Ibn Mājah, in Sunan Ibn Mājah, Kitāb al-Zuhd, “What Is Hoped from Allah’s Mercy on the Day of Resurrection,” ḥadīth 4295, vol. 2, p. 1435; Ibn Khuzaymah, in al-Tawḥīd, p. 58; al-Ājrī, in al-Sharīʿah, p. 290; Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī, in al-Arbaʿīn, ḥadīth 12, p. 55 (ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad Nāṣir Faqīhī); and cited by al-Albānī in Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah, ḥadīth 1629, vol. 4, p. 171. The ḥadīth affirms three attributes of Allah: first, istiwāʾ (establishment over the Throne), which is the very reason the compiler cited the ḥadīth (as discussed above); second, raḥmah (mercy), established by both the Qurʾān and the Sunnah (examined earlier in detail); and third, ghaḍab (anger), which—like other divine attributes—is affirmed by Revelation and reason alike. The Qurʾān declares: “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell” (Qurʾān 4:93); “Humiliation and wretchedness were cast upon them, and they incurred [the] wrath of Allah” (2:61); “They incurred [the] wrath of Allah and were covered with humiliation” (3:112); “And the fifth [sign] is that the wrath of Allah is upon it” (24:9), among many others. Nevertheless, the kalām theologians, following their usual procedure, relegated this attribute on the pretext that affirming it implies a deficiency in Allah—arguing that anger is nothing but the “boiling of blood in the pursuit of revenge,” and thus they defined it exclusively as the will to inflict punishment. See Ibn Furak, Mashākil al-Ḥadīth, p. 395; his editor notes that here “anger refers to its concomitant, namely the punishment inflicted on the one at whom it is directed” (see note on p. 394). Imam Ibn Taymiyyah refuted this interpretation, stating: “The claim that ‘anger is the boiling of the heart’s blood in pursuit of revenge’ is not correct for us. Indeed, anger may occur to avert harm before it materializes, so there is no question of revenge per se. Moreover, the boiling of the heart’s blood accompanies anger but is not identical to it—just as crimson cheeks accompany ḥayāʾ (modesty) and pallid cheeks accompany wajl (fear), without being the same. When the soul repels an aggressor, if it senses the power to do so, the blood flows outward, producing anger; if it senses incapacity, the blood recedes, and the face pales as in grief. Even if this describes human anger, it does not follow that Allah’s anger is like ours—just as the reality of His essence is unlike ours, so are His attributes.” “We know by necessity that among beings one endowed with the power to repel corruption is more perfect than one who is indifferent to good and evil; hence the reproach of the diyūth—who lacks ghayrah (zeal) against immorality—and the praise of him who has ghayrah to suppress vice and protect the oppressed. The Prophet ﷺ ascribed this perfection to Allah, saying in an authentic ḥadīth: ‘No one is more jealous than Allah; for this reason He prohibited all forms of immorality, whether open or hidden.’ He also said: ‘Do you marvel at the jealousy of Saʿd? I am more jealous than him.’ As for the claim that these attributes are mere psychological reactions, we reply: everything besides Allah is a created being that reacts; our souls experience these states when affected by something. That does not imply that Allah is reactive or powerless to repel them. Whatever occurs in the Divine Presence happens by His will and power; nothing can exist except by His volition, and He wills only what befits Him. Sovereignty and praise belong to Him.” (Fatāwā, vol. 6, pp. 119–120.) Thus we see that the kalām theologians demoted explicit texts affirming this attribute, despite its confirmation by reason—as explained by the Shaykh al-Islām—and by Revelation. In their interpretation they ended up embracing what they initially rejected, since divine will, like other attributes, admits the same linguistic nuances; yet they, analogizing the unseen to the seen, first likened and then resorted to allegorical interpretation, combining tashbīḥ (anthropomorphism) with taʾṭīl (denial)—the pattern of every deviant sect, which begins and ends in error. The methodology of affirmation coupled with transcendence is the straightest path, as the Salaf affirmed both reason and text, whereas the kalām theologians contradicted both, mistakenly believing they were in accord with them.