The existence of ‘human-like’ attributes and actions in the Qur’an and Hebrew Bible entails to various interpretations towards anthropomorphic verses among the Muslim and Jewish counterparts. Al-Ghazali and Maimonides in their discourses strongly affirmed the unity of God and refuted anthropomorphism. Therefore, this study expounded al-Ghazali and Maimonides’ methods in affirming the incorporeality of God through outlining the similarities and differences in their interpretation. This study was qualitative in nature which analyses writings of al-Ghazali and Maimonides in encountering anthropomorphism. It can be deduced that both scholars were found to be employing allegorical interpretation with different level of interpretations in their attempts to repudiate the corporeal form of God. Alternatively, they both agree on the literalist’s approach with conditions that one must not perceive God’s essence in a bodily figure. Consequently, believing so will lead one to heresy. In sum, their emphasis on an incorporeal God brought them to similar interpretation despite their different religion and theological or philosophical orientation.Contribution: This article contributed to comparative theological study in understanding anthropomorphic verses through the discourse of al-Ghazali and Maimonides in Islam and Judaism, respectively.

Anthropomorphism stands at the heart of many theological discourses and is among the most discussed issues by Muslim scholars. Anthropomorphic descriptions of God are mentioned in several Quranic verses and hadith for instance, God’s hand, God’s laughter, God’s heavenly throne, God’s hand and fingers and others. More often than not, anthropomorphic verses were interpreted in a different manner according to a scholar’s theological affinity. Thus, this paper aims to examine al-Ghazālī’s method in dealing with anthropomorphic verses. Imam al-Ghazālī was among the Asha‘irah scholars who wrote extensively on theological and philosophical issues. By adopting document analysis method, this study explores al-Ghazālī’s methods by analyzing his writings mainly in Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn and Fayṣal al-Tafriqah baina al-Islām wa al-Zindiqah, Iljām al-Awām ‘an Ilm al-Kalām apart from his other treatises such as al-Iqtiṣād fī al-‘Itiqād and Qānūn al-Ta’wīl. It can be found that al-Ghazālī strongly affirms God’s incorporeality by renouncing God’s essence from any bodily figures, space, accidents and directions. Apart from that, al-Ghazālī offered two different approaches in understanding anthropomorphic verses for the learned and laymen. For the learned, al-Ghazālī allowed strict allegorical interpretation with its rules. As for laymen, al-Ghazālī suggested seven steps in understanding antrhopomophic verses in ensuring the sanctity of God’s Essence from any figurative literal interpretation. In sum, this study demonstrates al-Ghazālī’s holistic approach in refuting anthropomorphism that includes the learned and laymen and ensuring one’s creed is preserved from any figurative understanding of God.

This study aims to examine the concept of incorporeality of God according to al-Ghazālī and Maimonides. Due to the existence of ‘human-like’ attributes and actions in the Hebrew Bible, it entails to various interpretations towards anthropomorphic verses within Muslim and Jewish society. During the golden age of Islamic civilization, fellow Jews and Christian were seen to be engaged in theological discourse with Muslim scholars. The emerging trend during that time in inculcating rational interpretations into religion has triggered scholars to be engaged in the inter-theological dialogue. Prior to this critical situation, al-Ghazālī and Maimonides were seen playing vital roles in affirming the incorporeality of God and refuting anthropomorphism in their respective religions. Therefore, this study will highlight their methods in affirming the incorporeality of God. In sum, it can be observed that al-Ghazālī employed kalām’s method of arguments on jawhar fard while Maimonides’ methods reciprocate Aristotle’s argument on the theory of motion. Through their propositions, both scholars denounced God to be associated to any form of substance, accident and body. Both argued that God is an incorporeal being that does not possess any forms or figures. However, Maimonides arguing through the theory of motion led to the concept of God as the First Mover. Meanwhile al-Ghazālī opposed against the former concept and argued that God particularized (mukhaşşiş) of every creations. In sum, it is apparent that the argument of incorporeality that serves as the fundamental proposition is essential in having the right understanding on the concept of God. Despite having the similarities in arguing on the incorporeality of God, both al- Ghazālī and Maimonides differ in comprehending the concept of God.

No abstract