Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

people say, ―He (God) is solid,‖ interpreting the word of God samad to mean solid, i.e., not hollow.‖ That
this meaning of al-Samad implied that Allah was a material being (jism) was pointed out by exegetical
scholars, such al-Khazin (Tafsir [Cairo, 1930] 7:265) and Ibn Taymiyya (Tafsir surat al-Ikhlas [Cairo,
n.d.], 59ff).
Thus, the lexical/philological evidences all indicate ‗solid‘ as the meaning of the root s-m-d. The Classical
exegetical and theological literature indicates that this was the orthodox reading during this period, and it
makes clear the reason why: the Prophet himself affirmed this meaning. How, then, did we arrive at the
situation that we have today where, as Bro Mubaashir correctly points out, the ―majority of the Muslim
word‖ reads this term as ‗Eternal‘ and rejects the reading ‗solid‘? Islamist Franz Rosenthal, writing in The
Joshua Starr Memorial Volume: Studies in History and Philology (1953), presented a
philological study of this term and its history in recent interpretation. His words are very important here.
Yes, he is a western scholar of Islam, which may cause some readers of this note to object prima facie. But
I cite him only as an authority on the modern, Western treatment of this term, for this is quite relevant
here. He says:
―The treatment which the word (al-samad) has received in western scholarship can by no
means be considered an exemplary one. As a rule, it is translated by ‗eternal‘, a meaning of assamad
which is indicated by some Arabic sources, but which, though old, has never been
credited with much authority…With the publication of A. du Ryer‘s French translation of the
Qur‘an in 1647, the translation of as-samad through ‗eternal‘ found universal acceptance…the
collected evidence makes it sufficiently clear that the fatuous ‗eternal‘ has been the favorite of
western translation since the seventeeth century. One of the contributing reasons for its
persistence probably was the fact that ‗eternal‘ was a plain and simple word.‖
Rosenthal is on the money here regarding the lack of authority which the Classical Arabic tradition
accorded the reading ‗eternal‘. The sources confirm this. Important also is his documenting that the
popular translation ‗eternal‘ is actually a western convention that is based not on Arabic authority and
which gained popularity due to such mundane issues as the simplicity of this translation! The modern
Muslim world followed suit, and here my Beloved Bro Mubaashir is presenting it to us as ―the correct
meaning‖ which indicates that ―Allah is not a limited solid,‖ even though the philology of the term and
the Classical orthodox position and the Prophet himself said it indeed meant solid. You see, Dr. Wesley
did not ―choose‖ this meaning: the Prophet did and the Classical tradition followed suit. I only presented
this fact in Philly and drew my conclusions therefrom.
Bro Mubaashir next takes issue with my invoking, as a possible context in which to understand Q 112:3,
the ancient creator-god of Kemet (ancient Egypt) called Min. I suggested in Philly that the fact that Allah
is lam yulad (―not begotten‖) does not preclude His being anthropomorphic (possessing a human-like form).
The Creator-god in ancient Kemet (Egypt) was an anthropomorphic black god called Kamu-tef, ―Bull of
His Mother‖ or ―He Who is His Own Father.‖ This epithet indicates that this god is self-created, i.e.
unbegotten. This, I suggest, clearly demonstrates that Surat al-Ikhlas does not unambiguously or necessarily
describe an incorporeal or bodiless deity.
But Bro Mubaashir objects to this exegetical invocation of this ancient Egyptian Black God. He says:
―But, what about Dr. Wesley's argument that Allah is a self-created human being and that Allah
as a man is different from man as a man? Dr. Wesley offers proof of such a being by pointing to
a picture of a man from ancient Egypt who is referred to as a G-d who created himself, thus
indicating that he needed no father… But, while Dr. Wesley seeks to prove his argument using
39