The classical position of Sunni scholars is that the attributes of God, such as power, will, and knowledge, are not identical to God’s essence nor are they separate from it. Their being non-identical returns to the manner in which each is rationally conceptualized in the mind: the reality of an essence is not the same as the reality of an attribute. The attribute of power that subsists through the essence of X is not identical to the essence of X. Rather, the mind conceives of a particular meaning for an attribute that is distinct to that which it conceives for an essence. It is from this perspective of how the meaning of an attribute and essence is conceptualized in the mind that scholars formulated the statement that an attribute is not the same as an essence.
At the same time, an attribute is not other than the essence in the sense of being separate from it, which refers to:
(a) an attribute not subsisting on its own, it always requires an essence through which it subsists.
(b) An attribute being innate to the essence in the external realm of existence an essence cannot exist without attributes.
In conclusion, the phrase “the attributes of God are distinct to His essence” relates back to the manner in which the mind conceives of an ‘attribute’ and an ‘essence’, while the phrase “the attributes of God are not other than His essence” refers to attributes always requiring an essence to subsist through and the fact that attributes/essence are inseparable in the external realm of existence as opposed to purely rational conceptualization.
It is not accurate to state that the attributes of God are “not other than God”. Rather, the correct expression is that the attributes of God are “not other than the essence.” This is because the expression God does not refer merely to an essence but to an essence ascribed with specific attributes
Ibn Taymiyyah may Allaah have mercy upon him wrote, “This is why the early Muslim generations and all the Imaams did not declare that the Quran and all the Attributes of Allaah to be ‘other than’ Him, nor did they declare that they are not other than Him. That is because the indication of the terms ‘other than’ is general/ambiguous; it could indicate the meaning ‘detached’ or ‘separate’, and accordingly, it would mean that all or part of the attribute belonging to the object of qualification are not included in the “other”. (On the other hand) it could mean something conceivable, without conceiving something apart from the other. This is why the adherents of philosophical speculation (Ahl An-Nathar) disagreed about the use of the term ‘other than’ in this context.
The difference in opinion revolved around the linguistic indication of the terms; however, this difference of opinion gave rise to a number of misconceptions with relation to the Divine Attributes that cannot be eliminated except with careful investigation of the linguistic indication of the terms in order to clear all potential ambiguities, as explained in detail in other works.
This is why a differentiation is made between saying: ‘the Attributes are other than the Essence,’ and saying ‘the Attributes of Allaah are other than Allaah.’ The latter is false because the name ‘Allaah’ includes His Attributes, unlike the ‘Essence’, which does not include His Attributes.
This is why it cannot be said that the Attributes of Allaah are additional to Allaah, even though it is said that the Attributes are additional to the Essence, because the intended meaning is that the Attributes are additional to the affirmed Divine Essence which exists without the Attributes. On the contrary, the Divine Essence is qualified with those Attributes which are inseparable from it. Neither the Attributes are without the Essence, nor is the Essence without the Attributes.”
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Amaan may Allaah have mercy upon them said: “The question: Are the Attributes additional to the Essence or are they other than the Essence or not? This is another example of the invented discourse introduced by the adherents of Kalaam (scholastic theology). Early Muslim scholars never used such discourse. Rather, they disliked using ambiguous/general language such as this, because of their desire to adhere to the revealed texts and not to go beyond them for such important purposes related to Allaah. However, late scholars started to engage in such discourse with the scholars of Kalaam to defend and preserve the correct Islamic creed.
They said that if the intended meaning of saying that the Attribute is other than or additional to the Essence is that the Essence exists separately from the Attribute, this is false. But if the intended meaning is that the Attributes are additional to the Essence in the sense that the Essence has a different meaning than the meaning of the Attribute and that the concept of the Attributes is additional to the concept of the Essence but they are inseparable from the Essence, this is correct. However, it should not be used except in case of necessity and it should be elaborated and clearly explained; otherwise, it is useless vain discourse.”
Reason why Allah’s attributes cannot be him, take for example the attribute of knowledge / al aleem
- It is impossible for the Knowledge to be Him because it is impossible for knowledge to be knowledgeable! Therefore, had He been knowledge, it would be invalid to say that He is Knowledgeable, and from there, that He would have any Attribute.
- It is impossible for the Knowledge to be a part of Him because the Necessary Existence would not be composed of parts! It is also not said that His Attributes agree or comply with Him, nor oppose Him, nor are separate from Him, or adhere to Him, or are connected to Him or disconnected from Him, or that they resemble Him or they do not resemble Him. Nor is it said that His Attributes dwell within Him or that He is made of them.
- All of that implies that His Attributes are different from Him, which leads to saying that one could exist while the other is non-existent; that the Attributes could exist without the Self, or that the Self could exist without the Attributes. What must be said is: “They are Attributes of His, they are confirmed for Him and unique to Him without being parts or dwelling within Him.”
- It is impossible to be other than Him because it is impossible that the Knowledge depart the Self.
This conclusion of Allah being equal to his attributes would also lead to two fallacies
It is to deny His Self because a self is not an attribute.
It would also mean that He is Power and Knowledge, etc. That would mean that knowledge is power, etc.This is juggling realities
However to say that he is other than his attributes leads to
- It validates the Self without Attributes, which makes no sense because the attributes are who allah is.
- If they were other than Him; different from His Self, they would be fleeting; temporary qualities, like the attributes of the creations. It would be valid for them to depart Him. Allah existing without the attribute of “the ever lasting/ the living” al hayy al qayyum is nonsensical.
