Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 150AH) was accused by some ulama of being from the mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to creation). Some even mentioned a group called the Muqatiliyyah, attributed to him. The accusation was that he held tajsim (ascribing bodily form) and tashbih (likening Allah to creation), and that he said Allah was a jism (body), a juththah (corporeal form), and had flesh, blood, hair, bone, jawarih (limbs), and aʿda (organs). (See: Maqalat al Islamiyyin, al Ashʿari, 1/187.)

Other claims connected Muqatil to views similar to Shaytan al Taq, saying that Allah is light in the form of a lordly human being, while some writers described the Muqatiliyyah as saying that Allah is flesh and blood and has a form like a human form. (See: al Milal wa al Nihal, al Shahrastani, 1/187. See: al Ghunyah, Abd al Qadir al Jilani, 1/93. al Bad’ wa al Tarikh, al Maqdisi, 5/141.)

The Link Made Between Muqatil And Jahm

Some ulama connected Muqatil’s alleged tashbih with his opposition to Jahm ibn Safwan. Jahm was known for taʿtil (negating the attributes), while Muqatil was said to have gone too far in affirming the attributes until he fell into tashbih. This view was supported by statements attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah, such as: “Jahm went to an extreme in negating tashbih until he said, ‘He is not anything,’ and Muqatil went to an extreme in affirmation until he made Allah Most High like His creation.” (See: al Fisal, Ibn Hazm, 5/73–74. Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173. Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/218.)

Another report says: “Two evil views came to us from the east: Jahm, the muʿattil (negator of the attributes), and Muqatil, the mushabbih (one who likens Allah to creation).” (Tarikh Baghdad, al Khatib al Baghdadi, 13/164. Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala, al Dhahabi, 17/202. Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/181.)

Some later writers then claimed that tashbih entered Islam through Muqatil as a reaction to Jahm’s taʿtil.

This is rejected because tashbih had already appeared before Muqatil, through groups such as the Saba’iyyah and the Bayaniyyah. (See: Fajr al Islam, Ahmad Amin, p. 297. Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad Ahl al Sunnah, al Lalikai, introduction by Ahmad Saʿd al Ghamidi, 1/39. Qatf al Thamar, Muhammad Siddiq Hasan Khan, notes by Asim al Qaryuti, p. 60. Mawqif Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah min al Karramiyyah fi al Ilahiyyat, Abd al Qadir Muhammad Abd Allah, p. 97. See also: 1/174, 235, 240.)

Jahm’s View Was Not True Tanzih

The claim that Jahm established a tanzihi (declaring Allah free from imperfection) madhhab in response to Muqatil is also rejected. Jahm was not simply declaring Allah free from imperfection. Rather, he was a muʿattil who denied the attributes. Imam Ahmad (d. 241AH) made this clear in his refutation of the zanadiqah and the Jahmiyyah. (See: al Radd ʿala al Zanadiqah wa al Jahmiyyah, Imam Ahmad, p. 23–26.)

The verifying ulama held that Muqatil was the one who responded to Jahm’s taʿtil by affirming the attributes, not that Jahm built his doctrine as a reply to Muqatil. (See: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, al Dhahabi, 1/159–160. Fadl ʿIlm al Salaf ʿala al Khalaf, Ibn Rajab, p. 28–29.)

Weakness In Hadith Does Not Prove Tashbih In Creed

Ibn Hibban (d. 354AH) accused Muqatil of taking from Jewish and Christian reports, likening Allah to creation, and lying in hadith. The criticism of him in hadith is well known, and many ulama weakened him as a narrator. (See: al Majruhin, Ibn Hibban, 3/14. Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/175. Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173–174. Taqrib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 2/210.)

But weakness in hadith narration is separate from the question of creed. A person may be criticised for lying, poor memory, or weakness in transmission, without that proving he was a mushabbih or mujassim. For this reason, the criticism of Muqatil as a hadith narrator cannot by itself establish the charge of tashbih.

At the same time, many praised his knowledge of tafsir. Imam al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH) said: “People are dependent upon Muqatil in tafsir.” (Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173.) Al Dhahabi (d. 748AH) also described him as an ocean in tafsir, even while mentioning that he had been stained with the accusation of tajsim. (Tadhkirat al Huffaz, al Dhahabi, 1/174.)

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Careful Position

Ibn Taymiyyah did not firmly accept the accusation against Muqatil. He said that Allah knows best the reality of Muqatil’s condition, and that al Ashʿari was quoting these claims from Muʿtazili sources, while the Muʿtazilah had bias against Muqatil because he affirmed the attributes. Ibn Taymiyyah considered it possible that they added to what was quoted, transmitted from unreliable sources, or distorted the matter. He said that he did not think Muqatil reached the extreme level attributed to him. (Minhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/618–620.)

This position is closer to clearing Muqatil than condemning him, because Ibn Taymiyyah’s reasoning is that many of the accusations came through opponents who often labelled anyone who affirmed the attributes as a mushabbih or mujassim.

Ulama Who Cleared Muqatil

Abu al Husayn al Malati (d. 377AH) praised Muqatil and used his knowledge in refuting the doubts of the zanadiqah. He described what he took from Muqatil as useful knowledge for answering false claims about contradictions in the Qur’an. (See: al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 70. See also: al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 70–94.)

Al Kawthari (d. 1371AH) claimed that what al Malati quoted from Muqatil proves Muqatil’s tashbih and tajsim, and al Nashshar followed him in this. But this is rejected because what al Malati quoted does not actually contain tashbih. Rather, al Kawthari and those like him considered affirmation of Allah’s attributes upon the way of the Salaf to be tashbih. (al Kawthari’s introduction to al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 7. Nash’at al Fikr al Falsafi fi al Islam, al Nashshar, 1/191–192. See also: 2/163, 184.)

Al Shahrastani (d. 548AH) counted Muqatil among the imams of the Salaf and placed him alongside Malik ibn Anas (d. 179AH) in following the path of accepting the revealed reports without tashbih or ta’wil (figurative reinterpretation). However, al Shahrastani also repeated some harsh claims against him, which fits the wider habit of the mutakallimun in accusing those who affirm report based attributes of tashbih. (al Milal wa al Nihal, al Shahrastani, 1/103–104. See also: al Milal wa al Nihal, al Shahrastani, 1/187.)

Some ulama, such as Abu Muhammad al Yamani, al Sakskaki, and al Yafiʿi (d. 768AH), even argued that the Muqatil accused of tashbih was not Muqatil the mufassir, but another man with the same name. This view was meant to clear Muqatil the mufassir, although the author notes that most ulama understood the accusation to refer to Muqatil ibn Sulayman himself. (ʿAqa’id al Thalath wa al Sabʿin Firqah, Abu Muhammad al Yamani, 1/285. al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 40. Dhikr Madhahib al Firaq, p. 143.)

The Stronger View: Muqatil Is Cleared From The Accusation

The stronger view is that Muqatil ibn Sulayman is free from the tashbih and tajsim attributed to him.

This conclusion is built on several points.

First, many of the accusations came through his opponents, especially the Muʿtazilah and the people of kalam, who often described anyone who affirmed Allah’s attributes as a mushabbih. The speech of an opponent is not accepted when that opponent is known to be unfair toward the manhaj of the Salaf.
Second, the statements used against him often do not clearly mention the exact creed by which he should be judged a mushabbih. Some may be reports that reached later ulama, and not everything reported is correct, especially when Muqatil’s own words and books oppose the accusation.
Third, al Dhahabi’s wording does not necessarily mean he personally judged Muqatil to be a mujassim. He reported that Muqatil had been stained with that accusation, while still recognising him as a major figure in tafsir.
Fourth, the criticism of Muqatil in hadith concerns narration and reliability, not necessarily creed. Weakness as a narrator does not automatically prove tashbih or tajsim.

Muqatil’s Own Rejection Of Tashbih

One of the strongest points in clearing Muqatil is his own answer when the caliph al Mahdi asked him about the accusation of tashbih. Muqatil replied by reciting Surah al Ikhlas:

قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ۝ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ ۝ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ ۝ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ

“Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Self Sufficient Master. He neither begets nor is born. And there is none equal to Him.” (al Ikhlas 1–4)

He then said: “Whoever says other than that has lied.” (Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/282.)

This is a clear rejection of tashbih from Muqatil himself. He used Surah al Ikhlas, which establishes Allah’s perfection and denies likeness, equal, counterpart, birth, and deficiency.

His Books Do Not Contain The Accused Doctrine

Muqatil’s Tafsir, al Ashbah wa al Nazair, Tafsir al Khamsimi’ah Ayah, and what al Malati quoted from him are described as being completely free from the alleged tashbih and tajsim. The editors of his works also mentioned that they did not find the accusation present in his books. (See the introduction of Dr Shahatah to al Ashbah wa al Nazair, p. 52, and the introduction of Dr Ubayd to Tafsir al Khamsimi’ah Ayah, p. 60.)

Instead, his books show the general way of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah in affirming the attributes of Allah upon what befits His majesty, without tashbih and without taʿtil.

His Affirmation Of Istiwa’ Does Not Prove Tashbih

Muqatil affirmed that Allah rose over the Throne and is above the Throne. He also explained istiwa’ as “istqarra” (settled). This does not prove tashbih, because he did not speak about kayfiyyah (how the attribute is) and did not say that Allah’s istiwa’ is like the istiwa’ of creation. (Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 3/20. al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 85. Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 2/41, 225, 366, 3/20–21, 448, 4/273.)

The explanation of istiwa’ as highness, rising, settling, and being established is also found among the ulama of language and Ahl al Sunnah. Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463AH) said that istiwa’ is known in the language and includes highness, rising, settling, and being established. (al Tamhid, Ibn Abd al Barr, 7/128–129.)

Ibn Taymiyyah also said that explaining istiwa’ as “istqarra” was the saying of Ibn al Mubarak and others from the people of knowledge, including Thaʿlab, al Kalbi, and Muqatil. (Sharh Hadith al Nuzul, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 145. Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/519–520.)

Muqatil did make an error by saying that Allah’s istiwa’ over the Throne was before the creation of the heavens and the earth. The correct view is that it was after the creation of the heavens and the earth, as indicated by the wording of the verses. But this mistake does not prove tashbih. (Mughni al Labib, Ibn Hisham, 1/135–137. Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/226–227. Naqd al Ta’sis, Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/565.)

His Explanation Of Maʿiyyah Agrees With Ahl Al Sunnah

Muqatil explained Allah’s maʿiyyah (being with His creation) in a way that agrees with Ahl al Sunnah. In the verse:

إِنَّنِي مَعَكُمَا أَسْمَعُ وَأَرَىٰ

“Indeed, I am with you both. I hear and I see.” (Taha 46)

He explained it as Allah defending and protecting Musa عليه السلام and Harun عليه السلام. (Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 3/28.)

This agrees with Ibn Kathir’s explanation that this is the maʿiyyah of preservation, victory, and support. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 3/162.)

He also explained Allah’s maʿiyyah in:

مَا يَكُونُ مِن نَّجْوَىٰ ثَلَاثَةٍ إِلَّا هُوَ رَابِعُهُمْ وَلَا خَمْسَةٍ إِلَّا هُوَ سَادِسُهُمْ وَلَا أَدْنَىٰ مِن ذَٰلِكَ وَلَا أَكْثَرَ إِلَّا هُوَ مَعَهُمْ

“There is no private conversation of three except that He is their fourth, nor of five except that He is their sixth, nor less than that, nor more, except that He is with them.” (al Mujadilah 7)

He said it means Allah is with them by His knowledge. (Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 4/259.)

This is far from the claim of tashbih, because a mushabbih would have said that Allah is with creation by His essence in a mixed or indwelling way. Muqatil did not say that. (See: al Radd ʿala al Zanadiqah wa al Jahmiyyah, Imam Ahmad, p. 49–50. Tafsir al Tabari, al Tabari, 12/13–14. al Fatwa al Hamawiyyah al Kubra, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 60–61. Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/102–104. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 4/345. al Sifat al Ilahiyyah, Muhammad Aman al Jami, p. 399.)

His Affirmation Of Knowledge, Hand, Coming, And Shin

Muqatil affirmed Allah’s knowledge in a way that agrees with Ahl al Sunnah. He held that Allah knows what existed before creation and what will exist, and that His knowledge is eternal and complete. This opposes the view of some mushabbihah who claimed that Allah only knows things after they exist. (al Ashbah wa al Nazair, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, p. 36. See also: p. 232.)

He also affirmed the attribute of Allah’s Hand as it came in the revealed texts. He said that the Hand in the verse means the Hand itself, not power or favour, as the muʿattilah claimed. At times, he also mentioned the necessary meaning of the Hand by explaining it with goodness, but this is not taʿtil because he had already affirmed the attribute itself. (al Ashbah wa al Nazair, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, p. 321–322. Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 1/490. See also: Sharh al Usul al Khamsah, al Qadi Abd al Jabbar, p. 228. Usul al Din, al Baghdadi, p. 11. al Irshad, al Juwayni, p. 146. Asas al Taqdis, al Razi, p. 125–127. Nashr al Taliʿ, Sajikli Zadah, p. 236.)

He affirmed the attribute of Allah’s coming as it came in the Qur’an, bringing the verses of al Fajr, al Anʿam, and al Baqarah as proof. His method was to affirm what Allah affirmed for Himself in a way that befits Allah’s majesty.

He also mentioned two explanations for the verse of the Shin. First, he transmitted that it refers to the severity of the Day of Resurrection from Ibn Abbas. Second, he transmitted from Ibn Masʿud that it refers to the Shin of Allah. The first is explained as a necessary meaning, while the second affirms the attribute as it came. (Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 4/228. Tafsir al Tabari, al Tabari, 12/179, 198, 200. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 4/435. See also: 3/310–317.)

End of Summary.

Dr. Jābir ibn Idrīs ibn ʿAlī Amīr’s Research Into The Accusation of Muqatil Being A Mushabbih

Maqālat al Tashbīh wa Mawqif Ahl al Sunnah Minhā VOLUME 1_removed

Verifying The Claim That Muqatil And His Group Are Counted Among The Mushabbihah

Among those accused of tashbih (likening Allah to creation), and counted among the groups of the mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to creation), is Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 150AH), the mufassir (Qur’an commentator). Some of the ulama attributed that to him, to the point that some of them mentioned a mushabbih group called the Muqatiliyyah, named after him. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) paused concerning his case, while some of the ulama declared him free from it. Therefore, the matter requires verifying the attribution of tashbih to Muqatil, or denying it, while explaining the correct view with proof through several aims. (Abu al Hasan Muqatil ibn Sulayman al Balkhi was one of the major mufassirs. He narrated from Mujahid, al Dahhak, and Ibn Buraydah. Among his writings are his Tafsir, al Ashbah wa al Nazair fi al Qur’an al Karim, and Tafsir al Khamsimi’ah Ayah min al Qur’an fi al Amr wa al Nahi wa al Halal wa al Haram. He died in 150AH. See: Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala, al Dhahabi, 7/202. Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173. Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/279. al Aʿlam, al Zirikli, 8/202. Dr Abdullah Shahatah gave him an expanded biography in the introduction to al Ashbah wa al Nazair, p. 12–28.)

Some Statements Of Those Who Accused Muqatil Of Tashbih

Some of the ulama attributed the saying of tashbih to Muqatil ibn Sulayman. They said that he used to say, as Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashʿari (d. 324AH) mentioned, that Allah is a jism (body), and that He is a juththah (corporeal form) in the form of a human being, with flesh, blood, hair, and bone, and that He has jawarih (limbs) and aʿda (organs), such as a hand, leg, tongue, head, and two eyes, while, along with this, He does not resemble others. (See: Maqalat al Islamiyyin, al Ashʿari, 1/187.)

It was also attributed to him that he used to say something like the saying of Shaytan al Taq, that Allah Most High is light in the form of a lordly human being. (The definition of Shaytan al Taq, his group, and his statement concerning tashbih has already passed. See: 1/256. See also: al Milal wa al Nihal, al Shahrastani, 1/187.)

Some also mentioned a group named the Muqatiliyyah, attributed to Muqatil ibn Sulayman, and said that they used to say that Allah is flesh and blood, and that He has a form like the form of a human being. They used as evidence for this claim that they had not seen anything described with attributes except what was flesh and blood. (See: al Ghunyah, Abd al Qadir al Jilani, 1/93. al Bad’ wa al Tarikh, al Maqdisi, 5/141.)

Some of the ulama mentioned that Muqatil ibn Sulayman was with Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128AH) in Khurasan at the same time. Jahm went to an extreme in negating the attributes, while Muqatil, in opposition to him, affirmed the attributes and went to an extreme in that until reaching tashbih. They said that he described Allah as a jism (body) and flesh in the form of a human being. (Jahm ibn Safwan’s biography has already passed. See: 1/86. See also: al Fisal, Ibn Hazm, 5/73–74.)

This judgement upon Muqatil ibn Sulayman is taken from the statement of Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH), may Allah have mercy on him, concerning Muqatil: “Jahm went to an extreme in negating tashbih until he said, ‘He is not anything,’ and Muqatil went to an extreme in affirmation until he made Allah Most High like His creation.” (Mentioned by Imam al Dhahabi in Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173, and by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/218.)

It is also narrated from him that he used to say: “Two evil views came to us from the east: Jahm, the muʿattil (negator of the attributes), and Muqatil, the mushabbih (one who likens Allah to creation).” (Mentioned by Imam al Khatib al Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad, al Khatib al Baghdadi, 13/164, by Imam al Dhahabi in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala, al Dhahabi, 17/202, and by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/181.)

Because of this, some contemporary writers made the appearance of the doctrine of tashbih in Islam occur at the hands of Muqatil ibn Sulayman. They said it appeared only as a reaction to the doctrine of Jahm in taʿtil (negating the attributes), which was present with it in the same town. (See: Fajr al Islam, Ahmad Amin, p. 297. The introduction of Dr Ahmad Saʿd al Ghamidi to Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad Ahl al Sunnah by al Lalikai, 1/39. The notes of Dr Asim al Qaryuti on Qatf al Thamar fi ʿAqa’id Ahl al Athar by Muhammad Siddiq Hasan Khan, p. 60. Mawqif Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah min al Karramiyyah fi al Ilahiyyat, Dr Abd al Qadir Muhammad Abd Allah, p. 97. Unpublished master’s thesis, Umm al Qura University.)

This is not correct, for the saying of tashbih in Islam, in both its types, appeared before Muqatil ibn Sulayman, at the hands of the Saba’iyyah and the Bayaniyyah, as has already passed. (See: 1/174, 235, 240.)

Dr Ali Sami al Nashshar also moved away from what is correct when he considered Jahm ibn Safwan to have established a “tanzihi” madhhab, according to his claim, in order to refute Muqatil ibn Sulayman and his madhhab of tashbih and tajsim. (See his book: Nash’at al Fikr al Falsafi fi al Islam, al Nashshar, 1/290–291.)

This is not correct. Jahm ibn Safwan’s madhhab is not tanzih (declaring Allah free from imperfection). Rather, he is a muʿattil (negator of the attributes) and a denier of the attributes. (See what Imam Ahmad mentioned about Jahm ibn Safwan in al Radd ʿala al Zanadiqah wa al Jahmiyyah, Imam Ahmad, p. 23–26.)

Nor did Jahm establish his taʿtili (attribute negating) madhhab as a refutation of Muqatil ibn Sulayman. Rather, what the verifying ulama are upon is that Muqatil ibn Sulayman was the one who stood to refute Jahm ibn Safwan, the muʿattil, by affirming the attributes. (See: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, al Dhahabi, 1/159–160. Fadl ʿIlm al Salaf ʿala al Khalaf, Ibn Rajab, p. 28–29.)

Ibn Hibban (d. 354AH) accused Muqatil ibn Sulayman of taking from the knowledge of the Jews and Christians concerning the Qur’an whatever agreed with their books, and that he used to liken the Lord Most High to created things, and that he used to lie in hadith. (Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Hibban al Busti was an imam, hadith scholar, hafiz, faqih, and linguist. Among his writings are al Musnad al Sahih and al Thiqat wa al Duʿafa’. He died in 345AH. See: Tabaqat al Shafiʿiyyah al Kubra, al Subki, 2/141. Muʿjam al Mu’allifin, Kahhalah, 9/173. See also: al Majruhin, Ibn Hibban, 3/14. Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/175.)

As for his lying in hadith, many of the ulama mentioned it. (See what was mentioned from him concerning that in Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173–174. Taqrib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 2/210. Also review what Dr Abdullah Shahatah quoted from the books of al Jarh wa al Taʿdil in his introduction to al Ashbah wa al Nazair by Muqatil ibn Sulayman, p. 37–39.)

As for tafsir, some of the ulama praised him in that, to the point that Imam al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH) said: “People are dependent upon Muqatil in tafsir.” (Mentioned by Imam al Dhahabi in Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173.)

Imam al Dhahabi (d. 748AH) said about him: “He was stained with tajsim, while he was among the vessels of knowledge, an ocean in tafsir.” (Tadhkirat al Huffaz, al Dhahabi, 1/174.)

Shaykh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah Paused Concerning The Attribution Of Tashbih And Tajsim To Muqatil

Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, paused concerning the attribution of tashbih to Muqatil ibn Sulayman, and considered what was quoted from him about that to be unlikely. He said, may Allah have mercy on him:

“As for Muqatil, Allah knows best the reality of his state. Al Ashʿari quotes these statements from the books of the Muʿtazilah, and they have deviation against Muqatil ibn Sulayman. Perhaps they added to what they quoted from him, or they quoted from him, or they quoted from someone unreliable.

Otherwise, I do not think that he reached this level.

Al Shafiʿi said: ‘Whoever wants tafsir is dependent upon Muqatil, and whoever wants fiqh is dependent upon Abu Hanifah.’ Muqatil ibn Sulayman, although he is not among those used as proof in hadith, unlike Muqatil ibn Hayyan, who is reliable, there is still no doubt about his knowledge of tafsir and other than it, and his wide awareness. Likewise, Abu Hanifah, although people differed with him in some things and rejected them from him, no one doubts his fiqh, understanding, and knowledge. They quoted things from him intending to make him look ugly, and they are certainly lies against him. It is not far fetched that the report from Muqatil is of this type.” (The author means that the Muʿtazilah call whoever affirms the attributes a mushabbih and mujassim, while Muqatil affirms the attributes. It came in Wafayat al Aʿyan in the biography of Muqatil, 4/341: “It is narrated from Imam al Shafiʿi that he said: People are dependent upon three: upon Muqatil ibn Sulayman in tafsir, upon Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulma in poetry, and upon Abu Hanifah in kalam.” See the statements of the ulama concerning not using Muqatil ibn Sulayman as proof, and their weakening of him, in Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/173–174. Abu Bastam Muqatil ibn Hayyan al Nabati al Balkhi al Khurasani was one of the notable imams. Imam al Dhahabi said about him: “He was a worshipper, of great standing, a person of Sunnah and following.” Imam Yahya ibn Maʿin, Abu Dawud, and others declared him reliable. He died before 150AH. See: Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 4/171. Taqrib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 2/210.)

Dr Jalal Muhammad Musa accused Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah of confusing Muqatil ibn Sulayman with Muqatil ibn Hayyan. (See his book: Nash’at al Ashʿariyyah wa Tatawwuruha, p. 90.)

The matter is not as he mentioned. Rather, Shaykh al Islam mentioned him to distinguish him from Muqatil ibn Sulayman. He mentioned, may Allah have mercy on him, that Muqatil ibn Hayyan is reliable, unlike Muqatil ibn Sulayman, whose hadith is not used as proof. He did not confuse the two, as Dr Jalal claimed. (See: Minhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/619)

Although the speech of Shaykh al Islam contains a pause concerning judging Muqatil with tashbih or denying that from him, it is closer to declaring him free from that. This is because he, may Allah have mercy on him, considers it unlikely that Muqatil said what Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashʿari mentioned of tashbih and tajsim, since al Ashʿari quotes in his Maqalat from the Muʿtazilah, who consider the one who affirms the attributes to be a mushabbih. It is not far fetched that what was attributed to Muqatil is of this type. (Their statements concerning this will come. See: 2/147–152.)

Some Ulama Declared Muqatil Ibn Sulayman Free From The Saying Of Tashbih

Among the ulama are those who declared Muqatil ibn Sulayman free from the saying of tashbih. They praised him and considered him from Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah. Among them is Abu al Husayn al Malati (d. 377AH), who is considered one of the earliest authors who wrote to explain the statements of the people of desires and innovations, and to refute them through the Book and the Sunnah.

He, may Allah have mercy on him, praised Muqatil ibn Sulayman and considered him among the reliable ones whose knowledge should be sought in order to refute those for whom the doubts of the people of falsehood, such as the zanadiqah and others, had become confusing. He said that whoever reflects over his knowledge, Allah will benefit him through it in refuting doubts. He said concerning this:

“Whoever seeks knowledge of what has become unclear to him concerning that from the people of knowledge who know it, from the trustworthy ulama, will find what he seeks. By my life, the people of desires differed in such matters and went astray. This is a general account that the narration brought, and we took it from Muqatil ibn Sulayman. If you reflect over that, it will benefit you, if Allah wills.” (See: al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 70.)

He quoted from him twenty four pages concerning the explanation of what the zanadiqah claimed to be contradictions in the Qur’an, and refuting them concerning that.

Whoever reflects over his explanation of that will see the knowledge of Muqatil, may Allah have mercy on him, the strength of his refutation of falsehood, and his affirmation of the truth.

Al Kawthari (d. 1371AH) considered what al Malati transmitted from Muqatil ibn Sulayman in his book al Tanbih to be proof confirming what Muqatil was accused of, namely tashbih and tajsim. He said: “History has preserved for us portions of his tafsir which establish with full certainty his tashbih and tajsim.” (He means Muqatil ibn Sulayman. See: al Kawthari’s introduction to al Tanbih by al Malati, p. 7.)

Dr al Nashshar followed him in that, and used what al Kawthari mentioned as evidence to establish that Muqatil was a mushabbih and mujassim. (See his book: Nash’at al Fikr al Falsafi fi al Islam, al Nashshar, 1/191–192.)

There is nothing in what al Malati quoted from Muqatil that indicates accusing him of tashbih. Rather, al Kawthari, his follower al Nashshar, and those like them from the muʿattilah have deviation against Muqatil ibn Sulayman. Therefore, their statement concerning him is not accepted, because they consider whoever affirms the attributes and follows the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf concerning them to be a mushabbih and mujassim, as will come.

Al Shahrastani (d. 548AH) counted Muqatil ibn Sulayman among the imams of the Salaf, connected him with Imam Malik (d. 179AH), and considered him among the Salaf who followed the path of safety concerning the texts of the attributes, and kept away from tashbih and ta’wil (figurative reinterpretation). He said concerning this:

“Know that the Salaf from the companions of hadith, when they saw the Muʿtazilah going deeply into the science of kalam, opposing the Sunnah that they had known from the rightly guided imams, with a group of the rulers of Banu Umayyah supporting them upon their saying concerning qadar, and a group of the caliphs of Banu al Abbas supporting them upon their saying of negating the attributes and the createdness of the Qur’an, they became unsettled in establishing the madhhab of Ahl al Sunnah concerning the mutashabihat of the wise Book and the reports of the trustworthy Prophet. As for Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Dawud ibn Ali al Asfahani, and a group of the imams of the Salaf, they proceeded upon the manhaj of the earlier Salaf before them from the companions of hadith, such as Malik ibn Anas and Muqatil ibn Sulayman.

They followed the path of safety and said: We believe in what has come in the Book and the Sunnah, and we do not enter into ta’wil after knowing with certainty that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, does not resemble anything from created things.” (Abu Sulayman Dawud ibn Ali ibn Khalaf al Asfahani, known as al Zahiri. Al Khatib al Baghdadi said about him: “He is the imam of the people of zahir.” He was devout, ascetic, and did not hold ta’wil, qiyas, or opinion. He died in 270AH. See: Tarikh Baghdad, al Khatib al Baghdadi, 8/269. Mizan al Iʿtidal, al Dhahabi, 1/14–16. al Aʿlam, al Zirikli, 2/333. See also: al Milal wa al Nihal, al Shahrastani, 1/103–104.)

However, as is the habit of the mutakallimun when they count whoever affirms the report based attributes which they reinterpreted as a mushabbih, al Shahrastani spoke harshly against Muqatil ibn Sulayman, Nuʿaym ibn Hammad, and others from the people of hadith. He claimed that they make Allah possess a form and organs, and that they use as evidence what came in the report: “Indeed, Allah created Adam upon His form,” and in another narration: “upon the form of the Most Merciful.” (See: al Milal wa al Nihal, al Shahrastani, 1/187. This is from the harsh accusations of the mutakallimun and their falsely branding Ahl al Sunnah with tashbih. As will come, they affirm the hadith of the form as it came, without takyif and without tamthil. See: p. 475.)

By “the path of safety,” al Shahrastani means the tafwidi madhhab, which the mutakallimun attribute to the Salaf. The criticism of this madhhab and the freedom of Ahl al Sunnah from it will come in the third main section. (See: 2/516–536.)

The scholar Abu Muhammad al Yamani declared him free from it, and made the Muqatil ibn Sulayman accused of tashbih to be someone other than Muqatil ibn Sulayman, the author of the tafsir. According to him, only the name was the same. (Dr Muhammad ibn Abd Allah al Zarban mentioned that he followed the biographies of the ulama of Yemen, but did not find anyone who mentioned him by his name. He was only known by his kunyah and his attribution to Yemen. He attributed this to his hiding his name because of his refutations of the Ismaʿilis and his exposing of their falsehoods, while he was living under their rule. Whoever reads his book, ʿAqa’id al Thalath wa al Sabʿin Firqah, will know that he was Salafi in creed. See: the introduction of Dr Muhammad ibn Abd Allah al Zarban to ʿAqa’id al Thalath wa al Sabʿin Firqah, 1/1–18. See also: ʿAqa’id al Thalath wa al Sabʿin Firqah, Abu Muhammad al Yamani, 1/285.)

Abu al Abbas al Sakskaki and Abd Allah ibn al Yafiʿi (d. 768AH) followed his way. They made Muqatil ibn Sulayman, the mushabbih, someone other than Muqatil ibn Sulayman, the mufassir, for he was from the ulama of tafsir and free from the saying of tashbih. (Al Sakskaki’s biography has already passed. See: 1/146. Abd Allah ibn Asʿad ibn Ali ibn Sulayman al Yafiʿi, the Yemeni then Makkan, leaned towards the way of the Sufis and followed their path, until he authored some writings in Sufism, such as Rawd al Rayahin fi Manaqib al Salihin. He was upon the Ashʿari way concerning the attributes. He died in Makkah in 768AH. See his biography in Shadharat al Dhahab, Ibn al Imad, 6/210. al Aʿlam, al Zirikli, 6/103. The biography of Dr Musa al Duwaysh in the introduction to Dhikr Madhahib al Firaq, p. 15–17. See also: al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 40. Dhikr Madhahib al Firaq, p. 143.)

However, they did not mention proof for what they said, because what is famous with the majority of the ulama is that the one accused of tashbih is Muqatil ibn Sulayman, the mufassir.

The Strongest View Concerning Judging Muqatil With Tashbih And Declaring Him Free From It

From what has passed, it is gathered that the views concerning Muqatil ibn Sulayman and what was attributed to him of tashbih differ between affirmation, denial, and pause.

What became apparent after research, especially after returning to his books that reached me, or the books that quote from him indirectly, and other works, is that after all of this, his freedom from the saying of tashbih and tajsim attributed to him became clear, due to the following matters.

The First Reason

Those who attributed the saying of tashbih to him, such as Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashʿari, and mentioned his statement concerning tajsim, saying that he used to say that Allah is a jism (body), flesh, blood, and similar false statements, only quoted that from the opponents of Muqatil, such as the Muʿtazilah and others from the mutakallimun, who considered affirming the attributes to be tashbih. So it is possible that when they saw Muqatil affirming the attributes and refuting Jahm ibn Safwan the muʿattil, they invented that against him.

Most of those who mentioned Muqatil’s saying of tashbih and severely attacked him for it were from the mutakallimun, the opponents of Muqatil. The speech of an opponent is not accepted when he is deviated from the manhaj of the people of truth.

The accusation of al Kawthari and Dr al Nashshar against Muqatil with tashbih has already passed, along with their considering what al Malati quoted from Muqatil in refuting the zanadiqah, and what it contains of affirming the attributes, to be evidence that Muqatil held tashbih and tajsim. So how can the speech of one who deviated from the manhaj of the Salaf in the issues of the attributes, and considered that to be tashbih, be accepted as proof in judging Muqatil with tashbih?

If some use the speech of Imam Abu Hanifah, Ibn Hibban, and al Dhahabi, already mentioned, as evidence for judging Muqatil with tashbih, then it is said concerning these statements and others that:

First, they did not mention the statement by which he may be judged as a mushabbih.

Second, perhaps that was mentioned to them, and not everything mentioned is correct, especially when there exists what opposes it from the words of the accused person himself. What cancels this accusation from the speech of Muqatil himself will come, and it clears his side from that.

Third, there is nothing in the earlier statement of Imam al Dhahabi that indicates that Muqatil was a mujassim. He only narrated the accusation of tajsim against Muqatil, and that he was stained with it, while he was from the vessels of knowledge in tafsir, as he mentioned. There is nothing in it that indicates his own judgement upon him with tashbih and tajsim.

Most of the statements concerning Muqatil from the ulama of al Jarh wa al Taʿdil only concerned whether his narration in hadith should be accepted, and that they did not use his hadith as proof because of the discrediting defects in him, such as their saying that he was abandoned in hadith and that he was a liar.

Although this attacks his narration, it does not mean that he was a mushabbih. Not accepting his narration is one matter, and judging him with tashbih is another matter. How many people did they criticise in narration because of discrediting defects, such as lying, weak memory, and similar matters, while they were not mushabbihah or mujassimah?

The Second Reason

Among what proves that Muqatil is free from the saying of tashbih is that he declared himself free from it when the caliph al Mahdi asked him, saying: “It has reached me that you make tashbih.” He replied:

“I only say:

“Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Self Sufficient Master. He neither begets nor is born. And there is none equal to Him.” (al Ikhlas 1–4)

Whoever says other than that has lied.” (Tahdhīb al Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al Rijāl by al Mizzī 28/439, Al Mahdi’s biography has already passed. See: 1/249. Mentioned by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar, 10/282.)

Muqatil declared himself free from the accusation of tashbih and considered it a lie against him. He recited Surah al Ikhlas, which is among the greatest surahs indicating that Allah Most High is described with the attributes of perfection, and that He is declared free from attributes of deficiency, defects, likeness, counterpart, and equal, as will come. (See: 1/283 and 2/409.)

The Third Reason

The Tafsir of Muqatil, his book al Ashbah wa al Nazair fi al Qur’an al Karim, his book Tafsir al Khamsimi’ah Ayah, and what al Malati quoted from him in his book al Tanbih wa al Radd ʿala Ahl al Ahwa’ wa al Bidaʿ, are completely free from the saying of tashbih and tajsim attributed to him, according to what I have seen in these books, and according to what the editors of his books before me decided. (Both Dr Abdullah Mahmud Shahatah and Dr Ubayd ibn Ali al Ubayd mentioned that Muqatil’s books are free from what he was accused of, namely tashbih and tajsim. See: the introduction of Dr Shahatah to al Ashbah wa al Nazair, p. 52, and the introduction of Dr Ubayd to Tafsir al Khamsimi’ah Ayah, p. 60.)

What appears in these books agrees with the manhaj of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah concerning the attributes of Allah Most High, in the way that befits the majesty and greatness of Allah. They do not contain the earlier statement mentioned by Abu al Hasan al Ashʿari and then transmitted by some of those who accused Muqatil of tashbih, especially the people of blameworthy kalam. (See: 1/323.)

Some examples from his books concerning the attributes of Allah may be mentioned to explain his freedom from tashbih and tajsim.

Muqatil’s Tafsir Of Istiwa’ Over The Throne

Muqatil mentioned, in his tafsir of the saying of Allah Most High:

إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ

“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then rose over the Throne.” (al Aʿraf 54)

He mentioned that Allah istawa (rose) over the Throne, and that He Most High is above the Throne. (See: Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 3/20, and what al Malati quoted from him in his tafsir of the mentioned verse in al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 85.)

He also mentioned that the meaning of istawa is “istqarra” (settled). (See: Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 2/41, 225, 366, 3/20–21, 448, 4/273, and what al Malati quoted from him in al Tanbih, al Malati, p. 85.)

If he had been from the mushabbihah, he would have spoken about the kayfiyyah (how) of the attribute of istiwa’, or he would have mentioned that Allah’s istiwa’ is like the istiwa’ of the created being. (The madhhab of the mushabbihah concerning the attribute of istiwa’, and the position of Ahl al Sunnah concerning it, will come. See: p. 281.)

There is no tashbih or tajsim in his explaining istiwa’ as “istqarra”, as Dr Abdullah Shahatah claimed. Rather, what Muqatil mentioned is one of the meanings of istiwa’ according to Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah. The people of language who were not polluted by blameworthy kalam mentioned that, and Ahl al Sunnah approved it.

Imam Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463AH), may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Istiwa’ is known and understood in the language. It is: ʿuluww (highness), irtifaʿ (rising) over something, and settling and being established upon it.” (al Tamhid, Ibn Abd al Barr, 7/128–129.)

Shaykh al Islam mentioned that explaining istiwa’ as “istqarra” is the saying of Abd Allah ibn al Mubarak and those who followed him from the people of knowledge. It was also said by Thaʿlab, al Kalbi, and Muqatil. (Their biographies have already passed where indicated. See: Sharh Hadith al Nuzul, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 145, and within Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/519–520.)

Imam Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751AH), may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in his Nuniyyah the meanings of istiwa’ according to Ahl al Sunnah, including “istqarra”. He said:

“They have four expressions concerning it,
which have been obtained for the skilled horseman.

They are: He settled, and He rose high,
and likewise He rose, in which there is no denial.

Likewise, He ascended, which is the fourth.
And Abu Ubaydah, the companion of al Shaybani,

chooses this saying in his explanation,
being more knowledgeable of the Qur’an than the Jahmi.” (Nuniyyah of Imam Ibn al Qayyim with the commentary of al Harras, 1/233. Abu Ubaydah Maʿmar ibn al Muthanna al Taymi, by wala’, al Basri, the grammarian, was one of the imams of knowledge, literature, and language. Among his writings are Maʿani al Qur’an and Iʿrab al Qur’an. He died in 207AH. See: Wafayat al Aʿyan, Ibn Khallikan, 5/235. al Aʿlam, al Zirikli, 7/272. By al Shaybani, he means Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him.)

However, what Jābir noticed concerning Muqatil is that he mentioned that Allah’s istiwa’ over the Throne was before the creation of the heavens and the earth. This does not contain tashbih. The correct view is that Allah’s istiwa’ over His Throne was after the creation of the heavens and the earth. The verses in which the attribute of istiwa’ appears indicate that, among them the saying of Allah Most High:

“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then rose over the Throne.” (al Aʿraf 54)

The word “then” in the Arabic language is for sequence and delay. (See: Mughni al Labib ʿan Kutub al Aʿarib, Ibn Hisham, 1/135–137.)

Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Istiwa’ is specific to the Throne after the creation of the heavens and the earth, as Allah informed of that in His Book.” (Kitab al Asma’ wa al Sifat within Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/226–227)

He mentioned, may Allah have mercy on him, that what is famous from the Salaf, the imams of hadith, and many of the people of kalam, fuqaha, and others, is that He Most High rose over His Throne after the creation of the heavens and the earth, as the texts indicate. Therefore, He Most High rose over it after He had not been risen over it. (See: Naqd al Ta’sis, Ibn Taymiyyah, printed edition, 1/565.)

Among what indicates that Allah’s istiwa’ over His Throne was after His creation of the heavens and the earth is what Qatadah ibn al Nuʿman, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated. He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying: “When Allah finished His creation, He rose over His Throne.” (Narrated by al Khallal in al Sunnah with a sahih chain upon the condition of al Bukhari, as Imam Ibn al Qayyim mentioned in Ijtimaʿ al Juyush al Islamiyyah, p. 34. I did not find it in the printed version of al Sunnah by al Khallal. Imam al Dhahabi said in al Uluww: “Its narrators are reliable,” p. 63. See: Mukhtasar al Uluww, p. 389.)

Also, Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that the Prophet ﷺ took his hand and said to him: “O Abu Hurayrah, Allah created the heavens, the earth, and what is between them in six days, then He rose over the Throne on the seventh day.” (The full hadith was narrated by al Nasa’i in his Sunan, in al Tafsir, Tafsir Surah al Sajdah. See: al Sunan al Kubra, al Nasa’i, 6/427, 11392. Imam al Dhahabi mentioned it in al Uluww, p. 94, 225, and mentioned that in its chain is al Akhdar ibn Ajlan. Ibn Maʿin declared him reliable. Abu Hatim said: “His hadith is written.” Al Azdi softened him, and this hadith is strange from his singular narrations. Shaykh Nasir al Din al Albani included it in Mukhtasar al Uluww, p. 112, and mentioned that al Azdi’s softening of him has no effect, because al Azdi himself has speech concerning him, as is known, especially since Ibn Maʿin declared him reliable, as did Imam al Bukhari and Ibn Shahin, as in al Tahdhib. So his reliability is agreed upon, were it not for the statement of Ibn Abi Hatim: “His hadith is written.” But if this statement is considered explicit criticism, then the like of it is not accepted, because it is unexplained criticism, especially since it opposes the statement of the imams who declared him reliable. Then al Albani mentioned that a hadith like this is certainly hasan at the lowest level.)

However, this issue, as already mentioned, does not indicate that Muqatil held tashbih, so long as he affirms the attribute in the way that befits the majesty and greatness of Allah, as has passed.

Muqatil’s Tafsir Of Maʿiyyah

Muqatil agreed with Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah in his explanation of the verses of maʿiyyah (Allah’s being with His creation). Among what he mentioned concerning that is his tafsir of the saying of Allah Most High:

إِنَّنِي مَعَكُمَا أَسْمَعُ وَأَرَىٰ

“Indeed, I am with you both. I hear and I see.” (Taha 46)

He said: “In defending you both. So they will not reach you both.” (Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 3/28.)

So he explained maʿiyyah as preservation and support, and this is correct. Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774AH), may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in his tafsir that this is the maʿiyyah of preservation, victory, and support. (See: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 3/162.)

Muqatil explained maʿiyyah in the saying of Allah Most High:

“There is no private conversation of three except that He is their fourth, nor of five except that He is their sixth, nor less than that, nor more, except that He is with them.” (al Mujadilah 7)

He explained it as knowledge and said: “Except that He is with them, meaning, by His knowledge when they speak privately.” (See: Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 4/259.)

By this explanation, he agrees with Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah. (See concerning that: al Radd ʿala al Zanadiqah wa al Jahmiyyah, Imam Ahmad, p. 49–50. Tafsir al Tabari, al Tabari, 12/13–14. Naqd al Ta’sis, Ibn Taymiyyah, printed edition, 1/151. al Fatwa al Hamawiyyah al Kubra, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 60–61, and within Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/102–104. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 4/345. al Sifat al Ilahiyyah, Muhammad Aman al Jami, p. 399.)

If he had been from the mushabbihah, he would have mentioned that Allah is with His creation by His essence, mixed with them, as the saying of the mushabbihah concerning that will come. (See: 1/356, 474, and 2/56–57, 70–71.)

Muqatil’s Affirmation Of The Attribute Of Knowledge

Muqatil affirms the attribute of knowledge as it has come, and that Allah Most High knew what was, what will be, and if something had been, how it would be. In his tafsir of the saying of Allah Most High:

أَوَلَا يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا يُسِرُّونَ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ

“Do they not know that Allah knows what they hide and what they make public?” (al Baqarah 77)

And the saying of Allah Most High:

إِنَّهُ يَعْلَمُ الْجَهْرَ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْتُمُونَ

“Indeed, He knows what is spoken openly and knows what you conceal.” (al Anbiya 110)

In his tafsir of these two verses, he mentioned that Allah knows what existed before creation and what will exist. (See his book: al Ashbah wa al Nazair, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, p. 36.)

By this, he affirms the attribute of knowledge for Allah Most High, eternally and forever, and that He Most High knows things before their existence and after their existence. If he had been from the mushabbihah, he would have said like them that Allah does not know things except after their existence. (The madhhab of the mushabbihah concerning the attribute of knowledge, and the position of Ahl al Sunnah concerning it, will come. See: p. 232.)

Allah is far above that, with great exaltedness.

Muqatil’s Affirmation Of The Attribute Of Hand

Muqatil affirms the attribute of hand for Allah Most High as it has come. In his tafsir of the saying of Allah Most High:

مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ

“What prevented you from prostrating to what I created with My two Hands?” (Sad 75)

He mentioned that the Most Merciful created Adam with His Hand by which He grasped the heavens and the earth. (See: al Ashbah wa al Nazair, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, p. 321.)

Concerning the saying of Allah Most High:

بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ

“Rather, His two Hands are outstretched.” (al Ma’idah 64)

He mentioned that what is meant by the hand in the verse is the hand itself.

Meaning, the hand itself, not something else, as the muʿattilah said, claiming that it means power or favour. (See: Sharh al Usul al Khamsah, al Qadi Abd al Jabbar, p. 228. Usul al Din, al Baghdadi, p. 11. al Irshad, al Juwayni, p. 146. Asas al Taqdis, al Razi, p. 125–127. Nashr al Taliʿ, Sajikli Zadah, p. 236.)

So he refutes the muʿattilah through that.

He explained it by its necessary meaning in another place, saying concerning:

بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ

“Rather, His two Hands are outstretched.” (al Ma’idah 64)

“With good.” (See: Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 1/490.)

This does not show that he negates it, as the muʿattilah did, those who distorted its meaning into saying that it means power, favour, or two favours.

That is because he affirmed it, then mentioned its necessary meaning. This is not taʿtil.

Muqatil’s Affirmation Of The Attribute Of Coming

Muqatil affirms the attribute of coming as it has come. He says, when explaining the saying of Allah Most High:

وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا

“And your Lord comes, and the angels, row after row.” (al Fajr 22)

“Allah, Blessed and Most High, will come, as He said:

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَن تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ أَوْ يَأْتِيَ رَبُّكَ

“Are they waiting for anything except that the angels should come to them, or your Lord should come?” (al Anʿam 158)

And as He said:

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ مِّنَ الْغَمَامِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ

“Are they waiting for anything except that Allah should come to them in shades of clouds, and the angels?” (al Baqarah 210)

So he, may Allah have mercy on him, affirmed the attribute of coming as it has come, and he brought the verses in which it appears as explanation and clarification for it, and as a statement that Allah affirmed it. Therefore, it must be affirmed as it has come, in the way that befits the majesty and greatness of Allah.

Muqatil’s Tafsir Of The Verse Of The Shin

Among what indicates his freedom from tashbih is what he mentioned in his tafsir of the saying of Allah Most High:

يَوْمَ يُكْشَفُ عَن سَاقٍ

“On the Day when a shin will be uncovered.” (al Qalam 42)

He said that what is meant by the shin in the verse is:

First, severity on the Day of Resurrection, and he transmitted that from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him. (See: Tafsir Muqatil, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, 4/228. This was narrated from Ibn Abbas. See: Tafsir al Tabari, al Tabari, 12/179, 200. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 4/435.)

Second, that the shin is the Shin of Allah, Glorified and Most High, so the earth will shine with the light of His Shin, Glorified is He, and he transmitted that from Ibn Masʿud, may Allah be pleased with him. (This was narrated from Ibn Masʿud. See: Tafsir al Tabari, al Tabari, 12/198. Sahih marfuʿ hadiths traced back to the Prophet ﷺ have come affirming the attribute of the Shin as being attributed to Allah Most High, as in the hadith of Abu Saʿid al Khudri, whose authenticity is agreed upon. Its mention will come. See: p. 961.)

This is an affirmation from him, may Allah have mercy on him, of the attribute of the Shin as it has come. What he mentioned from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, is explanation by the necessary meaning, because from the necessary meanings of His Shin being uncovered on the Day of Resurrection are the severity and terrors that will strike people on the Day of Resurrection at the standing, especially the hypocrites who will be called to prostrate to Allah Most High as a test, but they will not be able to. (See: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Ibn Kathir, 4/435.)

The refutation of the muʿattilah concerning their claim of tashbih in affirming the attribute of the Shin will come, along with their use of the earlier report of Ibn Abbas as evidence to establish that. It will also be explained that this attribute has come in authentic hadiths attributed to Allah Most High, so it must be affirmed as it has come, in the way that befits the majesty and greatness of Allah Most High. (The explanation of that will come when refuting the mutakallimun who considered affirming the attribute of the Shin for Allah without ta’wil to be tashbih. See: 3/310–317.)

The Conclusion Concerning Muqatil

From what has passed, the freedom of Muqatil ibn Sulayman from the saying of tashbih and tajsim is known.

There is nothing in his Tafsir, nor in his book al Ashbah wa al Nazair, that contains any of that. Rather, he affirms for Allah Most High His attributes as they came, without tashbih and without taʿtil, in the way that befits the majesty and greatness of Allah.

Perhaps the Muqatil ibn Sulayman to whom the saying of tashbih is attributed is someone other than Muqatil the mufassir, as Abu Muhammad al Yamani mentioned, and as al Sakskaki and al Yafiʿi followed him in, as has already passed.

Otherwise, Muqatil ibn Sulayman the mufassir is free from that, since there is nothing in his books of tashbih or tajsim. A man is only judged by what he wrote and said. I have quoted from his books what clears him from that. Whoever finds otherwise must establish that with proof from the books of Muqatil himself.

Truth is the lost property of the believer. Wherever he finds it, he takes it. Men are known by truth, and truth is not known by men.

Maqālat al Tashbīh wa Mawqif Ahl al Sunnah Minhā by Jābir ibn Idrīs ibn ʿAlī Amīr 1/323–340

Author

ISHAQ. K

Navigation Menu For The Full Article

Navigation Menu For The Summary

Summary

The Core Accusation Against Muqatil Ibn Sulayman