The Difference between the Names and Attributes of God

Introduction

Theologians and even philosophers don’t distinguish between the names of God and the attributes of God and rather they treat it as one, and it is only the metaphysicians that have discussed the difference between the names of God and Attributes of God. Thus, the scope of the paper is only from the viewpoint of metaphysics and the two other schools of thought are not addressed. An important note to keep in mind is that the word metaphysics and metaphysicians is used in its true sense, that is the study of Beyond-Being – that is beyond non-manifestation – respectively corresponding to Irfan and the Urafa in the Islamic context. Here, we have avoided using the word mysticism, it is due to the degeneration it has gone through and is exclusively represented in the modern thought by that which is completely anti-Traditional and anti-Metaphysics. In addition, metaphysics is not philosophy, although that in of itself is detail subject which is outside of the scope of our research – nonetheless that which is important is to know is that philosophy is the study of Being qua Being while Metaphysics is the study of Beyond-Being – that which is outside of all limits and description. This brief digression was important so that the reader knows the framework that they are in.

The metaphysicians believe that there is a distinction between the names of God and the attributes of God. The paper at hand aims to discuss these distinctions between the names of God and the attributes of God. But first, it is important to understand precisely that which the names denote and that which the attributes denote.

Before delving into our topic, it is essential to define some terminology. Syncretism is the idea that the multiplicity that exists in the where?where ever there is multiplicity it exists in a manner is arranged in a manner such that elements in that arrangement still hold their own ‘reality’. The assemblage of these elements is incongruous in nature, that is, there is no real unity and harmony between the elements and thus the assemblage is purely from an exoteric point of view¹. Therefore, syncretism is realized whenever there is a borrowing of elements from ‘all’ different quarters that holds within them no essential unity; thus portraying a fragmented reality².

Contrary to syncretism there is synthesis. Synthesis is the idea that individual elements lose their own identity, and that which is envisaged is unity in principle. It is important to stress the unity aspect that is present in synthesis. The individual elements derive their own reality from the unity in principle and rather subsist through it as well.  In other words, synthesis will exist when one starts from unity and never loses sight throughout the multiplicity that is manifested³.

With these definitions, the author endeavors to dispel the confusion that exists between syncretism from synthesis. That which we witness in the external world is either that of the natural world or that of man-made things. Man-made objects reflect the concept of syncretism while the natural world portrays the idea of synthesis. The former, being syncretic, displays fragmentation while the latter displays real unity. The true symbol of higher realities can only be the natural world due the inherent unity that is found in it.

What is a name?

That which is, is Reality and it is this Reality that manifests itself as multiplicity and is derived from its principle of unity. In addition, that which we see in this manifestation is gradation; thus, it can be concluded that there is one graded reality. Therefore, everything that exists – whichever level it may belong to – having its principle in the Divine, is able to represent that principle in its own level of existence. Thus, from one level of being to another there is unity and harmony such that the entire manifestation becomes the reflection of its Principle. Therefore, the foundation of symbolism is the law of correspondence where each thing proceeds from its principle. The symbol to that which it points towards will do so according to its own level of existence; therefore, one should be careful not to take the degree of existence as the be-all and end-all. Rather, always have that which is being pointed to in sight.  When someone has this principle in sight, then he will see unity in all orders of existence. To witness unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity is one of the highest visions of Reality one can possess. Thus, the final cause of symbolism is to show us the Divine Truth; the sensible world is the symbol of the suprasensible world. In addition, that which is incommunicable can never be communicated in its totality – no matter what method of communication is used. Language is just one of these methods of communication. Therefore, one must never lose sight of the idea that these collections of alphabets – which form a word – point towards. That which was said is to help us understand what a name truly is. A name is a signifier, a pointer, a symbol of something else. In and of itself, it is nothing.

It is necessary here to make clear the foundation of symbolism such that there remain no ambiguities in our analysis that is to be followed. When a person is called by his name, for instance Ali, Ali is just a name, signifying a reality that is present. By someone calling out Ali by his name, is but a sound that, according to the philosophy definition, is a quality that is audible – that is all it is. Or for instance, writing on a piece of paper or on a wall; here once again, the name Ali written on paper does not mean that Ali is there on the paper; rather, the actual writing is referring to a reality of Ali that exists in the real world. Thus, whether we see the name written on the paper or hear the name being pronounced, it is our minds, and on a higher level, it is our souls that immediately go to the meaning of that thing and does not dwell or stay on the plane of alphabets, words and sounds. When someone calls your name, the attention goes to your reality rather than morphologizing the letters that make up your name. When a person is speaking in their native tongue, rather than dwell on the alphabets, there is a meaning in the speaker’s mind which is conveyed via the conduit of words. The words are not only heard by the listeners, but they are also interpreted and understood (hopefully) with the intended  meaning to which the speaker is united in his mind and soul. Thus, when a joke is made that is exclusive to a particular language, those who understand the language will alone understand its meaning, and may find it amusing; those who may not laugh or are unfamiliar to the language may not understand what these symbols stand for, and thus will concentrate on the words in order to derive meaning. Therefore, it becomes clear that the words do not exist in and of themselves. They are not an entity of its own. The words themselves become important for what they signify and what they mean. Also, important to note here is that words are created things. For instance, the reality of substance that is liquid and gives life in English language is called water, in Persian, its aab[آب], and in Arabic [ماه]. Here the reality which it represents is one, yet the symbol we use for it differs. This symbol is of the human creation by the human will, where we have attached a certain meaning to words; as such, it can be detached at any given point, and another symbol can be put forward to symbolize that same reality. This happens when the signs and symbols are vis-à-visa human creation; that is, they come through human means., They are arbitrary, they are not real; they are conventions created in the human minds.

However, there are other names and other signs which are not like them – they are not created, they are not conventional. They are not willed by human beings but they are real. They have an existential and ontological connection with the name and that which is being signified. Let us consider the following example: when we go out to a dry, barren land and we see some greenery and some shrubs. This growth of plants tells us that there must be water in the vicinity because there cannot be plants growing without water. The greenery that is being witnessed is a real indicator, a real symbol of water. No one came and created that; rather it is an ontological symbol of water. Similarly, an image of a person in the mirror is but an image; that is not the person himself, however that image is a pointer to the real being. This again is not arbitrary and conventional; rather it is a real symbol. These two aforementioned examples include ontological and existential signs. Now the signs can be greater or lesser depending on the clarity of the mirror. If the mirror is ‘greasy’, ‘dusty’ or ‘contorted’ then the image will not point to the reality as it really is. Furthermore, it also depends on what one concentrates on, that is, whether one concentrates on the reflection in the mirror or the reality that is being shown by the mirror. If one pays too much attention to the mirror, regarding its dimensions, its material, its reflective screen – this will cause one to digress from the actual image of which it is a reality.

That which is interesting to note here is that in the Arabic language, the word for universe is an Aalam [عالم] – it is the place where you have alams [علم] which means a flag or a banner that are signifiers– so the universe is a sign of reality of that which is beyond what we are ‘seeing’. In the traditional world this was always known, because it was a sign for a higher, more real world and it was not something to be looked at and concentrate on independently. The Quranic principle is such that He is witnessing all things and everything is sign of Him and that is how we should be seeing the world. As expressed in Surat Fussilat verse 31

سَنُرِيهِمْ ءَايَـٰتِنَا فِى ٱلْـَٔافَاقِ وَفِىٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ ٱلْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُۥ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that this ˹Quran˺ is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things

Therefore, these ontological signs have a hierarchy. That which was mentioned regarding the greenery and the mirror are lower examples. The real example is that which is used in the Glorious Quran; that all of creation are signs and symbols of the creator that is Allah (swt). These names and signs are more real compared to the image in the mirror where the image is being conditioned by the mirror – whereas the names and signs expounded by the Glorious Quran perpetually signify and symbolize Allah (swt).

That which was said is a general remark considering name; discussing name in their most profound sense, Ayatollah Jawadi Amoli(ha) says the following:

Name in the religious sense that is when we talk about names of God taking a different color although its true essence that it is a symbol never goes away. That which is implied by name here is that which God describes it in the Glorious Quran by calling “the beautiful name^” Surah A’raf, verse 182: 

Therefore, that which is meant by name is an essence that is with a particular determination from determinations or a perfection from perfections and this is different from its lexical meaning that they signify an essence with a property or without a property⁴.

An important thing to remember is that signs, symbols, pointers, etc. are always limited; that is, they will show something, however not as that thing really is due to their very limited nature – they will signify or symbolize only to the extent of the capability or capacity they have. They will not go beyond their reality; therefore, confining themselves to the signs and not looking for that which they are symbolizing is missing the mark and limiting the reality. Thus, the names of Allah (swt) each signify an aspect of reality and if we were to confine themselves to just the name – then they will again be limiting and dividing reality; we must try to see the unlimited and when we do that, we realize all names point to one Reality and that they are one. All the names are united in the Essence of Allah (swt) and they show us His greatness; that is, they return to Him and each name is reflected in the other names.

If the reality of the names is that it is nothing but a symbol, then one can raise the following question: if name is a symbol, then why is that which is being symbolized not seen by everyone? Here the answer by the Metaphysicians can be explained by comparing the heart with the mirror; if the mirror is greasy, unpolished and contorted, then the image will be of a false one and it will miss the mark from its true representation. Similarly, the heart is also a mirror and it must be cleaned, polished and truly alive for us to see the names that are coming through it and see the Reality that is being signified through those names.

With this discussion of Name in mind, we will now discuss what an attribute is before we can derive whether there is a difference between the name of Allah (swt) and the attribute of Allah (swt).

What is an Attribute

The lexical definition of an attribute is that it is a quality or a feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.⁵

When discussing the word attribute, it is imperative that one must understand the concept of perfection. It’s because in the divine His perfections are His attributes and vice versa, and if His perfections are understood then His attributes will also become clear; it’s because in the Divine Essence His perfections are His attributes and vice versa, and if His perfection. In common language, perfection is the state of being free from fault and deficiencies. However, the same word has a very different meaning in the theological and metaphysical context. Here, perfection is defined as “an acquisition of that which is deserving and worthy for that which is worthy and deserving via that which is deserving and worthy.”  From this definition, two points are made clear. First, its qualitative and attributive nature is predicable over a subject. Secondly, the flawless, worthy and deserving nature of the attribute from the three aspects: attribute qua attribute, attribute as a locus which it inheres in and lastly as the type of predicate for which it is being used⁷. There is a symbiotic nature between perfection and attribute – to talk about one is to talk about the other. An attribute is a perfection of Being.

At this juncture, prior to elaborating the analysis regarding the perfections of God, that which is necessary is to give a brief summary of the five divine presences. The five divine presences is a Islamic cosmological system explicated by the Islamic metaphysicians; that is based on the Quran, Hadeeth and the mystical visions. Although there are many versions of the five divine presences, that which is used for our analysis is of Ibn Arabi.

In ibn Arabi’s cosmological system, there are in total seven levels – five of these levels are the five Divine presences pertaining to creation and the remaining two levels pertain to transcendence. The two levels that pertain to transcendence are called the levels of hiddenness; while the levels pertaining to creation are called levels of manifestation.⁸ That which concerns us are the first three levels, however for the sake of completeness we will list all of the levels:

The First Level – the level of His Holy Essence – beyond the five divine presences

In his Essence He alone is – He is the Absolute to which the Supreme Reality is referenced. Absolute is the total plenitude of Reality, that is, Reality in itself and totality, simultaneously. It is beyond iteration, integration, multiplication, division and deduction. It is pure Totality and sheer Itself. Thus, it is also Infinite. To say Infinite is to say All-Perfect and pure Perfection, for to say anything else would be limiting. Unity and multiplicity pertain to the domain of manifestation, for it has no access in the domain of non-manifestation. It was discussed previously, that at the level of His Essence, perfection and possibilities are in an absorbed and infused state such that there is no distinction and determination, hence no multiplicity. Therefore, Beyond-Being is beyond the doctrine of unity-multiplicity and since it is the Principle of Being, by extension it is the Principle of the doctrine of unity-multiplicity. Thus, the only appropriate name it can have is that of metaphysical zero. At this level no one has any knowledge of God but God.

The Second Level – is subdivided in two: the first entification and the second entification

The First Entification or the Divine Presence of Supreme Indivisible Unity [Ahadiyyah] Although here we attribute something to God, nonetheless, which makes it distinct from His Holy Essence:

“Supreme and incomparable Unity is without “aspects” it cannot be known at the same time as the world; that is, it is the object only of Divine, immediate, and undifferentiated Knowledge.”⁹

The second Entification where we still are beyond manifestation – is called the Divine Presence of Uniqueness (Hadhrat -al-Wahidiyyah) – “is in a sense a correlative of the Universe and it is in it that the Universe appears divinely.”¹⁰

It is the homestead of Divine Archetypes that “is the positive content of every distinction, for it is by its intrinsic uniqueness that each being is distinct apart from the distinction by its mere limitations.”¹¹

The third Level – The third entification – The Divine presence of Jabaroot

It is the world of pure immaterial intellects or the world of spirits – the special feature of this realm is that creation here is of pure immaterial nature and has no relation to any matter or form – it is the domain of non-formal manifestation.

The fourth level – The Fourth entification or the Divine presence of Malakoot

It is the world of subtle manifestation – the creation at this level is neither purely immaterial nor purely physical – hence this world is also called the realm of  barzakh

The fifth level – The fifth entification or the Divine presence of Mulk

This is the level of nature – that is the physical world

The Sixth level – the fifth Divine presence is of the Perfect Being

It is the level of the theomorphic being – where man becomes the perfect Image of God, such that He is able to manifest all the names of Allah (swt) that are possible – as states in Surah Baqarah verse 31

وَعَلَّمَ ءَادَمَ ٱلْأَسْمَآءَ كُلَّهَا ثُمَّ عَرَضَهُمْ عَلَى ٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ فَقَالَ أَنۢبِـُٔونِى بِأَسْمَآءِ هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـٰدِقِينَ

He taught Adam the names of all things, then He presented them to the angels and said, “Tell Me the names of these, if what you say is true”

The metaphysicians have divided perfections for God as a twofold division namely perfections of the Holy Essence and perfections of the names. Perfections of the Holy Essence is the manifestation of the Essence that effuses from the Divine presence of Holy Essence, where the manifestation finds itself in an infused dimensionatic manner; however, when the Divine presence of Unity manifests itself – the Divine presence of Uniqueness becomes manifest, where the perfections gain their own colour. It is important to clarify perfections at the level of Holy Essence and on the level of Divine Unity. At both levels, perfections find itself as an infused and fusionitive reality, and the distinction to be made is that at the level of the Holy Essence, it’s only the pure Essence that is there, while at the level of Divine Unity, the knowledge of the perfections have been realized. Nonetheless, perfection exists at the level of Holy Essence and on the level of the Divine Unity.¹²

Perfection of the names are only realized at the homestead of divine names where each name is distinct from the other – that is the plane of the Divine presence of Uniqueness (Wahidiyyah) – therefore, because the perfections are the homestead of Uniqueness they do not have any access to the Divine Essence. Rather, to attribute the Holy Essence with any of the names found on the plane of Divine Uniqueness would be limiting the Holy Essence. Therefore, the subtle distinction between the two perfections is that, as previously mentioned, the divine presence of Unity, although no one has access to it, we find the ‘first’ perfection – the attribution of Divine Unity; while the perfection found at the level Divine Uniqueness is nothing but the effusion of the perfection of Divine Unity.

The relation between names and perfection or attributes

From the aforementioned analysis regarding names and attributes or perfections – the relationship between the two can be addressed appropriately. That which was said pertaining to names – that they are pointers and hence for God to be pointed to by these pointers and be symbolized by these symbols – it is only correct for these pointers and symbols to be purified of all determinations, limitations, deficiencies and imperfections. In doing so, one must reach the very reality of the name such that its true purposes can be achieved, that is to purely serve as a symbol and sign for the Supreme Principle. Therefore, the relation that exists between names and attributes is: that it is the Divine Essence in relationship with a specific, determined, manifested perfection that gives rise to a name. It is for this very reason that when the names of God are compared with each other, that which is the unifying aspect in them is the presence of the Divine Essence, and from this perspective and only this perspective, there is no difference between these names. However, that being said – that which distinguishes name from the Divine Essence and each other is that very specific attribute or perfection. For example, that which distinguishes the name knower from other names is that very specific attribute and entific property of knowledge. Whereas from the perspective of Essence, it has no distinction with other names such as powerful, avenger, merciful, forgiver, etc. Therefore, a name is born with the divine wedding of a certain perfection with the Divine Essence at the level of Divine Uniqueness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, all the names of God are unified in his Essence and at the level of Divine Essence, there is no distinction among them; rather, they have an infusitive reality such that they have no colour of their own. It is only vis-à-vis a certain entific, prismatic light of perfection that a name lights up and makes itself distinguished from another name. The reality of the very name that is a source of distinction from other names is the very entific attribute that has become the locus of the sacred effusion of the Divine Essence vis-à-vis the level of Divine Uniqueness.  In other words, ipseity of names of God, such that a name becomes a name, is the very hidden perfection and attribute within it. It is due to the secret nature of attribute within the name that an attribute and name are considered one and are identical to one another, while at the same time one is aware of the difference that exists between the two. The name is Essence in light of an entific perfection, while perfection or attribute is the sacred effusion of the Divine Essence at the level Divine Uniqueness. Nonetheless, the identical nature of the name and attribute allows the interchangeable usage of the two – the source of the identical nature is their unifying reality, that is the Divine Essence.

References

[1] Guénon, R. (2001). Symbolism of the Cross: Preface pp[x]. Sophia Perennis.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[۴] توحید در قران، بخش پنجم مراتب توحید فصل۲ توحید: اسم وصفات ص ۲۲۶ ایت الله جوادی املی

[5] Mariam Webster Dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribute : Definition of attribute

 (Entry 1 of 2) 1: a quality, character, or characteristic ascribed to someone or something

[۶] حکمت عرفان ، ص۳۳۹ علی امینی نژاد

 [۷]همان

[8] Shaykh Bahmanpour, Presentation: Wahdat-al-wujud

[9] Burckhardt, T. (2008) An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine chapter: Aspects of Unity [pp. 44]

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[۱۲] حکمت عرفان ، ص۳۹۸ علی امینی نژاد