Where do anthropomorphic ideas of God in Islam come from?

Obviously, that's how the mind uh operates. But yeah, so I I find uh the Hanbali almost a paradox within within Kalam, the whole and their description of God in this day and age, the 21st century, um I'm not surprised people don't struggle with it.

Yeah, I think I think it this idea of struggling with very human anthropomorphic ideas of God, I don't even think it's it's it's a exclusively Hanbali or Muslim problem. I think uh Christians all over especially in the West, um I I I recall some survey that was done among Americans asking people to describe God and and God turned out to be a a white person, you know.

Yeah. Uh so I think this this anthropo the the problem of I mean, I would actually feel that a huge part of the anthropomorphized textual uh face of of of this debate. I don't mean just the ideas, the human, but the textual side to it has perhaps been inherited from the Judeo-Christian side. Like, you know, the the famous uh Genesis verse that God created man in his own image.

This is then presented as a Hadith, even though Imam Malik rejected it, but people say in Allah, you know, khalaqa Adam ala suratihi or in al-Rahman khalaqa Adam ala suratihi. So Yeah. Mhm. No, it it's true and and that that that idea of created in the image of God, I mean, although the the exact formulation is is not there, um I think humans we we cannot help but like cast everything in our own image.

And I think this is where like the Sufi, the Avicennan, and the Isma'ili contributions to this issue of God are are quite noteworthy because these groups in their own way um totally avoided this problem. Right? Where you have like Islamic negative theology, which is very anti-anthropomorphic. Uh none of these groups um actually believe God has distinct attributes.

They also go beyond the Mu'tazilis. They'll say that actually, no, the divine names, they don't really describe God at all. They're best They're best analogical. Mhm. You know, they're analogical at best. Um At at at at worst, they even don't they don't describe God at all. They actually describe God's God's creation. Yeah. Um so for the Sufis approximation. Yeah. Yeah, cuz like what you you never have the Ash'aris say that God's names are analogical or metaphorical.

That's not there. But you do have Avicenna-type philosophers, Sufis, and Isma'ilis, they will say that the names are metaphorical or analogical. The the Sufis and the Isma'ilis would say, for example, that every divine name refers not to God's debate. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Well, I was just going to say that that the the Isma'ilis and the Sufis, they would say that um the given divine name like Rahman or Rahim or Alim, they don't refer to they don't actually describe God's essence.

At best, they describe a relationship between God and creatures. That that actually makes a huge amount of sense. Well, you have multiple relationships and none of this imposes multiplicity on God. God remains God, but creatures relate to God in different ways. So a certain creature seems to partake in certain attributes more than others. And whatever power is a creature has, ultimately those powers come from God.

So in God, there's no multiplicity. There's only this self-existent infinite necessary being, but in creatures, that one power of God, the one being of God in creatures, that manifests as multiple powers. Yeah. And this is really our journey up to God like intellectually. It's not God's journey down to us. So we are Yeah, I I just about the debate, I was going to say I think there was some debate, although I feel it may have been historically killed off.

Uh in the discussion where they say Hal asma Allah tawqifiyyah, are the names of God divine? Or can we just call him anything? So they have this debate where they say, can we say anything that's nice like God is goodness, for example? Can we say that? Uh because God hasn't called himself Khair al-Khair, for example. He's called himself Khair al-Raziqin and Khair al- this, but he hasn't just said.

Or can we just call God Jawad, for example, because the most generous, but Jawad isn't a name given in in the texts about Allah. So this debate, I feel kind of touched up on that um are the names inherently divine or are they just means? I was I was going to say, Professor, I'd like to quite a few people had put up some questions.