The Main Point

Ar Razi and the deniers claimed that affirming real existence, real attributes, and real distinction for Allah would lead to what they call embodiment and resemblance.

Ibn Taymiyyah answered by saying that the opposite of what they affirm does not lead to exaltation at all. It leads to denying any real existence for the Lord. He says their language sounds like tanzih on the surface, but once their meanings are examined, it ends in pure negation.

Necessary Knowledge Against Them

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that those who oppose the deniers say the matter is known by necessity of reason, not just by debate and speculation. They say it is necessarily known that the Lord is above the universe, and that what the deniers present as the true description of the Necessary Existent is in fact impossible. So the issue is turned back on them.

What they claim to prove by speculative argument is itself known by basic reason to be false, while what they call impossible is known by basic reason to be necessary.

A Real Existing Lord Must Be Distinct and Established

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that every real existent, especially the Necessary Existent, must be established in reality and independent in His existence. He is not a thought in the mind, nor an imagined phantom. He is something real, with true existence and firmness.

Hearts naturally recognise this. So if someone uses vague expressions such as place or body to attack this meaning, that does not change the fact that reason and natural instinct still know that what lacks this real established existence is not a true existent at all.

Shared Reality Does Not Cancel Distinction

If two beings exist, then they must share some general reality of existence, even though each is distinguished by qualities specific to itself. What they share is not what makes them different, and what makes them different is not what they share.

If the shared aspect itself produced the distinguishing feature, then both would become identical and distinction would disappear. So he answers that having some shared meaning, such as existence, does not mean 2 things become the same thing. Real distinction still remains.

Total Lack of Any Shared Meaning Is Impossible

It is impossible for there to be a being that shares nothing at all with anything else in any way whatsoever. Once something is truly existent, some general meanings are necessarily understood of it, such as existence and reality. If someone says that Allah shares nothing at all with anything in any sense, then he has moved away from speaking about a real existent and has entered into pure emptiness. So complete denial of all common meaning is not tanzih. It is negation.

The Words of Imam Ahmad

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that Imam Ahmad had already exposed this problem very clearly. Imam Ahmad said that if someone says, “He is something,” but then says, “He is unlike everything else in every single way and resembles nothing at all in any respect,” then people of reason know that this is not truly affirming a thing at all. Ibn Taymiyyah brings this to show that the early imams already saw that the deniers were not affirming a real Lord. They were only protecting themselves with vague wording while emptying the meaning of real existence.

They Do Not Affirm Anything Knowable

Imam Ahmad also exposed them from another side. When they are asked whom they worship, they answer that they worship the one who manages creation.

Then they are asked whether this one who manages creation is unknown and without attributes, and they say yes. So it becomes clear that they are not affirming anything known or real. A being with no known qualities cannot truly be known, and what cannot be known cannot truly be worshipped. So their speech does not only fail in reason, it also fails in religion.

The Need for Distinguishing Attributes

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that any real being must have attributes that distinguish it from others. Without distinguishing attributes, there is no real knowledge of it at all. But the deniers call this anthropomorphism. So their mistake is not merely in some details. Their mistake is that they turned the very conditions of real existence and real knowledge into things to be denied.

The Problem with Their Use of “Resemblance”

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that he had already shown earlier that it is impossible for there to be absolutely no shared meaning at all between the Creator and the creation. Yet the deniers call any such shared meaning resemblance. By doing that, they force the conclusion that the only being free from resemblance, in their sense, is a being with no real existence at all. So they redefine resemblance in such an extreme way that the result is not transcendence but nonexistence.

The Problem with Their Use of “Tajseem”

they do the same with the word tajseem. They load it with a meaning that lets them deny every real established existence for Allah. Then they praise themselves for denying it. But once their intended meaning is uncovered, what they are really denying is not false bodily comparison to creation alone. They are denying the reality of an actually existing Lord who is known, distinct, and described by true attributes.

Ambiguous Terms That Mix Truth and Falsehood

Ibn Taymiyyah refuted him by saying that these people speak with broad and unclear expressions that may contain a true meaning in one sense and a false meaning in another. For example, denying that Allah resembles creation in the sense of equality and likeness is true and necessary. Denying division, deficiency, and need is also true and necessary. Affirming that He is One and Self Sufficient is true and necessary. But they take such broad words and use them to smuggle in false meanings, then present themselves as though they only intended the true part.

Their Real Intent

Even if they claim they only meant to deny falsehood, their actual intent is falsehood. They use expressions that sound acceptable, but the meanings they want from them destroy the affirmation of a real Lord. This is why he quotes Imam Ahmad’s statement that they speak with ambiguous words and deceive the ignorant by making falsehood look close to truth.

The Core of the Refutation

The deniers reject real attributes, real distinction, and any shared meaning whatsoever, they do not arrive at exaltation. They arrive at nonexistence. They no longer affirm a Lord who is known, worshipped, living, real, and distinct.

They affirm only a vague mental abstraction. So the whole force of the passage is to show that their language of tanzih is in reality a language of negation, and that necessary reason, natural instinct, and the speech of the early imams all expose this clearly.

Then, those who disagreed with him say: “We know with certainty that this is impossible.” In fact, they say: “What the deniers claim is the true description of the Necessary Existent is, in fact, something whose existence is impossible and is known to be impossible by the necessity of reason.”

Rather, they say: “We know by the necessity of reason that the Lord of the Worlds is above the universe. So, we know by the necessity of reason the obligation of what they claim is impossible through speculation, and the impossibility of what they claim is possible through speculation.”

They may also say: “We know by natural instinct and necessary knowledge that any existent, or more precisely, any existent that is not a mere attribute of something else, or that the Necessary Existent, must be independent in His existence, and that nothing else can exist where He is. He is not a figment of the imagination or a phantom in the mind.

Rather, He is something real, truly existing, with a reality and firmness that hearts naturally recognise. Even if the opponent calls this ‘being in a place’ or ‘being a body’ or similar terms, we know by necessity and instinct that anything not like this is nonexistent, just as we know by necessity and instinct that if there are 2 living, knowing, able beings, indeed, if there are any 2 beings, then they must both share the attribute of existence and reality, even if each is distinguished by specific traits. Whether necessary or not, what they share is not what distinguishes them, nor does it entail it.

Otherwise, 1 would be identical to the other, for if the shared aspect entails the distinguishing trait, then wherever the shared trait is found, the distinguishing one would be found too, and if both possess the distinguishing trait, then neither is distinguished from the other, and they would be identical. But 2 distinct things must be distinguished by a trait specific to 1 of them.”

And if each of them is described with a common attribute, that is, a commonality that implies similarity between them in some way, then it is impossible that there exists something which shares nothing at all with anything else that exists, nor resembles it in any way in existence. For this reason, the Salaf and the imams would say: “People of reason know by their minds that such a thing is not real,” just as Imam Ahmad said in his refutation of the Jahmiyyah (This is his well known book The Refutation of the Jahmiyyah and Heretics Regarding What They Cast Doubt Upon from the Mutashabih of the Quran and Interpreted in a Way Contrary to its Meaning, and it is among the first major works to clarify the belief of the Salaf and their approach in responding to the people of innovation. It begins by explaining how the heretics went astray on the unclear verses of the Quran and ends by refuting the Jahmiyyah’s misinterpretation of Allah’s words “He is the First and the Last”).

He said: “We said, ‘He is something.’ They said, ‘He is something unlike other things.’ So we said: ‘Something that is unlike everything else in every way, not resembling them at all, people of intellect know that it is not something at all.’ So then it became clear to the people that they were not affirming anything real, they were only shielding themselves from criticism by publicly affirming a vague concept.”

Then he said: “First: If it is said that something exists, then it is said that it is unlike all other things in every way, not resembling them at all, people of intellect know that this is not a thing at all, because the knowledge of this is universally known among people of reason.

Second: When asked who they worship, they say: ‘We worship the one who manages the affairs of creation.’ So it is said to them: ‘This one who manages the affairs of creation, is he unknown, without attributes?’

They say: ‘Yes.’ So it is said to them: ‘Then Muslims know that you are not affirming anything real, you are just protecting yourselves from public criticism by saying vague words.’”

So he first mentioned that, in the realm of general reason, people do not affirm such a being. Then he mentioned, in the realm of religion, that they do not worship such a being.

He mentioned what suits each context. Because an unknown being, without distinguishing attributes, cannot be known, and therefore cannot be worshipped. And here he affirmed that it is necessary for a being to have attributes that distinguish it from others. But the deniers call that “anthropomorphism.”

He also stated earlier that it is impossible for there to be no shared trait at all between the Creator and creation, no similarity whatsoever, and the deniers call that “resemblance.” So, by what they mean by the terms “resemblance” and “embodiment,” they have made the one who is described with the opposite of these concepts, in the way they mean them, to be non existent, rather, necessarily non existent and impossible.

Even though the words themselves can also be used to deny false meanings, like denying that Allah resembles creation in some way, or is equivalent to them in any respect, then that denial is necessary.

Likewise, denying that He can be split or divided, and affirming that He is “As-Samad” and “al-Ahad,” that is also necessary. So they spoke with ambiguous and unclear words that could imply both truth and falsehood. But their intent behind them was falsehood, even if they claimed to mean something true, they misled people into thinking they only meant to deny falsehood.

As Imam Ahmad said: “They speak with ambiguous words, and they deceive the ignorant among the people with what they make seem similar to the truth.” (al-Radd ‘ala al-Jahmiyyah wa al-Zanadiqah, p. 85)

Bayan Talbis Al Jahmiyyah (2/320-324)