and his vigorous emphasis throughout his writings; hardly do we find him refuting the negators (muʿaṭṭilah) without also, in the same breath, refuting the corporealists, as anyone who has studied his books knows—may Allah Most High have mercy on him. Among his words on this matter is what he says in al-Ḥamawiyyah (p. 160):

“Whoever says, ‘I can conceive of knowledge and a hand only of the kind of knowledge and hand that are familiar to us,’ is told: ‘Then how do you conceive of an Essence unlike the essences of created beings?’ It is well known that the attributes of every entity befit its very essence and accord with its reality. Whoever understands of the Lord’s attributes—He to whom nothing is comparable—only what befits created things has gone astray in both reason and religion.”

I say: This is but a fraction of the many statements that decisively show that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah upholds divine transcendence and is neither an anthropomorphist nor a corporealist, contrary to al-Kawtharī’s fabrication.

His friend¹, the scholar Abū Zahrah, cited in his book “Ibn Taymiyyah” numerous passages from Ibn Taymiyyah on the divine attributes and summed up his creed in an even-handed manner, actually exonerating him from the charges levelled by al-Kawtharī. He states (p. 264):

“In all this there is nothing that conflicts with declaring Allah transcendent, nothing that violates monotheism, and nothing that establishes any likeness between Him—glorified be He—and created things.”

Then he adds (p. 266):

“There is, without doubt, an affirmation for Allah—exalted is He—of istiwāʾ, a hand, and other attributes; yet he insists that all of this is in a manner befitting His Essence. We do not know their ultimate reality, and our duty is simply to believe in them.”

However, Abū Zahrah then reproduces from Ibn al-Jawzī’s book “Refuting the Ambiguities of Anthropomorphism” a passage defending figurative interpretation and rebutting those accused of anthropomorphism. He comments thereafter (p. 272):

“That is the upshot of their words: no matter how hard they try to deny anthropomorphism, it still clings to them. And when, more than a century later, Ibn Taymiyyah comes along and says, ‘It is only a shared wording, not a shared reality,’ if they nonetheless interpret istiwāʾ by the bare outward meaning, then it signifies sitting and taking a seat.”

——————
¹ Translator’s note: The reference is to the Egyptian scholar Muḥammad Abū Zahrah (d. 1394 AH).