Al-Bantānī and the Interpretation of Ṣifāt verses in Marāḥ Labīd

al-Qur’ ā n al-Maj ī d . As an established term, Ṣ if ā t verses refer to Quranic expressions that ostensibly ascribe anthropomorphic dimensions to God. Interpretation of such ambiguous verses has been bitterly contended since the 2/8th century and remains one of the most debated topics in the pre-and postmodern era. This study applies literature and document analysis focused on many of al-Bant ā n ī ’s works. The results show that al-Bant ā n ī actively applied ta’w ī l [figurative interpretation] in dealing with Ṣ if ā t verses without totally discarding amodality position [ tafw īḍ ]. Contribution: Although al-Bant ā n ī never mentioned Wahhabism in any of his works, his interpretation of Ṣ ifat verses alludes to his indirect response to the Wahhabi’s literalism and anti-ta’w ī l approach. In addition, by accepting both of ta’w ī l and tafw īḍ solutions, al-Bant ā n ī underpinned the wasa ṭī [moderate] stand, which later became the most distinctive tradition in Malay–Islamic discourse.


Introduction
Wahhabism has become one of the major controversial topics among Southeast Asian Muslims since 'Abd al-'Azīz ibn Sa'ūd took over Mecca and Medina in 1924. Discussions on the Wahhabis and their tenet are bitterly contested in every village in Malaya (Shiozaki 2015). Concerns about the sect's inclusion prompted Indonesian scholars to form the Committee of Hijaz in 1926 to ask Ibn Sa'ūd to allow the freedom of following traditional school [madhhab] in the Haramain (Gunawan 2017). The polemic about Wahhabism resurfaced in the mid-1920 when the Saudi government expanded its influence on the entire Islamic world through students learning from its universities and the activities of agencies and institutions related to the Saudi government (Abdul Hamid 2016;Malik 2017). The reception of the local 'ulamā' [body of religious scholars] towards Wahhabism is generally hostile. They have seen that the Wahhabi's teachings differ from and occasionally contradict the Islamic tradition long-rooted in the Indo-Malay region. After a series of discussions, Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM) decided that Wahhabism is unsuitable for Malaysians even though it is not deemed heresy (Mas'od 2013).
Despite being popularly seen as a political movement, Wahhabism is intrinsically theological and indoctrination-oriented (Bayram 2014;Nahouza 2018). Followers generally sought to redefine Sunnī theology and history to provide a more radical version. The effort sparked polemics in various Muslim countries regarding theological and legal issues. The most sensitive one relates to construing the ambiguous Quranic texts that seem to equate God with humans. These texts are also known as the Ṣifāt verses. In line with the Hanbali tradition, the Wahhabis strongly reject scholastic theology and the allegorical reading held by mainstream Sunnīs (Ashā'irah and Māturīdiyyah). Instead, they require everyone to accept the literal meaning of those texts unconditionally [bilā kayfa]. On top of that, they claimed that their approach is the stance held by the first generation of Islam [al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ]; therefore, any other approach should be deemed deviant. However, the mainstream 'ulamā' strongly disapproves of the claim stating that the Wahhabi's literalistic reading could lead to anthropomorphism ('Āshūr 2017;Jumu'ah 2006;Marzūq n.d.;Nahouza 2018). Disputes in this matter sparked numerous debates that often ended in accusations of heresy and infidelity. Both parties have produced countless works to defend their stand and retaliate against their opponents. This article examines the stance held by a Meccan-Indonesian exegete in the 13 AH or 19 AD century, Muḥammad Nawawī al- Bantānī (d. 1230-1314H/1813-1897, in dealing with Ṣifāt verses in his exegetical work, Marāḥ Labīd li Kashf Ma'nā al-Qur'ān al-Majīd. As an established term, Ṣifāt verses refer to Quranic expressions that ostensibly ascribe anthropomorphic dimensions to God. Interpretation of such ambiguous verses has been bitterly contended since the 2/8th century and remains one of the most debated topics in the pre-and postmodern era. This study applies literature and document analysis focused on many of al-Bantānī's works. The results show that al-Bantānī actively applied ta'wīl [figurative interpretation] in dealing with Ṣifāt verses without totally discarding amodality position [tafwīḍ]. As part of the Islamic scholarly tradition, the Nusantara 'ulamā' are also affected by the spread of the Wahhabi approach to Ṣifāt verses. Several studies were conducted to analyse the approach applied by these scholars in dealing with this kind of verse (Mat Nor & Ali 2021). The following study attempts to expose the early response of Nusantara scholars to the Wahhabi challenge. The exposition will be accomplished by analysing the Muḥammad al-Nawawī ibn 'Umar al-Bantānī's (1230-1314/1813-1897) methodology as seen in his exegesis work entitled Marāḥ Labīd li Kashf Ma'nā al-Qur'ān al-Majīd. The book was penned and published during the second uprising of the political Wahhabis led by Turkī ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'ūd (d. 1249/1833), who succeeded in conquering Riyadh and then threatened the sovereignty of other states in the Arabian Peninsula. This study will argue that, although al-Bantanī did not explicitly mention the Wahhabis in any of his published works, his interpretation method, to a certain extent, was influenced by the Wahhabi cultural threat. The influence is seen in how he avoids a literal reading by constantly applying a figurative reading without entirely discarding the bilā kayfa approach. He did that to escape falling into anthropomorphism which, in his opinion, conflicted with the Muslim consensus. Nevertheless, al-Bantānī did not call someone who associates human attributes to God infidel [kāfir] unless they meet certain conditions. This moderate stand plays an essential role in forming a wasaṭī [moderate] stand, which later became the main pattern of the Nusantara Islamic intellectual tradition (Mohd Salleh et al. 2015).
This article is divided into three consecutive topics of discussion. First, a brief history of Ṣifāt verses and the theological polemics that revolved around them will be presented. The author will show the formation of the Hanbalite and Ash'arites schools following the abolition of Mihnah Khalq al-Qur'ān (an inquisition over the createdness of the Quran) in the mid 3rd century AH or mid 9th century AD. The theological polemic between the two schools reappears in the modern era in the form of Wahhabism. The discussion continues in the second section with a study on al-Bantānī's life and theological inclination, as well as his take on Wahhabism. In the third section, the author will examine al-Bantānī's methodology in dealing with the Ṣifāt verses and its contrast to the Wahhabi tenet.

The Ṣifāt verses and the Wahhabis
The term 'Ṣifāt verses ' [ayāt al-ṣifāt] has been widely used among scholars, especially in the discourse of Quranic sciences ['ulūm al-Qur'ān]. It is usually discussed under the subtheme mutashābihāt (verses with ambiguous or unclear meaning). In short, the Ṣifāt verses refers to certain kinds of Quranic verses that describe God in terms of human attributes as if he has limbs, occupies specific directions and places, and performs some physical movements. Most past scholars believe that these ambiguous verses, like any mutashābihāt verses, must be accepted without ascertaining their meaning (Abdullah, Abd. Rahman & Usman 2019). They subsequently differ based on whether a human can achieve the knowledge about the intended meaning or not. Most scholars believe that only God knows the real meaning of the verses. Others stipulate that the intended meaning of the mutashābihāt verses is known by God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge [al-rāsikhūn fi al-'ilm] through a proper method (al-Karamī 1985).
In the lifetime of the Prophet and his companions, the Ṣifāt verses never initiated a discussion, let alone a polemic (al-Maqrīzī n.d.). The controversy over divine attributes surfaced for the first time in Damascus in the last years of the Umayyad era when Ja'ad ibn Dirham (d. 106/725) denied all the attributes of God. When his teachings came into the attention of the prominent scholars of the time, such as Wahb ibn Munabbih, Ibn Shihāb al-Ẓuhrī and Maymūn ibn Mahrān, they all anonymously censured the opinion (al-Tamīmī 1997). Ibn Dirham's argument was then developed by Jahm ibn Ṣafwān al-Rāsibī (c. about 128/745) and the rationalistic Mu'tazilah. The polemic about the divine attributes became a political action when the Mu'tazilites convinced Caliph al-Ma'mūn (d. 218/833) to impose their belief on the entire Muslim community through Miḥnah Khalq al-Qur'ān (the inquisition on the createdness of the Quran). Anthropomorphism and the literalistic approach in dealing with Ṣifāt verses became the primary target. Everyone who defended this approach was severely punished with imprisonment, canning and even death (Muhammad Noor & Abur Hamdi 2021). Countless scholars of hadith and fuqaha fell victim to this policy. However, after almost two decades (218-237/833-851) of implementation, Miḥnah failed to convert the Islamic community into the Mu'tazilite rationality. The resistance showed by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal eventually brought down Mu'tazilah's popularity. In 237/851, Caliph al-Mutawakkil officially revoked the Miḥnah, followed by eliminating all traits of Mu'tazila's influence in his administration. He also installed their opponents, the proponents of hadith (Ahl al-Ḥadīth) group, to replace their prestigious role as the highest religious reference for the Islamic community (Hoover 2014).
Following Ibn Ḥanbal's heroic position during the Miḥnah period, a new school of thought carried his name. Hanbalism emerged as both a school of theology and a law in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq (Makdisi 1979;Mez 1973). Its proponents mostly are hadith authorities who strongly denounce rational theology and all forms of textual interpretation. They emphasise the obligation to accept all religious texts in their apparent meaning on divine attributes. Hanbali scholar and activist Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn 'Alī al-Barbahārī stated that it is imperative to accept, believe, subjugate and abide by these sacred texts. He also asserted: '[w]hoever interprets them based on his lust or rejects them, he is a Jahmite (the follower of Jahm ibn Ṣafwān)' (al-Barbahārī 1993:81-83). Claiming to be the defenders of Sunnah and the exterminators of heresy [bid'ah], the Hanbalis showed hostile attitudes against anyone who disagreed with their theological stance, including some prominent jurists and traditionalists [muḥaddiths] (Hoover 2014). Some of these traditionalists even held to a vulgar anthropomorphism claiming that the creed represents Salaf and Ibn Ḥanbal's theology. On this phenomenon, Abū Ḥafṣ Ibn Shāhīn (d. 385/995) noted: '[t]wo righteous men were attested with evil followers: Ja'far ibn Muḥammad (al-Ṣādiq) and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal' (Ibn 'Asākir 1927).
Bold literalism became the reason behind the emergence of a new religious trend in the 3/9 century that sought to restore a moderate path in dealing with theological issues. After leaving Mu'tazilism to become the best defender of Sunnism, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ash'arī (d. 324/936) and his disciples promoted a balanced combination of textual rigour and rational argumentation in theological discourses, especially when discussing the meaning of Ṣifāt verses (Elmasry 2010). Emphasising God's transcendence and uniqueness, they interpreted ambiguous religious texts that could lead to anthropomorphism by applying figurative reading, which, later, is famously known as ta'wīl. The rise of Ash'arism in the 5/11th century posed an intense rivalry for Hanbalites in their claim to be the defender of Sunnism. They criticised every sect deviating from Sunnism, including the Hanbalis, whose creed was often associated with anthropomorphism. As a result, the Hanbalis and the Ash'arites were involved in numerous polemics, followed by riots (Ibn Khaldūn 1988).
By the end of the 6/12th century, Ash'arism had become a mainstream theology in most Islamic countries (al-Maqrīzī n.d.). Under Ash'ari's dominance, ta'wīl was anonymously accepted as one of the valid methods in interpreting Ṣifāt verses (al-Bājūrī 2002; al-Nawawī 1995; al-Ramlī n.d.; Ibn al-Athīr 2008; Kaykaldī al-'Alā'ī 2010). At the same time, throughout the reign of the Ayyubids, the Mamluks and the Ottomans, the Hanbalites and their anti-ta'wīl sentiment became a minority and were often viewed negatively (Abū Zahrah 1997). The resurgence initiated by Hanbalite figures like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) failed to break the Ash'arite hegemony. After centuries of conflict, some Hanbalis in Syria and Egypt in the 10/16th century turned sympathetic towards the Ash'arites. Later known as the late Hanbalis (al-Ḥanābilah al-Muta'akhirīn), this group no longer viewed the Ash'arites as heresies. They instead considered them partners in the same faith but held different opinions in triviality subjects. Efforts to close up the gap, for example, are seen in the statement of the Palestinian Hanbali 'Abd Allah al-Qaddūmī (d. 1331/1912) who stipulated that the term Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā'ah encompasses three major groups, namely, the Ash'arites, Māturidites and the proponent of athar or the Hanbalis (al-Qaddūmī 2008).
Meanwhile, a more radical neo-Hanbali movement emerged in Najd in the 12/18th century led by Muḥammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhāb al- Tamīmī  The rise of Wahhabi politics was undoubtedly a threat to Turkish sovereignty in the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, Sultan Salim III ordered Ali Pashā and his Egyptian army to destroy the Wahhābī forces, which was carried out successfully. Pasha managed to recapture cities taken by the Wahhabis and eventually devastated their capital city in 1233/1818. The Wahhabi king 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'ūd was captured and then executed alongside many Wahhabi leaders. Nevertheless, the Wahhabis managed to regain power many years later under the leadership of Turkī ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'ūd. They invaded Riyadh and made it their capital city before it collapsed owing to internal conflicts in 1309/1891. Ten years later, 'Abd al-'Azīz ibn 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Sa'ūd succeeded in consolidating the Wahhabi forces, then conquering the Arabian Peninsula with the support of the British. Subsequently, he established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (al-Mamlaka al-'Arabiyya al-Sa'ūdiyya) in 1932, which survives up to this day (Nahouza 2018).
Under Saudi rule, Wahhabism revived its anti-ta'wīl approach in dealing with all religious texts on divine attributes. The texts should be construed as their apparent meaning ('alā ẓāhirihā) and should not be interpreted figuratively nor assert that only God knows their meanings. The Wahhabis argued aggressively that this bilā kayfa solution is the only acceptable method of interpretation. Anything other than this should be denounced as heresy and misguided (Halverson 2010).
According to Nahouza (2018), ta'wīl rejection can be traced back to the founding fathers of Wahhabism. In his treaties, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhāb expressed his opposition to interpret the texts on divine attributes but not in detail. Subsequently, his son 'Abd Allah (d. 1828) and grandson 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan (d. 1869) explicitly condemned the ta'wīl approach in countless occasions. In addition, the Grand Mufti Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Āl al-Syeikh (d. 1389/1969) stated that tafwīḍ solution is also a deviation from the way of the Salaf calling its beholder as 'the evilest and worst of all sects [shar al-madhāhib wa akhbathihā]' (Qāsim 1979
Observing al-Bantānī's biography shows his total dedication to Islamic knowledge. Since setting foot in the holy city of Mecca, he never missed attending lectures conveyed by Southeast Asian scholars, famously known as the Jawi scholars, who resided in the sacred city (Liow 2010 Daḥlān (1978) claims that the idea was explicitly created to justify their deviant act of excommunicating Muslims.
We believe that al-Bantānī was aware of the challenge of Wahhabism despite no explicit statements being found in any of his works. This absence is not unusual since he always refrained from commenting on contemporary issues in his publications. In addition to avoiding unwanted sociopolitical effects, this approach presents himself as a universal scholar (Zarif 2007). However, it seems plausible to establish that al-Bantānī's conception of Wahhabism does not differ from Dahlan's notion. As part of the scholarly community at that time, al-Bantānī shared traditionalism with his fellow Meccan scholars (Rahman 1996;Zarif 2007

Muḥammad al-Nawawī al-Bantānī completed his exegete work titled Marāḥ Labīd li Kashf Ma'nā al-Qur'ān al-Majīd (also known as al-Tafsīr al-Munīr li Ma'ālim al-Tanzīl al-Musfir 'an Wujūh Maḥāsin al-Ta'wīl) on 5 Rabiul Akhir 1305/1887.
This book is considered the perpetuation of the Jawi scholarship in the production of exegetical work literature that has stopped since the 17th century (Zarif 2007). In comparison to the first exegete work published by Jawi scholar, namely Tarjumān al-Mustafīd by Abd al-Ra'ūf Singkel, al-Bantanī's Marāḥ Labīd has advantages. Firstly, the book was written in Arabic because it reached a wider audience. On the other hand, Tarjūmān al-Mustafīd was written in Malay. Therefore its circulation was relatively limited within the scholars of this lingua franca. Secondly, Marāḥ Labīd is an original work whereas Tarjumān al-Mustafīd is actually a translation of al-Bayḍāwī's tafsīr work. Thirdly, Marāḥ Labīd applied a method of interpretation that covered various materials and interdisciplinary discourse compared with Turjumān al-Mustafīd (Bahary 2015).
However, it seems that the publication of Marāḥ Labīd was not to provide a new perspective, let alone a new interpretation of the divine message contained in the Quran. Instead, the book can be considered part of al-Bantānī's larger intellectual project, which aims to prepare beginners for a higher level. Therefore, his work comprises a summary of previous exegesis works provided by prominent scholars of tafsīr in an easy-to-understand language. In the introduction, al-Bantānī lists down his primary reference, namely al-Futūḥāt al-Ilāhiyyah by the Azhari scholar Sulayman ibn 'Umar al-Jamal As an Ash'ari theologian, al-Bantānī did not use the Ṣifāt verses in the Quran to associate human attributes to God. Instead, he explicitly considered anthropomorphism as un-Islamic and associated it with Judaism. This conception is in line with the rulings of the previous Ashā'irah scholars. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī stated that 'the Jews are mostly Mushabbihah' and their creed was inserted into Islamic theology through Shia-Rāfiḍa extremists (al-Saqqār 2015: 67-69). Explaining the reasons for the acceptance of the anthropomorphism among the Jews, 'Abd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī (d. 1153/548) explained that the Torah is full of verses that describe God in physical forms and actions. He, for instance, has been said to appear to humans, comes down from Mount Sinai, sits on his throne, etc. (al-Shahrastānī 2005). In a more radical notion, some Ash'aris even equate anthropomorphism with idolatry. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111/505) in his Iljām al-'Awām asserts that: [W]hoever has even a little conception in his mind that God is a body composed of several limbs then he is an idolater. That is because the body is created. Therefore, worshipping a created being is infidelity (kufr). (al-Ghazalī 2020:52) In commenting on the ambiguous verses related to divine attributes, al-Bantānī ( -Bantānī (1997) said, is to establish that: [T]here is not a single thing that resembles Him in the form of partner or such. Therefore, it is unconceivable that there is a thing that resembles God in His majesty and greatness. al-Bantānī (1997:679) He also stated that this verse is intended to invalidate polytheism which perceives idols as the associates of God.
Observing  '. He explained that the original meaning of 'Arash in Arabic lexicography is 'throne where the kings sit (sarīr yajlisu' alayh al-mulūk)'. It was then used metaphorically to describe absolute rule and power. When someone says that 'the king's throne has been seized', he means that the king has lost his power. When it says that 'the king ascended the throne', it means that he has claimed power over a country. Therefore, the verse 'The Merciful sits on His throne (al-raḥmān 'alā al-'arsh istawā)' implies God's ultimate will to create and govern all creations [ta'alluq irādatuhu ta'ālā bi Ijād al-kā'ināt wa tadbīr amrihā].
In this method of interpretation dominated by ta'wīl, we found only one ṣifat verse upon which al-Bantānī refrains from the interpretation and applies tafwīḍ (i.e. accepting the word without trying to specify its exact meaning) instead. The verse is 2:210 in which Allah speaks of the people of Mecca: '[a]re they waiting until Allah comes to them in the shade of clouds along with the angels? ' al-Bantānī (1997) stipulates that Allah will come [ya'tī], without specifying how [bilā kayfa], on the Day of Judgment. Interestingly, he does not perform the same approach when dealing with another verse whose content is reasonably alike, which is 89:22 that says, '[a]nd your Lord comes (to judge) with angels rank upon rank'. Instead, he said that on that day '(jā'a) His manifestation and power should come so doubt, and ambiguity will be cleared up'.
This attitude proves that al-Bantānī approved the usage of both ta'wīl and tafwīḍ approaches. This is not peculiar as the acceptance of both approaches is the stand held by the Ash'arī authorities in the Ottoman era.

Conclusion
Al-Nawawī al-Bantānī's Marāḥ Labīd li Kashf Ma'nā al-Qur'ān al-Majīd is a monumental work of tafsir produced by a Jawi scholar amidst the changing political landscape of the Hijaz. The work seeks to maintain a traditional scholarship that is faithful to mainstream Islamic theology. Although it was not meant to provide a new approach and understanding for the revealed words, this book records an essential episode in the history of traditionalism among Jawī scholars who lived in Mecca in the late 13th/19th century. As Bruinessen (1999) points out, all modern Kyai consider al-Bantānī their intellectual ancestor. This position certainly made al-Bantānī's thought significantly contribute to the formation of Islamic thought in Indonesia and Nusantara (Malay world) in general. Although he never explicitly mentions Wahhabism in any of his books, his ta'wīl and tafwid application in dealing with ambiguous Quranic verses on divine attributes clearly opposes their literal and anti-ta'wīl position. In addition, the combination of ta'wīl and tafwīḍ in his exegetical work lays the foundation for a balanced wasaṭī Islamic thought, which later on becomes the significant pattern of Islamic tradition in Nusantara to this day.