Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

commotion.‖ Like rajul, the term nās is applied to both humans and jinn, which alone makes them
inapplicable to Allah. That nās implies creaturely weakness is indicated by its derivative, insān, ―human,
man, person‖. In the same Surat al-Nisa‘ [4]: 28 it is written: ―Allah wishes to lighten your (difficulties), for
He created man (al-insān) weak (da‟if).‖
So Bro Mubaashir is right on this point: It is inappropriate to call Allah a rajul or insān: He is not
that type of man. What type of man is He then? According to hadith al-shābb which was authenticated by
Imam Ahmad and many others (see my book, ―Take Another Look‖), Allah appeared to Muhammad as a
shābb, which is a young man between the ages of sixteen and thirty-two. But the term has more
connotations. The verb shabba means ―he was raised or elevated‖, thus connoting height and elevation.
Shabba means also ―to kindle a burning fire‖ and ―to appear bright and beautiful‖. All of these are
appropriate for God and consistent with what we otherwise know of Allah.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Imam Ahmad report a hadith from the Prophet on the authority of the
Companion Al-Mughira b. Shu‘ba: ―No shakhs is more jealous (aghyar) than Allah; no shakhs is more
pleased to grant pardon than He; no shakhs loves praiseworthy conduct more than He.‖ (al-Bukhari,
Sahih, tawhid, 20:512; Muslim, Sahih, li‟an, 17; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad IV:248). Al-Mawrid informs us
that a shakhs is a ―person, individual, man…‖ The term connotes ―the bodily or corporeal form or figure
or substance (suwad) of a man,‖ or ―something possessing height (irtifa‟) and visibility (zuhur).‖ A shakhs is
literally a man with a body and height. It too implies elevation, which is fitting for the Most High. The
verb shakhasa means ―He rose or became elevated.‖ The Arabic syntax of this hadith indicates that God is
a person or man with a physical body, but an elevated man.
Thus, contra Bro Mubaashir, Surat al-Nisa‘ [4]:1 in no way ―proves‖ that Allah is not a man: it
only suggests that He is not a rajul or insane. According to the Prophet, Allah is a shakhs and shabb.
III.] Conclusion Part I
This concludes Part I of my response to my Beloved Brother Mubaashir. He said so much in his
review of my lecture that is worthy of note and engagement, but it will take me two parts to address the
most important aspects. In Part II I hope to address his discussion of Surat al-Ikhlas (112) and Surat al-
Shura [42]:11, along with some other matters.
What I hope was clearly demonstrated in this Part I is that, while Bro Mubaashir presumes to
juxtapose and contrast my claims with the Qur‘an itself, what he really did was juxtapose my claims with
his own claims for the Qur‘an, NOT the Qur‘an itself. His reading of the Qur‘an is eisegesis, not exegesis. He
read his theology into the Qur‘an and Sunna, but in order to do so he had to manhandle the texts,
disregarding their philology. The Qur‘an NOWHERE describes Allah as a formless, invisible something;
nor does the Sunna. Nor do they offer ANY ―proofs‖ that God is not a divine man. On the contrary, the
Sunna – which we know clarifies the Qur‘an – clearly and unambiguously presents Allah as a divine man
with a divine human-like form. This was the God of those Black Arabs who first embraced the message of
Islam. The God on whose behalf Bro Mubaashir is arguing – that formless, invisible god – is in fact the
god of the White sheep – those non-Arab (Persian, Byzantine) converts who supplanted the position of the
Black Sheep and changed the religion. Nevertheless, I love my Brother Mubaashir. Despite what I have
said here, his erudition is undeniable. I have tremendous respect for his mind and an honored to be able
to engage him on this most important subject.
To Be Continued
20