Shaykh al-Islām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī in his great exegesis of the Qur’ān Mafāṭīḥ al-Ghayb refutes the anthropomorphists in their use of this verse (Q|38:75) to wrongly insist that Allāh (Exalted be He) has hands, which he used as tools to create Adam. Here the Imām advocates for the use of Ta’wīl (interpretive theology) in cases where there is compelling evidence to justify doing so. I will translate his exegesis for this verse below.

قَالَ يَـٰٓإِبْلِيسُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَىَّ ۖ أَسْتَكْبَرْتَ أَمْ كُنتَ مِنَ ٱلْعَالِينَ (۷٥)

“He said: O Iblis! What hindereth thee from falling prostrate before that which I have created with both My hands? Art thou too proud or art thou of the high exalted?” (75)

---

Tafsīr of Imām al-Rāzī (may Allāh be pleased with him):

Note: Sometimes I use the translation of Pickthall and other times Dr. Ghali

“Those who affirm that Allāh, Exalted be He, has limbs and organs (ie. parts) will use His saying: “What hindereth thee from falling prostrate before that which I have created with both My hands?” as evidence for [their belief that] Allāh has two hands. They claim that the literal meaning of the verse indicates this, hence it must be accepted, [and since] many other verses are in accordance with this one [in their literal meanings] it is obligatory to accept them [prima facie]…

The First Proof: Those who claim that [Allāh] is composed of limbs and parts must either affirm only the limbs mentioned in [scripture] and not include additional parts, or else infer additional parts without their mention in [scripture].

The [methodology of] the former necessitates affirming a form [for Allāh] that would be the epitome of ugliness, as it would require affirming a face such that nothing exists of it save for its countenance, due to [Allāh’s] saying: ‘…Everything will perish save His countenance…’. It would also require affirming that multiple eyes [exist upon] this countenance due to [Allāh’s] saying: ‘ It (Noah’s Ark) runs under Our eyes…’, affirming only one [anatomical] side due to [Allāh’s] saying: ‘…Woe to me for what I neglected in the side of Allāh…’, and affirming multiple hands on that [one] side due to [Allāh’s] saying: “…of what Our Hands did…”. If it is assumed that He has two hands, then both must be on [His] one [right] side due to the Prophet’s saying (ﷺ), ‘The Black Stone is the right hand of Allāh on the Earth.’.¹ And affirming only one leg (alternatively shin, shank) due to [Allāh’s] saying: ‘On the Day when the shank will be bared…’. Thus, the resulting form would be [one with] merely the surface of a face with multiple eyes (of an undefined number) upon it, one side with multiple (presumably two) hands appended to it, and a single leg. It is evident that this form is the ugliest of forms, and if this [form were to belong to] a slave, no one would desire to purchase him. So how could a man of sound mind say (necessarily) that the Lord of Worlds should be described [in this manner]?

As for [the methodology of the latter], [ie. those who say the parts of Allāh] are not limited [only] to those mentioned in [scripture], [and believe it possible to] add and and subtract [from these parts] according to interpretation: In their case, their doctrine of [interpreting from] the literal meaning is invalidated, and they must accept the evidences of reason.

The Second Proof:² in order to invalidate their claim that Allāh, Exalted be He, has parts: If they l male parts for Him, then He [would be] a male, and if they affirm female parts, then He [would be] a female. If they deny both [of these outcomes] then He [would be] neither male nor female, and exalted is Allāh above what the wrongdoers say.³

The Third Proof:[If Allāh were to have a form, then he would have to exist with one of two physical properties]: Either He [has] a solid body that does not admit penetration, in which case he [would be as solid as] a rock, or [alternatively] He [would have] a body that does admit penetration, in which case He would be malleable and susceptible to separation and tearing. And exalted is Allāh above that.

The Fourth Proof: If [Allāh] cannot move from His place,⁴ then his nature is as that of time.⁵ And if He can move from His place, He becomes subject to change⁶, and thus he [is attributed what Abraham has denied for his Lord in his saying]: “…I love not things that set.”⁷

The Fifth Proof: If [Allāh, considering that he is contained within and/or relative to his creation and is thus a body], does not eat, drink, sleep or move, he is like the dead [who likewise do none of these]. And if He does these things, He [would be the likeness of] a person with many needs, who is required to eat, drink and sleep [like His creation], and that is invalid.

The Sixth Proof: [The anthropomorphists] claim that [Allāh] descends from his ‘Arsh (Throne) to the lowest heaven every night⁸ [in reality]. [When they claim as such], ask them regarding His descent: Does He remain managing the ‘Arsh as well as the lower heaven, as He did when He was on the ‘Arsh [before his descent]? If so, there is no benefit [for Him] in [such a] descent. And if He does not remain managing the ‘Arsh, then upon His descent, He [would] be deposed from his Divinity.

The Ninth Proof:⁹ Since the Earth is a sphere, and the heavens are spheres,¹⁰ [for] every hour [of the day] it [will inevitably] be the last third of the night for certain people who inhabit the moving sphere.¹¹ Therefore, if [Allāh] descends from His ‘Arsh during the last third of the night, it would be necessary for him to be [permanently descended] from the ‘Arsh and never return to [it].¹²

The Seventh Proof: They say that [Allāh], Exalted be He, is larger than the ‘Arsh, and that [the Kursī¹³ is not even near to the size of the ‘Arsh] and so on [in this order] until it reaches the lowest heaven. So if this were the case, the lowest heaven would be that such as a particle to the sea in relation to the size of Allāh. If [Allāh] were to descend, either He must [shrink to] become small enough to fit into the lower heaven or the lower heaven must [grow to] become larger than the ‘Arsh, and all of this is invalid.

The Eighth Proof: Since it is established that the Earth is a sphere, if [Allāh] is above relative to some people, He is thus also below relative to others, and that is invalid. And if above is relative to everyone, then he becomes a body, encompassing [the entire] world from all sides, and thus [it becomes concomitant] that the deity of this world is [himself] a celestial sphere.¹⁴

The Tenth Proof: We (the Muslims) have refuted the divinity of the sun and moon due to three defects. The first is their composition of parts and pieces (i.e. being divisible), the second is their limited and finite nature, and the third is their attribution with movement and stillness (ie. rising and setting). If the god of the anthropomorphists is composed of limbs and parts then it is composite. If He [is relative to] the ‘Arsh [then] He is limited and finite, and if He descends from the ‘Arsh and returns to it, then He is [necessarily] attributed with motion and stillness. Thus, if these three attributes are incompatible with divinity (as is asserted in the Qur’ān), it [becomes] necessary to absolve God from all of them, which invalidates the doctrine of the anthropomorphists. And if [they claim that these qualities] are not incompatible with divinity, then no one can challenge the divinity of the sun and moon (as Abraham once did – see Footnote #7).

The Eleventh Proof: [Allāh’s] saying: ‘Say He is Allāh, the One.’ [itself is an argument against the anthropomorphists, since] the term ‘One’¹⁵ [here] is an accentuation of [His] unity, and this [absolute monism contradicts with the idea that Allāh is] composed of parts.

The Twelfth Proof: [Allāh’s] saying: ‘And Allāh is the Rich, and ye are the poor.’ [is another proof against the anthropomorphists, for] if He were composed of parts and pieces, He would require them, which prevents Him from being absolutely rich [as were he absolutely rich, he would require nothing].

Thus, with these [points], it is established that the affirmation of limbs and parts [in general] for Allāh is impossible.

And when it is established with certain proofs, the necessity of absolving God from these parts, we [bring forth] what the scholars have said regarding the term ‘hand’ [in scripture, and its] several interpretations.

The first being that the hand is a [metaphor for] the power [of Allāh]. The Arabs [might] say about a matter: ‘I have no hand in this affair,’ meaning no power or capacity [to alter the affair]. [It is undeniably used in this exact way when Allāh says in the Qur’ān]: ‘…or he agreeth to forgo it in whose hand is the marriage tie…”

The second being that the hand is a [metaphor] for blessing. It is said: ‘The hands of so-and-so in the matter of so-and-so are apparent,’ [where ‘hands’] means blessings.¹⁶ And the meaning of the two hands [of Allāh] is [a dichotomy of] apparent and hidden blessings, or [sometimes more specifically], the blessings of religion and of the world [respectively].

[And finally], the third being that the term ‘hand’ may be added for emphasis, as in saying to someone who [has done something that has had a palpable outcome] with [only] his tongue:¹⁷ ‘This is what your hands have earned,’ and in the words of Allah Almighty, ‘[…the winds are] glad tidings between the two hands of His mercy…’.

[However], it is argued that interpreting ‘hand’ as ‘power’ here is not permissible and this is indicated by several aspects.

The first being that the apparent meaning of the verse necessitates affirming [specifically] two hands [meaning that] if ‘hand’ here was an expression of power, it would imply [attributing] two powers [to] Allāh, and this is false.

The second being that the verse implies that Adam being created with the [two] hands [of Allāh entails] Adam’s virtue and [necessitates his] being prostrated to by the Angels. Thus, if the hand were an expression of [Allāh’s] power then Adam was created by [His] power, however [we know that] all things are created by the power of Allāh. So, then just as Adam, upon whom be peace, was created with the hand of Allāh Almighty, so would [have been] Iblis created with the hand of Allāh Almighty. And on the assumption that the hand is an expression of [Allāh’s] power, this cause would not be a reason for the [Angels to] prostrate to [Adam more so than they should to Iblis], and then the content [and meaning] of the verse would be invalidated.

The Third comes from a Ḥadīth [in which the Prophet] (ﷺ) said: ‘…Both his hands are right.’. And it is evident that this description (in context) is not appropriate for power [to be the intended meaning of ‘hand’].

As for the second interpretation: That the hands are two blessings, [its irrelevancy here] is also indicated by several aspects.

The first being that the blessings of Allāh are many, as He says: ‘…and if ye would count the bounty (blessings) of Allāh ye cannot reckon it…’. And the apparent meaning of the verse [in question that makes reference to the hands of Allāh] indicates that his hands do not exceed two.

The third being that if the hand were an expression of Allāh’s blessing, then His saying: ‘Blessed is He (Allāh) in Whose hand is the Sovereignty…’ would [necessarily] mean ‘Blessed is He by whose blessing is the Sovereignty.’ And His saying: ‘…In Thy (Allāh’s) hand is the good…’ would [necessarily] mean: “In Thy blessing is the good.’. And His saying: ‘…both His hands are spread out wide [in bounty]…’, would [necessarily] mean: ‘both His blessings are spread out wide [in bounty].’. And it is known that all of that is false.

The second [is based on our knowledge that blessings are created by Allāh], for if His ‘hand’ were to be an expression of blessing then Adam could not have been created by Allāh, but rather by some of His creations [that could be classified as blessings], and this would be a [defect rather than an accentuation of His perfection].¹⁸

As for the third interpretation, that the word ‘hand’ may be [used] for the sake of emphasis, we [argue in favour of this] and say that the word ‘hand’ may be employed in the case of both those who [physically] possess such a limb as well as those who do not.

Regarding the former, It is similar to [the] saying: ‘This is what your hands have earned’ [in reference to someone who has [committed a sin or otherwise] with his tongue (ie. speech)]. The reason for this is that the locus of power is the hand, hence the word ‘hand’ was used [to mean] power [metaphorically]. According to this assumption, [however], the intended meaning of the word ‘hand’ becomes power, and this interpretation [in regards to Allāh] has been refuted [above].

Regarding the latter, it is like [Allāh’s] saying: ‘…between the hands of a severe torment…’ and His saying [in a Ḥadīth] ‘…between the hands of the hour…’. And this is to be taken metaphorically without doubt, which proves that [particular metaphorical interpretations] should not and] cannot be applied universally. Thus, it is not permissible to say that [this quality of metaphors] only applies in the context of ‘the hands of torment’ or ‘the hands of The Hour’. We accept that [Allāh’s] saying ‘…Do not put yourselves between the hands of Allāh and his messenger…’ may be used for the sake of emphasis, however [the metaphor used] in this specific verse [cannot be exactly analogically applied to Allāh’s saying]: ‘…that which I have created with both My hands…’. And since using analogical reasoning in [the application of] metaphors is invalid, your entire argument [against metaphorical interpretation] falls apart. That concludes the discussion on this topic.

What I have deduced from this matter is [the following]: A great ruler cannot perform any task with his own hands lest he dedicates his utmost attention and care to that task. Thus if intense care is inherently linked to work done ‘by hand’, it becomes feasible to interpret this [phrase] metaphorically in the presence of compelling evidence. This is what we have summarized regarding this topic, and Allāh knows best…”

---

1. Additionally Sunan an-Nasa’i 5379 “Both of His hands are right hands.” ↩︎
2. Arguments two, three, and five may not be especially relevant in the modern context as they address the specific views of the extreme anthropomorphists from Imām al-Rāzī’s era, particularly targeting the Karamites, who followed ibn Karrām al-Sijistānī in their ʿaqīdah. These individuals were more explicit in their anthropomorphic descriptions of Allāh than many corporealists are today, who might phrase their beliefs more ambiguously and equivocate by asserting that Allāh has parts “in a manner befitting His majesty.” In contrast, the Karamite doctrine was straightforward, closely mirroring the overt anthropomorphism of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (described by Imām al Ash’arī). Nonetheless, these arguments provide valuable insight into the severe flaws of such beliefs and the types of heretical ideas that can stem from them. Additionally, it should be noted that Imām al-Rāzī was martyred at the age of 60 due to poisoning, most likely an assassination carried out by some of the Karamites. Prior to this incident, Imām al-Rāzī had survived several other attempts on his life, attributed to his adversaries, which notably included the Karamites and the Batinites (Isma’īli Shī’ites), likely the Qarmatians among others. ↩︎
3. Imām al-Rāzī posits that if body parts, like hands and legs, vary based on a person’s sex, then, following the Karamite doctrine, it would imply that Allāh’s parts must also correspond to a specific sex. Otherwise, it would be concomitant that Allāh would possess body parts of neither sex, which is inherently nonsensical. However, it is essential to mention that all these notions are abhorrent and should be seen as defects; attributes which Allāh cannot have. ↩︎
4. Anyone following this methodology necessarily believes that Allāh is localized. ↩︎
5. In that He would be immutable but ultimately lack free will. ↩︎
6. In that He can now be attributed with free will, however as a result he would become mutable, and thus noneternal. ↩︎
7. In saying this, Abraham is claiming that the stars cannot be worthy of worship or divine in nature because they set (ie. change, specifically in location). For if Allāh had attributed Himself with a location and then His location were to change, His attribute of location would have changed, positing that this attribute is not eternal and thus Allah Himself would necessarily be noneternal, which is invalid since one of his names is al-Bāqī, and because of His saying: “Allah, the everlasting sovereign” ↩︎
8. Here Imām al-Rāzī is referring to a Ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that is used by anthropomorphists to affirm the literal, physical descent of Allāh, which occurs, according to them, in the last third of every night. There is another Ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that says Allāh descends after the first third of the night has passed instead. These are to be interpreted as incentives to pray Tahajjud and make Du’a during these times. ↩︎
9. I decided to move the ninth proof here as it continues the point being made in the sixth argument. ↩︎
10. This is according to the Neoplatonic/Ptolemaic cosmology. ↩︎
11. The Earth. ↩︎
12. This is observed through Time-zones. ↩︎
13. Lit. ‘chair’ but interpreted as ‘footstool’. ↩︎
14. This indicates that Allāh does not have a literal inherent ‘aboveness’ as some of the anthropomorphists may posit. ↩︎
15. The word being translated as ‘One’ is Aḥad in Arabic which does not directly translate into English. Its meaning is fully explained in Imām al-Rāzī’s Tafsīr of Sūrat al-Iḵlāṣ. ↩︎
16. These are idiomatic phrases that would be better understood by Arabic speakers and do not translate especially well into English. here are some examples of similar English phrases (although some fall short, these are the best I could come up with):
    
    Power: To have the upper hand / to be in the hands of someone Blessing:
    
    The Midas Touch / lend a hand (although the latter can sometimes be taken literally as well)
    
    Emphasis: The task at hand / first hand witness ↩︎
17. Ie. speech, such as a lawyer who has won a case by his verbal aptitude, or alternatively someone who had Insulted someone and was beaten for doing so. ↩︎
18. The intended objective of Ta’wīl is to exalt and magnify the perfection and majesty of Allāh. Therefore, it would naturally be considered unacceptable if its application does not achieve this outcome. ↩︎