htp://www.hts.org.za Open Access HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422 Page 1 of 7 Original Research Read online: Scan this QR code with your smart phone or mobile device to read online. Authors: Nurhanisah Senin 1 Khadijah Mohd Khambali Hambali 2 Wan Adli Wan Ramli 2 Mustafa Kamal Amat Misra 1 Nazneen Ismail 1 Afliatons: 1 Department of Da’wah and Usuluddin, Faculty of Islamic and Civilizaton Studies, Selangor Internatonal Islamic University College, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia 2 Department of Aqidah and Islamic Thought, Academy of Islamic Studies, Universit Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Corresponding author: Khadijah Mohd Khambali Hambali, ijamh@um.edu.my Dates: Received: 01 Nov. 2022 Accepted: 02 Mar. 2023 Published: 22 May 2023 How to cite this artcle: Senin, N., Hambali, K.M., Ramli, W.A.W., Misra, M.K.A., & Ismail, N.,2023, ‘Anthropomorphism according to Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) and Maimonides (d. 1204): A comparatve discourse’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 79(1), a8264. htps://doi. org/10.4102/hts.v79i1.8264 Copyright: © 2023. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the Creatve Commons Atributon License. Introducton The ancient Hebrew biblical concept of God evidently illustrates God in a primitive nature. There are surely transcendent and incorporeal verses, but the anthropomorphic verses certainly outweigh the transcendental forms (Reese 1980). Even the latter classical prophets, namely Second Isaiah and Amos, being committed to the pure and ethical monotheism, do not perceive anthropomorphism as a problem or in contra to a universal monotheistic concept (Shah 1997). God is mentioned as having eyes, ears, mouth, nostrils, hands, face and feet. Among other anthropomorphic view of God for instance, God possesses curly hair, God cries upon the account of storm attacks towards Noah, God laughs, God’s jealousy and others. Apparently, the early Israelite traditions attribute a visible human form to God which leads to the understanding of anthropomorphic God. While on the other hand, Qur’anic anthropomorphism demonstrates the limited capability of human in perceiving the Qur’an as a whole. Qura’nic anthropomorphism is almost similar to the Jewish Bible in depicting God as having face, hand and eye. Other organs such as feet, knee and fingers are also mentioned in Prophetic tradition. His actions that are similar to human are also mentioned in Qur’an such as descend, ascend and angry. Apart from that, actions and emotions such as laughter and happiness are also mentioned in the Prophetic tradition. Evidently, both the Qur’an and the Hebrew Bible contain anthropomorphic verses that attribute human-like features to God. The discourse of God’s monotheism has been the central issue in monotheistic belief (Wyschogrod 1982). Anthropomorphisms can be problematic if we regard them as adequate for depicting God in restricted human features and concepts, which may unwittingly assist to weaken in our thoughts his incomparable and incomprehensible nature. Muslim theologians developed a clear and simple picture of God based on the Quran’s assertions that ‘God is one’ (112:1–4) and ‘nothing is like Him’ (42:11). They all concur that God is incorporeal and resides outside of space, time and physical boundaries (Noor & Usman 2021). Similarly, in Judaism, being the only creator of all in existence, God is thought to be singular and free from all flaws, inadequacies and defects. He is also regarded to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and completely infinite in all of his traits (Lebens 2022). 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. Keywords: anthropomorphism; al-Ghazali; Maimonides; incorporeality; comparative analysis. Anthropomorphism according to Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) and Maimonides (d. 1204): A comparatve discourse Read online: Scan this QR code with your smart phone or mobile device to read online.