Muqātil ibn Sulaymān al-Balkhī

Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (d. 767 C.E.) was an 8th-century Muslim scholar of the Quran, controversial for his anthropomorphism.

Muqatil is the author of a tafsir (commentary) on the Quran that John Wansbrough considers the oldest surviving complete tafsir and discusses in some detail.

Muqatil believed that God is a physical being with body parts, whether small or large, such as hands, feet and both eyes.

Biography Muqatil were born in Balkh, there are no works that date his birth, but some have estimated his birth year to be around 80 H. His father named Sulayman, although several chroniclers has confused that his father was named Hayyan.

He spent his early life in both Balkh and Marw. In Balkh, he was impacted by the religious diversity it had in the pre-Islamic era. He later migrated to Marw to get married. During the caliphate of Marwan II, Muqatil was involved in the civil war between the Abbasids and Umayyads. With the end of Umayyad rule he migrated to Iraq, settling in Basra and then moving to Baghdad. Due to possible Zaydi influence, he preferred the Abbasids to the previous Umayyad government, and some sources indicate that he would frequent the Abbasid court. Once, when visiting the Caliph al-Mansur, a fly sat on his face. Muqatil remarked that God had created the fly to humble the tyrants.

Assessment

The tafsir (interpretation) of Muqatil was highly regarded by various classical Islamic teaching scholars.,

Interpretation of Divine Attributes Muqatil was known for theological opposition against the contemporary Mu'tazilism, as his ideas related to physical aspects and likening God to human image and activity. Muqatil Ibn Sulayman also strongly associated "commanding right" with furthering the monotheism that he taught, but also with a pacifist approach.

Muqatil was accused for being interpreting the divine attributes in a literal, sometimes anthropomorphic sense, affirming Wajh Allah (the divine countenance), as a literal face, Ayn Allah (the divine eye) as a literal eye, Yad Allah (the divine hand) as a literal hand. He stated that God sat on the throne – describing Istiwa as Istaqarra (settlement), although he states that he did this before creating the creation. Closer inspection of his Tafsir yields that he inclined towards anthropomorphist interpretation of the Kursi (throne) and the right side of God (as well as the seeing of God which is seen as anthropomorphic by the Mu'tazila who thought God can only be seen if he is a Jism (body)). Furthermore, Al-Ash'ari reports that Muqatil and Dawud al-Jawabiri, said that God is a body and possesses an image like a human being with flesh, blood, hair, bones and limbs such as hand, leg, head, and eyes, though he states that they said that with all of these he is completely unlike the creation, and that the creation does not resemble him.

Debate with Jahm bin Safwan There was an intense theological and political debate that took place in the mosque of Marw between Muqatil and Jahm bin Safwan (d. 128 H/ 746 CE), regarding the divine attributes and a dispute between two political figures that Muqatil and Jahm were affiliated with. Each of them ended up writing a book refuting the other, and Muqatil used his political links to get Jahm expelled from Balkh, having him sent to Termez. In 128 H, in a subsequent battle with Muqatil's sponsor, Jahm was killed.

Reception The reputation of Muqatil among medieval scholars of Islam was generally negative, as several notable scholars of Islamic teaching denouncing him, such as:

Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) criticised his theology, Abdullah Ibn Mubarak (d. 181 H/ 797 CE) criticised his methodology (particularly that he did not quote Hadith with chains of transmission), and the accusation of being a liar is attributed to Wakee ibn al-Jarrah (d. 197/ 812 CE). Furthermore, Abu Hanifah once warned Abu Yusuf (d. 182/798) against two schools of thought he viewed as misguided in Greater Khorasan; the Jahmiyyah and the Muqatiliyyah. Al-Shafi'i (d. 204 AH) said: "May Allah destroy him." Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani comments: "Al-Shafi'i made this remark only because Muqatil had become notorious for advocating the doctrine of corporealism (tajsim)." Al-Tabari (d. 310 H), even quoted his view on the mysterious letters in the Qur'an as numerical counts, but was reluctant to name Muqatil as his source, stating he was among those whose views were not to be trusted. This could suggest that Muqatil's reputation had become so tainted, that few were willing to be associated with him by al-Tabari's time. Ibn Hazm also accused him for his alleged anthrophomorphism view. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in particular also similarly denounced both the thoughts of Jahm and Muqatil. Although Ibn Hajr praised Muqatil for his expertise in Tafsir (Quran interpretation).

However, some latter scholars held a different assessment of Muqatil:

Ibn Taymiyyah, however, rejects the theological criticisms of Muqatil, arguing that those who criticised him, took their material from his enemies, specifically Al-Ash'ari was to blame for taking biographical information from the works of the Mu'tazilites. He also rejected the accusation of anthropomorphism (Tashbih) for Muqatil, saying he could not find any traces of anything he would consider anthropomorphic in Muqatil's works, and therefore he could not be an anthropomorphist. He quotes al-Shafi'i saying, "Whoever desires tafsir, he is dependent on Muqatil. Whosoever wants fiqh (jurisprudence), he is dependent on Abu Hanifa." Ibn Taymiyyah uses his citation to argue that Muqatil should be considered as expert of Quranic interpretation, despite, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, people disagreeing with some of his other views.

Hadith On the field of Hadith tradition, Muqatil was also rejected in Hadith, being accused of reporting hadith from those he never met, and in one instance, reportedly asking a local ruler if he wanted him to forge a Hadith. Hadith scholars who denounced Muqatil consisted of:

Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Abi Hatim has said that Hadith found in the works Muqatil are fabricated, while the transmission chains of his Hadith traditions, according to Ahmad, are nonexistent at all. Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) rejected him saying he has nothing at all (transmittable). Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H), author of the Sahih, summarised the opinions of the early generations on Muqatil thus, "He relied on Jewish and Christian sources in his interpretation of the Qurʾān; he was also an anthropomorphist assimilating God to His creatures; and in addition he used to forge ḥadīths" Ibn Sa'd (d. 230) reported that Muqatil was viewed negative by scholastic community of Hadith." Ibn Sa'd criticized that Muqatil did not use the isnaads (chains of narration) properly.

Appendix