Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

To negate an act of the past we may use the particle ‗maa.‘
To negate and act as we speak and into the future we use the particle ‗lam‘ with the present tense verb
putting the verb in the jussive.
To negate an act in the present we use the particle ‗laa.‘ Note: laa is not an absolute in this case.
To negate from the time of speaking into the future we use the particle ‗lan‘ with a present tense verb
putting the verb in the subjunctive.
The second type of negation is to negate the existence of something which is used with a noun.
To negate something in terms of its constitution ‗maa‘ is used.
To negate the origin of something ‗laa‘ is used. This is called the absolute ‗laa.‘ It is used with an internal
noun [masdar] and negates that that thing ever existed.
To negate something no longer existing but perhaps existed before we may use ‗maa or laa.‘
The third type of negation is to negate the state of being. This kind of negation is used to negate ‗kaana.‘
In this type, ‗maa‘ is used with the verb ‗kaana.‘ Also, if you want to strengthen the negation, the lam of
juhuud is used with a present tense verb in the subjunctive.
Laisa is used with a noun to negate it state of being.
These are some examples of negations. So, to say the laa used with a verb is the absolute negation is
erroneous. Laa used with a noun and putting the noun in the accusative without tanween is the absolute
negation of the negation of the origin of that thing.
17.] Dr Wesley Muhammad Response to Imam Salim Mu‟min:
ASA Bro Imam Salim. Thank you for this impressive discussion of the Arabic negative particles. The
linguist in me loves discussions of Arabic grammar and syntax, and am therefore very appreciative of your
post. I am sorry for the delayed response. I am a university professor with a full load this semester. Most of
your post, while quite useful for our overall understanding of the Arabic negative particles, is not relevant
to our particular discussion, i.e. whether Q 7:143 is a categorical denial of the possibility of Ru‘ya (seeing
God) or simply a specific and conditional denial directed at Moses. I therefore have nothing to add
regarding most of your post. There are however a number of remarks that seem to specifically address my
comments, and thus have a bearing on this discussion. First, though, allow me to remind the readers of
the context. You argued previously regarding Q 7:143:
―If there was a possibility of seeing (God) then the particle laa would be used. The particle Lan is
used to deny from the time speaking into the future. Meaning you do not see me now and you
will not see me in the future. In other words you will never see me. If I say laa tarnee then you
are saying that you do not see me as we are speaking, but there is a possibility of you seeing me
in the future. It makes it just as impossible when spoken as it does now because we are in the
future of the spoken word. It was not possible then and it is not possible now. Then we must
come to the conclusion that Allah can't be seen physically, mentally, or spiritually.‖
47