Ar-Razi argues that the Quran verses about meeting Allah must be interpreted metaphorically. He claims that liqa’ Allah (meeting with Allah) cannot be taken literally because, in his view, meeting is something that only applies to bodies.
Since he believes that reason proves Allah is not a body, he concludes that meeting Allah must either mean meeting His reward or facing His judgement not a real meeting with Him. He supports this by pointing out that “meeting” in Arabic is often used for physical closeness, like when two armies meet.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Response
Ibn Taymiyyah responds by saying Ar-Razi is admitting that the Quran’s wording appears to support his opponents. Yet he does not refute this or give any valid reason to abandon the clear wording. Instead, he chooses interpretation based on a philosophical claim, which Ibn Taymiyyah says is weak and already proven false.
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that if we were to reinterpret every word or name used for Allah just because it is also used for bodies, we would have to abandon all of Allah’s names and attributes such as living, knowing, powerful, seeing, and hearing because people use these words for created beings too. But this would lead to denying everything, and then affirming it again in a roundabout way, which is a clear contradiction.
He further says that calling something a “body (jism)” is just a vague term. What matters is the meaning behind the words.
If by “body” someone means something false, then we reject that meaning.
But if they mean something true, like that Allah exists, has knowledge, power, and distinctness from creation, then that meaning is affirmed—even if we reject using the word “body” itself, because it is unclear, has no basis in revelation, and was never used by the early generations.
Ibn Taymiyyah holds that the Quran clearly affirms that believers will meet their Lord in the Hereafter, and that this cannot be dismissed based on unclear philosophical claims or vague terms like “jism.” The text should be understood in its straightforward meaning unless there is clear reason to do otherwise.
As for the mention of the meeting with Allah, Allah has mentioned it in many places in the Quran, like His saying: “Your women are a place of sowing for you, so approach your sowing place however you wish and send forth for yourselves, and fear Allah and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers” (al-Baqara: 223). And His saying: “When he and those who believed with him crossed over, they said, ‘We have no power today against Jalut and his soldiers.’
But those who were certain they would meet Allah said, ‘How many a small group has overcome a large group by the permission of Allah, and Allah is with the patient’” (al-Baqara: 249). And His saying: “Certainly, those who denied the meeting with Allah have lost. Until when the Hour comes upon them suddenly, they say, ‘Oh, our regret over what we neglected concerning it,’ and they carry their burdens on their backs. Unquestionably, what an evil burden they bear” (al-An‘am: 31).
And His saying: “And the Day He gathers them, it will be as if they had not remained except for an hour of the day, knowing each other. Certainly, those who denied the meeting with Allah have lost and were not guided” (Yunus: 45). And His saying: “Then We gave Musa the Book, complete for the one who does good, and a detailed explanation of all things, and a guidance and mercy so that they may believe in the meeting with their Lord” (al-An‘am: 154).
And His saying: “And among them are those who pledged to Allah: ‘If He gives us from His bounty, we will surely give charity and be among the righteous.’
But when He gave them from His bounty, they became stingy with it and turned away while they refused. So He placed hypocrisy in their hearts until the day they will meet Him, because they broke what they promised Allah and because they used to lie” (at-Tawbah: 75–77).
And His saying: “Indeed, those who do not hope for the meeting with Us and are pleased with the worldly life and feel secure in it, and those who are heedless of Our signs” (Yunus: 7). And His saying: “And when Our clear verses are recited to them, those who do not hope for the meeting with Us say, ‘Bring a Quran other than this or change it’” (Yunus: 15).
And His saying: “So whoever hopes to meet his Lord, let him do righteous deeds and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone” (al-Kahf: 110). And His saying: “Say: Shall We inform you of the greatest losers in deeds? Those whose efforts in the worldly life were misguided while they thought they were doing well.
Those are the ones who disbelieved in the signs of their Lord and in meeting Him, so their deeds have become worthless” (al-Kahf: 103–105). And His saying: “Those who disbelieved in the signs of Allah and the meeting with Him, they have despaired of My mercy” (al-‘Ankabut: 23). And His saying: “Those who denied Our signs and the meeting of the Hereafter, their deeds have been nullified. Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do?” (al-A‘raf: 147).
And His saying: “Whoever hopes to meet Allah – then the appointed time of Allah is surely coming” (al-‘Ankabut: 5). And His saying: “And indeed, many of the people disbelieve in the meeting with their Lord” (ar-Rum: 8). And His saying: “Their greeting the Day they meet Him will be: Peace” (al-Ahzab: 44). And His saying: “Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably, He encompasses all things” (Fussilat: 54).
So once it is known that the meeting between the servants and their Lord is mentioned in the Book of Allah in about twenty places, and that what resembles it is mentioned in many other places that fall under the same meaning, it is also found that Allah used this word meeting in relation to things other than Himself,
like His saying: “O you who believe, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing (for battle), do not turn your backs to them” (al-Anfal: 15),
and His saying: “When you meet a force, then be firm and remember Allah much” (al-Anfal: 45),
and His saying: “There has already been a sign for you in the two armies that met: one fighting in the way of Allah and another disbelieving” (Aal Imran: 13),
and His saying: “If you believe in Allah and what We sent down upon Our servant on the Day of Criterion, the day the two parties met” (al-Anfal: 41),
and His saying: “To warn of the Day of Meeting, the Day when they will appear with nothing concealed” (Ghafir: 15–16). (This is the strongest view about the meaning of that verse. The meeting referred to here is the meeting on the Day of Judgement.)
And Allah informed about the meeting of the Day of Resurrection in His saying: “So leave them until they meet their Day when they will be struck” (at-Tur: 45), and: “So leave them to converse and play until they meet their Day which they are promised” (az-Zukhruf: 83) (and also al-Ma‘arij: 42).
Since this is so, the discussion on what he (Ar-Razi) mentioned is from several angles. The first is that what the founder (ar-Razi) quoted from his opponents, that they said: “Meeting is among the qualities of bodies. It is said: the two armies met, meaning they became close to each other in location” he did not mention any response to it.
Because his statement: “Know that once it has been proven through reason that Allah is not a body, it becomes necessary to interpret the word (meeting) in one of two ways” this is a concession to them that the word indicates tajsim, and that these texts in the Quran indicate that Allah is a body. And once he conceded that the wording of the Qur’an shows their view, he failed to mention anything that opposes or invalidates it.
Because what he and others mentioned of so-called proofs for negation has already been explained, and anyone who understands them will realise they are not actual proofs at all. In fact, the rational arguments they attributed to their opponents in affirmation are stronger than the ones they presented for negation. So his concession that the Quran supports the view of his opponents is left without refutation.
The second aspect: It should be said that interpreting these texts on the basis that their outward meaning suggests bodily nature is not allowed. For the claim that something is among the attributes of bodies can be said about every name and attribute of Allah the Exalted — such as His being existent, self-subsisting, described, distinct from other things, as well as His being living, knowing, powerful, hearing, seeing, compassionate, and merciful. All of these, people only recognise as names and descriptions used for bodies.
So if this is enough reason to divert names and attributes from their apparent meaning, then it would be necessary to divert all of them. And it is known that when any of them is diverted, it must be diverted to another meaning, which is then expressed with another word. But that second word will face the same objection as the first namely, that it is only ever known to be used for bodies.
So when that is the case, it becomes clear that all of these interpretations are false, because denying them requires affirming them. And whatever necessitates the existence of something by its very denial, then its denial is impossible.
Also, it is necessarily known from the religion of Islam, and in fact from every religion, that this is false. (This refers to the idea that denying all names and attributes on the basis they apply to bodies is a clear falsehood known by necessity in all revealed religions.)
And also: it is necessarily known from reason that this is false. For anyone who affirms the existence of something must understand some meaning that can be expressed with a word. And we have already mentioned that the extreme deniers among the heretics who refuse to name Him at all must inevitably fall into consequences worse than what they sought to flee.
For the mere acknowledgment of a necessarily existent being entails certain attributes. And this is something that follows necessarily from the fact of existence itself. This shows that the truth is to abandon all of these interpretations entirely, and that affirming some of them while rejecting others is arbitrary and contradictory.
The third aspect: It should be said that if all of these things are claimed to only be used for what is called a “body,” then one of two things must follow.
Either what they call a “body” is in fact the truth in reality even if the Salaf and the imams did not use the word “jism/body,” they did use words that clearly convey the meaning that these people refer to with that term. Or it must be that all of these names and attributes even though they are only said about bodies can be said of Allah, Mighty and Exalted, while He is not a body.
This is the same answer we give whenever someone affirms one of these attributes against someone who denies them. We say: If we agree that He is living, knowing, powerful, and not a body, then likewise He is knowing with knowledge, powerful with power, and still not a body. And we have already mentioned that the word “body” is a vague word. And that both affirming it or denying it of Allah is an innovation (bid‘ah), not transmitted from any of the Salaf or the imams, and that it has no foundation in the Book (of Allah).
What is obligatory is one of two things: either to avoid using this word altogether neither affirming nor denying it or to explain with detail, saying: If by “body” such-and-such a meaning is intended, then that meaning is true, even though we do not use that term because it is vague, ambiguous, confusing, misleading, and an innovation.
And if by “body” such-and-such a meaning is intended, then that meaning is false. And there is no need to deny such a vague word rather, the falsehood should be denied with clear and precise words, as indicated by the Book and the Sunnah. (This summary comes from Ibn Taymiyyah’s at-Tadmuriyyah, especially his discussion on the two noble principles and the second example regarding the soul — see p. 31 and 50, ed. Dr Muhammad al-Sa‘wi.)
Bayan Talbis Al Jahmiyyah (8/3-18)
