Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Your main point Imam Salim seems to be that it is generally impossible to see God, and that this eternal,
ontological impossibility is expressed in the Qur‘an by God‘s reply to Moses lan tarānī, ‗You (Moses) will
not see me‘ (7:143). You suggest that the negative particle lan expresses this categorical impossibility of
Ru‘ya; if the Qur‘an wanted to suggest the categorical possibility, but the specific impossibility in Moses‘s
cases, it would have used the negative particle lā. To this I responded:
―With due respect to Imam Salim, this is another clear example of theology impinging upon
philology. First, I am at a lost to understand how one trained in Arabic could claim that the Lā
of Absolute Negation, which negates categorically and absolutely, is less emphatic than Lan,
which is an emphatic particle but of a different nature. Lan is a ta‘bīd, which is an emphatic
particle that does not express the sense of ‗timelessness‘ as does, for example, words derived
from the root ‗zl (e.g. azal ―eternity‖). Thus, Lan has temporal or temporary significance, not
eternal. The categorical negation that Imam Salim wants to read into ‗Lan tarānī‘ is actually
said thusly: Lā arānī ―I am not to be seen,‖ thus with the Lā of Absolute Negation. In order to
make ―Lan tarānī‖ a timeless categorical denial of the possibility of God being seen, it would
have to be reworded as: lan tajūz an tarānī, ―You can never see Me‖.‖
To this, you Bro Imam Salim responded with your above discussion of the Arabic negative particles. As
stated, most of your discussion is, while very informative, not directly relevant to the main point, so I will
pass on commenting (not that I have any comments – it is a good discussion). The parts of your response
directly relevant are thus, quoting you:
1.] ―To negate an act in the present we use the particle ‗laa.‘ Note: laa is not an absolute in this case.‖
2.] ―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.‖
3.] ―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.‖
4.] ―(a) So, to say the laa used with a verb is the absolute negation is erroneous. (b) 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.‖
I have no problem with Points 1-3. I only point out that Point 3, while grammatically correct and
consistent with your earlier statement, contradicts your general point of the ‗timelessness‘ or categorical
nature of lan as used in Q 7:143. This negative particle is temporal: it applies from the time of the speaker
and into (the speaker‘s) future, as you correctly point out. While you never use the language ‗timeless‘ with
regard to lan, your suggestion that this verse with this negative particle indicates that it is ‗impossible‘ to
see God, and that ―we must come to the conclusion that Allah can't be seen physically, mentally, or
spiritually,‖ suggests this is your intent.
Point 4 requires more detailed comment. 4b is certainly correct, as far as it goes. Two points need to be
made regarding 4a: (1) this is correct in one sense, incorrect in another and (2) the relative correctness of
this specific point of grammatical taxonomy does nothing to strengthen your main point – the categorical
impossibility of Ru‘ya according to Q 7:143 – nor does it do anything to weaken mine – the possibility of
Ru‘ya.
The lā al-tabri‟a or Lā of Absolute Negation, as a term, does indeed normally apply when the particle
negates a masdar or internal noun in the accusative. However, your claim that ―to say the laa used with a
verb is the absolute negation is erroneous‖ is overstated.
48