Summary
Why the Word “Body” is Unclear
Maher Ameer says the generality of the word “composite” murakkab (composite) is close to the generality of the word “body” jism (body). In these discussions, jism (body) is used with more than one meaning. It may mean “the existent”, or “that which subsists by itself”, or “that which can be pointed to with a physical gesture”, or “a composed and assembled thing”. Because the word carries several meanings, it becomes unclear unless the speaker explains exactly what he intends.
He also says: defining jism (body) as “within space” mutahayyiz (within space), or “extended” imtidad (extension) and “divisible” qismah (division) even in one direction, or “divisible” qismah (division) in the three directions, returns to the same problem, because all these phrases are also unclear.
The terms mutahayyiz (within space), imtidad (extension), and qismah (division) can each be used with different meanings, so they remain unclear and fall under the same general discussion of murakkab (composite).
Jism in Arabic Usage
Maher Ameer says: Ibn Taymiyyah explains that jism (body) in Arabic usage means the corpse and the physical body, and that the word points to density and thickness. He uses Qur’an verses as examples:
وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَهُمْ تُعْجِبُكَ أَجْسَامُهُمْ وَإِن يَقُولُوا نَسْمَعْ لِقَوْلِهِمْ
“When you see them, their bodies please you, and if they speak, you listen to their words.” (al Munafiqun 4)
وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةُ فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ
“And He increased him in knowledge and in body.” (al Baqarah 247)
He also mentions Arabic expressions like saying a cloth has “body”, meaning it has thickness and density, and saying, “This is more bodily than that”, meaning thicker and denser.
Jism in Technical Usage
Maher Ameer says the later mutakallimun (philosophers) broadened the word jism (body) beyond Arabic usage, even calling subtle things like air a “body”.
Ibn Taymiyyah lists their main uses without hiding anything, including: defining jism (body) as composite, defining it by indivisible atoms in various counts, defining it as matter and form, defining it as “the existent”, defining it as “that which subsists by itself”, and defining it as what can be pointed to, or what can be assumed to have three dimensions.
His point is that these are technical uses, not Arabic usage, and it is not necessary to accept the opponent’s naming.
Nothing from these technical meanings is affirmed for Allah unless it comes in revelation.
Why “Body” is Not Taken from the Opponent
Maher Ameer says that even in the Arabic language, the Arabs do not call every great thing a jism (body).
They do not call the great sea a jism (body), and they do not call wide air a jism (body).
They also do not speak about the sea by saying, “more bodily than the river”. His aim is to show that there is no necessary link between greatness and the label jism (body) in Arabic usage.
So, when someone tries to force the discussion into “body equals within space” mutahayyiz (within space) or “body equals extension” imtidad (extension) and “division” qismah (division), he is forcing unclear technical words into the discussion, then acting as if the conclusion is necessary.
The Critic’s Claim about al Jurjani
Maher Ameer says: Sa’id Foudah quotes al Jurjani (d. 816AH) to claim that jism (body) in Arabic usage implies composition and assembling, then accuses Ibn Taymiyyah of hiding the real definition. Maher Ameer replies that Ibn Taymiyyah already mentioned the Arabic meaning and the technical meanings, so the claim of concealment is false.
He also says the Sa’id Foudah goes beyond al Jurjani by claiming, from his own mind, that jism (body) in Arabic usage points to sheer bulk and sheer size in general.
Maher Ameer says this is a fabrication, because al Jurjani tied the Arabic discussion to composition, not to sheer bulk as an independent rule.
Maher Ameer then says that if someone accepts the claim that jism (body) in Arabic usage implies composition and assembling, does Ibn Taymiyyah say Allah is composed and assembled in the Arabic meaning of those words. The answer is no. So the accusation of us affirming jism (body) for Allah does not stand.
Miqdar and the Words Length, Width, Height, and Depth
Maher Ameer says terms like miqdar (spatial size), and terms like toul (length), ʿard (width), irtifaʿ (height), and ʿumq (depth), are unclear words that came through later technical usage. They are built on assumptions about dimensions, and they normally bring with them the thought of comparison, quantifying, and assigning units. Because of that, he says they should not be used for Allah.
If a person uses these words but intends only Allah’s true greatness, then the meaning is true, yet the wording is still an innovation bidʿah (innovation). If the person intends meanings that require comparison to creation, confinement, or anything that makes Allah resemble creation, then that meaning is false and rejected.
So, instead of using jism (body), toul (length), ʿard (width), irtifaʿ (height), ʿumq (depth), or similar technical terms, he says the speech should remain with the wording of revelation, such as affirming Allah’s greatness and affirming al ʿuluww (being above), and affirming the reported attributes sifat khabariyyah (reported attributes) in the manner of Ahl al Sunnah, without deviating into innovated wording that carries unclear and corrupt possibilities.
“Size” and Why It Returns to the Same Problem
Maher Ameer says: “size” is treated like jism (body) and miqdar (spatial size).
If “size” is meant in the common language as a dense, solid thing like stone and soil, then it cannot be made a universal rule for everything that exists. If “size” is only being used to mean “subsisting by itself”, then that meaning is different, and the word becomes unclear again unless the speaker defines what he means.
So, he repeats the same approach: ask what is meant, accept the true meaning, reject the false meaning, and avoid wording that is unclear and that opens the door to tashbih (likening Allah to creation) and tajsim.
Where “A Body with Length, Width, and Height” Came From
Maher Ameer says: Ibn Taymiyyah condemnds saying that “Allah is a body with length, width, and height”, meaning jism (body) with toul (length), ʿard (width), and irtifaʿ (height), and he says this stems from the early Imamiyyah (Twelver Shia) figures, not to Ahl al Sunnah.
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this is not known from the imams of the four madhhahib (legal schools), nor from the recognised imams of hadith, and that blaming Ahl al Sunnah with this wording is a clear lie.
This is why Maher Ameer keeps the summary of the dispute centred on wording and meaning, and on refusing unclear technical labels about Allah, especially jism (body) and dimension language.
Maher Ameer Discussing The Term Jism (Body)
The Generality of the Word Body
The generality of the word “composite” (murakkab) is close to the generality of the word “body” (jism).
Many times, what is composite in the reported attributes (sifat khabariyyah) is described as “body”. So, when speaking about what “body” can mean, it may mean the existent, or that which subsists by itself, or that which can be pointed to by a physical gesture, or the composed and assembled thing.
Then, “composite” is divided, as already mentioned earlier when discussing composition.
Know that explaining “body” as “that which is within space” (mutahayyiz), or “the extended thing that can be divided, even if only in one direction”, or “that which can be divided in the three directions”, all falls under the category of “composite”, and it is general, like the generality of “composite”.
So we say: “being within space” and “extension” can mean this and that, and “division” can mean this and that. All of them are general, and they are included under the generality of the word “composite”. So there is no need to mention that earlier definition that includes these generalities one by one, even though Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) still mentions it separately in some places.
From the Shaykh’s Words on This Issue
From the Shaykh’s words on this issue: as for the word “body”, the body in the language of the Arabs, as al Asmaʿi (d. 216AH) and Abu Zayd (d. 215AH) and others among the linguists said, is the “corpse” and the “physical body”.
وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَهُمْ تُعْجِبُكَ أَجْسَامُهُمْ وَإِن يَقُولُوا نَسْمَعْ لِقَوْلِهِمْ
“When you see them, their bodies please you, and if they speak, you listen to their words.” (al Munafiqun 4)
وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةُ فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ
“And He increased him in knowledge and in body.” (al Baqarah 247)
So, in the language it points to the meaning of density and thickness, like the word “corpse”. Then it may mean the thick thing itself, and it may mean its thickness. So it is said: “This cloth has body”, meaning thickness and density. And it is said: “This is more bodily than that”, meaning thicker and denser.
Then the word “body” became broader in the technical usage of the philosophers (ahl al kalam), so they call air and other subtle things a “body”, even though the Arabs do not call this a “body”. (Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al ʿAql wa al Naql 5/142–147; Minhaj al Sunnah 2/530)
He also said: it is said to him: the “corpse” and the “body” with this philosopher definition is not a “corpse” in the language of the Arabs. Rather, it is divided into thick and thin, into what is a corpse, and into what is not a corpse.
So the jurists say: if impurity is embodied, like a carcass, then its ruling is such and such; and if it is not embodied, like urine, then its ruling is such and such. (al Fatawa al Kubra 5/214–217)
He also said: likewise, the word “body” in the language means the physical body and the corpse, as al Asmaʿi (d. 216AH) and Abu Zayd (d. 215AH) and others among the linguists mentioned.
As for the philosophers, then among them are those who mean by it:
- The composite, and they apply it to the indivisible atom (jawhar fard) on the condition of composition, or to two atoms, or to four atoms, or to six, or to eight, or to sixteen, or to thirty two, or to the composite made of matter and form (hayula and surah).
And among them are those who say:
- It is the existent.
Or:
- That which subsists by itself. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa 1/103)
He also said: it is known that no group exists except that it may agree upon words by which they speak with one another. Likewise, some of the philosophers say: “the One” is that which is not divisible, and every body is divisible. And they say: “body” is anything within space that can be divided, so that air and other things enter into that.
He also said: the philosophers who use these phrases differ in what they mean by them, sometimes because they differ in how the word is used, and sometimes because they differ about the meaning that the word points to, like the one who says: “body” is:
- The assembled thing.
Then they argue: is it a single atom on the condition that it is assembled, or two atoms and above, or six, or eight, or something else?
And among them is the one who says: it is:
- That within which the three dimensions can be assumed, and that it is composed of matter and form.
And among them is the one who says: it is:
- The existent.
Or he says: it is:
- The existent that subsists by itself.
Or he says: it is that which can be pointed to, and that the existent that subsists by itself can only be like that. (al Fatawa al Kubra 5/214–217; Majmuʿ al Fatawa 1/103; Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 3/192; Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al ʿAql wa al Naql 1/45)
So “body” has technical meanings and linguistic meanings. As for the technical meanings, we are not required to accept the opponent’s naming of them as “body”. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) mentions them all and hides nothing from them, and we are not required to affirm anything of that about Allah unless it comes in His revelation.
As for the linguistic meanings, we have explained that the Arabs do not call every great thing within space a “body”. They do not call the great sea a “body”, nor the wide air a “body”. And they do not say that the sea is “more bodily” than the river. This does not mean that the Creator is like the sea or like space. Rather, the meaning is to show that there is no necessary link between being within space and greatness, and between describing something as “bodily” in the language.
The Critic’s Claim and the Reply
By this, you understand the critic’s deception when he claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) hid the real definition of “body”. That was when he quoted the words of al Jurjani (d. 816AH), then followed it by saying: “al Sharif al Muhaqqiq al Jurjani said in Sharh al Mawaqif: ‘And what is like the saying of the Salihiyyah among the Muʿtazilah in defining body as the one that subsists by itself, and the saying of some of the Karramiyyah that it is the existent, and the saying of Hisham that it is “the thing”, is false. The first is broken by the Creator and by the indivisible atom, the second is broken by them both and also by the accident, and the third is broken by the three.
Also, there is another corruption in these definitions, because these sayings are not supported by the language, rather they oppose it. For it is said: Zayd is more bodily than ʿAmr, meaning greater in bulk, spread of dimensions, and assembling of parts. So the word body, by language, points to composition and assembling, and these sayings do not point to that.’ End quote. This speech is very precise, so reflect on it. After this clarification, it becomes clear to you that Ibn Taymiyyah did not mention the linguistic meaning in its reality, nor the technical meanings in their correct form. As for the linguistic meaning, body in the root of the language points to composition and bulk, meaning the size is big. So the language points to bulk and composition in general.” (al Kashif al Saghir 124)
Maher Ameer says: Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned all of this and hid nothing. The critic lies when he says on the next page: “By this it becomes clear that Ibn Taymiyyah mixed the issues. Rather, he made a huge mistake, because he restricted himself to mentioning the disagreement in the second issue, which is how the body is made, meaning: is it made of parts and how many, or is it made of matter and form? This has no relation at all to defining the body as body. And he did not mention at all the relied upon definitions among them, as we clarified.”
Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned them all, detailed them, and argued about them in a way that the critic and those he magnifies did not do. He did not focus only on the number of parts or their type, as the critic lied about him. This lie is only an application of what he accused Ibn Taymiyyah of. He focused on Ibn Taymiyyah’s detailing of the disagreement over the number of parts and their reality, then he kept attacking that, as if Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned nothing else, ignoring his full listing of the definitions and then examining them by language and reason, in order to confuse the reader and conceal the real point of dispute.
He wants Ibn Taymiyyah to take the word “body” as it is, with everything in it, and explain it as “the extended divisible thing”, and also to take the words “extension” and “division” as they are, with everything in them, so that he becomes satisfied. But we already mentioned that both of them enter under “composite”. “Composite” may mean the extended divisible thing that is composed of atoms or of matter and form, and it may mean something else. So forcing it to be singled out, and attacking the Shaykh for that, is proof of weak understanding and lack of precision, and also proof of rashness, because he did not study the Shaykh’s words, otherwise he would have found that he singled it out in places and discussed it directly.
The critic quoted al Jurjani (d. 816AH) as if he is a decisive authority on language. Even so, we will accept his statement. Body, in language as al Jurjani (d. 816AH) said, is the assembled composite. Since this is a linguistic definition, we must understand “assembling” and “composition” by language too. So does Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) say that Allah is assembled and composite in the linguistic meaning of these two words?
The answer is no. So, He is not described as bodily in the language.
Even though the critic appealed to al Jurjani (d. 816AH), he then tried by himself to explain the linguistic meaning, making the reader think he is only repeating what al Jurjani (d. 816AH) decided. So he claimed, from his own head, saying: “Body in the root of the language points to composition and bulk, meaning size is big.”
This is nothing but fabrication.
Al Jurjani (d. 816AH) did not say that “body” is used for bulk and big size in general. Rather, he tied bodily description to composition and assembling. So, with al Jurjani (d. 816AH), we are free from the critic’s accusation of tajsim (claiming Allah is a body), because we do not affirm the linguistic composition and assembling that al Jurjani (d. 816AH) made the reality of the linguistic definition of body. So what about when you know that we do not even accept al Jurjani (d. 816AH) here, because the sea is composite and huge, so do they call it a body? And space is composite and huge, so is it, in language, a body?
Rather, body is what we said, and what Ibn Taymiyyah said: it is the dense, thick corpse and physical body. We may accept that composition and assembling enter in its meaning because density is linked to that. But making mere greatness and largeness into tajsim is ignorance from the critic and those who agree with him, if they claim that this comes from the language. Otherwise, it is only a technical usage.
It does not benefit them that the Arabs say: “Zayd is more bodily than ʿAmr”, meaning bigger, because they do not say something like this about air and sea. They do not say: “The space of the room is more bodily than the space of the jar”, or “the sea is more bodily than the river”.
As for their saying it about Zayd and ʿAmr, what is meant is that Zayd’s corpse and physical body is bigger than ʿAmr. So corpse like physicality is part of what they mean by “more bodily”. We already mentioned that the corpse and the physical body are the meaning of body in language. We also mentioned the jurists’ difference between embodied impurity and non embodied impurity. We declare Allah far above all of this, and affirming the apparent meanings of revelation does not require us to affirm any of this about Him.
A Key Point about Ashʿari Technical Usage
Know that everyone who wrote about tajsim among the Ashʿaris, like the book tajsim and the mujassimah by ʿAbd al Fattah al Yafiʿi, and tajsim in Islamic thought by al Suhayb al Saqqar, built their speech on this pillar: matching “body” in Ashʿari technical usage to “body” in the linguistic meaning.
With the collapse of this, everything they wrote collapses and becomes without value. It does not matter to the careful researchers whether we are called mujassimah by Ashʿari rules and technical usage or not, because they are called mujassimah by the rules and technical usage of the philosophers and the Muʿtazilah. Rather, what matters is: are we called mujassimah in the language of the Qur’an and the tongue of the Salaf, or not? And do we liken the Creator to the created things and their bodies, or not?
If it is said: “Do you commit, then, that you affirm body by Ashʿari technical usage?” We say: we do not commit that their technical usage is even sound in the first place, because it is a corrupt technical usage within itself. It includes generalities inside its definition, and then includes other generalities inside those generalities. So defining body as “within space” or “extended divisible” includes the generality of division and the generality of extension.
Their generality is the same generality of composition that these words point to. So it is not known whether it is an extended divisible composite that someone else composed, extended, or divided, or whether it accepts breaking apart, extension, and division even if that does not happen in reality, or whether it has parts or matter or separated sections, or whether it had separated sections that then came together. If what is meant is that Allah is truly great and has attributes, then that is true, whether we commit to their technical usage or we do not. So they have no path against us, whichever way they turn.
On Miqdār (spatial size/measure)
If it is said: “What do you say about miqdār (spatial size)?”
We say: affirming miqdār (spatial size), meaning that Allah has a real, distinct reality that is not mixed with His creation, is true.
Anything beyond this meaning is unclear wording, so it is neither affirmed nor denied until the intended meaning is explained. If what is meant is that someone sets an amount for Allah, or that Allah is compared to creation and evaluated by their standards, that is false.
If what is meant is that Allah is truly great, that is true.
The Words Length, Width, and Depth
If it is said: “What do you say about length, width, and depth?”
We say: these too are general words. They define them in technical usage as the first, second, and third assumed dimension, and it is the mind’s assumption. Using them is by later technical usage. So we do not use them for Allah, we do not commit to them, and we do not go into them. Rather, we say what we said before: if what is meant by them is the greatness of Allah, that is true, but saying them is an innovation. Anything else that is meant by them does not concern us.
We do not commit that Allah’s greatness requires that He has length, width, and depth, because the condition for applying these three to a thing is that it can be measured against something else. So it is said: “Its length is such and such”, and a unit of measurement is mentioned. This condition does not apply to Allah. It does not even apply to some created things with different realities. So it is not correct to measure the temperature of electricity by a measurement unit, nor the strength of blackness by litres, nor the loudness of sound by metres.
Every reality has its own category by which it can be measured. This is clear in the created things that are seen. So what about the Creator, whose reality differs from the realities of His creation far more than the reality of a substance differs from the reality of an attribute?
So we can say: length, width, and depth are relative necessities for the created thing, and they do not become necessary for the Creator in His greatness. They include accepting that He can be measured against something else, so we reject them and do not affirm them. Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted this, approving it, from Ibn Kullab, who said: “If they say: does length and width follow from it? It is said to them: this is impossible, because He is One, not like created ones.
He is great, and His greatness is not measured by created things. Just as He is great and knowing, not like the created who know, likewise He is One and great, not like great created ones. If you say: the great cannot be except divided, it is said to you: and the knowing cannot be except divided, and likewise the hearing and the seeing, because you are comparing to created things.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 3/114)
Who First Spoke of “A Body with Length, Width, and Depth”
Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned in another work what clarifies his position on this issue. He said: “This exact wording, that Allah is a body with length, width, and depth, the first people known to have said it in Islam are the leaders of the Imamiyyah, like Hisham ibn al Hakam and Hisham ibn Salim, as already mentioned. This is something the transmitters of the writings on sects and groups agreed upon, from all groups. People transmitted these sayings and what is worse than them from the Rafidah.” (Minhaj al Sunnah 2/501–502)
He also said: “These sayings that he transmitted are not known from anyone known for the madhhab of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaʿah, not from the imams of the companions of Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH), nor Malik (d. 179AH), nor al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH), nor Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241AH), neither from the people of hadith nor the people of opinion. None of them is known to have said: Allah is a body, long, wide, deep, and that handshaking is permissible, and that the righteous among the Muslims can see Him in the dunya.
If his intent by ‘hashwiyyah’ and ‘mushabbihah’ is some of these people, then that is a clear lie against them. The books of these groups, and their men, living and dead, do not have any of that known from them. If some people who claim to belong to them say that, then it is not the saying of their imams, nor of those whose sayings are taken for fatwa. Whoever wants to transmit a saying from a group must name the speaker and the transmitter, otherwise everyone can lie. So his lie about what he transmitted from Ahl al Sunnah has become clear, just as it has become clear that those sayings, and what is worse than them, are from the sayings of the early Imamiyyah.
If by ‘hashwiyyah’ he means a group from the companions of the four imams, like the companions of Ahmad, or al Shafiʿi, or Malik, then it is known that these sayings do not exist among them at all. Rather, they call the one who says them a disbeliever. Even if some of it existed in some of them, it would not be special to them, rather it exists like this in the rest of the groups.
If by ‘hashwiyyah’ he means Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaʿah in general, then these sayings are not known among the Muslims and Ahl al Sunnah in general. Most Muslims do not even think anyone said this. If some ignorant people among the general public say this or worse, it is not correct to make this into a belief of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaʿah that they are blamed for. Blame is only for what the men and the ulama of the group say, as we mentioned about the imams of the Shiʿah, because the imams of the Shiʿah are the ones who said the ugly sayings, as is known.” (Minhaj al Sunnah 2/517–522)
So this saying is only the saying of the early Rafidah, and of the ignorant, and of those whose sayings are not attributed to Ahl al Sunnah except by the ignorant. His rejection of this saying is not a rejection of a word only, because it is not known from him that he would strongly condemn someone who disagreed only on a word while agreeing in meaning. Rather, it is because the root of entering into this is an innovation, even before affirming it or denying it. The truth does not need it. So entering into it is an innovation, except in the form of argument and debate with the one who uses this issue as a way to deny the truth, like Allah’s exaltedness and His rising over His Throne.
The Word Size
If it is said: “What do you say about size?” We say: the answer is the same as what was said about body and measure. “There are two answers about it. The first: the meaning of size in the clear language is the dense single thing, like stone and soil, unlike air, because in the common language it is not called size. If this is what he means, then not everything that exists in what is seen is either size or something that subsists in size.
If he means by it that everything that exists in what is seen either subsists by itself or subsists in what subsists by itself, then this applies in what is unseen.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/380)
So it became a general word in their hands. We ask about its meaning. If he means that something surrounded Allah, or confined Him, and gave Him “size”, then we seek refuge in Allah, this is rejected from the first glance. If he means that Allah is measured in His greatness against other bodies and sizes, that is rejected. If he means that Allah subsists by Himself, and is great and majestic, above His Throne, then this meaning is true, but it is not called “size”, and we reject the deception of using this word for this Qur’an meaning.
So, after what has come, the opponent must use our words and the words of revelation. We are not forced to use “measure”, or “quantity”, or “length, width, height”, or “extension”, or “filling space”, or other words. Rather, we forbid using them and seek refuge in Allah from them, because they are innovated words that carry meanings that the pure words of revelation do not carry. So it is said: “Great”, “Big”, “Above His Throne”, in truth, and nothing else is said.
Refusing these words is not only a refusal of wording, rather it is a real refusal of meaning, because words are doors to meanings. Every word throws into the mind meanings that differ from what the other word throws. We do not know whether the word that did not come in Sharia throws meanings that are permissible for Allah or not, especially when it is general and sometimes used for meanings that are not permissible for Allah by agreement.
An Important Note
We mention an important note: it is possible to affirm the attributes and the real exaltedness without committing to affirming that Allah is truly great and big. This is one of the methods of argument found in the approach that is attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah. Affirming the attributes without committing to that, even if it opposes what some texts and reason point to, is still far better, closer, and more correct than denying the attributes and falling into tajahhum (Jahmi thought) and qarmatah (esoteric deviation) when dealing with their proofs in revelation and the reports of the Salaf. So the debaters from our side must understand this well, so they do not debate the branch while leaving the root.
The denier of real exaltedness is Jahmi. As for the denier of this branching out, meaning boundaries and measure, he is mistaken at worst, and that does not require the kind of opposing the Messenger ﷺ, opposing revelation, and entering into innovation that the first requires.
Intisar al-Tadmuriyyah by Maher Ameer pg 367–375
