My Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

‘Allama Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali a Mufawwid

Posted by muhammedm on July 5, 2010

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’)?
A – 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 – http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?5916-Ibn-Qudama-al-Hanbali-the-Mufawwid-and-todays-Pseuo-Salafiyya&p=54907

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

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Advertisements

5 Responses to “‘Allama Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali a Mufawwid”

  1. muhammedm said

    Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

    You’re speaking to a brother of yours.

    • tru_Qur'an said

      As salamu ‘alaykum,

      “Another posting will be done regarding Salafis opinion on the Mutashabih and the Hanbali scholars, as well as the argument why would Allah taโ€™ala reveal something of which we donโ€™t understand, InshAllah.”

      Waiting for this one akhi insha’Allah. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • muhammedm said

        Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

        Apologies for not keeping my word; here’s a snippet that I found, I still need to look into the works:

        ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุฅู…ูŽุงู…ู ุงุจู†ู ู‚ุฏุงู…ุฉ _ ูŠุฑู’ุญู…ูู‡ู ุงู„ู„ู‡ู _ ููŠ “ุฑูŽูˆู’ุถูŽุฉู ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุงุธูุฑ ” ู…ูŽุนูŽ ุญูŽุงุดูŠูŽุฉู ุงุจู† ุจูŽุฏู’ุฑูŽุงู† (1/186) : { ูˆุงู„ุตุญูŠู’ุญู ุฃู†ู‘ ุงู„ู…ูุชูŽุดุงุจูู‡ : ู…ูŽุง ูˆูŽุฑูŽุฏูŽ ูููŠ ุตูููŽุงุชู ุงู„ู„ู‡ู ุณูุจู’ุญูŽุงู†ูŽู‡ู } .

        ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุฅู…ุงู…ู ุงุจู† ู…ูู„ุญ ููŠ “ุงู„ุฃุตูˆู„” (1/316) : { ูˆุงู„ู…ูุญู’ูƒูŽู… ู…ูŽุง ุงุชู‘ูŽุถูŽุญูŽ ู…ูŽุนู’ู†ูŽุงู‡ู ุŒ ูู„ู… ูŠูŽุญู’ุชูŽุฌู’ ุฅู„ู‰ ุจูŽูŠูŽุงู† ุŒ ูˆุงู„ู…ูุชุดุงุจู‡ : ุนูŽูƒุณูู‡ู ุ› ู„ุงุดู’ุชุฑุงูƒู ุฃูˆ ุฅุฌู…ูŽุงู„ ุŒ ู‚ุงู„ ุฌู…ุงุนุฉูŒ ู…ู† ุฃุตู’ุญุงุจู†ุง ูˆุบูŠู’ุฑูู‡ู… : ูˆู…ุง ุธุงู‡ุฑูู‡ู ุงู„ุชุดู’ุจูŠู’ู‡ ุŒ ูƒุตููุงุชู ุงู„ู„ู‡ู } .

        ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุฅู…ุงู…ู ุงู„ู…ุฑู’ุฏุงูˆูŠ _ ูŠูŽุฑู’ุญู…ูู‡ู ุงู„ู„ู‡ู _ ููŠ “ุงู„ุชุญู’ุจูŠู’ุฑ ุดูŽุฑู’ุญ ุงู„ุชุญู’ุฑูŠู’ุฑ” (3/1395) :{ ูˆุงู„ุฃุตุญ : ุฃู†ู‘ ุงู„ู…ูุญู’ูƒู… : ู…ุง ุงุชุถุญ ู…ูŽุนู’ู†ูŽุงู‡ู ุŒ ูˆุงู„ู…ูุชูŽุดุงุจูŽู‡ ุนูŽูƒุณูู‡ูุŒ ู„ุงุดุชุฑุงูƒู ุฃูˆ ุฅุฌู…ุงู„ู ุŒ ุฃูˆ ุธู‡ูˆุฑู ุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู’ู‡ ุŒ ูƒุตูุงุช ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ } .

  2. elfaqir said

    Ibn Taymiyyah said [translation by B Zawadi]:
    ุซู… ูƒุซูŠุฑ ู…ู† ู‡ุคู„ุงุก ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู† : ุชุฌุฑูŠ ุนู„ู‰ ุธุงู‡ุฑู‡ุง ูุธุงู‡ุฑู‡ุง ู…ุฑุงุฏ ู…ุน ู‚ูˆู„ู‡ู… : ุฅู† ู„ู‡ุง ุชุฃูˆูŠู„ุง ุจู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ ู„ุง ูŠุนู„ู…ู‡ ุฅู„ุง ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุŒ ูˆู‡ุฐุง ุชู†ุงู‚ุถ ูˆู‚ุน ููŠู‡ ูƒุซูŠุฑ ู…ู† ู‡ุคู„ุงุก ุงู„ู…ู†ุชุณุจูŠู† ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ

    Many from amongst them (i.e. Mufawwidha) say that they (passages on Sifaat) are to be passed along upon their Dhaahir. Their Dhaahir is what is intended, while they say: “It has an interpretation, which only Allah knows”. And this contradiction has been committed by many of those who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah. (Majmu’ Al-Fataawa, Volume 5, page 35)

  3. elfaqir said

    from the sunniforum link above:
    …..the pseudo-Salafi Shaykh: Abdar Razzaq Afifi affirmed by passing a fatwa that Imam ibn Qudama was a Mufawwid based on what is in his Luma al-Iโ€™tiqad:

    ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุฑุฒุงู‚ ุนููŠููŠ – –

    ุนู† ุจุนุถ ุนุจุงุฑุงุช ุงู„ุงู…ุงู… ุงุจู† ู‚ุฏุงู…ุฉ ููŠ ู„ู…ุนุฉ ุงู„ุงุนุชู‚ุงุฏ ุงู„ุชูŠ ูŠูู‡ู… ู…ู†ู‡ุง ุงู„ุชููˆูŠุถ ุŸ

    ูุงุฌุงุจ:

    ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุงู„ุณู„ู ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุชููˆูŠุถ ููŠ ูƒูŠููŠุฉ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ู„ุง ููŠ ุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ ุŒ ูˆู‚ุฏ ุบู„ุท ุงุจู† ู‚ุฏุงู…ุฉ ููŠ ู„ู…ุนุฉ ุงู„ุงุนุชู‚ุงุฏ ุŒ ูˆู‚ุงู„ : ุจุงู„ุชููˆูŠุถ ูˆู„ูƒู† ุงู„ุญู†ุงุจู„ุฉ ูŠุชุนุตุจูˆู† ู„ู„ุญู†ุงุจู„ุฉ ุŒ ูˆู„ุฐู„ูƒ ูŠุชุนุตุจ ุจุนุถ ุงู„ู…ุดุงูŠุฎ ููŠ ุงู„ุฏูุงุน ุนู† ุงุจู† ู‚ุฏุงู…ุฉ ุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ุงู„ุตุญูŠุญ ุงู† ุงุจู† ู‚ุฏุงู…ุฉ ู…ููˆุถ

    ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ:-

    ูุชุงูˆู‰ ูˆุฑุณุงุฆู„ ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุฑุฒุงู‚ ุนููŠููŠ

    ุงู„ุทุจุนุฉ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠุฉ – ุต 347 – ูุชุงูˆู‰ ุงู„ุนู‚ูŠุฏุฉ ุณุคุงู„ ุฑู‚ู… 4

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: