Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Lesson 18: The Attributes of Khabariyyah

In an earlier discussion, we have pointed out that some of the Divine Attributes are called “Transmitted Attributes” (ṣifāt al-khabariyyah ). These are Attributes of God which are mentioned in verses of the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions, and if we believe in their outward meaning and implication, we will succumb to the notion of anthromorphism and incarnation.

Examples are “settling on the Throne” (istawā’ ‘ala ’l-‘arsh ) in the verse“The All-beneficent settled on the Throne ,” 1 “face” (wajh ) in the verse“Yet lasting is the Face of your Lord, majestic and munificent ,” 2 and “hand” (yadd ) in the verse“The hand of Allah is above their hands.” 3 In this regard, Shahristānī has said:

“A group of the predecessors (ṣalaf ) used to affirm Transmitted Attributes such asyadayn (hands) andwajh (face) for God, without interpreting (ta’wīl ) them, but they would say, ‘Since these attributes have been transmitted in religious texts, we shall call them ‘transmitted attributes’’.”4

Regarding the semantics of these attributes, different viewpoints and approaches have been advanced. In this lesson, we shall state and examine them:

Literalism and Anthropomorphism

A group of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth who are labeledHashwiyyah 5 clings to the outward meaning of such verses, and as a result, they likened God to His creatures and believed in anthropomorphism and incarnation. Regarding them, Shahristānī has said:

“A number of the Ahl al-ḤadīthḤashwiyyah openly subscribed to anthropomorphism and affirm limbs and dimensions, ascent and descent, movement and transfer for God. Moreover, they attributed baseless narrations to the Holy Prophet (‘a ), most of which were taken from Jews, and regarding the Qur’an, they believed that even its letters, sounds and words are pre-existent and eternal.”6

Regarding the notion of anthropomorphism, Ibn Khaldūn7 has also said:

“But there were a few innovators in their (ṣaḥābah andtābi‘ūn ) time who occupied themselves with the ambiguous verses and delved into anthropomorphism. One group operated with the plain meaning of the relevant verses. They assumed anthropomorphism for God’s essence, in that they believed that He has hands, feet, and a face… Another group turned to anthropomorphism with regard to the attributes of God. They assumed direction, sitting, descending, voice, letter (sound), and similar things [for God]… The [people who gave consideration to the anthropomorphic verses] then tried to escape from the anthropomorphic abomination by stating that [God has] ‘a body unlike [ordinary human] bodies’ and ‘a direction unlike directions.’

By that, they meant: ‘[not as those things are used] in connection with [human] bodies.’ This is no defense for them, because it is a statement contradictory in itself and a combination of negation and assertion, if both (negation and assertion) are used here for one and the same concept of body.

But if the two differ among themselves and [thus] disavow the commonly accepted concept of body, those [people] rather agree with us that God is devoid [of human attributes]. They consider the word ‘body to be merely one of His names (used in a peculiar sense in connection with Him). Things like that depend on [religious] permission.”8

From the two statements above and similar views, it can be inferred that those who believe in the outward meanings of the verses and traditions related to the Transmitted Attributes are of two groups. One group is concomitant with anthropomorphism and incarnation while another group is not concomitant with the same and with such expressions as “a body unlike [ordinary human] bodies,” they would declare themselves free from the belief in anthropomorphism and incarnation although as Ibn Khaldūn has mentioned, their offered solution does not solve the problem at all. The second approach is prevalent among the present-day Salafīs (Wahhābīs).9

Ta’wīl Approach

In the area of Transmitted Attributes, many Muslim theologians and exegetes (mufassirūn ) have adopted theta’wīl approach.Ta’wīl with respect to the verses of the Qur’an has diverse meanings, one of which is synonymous withtafsīr (exegesis). This meaning has been widely intended among the earlier exegetes. For instance, ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās is reported to have said, “I am among those who are firmly grounded in knowledge (al-rāsikhūn fi ’l-‘ilm )10 and I know the interpretation (ta’wīl ) of the Qur’an.”

Another meaning ofta’wīl is to interpret a word contrary to its outward meaning. This term is prevalent among the contemporary exegetes and whenever the wordta’wīl is used without a particular context, this is the intended meaning.

The third meaning for the termta’wīl is for a verse to have numerous meanings some of which are within some others. And one of them is the outward meaning of the verse as understood by the common people, but its other meanings are only known to God and those who are grounded in knowledge.

The fourth application ofta’wīl regarding the Holy Qur’an is to trace the roots or origins of words which do not belong in the category of word or meaning but rather in the objective or external realities [of the word]. Therefore,ta‘wīl is not exclusive to the allegorical verses (mutashābihāt ) and it is applicable to all verses of the Qur’an.11

Of the [different] meanings [ofta’wīl mentioned above], what is intended or meant in theological discourses is the second meaning. Mu‘tazilī, Imāmī, a number of Ash‘arī and Māturdī theologicans and those of other schools of theology have adopted this method. Contrary to what is sometimes thought of, this method is not exclusive to the contemporary theologians. In fact, it had also proponents among the predecessors (salaf ). As Shahristānī has said, “Some of the predecessors would interpret (ta’wīl ) such attributes by taking into account the compatibility of a word with its meaning.”12 Rashīd Riḍā has also said, “The leadingsalaf scholars would sometimes interpret the outward verses (ẓawāhir ).”13

Theological Foundation of Ta’wīl

As a method of exegesis,ta’wīl has a special theological foundation, and that is, in elucidating its sublime teachings, the Holy Qur’an uses parables so as to make these teachings understandable to the common people. As the Qur’an itself has stated,

﴿ وَيَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ الأمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ ﴾

“Allah draws these parables for mankind so that they may take admonition.” 14

One of the main reasons behind the allegorical verses in the Qur’an is this very principle.15 Yet, in order for the human mind not only to dwell on the outward and metaphorical meanings and thus succumb to anthropomorphism, there have been explicit and clear verses in the Holy Qur’an that negate any kind of similitude between God and other beings. It is thus stated,

﴿ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ ﴾

“Nothing is like Him.” 16

﴿ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ ﴾

“Nor has He any equal.” 17

Whenever one duly pays attention to these two points, he will neither succumb to anthropomorphism nor fall prey to intellectual suspension.

On the basis of this rule, the correct method ofta’wīl can be inferred, the meanings of the Transmitted Attributes can be found out and it can be said that the wordwajh (face) in connection with God refers to the Divine Essence. When it is said,“Everything is to perish except His Face,” 18 it means that all essences and things will perish except the Essence of God. The reason for describing the Essence with the wordwajh is that the face or countenance of every entity symbolizes its essence or identity. For this reason, description of their faces is used in order to determine the identity of individuals.

The wordyadd (hand) oryadayn refers to the Divine Power. The verse“The hand of Allah is above their hands” 19 means that the Power of God is superior to all powers and it is the bedrock of all powers. And the verse“I have created with My [own] two hands” 20 means that “I have created Adam with My special power and Satan must not compare the origin of creation of the human being which is earth (soil) with the origin of his own creation which is fire and think of the superiority of the fire to the earth as an obstacle to his prostrating before Adam. Instead, he must take into account the superior power of the Creator of Adam and show humility to that Infinite Power.

The wordistiwā implies domination (istīlā ) while‘arsh (throne) denotes the Station of Control of the universe. Therefore, the verse“The All-beneficent, settled on the Throne” 21 implies domination and supremacy of God in controlling the universe, just as the ‘throne’ in the human context is related to the position of authority and administering a country.

Singular and Synthetic Appearance

Concerningta’wīl , this important point must be borne in mind that whenever it is said thatta’wīl means giving meaning to a word in contrast to to its outward meaning, this is true as long as this meaning is intended in isolation and in a sentence or phrase. In the same manner, a word is mentioned in isolation in dictionaries and its meanings are stated.

But if we consider that word in a phrase or sentence, the metaphorical or figurative meaning is not only not contrary to the apparent meaning of the word but the same meaning can also be understood from the said word, and conveying the real meaning needs a context; otherwise, it will sometimes give the wrong meaning.

For example, whenever it is said that “The city is in the hand of a mayor,” the word ‘hand’ is never understood to mean one of the bodily limbs. In fact, anyone who can hear it will understand that it refers to administering the city. Even if the mayor has no physical hands, the same understanding will remain, and in principle, giving literal meaning to the word is incorrect in such application.22

Postponement (Tawaqquf) and Delegation (Tafwīḍ)

Another method which is used in connection with the allegorical verses (mutashābihāt ) and the Transmitted Attributes (ṣifāt al-khabariyyah ) istafwīḍ (delegation). The outcome of this method is that one can neither choose the outward meanings of the Transmitted Attributes as themujassamah andmushabbahah do nor can one apply the method ofta’wīl as themu’awwalah do. Some have claimed that the Companions (ṣaḥābah ) and the Followers (tābi‘ūn ), nay the Muslims of the first three centuries had adopted such method but historical evidence proves otherwise.

No doubt, it could never be the method of the Imāms from theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ) and a number of the great Companions and Followers to keep silence regarding the allegorical verses and to refrain from expressing any opinion or view. In fact, they used to interpret and give commentary on them through a different method.

We will explain this method of theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ) afterward. Shahristānī has pointed out that a number of the predecessors (ṣalaf ) used to interpret the allegorical verses.23 Yes, it can be said that most of the predecessors had adopted the method of delegation (tafwīḍ ).24 Shahristānīs have mentioned Mālik ibn Anas (died 179 AH), Sufyān al-Thawrī (died 161 AH), Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (died 240 AH), and Dāwud ibn ‘Alī al-Iṣfahānī (died 270 AH) as among the leading predecessors who were proponents oftafwīḍ .25

Bases of the Proponents of Tafwīḍ

1. The Holy Qur’an has prohibitedta’wīl and considered pursuance of the allegorical verses as a product of sedition-mongering andta’wil -orientedness:

﴿ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ﴾

“As for those in whose hearts is deviance, they pursue what is metaphorical in it, courting temptation and courting its interpretation.” 26

And on the other hand, [belief in] anthropomorphism and incarnation is also invalid. Therefore, the path of moderation is indeed that of suspension (tawaqquf ) and delegation (tafwīḍ ).27

This argument is incorrect because pursuance of the allegorical verses can only be considered a sign of sickness of the heart and sedition-mongering when it is in pursuance of the allegorical as it is, but if the allegorical is correctly referred back to the definitive (muḥkam ) and interpreted in the light of the definitive, in this case it cannot be blameworthy. In fact, it can be inferred from the sayings and actions of the Prophet (ṣ ), the Imāms from theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ) and a number of leading Companions that such an action is acceptable and permissible.

2. Usefulta’wīl is a conjecture and speculation, and not knowledge and certainty, and concerning the Divine Attributes, one cannot rely on conjecture and speculation:

﴿ وَإِنَّ الظَّنَّ لا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا ﴾

“And indeed conjecture is no substitute for the truth.” 28

This argument is also baseless because cases differ with each other. Sometimes through discussion and determining the context, one can attain knowledge and certainty. At other times, one cannot obtain anything except conjecture and hypothesis. In the first case, we tend to believe in the purport of a given verse with certainty, and as hypothetical in the second case and this hypothetical belief is not legally (shar‘ī ) shunned because the said meaning - as stated in the discussion ofta’wīl - is understood from the apparent meaning of the Word of God.

Furthermore, belief in the denotation of the apparent meaning of the Word of God is necessary when the proof contrary to it is not obtained because rejecting the outward aspects of the Religion without a reliable context is not permissible. In other words, concerning the allegorical verses, the preferable conjecture is a legal proof.29

3. If the scope ofta’wīl is extended with respect to the allegorical verses, the scope ofta’wīl will also be extended in all religious laws and it will end up in esoteric interpretation (ta’wīl bāṭiniyyah ) which necessitates rejection of some religious laws.30

It is evident that treating as one the esoteric interpretation and theta’wīl meant with respect to the allegorical verses has no logical basis. On account of avoiding the esoteric (bāṭinī ), one is not supposed to deny the truth. Instead, by believing and acting upon the truth, the esoteric must also be avoided.

Transmitted Attributes in the School of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a)

In the school of theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ), anthropomorphism (tashbiyyah ) and incarnation (tajsīm ) are vehemently considered unacceptable, and at the same time, the method of delegation (tafwīḍ ) in the sense of keeping silence and not using the intellect in discussing and scrutinizing the interpretation of the Attributes is not approved also. Their method with respect to the Divine Attributes is based upon negation and affirmation; that is, the salient features related to the creatures (makhlūqāt ) and contingent beings

(mumkināt ) are negated from the Divine Attributes and their meanings which are appropriate to the Divine Station.

Be that as it may,tafwīḍ in the sense that the human being is incapable of comprehending the nature of the Essence and Attributes of God and that he must make a pause at this point is affirmed and regarded as one of the characteristics of those well grounded in knowledge (rāsikhūn bi ’l-‘ilm ).31

In the school of theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ),ta’wīl is also a special method and that is to determine the allegorical verses in the light of the definitive verses, and to determine the use of every kind of rational (‘aqlī ) or textual (naqlī ) hypothesis for elucidating the definitive verses, and the use of every kind of rational or textual hypothesis for elucidating the allegorical verses is not acceptable. The acceptableta’wīl is that which is done by referring to the definitive verses of the Qur’an, authentic traditions or absolute rational principles. Someone asked Imām al-Ṣādiq (‘a ) concerning the meaning of “God’s settlement on the Throne”. The Imām thus replied:

“This meaning cannot be denied because Allah has stipulated it. However, it must not be imagined that the Throne of Allah is settled in a particular place, on which He leans and sits. As a matter of fact, it is Allah who looks after the Throne. His Throne is not located in a particular place but rather encompasses the heavens and the earth. As He said,

﴿ وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ ﴾

“His seat embraces the heavens and the earth.” 32

“Therefore, we affirm the Throne or Seat which Allah affirms and we reject that which He negates. That is, we never regard the Throne or Seat as encompassing Allah and He as having in need of a place or another being, but rather it is these creatures which are in need of Him.”33

Mālik ibn Anas (founder of the Malikī school of jurisprudence) was also asked with the same question, but instead of explaining “God’s settlement on the Throne,” he declared posing such questions as innovation in religion (bid‘ah) - “And to ask about it is bid‘ah (وَالسُّؤالُ عَنْهُ بِدْعَةٌ).” Meanwhile, by giving accurate answer, Imām al-Ṣādiq (‘a ) practically proved that to ask questions in order to understand religious teachings is a natural and religious right of individuals. What is important is that the motive behind asking is to know what is unknown and not to engage in fruitless acrimonious disputes.

Review Questions

1. Define the Transmitted Attributes (ṣifāt al-khabariyyah ).

2. Who are theseḥashwiyyah ?

3. As far as the Transmitted Attributes are concerned, which method has been adopted by the majority of Muslim theologians (mutakallimūn ) and exegetes (mufassirūn )?

4. What are the meanings ofta’wīl ? In theological discussions, which meaning of it is intended?

5. What is meant by the theological basis ofta’wīl ?

6. State the method of suspension (tawaqquf ) and delegation (tafwīḍ ) with respect to the allegorical verses of the Qur’an and the Transmitted Attributes (ṣifāt al-khabariyyah ).

7. Write down two bases of argument for those who subscribe totafwīḍ along with the refutation to them.

8. What is theAhl al-Bayt ’s (‘a ) approach to the Transmitted Attributes?

9. Write down the special approach of theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ) concerningta’wīl .

References

1. Sūrat Ṭā Hā 20:5.

2. Sūrat al-Raḥmān 55:27.

3. Sūrat al-Fatḥ 48:10.

4. Al-Milal wa ’n-Niḥal, vol. 1, p. 92.

5. On the origin of their earning this name, it is said that they were those who would attend the lecture sessions of Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and they would sit in front rows. In the course of the lectures they would sometimes interrupt and make incorrect expressions and undersirable remarks. Ḥasan al-Baṣrī ordered them to sit at the fringes (ḥāshiyah). As such, they became prominent with this appellation. See Muḥammad Zāhid Kawtharī, introduction to Tabyīn Kidhb al-Muftarā, p. 20. Another opinion on the origin of their name is that they would record at the margins (ḥāshiyah) of their books every tradition they would learn without scrutinizing its chain of transmission (sanad) or text (matn). Ja‘far al-Sijistānī, Buḥūth fī ’l-Milal wa ’n-Niḥal, vol. 1, p. 123.

6. Al-Milal wa ’n-Niḥal, vol. 1, pp. 105-106.

7. Ibn Khaldūn (Abū Zayd ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī) (1332/732 AH-1406/808 AH): a versatile Muslim scholar considered to be a forerunner of several social science disciplines as well as modern economics. [Trans.]

8. Ibn Khaldūn, Al-Muqaddimah, pp. 423-424.

9. In this regard, see the books written about the Salafīs and Wahhābīs ānī, Wahhabism (Tehran: Naba’ubh such as Āyatullāh Ja‘far S Organization, 1996), http://www.al-islam.org/wahhabism.

10. See Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:7. [Trans.]

11. ‘Allāmah al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 3, pp. 23-49.

12. Al-Milal wa ’n-Nihal, vol. 1, p. 92.

13. Tafsīr al-Manār, vol. 1, p. 253.

14. Sūrat Ibrāhīm 14: 25.

15. For further information in this regard, see Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 3, pp. 56-63.

16. Sūrat ash-Shūrā 42:11.

17. Sūrat al-Ikhlās (or at-Tawḥīd) 112:1-4.

18. Sūrat al-Qaṣaṣ 28:88.

19. Sūrat al-Fatḥ 48:10.

20. Sūrat Ṣād 38:75.

21. Sūrat Ṭā Hā 20:5.

22. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Al-Jā’ al-‘Awām, p. 55; Āyatullāh Ja‘far Subḥānī, Al-Ilāhiyyāt, vol. 1, pp. 327-328.

23. Al-Milal wa ’n-Nihal, p. 92.

24. Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 14, pp. 130-131.

25. Al-Milal wa ’n-Nihal, p. 93.

26. Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:7.

27. Al-Milal wa ’n-Nihal, p. 104.

28. Sūrat Yūnus 10:36; Sūrat an-Najm 53:28.

29. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, vol. 7, p. 175.

30. ‘Allāmah al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī has quoted this argument from Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. See Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 14, p. 133.

31. Nahj al-Balāghah, Sermon 90.

32. Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:255.

33. Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, Al-Tawḥīd, section (bāb) on the rejection of dualism (thanawiyyah) and atheism (zanādiqah), ḥadīth 1.

Lesson 19: Negative Attributes (Al-Ṣifāt al-Salbiyyah)

In view of the fact that God is the Necessary Being by essence, the Indivisible Existent and the Pure Perfection, He does not lack any attribute of perfection. On this basis, the Negative Attributes with respect to God does not mean negation of perfection.

In fact, the Negative Attributes of God denote negation of defect and deficiency [in Him] and since defect and deficiency have a negative connotation, negation of defect and deficiency is tantamount to the negation of negation (or double negation) which end result is positive. That is, in reality, the Negative Attributes of God express the affirmation of existential perfections [in Him].

Meanwhile, all defects and deficiencies are derived from contingence (imkān ) and indigence (faqr ). For this reason, it can be said that the Negative Attributes originate from a single negation and that is the negation of contingence and indigence. As Ḥakīm Sabziwārī has said,1

وَوَصفُهُ السَّلبي، سَلبُ السَّلبِ جا في سَلبِ الإحتِياجِ كَلّا أدرَجا

On this basis, when we negate some attributes from God, the point is their defect and deficiency, and not their perfection and excellence. For example, when we say that God is not a substance (jawhar ), it is because to be a substance implies three things. One is that it does not depend on others [for its existence] in contrast to an ontic quality (‘arḍ ) and another is that it has quiddity (māhiyyah ). The third implication is that its existence is limited (maḥdūd ). That which can be negated from God are the last two implications, while the fact that God does not depend on others [in His existence] is in itself one of the Attributes of Perfection, and it cannot be negated.2

In books of theology, some Negative Attributes which are the point of disputes, believed by some individuals, or considered an integral part of beliefs of some sects and religions have been discussed. Among them is [the belief in] a partner, similarity and composition in the Divine Essence. These attributes have been mentioned in the discussion concerning the Divine Unity (tawḥīd ) and there is no need to deal with them again. We shall examine here other Negative Attributes:

1. Corporeality (jasmāniyyah ). God is not corporeal because in addition to being a compound (murakkab ), a corporeal being is in need of a physical place or locus, and this quality is inconsistent with God as the Self-sufficient and Necessary Being.

2. Incarnation (ḥulūl ). Incarnation necessitates that a being depends on the existence of its locus (maḥall ) and is subject to it, and this is concomitant with the need for others. Whatever has been transmitted, therefore, from the Christians and some Sufis that God incarnated in the body of Jesus Christ (‘a ) or a certain mystic is unacceptable.

3. Union (ittiḥād ). Real union means that two things merge together and forms another thing and the earlier two things ceases to exist. There is no doubt in the incorrectness of this notion with respect to God. Yes, union is sometimes used in another sense and that is, two things have some similarities, as in the case of two persons who are the same in humanity, or

two essences which are one in denotation (miṣdāq ), as in the case of body and heat. This kind of union is impossible with respect to God because the Necessary Being and the contingent being are in unison in existence.

It must be borne in mind that in the sayings of mystics (‘urafā’ ) expressions such as “There is nothing except God,” “Whatever exists is God,” and the like can sometimes be observed. These expressions must not be understood in their apparent meaning; rather, they imply that everything is a manifestation of the Essence and Action of God, or there is no Essential and Independent Being except God, or the said mystic person reaches a state of gnosis where he cannot see anything except the aspect of unity (waḥdah ) and reality (ḥaqīqah ) of existence and he pays no more attention to the aspect of multiplicity (kathrah ), and in the words of Sa‘dī,3

همه هر چه هستند از آن كمترند كه با ﻫﺴﺘﻲاش نام هستي برند

4. Direction (jahat ). Direction refers to a point which can be physically indicated, and a being which has direction has a body or is corporeal.

5. Infusion of temporal things in God. This necessitates that God must be the locus of temporal things which is concomitant with change, receptivity and contingence of the Divine Essence which all necessitate limitation and indigence.

6. Pain and displeasure. Pain and displeasure exist in two living beings with conflicting features. One dominates the other and arbitrarily affects its structure, as in the case of viruses which are a source of pain in the body of a person or animal. Since a rival or opposite being to God does not exist, pain and displeasure in the above sense is inconceivable with respect to Him. Furthermore, what is meant by abhorrence and displeasure which are applied to God is that since He is the Absolute Goodness and Perfection, He loves goodness and perfection and He dislikes the opposite. Liking and disliking is something distinct from the sense of displeasure and pain.

7. Physical pleasure. Physical pleasure necessitates corporeality which is impossible to God, but rational pleasure with respect to God is not rationally shunned because its essence is the perception of existential perfection, and since God is the Absolute Perfection and is aware of His Essence, the assumption of rational pleasure in the above sense with respect to Him is permissible although some theologians have regarded it as impermissible to apply to God on the ground that such an attribute or name has not been mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions (aḥadīth ). It is worth mentioning that in the jargon of the philosophers and theologians, rational pleasure is calledibtihāj (bliss or ecstasy).4

8. Attributes apart from the Essence. This has been dealt with in detail in the discussion on the Divine Unity (tawḥīd ) in Attributes, and its end result is that the assumption of attributes apart from the Essence presupposes that the Essence of God is in need of those attributes and since the assumption is that these attributes are distinct from the Essence, it follows that the Divine Essence is in need of other than Itself, and this is in contradiction with the Essential Existence and Self-suffiency of God.

9. Visibility (ru’yah ). The possibility or impossibility of seeing God is a source of contention and dispute among the Muslim schools of thought. The

Ahl al-Ḥadith, Ashā‘irah and Māturdiyyah have considered it possible while the other schools of thought deemed it impossible. Of course, that which is disputed is seeing God with the eyes, but there is no dispute about the possibility of seeing God by the heart which are mentioned in the traditions of the Imāms from theAhl al-Bayt (‘a ) as well as abouta priori knowledge or total disclosure which is indicated in the sayings of mystics (‘urafā’ ). For example, when Imām ‘Alī (‘a ) was asked whether he has seen God, he replied, “How can I worship God whom I have not seen?” Then, in explaining what he meant by seeing, the Imām (‘a ) said:

لاتُدْرِكُهُ العُيونُ بِمُشاهَدَةِ الْعِيانِ، وَلَكِنْ تُدْرِكُهُ القُلوبُ بِحَقائِقِ الإيمانِ.

That is to say that He cannot be comprehended by the eyes by seeing Him but through the hearts by the truths of faith.5

The Proofs of Impossibility of Physically Seeing God

To support their claim, those who believe in the impossibility of physically seeing God have cited rational and textual proofs, some of which are as follows:

First proof: Seeing with the eyes is only possible under the following conditions:

1. The visible (mar’ī ) must be a corporeal being.

2. The visible being must be at a particular place in front of the seer.

3. There must be a specific spatial distance between the visible being and the seer.

4. There must be sufficient light for vision to function.

Since these conditions are impossible for God, the Exalted, who is immune from corporeality, direction and place, seeing God will also be impossible.

Second proof: That which can be seen has one of these two states. It can either totally or partially be seen, whereas whole or partial are properties of a body.

Third proof: The Holy Qur’an has also regardred seeing God as impossible, saying thus:

﴿ لاَّ تُدْرِكُهُ الأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الأَبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ ﴾

“The sights do not comprehend Him, yet He apprehends the sights, and He is the All-attentive, the All-aware.” 6

The statement “He is the All-attentive, the All-aware” is in reality the reason behind the two earlier rulings; that is, since God is the All-attentive (al-laṭīf ), the seers cannot see Him and since He is the All-aware (al-khabīr ), He is aware of the seers.

Proof of the Proponents of Ru’yah

The proponents ofru’yah or physically seeing God have two claims. One is that it is possible to see God and that it will take place on the Day of Resurrection. In order to establish the possibility ofru’yah , they have cited two points from verse 143 ofSūrat al-A‘rāf :

﴿ وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَى لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ ﴾

“When Moses arrived at Our tryst and his Lord spoke to him, he said, ‘My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You.’” 7

The mode of argument is that if it were impossible to see God, Prophet Mūsā (Moses) (‘a ) would not have requested for it because requesting for something which is impossible is futile and senseless.

This argument is complete if Prophet Mūsā’s (‘a ) request for seeing God were serious and that he really wanted to see God. This is while a study of the totality of verses related to Prophet Mūsā’s (‘a ) tryst along with a number of the prominent figures of his community and the request for seeing God on their behalf will make it clear that this request by Prophet Mūsā (‘a ) was done in order for his community to understand that such a thing is impossible and that their insistence not to have faith in God unless seeing Him talking to Prophet Mūsā (‘a ) was futile.8

The following expression by Khwājah Nāsīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī9 represents the same answer:

وَسُؤال موسى لِقَومِهِ.

“And the question of Moses was meant for his community.”10

﴿ قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي وَلَكِنِ انْظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي ﴾

“He said, ‘You shall not see Me. But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me.’” 11

The mode of argument is that the mountain’s abiding in its place is something possible and since seeing God is conditional to something which is possible, it follows that seeing Him is also possible.

This argument is correct provided that what is meant by the mountain’s abiding in its place is absolute abiding. However, what be can inferred from the outward meaning of the verse is that it means the mountain’s abiding in its place at the time when Prophet Mūsā (‘a ) was looking at it. Instead, what happened was that because of God’s manifestation in it, it leveled off and Prophet Mūsā (‘a ) fell down swooning, as the continuation of the verse thus reveals:

﴿ فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَى صَعِقًا ﴾

“So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He leveled it, and Moses fell down swooning.” 12

The following expression by Khwājah Nāsīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī represents the said answer:

وَتَعْليقُ الرُّؤيَةِ بِاسْتِقْرارِ المُتَحَرِّكِ لا يَدُلُّ عَلَى الْإمْكانِ.

“And attachingru’yah (seeing God) to the abiding of something that moves (in that state) does not imply the possibility ofru’yāh .”13

Argument on the Occurrence of Ru’yah and the Objection to It

Those who subscribe to the possibility of the faithful to see God on the Day of Judgment have cited this verse:

﴿ وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَاضِرَةٌ ٭ إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ ﴾

“Some faces will be fresh on that day, looking at their Lord.” 14

The reply to this is that since seeing God in the sense of seeing Him with the eyes is impossible, one cannot interpret the wordnaẓar (to look or see) to mean seeing with the eyes, just as the wordyadd (hand) in the verse“The hand of Allah is above their hands” 15 cannot be construed to mean a particular bodily limb; rather, its appropriate meaning must be sought and in the verse under discussion, it means one of these two things:

1.Naẓar meansintiẓār (to wait or expect) as the use of the wordnaẓar in the sense ofintiẓār is prevalent. For instance, when it is said that “So-and-so is looking for the hand of so-and-so” it means that he is expecting help or a reward from him.

2. A word such asthawāb (reward) is implied in the verse. That is, they expect for the reward and recompense from their Lord, just as the wordahl (people) is implied in this verse:

﴿ وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ ﴾

“Ask [the people of] the town.” 16

The following expression by Muḥaqqiq al-Ṭūsī represents the said reply:17

وَالنَّظَرُ لا يَدُلُّ عَلَى الرُّؤْيَةِ مَعَ قَبولِهِ التَّأْويلَ.

On this basis, the traditions which the Ahl al-Sunnah have narrated from the prophets (‘a ) concerning the possibility of the faithful seeing God on the Day of Resurrection, just as the moon can be seen on the fourteenth night of the lunar month, must be interpreted in a different way because seeing with the eyes in its real sense is impossible with respect to God and in this connection, there is no difference between this world and the Hereafter.

And that sometimes it is said that not seeing God in this world is due to the weakness of the human being’s sense of sight and that their sense of sight will get stronger on the Day of Resurrection will only solve the problem on the side of the seers and not about the visible or object of sight (mar’ī ). In any case, seeing is possible provided that the visible is located in a particular place and direction in front of the seer, and this is impossible with respect to God.

Review Questions

1. What is the meaning of the Negative Attributes of God?

2. State the incorrectness of corporeality and incarnation about God.

3. Why is the notion of union (ittiḥād ) and direction (jahat ) about God impossible?

4. Prove that God cannot be a locus (maḥall ) of temporal things, pain and displeasure.

5. Why is the physical pleasure with respect to God impossible?

6. Can the Attributes of God be considered apart from His Essence? Why?

7. Write down the first reason for the impossibility of seeing God?

8. What is the second reason for the impossibility of seeing God?

9. Considering the verse“ When Moses arrived at Our tryst and his Lord spoke to him, he said, ‘My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may

look at You,’ ” 18 if seeing God were impossible, then why did Prophet Mūsā (‘a ) requested for it?

10. Write down the second basis of those who believe that God can be seen along with the refutation to it.

11. Write down the basis of those who believe in the possibility of seeing God on the Day of Resurrection along with the refutation to it.