How does Ibn Taymiyya understand the verses of attributes (istiwāʾ, hands, face), and how does his method (affirmation without likening) differ from Ashʿarī interpretation?

Ibn Taymiyya and the Verses of Attributes: The Method of Affirmation without Likening

Understanding Ibn Taymiyya's position on the verses of attributes is a necessary entry point for comprehending one of the most important discussions in Islamic kalām. His method of "affirmation without likening" (ithbāt bilā tamthīl) represents a distinctive middle position between interpretation and anthropomorphism, offering a coherent vision of how to understand Quranic texts that attribute apparently sensory qualities to God.

Inadequate Responses to Be Avoided

From some contemporary Salafis:

"Ibn Taymiyya affirms attributes according to their apparent meaning without any interpretation." This is imprecise. Ibn Taymiyya affirms the meaning but denies the created modality. His principle "affirmation without modalization" (ithbāt bilā takyīf) means affirming a real meaning for the attribute while denying that it resembles the attributes of created beings. This is more complex than merely "taking the apparent meaning."

"Anyone who interprets a verse of attributes is a Jahmī according to Ibn Taymiyya." This is a misleading simplification. Ibn Taymiyya distinguishes between proximate plausible interpretation and remote interpretation. He also accepts turning the term away from its apparent meaning when context indicates this, as in "He is with you wherever you are," which he interprets as knowledge and encompassing, not in terms of the divine essence.

From some Ashʿarīs:

"Ibn Taymiyya is an anthropomorphist who affirms direction and limits for God." This is a common accusation but imprecise regarding Ibn Taymiyya himself. Ibn Taymiyya explicitly denies anthropomorphism and denies that God is a body like other bodies. His affirmation of transcendence (ʿuluww) and istiwāʾ does not mean affirming corporeality for him, but rather affirming attributes befitting God without likening.

"Ibn Taymiyya's method inevitably leads to anthropomorphism." This claim requires proof. Ibn Taymiyya establishes clear controls: affirming meaning while denying resemblance, and saying that God's attributes befit His essence just as the creature's attributes befit its essence. These controls—if applied—prevent anthropomorphism.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share inaccuracy in presenting Ibn Taymiyya's actual position, which is more complex than common stereotypes. Precise understanding requires examining his detailed method and comparing it fairly with the Ashʿarī method.

Ibn Taymiyya's Method: Affirmation without Likening

Ibn Taymiyya (661-728 AH) developed a distinctive method for dealing with verses of attributes, based on several principles:

First Principle: Affirming what God has affirmed for Himself.

Verses mentioning istiwāʾ, hands, and face are affirmed as real attributes of God, not metaphors. The verse "The Most Merciful upon the Throne established" (al-Raḥmān ʿalā al-ʿarsh istawā) is understood as God having a real istiwāʾ befitting His majesty.

Second Principle: Denying likening and resemblance.

While affirming the reality of the attribute, it is denied that it resembles the attributes of created beings. Divine istiwāʾ is not like the creature's istiwāʾ, and the divine hand is not like the creature's hand. Sharing in name does not necessitate sharing in reality.

Third Principle: Consigning the modality.

"The istiwāʾ is known, the how is unknown"—this principle attributed to Mālik ibn Anas is central to Ibn Taymiyya. We affirm the meaning of the attribute (istiwāʾ = transcendence and elevation), but consign its modality because it is beyond human comprehension.

Fourth Principle: The argument from priority.

If the deficient creature has attributes of perfection (like knowledge and power), then the perfect Creator is more deserving of them, but in a manner befitting His perfection. This justifies affirming attributes while denying resemblance.

Applications of Ibn Taymiyya's Method

Istiwāʾ: Ibn Taymiyya affirms that God is established upon His Throne in a real istiwāʾ befitting His majesty, meaning transcendence and elevation, but without modalization. He denies that istiwāʾ means dominion (istīlāʾ) as some Ashʿarīs interpreted, viewing this as distortion of meaning.

The Two Hands: He affirms that God has two real hands befitting His majesty, with which He created Adam and with which He grasps and extends. He denies that they are limbs like the hands of creatures, and also denies interpreting them as power or blessing, because the context prevents this ("rather, His hands are extended").

The Face: He affirms that God has a real face befitting His majesty, to which attributes like permanence are attributed ("and the face of your Lord will remain"). He denies that face means essence only, just as he denies that it is a limb like the faces of creatures.

The Ashʿarī Method: Interpretation or Consignment

The Ashʿarīs developed a different method with two forms:

First Form: Detailed Interpretation.

Later Ashʿarīs (like al-Rāzī and al-Āmidī) interpreted the informational attributes:
- Istiwāʾ = dominion and subjugation
- Hand = power or blessing
- Face = essence or reward
- Coming = the coming of God's command

Justification: If these terms are understood according to their apparent meanings, they necessitate anthropomorphism, and anthropomorphism is rationally impossible, so they must be turned to metaphorical meanings.

Second Form: Absolute Consignment.

Some Ashʿarīs (attributing this to the predecessors) consign the meaning entirely: verses of attributes are from the ambiguous (mutashābih) whose meaning is unknown; we believe in them and consign their meaning to God.

Ibn Taymiyya's Critique of the Ashʿarī Method

Ibn Taymiyya criticizes both Ashʿarī approaches:

Critique of Interpretation:
- It empties texts of their real meaning
- It opens the door to interpreting everything (even God's names)
- It contradicts the understanding of the Companions and predecessors
- It makes the Quran riddles rather than clarification

Critique of Absolute Consignment:
- It makes the Quran speech without meaning
- It contradicts the Quran being "clarification" and "guidance"
- The predecessors consigned modality, not meaning
- It leads to negating attributes

Fundamental Points of Difference

In Starting Point: Ashʿarīs start from the position that reason makes corporeality impossible for God, so everything suggesting corporeality must be interpreted. Ibn Taymiyya starts from the position that the text is clear in affirming attributes, and reason only makes likening impossible.

In Understanding Transcendence: Ashʿarīs see transcendence in denying or interpreting informational attributes. Ibn Taymiyya sees transcendence in affirming them while denying likening.

In the Limits of Reason: Ashʿarīs give reason authority to interpret text when it conflicts with rational proofs. Ibn Taymiyya sees that sound reason does not oppose authentic revelation, and apparent conflict arises from error in one of them.

Contemporary Positions

The discussion between the two methods continues:

Contemporary Salafi Current generally adopts Ibn Taymiyya's method, with variation in application. Some lean toward subtle anthropomorphism, others are more cautious.

Contemporary Ashʿarī Current still defends interpretation, with attempts to renew formulation. Some (like Saʿīd Fūda) explicitly accuse Ibn Taymiyya of anthropomorphism.

Conciliatory Current attempts synthesis, like Shaykh al-Būṭī who accepts some of Ibn Taymiyya's affirmations while being cautious of anthropomorphism.

The Philosophical Point

The discussion reflects a deeper problem: How do we speak of the infinite in finite language? How do we affirm attributes for God without likening? Ibn Taymiyya offers a solution through "affirmation while denying similarity," Ashʿarīs through "interpretation or consignment." Both methods attempt to solve the same philosophical dilemma.

Where We Stand in This Discussion Today

Contemporary academic discussion tends toward:
- Recognizing that Ibn Taymiyya's method is more internally coherent than his opponents portrayed
- Accepting that Ashʿarī interpretation has its philosophical justifications
- Attempting to understand each method within its epistemological framework
- Focusing on common ground (transcendence) more than differences

The issue remains among the most complex in kalām, and choosing between methods is influenced by broader philosophical positions regarding language, knowledge, and the relationship between reason and revelation.

For Advanced Reading

- Advanced level: Ibn Taymiyya's theory of religious language and its relationship to contemporary philosophy of language
- Ibn Taymiyya, "Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyya" and "Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa-l-Naql"
- Al-Rāzī, "Asās al-Taqdīs" (for the Ashʿarī position)
- Jon Hoover, Ibn Taymiyya's Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism (Brill, 2007)
- Frank Griffel, Al-Ghazālī's Philosophical Theology (Oxford UP, 2009)
- "Formulation: Divine Attributes in Islamic Theology" page on the website