empire – spread throughout Africa rather peacefully.
The institution of slavery is found throughout the ancient world and existed in traditional African society from antiquity to the modern world. It thus comes as no surprise that it is found in North East Africa, i.e. Arabia, at the time of Muhammad. The Qur’an assumes its existence and does not ban it outright. Apparently like Ma'at of ancient Egypt, Islam was not deemed incompatible with the institution. Instead, like the Egyptian ‘Negative Confessions’ which stipulated proper 'Maatic' behavior with regard to (among other things) slaves, the Qur’an does "enunciate precepts and injunctions aimed at mitigating the condition and encouraging manumission." The early Muslims therefore did, like other Africans, participate in the institution. But there is something very important regarding this early Muslim practice of slavery which often goes unnoticed: the preferred slaves for these African (Black Muslims) were whites. As Dana Marniche explains:
“¼people that were fair-skinned were recognized by Arabs as descendants of subject peoples and slaves¼ the idea of blacks in Africa being the predominant slaves of the Arabs comes from not knowing the history of the peninsula or in fact not being able to read Arabic, otherwise it would have been recognized that the Arabs were usually designated as "black" and "dark brown"¼ We know the Arabs were so predominantly black in color that even the term "white" in earlier days, according to Arabic linguistic specialists ¼ meant a black man with a clear skin¼ On the other hand many black Africans have been brought into Arabia as slaves more recently in the last several centuries. Many of the people that were taking black slaves from Africa were in fact not Arabs in the strict sense of the word but rather Muslim Iranians, Iraqis, [Turks], "white" Syrians and other "Arabized" settlers or inhabitants in the Near East, Arabia and North Africa¼Most slaves¼before the fall of Constantinople (Istanbul) in the 15th century were "whites" coming from the north and mixing with the very dark-skinned black and near black groups of people known as "Arabs" in Spain, North Africa and the Near East. ¼thus, many Arabic speaking historians asserted up until the 14th century that the Arabs equated slave origins with fair skin or vice versa.”
The Muslim slave trade from Africa, to the extent that it happened in the early period, "involved a steady but relatively small flow over a millennium." The more the Islamic world was Aryanized, however, the more the newly introduced anti-black sentiments shaped the institution of slavery in the Muslim world, until eventually (by the seventeenth century) the term 'slave', ‘abid, came to mean 'Black person'. The horrible 'East African Holocaust,' as the East African Slave Trade in the hands of Muslims has been called, was dominated by those 'Arabized' whites noted by Marniche, such as the notorious Omani ruler Sayyid Said b. Sultan (d. 1856) who controlled the East African trade from Zanzibar in the 19th century. The East African Holocaust, therefore, was not the result of the Islamization of Africa, but of the Aryanization of Islam.
While some pro-Black ‘Black Arabs’ were involved in the enslavement of other Africans, I have in the past noted that this should be seen in the context of the broader phenomenon of the indigenous African institution of slavery that goes as far back as ancient Kemet. I have documented that ancient Black Egyptians (Kemetians) enslaved other Africans (e.g. Nubians) in the name of Amun-Ra (see www.theblackgod.com/Kemet%20Reality%20vs%20Romanticism.pdf ). My point is not to apologize for the institution of slavery, either Muslim or Yoruba or Kemetic. My point is to highlight the double standard and self-contradiction of a pillar of the Afrocentrist critique of Islam.
Recently a good brother who does, as far as I can tell, very responsible Afrocentric scholarship, offered the following challenge to my argument. His challenge was actually to the case I made in the following video clips:
youtu.be/sngrlDb7z3o
youtu.be/asLdCWWTrJA
I post my Brother’s challenge here and my response:
Challenge:
“there is a definite critique that could be laid in the original lecture which I think many understand intuitively, but cannot articulate intellectually. The primary critique that many African-Centered individuals have against the Abrahamic faiths is that slavery is promoted and sanctioned by the Creator (God) or the primary prophets of those traditions. Given the quote in the lecture in the first link by Pharoah Thutmose III, one couldn't argue, given the data presented at the lecture, that Amen-Ra sanctions or approves such activities. The dialogue in the text is given by Thutmose, not Amen-Ra. So the response would be, well that's Thutmose speaking; who said that he was "the" representative of Amen-Ra (Amandla in many African languages)? In other words, this could be argued to be the speech of an individual (not of a spiritual tradition) who invokes the name of God during a time of war. Thutmose III is not presented as a priest, but an Army general and political leader. This is expected language from a leader of a military during a time of war. So for the equation to be balanced, one would have to find primary Egyptian texts in which God (imn-ra, Hrw-Wr, Wsr/jsr, mA'a.t, etc.) sanctions or commands such actions.
So while there was definitely Black African on Black African war and atrocities, one can't argue that the promotion of one's religion was the reason for the actions. This is at the heart of the debate. Because if people feel compelled to murder, war, loot, pillage, etc., because "God" said so, what recourse do you have against God? How do you make God responsible for giving the order? It's different to charge an individual up like Hitler. We understand that Hitler acted alone, although he invoked God often. However, one would be hard pressed to argue God commanded Hitler to commit genocide. That's not the case Biblically speaking, for example, and it is this which is the issue; not whether Blacks kill other Blacks.”
My Response:
Peace Brother. I appreciate your comments. I absolutely agree with you when you admit that “untrained methods such as (Shaka Ndugu Kemet’s) gives Afrocentricity a bad name.” Afrocentric scholarship – and I like to think that I am a contributor to this – must be more sound and critical in its methodologies. Even some conclusions of such luminaries as Dr Clarke and Dr Ben must be reconsidered and revised in as much as they were founded on quite unsound methodological principles. What the likes of such E-scholars like Shaka and others do makes a mockery of what those men (i.e. Dr Ben, Dr Clarke, etc.) have done and contributed. But true Afrocentric scholars need to speak up (as you have) and disown these people and their ‘scholarship’. As a Muslim scholar (as well), I make a point to disclaim the dogmatic Muslim ‘scholarship’ that is out there – both Black Muslim and so-called Orthodox scholarship. It too is more often than not completely lacking in sound methodology.
While I understand your critique of the points I made in my lecture and appreciate you addressing what I actually said rather than a twisted sound-bite, I respectfully disagree with your critique. I believe it inadequately and unfairly represents both the so-called ‘Abrahamic traditions’, in particular the Qur’an’s and Muhammad’s position, as well as the ‘Ma’atic’ tradition.
You say Beloved:
“The primary critique that many African-Centered individuals have against the Abrahamic faiths is that slavery is promoted and sanctioned by the Creator (God) or the primary prophets of those traditions. Given the quote in the lecture in the first link by Pharoah Thutmose III, one couldn't argue, given the data presented at the lecture, that Amen-Ra sanctions or approves such activities. The dialogue in the text is given by Thutmose, not Amen-Ra. So the response would be, well that's Thutmose speaking; who said that he was "the" representative of Amen-Ra (Amandla in many African languages)? In other words, this could be argued to be the speech of an individual (not of a spiritual tradition) who invokes the name of God during a time of war.”
There are a number of problems with this critique.
1.] It unjustly insinuates that the Qur’an and Muhammad promote and sanction the enslavement of Black people, which was the point of my talk. Nowhere in the Qur’an is the enslavement of Black people “promoted and sanctioned”. Yes, it tacitly approves the general institution of slavery by stipulating well-treatment of slaves; but so does Ma’at. In the Papyrus of Nu, one who enters the Hall of Ma’at must declare his innocence of a number of sins, including confessing: “I have not vilified a slave to his master”. Here, like in the Qur’an, the legitimate existence of the institution is assumed, and only improper treatment of slaves is proscribed. But nowhere in the Qur’an is there the slightest advocacy of the enslavement of Black people. Regarding statements put in the mouth of Muhammad via hadith, both positions are attributed to him: there are those racist statements advocating enslaving Blacks attributed to him by slave making Muslims of the medieval period. There are also anti-racist, pro-black statements attribute to him. Each statement must be critically analyzed on its own terms to trace its origin and determine its authenticity. But the conflicting positions and ambivalence precludes our making the claim that Muhammad “promoted and sanctioned” the enslavement of African people. The Qur’an never did.
2.] The distinction you draw between the alleged position of “the Creator (God) or the primary prophets” on the one hand and the actions and statements of the Egyptian Pharoah on the other, is methodologically flawed. Firstly, from a strictly historical-critical perspective, the Qur’an and the Ma’atic texts of Kemet are of the same nature: they are the both alleged ‘Divine Words’ written by men (and women?) who believe in the God(s). Thus, critically speaking, the Qur’an as we have it cannot be said to be the articulated position of “the Creator (God),” only the position attributed to God by recorders and transmitters of the messages Muhammad believed he received from God. This, again, narrows the differential gap between the Qur’an and, for example, the Pyramid Texts. Both are, ultimately, the words of men in the name of the gods.
Second, the pharaoh is not less but more of a representative of Ma’at and the Gods, e.g. Ra/Heru, than Muhammad is a representative of Allah. The Pharoah, as the very House of God and God incarnate, is a representative of the will of the gods in a way Muhammad is only claimed to be much later in the development of Islam when, under the influence of mystical hagiographies, he becomes an exaggerated saint. Thus, what the Phoroahs do in the name of the Gods is much more indicative – from the Ma’atic perspective – of the will of the Gods than what you suggest Beloved. Statements and activities of Tuthmose III in the name of Amen-Ra is even more relevant to the discussion I initiated than is the statements and activities of later Muslims, mainly (though not exclusively) white converts to the religion. Now, as you correctly pointed out in a footnote to your comment, in my lecture I quote the statement of Djhty, one of Thutmose III’s generals, rather than the words of the Pharoah himself. In this case your words here may have some force: “In other words, this could be argued to be the speech of an individual (not of a spiritual tradition) who invokes the name of God during a time of war.”
However, this ideology of Amun-Ra as the real conqueror and enslaver of Nubia was very poetically articulated by the pharaoh himself on the walls of the Great Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnack. The Poetic Stela of Thutmose III, a black granite stela now in the Cairo Museum, celebrates and gives context to Thutmose III’s conquests. The god Amun-Ra is presented affirming to the king that his military successes are all the work of the God, including the brutal slaying of the conquered peoples. The Pharoah (God incarnate) declares:
This ideology of Amun-Ra as the real conqueror and enslaver of Nubia was very poetically laid out on the walls of the Great Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnack. The Poetic Stela of Thutmose III, a black granite stela now in the Cairo Museum, celebrates and gives context to Thutmose III’s conquests. The god Amun-Ra is presented affirming to the king that his military successes are all the work of the god, including the brutal slaying of the conquered peoples:
“Thus speaks Amun-Ra, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands…
“My son, my defender, Men-Kheper-Ra (prenomen of Thutmose III)…
I shall establish your power and the awe of you in all the nations…
The nobles of every foreign land will be united in your fist…
I shall shackle the Nubian archers by ten thousands of thousands.
And the men of the North by hundreds of thousands of captives…
I have come to empower you to crush the eastern lands:
You will tread down those who dwell in the regions of God’s Land (Ta-Neter)…
I have come to empower you to crush the bowmen (of Nubia); Nubia as far as Shat in your possession.”
Here, the words of the God himself are inscribed in his holy temple, and he is empowering the Pharoah Tuthmose to crush and enslave Nubians. Where are there similar words of Allah? Not in the Qur’an. In what Masjid will we find Allah’s words inscribed empowering a caliph to crush and enslave the Sudan? Nowhere.
Not only do we have these inscribed divine words of the God Amun-Ra, we have pictorial depictions of the God receiving slaves. In a XII Dynasty mural from Medinet Habu, Thebes, Pharoah Ramesses III is depicted presenting to Amun-Ra Libyan and Levantine prisoners of war to be used a slaves on temple grounds and elsewhere (See photo). It must be emphasized that these were mainly Black captives, as the Levant was still a Black land at this time. Where is there a similar depiction of Allah receiving black slaves from a caliph or sultan?
There were times when the Temple of Amun became the seat of oppression in Nubia. A decree of the Pepy I (c. 2325 BCE), the third pharaoh of the VI Dynasty, prohibited Nubians from entering the temples. On the Shrine Stella of Ineny (c. 1350), mayor of Thebes under the XVIII Dynasty king Thutmose I, Ineny mentions seeing Nubian captives given “to the endowment of Amun at the time when wretched Kush was overthrown.”
Also informative is the Semna Inscription of the viceroy Merimose of the XVIII Dynasty, under Amenhotep III (1402-1364 BCE), speaking of a campaign into Nubia that resulted in slaughter and enslavement, all in the name of Amun and Heru:
“The might of Nibmatre took them in one day, in one hour, making a great slaughter … not one of them escaped; each one of them was brought … The might of Amenhotep took them; the barbarians among them, male as well as female, were not separated; by the plan of Horus, Lord of the Two Lands, King Nibmatre, mighty bull, strong in might. Ibhet had been haughty, great things were in their hearts, (but) the fierce-eyed lion, this ruler, he slew them by command of Amun-Atum, his august father; it was he who led him in might and victory.”
There is then listed an inventory of spoils from this military campaign COMMANDED by Amun-Atum and planed by Heru, Lord of the Two Lands:
“List of the captivity which his majesty took in the land of Ibhet, the wretched:
Living Kushites 150 heads
Archers 110 heads
Kushite women 250 heads
Servants of the Kushites 55 heads
Their children 175 heads
Total 740 living heads
Hands thereof 312
United with the living heads 105242”
You say Brother:
“So while there was definitely Black African on Black African war and atrocities, one can't argue that the promotion of one's religion was the reason for the actions. This is at the heart of the debate. Because if people feel compelled to murder, war, loot, pillage, etc., because "God" said so, what recourse do you have against God? How do you make God responsible for giving the order?”
Nowhere in the Qur’an does God (or the human speakers for him) gives such an order. We do find, however, Persian Muslim literature of the 10-11th centuries that claims that Allah wants Blacks dead, for they/we are the enemies of God and Islam. But we cannot say on this basis that “Creator (God) and primary prophets” of Islam “promotes and sanctions” the enslavement of Black Africans. We have much more authoritative Kemetic sources explicitly depicting Amun-Ra “compelling murder, war, loot, pillage, etc,” than we have in Islam. So, a much stronger case can be made for Amun-Ra as a slave God, than can be made for Allah. However, I don’t make either claim. This is the claim I made:
“Just as the Church in the American South and the Masjid in Zanzibar were centers of African slavery and seats of oppression, so too were the Temples of Amun both in Nubia and in Kemet. In these texts and images the god Amun-Ra is directly linked to the enslavement and slaughter of African peoples (Nubians), in much the same way Christ Jesus will be in the hands of the European traffickers in enslaved Africans and justifiers of the practice. If anyone can be called a ‘slave-god,’ it is certainly this god! Yet, that would be a very irresponsible position to hold. Because murderers invoked the god does not mean the god himself is a murderer! This logic will no doubt immediately resonate with most people. However, when it comes to Islam and Allah, the logic is inoperative with much of these same people. Allah is held responsible for all of the evil deeds of those that say they believe in him. This is a double standard that must be exposed and done away with. If Ma’at and Amun-Ra should not be judged on the basis of the anti-African, murderous and enslaving policies of Tutankhamun, then Allah and Islam should not be judged on the basis of the slaving practices of Sayyid Said b. Sultan, the notorious Omani Arab who controlled the “East African Holocaust,” i.e 19th century CE slave trade based in Zanzibar.”