The Core Problem
The Quran describes Allah with attributes that, if applied to a human, would have clear physical or psychological meaning:
- “al-Rahman istawa ‘ala al-‘arsh” (20:5) — the All-Merciful rose over/settled on the Throne
- “Wajh Allah” — the Face of Allah (2:115)
- “Yad Allah” — the Hand of Allah (5:64)
- “Yadahu mabsutatani” — His two hands are extended (5:64)
- “Wa-ja’a rabbuka” — And your Lord came (89:22)
To read these literally would imply a throne-sitting, hand-possessing, coming deity — anthropomorphism. To strip them of all meaning (ta’wil taken to negation) risks making divine speech empty. The theological traditions developed four frameworks:
The Four Schools
Mujassima / Mushabbihun (Anthropomorphists — rejected by mainstream Islam): Allah literally has a form, sits on a throne, has hands in a physical sense. This position was rejected by the early scholarly consensus as blasphemous (shirk in essence, since it makes Allah like creation).
Mu’tazila (Ta’til — complete allegorization): The divine attributes are not real properties of Allah but expressions of human language; only Allah’s essence exists. This was criticized for emptying the Quran’s descriptions of meaning and for rationalist hubris.
Ash’ariyya (dominant Sunni school — Imam al-Ash’ari, died 935 CE): Divine attributes are real and distinct from the essence, but bila kayf — without modality. We affirm that Allah has knowledge, will, sight, etc. as attributes, but we do not ask ‘how’ they subsist. The Quranic physical-seeming descriptions are given ta’wil (interpretation): istiwa’ = dominion, not physical sitting; yad = power, not physical hand.
Maturidiyya (Sunni school of Central Asia — Imam al-Maturidi, died 944 CE): Close to Ash’ariyya but with a stronger affirmation of rational interpretation of the attributes. The Maturidi school is predominant in the Hanafi-following regions (Turkey, South Asia, Central Asia).
Athariyya / Hanbali position (Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim): Affirm the attributes literally but deny comparison with creation: Allah sits (istawā) but His sitting is not like human sitting. No ta’wil that changes the apparent meaning; rely on the athar (transmitted reports from the Salaf).
The Ismaili Approach: Ta’til Avoided, Ta’wil Elevated
The Ismaili tradition, following Neoplatonic influence through the Fatimid philosophers (al-Kirmani, al-Nu’man), holds that Allah’s essence (dhat) is entirely beyond attribution — neither affirming nor denying sifat in the way the kalam schools do. What the Quran describes are the manifestations of divine will and wisdom in creation, not properties of the unknowable divine essence. The ta’wil is not negation but a different order of affirmation.
See also: Tawhid Divine Unity, Asma Al Husna, Kalam, Usul Al Din, Al Ghazali, Tawil Esoteric Interpretation, Iman And Kufr