Analysis of the Qur’anic Exegesis on the Names and Attributes of Allah (a Comparative Study of Al-Zamakhshari’s Interpretation in Tafsîr Al-Kashshâf and Ibn Taymiyyah’s In Al-Tafsîr Al-Kabîr)
Keywords:
Asmā’ wa Ṣifāt, Al-Zamakhsyarī, Ibn Taymiyyah, Qur’anic Interpretation, Theological MethodologyAbstract
This study analyzes the methodological divergence in interpreting the Qurʾānic names and attributes of God (asmāʾ wa ṣifāt) between al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf and Ibn Taymiyyah’s tafsīr corpus, with special reference to the verse of istiwaʾ (Q 20:5) and its implications for Islamic monotheism (tawḥīd). Using a qualitative, descriptive–analytical design, it conducts close textual readings of primary works, a targeted comparison of the istiwaʾ verse, source triangulation with authoritative tafsīr, and an examination of the linguistic, theological, and historical contexts that shape each method. Findings reveal a clear polarity: al-Zamakhsharī privileges metaphorical–linguistic taʾwīl, construing istiwaʾ as a metaphor for divine sovereignty to safeguard tanzīh (transcendence) and avoid anthropomorphism; Ibn Taymiyyah adheres to the apparent (ẓāhir) sense while affirming bilā kayf (without inquiring “how”), rejecting figurative taʾwīl on the grounds that it risks taʿṭīl (nullification of meaning). Both emphatically repudiate tashbīh (likening God to creation), yet their criteria diverge, yielding distinct theological trajectories: for al-Zamakhsharī, tawḥīd is secured by deconstructing literalism; for Ibn Taymiyyah, it is secured by unwavering submission to transmitted reports (naql) and by treating the dismissal of the apparent meaning as deviation. These approaches have shaped subsequent currents: al-Zamakhsharī’s method informs modern ethical–transcendental readings (e.g., Fazlur Rahman, Asma Barlas, Nurcholish Madjid), whereas Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance undergirds Salafī exegesis (e.g., al-Qāsimī, al-Jazāʾirī, Abdul Hakim Abdat) as a guardrail against interpretive relativism. The study concludes that Ibn Taymiyyah’s method better preserves the integrity of revelation while maintaining divine transcendence. More broadly, this divergence crystallizes a durable split within tafsīr epistemology, between linguistic rationalism and textual purity, with lasting consequences for articulating tawḥīd in Islamic thought.
References
Abū Ḥanīfah. (2007). al-Fiqh al-Akbar. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
Ahmad, A. (2022). Contemporary Islamic Discourse and the Interpretation of Divine Attributes. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Islam.
Al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn al-Husain. (2005). Al-Asmâ’ wa al-Shifât. Kairo: Dar al-Hadits.
Al-Bazzâr, Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn ‘Amr Ibn ‘Abdul Khaliq Ibn Khallâd Ibn ‘Ubaidillah al-‘Ataki. (2009). Musnad al-Bazzâr al-Mansyhûr bi Ism al-Bahr az-Zakhkhâr. al-Madinah al-Munawwarah: Maktabat al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam.
Al-Harrani, Ahmad Ibn ‘Abd al-Halîm Ibn Taimiyyah Taqiyuddîn. (1998). Majmû‘ al-Fatâwâ. Riyadh: Maktabah al-‘Ubaykân.
Al-Izz, Ali Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad. (2014). Syarah al-‘Aqîdah al-Thahâwiyyah. Beirut: Muassasah al-Risalah.
Al-Jawziyyah, Muhammad Abu Bakar Ibn Ayyub Ibn al-Qayyim. (1438 H). Ijtimâ‘ al-Juyûsh al-Islâmiyyah ‘alâ Harb al-Mu‘atthilah wa al-Jahmiyyah. Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Fawa’id.
Al-Jawziyyah, Muhammad Abu Bakar Ibn Ayyub Ibn al-Qayyim. (2019). Al-Tibyân fî al-Aymân al-Qurân. Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Fawa’id.
Al-Jazā’irī, A. b. J. (2001). ʿAqīdah al-Muʾmin. Riyadh: Dār al-Salām.
Al-Lalaka’i, Hibatullah Ibn al-Hasan Ibn Manshûr. (2004). Syarh Ushûl I‘tiqâd Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamâ‘ah. Kairo: Dar al-Hadits.
Al-Maqdisi, Muwaffiq al-Dîn ‘Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Syahir bi Ibn Qudamah. (1988). Itsbât Shifat al-‘Uluw. al-Madinah al-Munawwarah: Maktabah al-‘Ulûm wa al-Hikam.
Al-Nu’man, Abû Hanîfah. (1999). Al-Fiqh al-Akbar. al-Imârât al-‘Arabiyyah: Maktabah al-Furqân.
Al-Qāsimī, J. (1996). Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
Al-Qurthubi, Yusuf Ibn ‘Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr al-Numairi. (2002). Al-Tamhîd limâ fî al-Muwaththa’ min al-Ma‘ânî wa al-Asânîd. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr.
Al-Syāfiʿī. (2003). al-Umm. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah.
Barlas, A. (2002). “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Batthah, ‘Ubaidullah Ibn Muhammad. (2006). Al-Ibânah ‘an Syarî‘ah al-Firqah al-Najiyyah wa Mujânabah al-Firaq al-Madzmûmah. Kairo: Dar al-Hadits.
Hanbal, ‘Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbal. (2014). Kitâb al-Sunnah wa al-Radd ‘alâ al-Jahmiyyah. al-Madinah al-Munawwarah: Dar al-Nashihah.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr. (2000). al-Tamhīd. Riyadh: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz. (2001). Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah. Riyadh: Maktabah al-Maʿārif.
Ibn al-Qayyim, M. (1999). al-Tibyān fī Aqsām al-Qurʾān. Cairo: Dār al-Hadīth.
Ibn Qudāmah. (1997). Lumʿat al-Iʿtiqād. Riyadh: Dār al-Ṣumayʿī.
Ibn Taymiyyah. (2000). Muqaddimah fī Uṣūl al-Tafsīr. Riyadh: Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub.
Ibrahim, I. (2017). Theological Methodologies in Qur’anic Exegesis: A Study of Classical and Salafi Approaches. Cairo: Dār al-Salām.
Madjid, N. (1992). Islam: Doctrine and Civilization. Jakarta: Paramadina.
Mustofa, A. (2020). Rationalism in Qur’anic Exegesis: The Case of al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf. Yogyakarta: UII Press.
Nasir, M. (2019). Reason and Revelation in Ibn Taymiyyah’s Hermeneutics. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press.
Rahman, F. (1980). Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yahya, M. (2021). Ibn Taymiyyah and the Critique of Rationalist Exegesis. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
Zamakhsharī, M. b. ʿUmar. (1998). al-Kashshāf ʿan Ḥaqāʾiq al-Tanzīl. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah.
