The previous were a set of Ibn Teimiya's texts respecting hypothesizing his school. Later on, more shall be proceeded. The following points are acceptably sufficient for proving Ibn Teimiya's believing in corporalism:
First: Ibn Teimiya refuses commending interpretation of the divine attributes to Allah, the Exalted, since "these are the worst among sayings of the heretic and atheists." This testifies that he carries in mind the ill idea that abstinence from interpreting 'face of Allah' and 'hand of Allah' is reckoned with flat atheism!
Second: Ibn Teimiya decides the obligation of concluding the manifest linguistic aspects of Quranic texts respecting the divine attributes. This means that he opts for material meanings of such texts. He also stands against culling metaphoric meanings since, as he believes, there is no existence for metaphor in Quran and hadiths.
Third: Pursuant to Ibn Teimiya's trend, Allah, the Exalted, is existent at the top of this world. Except air, nothing is above Him. Below Him is this world. "See that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had used 'after' instead of 'under'." The Lord is existent on His Throne. He may descend to this world. He sees with the eye since "seeableness is exclusively depending upon existential affairs. The Anterior Necessary Aseity is more deserving than
possible beings in affairs depending upon existential affairs exclusively." The evidence he cited on Allah's being selfsufficient against the world, was so derisive that even ordinary people would disgust. He stated that every exalted thing dispenses with what is under it. Accordingly, leaves of a tree dispense with trunks, and upper story dispense with the lower!
Fourth: For Ibn Teimiya, Allah's descending to the lower heavens is intrinsic. He asserted, "The Lord's descending as a deed of selfmastery, was the opinion adopted by the hadithists.." In addition to Ibn Batuta's testimony, it is proved that Allah's descending is a physical descending of a material being. Hence, Ibn Teimiya's words of evading this idea were futile.
Fifth: Ibn Teimiya aimed at defending his belief by denying its comprising anthropomorphism. He stated that the Lord has a physical face and hand, but not like these of humans or other creatures. For him, this statement is enough to exclude circle of anthropomorphism. Cautiously, he omitted anthropomorphism by inventing another matter. He stated that texts should be regarded according to their material aspects "fitting His Glory", not the unbecoming.
Sixth: Proceeding in a daring step towards proving anthropomorphism, Ibn Teimiya stated, "Even if some people impute anthropomorphism to this signification, this does not mean it is denied by intellects and audible perceptions. The obligation is not more than denying what is denied only by legal and intellectual evidences." By these words, Ibn Teimiya tries to say that Quranic and prophetic texts negate Allah's having peers, associates, likes and equivalents. They do not negate His being anthropomorphized. At exposing God's saying, (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), majority of Muslims; Shias, Sunnis, philosophers and Mutazilites, negate Allah's having a resemblant. Hence, nothing may stop in the face of negating Allah's having an alike, since this matter is negated by texts, and Allah's anthropomorphizing His creatures!! As long as He does not deny His being anthropomorphizing His creatures, what is the wrong, then, if we adopt so?! Ibn Teimiya, therewith, declares that God's saying, (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), implies negation of His like, not resemblant. Allah does have a resemblant; Adam, and another resemblant; Ibn Teimiya!!
Seventh: Supposing the following argument is provided before Ibn Teimiya. "You definitely refer to anthropomorphism by your denying interpretation and commendation, and insist on interpretation according to aspects of texts." He shall certainly answer, "Majority of Sunnis and ancestors' followers rule of fallibility of interpretation deciding denial of the Lord's settling and coming. Most of them, however, refute void interpretation and reckon such texts with 'Items interpretation of which should be concealed.'
Ibn Teimiya, consequently, decides that it is not inadmissible to liken Allah, the Exalted, to His creatures. He also emphasizes that interpretation of anthropomorphism should be concealed. He exhibits that his god is existent in a certain point up the heavens we could see. That god is a physical being occupying the Throne. Nothing except air is above him while he is restricted from beneath. That god can move and descend to the earth. Ibn Teimiya, however, is unlike Ibn Khuzeima, his master, who claims that god's ability of ascending. Exalted and glorified be Allah against such funny statements! Later on, the other sides of Ibn Teimiya's beliefs will be debated
