Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Fakhr al-Din Razi (d. 1209) who, among other things, was a scholar of Arabic grammar, discusses our
passage in his ‗Maftatih al-ghayb ya tafsir al-kabir‟ (Cairo, 1938, vol. 14:234). He notes that grammatically
‗Lan tarānī‘ is NOT a categorical (i.e. absolute) denial of Ru‘ya. Had Allah intended such, he points out,
He would have said Lā arānī or lam urā, both of which mean ―I am not to be seen.‖ Lā here functions as
lā al-tabri‟a even though it negates an action, because it has a categorical sense. Al-Razi cites the following
example: When a man is asked for a stone in his hand, he might reply ‗hadhā lā yu‘ākal‘, ‗this is not to be
eaten,‘ thus denying a whole category of action – the eating of stones. However, if he were to prevent
someone from eating an apple that was in his hand, he might say lā tā‟kuluh, ‗don‘t eat this‘. In this case
the lā is not absolute: it negates only a specific action, the eating of a specific apple. The category of eating
apples in general is not denied. Thus, al-Razi argues, Lan tarānī of Q 7:143 is semantically closer to the
non-categorical lā tā‟kuluh.
That Lan tarānī grammatically is not a categorical denial was pointed out by a number of Classical
scholars. The Maturidi scholar Abu l-Yusr al-Pazdawi (d. 1100), in his Usul al-din (Cairo, 1963; p. 79),
points out regarding this verse that lan is only used to deny something actually capable of existing or
happening. The Maliki-Ashari scholar al-Baqillani (d. 1013), in his Kitab al-tamhid (Beirut, 1957, p. 266-
279) notes also that Lan tarānī does not have the force of a categorical denial, which would more correctly
be worded: lan tajūz an tarānī , ‗You can never see Me.‘ Al-Baqillini uses the following example to make his
point: If Moses had asked Allah for a son, God may very well have refused and used the particle lan to do
so, but this refusal hardly indicates a categorical denial of all paternity, past or future! No, Allah‘s reply to
Moses‘ request to see Him, Lan tarānī, was temporal (not eternal) and specific to Moses and his
circumstances. It does not imply that ―Allah can't be seen physically, mentally, or spiritually.‖
Salaam
Your Brother
Bro Wesley
18.] Imam Salim Mu‟Min Resepnse to Dr Wesley Muhammad
Wa Alaikum As-Salaam Dr. Westley, as you can see i too am a lover of Arabic Grammar, especially
Qur'anic Arabic. You have brought some interesting points that i must continue the discussion. Because
of my schedule i will try to have a response by this weekend. wa Salaam
19.] Mubaashir Uqdah Reply to Dr. Wesley Muhammad's Response Part 1
I would like to reiterate that this engagement with Dr. Wesley has been very interesting, informative, and
beneficial. I also would like to acknowledge and compliment him on the arduous, enormous, and thoughtprovoking
scholarship that he has put into his dissertation:
"A Study of Anthropomorphic Theophany and Visio Dei in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an, and Early
Sunni Islam"
ABOUT MY REPLY
In responding to my analysis of his lecture, Dr. Wesley characterized aspects of my responses as
misrepresenting his arguments, passing off my opinions as if they were the truth of the Qur'an, and
misrepresenting the Classical Arabic/Islamic Tradition in order to assert my view and today's Muslim
world view of a non-Semitic concept of G-d over what he refers to as the Semitic concept of G-d as the
49