If it is argued, “In the future they may worship Allah by abandoning disbelief, whereas he does not, either now or in the future, worship what they have worshipped,” the response is: On this interpretation, they cannot be told, “Nor will you worship in the future what I worshipped in the past.” Rather, if they abandon disbelief, they may in the future worship his Lord, whom he worshipped in the past.

If it is argued, “Their view is the second view: I do not worship now what you worship now, nor will I worship in the future what you worship in the future,” the response is: The wording of the verse is:

“Nor am I a worshipper of what you have worshipped,”

not, “Nor am I a worshipper of what you worship.”

Thus, if His words “what you have worshipped” refer to the past, as these proponents intended, the meaning becomes unsound. If they refer to the future, this invalidates their contention that the imperfect verb carries a past meaning in His words:

“Nor do you worship what I worship.”

For the past-tense verb here then carries the meaning of the imperfect. If the imperfect verb corresponds to it, it remains an imperfect verb and is not shifted into the past. The result is therefore the opposite of what they intended.

The fourth view he mentioned is that of those who treat mā as a particle introducing a verbal noun in the second statement, but not in the other. Here too, nothing in the wording indicates any distinction between them. Treating it as introducing a verbal noun in all the statements would be closer to the correct interpretation. Yet the meaning conveyed by mā when it introduces a verbal noun is already conveyed by His use of mā (“what”). For He did not say, “Nor do you worship whom I worship”; rather, He said, “what I worship.”