The Ashʿaris sometimes attempt to confuse Ahl al-Sunnah by asking: “What is the meaning of Allah’s Face, Hand, or Eye? You say istiwaʾ (rising) means elevation above the Throne, so what is the meaning of these other attributes?” This question appears harmless but conceals the same doubt that was posed to Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) when a man asked, “How did Allah rise over the Throne?”
Imam Malik lowered his head, sweated, and replied, “Al-istiwaʾ ghayru majhul (the rising is known), al-kayf ghayru maʿqul (the how is inconceivable), belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is innovation.” He then expelled the man for introducing a question that leads to misguidance. This shows that the meaning of istiwaʾ was already known among the Salaf, but its modality (kayfiyyah) was beyond comprehension. The same applies to all the sifaat (attributes) that Allah affirmed for Himself.
The Salaf’s response to questions about meanings of the sifaat
The people of the Sunnah answer that asking “what is the meaning” of Allah’s Hand, Face, or Eye is impermissible because their meanings are already known through language, and their realities are known only to Allah. The Salaf said: “Tafsiruhā tilāwatuhā” (Its interpretation is its recitation), meaning that the wording itself conveys the intended meaning without further explanation.
This principle was mentioned by the Imam of the Salaf, Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah (d. 198 AH), who said: “Everything by which Allah has described Himself in the Quran, its recitation is its explanation, without asking how and without likening.” (Al-Daraqutni, al-Sifat, no. 61; al-Bayhaqi, al-Asma wa al-Sifat, no. 869; al-Iʿtiqad, p. 123).
Al-Bayhaqi explained that Ibn ʿUyaynah meant to prohibit interpretation that leads to takyif (defining the how), because that implies tashbih (resemblance). Similar reports are narrated from Abu Hatim al-Razi and Saʿid ibn Yaʿqub al-Taliqani. (Al-Bayhaqi, al-Asma wa al-Sifat, nos. 725, 906).
The imams agreed that all authentic narrations about the sifaat, such as Allah creating Adam upon His form, placing the heavens on a finger, and having the hearts of the servants between His fingers, must be accepted as they came, without interpretation or likening. (Al-Lalakaʾi, Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaʿah, 2/89–90; al-Isfahani, al-Hujjah fi Bayan al-Mihjah, 1/259).
How Ahl al-Sunnah understand the meanings of the sifaat
Ahl al-Sunnah affirm the apparent linguistic meaning of every sifah (attribute) while consigning the how (kayfiyyah) to Allah. The meanings are understood by the common conceptual sense shared among created beings who have experience of what the words mean. We know what hearing, seeing, hand, and face mean because they are clear in language. But how these apply to Allah’s Essence is unknown, as He says: “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” (al-Shura: 11).
Ahl al-Sunnah therefore do not interpret as the Ashʿaris do when they say that as-Samīʿ (the All-Hearing) means “the one able to hear all things.” Rather, the All-Hearing is the One who truly hears. The meaning of hearing is known, though its reality in Allah’s Essence is not. The same applies to Allah’s Face, Hands, and Eyes. We know what the words mean, but we do not know how they are in His Essence.
The link between this understanding and the path of the Salaf
Imam Malik’s statement “al-istiwaʾ maʿlum” (the rising is known) refutes tafwid al-maʿna (consigning the meaning), because he affirmed that the meaning is known, while “al-kayf ghayru maʿqul” (the how is inconceivable) refutes the innovators who seek to define modality. Hence, asking about “what” or “how” concerning the sifaat is the same deviation, because both lead to inquiring about the modality of Allah’s attributes.
The Ashʿari question “what is the meaning?” is a disguised question about “how.” They cannot separate meaning from form or likeness, so they reject the apparent meanings and fall into taʿtil (negation). Imam Malik identified this approach as bidʿah (innovation), which is why he expelled the questioner.
The clarification of Ibn al-Qayyim on the correct path
Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH) explains that the straight path is to remove from Allah’s sifaat all the peculiarities of created beings. Misguidance arises when a person perceives the attribute through the characteristics of creation. Every sifah has implications that differ according to its subject. The weak-minded, when they see an implication in the makhluq (created being), assume it is inseparable from the sifah itself and thus deny it for the Creator. (Ibn al-Qayyim, Tariq al-Hijratayn, pp. 235–236).
Those who deny Allah’s joy, love, pleasure, anger, hatred, and dislike reduce them all to iradah (will) because they cannot distinguish between the attribute itself and its contingent features in creation. Their error lies in thinking that what accompanies an attribute in creation necessarily accompanies it in Allah.
Ibn al-Qayyim identifies two misguided paths:
- The path of contradiction — affirming some sifaat such as ‘ilm (knowledge), qudrah (power), samʿ (hearing), and basar (sight), while denying others like anger and love. This is irrational since the alleged problem exists equally in both.
- The path of complete negation — rejecting all attributes to avoid contradiction, which results in pure taʿtil (denial) and the greatest falsehood.
The truth, he says, is pure affirmation — to affirm what Allah affirmed for Himself without tashbih (likening), tamthil (comparison), tahrif (distortion), or taʿtil (denial).
The principle of necessary and contingent implications in attributes
Ibn al-Qayyim explains that attributes have necessary implications which cannot be denied, such as knowledge involving an object known, hearing involving something heard, and sight involving something seen. These implications must be affirmed, since without them the attributes cannot exist. Similarly, iradah (will) necessitates knowledge, and all these require hayat (life). To deny these necessary implications is to deny the attributes themselves.
Vision (ruʾyah) has conditions inseparable from its reality, and voluntary action has conditions inseparable from choice. Whoever denies these implications denies the action itself. This exposes the inconsistency of the philosophers (mutakallimun), who affirm something while denying its necessary implication, and deny something while affirming what it entails. Their contradictions lead followers into confusion and doubt.
Full Article
Answer to the Ashʿari Objection: “Clarify for us the meaning you understand from the attribute of Face, Hand, and similar ones.”
All praise belongs to Allah alone.
Among the subtle and deceptive questions used by some Ashʿaris to surprise the people of the Sunnah is when an Ashʿari says: “We accept that nuzul (descent), wajh (face), ʿayn (eye), yad (hand), sura (form), and similar attributes have a real meaning that pertains to the Essence of the Most Merciful. But what is the meaning you affirm for these attributes? How do you understand them?”
He continues: “You said that istiwaʾ (rising) means elevation and being above the Throne, and you cited reports from the Salaf supporting this. So what meanings do you understand or conceive from these other expressions regarding Allah?”
This question is presented in such a way that some people fall silent, unsure how to respond. The Ashʿari then assumes that silencing him in this manner proves his point, claiming that he has forced the Sunni to admit tafwid al-maʿna (consigning the meaning), which is their position.
This, however, is the very trick that the man tried on Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, when he asked, “How did Allah rise (over the Throne)?” Imam Malik lowered his head, and it is said that sweat appeared on his forehead.
Then he said his famous words: “al-istiwaʾ ghayru majhul, wal-kayf ghayru maʿqul, wal-imanu bihi wajib, was-suʾalu ʿanhu bidʿah.” Meaning, “The rising is not unknown, the how is not conceivable, belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is an innovation.” Then, as reported in some narrations such as by Abu ʿUthman al-Sabuni, he added: “And I do not see you except as misguided,” and he ordered that the man be removed from his gathering.
Although the man had only asked a question that seemed harmless—“How did He rise?”—Imam Malik recognised what lay behind it. He realised it was not an innocent inquiry but an attempt to open the door to innovation. Hence, he shut that door by expelling him.
Had Imam Malik thought the man simply did not know how the Salaf understood istiwaʾ, he would have answered by quoting them. But his answer “al-istiwaʾ ghayru majhul” shows that the meaning of istiwaʾ was already well-known from the speech of the Salaf. His insight and decisiveness show the prudence of the imams of the Sunnah in closing the paths through which the people of innovation attempt to mislead others.
A similar question was once written to me in English by someone who kept posting it repeatedly on several pages. I eventually replied privately, and I share that response here for the benefit of others.
A questioner may say: “I am not asking about the how of Allah’s attributes—such as Face, Shin, Foot, Hands, Fingers, or Eyes—since that is clearly beyond human knowledge. My question is: What is the meaning of these words themselves? For instance, what is the meaning of Shin or Face? More precisely, what does it mean when we say Allah has a Face or a Shin? If someone asks what it means that Allah has a Shin, how does a Sunni answer? What is the meaning?
I do not think that simply saying ‘it is one of Allah’s attributes’ answers the question. For example, if someone asks, ‘What is the meaning of Allah’s Hearing?’ one could reply that it means He hears all things and that nothing escapes His hearing. Likewise, if someone asks, ‘What is Allah’s Seeing?’ one could answer that He perceives all visible things clearly. So what is the meaning of Allah’s Shin?
Similarly, since Allah has a Form, what does it mean that Adam was created upon His form? If it does not mean that Adam’s form resembles the form of the Most Merciful—since the hadith does not explicitly state this—then what does it mean? What exactly does this hadith refer to in relation to Adam’s form?”
That was his question. We respond by saying:
Why ask in English when you know Arabic?
First, it is not permissible to ask, “What is the meaning of the Hand of Allah, or the Eye of Allah, or the Shin of Allah?”
Why? Because as Imam Malik said, al-istiwaʾ maʿlum (the rising is known). Likewise, we say here: the Hand is known, the Eye is known, and so on.
The Salaf said: تفسيرها تلاوتها “Its interpretation is its recitation,” meaning that when you hear it, you already understand its meaning without need for a specific explanation.
736 – Muhammad ibn Rizq Allah informed us, who said: Ahmad ibn Uthman informed us, who said: Isa ibn Musa ibn Ishaq al-Ansari said: I heard my father say:
I heard Sufyan ibn Uyaynah say: “Everything by which Allah has described Himself in the Quran, its recitation is its explanation, without asking how and without likening.”
(Footnote: It was narrated by al-Daraqutni in al-Sifat no. 61, from the chain of Isa ibn Ishaq ibn Musa al-Ansari Abu al-Abbas, from his father, with the same wording.)
This narration is also reported from Ibn Uyaynah through another chain. Ahmad ibn Abi al-Hawari said: I heard Sufyan ibn Uyaynah say: “Everything by which Allah described Himself in His Book, its explanation is its recitation and silence upon it.”
It was narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma wa al-Sifat (no. 869) and al-Iʿtiqad (p. 123).
Al-Bayhaqi said: “He only meant, and Allah knows best, that explaining it in a way that leads to describing how (takyif) is invalid, for describing how implies making Him resemble His creation in the attributes of created beings.”
Also narrated by Saʿid ibn Yaʿqub al-Taliqani who said: I heard Sufyan ibn Uyaynah say the same. It was recorded by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma wa al-Sifat (no. 725).
And from Abu Hatim al-Razi, from Ishaq ibn Musa, who said: I heard Ibn Uyaynah say: “Whatever Allah, Exalted is He, has described Himself with, its explanation is its recitation. No one has the right to explain it except Allah, Exalted and Blessed, or His Messengers, peace be upon them.”
It was narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma wa al-Sifat (no. 906).
And from Muhammad ibn Sulayman Lawin, who said: It was said to Ibn Uyaynah, “What about the narrations that mention the vision of Allah?” He said: “They are true, as we heard them from those we trust and approve.” It was narrated by Abdullah ibn Ahmad in al-Sunnah (1/235) and by al-Daraqutni in al-Sifat (no. 59).
And from Ahmad ibn Nasr who said: I heard Sufyan ibn Uyaynah while I was at his house after the night prayer. I kept pressing him with questions. He said, “Let me breathe.” I said to him, “O Abu Muhammad, I want to ask you something.” He said, “Do not ask.” I said, “I must ask, for if I do not ask you, whom shall I ask?” He said, “Then ask.”
So I said, “What about the hadith of Ubaydah from Abdullah from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: that Allah, Exalted and Glorified, carries the heavens upon a finger, the earths upon a finger; and the hadith that the hearts of the children of Adam are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful; and the hadith that Allah, Exalted is He, wonders and laughs at those who remember Him in the open?”
Sufyan said: “They are as they came. We accept them and narrate them without asking how.”
It was narrated by al-Daraqutni in al-Sifat (no. 63).
Sharh Usul I‘tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah al-Lalakāʾī (2/89-90)
Also in al-Ḥujjah fī Bayān al-Miḥjah By Ismāʿīl al-Taymī al-Iṣfahānī (1/259), al-Iṣfahānī says:
All the narrations that have been authentically transmitted about the attributes, such as: that Allah, Exalted and Glorified, created Adam upon His image, that the hand of Allah is upon the heads of the callers to prayer, that the hearts of the servants are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful, that Allah, Exalted and Glorified, places the heavens upon a finger and the earths upon a finger, and all the other authentic narrations regarding the attributes, The Imams have unanimously agreed that their explanation is their recitation.
They said: “Pass them on as they have come.”
How do we know the meaning? We know it by the shared mental concept common to everything we have experienced that is described with that term.
We do not agree with the Ashʿari claim that as-Samīʿ (the All-Hearing) means “the one able to hear all things.”
Rather, the All-Hearing is the one who actually hears.
The meaning of hearing is known to us without explanation, because we are familiar with it in all beings described with it, regardless of how it occurs in each.
This applies to both the essential (dhātiyyah) and active (fiʿliyyah) attributes. There is no difference.
What is the Face? It is that which is part of the being of the described one, such that when you see it, you recognise it as his face. Here, the Ashʿari begins to argue sophistically: “That is not enough. Tell me how I can distinguish a face from other attributes, like by saying it is above the shoulders or that it contains eyes.” But this is needless pedantry. You can recognise a face even on an ant or a worm without such physical details.
If the Ashʿari insists on such detail, hoping to draw us into takyīf (specifying the how), then we answer him in kind: he must give the same detail when he defines Allah’s hearing, which he affirms without requiring this level of specification.
He knows what “hearing” means without needing a full description to distinguish it from sight or knowledge. Otherwise, he would fall into the same error as the Muʿtazilah, who denied hearing and sight altogether because, in their view, hearing can only be an effect of physical sound vibrations.
If you are from Ahl al-Sunnah, you should not ask such questions and to stand where the Salaf stood. Imam Malik, when asked “How did He rise?” lowered his head, sweated, and expelled the man from his gathering, calling the question an innovation.
Furthermore, seeking clarification for what is already clear is one of the clearest signs of sophistry, a habit learned from the Greek philosophers. We know what “form/image” (sura) means.
When Allah tells us He created Adam upon His form, we understand that Allah created Adam with a face as Allah has a Face, with eyes as Allah has eyes, and with fingers as Allah has fingers. The most noble part of the form is the face, which is why Allah forbade striking a human face in the same hadith, explaining that Adam was created upon the form of the Most Merciful.
But as for the reality or modality of Allah’s Face, Eyes, and Form being exactly like Adam’s, that is the false anthropomorphism that we reject. Allah knows best how these attributes are in His Essence, and none knows their reality but Him.
We call upon the Ashʿaris to affirm the meanings as the Salaf affirmed them, to accept them as they are, without takyīf.
For in reality, the question “What is the meaning?” is a veiled question about “how.” It is as if one says, “How can Allah be described with a Face, since we only know the reality of a face in a particular form?”
The answer is that we know the meaning of “face” and “form” in the language, and we affirm the shared conceptual meaning while consigning the how to Allah. Belief in these attributes is obligatory, and asking about them is innovation. Then we stop and say no more.
From this, it becomes clear that the Ashʿari’s insistence on forcing Ahl al-Sunnah into specifying how is precisely what Imam Malik called an innovation, for which he expelled the questioner.
The Ashʿari demands that we establish some how in order for the attribute to have any meaning, and if we refuse, he claims we have committed tafwid al-maʿna.
But a reasonable person who reflects will see that the stance of the Ashʿaris is the very opposite of the position of Imam Malik, even though they constantly strive to portray themselves as his followers.
Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH) said in Tariq al-Hijratayn Page 235-236:
وهذا كما فعل من نفى عنه سبحانه الفرح والمحبة والرضى والغضب والكراهة والمقت والبغض، وردها كلها إلى الإرادة، فإنه فهم فرحاً مستلزماً لخصائص المخلوق من انبساط دم القلب وحصول ما ينفعه، وكذلك فهم غضباً هو غليان دم القلب طلباً للانتقام، وكذلك فهم محبة ورضى وكراهة ورحمة مقرونة بخصائص المخلوقين، فإن ذلك هو السابق إلى فهمه، وهو المشهود فى علمه الذى لم تصل معرفته إلى سواه ولم يحط علمه بغيره. ولما كان ذلك هو السابق إلى فهمه لم يجد بداً من نفيه عن الخالق، والصفة لم تتجرد فى عقله عن هذا اللازم فلم يجد بداً من نفيها. ثم لأصحاب هذه الطريق مسلكان: أحدهما مسلك التناقض البين، وهو إثبات كثير من الصفات، ولا يلتفت فيها إلى هذا الخيال، بل يثبتها مجردة عن خصائص المخلوق كالعلم والقدرة والإرادة والسمع والبصر وغيرها. فإن كان إثبات تلك الصفات التى نفاها يستلزم المحذور الذى فر منه، فكيف لم يستلزمه إثبات ما أثبته؟
If you say, is there a path other than the one you have condemned so that we may follow it, or a way that is straight for the seeker?
I say, yes, by the grace of Allah, the path is clear, its markers visible and bright for travellers. Its first step is to remove from the attributes of the Lord of the worlds the specific features of created beings, for this knot is the root of people’s misguidance. Whoever unties it will find everything after it easy, and whoever perishes in it, everything after it becomes more difficult.
No one has denied the attributes of the Lord or His attributes of majesty except because of his weak perception of them and his viewing them through the characteristics of created beings. For every attribute has implications that differ according to where it exists. The weak-minded person, when he sees that implication in a created subject, thinks it is necessary for the attribute itself, and so he flees from affirming it for the Creator, since in his mind it has not been separated from that implication.
This is what those did who denied that Allah has joy, love, pleasure, anger, hatred, or dislike, and reduced all of these to will (irada).
They understood joy as the expansion of the heart’s blood when attaining what benefits it, and anger as the boiling of the heart’s blood seeking revenge, and love and mercy as emotions associated with the features of created beings. Because this is what their minds perceived, they could not separate the attribute in their thoughts from these implications, so they had no option but to deny them.
The followers of this path have two approaches.
- The first is clear contradiction: they affirm many attributes such as knowledge, power, will, hearing, and sight, without worrying about such imagined difficulties. They affirm them purified from the characteristics of creation. If affirming the attributes they deny entails the same problem they flee from, then why do they not deny the ones they affirm? And if affirming the ones they affirm does not entail that problem, then why should affirming the ones they deny entail it? Is there a greater contradiction than this?
- The second approach is complete negation and absolute denial to escape contradiction, which leads to the greatest falsehood and most impossible error. The truth lies in complete affirmation, which is what Allah affirmed for Himself in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger, without resemblance (tashbih) or likening (tamthil), and without distortion (tahrif) or alteration (tabdil).
The origin of the error of those who distort is that they think what accompanies an attribute in a particular subject must accompany it by its very nature. So they deny that implication from Allah and are forced to deny the attribute itself. Matters are of three kinds:
First, that which necessarily accompanies the attribute by its very nature. This must not be denied, rather it is impossible to deny it, such as knowledge, hearing, and sight being related to an object known, heard, or seen. It is impossible to detach them from these relations.
Similarly, will necessarily entails knowledge. Hearing, sight, and knowledge all necessarily entail life.
Vision (ru’yah) of something seen necessarily includes conditions that cannot be denied without denying the vision itself. Likewise, an action done by choice necessarily involves its essential implications. Whoever denies these implications denies the voluntary act itself.
Hence, the philosophers (mutakallimeen) are among the most contradictory people.
They deny one thing and affirm its consequence, affirm one thing and deny its necessary implication. Their statements and proofs contradict each other, and the one who follows them ends up in doubt and confusion.
