DID HISHĀM IBN AL-HAKAM AND HISHĀM IBN SĀLIM BELIEVE IN ANTHROPOMORPHISM?

____________________________________

Question

______________________________________________

Peace and blessings of God be upon you.

To proceed:

We have received your esteemed inquiry, though it contained a degree of ambiguity. Accordingly, we shall first clarify the matter, then present a brief biographical note on the two individuals referred to as al-Hishāmayn (may God have mercy on them both), followed by a response to the associated misconception.

You stated: “That Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and another Hishām espoused anthropomorphism (tajsīm).”

However, the correct phrasing should be: “That Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam and Hishām ibn Sālim were accused of holding anthropomorphic views.”

The one who attributed this claim to Hishām bin Sālim was ʿAbd al-Malik bin Hishām al-Ḥannāṭ, an individual who is entirely absent from the biographical records (rijāl) and whose reliability is unknown.

Given this, we kindly request careful attention to the details we provide in our reply, as it contains valuable insights relevant to numerous contexts, particularly in defending the honour of the devoted adherents of the Islamic tradition—may their graves be fragrant.

Moreover, the very allegations that some direct toward us are not escaped by any of their own companions, not even the founders of their legal schools—let alone their narrators and prominent figures.

As for Hishām bin al-Ḥakam, Abū Muḥammad (also known as Abū al-Ḥakam), a mawlā of the Kindah tribe, it is reported that he passed away in the year 199 AH. The Shi'a scholars unanimously agreed upon his reliability, his distinction, the magnitude of his rank, and his exalted status in the eyes of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). This is affirmed in the words of the leading biographer of narrators, (al-ʿAllāma al-Māmqānī, in his work Tanqīḥ al-Maqāl (vol. 3, p. 294) [1]

He was among the most eminent companions of Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) and was known for his piety. He transmitted numerous traditions and maintained close companionship with Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), followed by his son, Imām Mūsā Abī al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him). His lofty status and rank in the eyes of Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) are evidenced by an incident in Minā: Hishām entered upon the Imam while he was still a youth, with the first signs of facial hair just appearing. Present in the gathering were the elders of the Shi‘a, such as Ḥumrān ibn Aʿyan, Qays al-Māṣir, Yūnus ibn Yaʿqūb, Abū Jaʿfar al-Aḥwal, and others—yet the Imam elevated Hishām above them all, even though everyone present was older than he. This is as recorded by our master al-Mufīd (may God have mercy on him).

Hishām was later honoured with a distinguished commendation by Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him). After Hishām responded to a question posed by the Imam regarding the names of God and their derivations, the Imam said:

افهمت يا هشام فهماً تدفع به اعدائـنا الملحدين مع الله تعالى

“Have you understood, O Hishām, with an understanding by which you can refute our enemies—the atheists regarding God, the Exalted?” Hishām replied;

نعم

 “Yes.”

The Imam then said:

نفعك الله به وثبتك

“May God benefit you through it and make you steadfast.”

Hishām said:

فو الله ما قهرني احد في التوحيد

“Thus, By God, no one has ever overcome me in the subject of Tawḥīd (divine unity).” [2]

Moreover, Hishām was the one who opened the field of discourse on Imāmah (divinely appointed leadership), clarified its rational foundation, and is considered one of the principal theologians (mutakallimūn) of the Shiʿa and a foremost defender of the faith. The Imam’s praise further confirms this, as he said:

هذا ناصرنا بقلبه ولسانه ويده

“This is our supporter—with his heart, tongue, and hand.” [3]

And likewise:

رائد حقّنا وسابق قولنا المؤيّد لصدقنا, والدامغ لباطل أعدائنا, من تبعه وتبع اثره تبعنا, ومن خالفه وألحد فيه عادانا والحد فينا

“He is the pioneer of our truth, the forerunner of our discourse, the one who confirms our truthfulness, and the one who strikes down the falsehood of our enemies. Whoever follows him and traces his path has followed us, and whoever opposes him or deviates from him has opposed us and deviated from us.” [4]

He has been the subject of extensive praise in the biographical works of al-Kashshī (Rijāl al-Kashshī) and al-ʿAllāma al-Māmqānī (Tanqīḥ al-Maqāl), among others.

As for the criticisms levelled against him by the ʿāmmah (non-Shi'a or mainstream Sunni scholars), these serve in fact to underscore his elevated status and noble rank. Their deep hostility toward him is indicative of the greatness of his position. Although some reports exist accusing him of holding anthropomorphic views (tajsīm), these are not absolute in their condemnation. That is, he was neither a liar nor a fabricator, and the leading scholars of the tradition have acquitted him of such charges and defended his integrity.

Abundant [Mustafīḍ]  narrations have been transmitted in which the Imams (peace be upon them) invoke mercy upon him [5]

As for Hishām bin Sālim al-Jawāliqī al-Juʿfī al-ʿAllāf Abū Muḥammad (also known as Abū al-Ḥakam), he was among the companions of the two Imams, al-Ṣādiq and al-Kāẓim (peace be upon them). He had a recognized lineage and authored a book; he is unquestionably considered trustworthy (thiqah) without doubt. Praiseworthy reports about him are recorded by al-Kashshī (may God have mercy on him) in Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, and others have likewise narrated favourably regarding him.

Conversely, there are disparaging reports concerning him that are similar to those levelled against Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam. The appropriate response to these allegations is the same, except for an additional factor here: the individual who attributed the doctrine of corporealism (tajsīm) to this Hishām was ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Hishām al-Ḥannāṭ, an obscure figure whose reliability is unknown and who is entirely absent from the biographical sources (rijāl), as previously noted. Thus, how can such a highly esteemed and closely affiliated figure of the pure Imams (peace be upon them) be discredited on the basis of an unreliable report from a neglected narrator?

Moreover, the narration in question contains other obscure elements that we prefer not to delve into at this time, and all such matters will be addressed in what follows; Both he and his counterpart are trustworthy, and the response to allegations against both is identical, even though the accusations against Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam are more numerous and severe, given his higher rank and status—thus warranting careful consideration.

As for the specific charge—may their graves be sanctified—that God, exalted be He, is corporeal but unlike other corporeal beings, this remains the sole known allegation against them.

The primary individual accused of anthropomorphism is Ibn al-Ḥakam (may God have mercy on him), and our defense of him is as follows:

Firstly, we accepted and upheld his statement due to the widespread and well-documented reports that he abandoned the belief in corporealism (tajsīm) which he initially perceived, and acknowledged its error. This occurred after the Imām barred him from visiting in Medina, and Ibn al-Ḥakam said: “What I said was only because I thought it was in agreement with the statement of an Imam... However, now that he has repudiated it in my regard, I repent to God from it.” At that time, the Imam allowed him entry and prayed for his well-being. This account is narrated by the eminent scholar al-Majlisī (may God have mercy on him) citing Shaykh al-Karājikī (may God sanctify his soul) [6]

Accordingly, Ibn al-Ḥakam initially espoused anthropomorphism regarding God, the Exalted and Blessed, albeit not in the manner of created bodies, but he later retracted this upon realizing that such a belief constituted disbelief (kufr), unacceptable to his Imam.

Al-‘Allāma al-Māmqānī (may God have mercy on him) states: “Even if one accepts his initial statement, his repentance upon hearing the Imam’s disapproval suffices to negate the implications of his earlier utterance.”

Secondly, the majority of the narrations attributing anthropomorphic beliefs to him are weak in their chains of transmission (isnād), despite their numerical abundance. Except for one narration, these can be refuted by understanding that his statements were made for the sake of compelling an opponent, meaning that he said: “If you claim that God, Exalted be He, is a being unlike other beings, then say that He is a body unlike other bodies.” This does not reflect an actual doctrinal belief in corporealism.

Thirdly, it is possible that the attribution of corporealism (tajsīm) to him stems from his narration of a report that ostensibly indicates corporealism but was intended to convey a meaning different from its apparent sense. Consequently, some have alleged that he held anthropomorphic beliefs.

Fourthly, Ibn al-Ḥakam was initially among the followers of al-Jahm ibn Ṣafwān, but later he embraced the doctrine of Imāmah through evidence and rational inquiry. This does not imply that his earlier monotheistic ideas were immediately abrogated; rather, it is possible that the reports attributed to him reflect statements made before he refined his creed and attained initial insight and guidance. Indeed, it has been said that he was originally among the disciples and pupils of Abū Shākir, the heretic—who is reported by al-Barqī (may God have mercy on him), though not found in the biographical sources or other works, to have espoused anthropomorphism. However, following such an individual is not obligatory, especially since Ibn al-Ḥakam engaged in many disputations and debates with Abū Shākir on the topic of divine unity (tawḥīd), demonstrating that he was not truly his disciple. If he were, it would be consistent with the maxim that “the wisdom of the believer is sought wherever it is found.” [7]

The essential point here is that the fact that the Imams (peace be upon them), who came after Hishām—such as Imām al-Riḍā and Imām al-Jawād (peace be upon them)—invoked mercy upon him is the strongest evidence that, during his close association with the Imams (peace be upon them), he did not hold anthropomorphic beliefs. Such beliefs would have been outright disbelief (kufr) in their view. Therefore, either he never genuinely held such beliefs, or he only expressed them as a rhetorical strategy to confound opponents, later retracting them upon realizing their impropriety, or upon receiving the Imam’s disapproval. It is also possible that he believed that anthropomorphism, as understood by the majority (ʿāmmah), was endorsed by the Imami Shi‘a.

Supporting this is, a narration attributed to Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), stating that God, Exalted be He, “does not resemble anything nor is He resembled by anything, and whatever falls under illusion is contrary to Him.” [8]

In sum, this objection can be addressed by several considerations, as some have proposed:

Firstly: Denial of the very origin of his anthropomorphic belief, noting that the accusations arose chiefly from opponents hostile to him, either to slander him and those like him or because they were unable to refute the proofs brought against them by the Imams’ followers. The declarations of disavowal (tabrī) from the Imams regarding them may have been intended either to preserve them or for other strategic purposes. Possibly, the source of these accusations is the presentation of a narration whose apparent meaning is not its intended meaning.

Secondly: That he erred in his statement but retracted it as soon as he recognized that the Imam did not approve of it.

Thirdly: That the phrase “a body unlike bodies” does not carry its apparent literal meaning, nor does it imply that God is a body—in which case it would be outright disbelief—but rather represents a linguistic error or imprecision that must be understood in light of Arabic linguistic conventions. This point was noted by Sayyid al-Murtaḍā (may God have mercy on him) in al-Shāfī. This matter is not hidden from those knowledgeable, as one cannot apply absolute terms to something that has not been absolutely affirmed; the names of God, Exalted be He, are tafwīḍī (divinely ordained and reserved in meaning).

Fourthly, his statements are not to be taken literally or as factual affirmations that could be held against him; rather, he intended to assert that God is “something,” which is harmless and does not imply that He is a body. Therefore, it cannot constitute disbelief (kufr) under any circumstances.

Fifthly, it has been suggested that his remarks were made in polemical opposition to the Mu‘tazilites. In other words, he argued: If you say that God, Exalted be He, is “a thing unlike other things,” then you are compelled to say that He is “a body unlike other bodies.” Not every opponent who disputes a point or asks questions necessarily believes or adheres to that view. Rather, it may represent a form of intellectual entrapment designed to expose their error, the absurdity of their claims, and to discern their true positions. This was also noted by al-Shahrastānī in his work Al-Milal wa al-Niḥal—a point worth observing.

The narrations condemning him have been categorized into five types, as exhaustively detailed in Taqnīḥ al-Maqāl, where each category is addressed appropriately; therefore, we will not repeat them here. Interested readers may consult that work directly.

All of these condemnatory reports fail to withstand the numerous mutawātir (mass-transmitted) narrations praising and venerating him, affirming his reliability and exalted status among the Imams’ companions without dispute. Although there are disparaging reports, they appear in specific contexts and forms. Given this contradiction, those disparaging accounts should be critically assessed, especially considering several points we outline here sequentially, which remain broadly applicable:

Firstly, many pure and authentic reports exist from the Imams (peace be upon them) that safeguard their companions from the oppression of tyrants and the intrigues of irreligious rulers. Such reports were transmitted through narrators like Zarāra, Muḥammad ibn Muslim, and their contemporaries, who did not consider them conclusive due to their seemingly ambiguous nature. Indeed, some narrations suggest that the Imams intentionally preserved their companions and themselves from harm and, when possible, defended the truth openly.

Secondly, it is a well-known phenomenon both historically and presently that when opponents cannot refute a scholar’s knowledge or argument, they instead attack his character, assigning various false accusations and insults to undermine his credibility. Individuals were often accused of disbelief (kufr) or heresy on the slightest pretext. Such attacks frequently stemmed from envy among their peers, ignorance of the scholar’s status, or inability to refute and defeat him intellectually. Hence, such attributions largely originated from hostile adversaries acting out of animosity.

Thirdly: The levels of understanding among the Companions (aṣḥāb) varied greatly, as did the degrees of their faith. There is no doubt that one who initially attains insight and gradually comes to know the doctrine cannot be definitively judged by every statement made throughout all stages of his life. It is possible that certain expressions issued during early periods of insight may have persisted and been transmitted about him until the end of his life, despite his eventual disavowal of them. This, however, does not indicate that he maintained those views consistently. This differs from the case of a person born to two Shi‘a parents, whose faith and views are less subject to such fluctuation. This point is important to grasp.

On this basis and others, many statements attributed to numerous Companions and even to early scholars—may God be pleased with them—must be understood in the context of a time when foundational principles were not yet consolidated, books were not systematically arranged, and methodological approaches had not been unified. Consequently, certain remarks may have been made through analogy or inadvertence (such as those possibly attributed even to the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family). Undoubtedly, had these figures been aware of what has come down to us, they would not have expressed themselves as they did and would have rejected such views more vehemently than we do today. This, however, does not apply to contemporary individuals who deny certain religious essentials or contest self-evident tenets within the community, about whom a different discourse applies. And God is the source of guidance.

As for the final part of your question regarding the writings of Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam, it is unquestionable that he engaged in numerous disputations with opponents concerning principles and other matters. Only a small portion of these works has reached us. The esteemed scholar al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī (may God have mercy on him) referenced one of his works in his bibliography, including its chain of transmission. He also enumerated many of his books, among which are: Kitāb al-Imāmah (The Book of Leadership), Kitāb al-Dalāʾil ʿalá Ḥudūth al-Ashyāʾ (The Book of Evidences on the Origination of Things), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá al-Zanādiqah (Refutation of the Heretics), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá Aṣḥāb al-Ithnayn (Refutation of the Followers of the Duality), Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (The Book of Monotheism), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá Hishām al-Jawāliqī, Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá Aṣḥāb al-Ṭabāʾiʿ, Kitāb al-Shaykh wa al-Ghulām (The Book of the Shaykh and the Youth), Kitāb al-Tadbīr (The Book of Providence), Kitāb al-Mīzān (The Book of the Balance), Kitāb al-Maydān (The Book of the Arena), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá Man Qāla bi-Imāmat al-Mafḍūl (Refutation of Those Who Asserted the Leadership of the Inferior), Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-Nās fī al-Imāmah (The Disagreement Among People Regarding the Imamate), Kitāb fī al-Waṣiyyah wa al-Radd ʿalá Man Ankarihā (The Book on the Will and Refutation of Its Deniers), Kitāb fī al-Jabr wa al-Qadar (The Book on Predestination and Free Will), Kitāb al-Alṭāf (The Book of Subtleties), Kitāb al-Maʿrifah (The Book of Knowledge), Kitāb al-Iṣṭiṭāʿah (The Book of Capability), Kitāb al-Thamāniyah al-Abwāb (The Book of the Eight Gates), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá Shayṭān al-Ṭāq, Kitāb al-Akhbār (The Book of Traditions), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá Aristāṭālīs fī al-Tawḥīd (Refutation of Aristotle on Monotheism), and Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá al-Muʿtazilah (Refutation of the Mu‘tazilites), including a final work titled Kitāb al-Iṣṭiṭāʿah and another Kitāb al-Radd ʿalá al-Muʿtazilah.

He (may God have mercy on him) further noted that both the Imams al-Ṣādiq and al-Kāẓim (peace be upon them) praised Hishām with distinguished encomiums. He was among those who pioneered discourse on the Imamate, beautified the doctrine through reasoned argument, was skilled in the art of dialectics, and was quick-witted in response, among other qualities.

We ask God to grant us and you His pleasure and grace.

May you remain under God’s protection.

References

[1] See for example what the the Shi'ite Scholar Badr al-Dīn ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥusaynī. al-ʿĀmilī,has said:

باب النهي عن الجسم والصورة * قوله: عن علي بن أبي حمزة [ص 104 ح 1] هو البطائني وحاله غير خفية، فلا يقدح حديثه هذا وأمثاله في هشام بن الحكم مع جلالة قدره واتفاق الأصحاب على حسن عقيدته وقبول روايته.

[AlḤāshiyah ʿalā Uṣūl al-Kāfī, Badr al-Dīn ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥusaynī. al-ʿĀmilī, page 87]

[2] Al-Kāfī, Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb Al-Kulaynī, Vol. 1, Book 3, Chapter 16: “Chapter on the Meanings of the Names of Allah and their Derivatives,” ḥadīth no. 2.

[3] Al-Kāfī. al-Kulaynī, Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb, Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 1: "The Necessity of the Presence of Divine Authority among the People," ḥadīth no. 4.

[4] al-Shāfī fī al-Imāmah, al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā, Vol. 1, p. 85.

[5] The Shīʿite scholar al-Sayyid al-Khūʾī, after presenting eighteen narrations concerning Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam, stated the following:

هذه الروايات وإن كانت أكثرها ضعيفة السند، إلا أن استفاضتها واشتهار هشام بن الحكم وعظمة القدر تغني عن النظر في إسنادها، على أن بعضها كان صحيح السند.

"Even though most of these reports have weak chains of transmission, their abundance [istifāḍah] and the well-known status and high rank of Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam make it unnecessary to focus too much on their isnād. Besides, some of these narrations do have reliable chains."

[Muʿjam Rijāl al-Ḥadīth, Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim Al-Khūʾī, Vol. 20, p. 313]

[6] Al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī has cited the following from Shaykh al-Karājikī, who stated:

وأما موالاتنا هشاما رحمه الله فهي لما شاع عنه واستفاض من تركه للقول بالجسم الذي كان ينصره، ورجوعه عنه، وإقراره بخطائه فيه وتوبته منه، وذلك حين قصد الإمام جعفر بن محمد عليهما السلام إلى المدينة فحجبه، وقيل له: إنه أمرنا أن لا نوصلك إليه ما دمت قائلا بالجسم، فقال: والله ما قلت به إلا لأني ظننت أنه وفاق لقول إمامي، فأما إذا أنكره علي فإنني تائب إلى الله منه، فأوصله الإمام عليه السلام إليه ودعا له بخير وحفظ.

"As for our allegiance to Hishām—may God have mercy on him—it is due to what became widespread and well-known regarding his abandonment of the doctrine of corporeality (al-jism) which he had formerly advocated, his retraction thereof, his admission of error, and his repentance from it. This occurred when he sought to meet Imām Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon them both) in Medina, but was denied access. It was said to him: "He has commanded us not to grant you an audience as long as you espouse the belief in corporeality." Hishām replied: "By God, I did not say it except because I assumed it to be in agreement with the doctrine of my Imām. But now that he has disavowed it in relation to me, I repent to God from it." The Imām (peace be upon him) then permitted him to enter, prayed for him, and safeguarded him."

[Biḥār al-Anwār, Al-Majlisī, Allāmah, vol. 3, p. 290]

[7] Amīr al-mu’minīn, peace be upon him, said:

الْحِكْمَةُ ضَالَّةُ الْمُؤْمِنِ فَخُذِ الْحِكْمَةَ وَلَوْ مِنْ أَهْلِ النِّفَاقِ.

"A wise saying is a lost article of the believer. Therefore, get wise sayings even though from people of hypocrisy."

[Nahj al-Balāgha, Al-Sharīf al-Raḍī , Book 3, Saying 80, Chapter 80]

[8] Al-Tawḥīd, Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, Book 2, Chapter 2: “Divine Unity and the Negation of Anthropomorphism,” Ḥadīth 35.

The original text in Arabic can be found here

Answer

_________________________________________

The Wahhābī school claims that Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and another individual named Hishām both espoused anthropomorphism (tajsīm), and that they were rebuked by Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him). They cite a narration of this rebuke—reportedly expressed by the Imam as "Daʿ al-Hishāmayn" ("Leave the two Hishāms")—as found in sources such as Uṣūl al-Kāfī, al-Tawḥīd by al-Ṣadūq, and others. The question thus arises: do these assertions hold any degree of authenticity or credibility?

We kindly request clarification on this matter. Additionally, we would appreciate it if you could provide us with a list of works authored by Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam. Thank you.

_________________________________________

﷽