Ar Razi’s Argument

Ar Razi, in al Nihayah, discussed the issue of seeing Allah by mentioning the arguments of the deniers and the affirmers. In doing so, he gave the deniers stronger rational and textual arguments than he gave the affirmers. Then, after laying out the rational approaches, he said that the rational arguments in this issue are not strong. After that, he said that the disagreement is close to being a verbal one.

He also admitted something very important. He admitted that the vision of Allah affirmed by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the early generations points to Allah being in a direction. So the matter, in the end, comes back to this. The revealed texts affirm vision, and the kind of vision known to the people is vision of something in a direction.

He then discussed the Mu’tazilah’s use of the verse, “لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ” “Sight does not encompass Him” (al An’am: 103). They used it either to deny seeing Allah in this universe and the next, or to deny the possibility of seeing Him altogether. Ar Razi answered them by saying that the word used in the verse does not simply mean vision. Rather, it means a kind of reaching or full grasp, and that this is only used for seeing something limited and bounded. So, according to him, the verse does not deny vision itself, but only denies a specific kind of full grasp.

The First Reply

Ar Razi’s own answer breaks his own position. He admitted that the Arabs only knew vision as seeing something in a direction, and that seeing something with no direction was not known to them and not even imagined by them. Once this is admitted, the texts that affirm vision can only be understood according to the meaning known to those addressed by the revelation.

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that the Prophet ﷺ repeatedly told the people, in authentic hadiths, that they would see their Lord just as they see the moon, and just as they see the sun when the sky is clear. The Companions, the Tabi’in, and the early imams all affirmed this vision. None of them ever explained it as a vision without direction, and none of them spoke in a way that suggested such a meaning. So, once Ar Razi admits that the word vision in their language only applied to what is in a direction, his own admission becomes proof against him.

The Verse, “Sight Does Not Encompass Him”

The verse, “لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ” “Sight does not encompass Him” (al An’am: 103), does not deny vision altogether. It only denies full encompassment and complete grasp.

This was the explanation of the leading early scholars. It is established from Ibn Abbas that he affirmed the vision of Allah and explained the verse to mean that sight does not fully encompass Him. He gave the example of the sky. A person may see the sky, but he does not see all of it. So Allah is greater than that. This makes the meaning plain. Vision is affirmed, but full encompassment is denied.

If seeing Allah were impossible in every sense, then there would be no point in using this more specific wording. Denying full encompassment only has force when basic vision is possible. Denial of the specific does not deny the general. Rather, it shows that the general remains possible while the complete and all encompassing form is denied.

Ar Razi’s Linguistic Answer

Ar Razi’s attempt to distinguish between vision and full grasp still leads back to the same result. Ar Razi said that this word is only used for seeing something bounded and located. He also said that seeing what is not in a direction was not known to the Arabs at all. That means the language itself, as he described it, only supports the kind of vision known among people, namely vision of what is in a direction.

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that once this is accepted, the Prophet’s words, the understanding of the Companions, and the consensus of the salaf all become decisive proof that the vision they affirmed was not some abstract, directionless vision. It was the very kind of vision known in their language, and that is vision of what is before the viewer in a direction.

The Matter of Musa عليه السلام

The line taken by Abu al Husayn and those like him leads to an impossible conclusion. They said that reason necessarily knows that whatever is seen must face the viewer, and whatever faces the viewer must be in a direction and occupy space. Then they treated it as impossible that Musa عليه السلام could have asked to see Allah in that sense.

This argument turns back on them. If, according to them, every seen thing must be in a direction, and Musa عليه السلام asked to see Allah, then their own reasoning means that Musa عليه السلام asked for vision of One in a direction. So their argument does not solve the problem. It only makes their objection against Musa عليه السلام worse.

Before Abu al Husayn, none of the earlier imams said Musa عليه السلام was ignorant. The people before him were either affirming vision, or interpreting Musa’s request in another way, such as a request made on behalf of his people, or a request for a sign. So this later objection broke with what came before it and did not rest on any sound consensus.

The Hadith of Seeing Allah

The hadiths of vision are mass transmitted in meaning and leave no room for the later abstract interpretation. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Will you have any doubt in seeing the sun when there are no clouds?” They said no. He said, “Will you have any doubt in seeing the full moon when there are no clouds?” They said no. Then he said, “Then you will see your Lord like that.” The comparison is a comparison of the act of seeing, not of the One seen.

This comparison proves direction from several sides. First, the word vision in their language only applied to seeing what is in a direction. Second, the Prophet ﷺ compared seeing Allah to seeing the sun and moon, and both are seen in a direction. Had he intended some other kind of vision, he would not have tied it to these clear examples.

The Prophet ﷺ also spoke about seeing the sun and moon when there is no cloud between the viewer and what is seen. This shows a clear relation between the viewer and the seen object, with no barrier. That is the known reality of ordinary seeing. It is not an abstract meaning with no direction at all.

The Prophet ﷺ also said that the believers will not suffer harm, crowding, or distress in seeing their Lord. Such wording only makes sense in a type of vision where such hardship could otherwise be imagined. That is the case in normal seeing of what is before the viewer. As for the abstract vision imagined by the deniers, where nothing is in a direction and no facing relation exists, then there is no reason at all to deny hardship in the first place. So the wording of the hadith itself proves the falsehood of their interpretation.

What Ar Razi Admitted

Ar Razi himself admitted the key premise needed here. He admitted that the Arabs only understood vision as the seeing of what is located in a direction. He admitted that seeing something with no direction was not known to them and not even imagined by them. He admitted that the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the early generations affirm the vision of Allah. Once all of this is put together, the conclusion becomes clear.

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that the vision affirmed by the Prophet ﷺ and the early generations was the very vision known to the people addressed by revelation. It was not a later invented philosophical notion. It was a real vision, understood in the plain way people understand seeing.

Ar-Razi, when he addressed the issue of seeing Allah in his book al-Nihayah, mentioned the arguments of both the deniers and the affirmers. What he presented from the deniers, both rational and textual, was stronger than what he mentioned from the affirmers.

This is his habit in many of his debates: he brings sophistical arguments and their branches for falsehood that he would not even use for truth. He said about the issue of seeing Allah, after laying out the rational approaches: “It becomes clear from all we have said that the rational arguments are not strong in this issue.” Then he said: “Know also that the reality of this matter is that the disagreement in it is close to being a verbal one, and we will explain that, if Allah wills.”

The second point: this man and those who agree with him admit that the vision of Allah affirmed by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the early generations, and even the verse that denies idrak of Allah in the words “Sight does not encompass Him” (al-Anam: 103), all of this indicates that Allah is in a direction.

That means the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the early generations indicate 2 things: that Allah will be seen, and that He is in a direction. And Ar-Razi even mentioned the admission of some respected figures among the Mu’tazilah that the prophets used to believe this.

As for the first, when he mentioned the textual proofs used by the Mu’tazilah to deny vision, he said: “These are 4 arguments. The strongest of them is relying on Allah’s statement: ‘Sight does not encompass Him, but He encompasses sight.'”

He said: “Know that sometimes they use this verse to argue that He cannot be seen in this universe or the next. And sometimes they use it to say that vision of Him is impossible altogether.”

The first argument only works by proving 4 things. The first is that the comprehension of sight (idrak al-basr) means vision.

He said: “2 points prove this: 1, that there is no difference in language between saying, ‘I saw him with my eye’ and ‘I comprehended him with my eye,’ just as there is no difference between saying ‘I heard him with my ear’ and ‘I comprehended him with my ear.’ 2, that the people of the Arabic language understood this verse to be denying vision, and that shows that Arabs used idrak al-basr to mean vision.”

It is reported from Aisha that when she heard that Kaʿb said Muhammad ﷺ saw his Lord, she denied that, and said: “Whoever tells you that Muhammad ﷺ saw his Lord has fabricated a great lie against Allah. Allah said: ‘Sight does not encompass Him, but He encompasses sight.'” He also reported similar from Ibn Abbas.

Then Ar-Razi said in responding to this: We do not accept that idrak (comprehension) means vision.

The explanation is that idrak is not originally coined to mean vision, but it is only used that way metaphorically for seeing something limited. And if that is the case, then this verse does not prove a denial of vision. We said idrak is not used literally for vision because the term idrak is originally used for catching or reaching something, whether in space, as in: “The companions of Musa said, ‘Indeed, we are overtaken'” (al-Shu’ara: 61), or in time, like saying, “So and so lived to meet so and so,” or in attributes or maturity, as in “The fruit has ripened.”

Likewise, it is said, “I perceived with my sight the heat of the night,” even though heat is not something seen. So we know that idrak is used literally for things other than vision, and therefore it should not be considered literal for vision, to avoid semantic confusion and shared meanings which go against linguistic principles.

We also said: idrak is only used metaphorically for seeing something bounded, for 2 reasons. 1: when we see a limited object, and our sight reaches it despite distance, while other senses do not, it resembles someone traveling a distance until he reaches his destination. Since a sense of catching or reaching was thought of in this kind of seeing, it was called idrak. But perceiving something that is not in any direction at all does not include this sense of reaching. Therefore, it is not called idrak.

2: the naming of something must be based on what was known to the Arabs who coined the word. But the Arabs only thought of seeing limited things.

For our opponents, this kind of seeing is impossible. And even for us, though it is possible, it was not something the Arabs knew or thought of. Therefore, it is confirmed that they did not use idrak to refer to seeing something not in a direction. Thus, if idrak implies vision, then it implies vision of a bounded object, and that is the point of the early scholars who said idrak means full encirclement of the seen.

So once it is proven that idrak refers only to a specific type of vision, then the denial of idrak in the verse does not deny vision altogether. Denying the more specific does not imply denying the general.

As for the claim that Arabs do not distinguish between ruʾyah (vision) and idrak, we say: if you mean there is no difference in general, we reject that, and the earlier points prove it. But if you mean they are the same only in a specific type of vision, we accept that, but it does not help your argument.

He says: the people of language understood from this verse that vision was being denied, so idrak must be vision. We say: many of the early Muslims also understood that vision is affirmed from the verse: “Some faces on that Day will be radiant, looking at their Lord” (al-Qiyamah: 22–23), even though, according to your claim, nadhar (looking) is not vision. Likewise here.

I say: Ar-Razi himself admitted that the Arabs only thought of seeing something limited, and that seeing something without direction was not known or imaginable to them. Yet the Prophet, in repeated authentic narrations, said: “You will see your Lord just as you see the moon. You will have no trouble seeing Him.” And he also said: “You will see your Lord as you see the sun clearly without clouds.”

And the consensus of the early generations affirms that the believers will see Allah on the Day of Judgement. Ar-Razi also acknowledged that the Arabs addressed by the revelation could only think of seeing something that was in a direction, and that nothing else was known or imaginable to them through the word vision.

Despite this, the Prophet ﷺ and the Companions and Tabi’in told the people that they would see their Lord. They never mentioned vision without direction, nor anything that suggests that. Rather, he said: “As you see the sun and moon,” and both are in directions.

So it is known with certainty that the vision affirmed by the Prophet ﷺ and the consensus of the early generations was of the kind the people understood, which is of something in a direction. And this is clear.

He also said that something not in a direction is not called idrak, and if idrak means vision, it only applies to the bounded and located. But something not in a direction is not called idrak.

Therefore, the meaning of “Sight does not encompass Him” is that He is not limited or bounded such that sight could fully reach Him. That explanation is valid even if Ar-Razi did not fully argue it, because the leading early scholars explained the verse this way. (At-Tabari said in al-Sarih fi al-Sunnah, p. 20: “The correct view in the vision of the believers of their Lord on the Day of Judgement, and it is our religion and the way of Ahl al-Sunnah, is that the people of Paradise will see Him, as established in the authentic reports from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.” See also al-Ibanah by al-Ashari, pp. 31–50.)

What the Mu’tazilah attributed to Ibn Abbas, that he explained the verse as a denial of vision, is false. What is actually established from him in mass transmitted reports is that he affirmed the vision of Allah, and explained the verse “Sight does not encompass Him” to mean that sight does not fully grasp Him.

He gave the example of the sky, saying: “Don’t you see the sky?” The man said: “Yes.” He said: “Do you see all of it?” He said: “No.” He replied: “Then Allah is greater.”

If that is the case, then it is clear that Allah denied being encompassed by sight, but He did not deny His seeing of Himself, nor did He deny vision altogether. If it were truly impossible to see Him at all, not just the full encirclement, then this specific negation of idrak would not make sense. For denying the general implies denying the specific, but denying the specific does not imply denying the general. It implies that the specific is either permissible or ambiguous.

It would not be praiseworthy to say: “Humans cannot destroy His essence and attributes” if that destruction is impossible to begin with, just as it would not be meaningful to say: “Humans cannot kill Him, remove His power, or knowledge,” because such things are impossible for anyone. If we limit such statements to things established by consensus, then consensus should apply here even more.

Secondly, before Abu al-Husayn appeared, none of the earlier imams said that Musa عليه السلام was ignorant. The people were either affirming vision or denying it by explaining the verse to mean that he asked for vision of a sign or asked on behalf of his people. So Abu al-Husayn went against this consensus, and his question is rejected.

Thirdly, Abu al-Husayn claimed that it is known by necessity that whatever is seen must be facing the viewer or the instrument of sight, and that whatever is facing a body must be in a direction and occupy space.

If both of these necessary truths were known to Musa عليه السلام, then it would follow that Musa عليه السلام believed Allah to be a body in a place, and this is unanimously impermissible for the Prophets. Abu al-Husayn said: this would contradict the wisdom of Prophets. And if Musa عليه السلام did not know those 2 necessary truths, then this would mean he lacked reason, and no rational person would say that, let alone a Muslim.

I say: what Abu al-Husayn and his fellow Mu’tazilah said implies that Musa عليه السلام asked to see Allah with his eyes. And they themselves say: the intelligent person knows necessarily that anything seen must be in a direction, and anything in a direction is a body. This means that, according to them, Musa عليه السلام thought Allah was in a direction and was a body.

As for their claim that this is unanimously rejected, it is a consensus only between him and his teacher, not a binding consensus by any means.

The third point: the belief that vision implies Allah being in a direction is confirmed by mass transmitted texts. In the 2 Sahihs and others, the well known hadith from al-Zuhri, from Saʿid ibn al-Musayyib and Ata ibn Yazid al-Laythi, that Abu Hurayrah reported: The people said, “O Messenger of Allah, will we see our Lord on the Day of Judgement?”

The Prophet ﷺ said, “Do you doubt seeing the sun when there are no clouds?” They said: “No.” He said: “Do you doubt seeing the full moon when there are no clouds?” They said: “No, O Messenger of Allah.” He said: “Then you will see your Lord like that.”

We said: “O Messenger of Allah, will we see our Lord?” He said: “Do you doubt seeing the sun when it is clear?” We said: “No, O Messenger of Allah.” He said: “Do you doubt seeing the moon on the night of full moon when it is clear?” We said: “No.” He said: “Then you will not doubt seeing your Lord just as you do not doubt seeing them.” And he narrated the full hadith.

In Muslim’s Sahih, from Suhayl ibn Abi Salih, from his father, from Abu Hurayrah: Some people said: “O Messenger of Allah, will we see our Lord on the Day of Judgement?”

He said: “Do you doubt seeing the sun at noon when there are no clouds?” They said: “No.” He said: “Do you doubt seeing the moon on a full night when there are no clouds?” They said: “No.” He said: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, you will not doubt seeing Him like you do not doubt seeing either of them.” And he narrated the full hadith.

So in addition to informing them that they will see Him, he informed them that they will see Him in a direction, in multiple ways.

First: the concept of vision in their language only applied to seeing something in a direction. As for seeing something not in a direction, this was not even conceivable to them, nor was it known.

And indeed, no one among people can imagine the existence of something without direction, let alone imagine seeing it, let alone imagine that the word “vision” refers to such a thing in any language.

Second: He said: “You will see your Lord as you see the sun clearly, and as you see the moon clearly.” So he compared their vision of Him to seeing the sun and the moon.

This is not a comparison of the object seen, but of the act of seeing. And it is known that if the act of seeing is like that of the sun and moon, then it must be in a direction, because seeing the sun and moon is directional. Had he intended some abstract vision, without direction, he would have simply said “You will see your Lord” and left it open to explanation.

But instead, he made them confirm how they see the sun and moon and then said, “You will see your Lord like that,” which cannot be explained as non directional vision, either literally or metaphorically.

The third point: he said, “Do you dispute about the sun when there is no cloud before it? And do you dispute about the moon when there is no cloud before it?”

So he made the vision of Allah like the vision of the clearest visible things, when there is no separate barrier between the viewer and the viewed. But those who say that Allah is seen without being in a direction hold that there cannot be any barrier between Him and the creation, since barriers only exist for bodies, and for what is in a direction. They say the “barrier” is merely the absence of created perception in the eye. But the Prophet ﷺ made the vision of Allah like the vision of these 2 great lights, the sun and the moon, when there is no barrier between them and the viewer.

The fourth point: he informed them that they “will not be harmed in seeing Him,” and in another hadith, “they will not suffer distress.” The denial of harm and distress implies the possibility of harm occurring to the viewer. And it is known that what they call “vision,” which is seeing something not in a direction, not above nor in any direction relative to the viewer, cannot involve any harm or difficulty, so that such harm or difficulty would then need to be denied.

This is unlike the vision of something facing the viewer, or above them, for that could involve harm or difficulty, such as crowding around it, or the weakness of sight due to its faintness like the crescent moon, or its brilliance like the sun or the moon.

Bayan Talbis Al Jahmiyyah (4/420–434)