Tajdeed

Kalam – Hand of God? Literal or Metaphorical?

An analysis of the Qur’anic usage of metaphorical language in relation to the concept of Mutashabihat (ambiguous and/or allegorical verses) related to the subject of God, the Hereafter and Divine actions.

The Anthropomorphist doctrine is advocated by the Salafi school, influenced by Ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad b. Abdul-Wahhab. This paradigm is very literalist and violates the intended meaning of the Qur’anic passages due to their heavy literalism, so in the name of literalism, the intended meaning is demolished. In reality, language is full of allegorical expressions and metaphors, but they do not see that.

This style of language is expressed by the author or the writer to effectively, persuasively and eloquently explain the intended point. Again, in the name of “Dhahir” (literal meaning), the Salafist has staunchly and rigidly attributed anthropomorphic body parts to God Almighty, the Creator, the Sustainer and they have claimed locality and physicality for Him despite His transcendence and glory.

A key verse utilised by this staunch literalist school is the verse, [Allah] said, “O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then] or were you [already] among the haughty?”. (38:75)

Based upon the implication of this verse, the Salafi has argued that God has two hands because he has said “I created with my two hands” (38:75). However, to justify this interpretation which leads to anthropomorphism and compromising the excellence of God, they have argued that God has hands in a way that it is befitting his glory and majesty. The reason why they insist on this argument is because of the clear, explicit import of the Quranic verses which reveal this fact. The verses are “There is nothing like unto Him” (42:11) and “there is none comparable to Him.” (112:4).

Therefore, since hands of humans are deficient and contingent, the Salafis argue that God’s hands are great and is in a way that suits his majesty.

Although, the objective truth is that rationally, and philosophically there is no hand, or shin, or face or physical part that befits his majesty and glory, they still insist on this incoherent argument. This is because these physical parts indicate contingency, limitation and inadequacy. The reason why they lead to contingency is because they are finite parts and having parts will indicate that God is divisible which means that He is in need of those distinct parts.

Otherwise, He would not need to have parts because the Qur’an argues that Allah is Samad (112:2), which means that He is eternal, he is not in need of anything, he is self-sufficient (Ghani), (35:15). In short, this fallacy violates Divine simplicity and Divine Unity because Allah is not one in the way humans are numerically one, Allah is completely one, absolutely united and inseparable, the Qur’an affirms that “He is Ahad” (112:1)

Moreover, body parts, sitting, standing, rising, descending indicates physicality and locality which is again a limitation upon Allah the Creator of physicality and locality. As a result, Allah having body parts or being bound by physicality is inconceivable and impossible.

That aside, the other passages in relation to the doctrine of tajsim and tashbih (anthropomorphism), would be the verse: “Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, [O Muḥammad] – they are actually pledging allegiance to Allāh. The handof Allāh is over their hands.” (48:10)

The Salafi would argue that this is another verse which proves that God has parts like a hand or shin, however the truth is far away from this slander. Reading the Quran collectively will demonstrate that this is a complete lie against the Creator. The reason for this is because it is impossible that Allah literally put his hand on top of the hands of the believers, instead this is an apparent metaphor showing that Allah’s aid, support and power is over the pledge of the Believers.

In addition to this verse, another passage which demolishes the argument that Allah uses the term “hand or hands of God” literally is the verse which reads, and the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills (5:64).

The clear import of this verse was that the Jews were claiming that they are more open-handed (generous) than Allah, but in response to this, the Quran asserts that instead it is their hands that were tied up and chained, and instead Allah is the most generous, who spends and gives from his unending bounties. In addition to the historical hadiths that allude to this interpretation, the verse itself is sufficient to lead to this allegorical reading. The part which reads “He (Allah) spends as He wills” proves that the chained hands were referring to stinginess and tight-fistedness. Thus, the context and correct import of the verse is understood easily through the verse itself.

In addition to this, the verse claims that their hands were tied (i.e. the Jews who claimed that), but if we were to take the literal interpretation of this verse then we would need to prove that the hands of those particular Jews were literally tied up or shackled, but it is obvious that this was not the case and instead the verse is referring to miserliness when using the expression “hands are tied”, and the Qur’an refers to generosity when mentioning open-handedness.

So, then the question arises, if we have so many verses that establish the metaphorical usage of the description “hand” for God in the Qur’an, then why do Salafis desperately insist that Allah is the possessor of literal hands?

This is crucial because they insist that these are Sifat (attributes) of Allah similar to how mercy, power and knowledge are Divine attributes. The problem is that these attributes such as power and knowledge are established because Allah throughout the Quran mentions that “Surely Allah is Most Strong, Most Mighty” (57:25), and the verse says, “Allah has complete knowledge of everything” (49:16), then another verse states, “My mercy encompasses everything” (7:156).

Therefore, the two things are not even comparable, on one hand Allah uses metaphorical expressions to explain certain things, and on the other hand when it comes to Sifat (attributes), the Qur’an explicitly mentions that these are Divine attributes solely possessed by the Creator.

To highlight this point, these clear, explicit, unambiguous verses establish the attributes of Allah such as mercy, power knowledge etc, so why doesn’t Allah in the Qur’an once state that he is the possessor of the hands, or has a face, and he has a shin etc?

The reason being is because these expressions are used allegorically by Allah in the Qur’an. This is because these are natural expressions of language in general and Arabic in particular.

As a result, when Allah says, “I created with my two hands” (38:75), the intended meaning behind this is what His power created with special intent, and due care. This is how this expression is used in language, so Allah is not saying He has two hands.

More evidence to substantiate the fact that these expressions are used allegorically is the usage of the term “what your right hand possesses” in regard to owning slaves. To clarify, “Right hand possesses” means slave in the Qur’an but everyone knows that the slave is not literally in the right palm of the slave owner, instead this metaphor signifies that the master has control over the slave due to ownership.

Similarly, this is how these expressions are used in the Qur’an with other topics regarding some metaphysical subjects as well.

To further establish this concept from the Qur’an, the Qur’an uses the Hand of God in the singular, in the dual and plural form, so the question again arises, how many hands does God have if we were to take the literal implication of these figurative verses.

To finally prove that the symbolic expressions of hand, face, eye, side and shin are used allegorically in the Qur’an is the verse that states, “Everything (that exists) will perish except His own Face” (28:88).

This verse is very powerful and compelling against the anthropomorphist doctrine because if the hand, the shin, the side of God is used literally, then this verse says that everything including the hand of Allah will perish, and that only His face will remain.

It is obvious to every fair mind that this reading is a slander upon God Almighty because Allah is omnipotent, he is not bound by physicality, locality, body parts or anything else that limits his power, glory and transcendence.

Appropriately, the correct interpretation of this verse is that everything within the universe is contingent and is bound to perish, but the self of God, His essence is a necessary existent, so God is absolute and everlasting, and He will never be subject to destruction or limitation but the literalist understanding undermines the correct intended meaning of the Divine texts.

To conclude, the Qur’an says “He is the One who has revealed to you the Book (the Qur’ān). Out of it there are verses that are MuHkamāt (of established meaning), which are the principal verses of the Book (Mother of the Book), and some others are Mutashābihāt (whose definite meanings are ambiguous/allegorical). Now those who have perversity in their hearts go after such part of it as is mutashābih, seeking (to create) discord, and searching for its interpretation (that meets their desires), while no one knows its interpretation except Allah; and those well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe therein; all is from our Lord.” Only the men of understanding observe the advice.” (3:7)

This verse is profound because it shows that the misguided deviants treat the verses which are Mutashābihāt (allegorical) as if they are MuHkamāt (explicit), and they make the allegorical verses as the barometer and then misinterpret the Book of God. Instead, what they were obliged to do is understand the allegorical, metaphorical verses based on the unequivocal verses of the Qur’an, which is considered the Mother of the Book (Umm ul Kitab). Unfortunately, they have neglected the Mother of the Book and resorted in speculative ideas. The meaning of this expression (Mother of the Book) is that everything is to be based and judged on the clear explicit verses.

Through the wrong method, they misguided themselves and they continue to misguide the laity. In truth, the clear intended meaning of the allegorical verses regarding metaphysical realities would be interpreted correctly by the people of understanding (Ulul Albab) because they would take the Qur’an collectively.

Regarding misinterpreting the truth and following conjecture or speculation, the Qur’an informs us about the previous nations and thus warns the Muslims by saying, “If you follow the majority of people on the earth, they will lead you astray from the path of God, for they follow only conjecture and surmise”. (6:116) Therefore, we are supposed to base our religion upon the Qati’iyyat (definitive proofs).

By Abul Hasan al-Gabikani al-Shadi al-Shaddadi al-Hadhabani -al-Kurdi