Ibn
Qudama al-Hanbali
A Mufawwid
A –
‘Allama Ibn Qudama considers the Ayat of Attributes to
be from the Mutashabihat, as is stated in Rawdatun
Nadhir. After stating this position, he says the correct stoppage
in the ayah that talks about Muhkamat and Mutashabihat is “No
one knows it’s interpretation except Allah ta’ala. Those grounded
in knowledge say we believe in it…”
The
point where Ibn Qudama considers the correct
stopping point is after except Allah ta’ala, meaning He’s the
only one that knows the Mutashabihat, and no one else. And Ibn
Qudama has stated that from the Mutashabihat is the Ayat on
Sifat, thus concluding that the knowledge of Sifat is only known to
Allah ta’ala, just like the Huruf al-Muqat’at.
It’s
clear from his statement his position on it.
This
is the position of Tafwid al-Ma’ana, as propounded
by the Ash’irah and Maturidiya and in opposition to todays salafi
scholars whom I will quote regarding their statements on the
Mutashabihat.
B –
Another indication of tafwid al-Ma’ana is Ibn
Qudama’s statement in Lum’atul Itiqad, wherein
he states, “What is difficult from those
(ayat of Sifat) affirmation of it’s wording is necessary, and to
leave delving into it’s meaning, and we leave it’s knowledge to
the one who Spoke it (Allah ta’ala), we place it’s responsibiltiy
on the one who transmited it, following the path of those grounded in
knowledge, about whom Allah ta’ala praised in His Clear Book by His
statement, “and Those firmly grounded in knowledge say we believe
in it, all of it is from our Lord.”
C –
It’s clear from his statement where he says we affirm the wording,
yet we relegate the meaning to Allah ta’ala. Ibn
Qudama goes on to say Allah ta’ala censures those who seek
the interpretation of the Mutashabih (the ayat of sifat amongst
them), “He said regarding the censure of
those who seek interpretation of the Mutashabih of Quran, “As for
those who have deviancy in thier hearts because of which they go
after the Mutashabih, intending to spread fitnah and seeking it’s
interpreation, and no one knows it’s interpretation except Allah
ta’ala. Ayah”
Clearly
the intent of Ibn Qudama is to drive home the point that only Allah
alone knows the Mutashabihat, and the Ayat of Sifat are from the
Mutashabihat according to Ibn Qudama. And thus we don’t know it’s
interpreations.
D –
Another passage he states after the hadith “Allah
ta’ala will be seen on the day of judgement”, “and
similar to these ahadith, we believe in them, and affirm them,
without modality and meaning, and we don’t reject any of it…’
Again Ibn Qudama is driving home the point that the
meaning as well as the modality is unknown.
The
rules of arabic grammar state that when Waw is used, as it’s used
in Ibn Qudama’s words, the default meaning of it
is dissimilarity between the thing before and after the particle waw.
So, Kayf and Ma’ana are two different things, not same, as some of
tried to distort.
In
response to these passages, it’s interesting to note what salafi
scholars have said, and their criticism of Ibn Qudama.
Shaykh
Salih’s criticism of Ibn Qudama:
Shaykh
Salih Fawzan says regarding point B mentioned
above, “this
sentence isn’t accepted from the Shaykh (ibn Qudama),
Allah ta’ala have mercy on him, it’s as if he’s dividing the
texts of the Attributes into two kinds, one kind the meaning and
interpreation is apparent, and this we believe in, as well as it’s
meaning and interpretation, and the second kind, the meaning isn’t
apparent to us, and this we relegate to Allah ta’ala, and this is
wrong. Because meaning is known of all of the text of the Names and
Attributes. Nothing from them is
obscure or from the Mutashabihat, so the text of Names and Attributes
aren’t from the Mutashabih nor do they enter into the category of
Mutashabih, as Ibn Taymiyya explained…”
On
Page 75 Shaykh Muni’ says, “What is
correct is that the Ayat of Sifat aren’t from the Mutashabihat.”
Disparity
regarding Ibn Qudama’s quote of Imam Ahmed’s words:
“Without
Modality and Meaning”:
Shaykh
Fawzan says regarding “without
Meaning”: “the meaning that the innovators have
given, and that is ta’wil”, while Shaykh Muni’ says, “it
means the essence, we don’t delve into the essence of the
attribute.”
Shaykh
Fawzan answering question regarding Sifat
from Mutashabih, pg 296;
Q: “Is
it true that Ibn Qudama in Rawdatun Nadhir mentioned the Ayat of
Sifat in the Mutashabih, and are his words there the same as here (in
Luma’)?
Answer: The
correct and considered opinion is his words here, however he divided
the Sifat into two categories, clear and obscure/difficult, and this
wrong. All of the Attributes are clear, nothing from it is difficult.
As for what’ in the Rawdah, he agreed with the later Usulis such as
the Asharis and others, and it’s said that rawdah is taken from
Mustasfah of Imam Ghazali, and Imam Ghazzali is Ashari’, it’s
possible that he missed this note (him being an Ashari’?).
Shaykh
Muhammed bin Ibrahim Aal as-Shaykh says regarding
Ibn Qudama:
“As
for what he mentioned in al-Luma’, it’s
in agreement with the Madhab of Mufawwidah (relegating
it’s meaning to Allah ta’ala), and this
is from the worst of Madhahib, and
the author is an Imam in regards to the Sunnah, and he’s the most
distant of people from the Mufawwidah madhab and other innovative
groups. And Allah ta’ala knows best.”
Shaykh
‘Afifi affirming Ibn Qudama to be a Mufawwid
Here
An
objection is raised regarding Ibn Qudama’s statements
above and his other statements regarding leaving it upon the dhahir
(the apparent). The only way to reconcile this contradition, as it’s
well known Ibn Qudama considers the Ayat of Sifat to
be from the Mutashabih and only Allah knows their meaning, is that
the position of Ibn Qudama is to leave the words
alone. Not to give explantion of it (it’s meaning) nor it’s
interpreation that would take away the apparent meaning, such as
Qudrah for Yad.
So ibn
Qudama’s position is we leave Yad alone
without saying it means such as such, and also we leave it’s
interpreation being Qudrah, as that would nullify the Sifah.
As
for those who say, we know the meaning of Yad for
humans, as well as for Allah ta’ala. I ask, the meaning for
yad for humans is a limb consisting of flesh and bone, what is the
meaning, if you say you know it, of Yadullah?
Another
posting will be done regarding Salafis opinion on the Mutashabih and
the Hanbali scholars, as well as the argument why would Allah ta’ala
reveal something of which we don’t understand, InshAllah.
Works cited:
Sharh
Luma’atul Itiqad by Shaykh
Salih Fawzan
Sharh Luma’tul
Itiqad by Muhammed bin Ahmed
al-Muni’
Sharh Luma’tul
Itiqad by Shaykh Uthaymin
http://khadimululema.wordpress.com/category/aqidah/
(Posted
by muhammedm on July 5, 2010)
---
Quote
1:
والصحيح:
أن
المتشابه:
ما
ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه-
مما
يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله،
كقوله تعالى:
{الرحمن
على العرش استوى}
{بل
يداه مبسوطتان}
{لما
خلقت بيدي}
{ويبقى
وجه ربك}
{تجري
بأعيننا}
ونحوه. فهذا
اتفق السلف -رحمهم
الله-
على
الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه، وترك
تأويله؛ فإن الله -سبحانه-
ذم
المتبعين لتأويله وقرنهم -في
الذم-
بالذين
يبتغون الفتنة وسماهم أهل زيغ
[روضة
الناظر وجنة المناظر، ج ١ ص ٢٧]
“And
the correct opinion is that the ambiguous [verses] revealed regarding
the attributes of Allāh, Glory be to He, are those which it is
compulsory to have faith in and impermissible [to occupy oneself] in
seeking its interpretation; for example, the statement of Allah, the
Exalted,
“The
Most Merciful above the Throne is established” (Qur’ān, 20:5),
“Rather,
both His Hands are extended” (Qur’ān, 5:64),
“…which
I created with my Hands…” (Qur’ān, 38:75),
“And
there will remain the Face of your Lord” (Qur’ān, 55:27),
“Sailing
under Our observation” (Qur’ān, 54:14) and similar to them.
So,
the Salaf (pious predecessors), may Allāh have mercy upon them, have
agreed upon their affirmation [ie. belief in them], passing them as
they have come and leaving of interpretating them. For indeed Allāh,
Glory be to He, has rebuked those who seek their interpretation and
included them, in reprimanding, with those who seek strife and He has
labelled them the people of aberration.”
[Rawḍat
al-Nāẓir
wa Jannat al-Manāẓir,
1/27]
Quote
2:
ومذهب
السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات
الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في
آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير
زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها
ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها
ولا تشبيه بصفات المخلوقين ولا سمات
المحدثين بل أمروها كما جاءت وردوا علمها
إلى قائلها ومعناها إلى المتكلم بها
“The
Madhab of the Salaf, Allāh’s Mercy be upon them, is to have firm
belief (Īmān) in the Attributes of Allāh, The Most High, and His
Names with which He described Himself in the Qur’ān and His
revelation, or upon the tongue of His Prophet, without any additions,
any removal from it, not exceeding the bounds of it, without any
explanation or interpretation that opposes its apparent, nor making
any resemblance with the attributes of the creation or the qualities
of contingencies; rather, they passed them on (narrated them) as they
came and consigned the knowledge of them to its speaker (Allāh) and
the meaning of them to the One that spoke them.”
وقال
بعضهم ويروى ذلك عن الشافعي رحمة الله
عليه آمنت بما جاء عن الله على مراد الله
وبما جاء عن رسول الله على مراد رسول الله
صلى الله عليه وسلم
“And
some said it was related from Imām al-Shafi’ī: ‘I believe in
what has been transmitted regarding Allāh according to the intent of
Allāh, and what has come from the Messenger (Rasūl) of Allāh
according to the intent of Rasūl Allāh (peace be upon him).'”
وعلموا
أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه
ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم
يعلموه وأخذ ذلك الآخر والأول ووصى بعضهم
بعضا بحسن الإتباع والوقوف حيث وقف أولهم
وحذروا من التجاوز لهم والعدول عن طريقهم
وبينوا لهم سبيلهم ومذهبهم ونرجوا أن
يجعلنا الله تعالى ممن اقتدى بهم في بيان
ما بينوه وسلوك الطريق الذي سلكوه
[ذم
التأويل ج ١ ص ١١]
“And
they (the Salaf) knew that the One who spoke them (Allāh) was
truthful without doubt, so they believed Him. And they did not know
the reality of their meanings [i.e. the Attributes], so they were
silent about what they did not know. The later and the earlier ones
adhered to this. Thus, they strongly advised one another of good
obedience and stopping where their formers stopped. And they warned
from exceeding their bounds and diverging from their [i.e. the
Salaf’s] path. Furthermore, they elucidated their methodology and
doctrinal positions. We hope to Allāh that He makes us from the ones
who followed them in explaining what they explained and following the
path that they traverse.”[Dhamm
al-Ta’wīl, 1/11]
Quote
3:
قال
الإمام أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل
رضي الله عنه في قول النبي صلى الله عليه
وسلم:
«إن
الله ينزل إلى سماء الدنيا»
،
أو «إن
الله يرى في القيامة»
،
وما أشبه هذه الأحاديث نؤمن بها، ونصدق
بها بلا كيف، ولا معنى، ولا نرد شيئا منها،
ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق، ولا نرد
على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا
نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد
ولا غاية {ليس
كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير}
[لمعة
الإعتقاد ج ١ ص ٦-٧]
“The
Imām Abū Abd’ Allāh Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ḥanbal,
may Allāh be pleased with him, said regarding the statements of the
Prophet(s):
‘Indeed Allāh descends to the sky of the world’ or, ‘Indeed
Allāh will be seen on the Day of Judgement’, and those Ahādīth
of this nature, that we believe in them, we affirm them without a
modality or meaning. We do not avert anything from them, and we know
that what has come from the Prophet is true, we do not confute upon
the messenger of Allāh(s) and
we have not described Allāh with more than what He has described
unto Himself, without a limit and without a boundary. ‘There is
nothing like unto Him and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.’(Qur’ān,
42:11)”[Lum’at
al-I’tiqād, 1/6-7]
---
From
the above statements of
the Imām, it
has been argued that
he intended by his words: “take
them as they have come”
or “pass
them on their Dhāhir,”
that they
should be taken upon the apparent meaning.
This
however, will
be disproven by
turning our attention to his other statements which will now be
brought to the noble reader’s attention.
The
Imām says:
وما
أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا، وترك التعرض
لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله
[لمعة
الإعتقاد ج ١ ص ٦]
“And
whatever is ambiguous from these [verses referring to the Sifāt of
Allāh], it is compulsory to affirm its words, to leave the seeking
of its meaning and consign its knowledge to the One [Allāh] who said
it.” [Lum’at al-I’tiqād,
1/6]
Here
the Imām has
very clearly stated that
the affirmation
of these Attributes of Allāh are
upon their words
and their meanings are consigned, which
gives validity to the fact that wherever he says Dhāhir,
his intent
is the apparent words and not the apparent
meaning.
He
says elsewhere:
لو
كان تأويل ذلك واجبا لبينه النبي صلى الله
عليه وسلم لأمته فإنه لا يجوز تأخير البيان
عن وقته ولأنه لو وجب علينا التأويل لوجب
عليه صلى الله عليه وسلم فإنه صلى الله
عليه وسلم مساو لنا في الأحكام ولو وجب
عليه لما أخل به ولأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم
حريص على أمته لم يكتم عنهم شيئا أمره
الله به وقد
قال الله تعالى {يا
أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك وإن
لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته}
[تحريم
النظر في كتب الكلام، ص ٥٠]
“If
there was an explanation for it (i.e. the texts of the Attributes),
it would have been compulsory for the Prophet ﷺ to
explain it to his Ummah for indeed, it is not permitted to delay an
explanation from its time; and also because if it was compulsory for
us to know it’s explanation, then it surely would have been
compulsory for the Prophet ﷺ;
for verily he is an equivalent for us in the rulings. If it was
compulsory upon him, he would not have left any deficiency in it [to
withhold the explanation] and because he ﷺ is
desirous [of goodness] for his Ummah, he would not conceal from them
anything that Allāh had ordered him with. Indeed, Allāh has said:
‘O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from
your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His
message…’ (Qur’ān, 5:67).”
What
Imām ibn Qudāmah is
saying in essence is that since there is no explanation or direct
meaning of the Sifāt from Rasulullah ﷺ,
and had there been a meaning known to him, he surely would have
informed us of it and since he didn’t, then there’s no need for
us to know the meaning either. This is further explained in the next
statement:
لا
حاجة لنا إلى علم معنى ما أراد الله تعالى
من صفاته جل وعز فإنه لا يراد منها عمل
ولا يتعلق بها تكليف سوى الإيمان بها
ويمكن الإيمان بها من غير علم معناها فإن
الإيمان بالجهل صحيح فإن الله تعالى أمر
بالإيمان بملائكته وكتبه ورسله وما أنزل
إليهم وإن كنا لا نعرف من ذلك إلا التسمية
[تحريم
النظر في كتب الكلام، ص ٥١]
“There
is no need for us to know the meanings of what Allāh Ta’ālā
intended from His Attributes Jalla wa ‘Azza, for indeed, He
has not intended
any action by them and neither has He attached any responsibility
regarding them besides believing in them. It
is possible to believe in them without knowledge of their meanings
and therefore, indeed faith with ignorance [of the meanings] is
correct. Verily,
Allah has ordered us to have faith in His angels, His books, His
messengers and what He had revealed unto them even if we do not know
of them except their names.”[Tahrīm
al-Naẓr
fī Kutub
al-Kalām,
pg. 51]
In
the aforementioned quote, he is clearly saying there’s
no need for us to know the meanings intended by Allāh in regards to
His attributes as belief in them without meaning is possible just as
in other matters. Therefore, it categorically cannot be argued that
the Imām meant taking the Attributes on their outward meanings since
he dismisses the need for a meaning outright.
وهي
الإيمان بالألفاظ والآيات والأخبار
بالمعنى الذي أراده الله تعالى والسكوت
عما لا نعلمه من معناها وترك البحث عما
لم يكلفنا الله البحث عنه من تأويلها ولم
يطلعنا على علمه واتباع طريق الراسخين
الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه المبين
حين قالوا {آمنا
به كل من عند ربنا}
[تحريم
النظر في كتب الكلام، ص ٥١]
While
explaining the way of the Salaf, he
says:
“It
is to have faith in the words, the verses and reports with the
meaning that Allāh Ta’ālā has intended (i.e., to say something
similar to what has been reported by Imām Shafi’i which has been
mentioned above), silence upon what we do not know regarding its
meanings, to leave searching for what Allāh has not burdened us with
and searching for their explanations as well as what He has not
informed us from His Knowledge and to follow the path of those who
are steadfast (al-Rāsikhīn) whom Allāh has commended in His clear
Book wherein they say: “We believe in all that has come from our
Lord.” (Qur’ān, 3:7) [Tahrīm
al-Naẓr
fī Kutub
al-Kalām,
pg. 51]
Here
the Imām clearly espouses the view of Tafwīḍ al-Ma’nā, stating
that the Salaf did not know
the meanings of the Attributes, nor did
they seek them and thus simply remained silent about them.
As
for those who object to this, then the Imām has responded to them
further along:
وإن
عاب السكوت عن التفسير أخطأ فإننا لا نعلم
لها تفسيرا ومن لم يعلم شيئا وجب عليه
السكوت عنه وحرم عليه الكلام فيه قال الله
تعالى {ولا
تقف ما ليس لك به علم}
وذكر
الله تعالى في المحرمات {وأن
تقولوا على الله ما لا تعلمون}…
وأيضا
فإن عائب هذه المقالة عائب على رسول الله
صلى الله عليه وسلم فإنه كان يؤمن بالله
وكلماته ولم يفسر شيئا من ذلك ولا بين
معناه
[تحريم
النظر في كتب الكلام، ص ٥٤]
“And
if one finds fault in silence regarding the explanation, he is
erroneous; for indeed, we do not know an explanation for them and the
one who does not know anything, it is necessary upon him to remain
silent regarding it and it is impermissible for him to speak on it.
Allāh Ta’ālā has said: ‘And do not pursue that of which you
have no knowledge…’ (Qur’ān, 17:36) and Allāh Ta’ālā has
mentioned from among the impermissible things: ‘… and to say
about Allāh what you do not know.’ (Qur’ān, 2:169)… and also,
if one faults this position, then one faults the Prophet ﷺ;
for, indeed, he believed in Allāh and His Words and did not explain
anything from them [the ambiguous Attributes] and he did not explain
their meanings.” [Tahrīm
al-Naẓr
fī Kutub
al-Kalām,
pg. 54]
Admission
of the Figureheads from the Opposing View
After
presenting the above statements of Imām ibn Qudāmah, the fact of
him being a Mufawwiḍ has
been explicitly elucidated.
If
however, any mind is still in doubt then they may see below how some
of the figureheads of the proponents of Ithbāt
al-Ma’nā ala’l
Dhāhir have
conceded that Imām ibn Qudāmah was a Mufawwiḍ.
Sh
Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn states
in his explanation of
the statement in Lum’at
al-I’tiqād (first
quote in further explanatory quotes mentioned above):
أما
ما ذكره في “اللمعة” فإنه ينطبق على مذهب
المفوضة، وهو من شر المذاهب وأخبثها،
والمصنف -رحمه
الله-
إمام
في السنة، وهو أبعد الناس عن مذهب المفوضة
وغيرهم من المبتدعة، والله أعلم
[تعليق
مختصر على لمعة الإعتقاد للعثيمين ج ١ ص
٣١]
“As
for what he mentioned in ‘al-Lum’ah‘, then
indeed, he
was an adherent upon the methodology of the Mufawwiḍah, it
is from the worst of methodologies and the filthiest of them.
The author, may Allāh have mercy on him, is
an Imām in the Sunnah and he
is the furthest of the people from the methodology of the Mufawwiḍah
and others beside them from the innovators.
And Allāh knows best.”
[Ta’liq
Mukhtasar ‘alā Kitāb Lum’at al-I’tiqād al-Hādī ilā Sabīl
al-Rashād, 1/31]
Although
Sh Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn admits that this
is what Imām ibn Qudāmah adhered to,
he also attempts to repel the
position from him since he considers
him an Imām of what
he considers to be the Sunnah,
the reason for this is explained by another proponent of the view
opposing Tafwīḍ al-Ma’nā:
Shaykh
‘Abd al-Razzāq ‘Afīfī said:
مذهب
السلف هو التفويض في كيفية الصفات لا في
المعنى، وقد غلط ابن قدامة في لمعة
الاعتقاد، وقال:
بالتفويض
ولكن الحنابلة يتعصبون للحنابلة، ولذلك
يتعصب بعض المشايخ في الدفاع عن ابن قدامة،
ولكن الصحيح أن ابن قدامة مفوض
[فتاوى
ورسائل سماحة الشيخ عبد الرزاق عفيفي]
“The
methodology of the Salaf was consignment regarding
the modality (kayfiyyah), not in
the meaning (ma’nā),
and indeed
ibn Qudāmah erred in Lum’at
al-I’tiqād as
he said with Tafwīḍ; but
the Ḥanābila
are partisan to the Ḥanābila.
Therefore, some Mashā’ikh are extreme when it comes to defending
ibn Qudāmah.
However,
what is correct is that ibn Qudāmah was a Mufawwiḍ.”
[Fatāwa
wa Rasā’il Samāhat al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzāq ‘Afīfī]
Finally, here
is the verdict of the late Shaykh
Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī from
the footnotes of
a book attributed to him entitled “Fundamentals
of the Salafee Methodology: An Islamic Manual for Reform“.
[
see above scan ]
