There are a multitude of scholarly opinions in the tradition of Islam about a number of matters: who were the Ṣābi’ūn, what is the nature of prophecy, and what are the parameters of Sufism? Unfortunately, Kemetian Adept’s depiction of these are not represented in this scholarly tradition. In this post, I will not only demonstrate that his ideas have no merit, but I will show that he is clearly not qualified to speak on these topics.

Sabianism

Abdullah Samak presents seven opinions on the meaning of the word Ṣābi’. I will enumerate them in brief below:

1. It is an Arabic word meaning to exit, convert, change, or switch religions.
2. It is an Arabic word meaning to incline, detract, or long for (usually associated with young children).
3. It is of Aramaic origin meaning to be submerged in water, bathe, purify, or baptize.
4. It is of Hebrew origin meaning to cover in water.
5. It is derived from the Hebrew word Ṣabāwūth, meaning warriors of the sky (i.e., the stars).
6. It is derived from the names of two people mentioned in history: 1) Ṣābī the son of Methusaleh and 2) Ṣābī ibn Mārī, a contemporary of Abraham.
7. It is related to the Yemeni city of Saba (Sheba) mentioned in the Qur’an, but this is an obvious mistake in Arabic because the words have two different etymologies (س rather than ص).

In one video, Kemetian admits that he and his brand of MST are Moors are Sabians, but it is obvious that he does not understand the implications of this claim. He attempts to provide his own interpretation of al-Baqarah: 62. He clumsily reads through the Arabic and comes to the word “Ṣābi’īn.” He starts to pontificate on his interpretation of the verse. He accuses “the Arab” of going against the meaning of this verse. Again, he makes another straw man argument, insinuating that Arab Muslims tell Christians that they are going to hell for what they believe in. While some individuals might have done this, it has never been the manner of Muslims (Arab or otherwise) to condemn Christians to hell.

The meaning of the al-Baqarah: 62 is that those amongst those who claim to be Jews, Christians, and Sabians who believe in God according to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, believe in the Last Day (as opposed to the eternity of the universe), and work deeds of righteousness they should not worry about the future nor should they grieve about their past. This is the traditional understanding of the verse. It is not a confirmation of all the beliefs of the above-mentioned classifications.

While insisting that “our ancestors” were the Sabians, not only does he reveal his lack of understanding of who the Sabians were, but also his lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. He corresponds the Ṣābi’īn mentioned in al-Baqarah: 62 with the people of Saba’ for which the 34th chapter of the Qur’an is named. This is a layman’s mistake, as mentioned by Samak. Although the two words look similar in English, they have two different roots in Arabic. He mischaracterizes the chapter Saba’ from the Qur’an, claiming that it gives a history of the Sabian people and how they went astray. This is not accurate. The Qur’an is not a history book and only scantly touches on the history of Saba’, who we know as the people of Sheba. Furthermore, if the Qur’an is describing how the Sabians went astray by being ungrateful, this would contradict his understanding of al-Baqarah: 62, which he claims validates the beliefs of all different religions.

He also claims that Sheba (Saba’) is where the word Shabazz comes from. This is yet another linguistic slip up. For one, its usage can be attributed to Fard Muhammad in the 120 Lessons in the early 20th century. However, its etymology is not known. We can say that it is most likely from the Persian shah baz, falcon king, but we cannot definitively claim its origin without solid historical evidence. Kemetian’s attempt to draw some connection between Sheba and Shabazz is pure speculation.

Prophecy

Kemetian attempts to use al-Naḥl: 89 to dispute the notion that the Prophet Muhammad was the last of the prophets. He claims that this verse alludes to God sending a prophet to every people from among themselves. In his teaching, a prophet is “a thought of Allah made manifest in the flesh,” a definition that has no basis in the Qur’an.

While his reading of the verse and its accompanying diatribe sounds as if he has definitively contradicted the orthodox view of Islam, he parades his fallacy in front of us as he fumbles through a reading of the word shahīd. No where in the verse is the word nabī (prophet) or rasūl (messenger) mentioned. A shahīd is not a prophet, but a prophet can be a shahīd. The explanation of the verse lies in knowing other verses from the Qur’an. For instance, al-Baqarah: 143 states: As such, We have made you a just ummah (religion/nation/epoch) in order to be witnesses over people, and the Messenger (Muhammad, not Drew Ali) is a witness over you…

Muhammad al-Qurṭubī, a true Moorish scholar of Islam who died in 1273, stated that the meaning of the verse was on that day (i.e., the Day of Judgment), God will bring forth in every ummah a witness from among themselves; they are the prophets who testify (i.e., bare witness) that they have conveyed the message from God to their respective ummahs and called them to faith. In every time there is a witness even if there is no prophet.

In other places in the Qur’an, God explains the people upon whom His grace is bestowed, as is repeated by Muslims in their reading of al-Fātiḥah. They are: al-nabīyyīn, al-ṣiddiqīn, al-shuhadā’, and al-ṣāliḥīn as explicated in al-Nisā: 69. These are clearly separate levels of people who will receive God’s grace. According to the exegete ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī, everyone who obeys Allah and His messenger according to his state and measure of what is incumbent upon him – whether male or female, young or old – those are the people that God will bestow His greatest blessings upon. This blessing brings the highest level of perfection, success, and felicity.

The prophets are those who Allah has favored with revelation to call people to faith in God (not Kemetian’s made up definition). The affirmers of truth are those who affirmed what the prophet has taught with certainty and acted upon that truth with everything they had. The witnesses or martyrs are those who have fought to raise the word of God and died in the process. The righteous are those whose inner states are purified and matches their outward behavior. All of these people will be granted the company of each other in paradise.

The verse was revealed to console the deep-rooted longing of Muhammad’s disciples to dwell with him eternally in paradise, which is a level of love and spirituality that the likes of Kemetian cannot comprehend because his understanding of Islam is too shallow. A true Muslim can connect to the Prophet Muhammad by following his Sunnah and through remembrance. Many Muslims see him in dreams and in an awakened state and continue to receive guidance and blessings from him to this day.

Sufism

With regards to taṣawwuf, it is clear that Kemetian has no conception of it. Rather, he follows the footsteps of many Western Orientalists who deemed taṣawwuf as an Islamic form of “mysticism” and the pursuit of paranormal phenomena. This was the opinion of European Orientalists Henri Bergson and Reynold Nicholson. Rene Guenon, however, challenged them on the ground that mysticism is a Western concept equivalent to heresy, magic, occultism, which only leads to confusion and distraction from the true path of esoteric knowledge (i.e., taṣawwuf).

On the topic of Dhū al-Nūn, Kemetian contends that he was not Muslim and supposedly practiced ancient Egyptian mysticism which he inherited from Tahuti. In turn, he uses these baseless claims to assert that taṣawwuf is not Islam. I happened to write a paper for graduate school refuting this Orientalist view of mysticism, who attempted to change Dhū al-Nūn from a pious Muslim ascetic to a syncretic mystic. Nicholson characterized Dhū al-Nūn as a mystic, moving a sofa with his thoughts, which caused spectators to die out of astonishment. Yet I found none of this in his earliest biographical sources: Ṭabaqāt al-Ṣūfīyya by Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sullamī (d. 412/1021), Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ wa Ṭabaqāt al-Aṣfiyāʾ by Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 430/1039), and al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā al-Musammā Lawāqiḥ al-Anwār al-Qudusīyya fī Manāqib al-‘Ulamā wa’l-Sūfīyya by ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al- Sha’rānī (d. 973/1565).

From these works we can ascertain that Dhū al-Nūn was clearly an Islamic scholar who is listed in the chains of hadith narrators along with Mālik ibn Anas, Layth ibn Sa’d, and Sufyān ibn ‘Uyayna, a science Kemetian rejects. Al-Sullamī confirmed that he was a Nubian from Akhmīm, a city in the Sohag state of Upper Egypt. This is a site of ancient Egyptian temples, but the biographers do not relate much information about his background. They only relate that he his teachings as a true Sufi. He emphasized divine love (maḥabba), humility (tawāḍu’), repentance (tawba), sincerity (ikhlās), solitude (waḥda), and truthfulness (ṣidq). Furthermore, he stressed that people not make claims to gnosis (maʿrifa), which is a trope of Sabian groups who believe they have some secret knowledge that is not attainable by all people.

Al-Sha’rānī relates Dhū al-Nūn’s encounter with the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil, which demonstrates his brand of Sufism. After being accused of heresy, he was marched to Baghdad in chains. On the way, an old woman advised him not to be in awe of the caliph nor to look down on him or argue his case. Dhū al-Nūn thus avoided responding to the accusations. When asked why he did not answer, he said that if he denied the claims he would have made liars of Muslims, and if he confirmed them, then he would have lied about himself. So he left the decision up to the caliph. Upon hearing this al-Mutawakkil declared him innocent.

There was nothing “mystical” about Dhū al-Nūn’s Sufism and there is nothing to suggest that he secretly practiced ancient Egyptian mysticism. His earliest biographers reported about his loyalty to Islam and Sufism and did not report instances of telekinesis and other paranormal activity. Therefore, how can a 20th century European writer with no ties to Sufism bring a new report about him? It is clear that Kemetian is citing the European tradition of mysticism and not the African tradition of Sufism with regards to Dhū al-Nūn.

Conclusion

The ability to create YouTube channels and gain recognition from less informed people has emboldened people to share half-baked theories and misinformation on the web. No qualifications or prior experience needed. It is noble the Mr. Kemetian is compiling information and pondering these topics, but his level of knowledge is premature and lacks the proper orientation. His information is faulty because he is not qualified to speak on much of what he claims to know. Experts can easily recognize other experts and he is surely not one of them. This is just a warning: although internet Sabians may seem smart and dazzling, it is important to supplement one’s understanding with actual source materials on the given topic and consult with experts. Or else you will be deceived into the crooked path of modern Sabianism.

References:

Guenon, Rene. Perspectives on Initiation. Edited by Samuel D. Fohr, Translated by Henry D. Fohr, Sophia Perennis, 1946.

Guenon, Rene. The Crisis of the Modern World. Translated by Marco Pallis et al., Sophia Perennis, 1946.

Iṣfahānī, Abū Nuʿaym al-. Ḥilyat Al-Awliyāʾ Wa Ṭabaqāt al-Aṣfiyāʾ. Dār al-Fikr, 1996.

Nicholson, Reynold Alleyne, et al. The Mystics of Islam. G. Bell and Sons, 1914.

Qurṭubī, Abū ʿAbd Allah Muḥammad ibn ʾAẖmad al-ʾAnṣārī. Al-Jāmiʿ Li ’Aḥkām al-Qur’ān. Dar Alam al-Kutub, 2003.

Samak, ʿAbdullah ʿAlī. Al-Ṣābiʼūn. 1st ed., Maktabat al-Ādāb, 1995.

Sha’rānī, ’Abd al-Wahhāb. Lawāqiḥ Al-Anwār al-Qudusīyya Fī Manāqib al-ʿUlamā Wa al-Ṣūfīyya. Maktabat al-Thaqāfa al-Dīnīyya, 2005.

Sullamī, Abū ’Abd al-Raḥmān al-. Ṭabaqāt Al-Ṣūfīyya. Maktabat al-Khanji, 1986.