Ibn Qudāmah and Tafwīḍ al-Maʿnā
Share
PDF: Click here
Ibn Qudāmah and Tafwīḍ al-Maʿnā
By Ibn Paul al-Malik
In the name of God, al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥeem. All praise belongs to Allāh, Lord of the worlds, and may prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muḥammad, his family, his companions, and all those who follow them in goodness until the Day of Judgement.
“Refraining from delving into its meaning, and we refer knowledge of it back to the One who said it.”
Ibn Qudāmah. may Allah have mercy upon him, says:
وَكُلُّ مَا جَاءَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ، أَوْ صَحَّ عَنِ الْمُصْطَفَى ﷺ، مِنْ صِفَاتِ الرَّحْمَنِ وَجَبَ الْإِيمَانُ بِهِ، وَتَلَقِّيهِ بِالتَّسْلِيمِ وَالْقَبُولِ، وَتَرْكُ التَّعَرُّضِ لَهُ بِالرَّدِّ وَالتَّأْوِيلِ وَالتَّشْبِيهِ وَالتَّمْثِيلِ
“Everything that has come in the Qurʾān or is authentically transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ concerning the Attributes of the Most Merciful must be believed, received with submission and acceptance, without subjecting it to rejection, taʾwīl, tashbīh or tamthīl.”
Then he says:
وَمَا أَشْكَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَجَبَ إِثْبَاتُهُ لَفْظًا، وَتَرْكُ التَّعَرُّضِ لِمَعْنَاهُ، وَنَرُدُّ عِلْمَهُ إِلَى قَائِلِهِ
“And whatever from among that is unclear must be affirmed in wording, while refraining from delving into its meaning, and we refer knowledge of it back to the One who said it.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/30855/2]
So the restriction is:
وَمَا أَشْكَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ
“whatever from among that is unclear.”
He first discusses all ṣifāt, then singles out those which are unclear.
So the command:
ترك التعرض لمعناه
“refraining from delving into its meaning”
belongs specifically to the mushkil case.
His own writings show what ishkāl means
وَإِنْ أَشْكَلَ عَلَيْهِ عِلْمُ ذَلِكَ وَلَمْ يَجِدْ مَنْ يَسْأَلُهُ فَلْيَقِفْ وَلْيَقُلْ: آمَنْتُ بِمَا قَالَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ، وَلَا يُثْبِت بِهِ شَيْئًا.
“If the matter becomes unclear to him and he cannot determine it, and he finds no one to ask, then he should withhold judgment and say: “I believe in whatever the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said,” and he should not affirm anything on the basis of that particular report.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6425/40]
This particular passage concerns uncertainty regarding transmitted material rather than the meaning of a ṣifah.
But it establishes how Ibn Qudāmah uses "أشكل عليه"
Ibn Qudāmah explains this principle in Dhamm al-Taʾwīl.
He says:
أَنَّ اللَّفْظَ إِذَا احْتَمَلَ مَعَانِي فَحَمْلُهُ عَلَى مَعْنًى مِنْهَا مِنْ غَيْرِ وَاحِدٍ بِتَعْيِينِهِ تَخَرُّصٌ وَقَوْلٌ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
“When a wording admits several meanings, carrying it upon one of those meanings without one being specifically determined is speculation and speaking about Allah Most High without knowledge.”
He then continues:
وَلِأَنَّ تَعْيِينَ أَحَدِ الْمُحْتَمَلَاتِ إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ تَوْقِيفٌ يَحْتَاجُ إِلَى حَصْرِ الْمُحْتَمَلَاتِ كُلِّهَا
“Because specifying one of the possible meanings, when there is no revealed text determining it, requires encompassing all the possible meanings…”
And:
وَهَذَا يَحْتَاجُ إِلَى الْإِحَاطَةِ بِاللُّغَاتِ كُلِّهَا وَمَعْرِفَةِ لِسَانِ الْعَرَبِ كُلِّهِ وَلَا سَبِيلَ إِلَيْهِ، فَكَيْفَ بِمَنْ لَا عِلْمَ لَهُ بِاللُّغَةِ
“This requires comprehensive knowledge of all linguistic usages and knowledge of the entire tongue of the Arabs, for which there is no way, so what then of one who has no knowledge of the language?”
Here “for which there is no way” means there is no way for a person to completely encompass every possible linguistic meaning and every usage in the Arabic language, and thereby rule out every other possible meaning except one. Rather, when there are multiple possible meanings, we take the dhāhir of them, as we will establish. But if a person cannot determine which of the possible meanings is the dhāhir, then the method Ibn Qudāmah describes applies to him.
Then his conclusion:
وَإِذَا تَعَذَّرَ هَذَا بَطَلَ تَعْيِينُ مُجْمَلٍ مِنْهَا عَلَى وَجْهِ الصِّحَّةِ، وَوَجَبَ الْإِيمَانُ بِهَا بِالْمَعْنَى الَّذِي أَرَادَهُ
“When this is impossible, specifying [one meaning] from an ambiguous expression with certainty becomes invalid, and it becomes obligatory to believe in it according to the meaning He (Allah) intended.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6425/36]
وَهَذِه طَريقَة مُسْتَقِيمَة ومقالة صَحِيحَة سليمَة لَيْسَ على صَاحبهَا خطر وَلَا يلْحقهُ عيب وَلَا ضَرَر لِأَن الْمَوْجُود مِنْهُ هُوَ الْإِيمَان بِلَفْظ الْكتاب وَالسّنة
“This is a straight path and a sound, correct statement. There is no danger to its adherent, nor does he suffer any defect or harm, because what is present in it is belief in the wording of the Book and the Sunnah.”
And:
وسكوته عَن تَأْوِيل لم يعلم صِحَّته وَالسُّكُوت عَن ذَلِك وَاجِب
“And his remaining silent concerning a taʾwīl whose correctness he does not know is also obligatory,”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6425/37]
He is saying that if you cannot establish which possible meaning is actually intended in a difficult text, such as someone who is not well versed in Arabic, this does not mean the meaning itself is unknowable, but that it has become unclear to that particular person. He should therefore not speculate and then attribute that speculation to Allāh. Rather, he stops where his knowledge stops.
Ibn Qudāmah himself says dhāhir means meaning
In Dhamm al-Taʾwīl Ibn Qudāmah says:
قُلْنَا نَحن لم نتأول شَيْئا وَحمل هَذِه اللفظات على هَذِه الْمعَانِي لَيْسَ بِتَأْوِيل لِأَن التَّأْوِيل صرف اللَّفْظ عَن ظَاهره وَهَذِه الْمعَانِي هِيَ الظَّاهِر من هَذِه الْأَلْفَاظ بِدَلِيل أَنه الْمُتَبَادر إِلَى الأفهام مِنْهَا
“We say: We have not made taʾwīl of anything. Interpreting these expressions according to these meanings is not taʾwīl, because taʾwīl is to divert a wording away from its dhāhir. These meanings are themselves the dhāhir of these expressions, as indicated by the fact that they are what first come to mind when they are heard.”
In Rawḍat al-Nāẓir:
الْقِسْمُ الثَّانِي - الظَّاهِرُ: وَهُوَ مَا يَسْبِقُ إِلَى الْفَهْمِ مِنْهُ عِنْدَ الْإِطْلَاقِ مَعْنًى، مَعَ تَجْوِيزِ غَيْرِهِ
“The second category - dhāhir: that from which, when expressed without qualification, a meaning first comes to the understanding, while another remains possible.”
Then:
وَإِنْ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ: مَا احْتَمَلَ مَعْنَيَيْنِ هُوَ فِي أَحَدِهِمَا أَظْهَرُ
“And if you wish, you may say: that which is capable of bearing two meanings, but is more apparent in one of them.”
Then:
فَحُكْمُهُ: أَنْ يُصَارَ إِلَى مَعْنَاهُ الظَّاهِرِ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ تَرْكُهُ إِلَّا بِتَأْوِيلٍ
“Its ruling is that one proceeds according to its dhāhir meaning, and it is not permissible to abandon it except by taʾwīl.”
And Ibn Qudāmah immediately defines taʾwīl:
وَالتَّأْوِيلُ: صَرْفُ اللَّفْظِ عَنِ الِاحْتِمَالِ الظَّاهِرِ إِلَى احْتِمَالٍ مَرْجُوحٍ بِهِ
“Taʾwīl is diverting the wording from the apparent possibility to a less apparent possibility…”
[https://shamela.ws/book/12010/550]
So dhāhir cannot be reduced to the Arabic wording whose meaning nobody understands.
Ibn Qudāmah actually demonstrates how this works
He says:
فَالْمُتَبَادِرُ إِلَى الْفَهْمِ مِنْ قَوْلِهِمْ: اللَّهُ مَعَكَ أَيْ بِالْحِفْظِ وَالْكَلَاءَةِ
“What immediately comes to the understanding from their saying ‘Allah is with you’ is through protection and care.”
Then:
فَعلم أَن ظَاهر هَذِه الْأَلْفَاظ هُوَ مَا حملت عَلَيْهِ فَلم يكن تَأْوِيلا ثمَّ لَو كَانَ تَأْوِيلا فَمَا نَحن تأولنا وَإِنَّمَا السّلف رَحْمَة الله عَلَيْهِم الَّذِي ثَبت صوابهم وَوَجَب اتباعهم هم الَّذين تأولوه
“Thus it is known that the dhāhir of these expressions is the meaning upon which they have been understood, so this is not [blameworthy] taʾwīl. Then, even if it were taʾwīl, it is not we who made this taʾwīl. Rather, it was the Salaf, may Allāh have mercy upon them, whose correctness has been established and whom it is obligatory to follow, who made this taʾwīl.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6425/38]
Blameworthy taʾwīl is that which contradicts the dhāhir meaning, as we have established.
(The last bit also establishes that it is obligatory to follow the salaf)
His famous statement in Dhamm al-Taʾwīl
This is usually quoted to support the Muffawidh approach:
وَمذهب السّلف رَحْمَة الله عَلَيْهِم الْإِيمَان بِصِفَات الله تَعَالَى وأسمائه الَّتِي وصف بهَا نَفسه فِي آيَاته وتنزيله أَو على لِسَان رَسُوله من غير زِيَادَة عَلَيْهَا وَلَا نقص مِنْهَا وَلَا تجَاوز لَهَا وَلَا تَفْسِير وَلَا تَأْوِيل لَهَا بِمَا يُخَالف ظَاهرهَا وَلَا تَشْبِيه بِصِفَات المخلوقين وَلَا سمات الْمُحدثين بل أمروها كَمَا جَاءَت وردوا علمهَا إِلَى قَائِلهَا وَمَعْنَاهَا إِلَى الْمُتَكَلّم بهَا
“The madhhab of the Salaf, may Allāh have mercy upon them, is to believe in the attributes and names of Allāh, Most High, by which He described Himself in His verses and revelation, or which came upon the tongue of His Messenger, without adding to them, subtracting from them, going beyond them, explaining them, or making taʾwīl of them in a way that contradicts their ẓāhir, and without likening them to the attributes of created beings or the characteristics of originated things. Rather, they passed them on as they came, referred knowledge of them back to the One who said them, and referred their meaning back to the One who spoke them.”
Taken alone, that sounds like very strongly tafwīḍ al-maʿnā.
But in the very same discussion he says:
وَلَا تَفْسِيرَ وَلَا تَأْوِيلَ لَهَا بِمَا يُخَالِفُ ظَاهِرَهَا
“And no tafsīr or taʾwīl of them in a way contrary to their dhāhir.”
And shortly after he says:
وَعَلِمُوا أَنَّ الْمُتَكَلِّمَ بِهَا صَادِقٌ لَا شَكَّ فِي صِدْقِهِ فَصَدَّقُوهُ، وَلَمْ يَعْلَمُوا حَقِيقَةَ مَعْنَاهَا فَسَكَتُوا عَمَّا لَمْ يَعْلَمُوهُ.
“They knew that the One who spoke these words is truthful, with no doubt concerning His truthfulness, so they affirmed them. They did not know the true reality of their meaning (ḥaqīqat maʿnā), so they remained silent concerning what they did not know.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6425/4]
He does not merely say, “They did not know its meaning.” Rather, he says “They did not know the reality (ḥaqīqah) of its meaning.” This distinguishes the affirmed meaning from the reality of that meaning as it pertains to Allāh. Thus, as we have established, the dhāhir meaning is understood and affirmed, while the ḥaqīqah, meaning the kunh, of said meaning, and how that attribute actually exists (its kayfiyyah) with respect to Allāh, are left to him.
(Ibn Manẓūr explains ḥaqīqah as the kunh of the thing. Kunh means the full and ultimate reality of a thing, what it truly is in its complete extent and nature, as explained by Ibn Manẓūr)
For example, the dhāhir meaning of yad (when used without qualification, as this is what the dhāhir meaning of a word is according to Ibn Qudamah) is kaff (which is also why Ibn Manẓūr begins his definition of yad with kaff). We therefore understand what the word ‘yad’ means, but we do not know the ḥaqīqah of Allāh’s kaff, how it actually is in its divine reality. We do not liken it to the reality of our own kaff, such as saying that it is a bodily limb like ours. The meaning is affirmed, while the ḥaqīqah of said meaning and the kayfiyyah of said ṣifah, in respect to Allāh, are unknown.
(By the way, kaff itself is also affirmed for Allāh in the Sunnah, so there is no problem with it.)
We can prove from Lumʿah itself that ḥaqīqat maʿnā does not simply mean lexical meaning
Later in Lumʿah, Ibn Qudāmah discusses the unseen reports of the Prophet ﷺ and says:
وَسَوَاءٌ فِي ذَلِكَ مَا عَقَلْنَاهُ وَجَهِلْنَاهُ، وَلَمْ نَطَّلِعْ عَلَى حَقِيقَةِ مَعْنَاهُ
“It is the same concerning what we understand and what we do not, and those whose reality of meaning we have not come to know.”
He gives the example:
مِثْلَ حَدِيثِ الْإِسْرَاءِ وَالْمِعْرَاجِ
“Such as the ḥadīth of the Isrāʾ and Miʿrāj…”
[https://shamela.ws/book/30855/24]
Obviously Ibn Qudāmah does not mean nobody knows what Isrāʾ and Miʿrāj mean. Rather his sentence itself distinguishes what we understand from whose reality of meaning we have not comprehended.
So what does “leave the meaning of what is unclear” actually mean?
Putting Ibn Qudāmah’s own writings together, the most accurate reading is:
He has a general rule that the revealed Attributes are believed and accepted, their dhahir meaning is not to be contradicted while their haqiqat ma’na is to be consigned to Allah (tafweed). If sometimes something from among the texts becomes unclear to people who are not knowledgeable, such that the person cannot securely establish the intended meaning, Ibn Qudamah tells him to not delve into its meaning and speculating, as this is speaking about Allah Most High without knowledge. Instead, they should affirm the authentic wording, submit to it, and stop where their knowledge stops.
What about the much harder Rawḍat al-Nāẓir passage?
Ibn Qudāmah says:
والصحيح: أن المتشابه: ما ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه- مما يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله، كقوله -تعالى-:
{الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى}
{بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَان}
{لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي}
{وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّك}
{تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا}
ونحوه.
فهذا اتفق السلف -رحمهم الله- على الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه وترك تأويله.
فإن الله -سبحانه- ذم المبتغين لتأويله، وقرنهم -في الذم- بالذين يبتغون الفتنة، وسماهم أهل زيغ.
وليس في طلب تأويل ما ذكروه من المجمل وغيره ما يذم به صاحبه، بل يمدح عليه؛ إذ هو طريق إلى معرفة الأحكام، وتمييز الحلال من الحرام.
ولأن في الآية قرائن تدل على أن الله -سبحانه- منفرد بعلم تأويل المتشابه، وأن الوقف الصحيح عند قوله تعالى:
{وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا الله}
له لفظًا ومعنى.
أما اللفظ: فلأنه لو أراد عطف "الراسخين" لقال: "ويقولون آمنا به" بالواو.
وأما المعنى: فلأنه ذم مبتغي التأويل، ولو كان ذلك للراسخين معلومًا: لكان مبتغيه ممدوحًا لا مذمومًا.
ولأن قولهم:
{آمَنَّا بِهِ}
يدل على نوع تفويض وتسليم لشيء لم يقفوا على معناه.
سيما إذا اتبعوه بقولهم:
{كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا}
فذكرهم ربهم -ههنا- يعطي الثقة به، والتسليم لأمره، وأنه صدر منه، وجاء من عنده كما جاء من عنده المحكم.
ولأن لفظة "أما" لتفصيل الجمل، فذكره لها في:
{الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغ}
مع وصفه إياهم لابتغاء المتشابه، وابتغاء تأويله، يدل على قسم آخر يخالفهم في هذه الصفة وهم "الراسخون"، ولو كانوا يعلمون تأويله لم يخالفوا القسم الأول في ابتغاء التأويل.
وإذ قد ثبت أنه غير معلوم التأويل لأحد: فلا يجوز حمله على غير ما ذكرناه؛ لأن ما ذكر من الوجوه لا يعلم تأويله كثير من الناس.
فإن قيل: فكيف يخاطب الله الخلق بما لا يعقلونه، أم كيف ينزل على رسوله ما لا يطلع على تأويله؟
قلنا:
يجوز أن يكلفهم الإيمان بما لا يطلعون على تأويله؛ ليختبر طاعتهم، كما قال -تعالى-:
{وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّابِرِينَ}...“The correct view is that the mutashābih consists of what has been reported concerning the attributes of Allāh, Glorified is He, which it is obligatory to believe in and forbidden to subject to taʾwīl, such as His saying, Most High:
{The Most Merciful rose over the Throne,}
{Rather, both His Hands are outstretched,}
{What I created with My two Hands,}
{And the Face of your Lord will remain,}
{Sailing under Our Eyes,}
and the like.
The Salaf, may Allāh have mercy upon them, agreed upon affirming these texts, passing them on as they came, and leaving their taʾwīl.
For Allāh, Glorified is He, condemned those who seek their taʾwīl, joined them in condemnation with those who seek tribulation, and described them as people whose hearts contain deviation.
As for seeking the taʾwīl of what they mentioned concerning ambiguous wording and the like, there is nothing blameworthy in doing so. Rather, a person is praised for it, since it is a means to knowing legal rulings and distinguishing the lawful from the unlawful.
Moreover, there are indications in the verse showing that Allāh, Glorified is He, is alone in knowing the taʾwīl of the mutashābih, and that the correct stopping point, both in wording and meaning, is at His saying:
{And no one knows its taʾwīl except Allāh.}
As for the wording: if He had intended “those firmly grounded in knowledge” to be grammatically joined to what precedes, He would have said: “and they say: We believe in it,” with the conjunction wāw.
As for the meaning: He condemned those who seek its taʾwīl. If its taʾwīl were known to those firmly grounded in knowledge, then seeking it would be praiseworthy rather than blameworthy.
Furthermore, their saying:
{We believe in it}
indicates a kind of tafwīḍ and submission regarding something whose meaning they had not comprehended, especially when they followed this by saying:
{All of it is from our Lord.}
Their mentioning their Lord here indicates trust in Him, submission to His command, and affirmation that it came from Him and proceeded from Him just as the muḥkam came from Him.
Also, the particle ammā is used to distinguish between categories. Thus, His using it regarding:
{As for those in whose hearts is deviation,}
while describing them as seeking the mutashābih and seeking its taʾwīl, indicates that there is another category which differs from them in this characteristic, namely, those firmly grounded in knowledge. Had they known its taʾwīl, they would not have differed from the first group in seeking taʾwīl.
Since it has now been established that its taʾwīl is unknown to anyone, it cannot be understood as referring to anything other than what we have mentioned, because many people do in fact know the taʾwīl of the matters mentioned in the other interpretations.
If it is said: “How can Allāh address creation with something they do not comprehend? Or how can He reveal to His Messenger something whose taʾwīl he is not made aware of?”
We say:
It is permissible for Him to obligate them to believe in something whose taʾwīl they are not made aware of, in order to test their obedience, just as He, Most High, said:
{And We will surely test you until We make evident those among you who strive and those who are patient,}...”
[https://shamela.ws/book/12010/225]
[https://shamela.ws/book/12010/226]
[https://shamela.ws/book/12010/227]
This must be understood within the context of everything we have brought from Ibn Qudāmah.
Therefore, the most correct conclusion is that what they are doing tafwīḍ of here is ḥaqīqat maʿnā. As we have shown from his other statements, he explicitly says to affirm the dhāhir maʿnā of the texts and forbids interpreting them in a way that contradicts it, while the ḥaqīqat maʿnā, meaning the reality (ḥaqīqah) of that affirmed meaning as it pertains to Allāh (its kunh), together with its kayfiyyah, remain unknown to us.
Tashbīh and tajsīm only occur from one who carries Allāh’s attributes upon the attributes of created beings in meaning
Ibn Qudāmah says in Taḥrīm al-Naẓar fī Kutub al-Kalām:
وَإِنَّمَا يَحْصُلُ التَّشْبِيهُ وَالتَّجْسِيمُ مِمَّنْ حَمَلَ صِفَاتِ اللَّهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَلَى صِفَاتِ الْمَخْلُوقِينَ فِي الْمَعْنَى، وَنَحْنُ لَا نَعْتَقِدُ ذَلِكَ وَلَا نَدِينُ بِهِ، بَلْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ}، وَأَنَّ صِفَاتِهِ لَا تُشْبِهُ صِفَاتِ الْمُحْدَثِينَ
“Tashbīh and tajsīm only occur from one who carries the Attributes of Allāh, Glorified and Most High, upon the attributes of created beings in meaning.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6467/29]
This should be understood according to the same distinction we have already established throughout Ibn Qudāmah’s works where he explicitly says:
وَلَمْ يَعْلَمُوا حَقِيقَةَ مَعْنَاهَا
“They did not know the reality of its meaning.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/6425/4]
Therefore, when Ibn Qudāmah condemns carrying Allāh’s Attributes upon the attributes of creation “in meaning” cannot mean that merely affirming the basic understood meaning constitutes tashbīh. That would contradict his other explicit statements affirming the dhāhir meaning.
So rather we say he is condemning carrying the Attribute of Allāh upon the created ḥaqīqah of that meaning, treating the reality of Allāh’s attributes like the reality of a creature’s attributes.
Ibn Taymiyyah said Ibn Qudāmah left the meaning of istiwāʾ to Allāh
Ibn Taymiyyah said in his Majmūʿ Fatāwā:
ومن أثبت العلو بالعقل وجعله من الصفات العقلية: كأبي محمد بن كلاب وأبي الحسن بن الزاغوني ومن وافقه وكالقاضي أبي يعلى في آخر قوليه وأبي محمد : أثبتوا العلو وجعلوا الاستواء من الصفات الخبرية التي يقولون لا يعلم معناها إلا الله
“And those who affirmed ʿulūw through reason and regarded it as one of the rationally established attributes, such as Abū Muḥammad ibn Kullāb, Abū al-Ḥasan ibn al-Zāghūnī and those who agreed with him, as well as al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā in his later position and Abū Muḥammad, affirmed ʿulūw and regarded istiwāʾ as one of the revealed attributes (al-ṣifāt al-khabariyyah) whose meaning, they say, is known only to Allāh.”
[https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/22/1750/]
The wording does not explicitly name Ibn Qudāmah, it merely says “Abū Muḥammad.” But, “Abū Muḥammad” when used alone does not automatically mean Ibn Qudāmah.
Shaykh Bakr Abū Zayd discusses this explicitly in al-Madkhal al-Mufaṣṣal li-Madhhab al-Imām Aḥmad. He says:
أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ: كُنْيَةٌ لِعَدَدٍ مِنْ عُلَمَاءِ الْمَذْهَبِ، مِنْهُمْ: الْمُوَفَّقُ ابْنُ قُدَامَةَ، وَيَنْقُلُونَ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ: قَالَ أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ فِي الْمُغْنِي. عَلَى أَنَّ بَعْضَهُمْ قَدْ يُطْلِقُ فَيَقُولُ: قَالَ أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ، فَيُشْكِلُ
“Abū Muḥammad is the kunyah of a number of scholars of the madhhab, among them al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudāmah. They quote from him with the wording: ‘Abū Muḥammad said in al-Mughnī.’ However, some of them may use it unrestrictedly and say, ‘Abū Muḥammad said,’ in which case it becomes ambiguous/problematic.”
He then gives an actual example of the ambiguity. Ibn ʿAqīl had related:
وَأَجَابَ الشَّيْخُ الْإِمَامُ أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ
“And al-Shaykh al-Imām Abū Muḥammad answered…”
Ibn Rajab then comments:
قُلْتُ: أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ أَظُنُّهُ التَّمِيمِيَّ
“I say: Abū Muḥammad, I think, is al-Tamīmī.”
Bakr Abū Zayd then comments:
فَانْظُرْ كَيْفَ حَصَلَ الْإِشْكَالُ؟
“So look at how the ambiguity arose!”
This is unlike the kunyah Abū Yaʿlā, which Bakr Abū Zayd mentioned after Abū Muḥammad and said:
أَبو يعلى: كنية للقاضي محمد بن الحسين الفراء... فلا تنصرف عند الإطلاق إلى غيره من الأصحاب
“Abū Yaʿlā is the kunyah of al-Qāḍī Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Farrāʾ … and when used unrestrictedly it does not refer to anyone else among the Ḥanbalī scholars.”
[https://ftp.shamela.ws/book/23611/189]
So Abū Muḥammad can mean a number of scholars, and Bakr Abū Zayd gives an explicit example where Ibn Rajab understood an unspecified “Abū Muḥammad” to mean al-Tamīmī.
Abū Jaʿfar ʿAbd Allāh al-Khalīfī has argued that the person intended in Ibn Taymiyyah’s quote is Abū Muḥammad Rizq Allāh al-Tamīmī, not Ibn Qudāmah, he says:
الذي يظهر أن هذه الدعوى غير دقيقة، بل إن المقصود هو أبو محمد رزق الله التميمي
“What appears is that this claim is inaccurate, rather, the person intended is Abū Muḥammad Rizq Allāh al-Tamīmī.”
There are a few strong reasonings for this that I can find, one is that Ibn Taymiyyah repeatedly discusses the Tamīmī Ḥanbalīs in connection with Kullābī influenced theological distinctions, Ibn Taymiyyah says:
ولهذا توجد أقوال التميميين مقاربة لأقواله وأقوال أمثاله المتبعين لطريقة اب كلاب
“For this reason, the positions of the Tamīmīs are found to be close to his positions and those of others like him who followed the way of Ibn Kullāb.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/21506/420]
The initial quote itself places this unidentified Abū Muḥammad alongside Ibn Kullāb, Ibn al-Zāghūnī and Abū Yaʿlā. Rizq Allāh was himself a Tamīmī family, and Ibn Taymiyyah elsewhere discusses him as following the theological tendency of his Tamīmī predecessors. So when Ibn Taymiyyah gives us an unidentified “Abū Muḥammad” in a group associated with this type of approach, Abū Muḥammad Rizq Allāh al-Tamīmī fits.
And Ibn Taymiyyah elsewhere clearly distinguishes Ibn Qudāmah from the Tamīmīs, including explicitly Rizq Allāh:
وأما أبو عبد الله بن بطة فطريقته طريقة المحدثين المحضة، كأبي بكر الآجر في الشريعة واللالكائي في السنن، والخلال مثله قريب منه، وإلى طريقته يميل الشيخ أبو محمد، ومتأخرو المحدثين
“As for Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Baṭṭah, his method is the pure method of the muḥaddithūn, like Abū Bakr al-Ājurrī in al-Sharīʿah and al-Lālakāʾī in al-Sunnah. Al-Khallāl is similar and close to him. Al-Shaykh Abū Muḥammad and the later muḥaddithūn incline toward his method.”
Then:
وَأَمَّا التَّمِيمِيُّونَ ... وَابْنِ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ
“As for the Tamīmīs … and Ibn Rizq Allāh…”
[https://ftp.shamela.ws/book/7289/2491]
So he differentiates Ibn Qudāmah’s approach to that of the Tamīmīs, which we have already quoted him saying their approach is like that of Ibn Kullāb, who is mentioned in the original passage alongside this unknown Abū Muḥammad.
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah describes their position as saying:
لا يعلم معناها إلا الله
“None knows its meaning except Allāh”
But in the works of Ibn Qudāmah himself, we do not find him explicitly saying this, and we have already displayed his general approach to the sifāt of affirming the dhāhir.
Also Ibn Taymiyah said:
ومن أثبت العلو بالعقل وجعله من الصفات العقلية
“And those who affirmed ʿulūw through reason and regarded it as one of the rationally established attributes”
While Ibn Qudāmah doesn’t do this and rather says at the very beginning of Ithbāt Ṣifat al-ʿUluww:
فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى وَصَفَ نَفْسَهُ بِالْعُلُوِّ فِي السَّمَاءِ، وَوَصَفَهُ بِذَلِكَ مُحَمَّدٌ خَاتَم الْأَنْبِيَاءِ، وَأَجْمَعَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ جَمِيعُ الْعُلَمَاءِ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ الْأَتْقِيَاءِ وَالْأَئِمَّةِ مِنَ الْفُقَهَاءِ، وَتَوَاتَرَتِ الْأَخْبَارُ بِذَلِكَ عَلَى وَجْهٍ حَصَلَ بِهِ الْيَقِينُ
“Allāh Most High described Himself with ʿuluww in the sky, Muḥammad, the Seal of the Prophets, described Him with that, all the scholars from the pious Companions and the imāms among the jurists agreed upon it, and the reports concerning it have been transmitted recurrently in a manner producing certainty.”
[https://shamela.ws/book/7268/2]
So Ibn Qudāmah certainly does not present ʿuluww as something discovered independently by rational speculation. He explicitly bases it upon Allāh’s description of Himself, the Prophet’s description, consensus and mutawātir reports, unlike the Abū Muḥammad who “affirmed ʿulūw through reason and regarded it as one of the rationally established attributes”.
So it is clear that:
1. Abū Muḥammad does not always mean Ibn Qudāmah
2. He had a different approach to that of the Tamīmīs and Ibn Kullāb, while the initial quote places this Abū Muḥammad alongside them
3. Abū Muḥammad Rizq Allāh al-Tamīmī belonged to the Tamīmīs, whose positions Ibn Taymiyyah described as being like that of Ibn Kullāb and those who followed his method.
4. Therefore, it makes more sense that the Abū Muḥammad mentioned in the same group with Ibn Kullāb is Rizq Allāh al-Tamīmī, not Ibn Qudāmah.
And Allāh knows best. May prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muḥammad, his family, his companions, and all those who follow them in goodness until the Day of Judgement.