Anthropomorphic Tendencies
amongst some from the Hanābila
Imām Ibn al-Jawzī
translated by Merlin Swartz
Released by www.marifah.net 1428 H

I have observed that some members of the [Hanbalī] school have taken positions on
matters of usul that are not acceptable. Among them there are three persons, namely,
Abu ‘Abdullāh bin Hāmid, his disciple the Qādī [Abu Ya’la], and Ibn Zaghūnī, who have
detailed [their views] in writing and whose books have brought shame on the school. In
my view they have descended to the level of the vulgar masses (`awāmm) by interpreting
[texts from the Qur’ān and the Hadith bearing on] the divine attributes (sifāt) in
accordance with the requirements of sense perception (`alā muqtad al-hiss). Thus when
they learn that Allāh created Adam in his own ‘form’ (sūra), they conclude that Allāh has
a form consisting of a face (wajh), which [they say is an attribute] added to His Essence
(zā’id `alāl dhāt), two eyes, a mouth, an uvula, molars, a forehead bearing the marks of
prostration (subuhāt), two hands, fingers, even a little finger and a thumb, a chest and a
thigh, two legs and two feet, but they add: “We know of no reference to a head.”

They also assert that Allāh can touch and be touched, and that a person may actually
draw near to the Divine Essence. Some of them even say that [Allāh] breathes. They
delight the uneducated public by advancing their views that contravene the canons of
reason. Having adopted a literal interpretation of the divine names (asmā’) and the
attributes (sifāt) they go on to apply the term ‘attribute’ [to both of them] indiscriminately,
[which is] an innovative method of designation for which there is no evidence (dalīl) in
scripture or reason. They ignore the scriptural texts (nusūs) that discourage a literalistic
interpretation (zawāhir) in favour of modes of representation (ma`ānī) that are necessary
to Allāh’s [oneness and transcendence] and [require] the negation of those references
(simāt) which, when taken literally, imply origination in time (hudūth). They are not
satisfied to call such ‘an attribute of action’ (sifāt fi`l) but insist on designating it ‘an
attribute of essence’ (sifāt dhāt). Then having declared them to be such, they refuse to
interpret along the lines required by literary usage, in which case the expression ‘hand [of
Allāh]’ should be taken to mean His power (qudra) or blessing (nī’ma); [references to His]
‘arriving’ (mājī’) or ‘coming’ (ityān) as his kindness (birr) or His benevolence (lutf), and
[references to His] ‘thigh’ (saq) as His might (shidda). Rather they say: “We interpret such
expressions literally (`alā zāhir).”

1
However, since the literal meaning takes human qualities (nu’ūt al-adamiyīn) as its point of
reference, the expression may be construed in its concrete, literal sense (`alā haqīqatihi)
only when that is possible; if that is not possible then it ought to be construed
metaphorically (`alā majāz). [In reality,] they are steeped in [the methods] of
anthropomorphism (tashbīh), their following having come from the uneducated classes
(`awāmm).

I have thus [thought it necessary to] expose the errors of both those who follow and
those who are followed [in these matters]. I say to my fellow Hanbalīs: You are
proponents of scripture and tradition (naql wa-ittibā`), and your distinguished imam,
Ahmad bin Hanbal, used to say when he was being scourged [on account of his beliefs]:
“How can I say what has not been said [before]?” Be on your guard, therefore, lest you
introduce heretical doctrines into his teaching! Did [Ahmad] ever discourse on such
matters as the recitation (tilāwa) and what is recited (matluw), the reading (qirā’a) and what
is read (maqrū’)? Has anyone ever reported to you that [Ahmad] taught that Allāh’s istiwā’
on the Throne is one of the attributes of essence (sifāt al-dhāt) or an attribute of action
(sifāt al-fi’l)? On what grounds do you justify venturing into [a discussion of] such
matters? Some of you have stated that a ‘hand’ is to be ascribed to Allāh as an attribute
added to His Essence (zā’ida `alāl dhāt). All such statements are in conflict with
established norms and are repugnant to those who oppose innovation (bid’a). You insist
that the traditions of the Prophet are to be interpreted literally (`alā zāhir), but the literal
meaning of ‘foot’ (qadam), [alleged to be one of the divine attributes] is ‘limb’ (jariha). The
only acceptable method is to allow [the words of scripture] to stand as they appear in the
text [without comment]. They are to be recited, but nothing is to be added.

If you had understood the difference between the two positions, you would not have
fallen into error. When it is said that Jesus is a spirit of Allāh (rūhullāh), Christians
maintain that ‘spirit’ (rūh) is an attribute (sifā) of Allāh which entered into Mary.
[Likewise] those who affirm that Allāh sits on the Throne in His essence (bi-dhātihi) have
relegated Him to the realm of the physical senses (hissiyāt). It is essential that due
consideration be given to the established by the principle of reason, for it is through this
latter that we can know [that] the Creator [exists] and can ascertain Him to be eternal.
Use reason, then, to shield Allāh from those finite, corporeal qualities (tashbīh aw-tajsīm)
that are alien to His being, and permit the traditions of the Prophet to stand exactly as
you find them, without adding to or subtracting from them! If you had said: “We recite
them [without comment],” no one would have censured you. It is your interpretation of them
in a literalistic fashion (`alāl zāhir) alone that is objectionable. Refrain from insinuating
into the doctrine of [Ahmad] our pious ancestor, what he never taught! Instead you have
brought shame and dishonour to the school, so much so that the only thing that is now
said of a Hanbali is that he is an anthropomorphist (mujassim). Not only that, but you
have embellished your doctrine with a narrowly partisan devotion (`asabiyya) to Yazīd
[bin Mu’awiyya] even though you know quite well that the founder of the school actually
permitted the cursing [of Yazīd]. Abū Muhammad al-Tamīmī used to say of one of your
leaders that he had brought such shame on this school that it would not be washed away
until the day of resurrection.

2
The errors of the authors to whom I have referred above fall into seven categories:

(1) They take scriptural texts which refer only to the qualifications (awsāf) and construe
them as though they were akhbar as-sifat. Not everything ascribed to Allāh [in scripture],
however, should be assigned the status of an attribute (sifa). Thus, when the Qur'an
relates Allāh as having said: "I breathed into [Adam] My spirit (rūh)," the reference to
"spirit" (rūh) here should not be taken to mean that Allāh possesses an attribute by that
name. Indeed, those who term a simple qualification (mudaf) an attribute have departed
from normative practice.

(2) They say that the meaning of those sayings of the Prophet that fall into the category
of the ambiguous sayings (mutashabbihāt) is known only to Allāh. But then they add: “We
take [these obscure texts] in their literal sense (`alā zāhirihā).” How strange is it that the literal
meaning (zāhir) is one that only Allāh knows? Can the term istiwā, when taken in its literal
sense, mean anything other than ‘sitting’ (qu’ūd), or the term nuzūl anything other than
‘movement’ (intiqāl)?

(3) They ascribe attributes to Allāh [carelessly, not understanding] that attributes (sifāt)
ought to be predicated of Allāh on the same basis as essence (dhāt) is predicated, [that is]
only on the authority of peremptory evidence (adilla qāt'iyya). Ibn Hāmid said:

“Anyone who rejects what is ascribed to Allāh in reliable traditions (akhbār thabita), has he [not]
blasphemed in a double sense? The majority of Hanbalīs hold that those who reject traditions in which a
leg, foot, fingers, palm and so forth are predicated to Allāh are to be declared unbelievers even if the
traditions in question have come down from a single source (ahād) for, in our view, their contents belong
to the category of authoritative knowledge (`ilm).”

Statements of this sort can come only from one who does not understand the principles
of jurisprudence or those of reason.

(4) They fail to distinguish between those prophetic traditions that rest on multiple
authorities (khabar mashhūr) such as “He (Allāh) descends to the lowest heaven,” and traditions
that are not at all reliable such as, for example, the saying “I saw my Lord in the best form (fī
ahsāni sūratin).” In fact, they establish divine attributes on the basis of both categories
indiscriminately.

(5) They make no distinction between traditions whose line of transmission goes back to
the Prophet (marfū’) and those that go back only to a Companion or a Follower. Indeed
they predicate attributes of Allāh on the basis of both types of traditions without
distinction.

(6) They interpret certain expressions metaphorically (ta`awwalu) in one place but refuse
to do so in [another] place. Thus, for example, they take the divine saying “He who comes to
Me walking I will come to him running” as a figure of speech referring to Allāh's bestowal of
blessings on His creatures. However, in connection with the saying of `Umar bin `Abdul
`Azīz: “On the day of resurrection, Allāh will come walking,” they insist on a literal
interpretation. How strange it is that they interpret a saying going back to the Prophet
metaphorically but refuse to do so when considering [a similar saying] from `Umar bin
`Abdul `Azīz!

3
(7) Finally, they make sense experience the basis of their interpretation of the hadith.
Thus, they say that Allāh Himself (bi-dhātihi) descends (yanzilu) and moves from place to
place (yantaqilu wa-yataharraku). they maintain that such statements are not to be
understood rationally. By such sophistry they deceive those who listen to them and they
contradict both sense experience and reason (al-hiss wal `aql). 1

1
Translated by Merlin Swartz, A Medieval Critique of Anthropomorphism: Ibn al-Jawzi’s Kitab Akhbar
as-Sifat; Brill (2002) p. 122-129