In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate
The Attributes of Mutashabihat or the Informative Attributes (Sifat Khabariyah)
Written by: Dr. Muhammad Zahid Mughal
Summarized by: Abdul Basir Sohaib Siddiqi
Translation by: Tahleel Team
Date of Publication: 09.11.2025
Key Concepts and Distinctions:
Two major approaches stand out:
- Tafwidh al-Ma‘na (Delegating the Meaning)
- Tafwidh al-Kayf (Delegating the modalities)
Negation of Kayfiyyah (modalities) in Tafwidh al-Ma‘na means denying all physical attributes.
Negation of Ilm al-Kayfiyyah (knowledge of how or modalities) in Tafwidh al-Kayf means the knowledge of the nature of such attributes is unknown.
The determination of meaning depends upon the understanding of Kayfiyyah (manner or modality).
The Concept of Mutashabihat Attributes
The Mutashabihat attributes are those mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) concerning Allah, the Exalted, whose apparent meanings seem to imply physical or temporal concepts — such as Face (Wajh), Hand (Yad), Coming and Descending (Nuzul), Finger, Leg (Saq), and so on.
Because these apparent meanings seem to suggest temporality and spatiality, they are called Mutashabihat (ambiguous) or, in another expression, Sifat Khabariyah (informative attributes).
Some researchers and scholars claim that according to the statements of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah — such as Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH), Imam Malik (d. 179 AH), and Imam al-Ash‘ari (d. 324 AH) — these scholars held the same views later found in the teachings of scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH).
However, upon closer examination, there is no explicit statement from the early Imams of Salaf supporting Ibn Taymiyyah’s position; in fact, their approach was the opposite.
It should be noted that those who advocate Ibn Taymiyyah’s later stance rely on selective quotations from earlier Imams that are often misunderstood or misused. When analyzed through the lens of the Mutakallimun (theologians), this claim of consistency between Ibn Taymiyyah and the early Imams is rejected.
The Positions of Both Sides
Before proceeding, it is essential to present the views of both sides regarding Sifat Mutashabihat or Sifat Khabariyah.
The Ash‘ari and Maturidi theologians state that the literal meanings of the informative attributes — such as “Hand” or “Descent” — imply physical qualities like form, composition, or direction, which are characteristics of created beings.
These terms can also carry metaphorical meanings, such as “power” or “generosity.” Since it is proven that the real meaning of these terms, in relation to Allah, cannot be comprehended, and relying solely on metaphorical interpretation based on weak indications is unsafe, the correct position is as follows:
The “Hand” (Yad) is affirmed as an attribute of Allah, but its true meaning is unknown to us. The real meaning of it is known only to Allah.
This is called the position of Tafwidh al-Ma‘na — delegating the meaning to Allah.
In contrast, Ibn Taymiyyah and some Hanbali scholars before him argued that the meaning of the term “Hand” (Yad) is known — as in the Arabic language — but its actual modality or Kayfiyyah (how it is) is unknown.
This is known as Tafwidh al-Kayf — the meaning is known, but the modality is unknown.
Ibn Taymiyyah argued that anyone who rejects Tafwidh al-Kayf in favor of Tafwidh al-Ma‘na effectively falls into negation (ta‘til) or ignorante of Allah’s attributes.
However, according to the Ash‘ari and Maturidi theologians, ignorance of Kayf (modality) also implies ignorance of meaning, since meaning cannot be separated from form or modality.
Evidence from the Early Scholars
Imam al-Ash‘ari writes in Al-Ibanah:
“And Allah has a Face without Kayf, and He has Hands without Kayf, and Eyes without Kayf.”
Similarly, Imam Malik was asked about the meaning of Istawā (He rose over the Throne). He replied:
“Al-Istiwa’ is known, its Kayfiyyah is unknown, believing in it is obligatory, and asking about it is an innovation.”
Based on such statements, Ibn Taymiyyah’s followers argued that “the meaning is known, but the modalities are unknown.” Since Imam Malik said “Istiwa’ is known,” they assumed he meant the literal meaning, while its kayfiyyah or how was hidden.
Imam al-Ash‘ari also affirmed “Hand without Kayf.” This reasoning was extended even to the Fiqh al-Akbar of Imam Abu Hanifah, where it is said:
“Allah has Hand, Face, and Self, as mentioned in the Qur’an. These are attributes without Kayf.”
It was not said that “Hand” means “Power” or “Blessing,” because such interpretations would deny the attribute itself — a position associated with the Qadariyyah and Mu‘tazilah. Rather, it is said these are attributes without Kayf.
The Meaning of “Without Kayf”
A fundamental mistake occurs when scholars fail to distinguish between negating the modalities itself (Nafy al-Kayf) and negating the knowledge of modalities (Nafy ‘Ilm al-Kayf).
The Ash‘ari and Maturidi position is based on negating the modality itself — i.e., Allah has no Kayfiyyah (no physical or spatial characteristics).
The position of Ibn Taymiyyah is based on negating the knowledge of the modality — i.e., Allah has Kayfiyyah, but we do not know it.
In the statements of Imam Malik and Imam al-Ash‘ari, Kayfiyyah itself is denied — not just the knowledge of it.
To understand this, one must know what Kayfiyyah means in theological terminology.
In Ilm al-Kalam, Kayfiyyah refers to the states or conditions of a being that can be observed in time and space, such as size, dimension, color, heat, cold, length, width, and spatial direction — all of which are attributes of created entities.
Thus, when it is said “Allah’s Hand is without Kayf,” it means that Allah’s Hand is affirmed because the text mentions it, but its modality — any physical property — is completely negated.
Negating Kayfiyyah implies we do not know the true meaning, since the literal meaning of “Hand” depends on these physical characteristics. What remains, therefore, is either lack of knowledge or acceptance of a figurative meaning.
Similarly, the literal meaning of “Descent” (Nuzul) implies movement from one place to another — a property of physical bodies.
If one claims that words like “Hand” or “Descent” can be used literally without any physical implication, they must provide examples from authentic Arabic usage — which do not exist.
When all Kayfiyyah is denied, the meaning also becomes unknowable, since human understanding operates through senses and reason, both of which recognize “Hand” only as a physical concept.
Hence, in the stance of Tafwidh al-Kayf, saying “Hand without Kayf” denies knowledge of Kayfiyyah.
- Hand and Descent with modality: literal meaning.
- Hand and Descent without modality: meaning unknown.
- Hand as power or generosity: figurative or interpretive meaning.
Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam al-Ash‘ari both affirmed:
“We believe that these are divine attributes proven by the Qur’an and not open to interpretation — meaning their true meaning is known only to Allah.”
This is the stance of Nafy al-Kayf (denying modality).
In contrast, Ibn Taymiyyah and some early Hanbalis interpreted “without Kayf” as “without knowledge of Kayf.”
Even the statement of Imam Malik — “Istiwa’ is known” — means it is affirmed, not that its literal meaning is known. Thus, his stance aligns with Tafwidh al-Ma‘na.
The Contradiction in “Known Meaning, Unknown Modality”
The statement “the meaning is known, the modality is unknown” is self-contradictory. It implies that Kayfiyyah exists, but our knowledge of it does not — meaning that Allah possesses physical properties, but we simply do not know them.
This reasoning is flawed. If the modality exists, it implies physicality; if it does not exist, the literal meaning cannot be known.
Therefore, the statement “meaning known, modality unknown” either leads to anthropomorphism (Tajsim and Tashbih) — likening Allah to creation — or it is meaningless.
If someone says that Allah has a hand, but not like ours, this is similar to the belief of the Karramiyyah sect, who said: “Allah has a body, but not like our body.”
If “hand” is used in both parts of the statement with the same meaning, it implies Allah has a physical limb — which is absurd. If it is used with different meanings, then one meaning is figurative — which means the statement moves toward Ta’wil (interpretation).
A Clarifying Example
Since theological discussions can be difficult for most people, let us simplify.
When we describe things like a cow, a tree, or a car — each has physical properties. A cow has horns, flesh, color, and weight; a tree has bark and leaves; a car has tires and metal.
They all share some universal qualities — such as color, dimension, form, and spatial orientation — all of which exist in time and space. These are called A‘rad (modalities).
In the terminology of theologians, “body” (jism) does not mean flesh or shape but refers to anything existing in space and time with measurable attributes such as extension, direction, and quantity. This concept of attributing such properties to Allah is called Tajsim (anthropomorphism).
The being of Allah (Dhat) transcends all these modalities. It cannot be grasped through sense or reason. A human being can only recognize physical attributes (A‘rad or modalities) of created things but cannot comprehend the Divine Being, which is beyond all such attributes.
