This short paper intends to touch briefly upon the position of the Aḥl al-Sunnah—the Asharites and Maturidites—with regards to the Beatific Vision (R’uyat Allāh) in the afterlife. This became a point of contention within the early part of Islam, with many groups rejected such a possibility such as the Zaydites, Kharijites, Najjarites, Rafidites, et cetera. At the forefront of those who rejected the Beatific Vision were the hard rationalist theologians, the Mutazilites.1
The Mutazilites posited that it was rationally inconceivable (mustahīl ‘aqlan) that one actually has a vision of God. Since, they argued, such a notion would necessarily entail anthropomorphic assumptions. They would argue that a real vision of God would require God to be in a direction from the onlooker (jiḥat) and be before the onlooker (muqābilah).2
Both of these—jiḥat and muqābilah—would entail then that God was in space. This becomes problematic since a thing which occupies space is limited to its space and qualifies it. Such a thing is called a body (jism) which would be compounded of atoms (jawāhir). Bodies require accidents—the least of which are four: motion, non-motion, combined and uncombined—that in turn require their bodies.3
Such fleetingness and discontinuity forced many theologians to accept the contingent nature of such bodies—and since they make up the world, the world too must be contingent. Therefore, to say that God is occupying space would entail that He is a body of some kind, this subsequently would entail that He was contingent and not a necessarily existent being, which would breakdown the entire theology of Islam. Thus, for the Mutazilites, God cannot be seen.
Furthermore, they would argue in particular with the Aḥl al-Sunnah that you accept that God does not have an actual hand (Yad), nor face (Wajḥ), nor shin (Sāq), nor does He sit on the Throne (‘Arsh) because it would entail anthropomorphic assumptions such as those aforementioned. Regarding those verses that you reject their outward meanings (ẓaḥāwir) and either interpret their meanings (t’awīl al-m’anā) or assign the interpretation to God (tafwīḍ al-m’anā). Why do you no do that here?
They built up an argument which was not brushed away arrogantly. Rather, it was well heard and responses were given appropriately. Before we enter into the response from the Aḥl al-Sunnah, it was important to see their argument; since the responses are formulated in reaction to arguments. It is difficult to understand a reaction without fully grasping the objection.
The response of the Aḥl al-Sunnah was that it is indeed true that we do reject the outward meaning of those texts which speak of God’s Yad, Wajḥ, Sāq, et cetera. The reason for this was because God actually having any of those would be rationally inconceivable (mustahīl ‘aqlan). This is because the only outward meaning for those attributes of God would entail anthropomorphic assumptions. The word Yad for example only has one apparent meaning which is the limb known as the hand.
You can deny that it shares the same modality (kayfīya) as that of a man but it still remains bearing the same haqīqat as the hand of man. The haqīqat of a man’s hand is a limb, so what then for God? This is a theological conundrum for the Hashawīya that fell into this philosophical pit of inescapable confusion.
If one posits then that God has a hand which shares the same reality as that of a man then this necessarily entails there being a body (jismīyah) for God. If God was a body He would be contingent, and if He were contingent then what preceded and caused Him, and this would lead to an infinite regress, and therefore considered by the Aḥl al-Sunnah to be rationally inconceivable (mustahīl ‘aqlan).
That being said, the Beatific Vision is not like this. The reason for the confusion on the part of the Mutazilites was the word al-R’uyah. They thought that the word al-R’uyah meant idrāk (perception). The word idrāk means to perceive something with encompassment (ihāṭah). To encompass something requires it to be restricted and in place. If this was to be the meaning then the Aḥl al-Sunnah would have agreed with the Mutazilites. However, this is not what is meant by the word al-R’uyah.
Al-R’uyah is a type of knowledge that is not dependent upon eyes nor does it encompass a thing. Rather, it is a vision of beholding. A report from the Prophet, has him saying to his companions, to perform their bowing and prostrating properly since “I see you from behind as I do from in front.” Here seeing is not through the eyes, rather it is a vision. The exact how of such a vision is unknown to man. But the belief is that it will actually happen.
In order to establish this as a doctrine, there was a process that the Aḥl al-Sunnah underwent. Firstly, is it conceivable in the mind or inconceivable? If it is the latter then any revelation on the matter will need to be interpreted; if it is conceivable then revelation will be taken in its apparent meaning. It is the argument of the Aḥl al-Sunnah that the Beatific Vision is conceivable within the mind (jā’iz ‘aqlan). And, because there is revelation which affirms it then we must take it in its apparent meaning—thus the Beatific Vision will take place, and we have a firm belief in that.
As for the question: is it conceivable in the mind that there can be a vision of God. The answer to this—the Aḥl al-Sunnah would say—is yes. Provided you understand the word vision as a type of knowledge and beholding and not an encompassing perception. It is conceivable in the mind for one simple reason and that is that God Exists. Anything which exists (mawjūd) can be seen; whether it will be seen or not is an entirely different discussion since that will depend on external factors.
Let us make this clearer by way of a few examples. If a man was to be within an utterly dark room, can he be seen? The answer would be, technically, yes because he is there, only he is not seen due to the absence of light. Here it is important to understand two terms: ‘ilah (cause/reason) and sabab (means). The reason why the man can be seen is that he exists, albeit you do not have the means to see him, which was the absence of light.
Even a body divorced of any accidents can technically be seen because it exists—and that is the reason for why it could potentially be seen—yet it will not be seen since the sabab (means) by which it is seen is that it has accidents that inhere within it. In legal theory, the reason why the prayer is obligatory is because of revelation but the means by which it is actualised is time. The obligation is eternal albeit not actualised due to an external factor. Similarly, technically a vision of God is potential since He has Wujūd and is an Existent Being Mawjūd. He is not seen because He has not created such means for us in this world.
If the Beatific Vision is potential and conceivable, the next question is will it actually take place? The answer to this from the Aḥl al-Sunnah is yes. The reason for this is because God spoke of the Beatific Vision in the Quran. The Quran says: “…at their Lord beholding.” This is an explicit verse in which the believer will behold their Lord (nāẓirah). The word nāẓirah comes from naẓr which is synonymous to the word r’uyah except that there is a nuance between them. This is that naẓr is to ‘behold with intention’ whilst r’uyah can be beholding with or without intention.
Due to this explicit verse and the fact that it is rationally conceivable that God can be seen, it left no need for the Aḥl al-Sunnah to reject the vision or to reinterpret the meaning of the verse from its apparent meaning to a metaphoric meaning. This, however, was not without retaliation from the Mutazilites who attempted to reframe the meaning of this verse to something else. They said that the word nāẓirah does not come from naẓr rather from the word intiẓār (to await). It was a futile attempt since most Quranic exegetes rejected their argument including many Mutazilite scholars such as al-Zamkhsharī.
The reason that their argument was weak was that when naẓr or its derivative comes with the particle ilā (towards) then it comes in the meaning of beholding, but when without ilā i.e. as a transitive act effecting an object then it comes in the meaning of awaiting; the verse says, “…towards their Lord beholding.” Thus, the Quran is explicit that the believers will behold God in the afterlife. Since the intellect does not reject it rather conceives of its potentiality. Subsequently, we take the verse in its apparent meaning and affirm that the believers will indeed behold God.
The Mutazilites did not stop there, they highlighted another verse of the Quran in which God records His conversation with Moses. Moses asks God, “Show me [thy Self], so that I behold you” God replies, “You shall never see me…” In this verse, God says, ‘lan tarānī’ you shall never see me. In Arabic, this ‘lan’ comes to negate the future with emphasis. For this reason, the Mutazilites posited that this lan is for ever-eternal (t’abīd). The Aḥl al-Sunnah, however, rejected this positing that ‘lan’ is for tawqīth which is only for an epoch be it long or short. Such as if one was to say whilst fasting, “I will never break my fast!” It can mean the fast of that day, not necessarily every fast of his life.
To prove this meaning of ‘lan’ the Aḥl al-Sunnah provided some other verses from the Quran. The Quran says to some of the Jews who would claim that they are God’s chosen people and His children, “… then ask for death if you are truthful. They will never ask for it ever!” Here God used the ‘lan’ to highlight that they shall never ask for death. Yet, in another verse, God says, “And they will call, ‘O Malik, let your Lord put an end to us!’ He will say, ‘Indeed, you will remain.’” In one verse God says that they shall never ask for it whilst in the other verse He says they will definitely ask for it. What this means is that they will not ask for it in this world but they will certainly ask for it in the afterlife.
In the same way, God is saying to Moses, you shall not behold me in this world because I have not facilitated the means for you to do so yet in the afterlife you will behold since I am informing you of this reality. Furthermore, this verse is actually a proof for and not against since surely Moses would never have asked something which was inconceivable for him to potentially receive. If you say he knew it was inconceivable yet still asked then you accuse him of futile speech—may God guide you!—and if you say he was unaware then you accuse him of ignorance—may God help you!—whilst the truth is he was not ignorant nor futile in speech. Rather, he asked God for what his heart knew is possible and desired more than anything else.
May peace and blessings forever shower upon the Beloved, our Master Muhammad, his pure family and companions. Amīn.
Shams Tameez
Abu-l Thana al-Nasafi, Kitab al-Tamhid li qawa’id al-tawhid, (Beirut, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1995), 82
Abdul Jabbar, sharh usūl al-khamsah, (Cairo: Maktabah Waḥbah, 1996), p 232; Abu-l Thana al-Nasafi, Kitab al-Tamhid li qawa’id al-tawhid, (Beirut, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1995), p 85
Abū Mo’īn al-Nasafī, Bahr al-Kalām, (Amman: Dār al-Fath, 2014), p 115
Comments