Philosophical Inconsistencies in Denying Attributes
Ibn Taymiyyah argues that philosophers who make abstract claims about God being simultaneously essence, knowledge, and love without distinction are less rational than those who affirm the clear teachings of the Prophet about Allah’s attributes.
Any claim by philosophers that denies part of revelation under the excuse of reason can be matched or exceeded in rational clarity by those who affirm what the Prophet brought. Sound reason and sound revelation are in harmony.
The False Attribution of Philosophical Approaches to Prophet Ibrahim
Some theologians claim that Prophet Ibrahim’s rejection of the stars, sun, and moon was based on a philosophical argument: that setting implies change, change implies temporality, and what is preceded by events must be originated. They then link this to the idea that God is not a body, since bodies change and resemble one another, and Allah said, “There is nothing like Him.” Ibn Taymiyyah responds that these interpretations are not found in the words or approaches of the Prophets. They are speculative constructions falsely attributed to the prophets.
The Philosophers’ Doctrine of Divine Simplicity
Philosophers argue that affirming attributes leads to composition, so they deny any real distinction within Allah claiming He is not composed of essence and existence, genus and difference, matter and form, or essence and attribute. Ibn Taymiyyah says this as false reasoning. He shows that such denial results in rejecting real divine attributes, and it leads to flawed outcomes like denying the eternal Quran, the beatific vision, and Allah’s elevation all due to commitment to flawed logic rather than revelation.
The False Path of Proving God Through Accidents and Change
These philosophers and theologians claim the only way to prove Allah’s existence is by arguing that bodies are subject to accidents and change, and thus must be originated. Ibn Taymiyyah points out that the Prophets never used such arguments. Their call was clear, based on affirming Allah’s names and attributes, not on negations or abstract logic. The claim that all change proves origination is also criticised as a flawed generalisation.
Allegations That the Prophets Used Figurative Speech to Deceive
Some groups like certain philosophers and Batini esoterics accuse the Prophets of using symbolic language to mislead the masses while hiding deeper truths. They claim resurrection is not physical and God is not as described in scripture. Ibn Taymiyyah condemns this view as heretical and false, affirming that the Prophet spoke clearly, truthfully, and that his words reflect reality, not illusion.
Revelation vs. Speculation
Ibn Taymiyyah ends by rejecting the theologians’ claim that reason must override revelation. If the same revelation they rely on proves what they claim, it would contradict other parts of revelation affirming Allah’s attributes. Thus, their argument collapses. Revelation does not contradict itself, and true reason does not oppose authentic transmission.
Critique of Philosophers and Theologians on The Attributes and the Origin of the Universe
If a philosopher can say: “He (God) is existent, intellect, and intelligible; lover, beloved, and love; delightful, the one who delights, and delight itself” and that all of this is one and the same and that the attribute is the same as the one described, then those who affirm the attributes may also say the same, or something even more reasonable. So no one who denies part of what the Messenger reported about the attributes can claim it aligns with reason, except that someone who affirms what the Messenger brought can say something even more aligned with reason. (Footnote: This line refers to the claim made by philosophers such as Ibn Sina that God is pure unity, with no distinction between essence, knowledge, and love. Such claims are even less rational than what the theologians accuse others of when affirming attributes.)
This is a general point that will, if Allah wills, be explained in detail later: that whoever affirms what the Messenger affirmed and denies what he denied is closer to sound reason, just as he is closer to sound transmission. Whoever opposes authentic transmission has also opposed sound reason. He is more deserving of the words of Allah: “And they will say: If only we had listened or reasoned, we would not be among the people of the Blaze” (al-Mulk: 10).
The Philosophical Approach of Proving the Creator: An Alleged Link to Prophet Ibrahim
If someone says: “The Prophets did not call people to affirm the Creator through the approach of accidents (a‘rad), their origination, and their necessary connection to bodies and that whatever is preceded by a temporal event must itself be originated” then this topic has two main parts:
First: denying this very premise. It is known that many of those who deny the attributes claim this was the approach of Ibrahim. They say he argued that the stars, the sun, and the moon are originated because they set. Setting implies motion, motion implies change, and change implies origination since what is subject to change must be preceded by events, and there cannot be an infinite chain of events. Therefore, anything that undergoes change must be originated. They claim this is the approach of Ibrahim. (Footnote: This was said by many deniers such as Bishr al-Mirisi and others, as well as Ibn Aqil, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.)
They also say the Quran indicates that Allah is not a body, because He is Ahad (One), and the One is indivisible. He is Samad (Self-sufficient), and the Samad is the one who has no hollow inside nothing passes through Him whereas a body is penetrable. And He said: “There is nothing like Him” (al-Shura: 11), while all bodies are similar to one another. If He were a body, He would have a likeness. So if He has no likeness, He cannot be a body, and everything that implies He is a body must also be negated. (Footnote: Ibn Taymiyyah discussed the meaning of “body” and “Samad” in his Tafsir of Surah al-Ikhlas, I also made a post on this, Click here to see it)
Some say: He is not a body because the consequences of being a body are denied. But that is weak reasoning because the existence of a consequence does not imply the existence of what causes it, but the negation of a consequence does imply the negation of its cause. In contrast, if something necessitates being a body, then it must be denied.
For example, those who deny elevation and separation (between Allah and creation) say: affirming elevation implies He is a body. Those who deny the “narrated attributes” (al-sifat al-khabariyyah) say: affirming them implies corporeality. Those who deny all attributes say the same.
The Philosophical View on Composition and Simplicity
Moreover, they argue that affirming bodily attributes leads to composition and division, so one must negate all forms of composition. They then claim that God is not composed of existence and essence, nor of genus and specific difference, nor of matter and form, nor of individual substances, nor of essence and attributes. (Footnote: These are the five types of “composition” claimed by philosophers who deny attributes, such as the later mutafalsifah (philosophers). They saw these as unacceptable when speaking of God.)
But the hearing (revelation) negates all of this. The messengers denied these false notions and showed the correct rational path. They showed that what contradicts transcendence is sometimes based on anthropomorphism and sometimes on the claim that every change proves origination.
Some of these people say: “Setting (afl) means origination; setting is change; therefore, all change is origination.” Ibn Sina and his followers among the dahriyyah (eternalists) built on this and said: “Everything besides God is possible (mumkin), and every possible thing must set or change. So what sets cannot be necessarily existent.” (Footnote: Ibn Sina said this in al-Isharat, 3/531–532, where he connects the verse “I do not love those who set” (al-An‘am: 76) to the idea of contingent existence.)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his Tafsir adopted this nonsensical interpretation, and he and others like him say: “Everything that sets is changing, and everything changing is possible in its existence.” They thus argue from change to possibility, just as others argue from change to origination. All these groups say: this was the approach of Prophet Ibrahim.
Did the Prophets Use These Approaches of Understanding?
The second part: we agree that the Prophets never called people using these approaches. They never argued that God is not a body. This is the view of the most well-known deniers of attributes and their leaders. They know and admit that these negations are not based on any Prophet’s approach. The Prophets did not teach this not explicitly and not implicitly. Their statements always affirmed Allah’s attributes either explicitly or implicitly.
But these people claim: if reason proves a negation, we cannot deny what reason proves.
The Claim That God Can Only Be Known Through Philosophical Arguments
The theologians such as the Jahmiyyah, Mu‘tazilah, and their followers say: “It is only possible to prove the existence of the Creator, the truthfulness of His messengers, the origination of the universe, and that He is living, powerful, and knowing, and that He can send messengers and prove them with miracles only through this path.” This is what their leaders say, even those who came later, like Abu al-Husayn al-Basri, al-Juwayni, al-Qadi Abu Ya‘la, and others.
If we know that the Prophets never used this approach to call people to Allah, then it proves that the messengers referred people to reason itself to know Allah. So when they find prophetic texts that do not match this approach, they either reinterpret them (ta’wil), saying the purpose of ambiguous texts is to make people exert themselves in interpreting them, or they say: we simply recite them without knowing what they mean (tafwid), and the point is just to recite them even if no one understands them.
The Allegation of Philosophical Deception by Prophets
The heretical philosophers, the Batiniyyah, and those like them say: the point of scripture is to address the masses in ways that make them imagine that God is a great physical being, and that the resurrection involves physical pleasures although none of this is actually true. Then they claim either: the Prophets did not know this, or they knew it and purposely hid it, showing the opposite for the sake of public interest.
Response to This Philosophical Error
The reply to those who took the first approach (relying on reason to override revelation) is as follows: if the revealed evidence from the Prophets supports this path and its conclusions, and affirms the negation of what they negate, then the revealed proof contradicts itself. In that case, the same revelation that you use to support your claims would contradict the other revelation that affirms Allah’s attributes. So revelation would be in conflict with itself and this is false.
(Footnote: Fakhr al-Din al-Razi says in al-Tafsir al-Kabir, 13/52: “The elite understand ‘setting’ (afl) to mean contingency; and every contingent being needs a necessary one.”(
Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wa-l-naql (1/100-104)
