An Introduction to Kalam, Islamic Theology

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The following is taken from “An Introduction to Kalam, Islamic Theology” by Shaykh Nur ad-Din Abu ‘Ubadah ‘Ali ibn Juma’ah.  This brief treatise comprises an introduction to the study of the science of kalam, one of the most important disciplines of Islamic knowledge.  It will suffice to introduce its major branches and comprehend some of the problems it seeks to address, and then note the positions of certain scholars and schools on these problems. 

In the linguistic sense, “kalam”, “speech”, denotes a word indicating a certain meaning.  In its technical sense, “kalam” denotes the theoretical consideration of matters of religious creed, or theology.  Shaykh Wali ad-Din ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldun (r.a.) said, “It is the discipline comprised of disputation over credal beliefs with rational proofs.” 

Imam al-‘Ayhi (r.a.) said, “Kalam is the discipline that enables one to affirm credal beliefs by amassing arguments and repelling doubt.”  Imam al-‘Ayhi (r.a.) recorded four types of etymologies for the name of the discipline, respectively claiming it is so called because of kalam, its linguistic sense of speech, al-jadal, yielding dialectical debate, which is the primary tool of the discipline, much like logic is the primary instrument or bulk of philosophy; its chapter-headings, which were first titled, “al-Kalam on such-and-such;” its paradigmatic topic of the Speech, Kalam, of Allah (s.w.t.), meaning the Qur’an, which raised ancillary questions to such profusion that the discipline itself came to be named after the topic; and the fact that it enabled adversarial discourse, al-kalam, in religious matters. 

Kalam gained different names corresponding to the theoretical perspective taken.  As Imam Muhammad ‘Ala ibn ‘Ali at-Tahanawi (r.a.) and Imam Abu Ja’far Ahmad ibn Muhammad ath-Thahawi (r.a.) variously noted, it is also known as the science of uswul ad-din, the foundations of religion, and ‘ilm an-nadzr wa al-istidlal, the science of theoretical consideration and deduction; Imam Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Tsabit (r.a.) famously called it al-fiqh al-akbar, the greatest jurisprudence.  The preferred name is ‘ilm at-tawhid, the discipline of unity, in that it explained, on a Qur’anic basis, the relation between the axis of existence, Allah (s.w.t.), humanity and the cosmos with reference to the two concepts of Divinely-Appointed Successorship, istikhlaf, and subservience, taskhir.  Imam Sa’ad ad-Din Mas’ud ibn ‘Umar at-Taftazani (r.a.) said the discipline related to derivative or inferential matters is called ‘ilm al-ahkam, the science of rulings; and the discipline related to first principles or credal matters is called ‘ilm at-tawhid wa asw-swifat, the science of Divine Unity and Attributism. 

Certain scholars have held there to be a methodological difference between kalam and philosophy, in that the mutakallim, practitioner of kalam, admits or denies various metaphysical principles and then offers proofs in their support, while the philosopher admits no such first principles whatsoever and, in their absence, seeks to reason to a certain aim.  For example, the mutakallim may admit the Existence of Allah (s.w.t.) from the beginning and seek thereafter to offer proofs for His Existence; but the philosopher begins with no such presumptions and only then tries to demonstratively establish the Existence of Allah (s.w.t.). 

Shaykh Ahmad Amin (r.a.) approximated the preceding schema in contrasting the judge, one who begins by adopting a neutral position and then follows the evidence until he reaches a verdict as to the innocence or guilt of the accused, and the defense lawyer, who from the very beginning is bound to uphold the innocence of the accused. 

We should not however inaccurately suggest, regarding the philosophers, that they necessarily begin in the absence of metaphysical presuppositions, for certain philosophical schools certainly do begin from first principles — otherwise they would be seeking through trials and experimentation to affirm or deny any metaphysical postulate whatsoever. 

The discipline of kalam, in fact, is Islamic philosophy in that it takes the religious creeds brought by Islam as performing the function of first principles.  Thus it is a subsection of Islamic philosophy distinct from that postulated by such Arab and Muslim philosophers as Shaykh Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Isḥaq asw-Swabbaḥ al-Kindi (r.a.), Shaykh Abu Naswr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Farabi (r.a.), and Shaykh Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Sina (r.a.), who preferred a different method: taking as the point of departure the opinions of Greek philosophers and then seeking to develop Islamic critiques.  Those philosophers aided the defense of Islam, in terms of creeds and schools and religions, by taking from philosophy and Greek logic the tools to defend them.  That is, they departed from what was given in those creeds and schools, such as Greek philosophy and logic, in order to arrive at what was given for them, Islam.  Dr. Zaynab al-Khudayr said, “Our teacher, Dr. Yahya Huwaydi, called this philosophy, which blossomed into the various disciplines of law and kalam and principles of religion, Islamic philosophy, because it was established on the Qur’an and its philosophy.” 

When Islam arose, the societies of what is known as the Arab lands were comprised of mere tribes or clans.  The Prophet’s (s.a.w.) hijrah to Madina acted to elevate the tribal condition, cutting tribal bonds such that the believers from disparate tribes deferred to a single order of conduct.  The nascent Arab Muslim nation began in the heart of that society. 

The epoch of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs extended the teaching of the Prophet (s.a.w.); establishing equality among the people and ending the preferential treatment previously accorded one’s kin and the powerful.  This, however, was not the case after the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, when began the decadent discrepancy between the theoretical affirmation of such equality and its practical application.  The ensuing social struggle took the form of internal conflict between the powerful, each of whom sought the Caliphate; the state became an instrument of despotism over common social goals.  Each party of them held themselves superior in truth to the rest, and sought religious justifications to that effect.  Each party, moreover, championed a clan’s heritage and lineage in claiming what they upheld, the Umayyads, Hashimites, Abbasids, and so on, as the partisans to the conflict strove to establish dynastic states like that of Persia. 

All of this worked to augment the conditions from which al-madzahib al-kalamiyyah, the theological schools, would later develop into the discipline of kalam.  The Khwarij splinter group, most of whose supporters hailed from non-Qurayshite Arab tribes, did not admit the principle that the caliph could not be elected from non-Qurayshites or non-Arabs; they first elected the non-Qurayshite, ‘Abdullah bin Wahb ar-Rasibi, to be their leader.  The majority of scholars recognise that the Shi’ah sect found its intellectual roots in Persian notions of kingship and lineage, given the clear resemblance between their school’s positions and the Persian monarchical system.  Likewise, most of the supporters of the Mu’tazilah school were of al-mawali, the clients, the children of non-Arabs who became patroned wards of the state.  Likewise, the Umayyads proved the majority of the supporters of the two sects of al-Jabr, Determinism, and al-Irja’, Deferral, to the extent that it was said “al-jabr wa al-irja’ din al-muluk”, “determinism and deferral is the religion of the kings,” referring to the Umayyad kings.  And on this single Earth, the general Muslim populace splintered, through these conflicts and acts, until they fashioned diverse ways of thought, schools of law, art, knowledge, tradition, and other aspects of civilisation.  One of these was the discipline of kalam. 

Kalam was consolidated as a discipline also through contesting outside influences.  The Islamic conquests came to include diverse bodies at the social level, meaning also those of non-Islamic cultures adhering to manifold ways of thought, schools, creeds, and philosophies.  Hence it came necessary to employ rational and logical methods to note the deficiencies in these creeds and philosophies and invite their adherents to Islam. 

A ruling of general prohibition was adopted by some such as certain later Hanbalis and Sufis, including Imam Abu al-Fadhl ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuthi (q.s.) in his work, Sawn al-Manthiq wa al-Kalam ‘an Fann al-Manthiq wa al-Kalam and Shaykh Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Abu al-Hawari (q.s.) in his work, Dhamm al-Manthiq wa Ahlih, as some of them relied on a mistaken interpretation of reported enunciations of as-Salaf, the early Muslims, that prohibited plunging into speculative discourse on theological matters under a principle called tafwid. 

Yet tafwid does not mean silence in the face of corrupt beliefs but rather refraining from plunging into credal matters so long as the prevailing understanding remains sound.  Indicating sound creed is a righteous act, and is what prevailed during the epoch of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and the Rightly-Guided Caliphs.  When there arise widespread deviations from correct understanding, however, then Muslims are obligated to work to rectify them.  This is what occurred throughout Muslim history, whenever the early Muslims undertook to oppose false creeds.  Shaykh Abu Sa’id ibn Abu al-Hasan Yasar al-Baswri (q.s.) said, “None of the Salaf would mention a thing, nor would they debate it, for they were all of a single uniform mission.  They only began to talk about a matter and engage in debate when people began to deny it or raise doubts about it.  When people began to innovate in the religion, Allah Raised eminent scholars to refute and debunk these innovations and deviations from the truth.” 

This is likewise supported in what is narrated from Imam Abu ‘Umar Yusuf ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (q.s.): “The jama’ah follows the opinion of Malik, that unless it would compel someone to vain speech, or fearing its general influence, or something to that effect - he would not seek to avoid discussing such matters when desiring to refute falsehood and turn its advocate from its school.” 

The view that as-Salaf, the early Muslims, refrained from engaging theological questions and opposed it is bid’ah, an innovation, of unsound basis.  We can provide further examples to support this, including the narration of Shaykh Taqi’ ad-Din Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Halim ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) from Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal (r.a.), who, in his work, ar-Radd ‘ala az-Zanadiqah wa al-Jahmiyyah, engaged in certain interpretations against what the Zanadiqah and Jahmiyyah doubted regarding the ambiguous elements of the Qur’an; and he then addressed their meaning, as is further narrated by Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Husayn al-Bayhaqi (r.a.).  This is similar to what we regard as the right position, that is, kalam as the attempt to posit solutions or repudiations to theological problems posed.  Of course, these attempts are delimited by authentically-narrated articles of creed indicating what Allah (s.w.t.) has Offered human knowledge in its limits of understanding.  This true position is confirmed by Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.): “Engaging the discipline of kalam is permissible when verifying truth and invalidating falsehood, and otherwise when not engaged in the aim of arguing with empty proofs or expounding false positions.”  Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) also said, “The early as-salaf and the a’immah did not find kalam objectionable in itself for the terminology it employs such as the terms essence (jawhar), accident (‘arad), body (jism), or otherwise, but because the meanings that they express in their formulation open themselves to false, reprehensible aspects in the proofs and determinations offered.  They are not forbidden, because these words combine together meanings both of denial and affirmation.”  He continued, “So if you have familiarised yourself with the meanings they intend, for instance in these expressions, and assess them with the Qur’an and sunnah such that their truth is affirmed, and that falsehood denied which the Qur’an and sunnah deny, then engage them freely.”  Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (r.a.) relied on a similar method in considering the unveiling of the Sufis, and thereby established all of that which is true.  Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) proceeded from this assessment in many topics of kalam.  For instance, the relation between existence and the existent, or the conjunction of Divine Power and Determination with human free will in the third part of his Majmu‘ al-Fatawa. 

Imam al-Ghazali’s (r.a.) position was similar but differed on the point that the discipline of kalam does not yield al-ma’rifat al-yaqiniyyah, gnosis, kashf, spiritual unveiling, nor ilham, inspiration, for it depends on and hence is limited to the intellect.  He wrote in his spiritual autobiography, “Then I commenced with the discipline of kalam, and obtained a thorough understanding of it.  I studied the works of its sound theologians, and myself composed some works in the subject.  But I found it a discipline that, while attaining its own aim, did not attain mine.  Its aim is preserving the creed of orthodoxy and defending it against the inclinations of innovative folk.”  He continued, “But in doing so they came to argue on premises they admitted to their opponents and to which they were compelled, whether following precedent, or the consensus of the community, or by solely accepting the Qur’an and traditions.  The majority of their argument was dedicated to laying forth the contradictions of their opponents and criticising the logical consequences of what they admitted.  But this is of little benefit with respect to someone who admitted nothing at all save logically necessary truths so kalam was not sufficient in my case and was unable to treat the malady of which I complained.” 

Determining whether kalam is permissible, recommended, or necessary proceeds from assessing its benefit, and determining whether it is impermissible with reference to its harm.  Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) wrote elsewhere that kalam contains both benefit and harm, its specific ruling being determined by the conditions at the time. 

Examining the Imamate according to the Shi’ah, lexically, the word, “Shi’ah” means, “adherent”, “answer”, such that the related word, “partisanship”, “tashayyu’”, denotes al-intiswar’, the victory of one over another.  Historically, the word, “Shi’ah” refers to the supporters of Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abu Thalib (k.w.).  In the sectarian sense, the term refers to the explicit conviction that the right to the caliphate fell only to Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) and his children.  They differed thereafter as to which among his descendants had priority: the Zaydiyyah asserted the Imamate through the third-generation descendent, Imam Zayd ibn ‘Ali ash-Shahid (q.s.); the Isma’iliyyah asserted the Imamate through the seventh-generation descendent, Imam Isma’il ibn Ja’far asw-Swadiq (q.s.) and the Itsna ‘Ashari, Twelver Shi’ah, asserted the Imamate through Imam Hasan ibn ‘Ali al-Askari (q.s.). 

The Twelver Shi’ah hold that the authority of the Imamate is one of the fundamental principles of religion that do not admit rational interpretation and, therefore, is not subject to ijtihad, independent judgement.  Nor are ancillary matters related to it subject to such independent judgement, although they may admit rational interpretation.  That is, choosing the imam, leader, is not achieved by election through the bay’ah, pledged allegiance, of the community as the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah hold, but rather through Divine Appointment and textual designation, from proof-texts drawn from the Qur’an and sunnah.  The pledged allegiance is subsequent to and dependent on this Divine Appointment.  Shi’ah narrate various textual proofs for this position, among them the hadits of the pond of Khumm: “Whosoever I am his master, so too ‘Ali is his master.”  Likewise, they advance rational proofs, including that the orthodox community, being comprised merely of a multitude of fallible individuals, is not immune from mistakes, and that mistakes in this matter of choosing the leader yield nothing less than chaos and social disintegration.  For these reasons, among others, this matter must be effected through Divine Appointment and thereby secured against the fallibility of the populace. 

Given that they were Divinely Appointed, the a’immah are understood to be Protected from error.  Shi’ah adduce both textual and rational proofs for this doctrine, including respectively Allah’s (s.w.t.) Address to Abraham (a.s.): 

سُوۡرَةُ البَقَرَة

۞ وَإِذِ ٱبۡتَلَىٰٓ إِبۡرَٲهِـۧمَ رَبُّهُ ۥ بِكَلِمَـٰتٍ۬ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ‌ۖ قَالَ إِنِّى جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامً۬ا‌ۖ قَالَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِى‌ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهۡدِى ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ (١٢٤) 

And remember that Abraham was Tried by his Lord with certain Commands, which he fulfilled; He Said, “I will Make you an imam to the nations.”  He pleaded, “And also (a’immah) from my offspring!”  He Answered, “But My Promise is not within the reach of evildoers.” (Surah al-Baqarah:124) 

Allah (s.w.t.) is Very Clear that His Covenant does not include wrongdoers and the argument that the infallibility of the a’immah interrupts the infinite regress of moral culpability that otherwise obtains. 

Imam al-‘Askari (r.a.) was hidden in what is known as the minor occultation, ghibah swughra’, which lasted for seventy years beginning in 260 AH / 874 CE.  Then began the major occultation, ghibah kubra’, which continues until the end of days.  Shi’ah further believe in the messianic return of the twelfth Imam in the last days, in the form of the long-awaited Mahdi (a.s.). 

Taqiyyah refers to concealing the doctrines of a school from those who do not believe in it, or an individual’s concealing his affiliation to a school.  Shi’ah adduce in support of this doctrine the Qur’anic verse: 

سُوۡرَةُ النّحل

... إِلَّا مَنۡ أُڪۡرِهَ وَقَلۡبُهُ ۥ مُطۡمَٮِٕنُّۢ بِٱلۡإِيمَـٰنِ ... (١٠٦) 

… except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith ... (Surah an-Nahl:106) 

They narrate from Imam Ja’far ibn Muhammad asw-Swadiq (q.s.) the report, “Taqiyyah is of my religion and that of my fathers.” 

The Zaydiyyah follow Imam Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn (r.a.), and are the Shi’ah denomination most similar to the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.  They agree with the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah against the Twelver Shi’ah that the question of the Imamate is a branch of religion which does admit rational interpretation and is likewise subject to independent judgement.  The Twelver Shi’ah hold their opinion to be established through express textual support, that is, authentically-narrated reports indisputably indicating the person of the imam.  Zaydiyyah recognise texts indicating the person of the imam but hold them to be less definitive both in their transmission and their signification, and to describe the attributes of the Imam but not specify him by name.  Further distinctions between the Twelver Shi’ah and Zaydiyyah are logically entailed by these differences, in that the former hold that one who denies the Imamate of Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) and his descendants in effect denies decisive proof-texts and so disbelieves; while the latter hold that denying these matters means rather that one has sinfully erred in judgement but remains within the fold of faith.  The Zaydiyyah hold that Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) had precedence over Sayyidina Abu Bakr ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Utsman asw-Swiddiq (r.a.), Sayyidina Abu Hafsw ‘Umar ibn al-Khaththab al-Faruq (r.a.), and Sayyidina Abu ‘Amr ‘Utsman ibn ‘Affan (r.a.) in that he had more right than them to the title of caliph, but due to his younger age and the perilous conditions in the troubled state of the time, it is permissible to admit the caliphate of those before him.  This again is opposed to the Twelver Shi‘ites, who hold that the prior three Caliphs were flagrant usurpers.  The Twelver Shi’ah, Isma’iliyyah, and certain Zaydiyyah affirm a doctrine of the awaited Mahdi (a.s.), as opposed to the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, of whom the majority believe in the Mahdi (a.s.) and another party do not, but in neither case make this doctrine foundational to their creed. 

The roots of the Shi’ah conception of the authority of the imam, and specifically that of the Twelver Shi’ah, hearkens back to the doctrines and philosophies prevailing in pre-Islamic Persia.  When Islam entered Persia, it was in a state of disarray, and due to it its civilisation was enriched but endured.  One of the elements of Persian civilisation that Islam did not abolish was the system that understood kings to have a quasi-divine nature, and which influenced the Shi’ah view of the Imamate, as argued by Imam Abu Zahrah Muhammad ibn Ahmad (r.a.). 

Now we consider the positions championed by the Khwarij and the Murji’ah.  Lexically, “khuruj” denotes “insurrection” and “insubordination”.  The active participle, “khawarij”, refers to those who rebelled against Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.).  The movement originated at the murder of Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.), and the allegiance pledged to Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) as caliph.  Mu’awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, then Governor of Syro-Palestine, refused to acknowledge this allegiance owed, accusing him instead of covering over the murder of Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.).  Thereafter, Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) and Mu’awiyah faced each other at the Battle of Siffin and the latter would have been routed, but that Sayyidina ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aasw (r.a.) enjoined his forces to hoist up copies of the Qur’an on their lances, invoking the authority of scriptural writ to decide between them.  Certain of Sayyidina ‘Ali’s (k.w.) supporters inclined toward seeking an arbitrated settlement between him and Mu’awiyah, but a faction rejected the possibility of subjecting legitimate authority to such adjudication.  They proclaimed the slogan, “No decision save that of Allah,” and struck camp at Harurah, by which they are also known as al-Haruriyyah.  Refusing the outcome of the arbitration, they rebelled against his authority and thus became known as the Khwarij, literally, “those who left.”  They subsequently split into twenty schisms. 

The most important articles of Khwarij doctrine are as follows.  They considered whoever is content with such arbitration to be takfir disbelievers.  They anathematised Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.), Mu’awiyah and Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.); all of whom accepted arbitration in matters of authority.  They believed in appointing the caliph through free, valid election alone, as established by the Muslim majority, and not a group of delegates or the like.  They would support the caliph so long as he ruled in justice as upheld by the shari’ah; otherwise, they held it necessary to remove him from power, given also the necessity of rising against permissive authorities.  They upheld the permissibility of non-Qurayshite caliphs, and indeed that all contenders were equal regardless of tribal or ethnic origin - even that non-Arab claimants were preferable for they would be easier to remove from power in the event they acted against the shari’ah.  They themselves chose the non-Qurayshite ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb ar-Rasibi as their leader.  They held a radical conflation of belief and action, holding that faith, iman, necessarily yields righteous works.  This, in turn, meant they considered the perpetrator of sins a disbeliever, without distinguishing between enormities and minor sins.  Likewise, they considered those adhering to opposing judgements and schools to be unbelievers.  In support of such doctrines, they offered the Qur’anic verses: 

سُوۡرَةُ آل عِمرَان

… وَلِلَّهِ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ حِجُّ ٱلۡبَيۡتِ مَنِ ٱسۡتَطَاعَ إِلَيۡهِ سَبِيلاً۬‌ۚ وَمَن كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَنِىٌّ عَنِ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ (٩٧) 

… pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah ― those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith; Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures. (Surah Ali ‘Imran:97) 

They interpreted it to equate abandoning the rite of pilgrimage, surely a sin, with full disbelief, such that any sinner becomes a disbeliever.  They also cited the verse: 

سُوۡرَةُ المَائدة

... وَمَن لَّمۡ يَحۡكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ هُمُ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ (٤٤) 

… If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah has Revealed, they are (no better than) disbelievers. (Surah al-Ma’dah:44) 

They interpreted it to mean that every perpetrator of sins had decided his course of action by something other than Revelation and so had disbelieved. 

The followers of Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Ibadh (r.a.), some of whom continue to reside in Oman and northeast Africa, are known as the Ibadhis; they comprise the Kharijite sect closest to the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.  They distinguish between disbelief in doctrine, that is, with respect to Allah (s.w.t.) proper, and disbelief with respect to His Bounties, that is, restricting or denying related aspects.  They held that their opponents’ judgements and schools disbelieved in the latter sense, not the former, and thus that their opponents’ persons, homes, and livestock remained inviolable to them, except for their steeds and weapons.  Likewise, they held their opponents’ testimony, marriage with them, and inheriting from them all to be legitimate. 

The Khwarij school rested on the equation of hakimiyyah, sovereignty, with sulthan, power, as what yields siyadah, dominion, quite resembling that of modern political thought - that is, a concept of absolute authority.  However, authority yields dominion only in particular times and places.  Certain contemporary Islamist groups have approximated this view, relying for instance on what they understood of the teachings of Sayyid Abu al-A’ala al-Mawdudi or the later works of Sayyid Quthb Ibrahim Husayn.  Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) was among the first to stridently resist this approach.  Responding to the Khwarij slogan, “No decision save that of Allah,” he said, “A true word, yet they intend falsehood by it.  True, no rulership save that of Allah, yet they claim there is no command save that of Allah while people require leaders, whether righteous or profligate.” 

The Murji’ah were another early sect.  Their eponymous key tenet of irja’, lexically denotes “takhir”, “postponement”, for they “deferred” the requital of transgressions to the Day of Judgement.  It is imperative to differentiate the position of this sect from that of certain early companions and followers who, responding to the conditions of their time, forbade engaging the bitter contemporaneous political struggles.  In that vein, they recommended “deferring” the case of grave sinners to Allah (s.w.t.), Who will Punish or Forgive them as He Wills on the Day of Judgement.  In the subsequent period, however, there emerged the Murji’ah, who took this notion of deferral to its limit and made it a point of doctrine.  They, thus, held that sin does not spoil faith much like obedience does not benefit disbelief, that is, that the believer remains a believer no matter the enormities of sins he commits, just as the disbeliever remains a disbeliever no matter the righteous deeds he works.  They held that iman, faith, pertains to private beliefs, and that one who pronounces kufr, disbelief, with his tongue and worships idols or practically adheres to Judaism or Christianity, for instance, worshipping the cross or pronouncing Trinitarian doctrine, in the lands of Islam, and thereafter dies without recanting these practices, can yet be a believer of unaffected or complete faith in the Sight of Allah (s.w.t.), and can yet be among the Folk of Paradise.  While the Khwarij grossly conflated iman and ‘amal, the Murji’ah radically separated them.  The correct position is that the relation between faith and action is one of union but not absolute identity, as with the Khwarij and distinction but not absolute disjunction, as with the Murji’ah. 

The name of al-Qadariyyah, the Libertarian sect, refers to the human qudrah, power, to act and choose.  Some hold that it refers to al-qadr, the determination, which they deny Allah (s.w.t.) and affirm for humans.  Some writers hold them to be aptly described by their opponents as corresponding to the hadits, “those who deny Allah’s Measuring Out are the fire worshippers of this community.”  The strongest opinion as to their name is that the word, “al-Qadariyyah” generally encompasses the Mu’tazilah and the Jahmiyyah and more specifically refers to the latter. 

The most important Jahmiyyah leader, Ma’bad ibn Kalid al-Juhani, preached his school in Iraq and was killed by Abu Muhammad al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf in the uprising of ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash’ats and Ghaylan ibn Muslim ad-Dimashqi, who had been debated by Imam ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (r.a.) and was spectacularly killed by Hisham ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.  This group radically ascribed action and volition to humans, holding that every human action occurs through a will independent from the Will of Allah (s.w.t.).  They rejected Allah’s (s.w.t.) Taqdir, Prior Knowledge and Determining, the occurrence of human action.  Dr. Muhammad Yusuf observed, “The Libertarians took the position that humans are the ones who determine their own actions through their knowledge, facing them through their will, and enacting them through their power - and that Allah has no power over these works, cannot engage them in His Volition or Power, and cannot have knowledge of them before they occur.”  In this way, the Libertarians came to ascribe Rububiyyah, the Divine Attribute of Lordship, to others beside Allah (s.w.t.), delimiting His Properly Unrestricted Knowledge and Power. 

The Jahmiyyah gained their name through their eponymous ascription to Jahm ibn Swafwan.  They argued that, given that Allah (s.w.t.) is the Creator of creatures’ acts, and given that He Possesses unrestricted power, human power over actions is transformed into a mere instrument without volition.  Jahm bin Swafwan said, “Indeed humans determine nothing, nor are they characterised by such ability; rather they are compelled in their actions, having no independent volition and no choice.  It is Allah Who Creates actions for them in the same way that He does for other bodies.  Actions are ascribed to them only in a figurative sense, as they are other bodies.”  In the following period this opinion suffused various groups associated with the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. 

al-Jabariyyah, the Determinist school, came to be named for their fundamental tenet denying human power to act and choose.  The Determinist opinion arose in Islam because the transcendental conception of Allah (s.w.t.) holds there to be no contradiction between the abstract or general acts of Allah (s.w.t.) and the delimited acts of human beings.  The former defines and delimits the latter, both in their generation, manifesting them in the visible world through the Divine Habit that ensured the conditions of human action, and their commission, like legal boundaries manifest themselves through the various Divine Commands of obligation and prohibition, to which humans ought to cleave in their actions.  This school of thought conflates the Acts of Allah (s.w.t.) with everything consequent, and so understands attributing actions to any other than Him to be ascribing Him partners in His Lordship even though this is more properly the case only with reference to the Unrestricted Acts of Allah (s.w.t.), not the delimited acts of human beings.  Their conflation in fact resembles the approach of Idealists of Western philosophy such as Hegel.  The improbability of determinism in Islamic orthodoxy means that, contra certain Orientalists, it is not receptive to such Idealism. 

The Mu’tazilah gained its name when Waswil ibn ‘Atha’, the founder of the school, differed from his teacher, Shaykh Hasan al-Baswri (q.s.) on the question of the status of a Muslim who committed grave sins.  The latter held him to be a sinner but nonetheless a Muslim, while Waswil dissented to argue that he was in a station between belief and unbelief, that is, neither a believer nor a disbeliever.  Shaykh Hasan al-Baswri (q.s.) commented that Waswil “i’itazalah,” “withdrew,” from his company, and so this disagreement led to the formation of the Mu’tazilah school. 

Mu’tazilah thought is based on five credal articles.  The first two pertain to the highly transcendental conception of Allah (s.w.t.) they advance.  With regards at-Tawhid, Divine Unity, the Mu’tazilah rationally interpreted all verses that could yield anthropomorphism and, in an effort to rigorously maintain the single Eternity of Allah (s.w.t.), denude Allah (s.w.t.) of all Attributes other than His Essence, repudiating a distinct existence to these Attributes.  Thus, they rationally interpret the Divine Attributes as recorded in the Qur’an to be various names of the Divine Essence, not Attributes proper.  In this sense, they are also known as those who deny al-Mu’aththilah, the Attributes, with the nuance that they only deny these Attributes as at-ta’thil al-juz’iyy laa at-ta’thil al-kulli, they exist distinct from the Divine Essence. 

With regards al-‘Adl, Justice, the Mu’tazilah held that the principle of Divine Justice dictates that He Reward the righteous with good and Requite the sinner with ill, and also that He Endow humans with power over their actions and the ability to choose between good and evil.  For were humans compelled in their deeds, then the Divine Reward and Punishment based on them would be essentially unjust and He is above such ascriptions.  In order to secure Divine Justice, however, they radically emphasised human freedom and so came to imply that humans create their actions. 

They held further that the moral quality of actions, their good or evil, inherent essentially in them, being independent of Divine Commands or Prohibitions.  Therefore, the Legislator Enjoins certain actions because of the good inherent in them and Prohibits others due to the evil inherent in them, and even those people who have not been reached by Revelation are nonetheless Accountable to Allah (s.w.t.) for their actions because the ethical status of actions is independently rationally comprehensible. 

With regards al-manzilah bayn al-manzilatayn, the intermediate position, the Mu’tazilah held that those who commit enormities are relegated to a position between that of kufr, disbelief, and iman, belief, that is, they cannot properly be said to be disbelievers or believers, although nothing prevents anyone calling them “Muslims” if it is specified that their repentance is yet called for. Shaykh ‘Izz ad-Din ‘Abu Hamid ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatullah ibn Abu Hadid (r.a.) said, “If we take the position that those who commit enormities can be called neither believers nor Muslims, we would prefer that he be called Muslim so that we may distinguish him from ahl adz-dzimmah or idol-worshippers.” 

On the issue of al-Wa’d wa al-Wa’id, the Promise and Threat, the Mu’tazilah held that Allah’s (s.w.t.) Promise to Reward the righteous with good and Requite sinners with ill to be irreversible.  Thereby, they also denied notions of intercession in the Hereafter. 

On the issue of al-amr bi al-ma’ruf wa an-nahi ‘an al-munkar, Commanding the Good and Forbidding Evil, the Mu’tazilah made rebellion against a tyrannical despot obligatory, albeit conditional on the particular circumstances of the case.  This is contra the Khwarij, who affirmed this obligation unreservedly. 

The radically transcendent emphasis of the Mu’tazilah led them to deny al-Kalam, the Divine Attribute of Speech, as distinct from the Divine Essence, for, as a contingent characteristic of other creatures, they believed it could imply a multiplicity of deities.  In this, they repudiated the Christian claims that the Qur’an supported the Divinity of Christ when it described Jesus (a.s.) as the Kalimatullah, “Word of God”.  They further interpreted Qur’anic references to Kalamullah, the speech of Allah (s.w.t.), to mean that He Created that Speech as He did any other thing, and thereby that the Qur’an Itself is Created and thus contingent, not pre-eternal. 

In keeping with these methodological and hermeneutical principles, Mu’tazilah rejected the possibility of “seeing” Allah (s.w.t.).  Certain scholars understood this to apply specifically to the notion of seeing Allah (s.w.t.) with one’s eyes.  Imam Taj ad-Din Abu al-Fath Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim ash-Shahrastani (r.a.) said, “They were united in denying an ocular beatific vision in the Abode of Permanence.” 

From the position that Allah (s.w.t.) in His Wisdom Acted according to certain principles, not haphazardly, the Mu’tazilah took up the notion that it was necessary for Allah (s.w.t.) to Act in the best manner possible.  That is, given that Allah (s.w.t.) only Acts from His Infinite Wisdom, it is impossible for Him to command anything but virtue or prohibit anything but depravity.  Thus, both good and its superlative are necessary for Allah (s.w.t.). 

The Mu’tazilah reached their positions primarily through engaging members of other religions and refuting opposing creeds, by using methodological abstractions and rational strategies derived from Greek logic.  However, these techniques, in their rigour, in fact shield one from the vigour and vitality of gnosis as ordered by Revelation, and cut at the very heart of knowledge of the unseen.  For example, the Mu’tazilah concept of the Divine Essence can be understood as a response to the radical anthropomorphists or corporealists, who imputed to Allah (s.w.t.) aspects of a body like that of humans; but their more transcendent concept in effect severs the bond between humans and their Lord.  It empties their concept of the Existence of Allah (s.w.t.), as in the question of Divine Attributes, even while it unrestrictedly subordinates these matters to the intellect, as in the question of the ethical status of acts and others such surveyed above.  They go too far also in their affirmation of human freedom, as they transform the delimited acts of human beings which are defined by the Acts of Allah (s.w.t.) in their instantiation and their moral investiture, takwinan wa taklifan, into unreserved acts.  They hold that humans are the creators of their own acts, but Creation is an attribute of Lordship signifying that an Act is Performed by none other than Allah (s.w.t.).  Therefore, they seem to imply partners in His lordship, and compromise the monotheism they otherwise strictly seek to defend.  Finally, it is more proper to hold that Allah (s.w.t.) Made the good of His Actions Obligatory on Himself, rather than to say He is obliged or bound in any fashion.  In Qur’anic idiom: 

سُوۡرَةُ الاٴنعَام

... كَتَبَ عَلَىٰ نَفۡسِهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَةَ‌ۚ ... (١٢) 

He has Inscribed for Himself (the Rule of) Mercy ... (Surah al-An’am:12) 

The eponymous founder of the Ash’ariyyah school is Imam Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Isma’il al-Ash’ari (r.a.), one of the first to study under but then quit the Mu’tazilah.  The Ash’ariyyah came to comprise the largest Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah group, including among its ranks such great scholarly giants as Imam al-Haramayn Dhiya’ ad-Din ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Yusuf al-Juwayni (r.a.), Imam ash-Shahrastani (r.a.), and Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.). 

Like the Mu’tazilah, the Ash’ariyyah held that the Divine Essence was Transcendent and repudiated anthropomorphism.  However, they understood the Qur’anic verses whose apparent sense could yield similarities between Allah (s.w.t.) and human beings to employ conventional Arabic figures or metaphors, without subjecting them to further speculative or abstracting interpretation.  Hafizh Khathib al-Baghdadi Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) attributed anthropomorphist interpretations to “renegades and radicals,” and Imam ash-Shahrastani (r.a.) considered the anthropomorphist Karramiyyah scholars to be “ignorant fools”.  Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) insisted one must properly understand ostensibly anthropomorphic Qur’anic expressions such as those referring to “the Hand of Allah”, which, as an equivocal expression, includes the primary corporeal sense of a limb composed of flesh and bone but also includes a metaphorical sense that is not essentially corporeal. 

Ash’ariyyah affirmed Divine Attributes as distinct from the Divine Essence, including Divine Power, Will, Hearing, Sight, and Speech.  Imam al-Ash’ari (r.a.) held that human acts are the result of Allah’s (s.w.t.) Creation and kasb, human acquisition, which is the conjunction of human power and Divine Act.  An example to elucidate this relation is the movement of a hand wearing a ring, whereby the movement of the ring is conjoined to that of the hand.  Contra the Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah did not believe that acts are essentially good or bad, but that they receive their moral character through Divine Command or Prohibition.  Imam al-Ash’ari (r.a.) said that one who commits enormities is a sinning believer and relinquished to the Will of Allah (s.w.t.) as to whether He Forgive him and Enter him into Paradise or whether He first Requite him with Punishment for his sins.  He further affirmed the possibility of the beatific vision, in that every existent, including Allah (s.w.t.) admits being seen.  Ash’ariyyah posited that the Divine Attribute of Speech is pre-eternal in His Essence, but he divided the Divine Speech into two types: Kalam Nafsi, Unlettered Speech, which singularly abides with the Divine Essence; and Kalam Lafzi, Lettered Speech, which is comprised of contingent letters and sounds conforming to the meaning of the unlettered speech that comprehends every injunction and prohibition.  The Qur’an is, therefore, the Uncreated Speech of Allah (s.w.t.) but its disparate letters, coloured inks, inscriptions, and vocalisations are all Created in time.  Finally, the Ash’ariyyah held that the Acts of Allah (s.w.t.) are not bound to an underlying rationality, for that would restrict His Sovereign Will even in such questions as the requital of the obedient and transgressors.  Rather, they cite the Qur’anic verse: 

سُوۡرَةُ الاٴنبیَاء

لَا يُسۡـَٔلُ عَمَّا يَفۡعَلُ وَهُمۡ يُسۡـَٔلُونَ (٢٣) 

He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be Questioned (for theirs). (Surah al-Anbiya’:23) 

Various criticisms were advanced against these positions and formulations.  Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hazm (r.a.) criticised the Ash’ariyyah conception of Godhead, arguing that their division of the Eternal Essence of Allah (s.w.t.) from His Abiding attributes compromises His Absolute Oneness.  The Ash’ariyyah began soundly, establishing human actions as the result of Allah’s (s.w.t.) Creation and human acquisition; but their definition of acquisition as merely a conjunction effectively tended toward Determinism.  Imam al-Juwayni (r.a.) commented that denying human power and ability is refused both by rationality and lived experience, for affirming a power without effect, as in the definitions of certain Ash’ariyyah, is essentially denying that power as such.  The Ash’ariyyah position on the ethical status of acts in effect was said to undermine rationality, for by unreservedly refusing the possibility of independently discerning husn, good, or qubh, ill, they in turn deny the independent existence of khayr, good, and sharr, evil.  Likewise, their position that Allah’s (s.w.t.) Acts are not bound by Revelation in an absence of wisdom is a contradictory and inadequate conception inadmissible for Allah (s.w.t.), for His Works are Unreservedly Independent and in turn Complete. 

The Maturidiyyah are an Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah sect founded by Imam Abu Manswur Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Maturidi (r.a.), holding many positions in common with the Ash’ariyyah but differing from them on others.  Much like the Ash’ariyyah approach to Qur’anic verses that could yield an anthropomorphic concept of Allah (s.w.t.), they affirmed His Transcendence while understanding these expressions by the conventional figurative meanings they had garnered in Arabic, not through some sort of speculative rational interpretation.  The Maturidiyyah recognised that the moral quality of certain works can be rationally apprehended, just as there are others whose moral quality cannot be understood except through revelation.  But in every case, they hold that humans are not obliged to do good and refrain from evil until they encounter Revelation.  They agree with the Ash’ariyyah that human acts are the result of Divine Creation and human acquisition, but, against the Ash’ariyyah, hold that acquisition is not merely conjoined with action but in fact is its haqiqiyyah, very reality.  Maturidiyyah hold that those who commit enormities will not abide in Hellfire, even if they died without repenting.  Imam al-Maturidi (r.a.) said, “The truth about believing, habitual sinners is that their case is relegated to Allah (s.w.t.), for Him to Forgive them if He so Chooses from His Bounty and Goodness and Mercy, or to Punish them to the extent of their sins, if He so Chooses.  They will not abide in the Dire.  People of faith are between hope and fear.”  Against the Mu’tazilah rationalising interpretation of Divine Acts, Imam al-Maturidi (r.a.) said, “His Acts obey an underlying wisdom because He is the Wise; He Wills Wisdom by them because He Intends them, not because He is compelled to act in a certain manner.  He is not bound but rather has Free Volition and Will.” 

We note here that the Maturidiyyah have the soundest solution to the issue of the scope of reason in discerning the ethical status of actions, in that they develop a variegated approach.  Yet they do not clarify the nature of these acts in their two types such that one might say that the acts whose moral status does not admit rational investigation are abstracted from their particular conditions, while those whose moral quality is discernible are circumscribed in relation to their time and place. 

Tashbih is the position that there are similarities beyond analogies between Allah (s.w.t.) and His Creation.  Tajsim is the related position that imputes a bodily form to Allah (s.w.t.).  Tashbih emerged before Islam among certain Jewish and Christian sects, and then spread to certain radical sects in Muslim lands; its more prominent proponents include certain Shi’ah groups, the Karramiyyah, and the Hashwiyyah.  It is based on a particular understanding of those scriptural verses whose apparent meaning expresses similarities between Allah (s.w.t.) and Creation. 

The Shi’ah extremists who took such a position include Mughirah ibn Sa’id, who claimed that the one he worshipped was a man of light with a crown upon his head and limbs, unlike a man, and Bayan ibn Sam’an, who maintained that the one he worshipped was a human being enveloped in light but for his face.  The Karramiyyah were named after Muhammad ibn Karam as-Sijistani, who affirmed the Divine Attributes but in a corporealising and anthropomorphising fashion.  He called his followers to worship an embodied, delimited god.  In his book, “The Punishment of the Grave,” he described Allah (s.w.t.) as seated proudly upon the Throne in terms that admit movement, change, and cessation, much like he affirmed the beatific vision without securing the doctrine against its potential spatial implications.  The Hashwiyyah, finally, are those who cling to an extremely literal hermeneutic, and so insist on the apparent sense of those verses that could imply similarities between Allah (s.w.t.) and Creation.  Imam at-Tahanawi (r.a.) recorded, in his book, Kashf Isthilahat al-Funun, that the Hashwiyyah clung to apparent meanings until they corporealised their theology, and further.  Some assimilated them into various Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah groups, especially the later Hanbaliyyah, of whom we may give examples of scholars who appear to adopt the Hashwiyyah hermeneutic; but great numbers of other Hanbaliyyah, including Imam Abu al-Faraj ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.) vociferously rejected it in the fourth and fifth centuries.  Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (r.a.) himself never anthropomorphised but, rather, urged a specific kind of tafwid, relegation, which as practiced by certain early Muslims is simply refusing to comment on such matters. 

Imam ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.) said, “I wonder at those who call to knowledge and tend toward anthropomorphism by taking ahadits literally.”  The haml, interpretation, here referred to includes both a specific understanding and discussion of that understanding; but maintaining the traditional approach is achieved by refraining both from plunging into that discussion or speculating on how to understand it. 

One of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah approaches to such questions is attributed to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (r.a.), founder of the Hanbali legal school, and includes numerous great scholars such as Imam ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.), Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.), and Imam Shams ad-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (r.a.).  Other appellations of this methodological group include, “the Traditionalists,” literally, Aswhab al-Hadits, “the Companions of Ahadits”, and Ahl as-Salaf, “the Folk Adhering to the Way of the Predecessors”.  The later Wahhabi school named after Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab an-Najdi hearkens back to this group in aspects of its method and practice. 

The approach of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (r.a.) on ambiguous matters was to refrain from tafwid,  commenting on them, relegating their specific interpretation to Allah (s.w.t.), in His Transcendence with reference: 

سُوۡرَةُ آل عِمرَان

...وَمَا يَعۡلَمُ تَأۡوِيلَهُ ۥۤ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ‌ۗ ... (٧) 

… but no one knows its true meanings except Allah ... (Surah Ali ‘Imran:7) 

Later, Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) adopted such a position of tafwid, but furthermore considered the early Muslims to have understood these ambiguous verses and ahadits in their apparent sense, he ascribed this understanding to them despite their refraining from comment.  “It is evident,” he wrote, “that when the Lord Described Himself as ‘Knowing, Powerful’, He did not qualify His own formulation by saying its evident sense is unintended.  This is because its meaning with respect to Him is similar to its meaning with respect to us.”  “A similar hermeneutical principle obtains,” Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) writes, in such cases as Allah (s.w.t.) Ascribing to Himself the Creation of Adam by His Hand.” 

Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) rejected determinism for the way it divested the sinner’s responsibility before Allah (s.w.t.).  He affirmed human power to act and choose, but without ascribing them the Creation of their acts as did the Mu’tazilah.  “One of the most enduring elements of human thought,” he writes, marshalling a logical-grammatical argument, “is one who acts justly is understood to be just, one who works iniquity is understood to be iniquitous, and one who lies is known as a liar, if it is not the creature who is agent of his lies and iniquity but rather Allah Who is the Effecter of those actions, that entails Allah be attributed with deceit and wickedness!” 

Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) disputed the Ash’ariyyah position that Allah’s (s.w.t.) Acts are not justifiable, arguing that this emptied His Acts of their underlying Wisdom.  Rather, he said, He Created Creation, Enjoined His Commandments, and Forbade His Prohibitions all according to a distinct Wisdom. 

Imam ibn al-Qayyim (r.a.) agreed with Imam al-Maturidi (r.a.) that the moral quality of certain acts is rationally discernible, yet that the Reward of good and Requital of ill requires Revelation.  He wrote, “In truth, one will find no contradiction in the approach holding that acts are in themselves good and evil like they have benefit and harm without making this a cause of their reward and requital, which is determinable only through the Commands and Prohibitions of Revelation.”  Like Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.), Imam ibn al-Qayyim (r.a.) refused the position that human acts are determined in any way.  Thus, he affirmed human action and volition without making reference to their existence as Allah’s (s.w.t.) Creation. 

Imam ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.) differed from Imam ibn al-Qayyim (r.a.) and Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) in understanding potentially anthropomorphic Qur’anic verses and ahadits in terms of a metaphor that could that would be readily understood by an Arabic speaker, without finding it necessary to resort to rational speculation, for example, as one who says that the Qur’anic references to Allah’s (s.w.t.) “Finger” is “the trace of His Virtue” or that “His Hand” is “His Blessing”.  This is the position, too, of Imam ibn Hazm (r.a.), Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.), and Imam al-Maturidi (r.a.).  For a thing is taken on its face if possible; if it is interpreted, it is done so based on metaphor. 

There are two aspects to the approach of the early Muslims to this question: their theoretical understanding and its practical implementation.  It is unsound to hold simply that they refused to comment on the matter, for certainly some of them did speak on it, specifically Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) and Sayyidina Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (r.a.), in refuting innovators’ creeds.  Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) and Imam ibn al-Qayyim (r.a.) were of the opinion that the early Muslims understood such verses in their apparent sense, while others, including Imam ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.), Imam ibn Hazm (r.a.), and Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.), as surveyed above felt otherwise.