Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

9.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response Part III, Section 2
Finally, my Response to Bro Mubaashir regarding surat al-Ikhlas. I had hoped that I could also discuss Bro
Mubaashir‘s comments regarding Surat al-Shura [42]11. However, time simply won‘t permit any more
expenditure right now. I have one hundred mid-terms to grade by Monday. I must therefore refer anyone
interested to an article I wrote on that very subject which can be found at:
http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/JAOS_Art_Body_Unlike.98120904.pdf
Bro Mubaashir says in his review of my comments in Philly:
―Dr. Wesley addresses one of the challenges of the Qur'an, Suratul Ikhlas, where Allah states
that He is One, He is the One on whom everything depends (As-Samad, which is sometimes
translated as Eternal), He never had a child, He never was someone's child, and there is nothing
equal to the One. Dr. Wesley claims that the attribute or characteristic As-Samad doesn't mean eternal, but
rather solid. This meaning of As-Samad would lead to the translation that Allah is One, a solid
whole. So, according to Dr. Wesley Allah is a solid and for something to be solid it must be
delimited, which means that it is limited by boundaries; finite. Hence, Allah is a material thing,
not an immaterial thing; He is a limited, finite thing, not an unlimited, infinite thing.‖
The first part of this quote is fairly accurate, though a tab bit misleading: I did (and do) present ‗solid‘ as
an alternative reading of al-Samad, but I did not just ‗claim‘ this. See below. The second part of the
statement is an unfortunate mischaracterization of my position as articulated in Philadelphia. While I do
affirm that ―Allah is a material thing (rather: being), not an immaterial thing,‖ I do not affirm that ―He is
a limited, finite thing, not an unlimited, infinite thing.‖ On the contrary, I understand that, though the
Qur‘an clearly presents Allah as a shay‟ which, by definition, is a physically delimited (mahdūd) being, I
also understand that this physical delimitation (not limitation) does not imply any metaphysical limitations
for Allah. He is unlimited is His divinity, power, wisdom, etc.
Bro Mubaashir then lists various meanings of Samad. This list is problematic in that he jumbles together
definitions for the verb samada and the adjectival noun, Samad, giving no indication of their distinction.
This can be excused though. Inexcusable, however, is what follows:
―The reason that I have taken the time to list all of the possible meanings of the word Samad is
to help us make it clear that you cannot just pick any definition you want to use for a word and
say that is what it means, because you saw it in a dictionary... While it is fair to argue or debate
the meaning of a word, it is intelligent to choose the word that makes the most sense and is most
likely the correct meaning of the word for the sentence you are talking about. So, the task before
us is to consider which of these definitions most likely applies to Allah, The Creator of the skies,
the earth, and every single thing within; including you and I and Dr. Wesley. To save us all
time, let us simply consider Dr. Wesley's choice of definition for As-Samad and the definition used
by the majority of Muslims in the world. Dr. Wesley argues that because one of the meanings of
Samad is a solid, not hollow, this proves that Allah is a solid, physical thing; a delimited being, a
finite, solid material being, yes a human being. By choosing this meaning of the word Samad, he
declares that the Muslim scholars have mistranslated this word as eternal in order to support
their own definition of a non-physical, non-material G-d.‖
This is either pure disingenuousness on Bro Mubaashir‘s part, or a profoundly imperceptive reading of
37