Author: answeringislamblog

Enthronement of the “Prophet”

THE PROPHET’S SEATING ON THE THRONE
– Allah bless and greet him –
(Iq`ad al-Nabi (Saws) `ala al-`Arsh)

by GF Haddad

NOTES (continued)

48Al-Tabari, Jami` al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Ma`arif,
1980, 8:98). The hadith of Abu Hurayra is narrated by Ahmad and
al-Tirmidhi with the same chain, and the latter declared it fair (hasan).
The chain is weak because of Dawud ibn Yazid but the hadith itself is
sound (sahīh). This is stated by Hamza Ahmad al-Zayn in his edition of
Ahmad’s Musnad (9:296 #9696, 9:415 #10152(m)) and by Nasir al-Albani in
his edition of Ibn Abi `Asim’s al-Sunna (p. 350 #784). The narration is
confirmed by the hadith of Ibn `Umar in al-Bukhari’s Sahih (book of
Tafsir) whereby “Intercession shall be given over to the Prophet – Allah
bless and greet him -, and that is the day when Allah shall raise him to
the Exalted Station.” Another confirmation is in the long hadith of the
Prophet’s – Allah bless and greet him – intercession from Abu Sa`id
al-Khudri in the last book of al-Bukhari’s Sahih. There is also the hadith
from Ka`b ibn Malik whereby the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him –
said: “People will be raised on the Day of Resurrection and I shall be, I
and my Community, on top of a hill; there, my Lord shall dress me with a
green garment and grant me His permission, whereupon I shall say whatever
it pleases Allah that I say: that is the Exalted Station.” Narrated by
Ahmad with a sound chain as stated by the editor of the Musnad (12:309-310
#15723) as well as by al-Tabarani in his Kabir (19:72 #142) with a sound
chain as indicated by al-Haythami (7:51, 10:377), and by Ibn Hibban
(14:399 #6479).

49Cf. Sulayman ibn `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab’s words in
his al-Tawdih `an Tawhid al-Khallaq fi Jawab Ahl al-`Iraq (1319/1901, p.
34, and new ed. al-Riyad: Dar Tibah, 1984): “It is obligatory to declare
that Allah is separate (bā’in) from creation, established over His Throne
without modality or likeness or exemplariness. Allah was and there was no
place, then He created place and He is exalted as He was before He created
place.” See also our posting titled “Allah is Now as He Ever Was.”

50Abu Nu`aym narrates with his chain from `Ali in Hilya al-Awliya’ (1997
ed. 1:114 #227) in the chapter on `Ali ibn Abi Talib the latter’s saying
to the forty Jews who asked Him about Allah’s nature and description: “How
can even the most eloquent tongues describe Him Who did not exist among
things so that He could be said to be `separate from them’ (bā’in)?
Rather, He is described without modality, and He is (nearer to [man] than
his jugular vein( (50:16).” The report is also found in Kanz al-`Ummal.
See, on the meaning of bā’in, the explanation of “The Far” (al-Ba`īd) in
Ibn `Arabi’s `Aqida §163 (full text was posted on MSA-EC and SRI).

51An inappropriate phrasing to say the least, and who claims that the Lord
of Glory and Munificence would seat His Most Beloved on the ground? The
wording should have been, “it is equally the same whether He seats him –
Allah bless and greet him – on His Throne or anywhere else.” And Allah
knows best.

52These are the Hashwiyya or gross anthropomorphists, as indicated by
their statements.

53This analogy is of course false both in its premises and its
conclusions.

54See the discussion of this belief in Section 1 (“The Groaning of the
Throne”).

55The argument is based on the presupposition that there is nothing
created above the Throne, as Ibn Hazm stated in his al-Fisal fi al-Milal
wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal (2:125) when he defined istiwā’ as “an act
pertaining to the Throne, and that is the termination of His creation at
the Throne, for there is nothing beyond it.” According to this axiom, the
Throne is the separator between Creator and created, or Lordship and
servanthood.

56This is similar to Ibn Abi `Asim’s narration quoted in Section 6.

57The weakness of this reasoning is readily apparent to the reader.

58Once again a false premise and conclusion. Al-Tabari throughout does not
address the fundamental error that consists in attributing location and
other contingent attributes of the created to the Creator.

59Al-Tabari, Tafsir (8:97-100).

60`Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Hasan ibn `Ubayd, al-Qadi, Abu al-Qasim al-Asadi
al-Hamadhani (d. 352). A weak narrator. His narration from Ibn Dizil was
declared inauthentic by Salih ibn Ahmad al-Hamadhani, and he was accused
of lying by al-Qasim ibn Abi Salih, but al-Daraqutni narrated from him, as
did al-Hakim, Ibn Mandah, Ibn Marduyah, and Abu `Ali ibn Shadhan.
Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (2:556-557 #4852); al-Dhahabi, Siyar (12:194-195 #3201);
Ibn Hijar, Lisan (3:411-412).

61Ibrahim ibn al-Husayn ibn `Ali al-Hamadhani al-Kisa’i, known as Ibn
Dizil or Dayzil (d. 281), a trustworthy hadith master.

62Adam ibn Abi Iyas, Abu al-Hasan al-`Asqalani al-Khurasani (d. 220), a
trustworthy hadith master and one of al-Bukhari’s narrators.

63Warqa’ ibn `Umar, Abu Bishr al-Yashkari (d. ?), one of al-Bukhari’s
narrators.

64Mujahid, Tafsir, ed. `Abd al-Rahman al-Tahir ibn Muhammad al-Suwarti
(Doha, Qatar: s.n., 1976), p. 369. Al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat
(2:209 #772) narrates from his shaykh al-Hakim with the same chain from
Mujahid the explanation of the verse (Lest any soul should say: Alas for
that I squandered of Allah’s flank!( (39:56) as: “What I wasted of His
commands.” Al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (2:209 #772) narrates from
Mujahid the explanation of this verse as: “What I wasted of His commands.”
Al-Bukhari cited this explanation in his Sahih in the book of Jana’iz,
chapter on the merit of following a funeral. It is also the explanation
given for janb (“flank” or “side”) by al-Raghib al-Asfahani in his
Mufradat Alfaz al-Qur’an. Al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (13:368-369 #3988)
criticized the anthropomorphic understanding of the Maliki Abu `Umar
al-Talamanki (d. 429), who mentioned the verse in a chapter named “The
Side of Allah” in his book on doctrine: “I saw a book of his on the Sunna
in two volumes, most of which is good, but in some of which chapters is
found what none would ever agree with, for example: `Chapter on the Side
of Allah’ in which he mentioned: (Alas, my grief that I was unmindful of
the side of Allah(. This is a scholar’s slip.” The latter phrase alludes
to a hadith narrated from Abu al-Darda’ whereby the Prophet – Allah bless
and greet him – said: “I fear three things for my Community most of all:
the slip of the scholar, the disputation of a hypocrite about the Qur’an,
and those who deny Allah’s Foreordained Destiny.” Al-Haythami said in
Majma` al-Zawa’id: “Al-Tabarani narrates it in al-Kabir but its chain
contains Mu`awiya ibn Yahya al-Sadafi, who is weak.” There are several
other weak narrations for this hadith.

65Related by al-Suyuti in Tahdhir al-Khawass min Akadhib al-Qussas.
Frederik Kern cites this account in his introduction to his edition of
al-Tabari’s Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha’ (Cairo, 1902).

66Cf. al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (11:291-301 #2696).

67Muhammad ibn `Ali ibn `Amr ibn Mahdi, Abu Sa`id al-Asbahani al-Hanbali
al-Naqqash (d. 414). One of the major, trustworthy hadith masters of the
Hanbali school, he authored a book entitled Tabaqat al-Sufiyya
(“Biographical Layers of the Sufis”). Siyar (13:193-194 #3801).

68Sulayman ibn al-Ash`ath, Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (d. 275). One of the
major Imams of hadith, the author of the Sunan and a student of Imam
Ahmad.

69This verse is the first proof cited by Imam al-Ash`ari in his Ibana for
the vision of Allah in the hereafter. Al-Bukhari devoted a chapter to the
verse in the book of doctrine (tawhid) at the end of his Sahih in which he
narrates from Jabr ibn `Abd Allah the hadith whereby the Prophet – Allah
bless and greet him – said: “You shall see Allah with your very eyes”
(innakum satarawna rabbakum `iyānan). It is a tenet of the doctrine of Ahl
al-Sunna around which there is agreement, as stated by Ibn Hajar in his
commentary on the chapter (#24) on the vision of Allah in the Hereafter in
Fath al-Bari. Hence Imam Ahmad’s statement: “Whoever denies the vision of
Allah in the hereafter is a disbeliever,” narrated respectively from Abu
Bakr al-Marwazi, Abu Dawud, and Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari by Ibn Abi Ya`la
in Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:59, 1:161, 2:27). Mujahid’s interpretation of
the verse of the Vision is also cited by al-Suyuti in his Durr al-Manthur.

70Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhid (7:157-158).

71Al-Qurtubi thus only sees impossibility in the addition of the terms
“with Him” to the phrase “Allah will seat him on the Throne,” because such
an addition presupposes two aberrations: (1) that Allah Most High sits on
the Throne; (2) that Allah Most High has a sitting-partner. Imam
al-Ash`ari said in the first words of his chapter on istiwā’ in his Ibana
(Sabbagh 1994 ed. p. 89; cf. `Uyun 1996 ed. p. 97): “Allah is elevated
over His Throne with an elevation that befits Him, without indwelling
(hulūl) nor settlement (istiqrār)” and again in the same chapter (Sabbagh
p. 95; `Uyun p. 102): “He is elevated over His Throne without modality
(kayfiyya) nor settlement (istiqrār).”

72See our posting, “Allah is now as He ever was.”

73See above, n. 51.

74Here al-Qurtubi proceeds to interpret as he had alluded that it should
be done when he said: “This is not to say that there is no such narration;
only that knowledge demands that it be interpreted figuratively.”

75Al-Qurtubi, al-Jami` li Ahkam al-Qur’an (verse 17:79).

76Al-Ash`ari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (1:284=p. 211).

77Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Sa`d, Shams al-Din Abu `Abd Allah al-Zur`i
al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali, known as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751). A
specialist in Qur’anic commentary, hadith, fiqh and its principles, Arabic
philology and grammar, and the foremost disciple of Ibn Taymiyya whose
anthropomorphic and anti-madhhab teachings he helped perpetuate. Ibn
al-Qayyim’s “Book of the Soul” (Kitab al-Ruh) ranks among the best books
on the subject of the Islamic understanding of life after death according
to the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the doctrine of the Salaf and the Four
Imams, establishing without doubt that the dead hear the living and know
of them. Mumblings are sometimes heard about the authenticity of his
authorship of the book among the “Salafis.” However, the book is
undoubtedly by Ibn al-Qayyim and is attributed to him by over two dozen
scholars both in his time and after, such as al-Dhahabi, al-Safadi, Ibn
Kathir, Ibn Rajab, Ibn Nasir al-Din, Ibn Hajar, al-Biqa`i etc. It also
contains internal proofs of his authorship, such as his mention of his own
book – now lost – entitled Ma`rifa al-Ruh wa al-Nafs and his identifying
two of his direct teachers as Abu al-Hajjaj (al-Mizzi), and Ibn Taymiyya.
Another internal proof is Ibn al-Qayyim’s lapsing into excessive criticism
of Ash`aris and misattributions of spurious positions to them as is
typical of his school. Ibn al-Qayyim violently attacked imitation (taqlīd)
of the four schools of Law among traditional Sunni Muslims and voiced his
anti-madhhab stance in a two-volume work on the principles of the Law
entitled I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in. The Indian jurist and hadith scholar Habib
Ahmad al-Kiranawi blasted his theses in a 100-page epistle entitled al-Din
al-Qayyim, included in full in his Fawa’id fi `Ulum al-Fiqh in the second
volume of the general introduction to al-Tahanawi’s I`la’ al-Sunan
(2:1-99). (This epistle is probably the most comprehensive rebuttal of
“Salafi” anti-madhhabism). Ibn al-Qayyim also wrote extensively on
tasawwuf with which he evidently felt strong affinities. He wrote an
extensive commentary on al-Harawi al-Ansari’s slim Sufi manual entitled
Manazil al-Sa’irin ila al-Haqq which he named Madarij al-Salikin and in
which he says (2:307): “Religion is all moral character (khuluq), and
whoever bests you in moral character, bests you in Religion. It is the
same with tasawwuf. …. Tasawwuf is one of the cornerstones (zawāyā) of
true wayfaring (al-sulūk al-haqīqī) and the purification and disciplining
of the self (tazkiya al-nafs wa tahdhībuhā) so that it may prepare itself
for its journey to the company of the Highest Assembly and for being
together with its beloved.” His complete biographical notice was posted on
SRI and MSA-EC.

78This is Muhammad ibn al-Qadi Muhammad Abi Ya`la ibn al-Husayn, Al-Qadi
Abu al-Husayn al-Farra’, known as Ibn Abi Ya`la (d. 526), the author of
Tabaqat al-Hanabila (“Biographical Layers of the Hanbalis”). Al-Dhahabi
said of him: “He exaggerated concerning the Sunna and harped upon the
Attributes…. Al-Silafi said: `He showed fanaticism for his school and
criticized Ash`aris a lot without fearing any reproach; he composed books
pertaining to his school; he was devout, trustworthy, and well-established
as a narrator and we took hadith from him.'” Ibn Abi Ya`la’s father,
al-Qadi Abu Ya`la ibn al-Farra’ – Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn
Khalaf – (d. 458) was one of the major jurisprudent scholars of the
Hanbali school and also the author of attacks on Ash`aris such as his book
Ibtal al-Ta’wil (“The Invalidation of Figurative Interpretation”) in
which, al-Dhahabi in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 271) says, “he spoke at length
citing worthless narrations which are inappropriate for use to assert any
divine Attribute whatsoever.” Abu Ya`la is himself dismissed as an
anthropomorphist (mujassim) by the Maliki scholar Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi
in al-Qawasim wa al-`Awasim (2:283), the Shafi`i Ibn al-Athir, and his own
Hanbali colleagues such as Abu Muhammad al-Tamimi (d. 488) and Ibn
al-Jawzi, throughout the latter’s book Radd Shubah al-Tashbih. Main
sources: Siyar 14:481 #4749; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh 10:52
[year 458].

79Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hallaj, Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi or Marruzi or
Marwazi (d. 275). A trustworthy hadith master and the closest companion of
Imam Ahmad whom he washed and laid in his grave. He was celebrated for his
piety. Ibn Abi Ya`la relates that al-Marwazi said: “I asked Ahmad ibn
Hanbal about the hadiths which the Jahmis reject concerning the
Attributes, the vision of Allah [in the hereafter], the Prophet’s – Allah
bless and greet him – ascension [body and soul], and the story of the
Throne; he declared them sound and said: `The Community accepted them, and
these reports are taken exactly as they come’ [i.e. without one seeking to
explain them].” This all-too-vague reference to “the story of the Throne”
is the nearest thing to a reported position on Imam Ahmad’s part
concerning the Prophet’s – Allah bless and greet him – seating next to
Allah Most High on the Throne. Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:56).

80Ahmad ibn Asram al-Muzani (d. 285). He took hadith from Imam Ahmad and
others of the same biographical layer and is unanimously described as
trustworthy. He should not be confused with the great mujtahid imam and
student of al-Shafi`i, Yahya ibn Isma`il al-Muzani (d. 264).

81Yahya ibn Abi Talib Ja`far ibn al-Zabarqan al-Baghdadi (d. 275).
Al-Dhahabi related that al-Daraqutni declared him trustworthy (thiqa),
although Musa ibn Harun declared him a liar and Abu Dawud crossed out his
narrations. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I`tidal (4:387) and al-Mughni fi
al-Du`afa’ (3:732).

82Abu Bakr ibn Hammad is unidentified. This may be the trustworthy hadith
master Abu Bakr al-Naysaburi, Muhammad ibn Hamdun ibn Khalid (d. 320). One
of Ibn Khuzayma’s shaykhs, he took hadith from the Hanbali scholars Abu
Zur`a, `Abbas al-Duri, Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Dhuhli, and their layer.
Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (11:525 #2876).

83Abu Ja`far al-Dimashqi is unidentified. This may be Abu Ja`far
al-Wasiti, Ahmad ibn Sinan ibn Asad (d. 259?), author of the Musnad, from
whom narrated al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Ibn Kuzayma, and
others. Among his sayings: “There is not in the world a person of
innovation except they hate the people of the hadith; and if a man
innovates, the sweetness of the hadith is removed from his heart.”
Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (10:185 #2053).

84`Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn Hatim al-Duri (d. 271), one of the hadith
masters, he transmitted narrations to “the Four” – al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i,
Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah. The hadith master al-Sakhawi, in the
introduction to his biography of his teacher Ibn Hajar entitled al-Jawahir
wa al-Durar, narrates that Imam Ahmad wrote a letter of recommendation for
al-Duri in which he refused to call him a scholar of hadith, but called
him a student of hadith instead. Al-Dhahabi avers that this took place in
his youth, at the beginning of his career. Siyar (10:358 #2164).

85Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn Makhlad, known as Ishaq ibn Rahuyah or Rahawayh,
Abu Ya`qub al-Tamimi al-Marwazi al-Hanzali (d. 238), one of the major
hadith masters. Abu Qudama considered him greater than Imam Ahmad in
memorization of hadith, a remarkable assessment considering Ahmad’s
knowledge of 700,000 to a million narrations according to his son `Abd
Allah’s and Abu Zur`a al-Razi’s estimations. He once said of himself: “I
never wrote anything except I memorized it, and I can now see before me
more than 70,000 hadiths in my book”; “I know the place of 100,000 hadiths
as if I were looking at them, and I memorize 70,000 of them by heart – all
sound (sahīha) – and 4,000 falsified ones.” [Narrated by al-Khatib in
al-Jami` li Akhlaq al-Rawi (2:380-381 #1832-1833).] He did not reach the
same stature in fiqh. Al-Bayhaqi and others narrate that he unsuccessfully
debated al-Shafi`i on a legal question, as a result of which the latter
disapproved of his title as the “jurisprudent of Khurasan.” To a Jahmi
scholar who said: “I disbelieve in a Lord that descends from one heaven to
another heaven,” Ibn Rahuyah replied: “I believe in a Lord that does what
He wishes.” [Narrated by al-Dhahabi who identifies the scholar as Ibrahim
ibn (Hisham) Abi Salih in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 191 #234).] Al-Bayhaqi
comments: “Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanzali made it clear, in this report,
that he considers the Descent (al-nuzūl) one of the Attributes of Action
(min sifāt al-fi`l). Secondly, he spoke of a descent without `how’. This
proves he did not hold displacement (al-intiqāl) and movement from one
place to another (al-zawāl) concerning it.” [See our posting, “The
`Descent’ of Allah Most High.”] Sources: Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat
al-Hanabila (1:6, 1:184); al-Bayhaqi, Manaqib al-Shafi`i (1:213) and
al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (2:375-376 #951); al-Dhahabi, Siyar (9:558 #1877);
Ibn al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (2:89-90, 9:81).

86`Abd al-Wahhab ibn `Abd al-Hakam al-Warraq (d. 251), a devoted follower
of Imam Ahmad who considered him his successor. Abu Bakr al-Marwazi
narrated in his book al-Wara` [(p. 10) published under the name of Imam
Ahmad] that Ahmad was asked on his deathbed who would succeed him as the
imam of the school. He said: “Put all your questions to `Abd al-Wahhab.”
One of the students present, Fath ibn Abi al-Fath, said: “But he does not
have much learning!” Ahmad replied: “He is a saintly man (rajul sālih):
one such as him is granted success in speaking the truth.” [This is also
narrated by Ibn Abi Ya`la in his chapter on al-Warraq in Tabaqat
al-Hanabila (1:210-212).] Among the statements reported from al-Warraq by
Ibn Abi Ya`la: “Abu `Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] is our Imam. He is one of
(those who are firmly grounded in knowledge( (3:7, 4:162). If I were to
stand tomorrow before Allah and He asked me: `Who did you follow?’ I would
say: `Ahmad ibn Hanbal.'” “When the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him –
said: `Defer the question [about the Qur’an] to the one who has knowledge
of it’, we deferred it to Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” This is a reference to the
hadith: “The Qur’an was revealed in seven dialects, and speculative
wrangling (al-mira’) about it is disbelief” – he said it three times –
“therefore whatever you understand of it, put it into practice, and
whatever you do not understand, defer it to the one who has knowledge of
it.” Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad with a sound
chain, as stated by al-Haythami (7:151) and by Ahmad Shakir in the Musnad
(8:107 #7976).

87Ibrahim ibn Awrama al-Asbahani (d. 266), a contemporary of `Abbas
al-Duri and Abu Dawud. Al-Dhahabi said: “His narrations are not widespread
because he died before the age in which one narrates. He lived fifty-five
years.” By the words “the age in which one narrates” al-Dhahabi means “the
age in which one achieves renown as a narrator.” Ibn Hajar in Sharh
al-Nukhba (p. 143) sets at fifty years the age at which one normally
begins to narrate, and forty as the minimum Note that Imam Malik was an
exception, since he started his narrating career at age twenty. Siyar
(10:525 #2295).

88Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Harbi (d. 285), a prominent companion and student
of Imam Ahmad. He autored a Gharīb al-Hadith among other books. Al-Hakim
relates that he was pre-eminent in Baghdad for four traits: his
superlative manners, his knowledge of the Law, his knowledge of hadith,
and his asceticism (zuhd). Al-Daraqutni said that in all these respects he
compared to Imam Ahmad himself. Among his sayings: “Not every separation
is estrangement, nor is every reunion love; only the nearness of the
hearts is love.” “The stranger is the one who once lived among saintly
people who helped him when he ordered good and forbade evil, and supplied
him when he had some worldly need, then they died and left him alone.” “I
never wasted anything, nor ate twice in the same day.” He disapproved of
`Ali ibn al-Madini because he once saw him going to pray behind the Jahmi
judge and grand inquisitor of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Abi Du’ad (d. 240).
The latter was principally responsible for the 28-month-long jailing and
flogging of Imam Ahmad who had declared him a disbeliever (kāfir) for
holding that the Qur’an was created. This is related by al-Khatib in
Tarikh Baghdad (4:142-153 #1825), al-Dhahabi in the chapter on Imam Ahmad
in the Siyar, Ibn al-Subki in Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (2:37-51),
and others. Al-Dhahabi relates that al-Harbi’s grave in Baghdad is a place
one visits for its blessings. Ibn al-Jawzi included himself in the number
of those who performed this visitation and relates that al-Harbi himself
used to say: “Ma`ruf al-Karkhi’s grave is proven medicine.” This is also
related by al-Dhahabi who comments: “The supplication of those in need is
answered at every blessed site.” Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifa al-Safwa (2:410,
2:214); Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (10:668-674 #2391 and 8:219
#1425).

89Harun ibn Ma`ruf al-Marwazi al-Baghdadi al-Khazzaz (d. 231), one of the
shaykhs of Imam Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Abu Zur`a,
al-Dhuhli, and others. He took narrations from Hushaym next to whose house
he lived, al-Darawardi, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn `Uyayna, Ibn Wahb, and others.
He is related to have said: “Whoever claims that the Qur’an is created, it
is as if he worships al-Lat and al-`Uzza. And whoever claims that Allah
does not speak, he is an idol-worshipper.” Siyar (9:400 #1844).

90Muhammad ibn Isma`il ibn Yusuf Abu Isma`il al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi (d.
280), a student of Imam Ahmad and trustworthy narrator of hadith, which he
took from Abu Nu`aym among others, and from him narrated al-Tirmidhi,
al-Nasa’i, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, and al-Najjad. Al-Dhahabi called him al-imām,
al-hāfiz, al-thiqa while al-Khatib relates that he was famous for his
defense of the belief of Ahl al-Sunna. Tarikh Baghdad (2:42); Siyar
(10:592 #2341).

91Muhammad ibn Mus`ab, Abu Ja`far al-Da“a’ (d. 228), a student of Ibn
al-Mubarak, he is reported to have visited Imam Ahmad who said of him: “He
was a saintly man (rajulan sālihan), and he used to tell stories (yaqussu)
and supplicate Allah Most High standing up in the mosque… Among his
supplications he said: `O Allah, hide me under Your Throne!'” Al-Daraqutni
mentioned that he was trustworthy. Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi narrated that he
recited the verse (It may be that thy Lord will raise thee to a praised
estate( (17:79) and said: “Indeed, He shall seat him with Him on the
Throne!” Al-Dhahabi mentions this report then says: “There is no authentic
text to that effect other than a discarded narration” meaning Mujahid’s
report. Al-Da“a’ should not be confused with Muhammad ibn Mus`ab
al-Qarqasani (d. 208), a companion of Imam al-Awza`i whose narrations he
is said to have reported mostly with mistakes, as a result of which he was
declared weak by al-Nasa’i and others. There is also Muhammad ibn Mansur
Abu Ja`far al-`Abid al-Tusi (d. 254), a student of Sufyan ibn `Uyayna and
Imam Ahmad and a companion of Ma`ruf al-Karkhi, who gave him food after he
found him fasting uninterruptedly on the fourth consecutive day. He could
see the pilgrims on `Arafa through kashf. Sources: Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat
al-Hanabila (1:320-321 #449), al-Dhahabi, Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 183)
[al-Da“a’]; Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:318 #448) [al-`Abid]; al-Dhahabi,
Mizan al-I`tidal (4:42 #8180) [al-Qarqasani].

92Abu Bakr ibn Sadaqa is unidentified other than as one of al-Tabarani’s
narrators and a contemporary of Abu Zur`a al-Razi (d. 264 or 268), Ibrahim
ibn Awrama (d. 266) and Abu Dawud (d. 275). He is mentioned in Abu Dawud’s
chapter in al-Dhahabi’s Siyar. Al-Qari in al-Asrar al-Marfu`a (p. 209-210)
and al-`Ajluni in Kashf al-Khafa under the hadith ra’aytu rabbī yawma
al-nafr mention the forged narration: “I saw my Lord in the image of a
long-haired / beardless young man” and then cite Ibn Sadaqa’s narration of
Abu Zur`a’s statement whereby the latter said: “None but a Mu`tazili
denies this sound (sahīh) hadith.” However, al-Suyuti in al-La’ali’
al-Masnu`a (1:27-31) showed that Abu Zur`a’s statement actually referred
to the hadith of Ibn `Abbas whereby the Prophet – Allah bless and greet
him – said: “I saw my Lord,” which most scholars agreed is sound (sahīh).
On this hadith see our posting, “The Vision of Allah.”

93Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Sharik al-Nakha`i al-Kufi, “One of the shaykhs of
Ibn `Uqda (d. 332). He is unreliable.” Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (3:491 #7273).

94Abu Qilaba is `Abd al-Malik ibn Muhammad al-Raqashi al-Basri (d. 276),
one of the shaykhs of Ibn Majah. He used to pray four hundred rak`a in
every twenty-four hours. He could narrate 60,000 hadiths from memory as a
result of which he committed many mistakes according to al-Daraqutni.
However, others praised him for his utmost reliability, such as al-Tabari,
Abu Dawud, Ibn Hibban, and others. He narrated from Ahmad the hadith
whereby the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – said: “The worst two
tribes among the Arabs are Najran and Banu Taghlib.” Ahmad and al-Tabarani
narrate it with sound chains as indicated by al-Haythami in Majma`
al-Zawa’id. Ibn al-Athir in al-Nihaya fi Gharīb al-Hadith said: “Najran is
a well-known place between the Hijaz, al-Shām, and Yemen.” Sources: Ibn
Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:216 #283); al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:549
#2322). The practice of narrating solely from memory was not current
except as a test of someone’s memorization. Hadith scholars narrated only
from their written records, as demonstrated by M.M. Azami and others. `Abd
Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “I never saw my father narrate except
from a book, save less than a hundred hadiths.” In the Siyar (9:457). The
best sources on the proof-texts for writing among the Companions and early
generations are Ibn `Abd al-Barr’s chapter Dhikr al-Rukhsa fi Kitab
al-`Ilm in his Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (1:298-338) and especially al-Khatib
al-Baghdadi’s book Taqyid al-`Ilm (“The Fettering of Knowledge”). This
title is taken from Anas’s saying: “Fetter knowledge with writing”
(qayyidū al-`ilma bi al-kitāb). Anas also said: “We would not consider as
knowledge the knowledge of those who did not write down their knowledge.”
Taqyid (p. 96-97). This is similar to the Tābi`ī Mu`awiya ibn Qurra’s
statement: “Whoever does not write down the Science, do not consider him
knowledgeable.” Narrated by al-Darimi in his Sunan, al-Khatib in his
Taqyid (p. 109), al-Ramahurmuzi in al-Muhaddith al-Fasil (p. 372), and Ibn
`Abd al-Barr in Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (1:321-322). See also al-Hakim
al-Tirmidhi’s chapter entitled “Writing is the means to fetter knowledge
and preserve it from oblivion” in his Nawadir al-Usul (p. 39-41). When all
is said there remains al-Khalil ibn Ahmad’s injunction: “Faithfulness to
what is in your breast takes priority over memorization of what is in your
books.” Narrated by al-Khatib in al-Jami` li Akhlaq al-Rawi (1:670 #1048).

95`Ali ibn Sahl ibn al-Mughira, Abu al-Hasan al-Nasa’i al-Baghdadi
al-Bazzaz (d. 270), a student of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He is truthful (sadūq)
according to Ibn Abi Hatim in al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil (6:189). Tabaqat
al-Hanabila (1:225 #313).

96Unidentified.

97Al-Qasim ibn Sallam ibn `Abd Allah, Abu `Ubayd al-Harawi (d. 224), one
of the great early hadith masters and philologists, author of Gharīb
al-Hadith, Fada’il al-Qur’an, and many other works. A student of
al-Shafi`i, Hushaym, Ibn `Uyayna, Ghundar, Ibn al-Mubarak, Waki`, Ibn
Mahdi, and others. He was one of `Abbas al-Duri’s shaykhs. Ishaq ibn
Rahuyah said: “As Allah loves the truth, Abu `Ubayd is better versed and
more knowledgeable in the Law than I.” Ibrahim al-Harbi said: “Abu `Ubayd
was like a mountain into which the Spirit was breathed. He excelled in
everything, except that the hadith was the specialty of Ahmad [ibn Hanbal]
and Yahya [ibn Ma`in].” `Abbas al-Duri said: “I heard Abu `Ubayd al-Qasim
ibn Sallam mention the vision of Allah [in the hereafter], the kursī where
the two Feet are placed, our Lord’s laughter, and where He was [before
creation], then he said: `All these are sound (sahīh) narrations
transmitted by the scholars of hadith and fiqh one from another; we
consider them the truth and do not doubt them. But if it were asked: How
does He laugh? or: How does He place His Foot? We reply: We do not explain
this; nor did we ever hear anyone explain it.'” Among his sayings: “He who
follows the Sunna is like one who is grasping a hot coal. Such a day is,
to me, preferable to striking sword-blows in the way of Allah Almighty.”
“I am puzzled by those who leave the principles and study the branches.”
Narrated by al-Khatib in al-Jami` li Akhlaq al-Rawi (2:270 #1612). Shaykh
Muhammad `Ajaj al-Khatib said: “He meant by `principles’ the foundational
books (al-kutub al-ummahāt).” Abu `Ubayd must not be confused with his
contemporary and philologist namesake Abu `Ubayda who is Ma`mar ibn
al-Muthanna al-Taymi (d. ~210). He authored Majaz al-Qur’an [Published in
Cairo in two volumes edited by Fuad Sezgin (1955 and 1962)] and the lost
Gharib al-Hadith as well as historical and lexicographical works. He is
cited heavily in Qur’anic commentaries and al-Baghawi reports in his
commentary Ma`alim al-Tanzil (al-Manar ed. 3:488) that he explained istawā
as “He mounted” (sa`ida) in the verse (Then He established Himself over
the Throne( (32:4). Pickthall followed that sense in his translation of
the verse as “Then He mounted the Throne.” Sources: Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat
al-Hanabila (1:259-262 #369); Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (9:183-191 #1702,
8:287-289 #1482); Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa’ (p. 167).

98Al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl, Abu `Ali al-Bajali (d. 282), a commentator of the
Qur’an described by al-Hakim as the Imam of his time in tafsir. Al-Hakim
narrated from Ibrahim ibn Mudarib: “I heard my father say: `Al-Husayn ibn
al-Fadl’s knowledge of the meanings of the Qur’an was inspiration from
Allah, for he had gone beyond the limits of learning.'” Siyar (10:707
#2420).

99Harun ibn al-`Abbas al-Hashimi is unidentified. This is possibly Harun
ibn `Abd Allah ibn Marwan, Abu Musa al-Bazzaz al-Baghdadi, known as Harun
al-Hammal (d. 243), from whom Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i and others
narrated hadiths, and who took hadith from Muhammad ibn Bishr. He is
unanimously trustworthy (thiqa). If he is the same as the “Harun
al-Hashimi” mentioned in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, then it is established that
Abu Bakr al-Najjad narrated from him. Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:7); Siyar
(8:169).

100Unidentified.

101Muhammad ibn `Imran al-Marzubani (d. 384), one of the rare Mu`tazili
scholars from whom hadith scholars took narrations and whom they
considered trustworthy in his transmission, though not unanimously. His
mention by Ibn Abi Ya`la and Ibn al-Qayyim among those who support their
view of the seating of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – on the
Throne shows that they tried to collect as exhaustive a list of
authorities as they could. Cf. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (3:672).

102Muhammad ibn Yunus al-Basri al-Kudaymi (d. 286): a hadith master
accused of forgery. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (4:74).

103`Abd Allah ibn Ahmad (ibn Muhammad) ibn Hanbal (d. 290). A hadith
master who compiled and transmitted the Musnad of his father Imam Ahmad
who praised his knowledge of hadith. Ibn Abi Ya`la narrates from `Abd
Allah that Imam Ahmad said: “Musa remained for forty nights such that
no-one could look at him without falling dead due to the light from the
Lord of the worlds.” Al-Suyuti cites it in al-Durr al-Manthur and says it
is narrated by Abu al-Shaykh, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Hakim,
while al-Dhahabi declared its chain “soft” (layyin). A foundational book
of the Wahhabi creed entitled Kitab al-Sunna is attributed to `Abd Allah
ibn Ahmad. Its first edition was sponsored by King `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Sa`ud
and a Jedda businessman named Muhammad Nasif, who also financed the attack
on Imam al-Kawthari and the Hanafi School by `Abd al-Rahman al-Mu`allimi
al-Yamani (d. 1386) entitled al-Tankil li Ma Warada fi Ta’nib al-Kawthari
min al-Abatil, in which al-Mu`allimi declared: “Allah has a body unlike
bodies.” Kitab al-Sunna was published in Cairo in 1349/1930 by al-Matba`a
al-Salafiyya and received two recent editions: by Muhammad Basyuni Zaghlul
who based his work on the 1930 edition; and by Muhammad al-Qahtani, an Umm
al-Qura University graduate and author of al-Wala’ wa al-Bara’, a book
which counts relying on the Prophet’s – Allah bless and greet him –
intercession between oneself and Allah Most High among the “ten actions
that negate Islam.” Al-Kawthari lambasted Kitab al-Sunna as a collection
of anthropomorphist forgeries in his Maqalat (p. 355) and renamed it Kitab
al-Zaygh (“The Book of Deviation”). This book actually attributes to Imam
Ahmad the statement: “Allah spoke to Musa from His mouth (min fīhi), and
He handed him the Torah from His hand to his hand.” Al-Dhahabi
categorically rejects the authenticity of this narration in the Siyar
(9:503, 9:512) and exclaims: “By Allah! The Imam never said these things.
May Allah destroy the one who forged them…. Look at the ignorance of the
hadith scholars, who narrate such nonsense without a comment.” See also
the comments of Shaykh Nuh Keller cited in his biographical notice in the
Reliance and at the website http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm. Sources: Ibn Abi
Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:29, 1:184-186); al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam
al-Nubala’ (9:512).

104Bishr ibn al-Harith, Abu Nasr al-Khurasani al-Marwazi al-Baghdadi known
as Bishr al-Hafi (151-227), a disciple of Fudayl ibn `Iyad (d. 187) and
teacher of Sari al-Saqati whose grandfather was Zoroastrian, he took
hadith from Imam Malik, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hammad ibn Zayd, Sharik, Hushaym,
and others. Al-Daraqutni called him: zāhid jabal thiqa – “an ascetic who
is a mountain of knowledge and trustworthiness.” Among his sayings: “I do
not know anything better than the pursuit of hadith science for whoever
fears Allah and keeps a good intention in this activity; as for myself, I
ask forgiveness from Allah from having ever pursued it, and from every
single step I took in it.” Imam al-Sha`rani in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (1:57)
explained that the reason Bishr abandoned the study of hadith is because
he considered it a conjectural science in comparison with the certitude in
belief imparted by frequenting Fudayl ibn `Iyad. Sufyan al-Thawri
similarly said: “Would that all my knowledge were erased from my breast!
How can I face being asked, tomorrow, about each single hadith I ever
narrated: `What was your purpose in narrating it?'” He also said: “Would
that my hand had been cut off and I never sought after a single hadith!”
Both reports cited by al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (al-Arna’ut ed. 7:255,
7:274). Bishr also said: “If talking pleases you, keep silent; and if
silence pleases you, then speak.” “O Allah! You know, above Your Throne,
that lowliness is more beloved to me than nobility. O Allah! You know,
above Your Throne, that poverty is more beloved to me than wealth. O
Allah! You know, above Your Throne, that I do not put anything before Your
love.” Also related from Bishr al-Hafi is the statement: “No-one
criticizes Abu Hanifa except an envier or an ignoramus.” Sources:
al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam (6:142), Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 32), and Siyar
A`lam al-Nubala’ (9:170-172 #1691).

105See our biographical notice on al-Tabari at
https://damas-original.nur.nu/Texter/bionotes/bio_tabari-gfh.html.

106`Ali ibn `Umar ibn Ahmad ibn Mahdi, Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni
al-Baghdadi al-Muqri’ al-Shafi`i (306-385), Amīr al-Mu’minīn in hadith –
the highest level of a hadith master – a major, trustworthy hadith master
named “the Imam, superexcellent hadith master, Shaykh al-Islam, emblem of
the giants of knowledge, one of the oceans of the Science and the Imams of
the world” by al-Dhahabi. He narrated and transmitted hadith from and to
countless major scholars of the science. He excelled in the knowledge of
the defects of narrators and hadith narrations, the canonical readings of
the Qur’an, fiqh and the differences of opinion among the jurists, the
Arabic language, and the historical disciplines. Raja’ ibn Muhammad
al-Mu`addil said to him: “Have you ever met anyone of your level?” He
replied: (Therefore justify not yourselves( (53:32). I insisted, whereupon
he said: “I never saw anyone who gathered together what I have gathered.”
Abu al-Fath ibn Abi al-Fawaris asked him one day about a certain hadith
and he answered him. Then he said to him: “O Abu al-Fath, there is not,
between the East and the West, anyone who knows this other than myself.”
Al-Hakim said: “I bear witness that he left no successor.” He considered
recommended the visitation to the graves of Prophets and the Friends of
Allah for the sake of obtaining blessing and intercession. Ibn al-Jawzi
relates that al-Daraqutni said: “We used to seek blessings from Abu
al-Fath al-Qawasi’s grave.” He narrated in his Sunan the Prophet’s –
Allah bless and greet him – hadith: “Whoever visits my grave, my
intercession will be guaranteed for him.” (a hasan narration = “fair”)
Sources: al-Dhahabi, Siyar (12:483-492 #3530); Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifa al-Safwa
(2:471).

107Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Bada’i` al-Fawa’id (1900 ed. 4:39-40, 1994 ed.
2:328-329).

108Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (8:213), year 317.

109Al-Hasan ibn `Ali ibn Khalaf, Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari (d. 329), a
hadith master. He accompanied Ahmad’s foremost companion Abu Bakr
al-Marwazi, as well as the Sufi master of his time, Sahl ibn `Abd Allah
al-Tustari. Ibn Abi Ya`la reports that al-Barbahari composed a Sharh Kitab
al-Sunna in which he said: “Whoever takes up arms against one of the Imams
of the Muslims [i.e. one of the Caliphs] is a Khāriji who has split the
unity [lit. `split the staff’] of Muslims and contravened the Prophetic
reports, and his death is a death in Jahiliyya.” He also said: “Know that
the Religion is nothing other than imitation (i`lam anna al-dīna innamā
huwa al-taqlīd), and I mean imitation of the Companions of the Prophet –
Allah bless and greet him – (wa al-taqlīdu li ashābi rasūlillah sallallāhu
`alayhi wa sallam).” This book was published in Madina at Maktaba
al-Ghuraba’ al-Athariyya (1993) and is popular among “Salafis.” Concerning
the Jahmis, al-Barbahari declared: “Whoever says that his pronunciation of
the Qur’an is created is a Jahmi, and whoever keeps uncommitted, saying
that it is neither created nor uncreated, is a Jahmi. This is what Ahmad
ibn Hanbal said.” Note that al-Bukhari considered the pronunciation of the
Qur’an created and was expelled from Bukhara by the Hanbalis for it, as
related in the Appendix entitled “The Controversy Over the Pronunciation
of the Qur’an” in our translation of Ibn `Abd al-Salam’s Belief of the
People of Truth. The group of Hanbalis led by Barbahari in Baghdad
considered themselves reformers and often took to the streets to “correct”
what they considered unacceptable contraventions of the Religion, injuring
or killing those they considered Jahmis, destroying taverns and musical
instruments, striking women singers, and so forth. In the year 320 in
Baghdad Barbahari was declared wanted by the authorities and the houses of
his followers were ransacked. He fled and remained in hiding until his
death nine years later. The worst controversy attached to al-Barbahari and
his group, however, was their anthropomorphist teaching on the bases of
weak narrations attributing limbs to Allah. Ibn al-Athir relates the
Caliph al-Radi’s edict against the Hanbalis in the year 323, in which he
said: “You mention the `hand’ and the `fingers’ and the `two feet’ and the
`two gilded sandals’ and the `short and curly hair’ and the `climbing’ to
heaven and the `descending’ to the world – Exalted is Allah far above what
the oppressors and rejecters say of Him! The Emir of the Believers swears
an oath before Allah by which he binds himself, that unless you put an end
to your vile belief and crooked way, to destroy you to the last man by
sword and by fire inside your very houses.” Sources: Ibn Abi Ya`la,
Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:18-29 #588); Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh
(8:307-309, 8:378); al-Dhahabi, Siyar (11:543-45 #2899).

110Ahmad ibn Salman ibn al-Hasan, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Hanbali
al-Najjad (d. 348), eulogized by al-Dhahabi as “the imam, the hadith
scholar, the hadith master, the jurisprudent, the mufti, the shaykh of
Iraq.” The shaykh of al-Daraqutni, al-Hakim, al-Khattabi, Ibn Mandah,
al-Khiraqi, and others, he narrated from `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal
and was the last to narrate from Abu Dawud. He was reported to relate
narrations which were not consigned in his own records, perhaps due to the
loss of his sight.He used to fast every day of the year, and he would
break his fast every night with a loaf of bread of which he left aside one
mouthful. On the night of Jum`a he would give away his loaf as charity and
eat the mouthfuls he had put aside. Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila
(2:7-8); al-Dhahabi, Siyar (12:137 #3132) and Mizan (1:101).

111`Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad, Abu `Abd Allah al-`Ukbari, known as Ibn
Batta (d. 387), a student of al-Najjad and one of the main authorities in
doctrine and law in the Hanbali school, he was a pious scholar who never
left his house in forty years and fasted permanently, except on the two
`Ids. Al-Dhahabi declares him “an imam in the Sunna and an imam in fiqh,”
although he cites Abu al-Qasim al-Azhari’s verdict that “Ibn Batta is
extremely weak” (da`īf da`īf) while al-Khatib declares him a forger and
narrates from Abu Dharr al-Harawi and others that al-Daraqutni questioned
his truthfulness. Ibn Hajar states: “I discovered something in connection
with Ibn Batta which I found scandalous and hideous.” He then shows that
Ibn Batta may have added words to a hadith in order to give it an
anthropomorphic slant. The hadith in question is Ibn Mas`ud’s hadith of
the Burning Tree narrated by al-Tirmidhi with a weak chain, whereby the
Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – said: “When Allah spoke to Musa, the
latter was wearing a robe of wool, a wool cloak, and a pair of sandals
made of untanned ox leather.” The addition cited by Ibn Hajar and
apparently forged by Ibn Batta reads: “He [Musa] said: `Who is that Hebrew
(al-`ibrānī) who is speaking from the tree?’ And Allah said: `I am
Allah.'” The position of Ahl al-Sunna is that Musa – peace upon him –
heard Allah without direction, as narrated from Ibrahim al-Nakha`i in
al-Tha`alibi’s Tafsir (4:117). al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad (10:371-374,
13:167); al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I`tidal (3:15 #5394); Ibn Hajar, Lisan
al-Mizan (4:113-114 #231).

112On Ibn Taymiyya see https://www.livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html.

113Ibn Abi Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:43).

114An unidentified narrator. Possibly Abu al-Hasan `Ali ibn `Amr
al-Harrani (d. 488), the companion of Ibn Abi Ya`la’s father. Between him
and Ibn Batta there is a narrator whose name is omitted. Cf. Ibn Rajab,
Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:86 #34).

Or: The hadith master Ibn al-Banna’, Abu `Ali al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd
Allah al-Baghdadi (d. 471) from whom it is established that Ibn Abi Ya`la
narrated. He lived eighty years and was known for his fanatic defense of
the Hanbali school. Al-Qifti reported in his Inbah al-Ruwat (1:276) that
he once said: “Would that al-Khatib had mentioned me in Tarikh Baghdad,
even among the liars.” Al-Qifti comments: “He [Ibn al-Banna’] was a
reference in the canonical readings (al-qirā’āt), philology (al-lugha),
and hadith, except that he was Hanbali in his belief (Hanbaliyyu
al-mu`taqad).” Al-Dhahabi cites it in the Siyar (13:653-654 #4258) and
comments: “He is truthful in himself (sadūq fi nafsih), and it is not a
blemish to be Hanbali, by Allah! However, the Mandah family and others did
say of him: `except that he was inclined to deprecate others’ (fīhi
tamash`ur).” Al-Dhahabi seems to have missed al-Qifti’s point that Ibn
al-Banna’ was Hanbali in his doctrine, not merely his school of law. There
is some irony in this as al-Dhahabi himself is Shafi`i in his legal school
and “Hanbali” in his school of doctrine, meaning anti-Ash`ari.

Or: Ibn al-Busri, Abu al-Qasim `Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Baghdadi
al-Bundar (d. 474), a trustworthy hadith master who received a permission
to narrate from Ibn Batta as stated by al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (13:668
#4273).

115Abu al-`Abbas Harun ibn al-`Abbas ibn `Isa al-Hashimi (d. 275), a
trustworthy (thiqa) narrator according to al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad
(14:27).

116Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn al-Farafisa, Abu `Abd Allah al-`Abdi al-Kufi (d.
203), an established hadith master and one of al-Bukhari and Muslim’s
narrators.

117`Abd al-Rahman ibn Sharik ibn `Abd Allah al-Nakha`i al-Kufi (d. 227),
graded by Ibn Hajar in al-Taqrib (p. 342 #3893) as “a truthful but
sometimes mistaken narrator” (sadūq yukhti’) but al-Arna’ut and Ma`ruf in
Tahrir al-Taqrib (2:325 #3893) said: “Rather, he is weak (da`īf).” Abu
Hatim al-Razi classed him “flimsy in his narrations” (wāhi al-hadith) but
al-Bukhari narrated from him in al-Adab al-Mufrad. Cf. also al-Dhahabi,
Mizan (2:569 #4887).

118This is Sharik ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi Sharik al-Nakh`i (d. 177), a
truthful narrator (sadūq) whose narrations are accepted in the Four books
of Sunan but Muslim used him only for narrations unrelated to legal
rulings (ahkām). Al-Daraqutni said: “Sharik is not strong in the
narrations which he alone reports.” Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (2:271 #3697); Ibn
Hajar, Taqrib (p. 266 #2787); Ma`ruf, Tahrir (2:113-114 #2787).

119Abu Yahya al-Qattat al-Kinani al-Kufi (d. ~130), known as Zadhan,
declared weak by Sharik ibn `Abd Allah according to Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
However, his narrations from Mujahid are found in al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud,
Ibn Majah, and Ahmad as indicated by al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal
(34:402), al-Dhahabi in al-Kashif (2:471) and Ibn Hajar in al-Taqrib (p.
684) and Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (12:303). The latter graded Zadhan “soft”
(layyin), as confirmed by al-Arna’ut and Ma`ruf in al-Tahrir (4:295
#8444). Muslim said in al-Kuna wa al-Asma’ (1:905), under Abu Yahya Muslim
al-Qattat: “Al-A`mash, al-Thawri, and Isra’il narrated from him.”119 Ibn
Ma`in did say of Zadhan that he was thiqa according to `Uthman ibn Sa`id
al-Darimi, but according to `Abbas al-Duri he also said: “There is some
weakness in his narration” (fī hadīthihi du`f). Zadhan was also declared
weak by al-Nasa’i, Ahmad, Ibn Sa`d, Ibn Hibban, and others. Shaykh Ahmad
Shakir declares him trustworthy (thiqa) on the basis of Ibn Ma`in’s
declaration to that effect and al-Bukhari’s silence in his notice on
Zadhan in al-Tarikh al-Kabir (2:1 #400=3:438 Nadwi ed.). Cf. Ahmad’s
Musnad (3:133-134 #2493). He should not be confused with Abu `Umar
al-Kindi al-Bazzaz, who is trustworthy (thiqa) and one of Muslim’s
narrators in the latter’s Sahih. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (4:586 #10729); Ibn
Hajar, Taqrib (p. 684 #8444).

120Mu`adh ibn al-Muthanna (d. 288), declared trustworthy by al-Dhahabi. He
was one of Imam Ahmad’s companions and related from him that he said:
“Whoever abandons the witr prayer deliberately is an evil-doer who is
abandoning a Sunna of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him -, and he is
no longer considered an upright person (sāqitu al-`adāla).” Tabaqat
al-Hanabila (1:339 #489); Siyar (11:69 #2477). Cf. al-Shafi`i: “Whoever
leaves either the Sunna of fajr or Salat al-Witr, is in a worse state than
if he had left all the supererogatory prayers.” Narrated from al-Rabi` in
al-Umm (1:142).

121Khallad ibn Aslam, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (d. 249), one of al-Tirmidhi’s
and al-Nasa’i’s shaykhs, unanimously considered trustworthy as a narrator.

122This is actually Muhammad ibn Fudayl.

123This is the same as al-Tabari’s and Ibn Abi `Asim’s narrations of
Mujahid’s hadith through their chains in Section 5 above. Both Ibn Abi
Ya`la’s chains cited here are weak due to Ibn Batta, in addition to the
possibility of a missing link between `Ali and Ibn Batta. The second chain
is weak due to Layth ibn Abi Sulaym. Both chains contain undecisive
transmission terminology (`an`ana), which makes them weaker, especially if
al-Haythami’s grading of Layth as a “concealer” (mudallis) is correct (see
his note). Finally, even if these chains were considered good until
Mujahid, the chain remains severed at his level (maqtu`), and the hadith
itself remains “condemned” (munkar) as stated by al-Dhahabi.

124Abu Yahya al-Naqid is unidentified, possibly Ahmad ibn `Isam ibn `Abd
al-Majid Abu Yahya al-Ansari (d. 272), who narrated hadith from Abu Dawud
al-Tayalisi and from whom narrated Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani. His rank as
a narrator is trustworthy (thiqa) according to Ibn Hayyan in Tabaqat
al-Muhaddithin fi Asbahan (3:43) and “truthful” (sādiq) according to
al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (10:452 #2243).

125Ya`qub ibn Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Abu Bakr al-Mutawwa`i al-Baghdadi (d. 287),
one of Imam Ahmad’s students. Ja`far al-Khaldi said: “I heard Abu Bakr
al-Mutawwa`i say: `My daily devotion (wird) in my youth consisted in
reading Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad 31,000 or 41,000 times – Ja`far was unsure –
in every twenty-four hours.'” Al-Daraqutni said he is trustworthy. Ibn Abi
Ya`la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1:417 #545).

126Abu al-Hasan al-`Attar is unidentified.

127See Sections 6-7 above.

128In fact, there is not a single narration actually traced back up to the
Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – himself mentioning his seating next
to Allah on the Throne, whether with an interrupted or uninterrupted
chain. Al-Najjad’s claim seems based on his assumption that Mujahid’s and
`Abd Allah ibn Salam’s reports have the status of marfū`, which was never
established.

129See Section 4 for the hadith of Ibn `Abbas. Other than that, what
al-Najjad attributes to Ibn `Abbas was apparently never reported from him.

130Here al-Najjad moves from an apologetic and descriptive stance
concerned primarily with the evidence at hand to an aggressive stance
aiming at the persons of those who question it. Towards the end of the
passage he once more modifies his attack so as to represent any
disputation of Mujahid’s narration as an attack on the Prophet – Allah
bless and greet him – himself.

131This could be either Ibn Abi al-Dunya – `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn
`Ubayd, Abu Bakr al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi (d. 281), or Abu Bakr al-Khallal.
Both of them were prolific writers and narrated from Abu Dawud. It is,
moreover, established that al-Najjad narrated from Ibn Abi al-Dunya but
not that he narrated from al-Khallal. However, it is more likely that the
latter is meant since in his book al-Sunna he insisted heavily on the
statement that Allah literally sits on the Throne and that Jahmis alone
deny it, whereas no such extremism is known from Ibn Abi al-Dunya.
Furthermore, the accusation of Jahmism is typical of al-Khallal and of
Hanbalis of his period to that of Ibn Abi Ya`la in general.

132Note that al-Qurtubi relates a different wording from Abu Dawud. Cf.
Section 8.

133Unidentified.

134Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Abu Ja`far al-Daqiqi (d. 266), a
truthful narrator (sadūq) from whom Ibn Majah and Abu Dawud took three
hadiths in all. The latter said of him that “he had little insight”.
Al-Dhahabi, Mizan (3:632 #7893).

135This is Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Sulami.

136Here al-Najjad again rephrases his argument to read like a condemnation
of those who deny the pre-eminence of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet
him -. His rhetoric is much enhanced by the fact that such a denial
unanimously amounts to disbelief. However, al-Tirmidhi only rejected the
authenticity of Mujahid’s report! Cf. al-Khallal’s Sunna (p. 232).

137Abu Bakr al-Najjad in Ibn Abi Ya`la’s Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:9-12).

138See Sections 2 and 3 for the narrations of Ibn `Umar.

139Ibn Batta, al-Sharh wa al-Ibana (p. 61).

140Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu` al-Fatawa (Mufassal al-I`tiqad – “Specifics of
Belief” – 4:374).

141Hajji Khalifa, Kashf al-Zunun (2:1438). This has been removed from the
printed edition of both Abu Hayyan’s commentaries al-Bahr al-Muhit and
al-Nahr al-Madd min al-Bahr [passage on ayat al-Kursi] by their Cairo
publisher as the latter acknowledged it himself. See al-Kawthari’s note in
his commentary on Ibn al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-Saqil (p. 96-97) and
al-Ghumari’s Bida` al-Tafasir (p. 156).

Wal-Hamdu lillahi Rabbi-l-`Alamin.

GF Haddad

MUHAMMAD’S ENTHRONEMENT AND MEDIATION

HOW ISLAM TRANSFORMED MUHAMMAD INTO A CHRIST FIGURE

According to God’s true Word, the Holy Bible, the Lord Jesus sits enthroned with God the Father andintercedes for believers in order to procure their everlasting redemption:

“But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus said, ‘I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Mark 14:61-62

“Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.” Romans 6:8-10

“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” Romans 8:31-34

“Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:14-16

“This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 6:19-20

“who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life… But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;” Hebrews 7:16, 24-26

“Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.” Hebrews 8:1-2

“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption… Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” Hebrews 9:12, 23-28  

“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” Hebrews 10:12-14

“looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12:2

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrews 12:22-24

“To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Revelation 3:21

“Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth… His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne… Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.’” Revelation 12:1-2, 4-5, 10

Here’s where we see Satan working in and through Muhammad.

Sunni Islam has taken these unique roles of Christ and attributed them to the Muslim “prophet.” This was obviously done for the purpose of steering Muslims away from the real Jesus by having them place their trust and hope in Allah’s “messenger.”   

According to specific Islamic narrations Allah will actually seat Muhammad on his own throne on the day of judgment and permit him to intercede for Muslims:

“Even though the traditions we have mentioned on the authority of the Prophet and his Companions and the Followers indicate the correct interpretation of maqaman mahmudan in Qur. 17:79 (as referring to Muhammad’s role as intercessor on the Day of Resurrection), Mujahid’s statement that God will seat Muhammad on His Throne remains one whose soundness CANNOT BE REJECTED either on the basis of traditions (khabar) or on the basis of speculation (nazar). This is so because there is no tradition from the Messenger of God or anyone of his Companions or the Followers that declares it to be impossible… From what we have said, it has become clear that, it is not impossible for an adherent of Islam to say what Mujahid had said, namely, that God will seat Muhammad on His Throne. If someone says: We do not disapprove of God’s seating Muhammad on His Throne (in view of the following tradition transmitted by) ‘Abbas b. ‘Abd al-‘Azim–Yahya b. Kathir–al-Jurayri –Sayf al-Sadusi –‘Abdallah b. Salam: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, Muhammad will be on the Lord’s footstool (kursi),’ but we disapprove of God’s seating him together with Him, it should be said: Is it then permissible in your opinion that He seat him on it but not together with him? If he permits this, he is led to affirming that either he is together with Him, or God seats him (on the Throne) while being Himself either separate from it or neither contiguous with nor separate from it. Whatever alternative he chooses, he thereby enters into something that he disapproves. If he says that it is not permissible, he deviates from the statements of all the groups we have reported. This means diverging from the views of all adherents of Islam, since there is no other possible statement than those three, according to each of which Mujahid’s statement in this sense is not impossible.” (The History of Al-Tabari – General Introduction and From Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1989], Volume I, Appendix A: A Partial Translation of Tafsir on Qur. 17:79 (Above, pp. 75 f.), pp. 149, 151; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Tabari wasn’t the only reputable scholar to narrate and/or comment this tradition:

10. Al-Qurtubi’s Commentary

Imam al-Qurtubi commented thus on the verse of the Exalted Station in his Tafsir:

The third explanation of this verse is what al-Tabari reported from a party of scholars – among them Mujahid – whereby “the Exalted Station is the seating by Allah of the Prophet with Him on His Throne (kursiyyih).” They narrated a hadith to that effect, and al-Tabari backed up the possibility (jawâz) of such a thing with some extravagant statements (shatatin min al-qawl). However, what he said cannot be inferred [from the verse] except with over-subtlety as to meaning (al-talattuf bi al-ma‘nâ), and it is far-fetched (fîhi bu‘d)This is not to say that there is no such narration; only that [one endowed with] knowledge interprets it figuratively (al-‘ilmu yata’awwaluhu).

Abu Sa‘id al-Naqqash[68] mentioned from Abu Dawud al-Sijistani:[69] “Whoever denies this hadith, WE STRONGLY CONDEMN HIM. The scholars of knowledge never stopped narrating this hadith. Who among them ever denied its possibility, even as he interpreted it?” (G. F. Haddad, The Prophet’s Seating on the Throne (Iq‘âd al-Nabî ‘alâ al-‘Arsh); https://sunnah.org/2008/07/18/the-prophets-s-seating-on-the-throne-2/; bold and capital emphasis mine)

[67] Here al-Qurtubi proceeds to interpret as he had alluded that it should be done when he said: “This is not to say that there is no such narration; only that knowledge demands that it be interpreted figuratively.” (Ibid., bold emphasis mine)

And:

13.  Al-Barbahari’s Idée Fixe

Ibn Abi Ya‘la relates in his Tabaqat that the Hanbali shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari never sat to teach except he mentioned that the Prophet sits next to Allah on the Throne.[114]

[114] Ibn Abi Ya‘la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:43).

14.  Al-Najjad’s Attack on “Anyone That Contradicts Us”

Ibn Abi Ya‘la wrote the following in his chapter on Abu Bakr al-Najjad in Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

‘Ali[115] narrated to me from Ibn Batta: Abu Bakr al-Najjad told us: Harun ibn al-‘Abbas[116] told us: Muhammad ibn Bishr[117] told us: ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Sharik[118] told us: My father[119] told me: Abu Yahya al-Qattat[120] told us, From Mujahid:

– Also –

(2) Mu‘adh ibn al-Muthanna[121] told us: Khallad ibn Aslam[122] said: Muhammad ibn Fadl[123] told us, From Layth, From Mujahid:

Concerning the verse: “It may be that thy Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station”: “He will seat him with Him on the Throne” (yujlisuhu ma‘ahu ‘alâ al-‘arsh).[124]

Al-Najjad said: “I also asked [about it] Abu Yahya al-Naqid,[125] Ya‘qub al-Mutawwa‘i,[126] ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and a group of our shaykhs, and they narrated to me the hadith of Muham­mad ibn Fudayl from Layth from Mujahid.

“I also asked Abu al-Hasan al-‘Attar[127] about it, and he narrated to me the hadith of Mujahid. Then he said: ‘I heard Muhammad ibn Mus‘ab al-‘Abid say: “[The Prophet’s seating on the Throne will take place] in order for all creation to see his station before his Lord, and his Lord’s generosity towards him. Then the Prophet shall retire to his apartments and gardens and wives, and alone shall remain Allah in His Lordship (yanfaridu ‘azza wa jalla bi rubûbiyyatihi).”’

“I also looked into the book of Ahmad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Marwazi, who is our imam and guide and proof in this. In that book I found what he mentioned concerning the rejection of the hadiths of ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam[128] and Mujahid, and he listed the names of the shaykhs WHO CRITICIZED THOSE WHO REJECTED THESE HADITHS OR OBJECTED TO THEM.

“Therefore, what we declare and believe before Allah Almighty is what we have just described and made clear concerning the meanings of the hadiths quoted from the Prophet WITH AN UNINTERRUPTED CHAIN (al-ahadith al-musnada ‘an rasul Allah),—[129] and what was said by ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas—[130] and the scholars after him, which was handed down from elder to elder and from age to age until our shaykhs’ time concerning the saying of Allah: [It may be that your Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station]: the Exalted Station consists IN THE SEATING OF THE PROPHET WITH HIS LORD ON THE THRONE. WHOEVER DENIES THIS OR CONTRADICTS IT IS ONLY ATTEMPTING TO PROMOTE THE SAYINGS OF THE JAHMIS. HE SHOULD BE AVOIDED, EXPOSED, AND WARNED AGAINST.[131]

“Similarly, I was told by Abu Bakr the writer,[132] from Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, that the latter said: ‘Whoever rejects the hadith of Mujahid is a Jahmi.’[133]

“Furthermore, Muhammad ibn Suhayb[134] and a group of our shaykhs narrated to us from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Malik al-Daqiqi[135] that he said: ‘I first heard this hadith fifty years ago, AND I NEVER HEARD ANYONE DENY IT. ONLY THE JAHMI HERETICS REJECT IT.’

“Abu Isma‘il al-Sulami[136] mentioned to us the case of al-Tirmidhi who rejected the pre-eminence of the Prophet and belittled him.[137] Of such a man he said: ‘He does not believe in the Day of Judgment.’ I have seen our shaykhs among the friends of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal give the same verdict. They condemned whoever rejected such pre-eminence. Allah has made this condemnation clear in the words of the scholars as far back as one can see. The people have all met this with approval, and no-one denies this nor disputes it.

“Such is also my position. And should one swear a triple divorce by the seating by Allah of the Prophet on the Throne with Him, then consult me on the validity of his oath, I would say: Your words are true, your oath binding, and the divorce stands.

“That is our doctrine, our religion, our belief upon which we were raised and upon which we shall die if Allah wills. We categorically condemn whoever rejects this pre-eminence to which the scholars referred and which they met with acceptance. Whoever rejects it is from the sects that are bound for destruction.”[138]

[131] Here al-Najjad moves from an apologetic and descriptive stance concerned primar­ily with the evidence at hand to an aggressive stance aiming at the persons of those who question it. Towards the end of the passage he once more modifies his attack so as to represent any disputation of Mujahid’s narration as an attack on the Prophet himself.

[138] Abu Bakr al-Najjad in Ibn Abi Ya‘la’s Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:9-12). (Haddad; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Specific Muslim scholars even went as far as to condemn those that would deny Muhammad’s enthronement as heretics who must be avoided, exposed and warned against:

15. Ibn Batta’s Doctrine

Ibn Batta stated in his book al-Sharh wa al-Ibana ‘ala Usul al-Sunna wa al-Diyana (“Elaboration of the Principles of Sunni Doctrine”):

The Prophet shall be seated on the Throne with his Lord (yujlas ma‘a rabbihi ‘alâ al-‘arsh), and this privilege belongs to no-one else. Thus did Nafi‘ narrate it from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet concerning the verse: “It may be that thy Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station” – he said that He shall seat him with Him on the Throne. Thus also did Mujahid explain it, as narrated by Muhammad ibn Fudayl, from al-Layth, from Mujahid. (Ibid.; bold emphasis mine)

Even the renowned scholar Ibn Taymiyyah and his star pupil Ibn Qayyim believed and embraced the veracity of this tradition!

12. Ibn al-Qayyim’s List of Supporters

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya[78] said in his Bada’i‘ al-Fawa’id:

Al-Qadi [Ibn Abi Ya‘la][79] said: “Al-Marwazi[80] compiled a book on the superlative merits of the Prophet in which he mentioned his seating (iq‘âduhu) on the Throne (al-‘arsh).”

Al-Qadi further said: “This is the position of Abu Dawud, Ahmad ibn Asram,[81] Yahya ibn Abi Talib,[82] Abu Bakr ibn Hammad,[83] Abu Ja‘far al-Dimashqi,[84] ‘Abbas al-Duri,[85] Ishaq ibn Rahuyah (or Rahawayh),[86] ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Warraq,[87] Ibrahim al-Asbahani,[88] Ibrahim al-Harbi,[89] Harun ibn Ma‘ruf,[90] Muhammad ibn Isma‘il al-Sulami,[91] Muhammad ibn Mus‘ab al-‘Abid,[92] Abu Bakr ibn Sadaqa,[93] Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Sharik,[94] Abu Qilaba,[95] ‘Ali ibn Sahl,[96] Abu ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Nur,[97] Abu ‘Ubayd,[98] al-Husayn ibn Fadl,[99] Harun ibn al-‘Abbas al-Hashimi,[100] Isma‘il ibn Ibrahim al-Hashimi,[101] Muham­mad ibn ‘Imran al-Farisi al-Zahid,[102] Muhammad ibn Yunus al-Basri,[103] ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal,[104] al-Marwazi, and Bishr al-Hafi.”[105]

I say: It is also the position of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari,[106] and the leader of all the above in this is Mujahid, the imam of Qur’anic commentary. It is also Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni’s[107] who said:

The hadith of Intercession narrated by Ahmad
Is traced back to the Elect, Ahmad.
Also known to us is the hadith of his seating
On the Throne, THEREFORE DO NOT DENY IT.
Let the hadith pass exactly as narrated,
And do not enter into false notions.
Neither deny that the Prophet sits on the Throne,
Nor deny that Allah makes him sit there!
[108]

[108] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Bada’i‘ al-Fawa’id (1900 ed. 4:39-40, 1994 ed. 2:328-329). (Ibid.; bold and capital emphasis mine)

And:

16.  Ibn Taymiyya’s Inheritance

Ibn Taymiyya wrote:

The scholars recognized by Allah and His accepted Friends have narrated that Muhammad the Messenger of Allah will be seated by His Lord on the Throne next to Him.

Muhammad ibn Fudayl narrated this from Layth from Mujahid in the commentary of the verse: “It may be that your Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station.” This was also mentioned through other chains, some traced back to the Prophet and some not.

Ibn Jarir [al-Tabari] said: “This does not contradict the nearly-mass-narrated narrations (ma istafâdat bihi al-ahâdith) whereby the Exalted Station is the Intercession as agreed upon by the Imams of all Muslims.” He does not say that the Prophet’s seating on the Throne is denounced as false; ONLY SOME JAHMIS HELD IT SO. Nor is it objectionable to mention it in the context of a commentary on the verse.[141]

[141] Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (Mufassal al-I‘tiqad – “Specifics of Belief” – 4:374). (Ibid.; bold and capital emphasis mine)

In case Muhammadans argue that this narration is weak or da’eef here is a report which is deemed to be reliable or sound:

8. Another Narration From ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam

From ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam, in a long hadith on the Day of Judgment: “A seat (kursî) will be placed for the Prophet on the right of Allah.”[38]

[38] Al-Hakim narrated it in his Mustadrak (4:568-569) and declared its chain sound (sahîh), as confirmed by al-Dhahabi. (Ibid.; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Islamic scholar Livnat Holtzman mentions the controversy this hadith of Muhajid’s caused for the Muslim community:

… According to Q. 17:79, God promised Muhammad ‘an honourable station’ (maqāman mahmūdan). Mujahid explained this phrase: ‘[God] will make [Muhammad] sit down with Him on His throne’. 9 Previous scholarship that discussed this hadīth focused on its authenticity and its connection to the hardships that the illustrious historian and Quran exegete, Abu Jaʿfar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923), suffered from the Hanbalites of Baghdad.10

When Abu Bakr al-Najjad completed his thorough investigations about this hadīth, he issued a creed (ʿaqīda pl. ʿaqāʾid), a profession of faith which reflected the feelings of the Hanbalites on this matter:

This is our profession of faith before God: We believe in the content of the ahādīth that are attributed to the Messenger of God, but also to ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAbbas (d. 687–8), and the scholars who succeeded him. These ahādīth were transmitted from one great scholar to another, from one generation to the next generation, until the times of our great teachers. We wrote these ahādīth, and meticulously investigated their content. These ahādīth interpret the meaning of the Quranic verse [Q. 17:79] ‘your Lord may exalt you to an honourable station’. According to these ahādīth, ‘the honourable station’ means that Muhammad will sit with His Lord on His throne. Whoever rejects this interpretation and refutes it, expresses the views of the Jahmiyya (the Muʿtazilites). One must avoid this person, turn away from him, and beware of him. Abu Bakr al-Khatib (d. 933) informed me that Abu Dawud al-Sijistani told him: ‘Whoever rejects the hadīth attributed to Mujahid is a Jahmite (Muʿtazilite)’.11

Al-Najjad concluded that the belief in Muhammad’s noble virtue (fadīla) of sitting with God on the throne was one of the cornerstones of the Hanbalite creed. To illustrate the strength of this belief, al-Najjad explained that hypothetically, a man who declared that God would make Muhammad sit down with Him on the throne and thereafter took the oath on pain of triple divorce12 to strengthen his declaration, should have never feared that he needed to divorce his wife. If this man came to al-Najjad to seek his legal advice whether he should divorce his wife or not, the scholar would tell him:

You declared the truth, your oath is valid, and your wife should remain safely in her position. Because this is our way, our religion, and our creed. This is the root of our conviction from which we emerged. We will adhere to this conviction until the day we die.13

Written in the middle of the tenth century, al-Najjad’s creed paraphrased the hadīth on Mujahid’s interpretation of ‘an honourable station’ and elevated it to the degree of an article of faith for the Hanbalites. By doing so, al-Najjad sealed the turbulent history of this hadīth and silenced all the voices that spoke against this hadīth or merely doubted its veracity. Al-Najjad’s creed concluded the continuous controversy about this hadīth with a smashing victory over the middle-of-the-road traditionalists.14 To correctly evaluate al-Najjad’s creed, we need to examine the meaning of this hadīth and its history.

The hadīth on Mujahid’s interpretation of ‘an honourable station’ was one of the conspicuous ahādīth al-sifāt, the traditions on the divine attributes that included anthropomorphic descriptions of God. This hadīth was controversial in spite of the fact that it did not describe God in any physical way or form. When read literally, this hadīth implies that ‘an honourable station’ is an actual, physical place, and that God’s sitting on the throne (with Muhammad next to Him) is accordingly an actual sitting of a physical body. This reading obviously led to tashbīh, namely comparing God to His creation and anthropomorphising Him. Laymen who heard this hadīth might have been led to visualise a majestic human figure on a throne, sitting next to a much smaller human figure. The implied description of God in this hadīth was unmistakably an anthropomorphic description… (Holtzman, Anthropomorphism in Islam: The Challenge of Traditionalism (700-1350) (Edinburgh Studies in Classical Islamic History and Culture) [Edinburg University Press, Ltd. 2019], Introduction, 1. The Narrator and Narrative: A Literary Analysis of Ahadith al-Sifat, pp. 4-5; bold emphasis mine)

The ninth-century ultra-traditionalists who defended this hadīth and studied it, toiled a great deal to prove the antiquity of the text. Thus, a marginal muhaddith by the name of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Daqiqi (d. 876) declared: ‘I heard this hadīth for the last fifty years, and I never heard anyone rejecting it. Only the heretics and the Jahmites deny its veracity.’23 The traditionalists also decorated the hadīth with further details during their study sessions. The Hanbalite Abu ’l-Hasan ibn al-ʿAttar (d. 881) reminisced about such a study session, conducted by the muhaddith Muhammad ibn Musʿab al-ʿAbid al-Daʿʿaʾ (d. 843) from Baghdad:

Once I heard Muhammad ibn Musʿab al-ʿAbid recount this hadīth which is attributed to Mujahid, namely ‘[God] will make [Muhammad] sit down with Him on His throne’. After transmitting this hadīth, Muhammad ibn Musʿab al-ʿAbid added: ‘So all the creatures will see Muhammad’s position at His Lord, and the respect that His Lord has for him. Thereafter, Muhammad will retire to his chambers, gardens and wives in Paradise, so God will remain alone in His ruling of the world.’24 (Ibid., pp. 7-8; bold emphasis mine)

Holtzman further notes how Muslims resorted to violence over this hadith, with some Hanbalites physically attacking the great Muslim exegete and historian al-Tabari for daring to question its veracity:

The Hanbalite scholarship in defence of the anthropomorphic version included enthusiastic declarations supporting this hadīth and crowning it as authentic and valuable. Some Hanbalites went further and declared that this hadīth reflected the absolute truth, and should it be refuted, they would immediately divorce their wives.40 The more reserved Hanbalites searched for Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s opinion on this hadīth. We found evidence of his supposed opinion in Ibtāl al-Taʾwīlāt, a thematic Hadith compilation authored by the Hanbalite theologian and qadi Abu Yaʿla ibn al-Farraʾ (d. 1066; he was also the father of the biographer Ibn Abi Yaʿla). Abu Yaʿla dedicated a lengthy chapter in his book to the efforts of the Hanbalite muhaddithūn to validate the hadīth attributed to Mujahid. Thus, the Hanbalites claimed that Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself ordered his disciples to transmit the anthropomorphic version attributed to Mujahid in the exact wording as it was received. The Hanbalites further claimed that Ahmad ibn Hanbal believed that the anthropomorphic version should have been attributed to Mujahid’s teacher, the sahābī Ibn ʿAbbas.41 These two claims do not correspond with the fact that the hadīth attributed to Mujahid was not included in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the canonical Hadith compilation of the Hanbalites. Furthermore, Ahmad ibn Hanbal is not mentioned in the list of some thirty early Hanbalite scholars who professed their support for the anthropomorphic version attributed to Mujahid. These names were assembled by Abu Bakr al-Marwazi himself.42 It is reasonable to assume that if al-Marawzi thought that Ahmad ibn Hanbal had supported this hadīth, or merely acknowledged its existence, he would have mentioned Ahmad ibn Hanbal at the top of the list.43

The debate about the anthropomorphic version did not remain a theoretical issue. The hadīth became a major component in the political agenda of the Hanbalites. In the year 922 (this is an approximate chronology, as the historical sources do not provide specific details about the following occurrence), a group of Hanbalites attacked the illustrious historian and Quran exegete Abu Jaʿfar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923) in Baghdad. Al-Tabari, as one of the sources claimed, refused to accept the anthropomorphic version attributed to Mujahid and had the audacity to reject this hadīth in public.44

In his great exegesis of the Quran, al-Tabari implanted subtle references to his rejection of the hadīth attributed to Mujahid: he first established that ‘the majority of the scholars’ (akthar ahl al-ʿilm) believed that the ‘honourable station’ was Muhammad’s intercession for the people on the Day of Resurrection,45 by quoting a dozen ahādīth to prove his point.46 In the next phase, al-Tabari remarked that ‘others’ (ākharūn) claimed that the ‘honourable station’ meant that God promised the Prophet that He would make the Prophet sit on the throne, next to God.47 Thereafter, al-Tabari quoted ten anthropomorphic variants of the hadīth attributed to Mujahid.48 As a rule, al-Tabari did not hesitate throughout his work of exegesis to accept certain ahādīth as authentic and reject others. Nonetheless, he was extremely cautious in the case of the hadīth attributed to Mujahid: Al-Tabari declared that there is no way to refute the authenticity of the hadīth attributed to Mujahid, neither by locating some textual evidence (khabar) nor by applying rational reasoning (nazar).49 This saying is far from the enthusiastic declarations of the Hanbalites support for this hadīth’s veracity. We note that the Hanbalites declared that the sceptics who did not accept this hadīth were heretics. However, in the severe circumstances in which al-Tabari lived in Baghdad (he was forced to stay at home, while visitors were prevented from visiting him),50 al-Tabari seemed to have no other choice but to issue his lukewarm support of this hadīth’s authenticity.

In 929, strife arose between the Hanbalite supporters of Abu Bakr al-Marwazi and ‘a group of commoners’ (ʾifa min ’l-ʿāmma) in Baghdad. This strife, which soon escalated into riots (fitna) was ignited because of an argument about Q. 17:79, and ‘an honourable station’. Relying on earlier sources, the Damascene historian Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) reported on these riots in his monumental chronicle al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya. Ibn Kathir’s report is quite odd, because in it the ‘commoners’ claimed that ‘an honourable station’ was ‘the great intercession’, while the Hanbalites held their traditional position about Muhammad’s sitting on the throne. According to Ibn Kathir, the riots resulted in the deaths of an unspecified number of rioters. Ibn Kathir adds his opinion that according to Sahīh al-Bukhāri, the canonical Hadith compilation, ‘an honourable station’ was indeed the great intercession.51 It seems that by determining that there was only one possible interpretation of ‘an honourable station’, and that this interpretation was not the one favoured by the Hanbalites, Ibn Kathir (who was considered an indirect disciple of the Hanbalite Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya) expressed his reservation about the behaviour of the tenth-century Hanbalites and their choice of texts to venerate. Other authors of the Mamluk period, like the Shafiʿite Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani (d. 1449), who in fact was inclined towards Ashʿarite theology, accepted the hadīth attributed to Mujahid.52 Ibn Hajar even harshly condemned a later rationalistic scholar who refuted this hadīth.53 The admission of the anthropomorphic version to the traditionalistic canon was therefore fully accomplished in the fifteenth century. (Ibid., pp. 12-14; bold emphasis mine)

9. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Tabaqāt al-Fuqahāʾ al-Hanābila, vol. 2, p. 14.

10. Ignaz Goldziher was the first scholar to address this hadīth and its consequences in both the public sphere (the 929 riots, al-Tabari’s ordeals, etc.), and the role that Mujahid played in shaping this hadīth: Goldziher, Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslesung, pp. 101–11. Franz Rosenthal’s informative introduction to his translation of al-Tabari’s Kitāb al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk focuses on al-Tabari’s interpretation of Q. 17:79, and provides an interpretation of al-Tabari’s discussion on the hadīth attributed to Mujahid: Rosenthal, ‘General Introduction’, pp. 57–8, 69–78. Another illuminating discussion on al-Tabari’s interpretation of Q. 17:79 is Claude Gilliot’s. Gilliot also analyses a parallel passage authored by the Quran exegete Abu ʿAbd Allah al-Qurtubi (d. 1272): Gilliot, Exégèse, langue, et théologie, pp. 249–54. Two indispensable discussions are Swartz, A Medieval Critique of Anthropomorphism, p. 249, footnote 358; and Ramadān, Usūl al-Dīn ʿinda ’l-Imām al-Tabarī, pp. 23–33. The confrontations between the Hanbalites and al-Tabari are briefly described in Turner, Inquisition in Early Islam, pp. 145–8. Turner determines that ‘[t]he violent Hanbalī response to al-Tabarī is most clearly understood if their madhhab is seen as a new player competing with al-Tabarī’s madhhab, which was equally new’: Turner, Inquisition in Early Islam, p. 146. A comprehensive study on the relationships between al-Tabari and the Hanbalites, including an illuminating discussion on al-Tabari’s treatment of Q. 17:79, including a reference to the prominent Hanbalite sources, is Shah, ‘Al-Tabarī and the Dynamics of the Tafsīr’, pp. 105–10.

11. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Tabaqāt al-Fuqahāʾ al-Hanābila, vol. 2, pp. 16–17.

12. On the oath on pain of triple divorce (hilf bi’l-talāq thalāthan), see Rapoport, Marriage, Money and Divorce, p. 92.

13. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Tabaqāt al-Fuqahāʾ al-Hanābila, vol. 2, pp. 17–18.

14. Al-Najjad’s disciple, the influential muhaddith and Hanbalite jurisprudent Ibn Batta (d. 997), also issued a creed. In this creed he clarified that Mujahid’s hadīth is one of the cornerstones of the Hanbalite creed: Laoust, La profession de foi d’Ibn Batta, pp. 60–1, 113…

23. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Tabaqāt al-Fuqahāʾ al-Hanābila, vol. 2, pp. 16–17. See similar declarations by ninth-century traditionalists in al-Khallāl, al-Sunna, vol. 1, pp. 217–18, anecdote 250; p. 219, anecdote 253.

24. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Tabaqāt al-Fuqahāʾ al-Hanābila, vol. 2, p. 14…

40. Al-Khallāl, al-Sunna, vol. 1, pp. 256–7, anecdotes 307–8; pp. 258–9, anecdote 312.

41. Abū Yaʿlā, Ibtāl al-Taʾwīlāt, p. 480, anecdotes 447–8; van Ess, TG, vol. 2, pp. 642–3.

42. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Badāʾiʿ al-Fawāʾid, vol. 4, p. 1380.

43. See the illuminating analysis of Tāhā Muhammad Najjār Ramādān, Usūl al-Dīn ʿinda ’l-Imām al-Tabarī, pp. 29–30, and the precise remark of Shah, ‘Al-Tabarī and the Dynamics of the Tafsīr’, p. 136, note 153.

44. Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-Udabā’, vol. 1, p. 2450.

45. Al-Tabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, vol. 15, p. 43 (the interpretation of Q. 17:79).

46. Al-Tabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, vol. 15, pp. 43–7 (the interpretation of Q. 17:79); Gilliot, Exégèse, langue, et théologie, pp. 249–51; Shah, ‘Al-Tabarī and the Dynamics of the Tafsīr’, pp. 108–9.

47. Al-Tabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, vol. 15, p. 47 (the interpretation of Q. 17:79).

48. Al-Tabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, vol. 15, pp. 47–51 (the interpretation of Q. 17:79).

49. Al-Tabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, vol. 15, p. 51 (the interpretation of Q. 17:79). Al-Tabari developed his implied rejection of the hadīth in a convoluted discussion on God’s transcendence that he wisely inserted in other passages in his discussion of Q. 17:79: al-Tabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, vol. 15, pp. 51–4. This discussion remains for another time.

50. Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Madīnat al-Salām, vol. 2, p. 551 (the biography of Abu Jaʿfar Ibn Jarir al-Tabari).

51. Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya, vol. 15, pp. 42–3 (the events of Hijri year 317). Cf. the reports of the historians Ibn al-Athir (d. 1233) and Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 1348): Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī ’l-Tārīkh, vol. 8, p. 57 (the events of Hijri year 317); al-Dhahabī, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 23, p. 384 (the events of Hijri year 317).

52. Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fath al-Bārī, vol. 8, p. 259, hadīth 4534 (Kitāb Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, bāb qawlihi taʿālā ʿasā an yabʿathaka rabbuka maqāman mahmūdan).

53. Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fath al-Bārī, vol. 11, pp. 433–7, hadīth 6344 (Kitāb al-riqāq, bāb sifat al-janna wa’l-nār). (Ibid., pp. 17-20; bold emphasis mine)

Hence, Muhammad will be given a seat at the right side of Allah!

Since the throne represents Allah’s lordship over creation (rububiyyah),

Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition? S. 10:3 Yusuf Ali

Say: “Allah knows best how long they stayed. With Him is (the knowledge of) the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clearly He sees, and hears (everything)! They have no Wali (Helper, Disposer of affairs, Protector, etc.) other than Him, and He makes NONE to share in His Decision and His Rule.” S. 18:26 Hilali-Khan

Blessed be He who has sent down the Salvation upon His servant, that he may be a warner to all beings; to whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth; and He has not taken to Him a son, and He has no associate in the Kingdom; and He created every thing, then He ordained it very exactly. S. 25:1-2 Arberry

This means that Allah shall take Muhammad as a partner in his exclusive rule over the heavens and earth, making his so-called prophet into another sovereign lord besides himself!

As if Islam’s blasphemy couldn’t get any worse, other supposedauthentic narrations assert that the names of Allah and Muhammad are written on the pillars of Allah’s throne, and that Adam was forgiven because he invoked Muhammad’s name!

Al-Bayhaqi cited the following hadith in his book “Dala’il an-Nubuwwah” (Signs of Prophethood): Narrated ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab: the Prophet said: “When Adam committed the sin, he said to Allah, ‘O My Lord, I ask You with reference to Muhammad to forgive me‘. Allah said: ‘O Adam! How did you know about Muhammad, for I have not yet created him?’ Adam replied, ‘O My Lord, when You created me, I looked up and saw inscribed on the legs of the Throne the words: There is no God worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. I knew that you do not attach to Your name but the name of the dearest of Your Creation.’ Allah said to Adam, ‘You have spoken rightly, Adam. Muhammad is the dearest of My Creation. I have forgiven you because you asked by Muhammad. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR HIM, I WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED YOU.'” This hadith was narrated by al-Hakim who also classified it AS SAHIH (AUTHENTIC). Among the transmitters of this hadith is ‘Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam. Al-Haythami said: “This hadith was reported by at-Dabarani and in its chain of transmitters are people I do not know. Al-Hakim was therefore mistaken in classifying this hadith as sahih because he himself criticised ‘Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam in his book ad-Du’afa, so how can he state the authenticity of the hadith after he had criticised him?!!” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], p. 107, fn 10; bold and capital emphasis mine)

And:

Abu Muhammad al-Makki, Abu’l-Layth as-Samarqandi and others related that when Adam rebelled, he said, “O Allah, forgive me my error BY THE RIGHT OF MUHAMMAD!” Allah said to him, “How do you know Muhammad?” He said, “I saw written in every place in the Garden, ‘There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’ So I knew that he was the most honoured creation in Your eyes.” SO ALLAH TURNED TO HIM AND FORGAVE HIM. It is said that this is the interpretation of the words of Allah, “Adam learned some words from his Lord.” (2:27)

Another variant has that Adam said, “When you created me, I lifted my gaze to Your Throne AND WRITTEN ON IT WAS: ‘There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,’ so I knew there would be no one held in greater esteem by You THAN THE ONE WHOSE NAME YOU PLACED ALONGSIDE YOUR OWN NAME.” Allah then revealed to him, “By My might and majesty, he is the last of the prophets among your descendants. IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR HIM, I WOULD HAVE NOT CREATED YOU.” It is said that Adam was given the kunya, Abu Muhammad. Some people say that it was Abu’l-Bashar (the father of mankind). (Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], Chapter Three: On the Sound And Well-Known Traditions Related About the Immense Value Placed On Him By His Lord, His Exalted Position And His Nobility In This World And The Next, Section 1: His place, p. 89; capital emphasis mine)

Gibril Haddad mentions similar reports:

– The hadith of Adam’s tawassul through the Prophet is related by the Companions – Maysara, Ibn ‘Abbas, and Ibn ‘Umar – with chains varying in strength from strong to very weak:

I. Ibn al-Jawzi narrated in al-Wafa with his chain through al-Bayhaqi’s and al-Khatib’s shaykh, the trustworthy hafiz Abu al-Husayn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah, known as Ibn Bishran al-‘Adl al-Umawi al-Baghdadi al-Mu‘addal (d. 411 or 415) in his Fawa’id, from the trustworthy hafiz and Musnid of Baghdad Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Bakhtari al-Razzaz, from Ahmad ibn Ishaq ibn Salih al-Wazzan al-Jurjani (d. 281 “la ba’sa bihi” according to al-Daraqutni), from Muhammad ibn Sinan al-‘Awqi (d. 223, al-Bukhari’s shaykh in the Sahih), from Ibrahim ibn Tahmn (one of the narrators of the Sahihayn), from Budayl ibn Maysara (one of the narrators in Sahih Muslim), from ‘Abd Allah ibn Shaqiq (one of the narrators in Sahih Muslim), from the Companion Maysarat al-Fajr:

I said: “Messenger of Allah, when were you made a Prophet?” He replied: “When Allah created the earth and turned to the heavens, arranging them into seven heavens, and He created the Throne, He wrote on the leg of the Throne: MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH AND THE SEAL OF PROPHETS. And Allah created Paradise in which He made Adam and Hawwa’ dwell, then He wrote my name [there] on the gates, the tree-leaves, the houses and tents, while Adam was still between the spirit and the body. When Allah Most High brought him to life, he looked at the Throne and saw my name, whereupon Allah Most High informed him: ‘He is the liege-lord of your offspring.’ When shaytan deceived them, they repented and sought intercession with my name from Him.”

The hadith master al-Salihi cited it in Subul al-Huda wal-Rashad (Beirut ed. 1:86=Cairo ed. 1:104) and said “Its chain is good and there is no harm in it.”1 Al-Halabi also cited it in his Sira (1:355)…

II. Al-Khallal narrated in al-Sunna (1:261): Al Fadl ibn Muslim al-Muharibi narrated to us: Muhammad ibn ‘Isma narrated to us: Jundul [ibn Waliq, thiqa per al-Haythami] narrated to us: ‘Amr ibn Aws al-Ansari [mastur per al-Dhahabi] narrated to us: from Sa‘id ibn Abi ‘Aruba: from Qatada: from Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab: from Ibn ‘Abbas: Allah Most High revealed to ‘Isa: ‘O ‘Isa, Believe in Muhammad and command whosoever reaches his time among your Community that they believe in him. Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise or Hellfire. Indeed, I created the Throne on top of the water and it shook, so I inscribed upon it LA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH MUHAMMADAN RASULULLAH, where upon it stood still.’” Al-Khallal said: “I read it to Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Sharik and he concurred with it,” i.e. with its being authentic.

Al-Hakim similarly narrated in the Mustadrak (2:614-615=2:271): ‘Ali ibn Hamshadh al-‘Adl (258-338) [Abu al-Hasan al-Naysaburi, a major trustworthy hafiz] narrated to us by dictation: Harun ibn al-‘Abbas al-Hashimi (208-275) [thiqa per al-Khatib] narrated to us: Jundul ibn Waliq narrated to us, to the end of the above chain and text. Al-Hakim said: “This is a sound-chained hadith but Al-Bukhari and Muslim did not narrate it.”2

Al-Dhahabi in his Talkhis al-Mustadrak and Mizan al-I‘tidal (s.v. ‘Amr ibn Aws) conjectures that Ibn ‘Abbas’s narration is forged (“azunnuhu mawdu‘an”but brings no proof, as its chain contains neither a liar nor a forger and is a fair chain by the Salafs criteria for fada’il hadiths.

1A grading confirmed by ‘Abd Allah al-Ghumari in Murshid al-Ha’ir (p. 37) and al-Radd al-Muhkam (p. 138-139) as well as his student Mahmud Mamduh in Raf‘ al-Minara (p. 247-249).

2Also Abu al-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Asfahaniyyin according to al-Lacknawi in al-Athar al-Marfu‘a (p. 44), and Abu Sa‘d al-Naysaburi in (1:163-165 §15). (Hadith of Adam’s tawassul through the Prophet; bold and capital emphasis mine)

The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that Satan raised up Muhammad to become a Christ figure in order to mislead people from turning to the true Jesus, mankind’s only hope of salvation:

“‘Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.’ Thomas said to Him, ‘Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’” John 14:1-6

“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, ‘Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the “stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.” Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’ Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” Acts 4:8-14

It also proves that Islam is not a monotheistic faith since it has turned Muhammad into a demigod who shares in Allah’s exclusive traits.

May the risen Lord of glory, God’s beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, deliver Muslims from this antichrist figure, saving them from Allah and his so-called messenger, and bring them to his glorious feet in order to experience the everlasting love and peace that comes from him alone:

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matthew 11:27-30

Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” John 14:27

“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

All biblical references taken from the New King James Version (NKJV).

FURTHER READING

Muhammad on the Throne – More on Islam’s Other God

Quran Difficulty: Is Allah the only ruler?

APPENDIX

The belief in Muhammad’s enthronement led to strife and violence among the Muslims, which even resulted in al-Tabari being viciously opposed by a group of Hanbali Muslims. These Muslims went as far as to destroy al-Tabari’s very own home, and having him barred from speaking in certain places:

Qur’an 17:79 was generally explained as eschatological274 and the “praiseworthy position” as referring to Muhammad’s role as intercessor with the Deity on the Last Day. There was, however, a tradition reported from Mujahid (but not found in the preserved recension of his commentary on Qur. 17:79) which reached Tabari by way of ‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Asadi–Muhammad b. Fudayl–Layth b. Abi Sulaym. It states that the “praiseworthy position” means that Muhammad will be seated by God on his divine Throne.275 Hanbalite championship of the tradition produced vehement outpourings of hatred against those who opposed it, allegedly with equal immoderation. They were called by every conceivable epithet; they were branded as innovators, liars, ignoramuses, heretics (zindiq), and unbelievers. Above all, they were seen as Jahmis, that is, speculative theologians (Mu’tazilites). Their nefarious intent–or, at any rate, the result of their attitude–was to deny a singular distinction to the Prophet, and, in the process, they defamed the exemplary Muslim that was Mujahid. Already Ibn Hanbal’s principal successor as spokesman for his legal school, Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi (d. 275/888),276 was strongly partial to Mujahid’s tradition and appears to have employed the “praiseworthy position” question as a sort of shibboleth. Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi’s student and successor as the principal Hanbalite scholar of his time, Abu Bakr al-Khallal (d. 311/923), took up the subject. He reproduced his teacher’ s arguments at length and thus preserved them for posterity.277 His younger contemporary, al-Barbahari (d. 329/941),278 then made the most of it. He missed no opportunity to proclaim Qur. 17:79 as referring to the Prophet’s being seated on the divine Throne. Although al-Barbahari’s name is not mentioned in connection with Tabari’s Hanbalite trouble, he probably must be seen as the person behind much of it.

The actual course of the events affecting Tabari can be reconstructed only with difficulty, because supporters on both sides apparently circulated conflicting reports. Matters appear to have come to a head after the year 290/903. In that year, Tabari returned to his home town in Tabaristan on a second, and apparently last, visit. He no doubt used the Khurasan Road that took him through such large cities as Dinawar and Hamadhan. In Dinawar, he stopped to meet with scholars there and to give lectures; he may very well have done the same in other towns along the road, thus making his journey profitable intellectually and, possibly, economically. On his return to Baghdad, three Hanbalites, who do not seem further identifiable,279 asked Tabari about his views on Mujahid’s tradition. Tabari is said to have declared bluntly that it was absurd. Moreover, he added a flippant jingle ridiculing it:

Praised be the One Who has no confidant and has no one to sit on His Throne.

Enraged Hanbalites thereupon stoned his residence and caused a serious disturbance which had to be subdued by force.

Trouble with the Hanbalites that took a similar form is also reported at the time of Tabari’s death. In connection with it, Nazuk is mentioned as chief of police. He was appointed to this position only in 310/922[3], the year Tabari died, but he appears to have held high positions in the police before and may already have been in charge of Tabari ‘s protection against potential Hanbalite violence. In 309/921121, the wazir ‘Ali b. ‘Isa had offered Tabari the opportunity to debate the matter with the Hanbalites in his residence. Tabari agreed, but the Hanbalites did not show up.280 However, shortly before his death, Hanbalite rioters supposedly pelted his house with stones so numerous that they formed a large wall in front of it. The verse just quoted was discovered written on the wall of Tabari’s house. After the riot subsided, someone wrote underneath it:

Ahmad281 will no doubt have a high position when he comes to the Merciful One,

Who will draw him near and seat him nobly to spite an(y) envier,

Upon a throne enveloping him282 with perfume to make livid an(y) obnoxious liar.

(He has) truly this unique position (al-maqam).

This has been transmitted by Layth from Mujahid.

Inscriptions in verse or prose on the walls of houses are a standard device of the Arabic literary imagination. It seems most unlikely that a man in Tabari’s position and at his advanced age would have been so childish as to write inflammatory verses on the walls of his house. Someone else might have done it in order to provoke the Hanbalite mob. Presumably, however, the mural poetry was a literary embellishment invented by Hanbalites which crept into the vague reports about the event.283 The fact that historians report another bloody incident about maqaman mahmudan involving followers of the late Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi for the year 317/929284 neither confirms nor invalidates the historicity of the event involving Tabari.

The circumstances surrounding the debate about the “praiseworthy position” deserve some more clarification. In his Musnad, Ibn Hanbal includes no traditions that support the interpretation of the phrase as referring to the Prophet’s being seated on the divine Throne.285 One might argue that the very fact that Ibn Hanbal has nothing to say about the impossibility of Mujahid’s interpretation could indicate that it could not be ruled out, using a type of argument employed by Tabari in his discussion of the matter. This, however, is very unlikely. Ibn Hanbal may have simply disregarded Mujahid’s tradition as irrelevant or objectionable. After all, it had no isnad going back to more ancient authorities or the Prophet, while there were traditions having the Prophet’s seal of approval that referred to intercession. Clearly, this made it necessary to invent an appropriate Prophetical tradition for Muhammad’s place on the divine Throne, AND THIS WAS DONE. Ibn Battah (d. 387/997) listed one such tradition with the isnad Nafi’–’Abdallah b. ‘Umar–the Prophet.286 He is certain not to have invented it himself. When it made its first appearance is hard to say; evidently, Abu Bakr al-Khallal in the early years of the century did not yet know it.

In Tafsir, Tabari has a long and interesting discussion of the “praiseworthy position.”287 It again shows him to be the great compromiser. He admits that intercession is the interpretation that is solidly documented and which therefore has the best claim to being correct. However, he says, the other interpretation cannot entirely be ruled out. As the composition of Tafsir antedates the events described, it might be argued that Tabari interpolated the discussion in Tafsir after publication when Hanbalite hostility took such a truly ugly turn.288 This cannot be proved. It might be assumed that he took at first a conciliatory attitude such as is displayed in Tafsir and renounced it at some later date when he got disgusted with Hanbalite violence. This seems more likely, but again there is no hard evidence for it. Whatever it was, the view expressed in Tafsir did nothing to assuage Hanbalite opposition to him which appears to have had deeper roots than merely disagreement about a catchy slogan.

The arguments marshalled by Tabari for the purpose of making Mujahid’s tradition admissible were derived from speculative theology and show him adept in its ways of thinking and debating. The basic issue, as he sees it, is the problem of contiguity (mumassah). It had its proper place in physics but was transferred to theology by religious thinkers289 Al-Ash’ari (ca 260324/873(41-935(6)), who lived most of his life in al-Basrah and was but a generation removed from Tabari, considered the matter important enough to refer to it in his discussion of anthropomorphism (tajsim). God is not upon the Throne, except in the sense that He is above it but does not touch it. According to Hisham b. al-Hakam, God’s location is in one specific place (fi makan dun makan). His place is the Throne, and He is in touch with it. The Throne encompasses and delimits Him. Another view holds that the Creator fills the Throne and is in touch with it. At this point, al-Ash’ari adds that some hadith scholars hold that the Throne is not filled by Him and that He (is thus able to) SEAT HIS PROPHET WITH HIMSELF ON THE THRONE.290 Tabari considers the problem of God completely filling the Throne. He remarks on His contiguity and finds that only three possibilities apply to it. For him, however, the crucial point that must be made is that God’s seating of Muhammad on the Throne, with or without Himself, does not imply divinity (“lordship” rububiyyah) for the Prophet or deny his status as a human being (“servantship” ‘ubudiyyah). In fact, the implied hint at Muhammadan divinity would appear to be the most objectionable feature of Mujahid’s tradition. In touching upon this aspect, Tabari comes close to the possible reason why Mujahid might have made this seemingly un-Islamic statement. Christianity speaks of the Son not only as sitting on a throne but also of some mysterious being as sitting together with the Father in His Throne (Rev. 3:21). Even in remote Mecca, Mujahid could have heard about these views or seen one of the many representations of the Trinity or the enthroned Christ.291 He may very well have felt that Muhammad should be similarly distinguished as was the prophet of Christianity. (Rosenthal, The History of Al-Tabari, Introduction, pp. 71-77)

276. For Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Haljaj al-Marrudhi, see Ibn Abi Yaia, Tabaqat, I, 56-63; Sam’ani, Ansab, XII, 201 f.; Yaqut, Mu’jam, IV, 506, s. v. Marty al-Rudh. According to Dhahabi, ‘Uluww, 125, 1. 2, he wrote in defense of Mujahid’s tradition (see below, n. 277). Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat, 6o, states that al-Marrudhi was asked about the Jahmiyyah’s rejection of the “story of the Throne.” This may refer to alleged Mu’tazilah views on the location of the Throne, rather than, specifically, to the tradition of Mujahid.

277. For Abu Bakr al-Khallal, see Sezgin, GAS, I, 511 f. I wish to thank J. van Ess for providing me with a xerox copy of Khallal, Musnad, 75-99.

278. For al-Hasan b. ‘Ali b. Khalaf al-Barbahari, see Sezgin, GAS, 1, 512; Laoust, in Melanges Massignon, III, 22-5. Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat, II, 18-45, gives a good picture of his generally extremist positions. “Whenever al-Barbahari attended a meeting, he would mention that God seats Muhammad with Himself on the Throne.” In 323/935, he was in hiding and his followers were strictly forbidden to assemble. One of them was accused of having set a disastrous fire in al-Karkh, see Hamadhani, Takmilah, 79 f., ed. Cairo, XI, 294-6. See further Brockelmann, GAL, Suppl. I, 344, and the indexes of Eclipse and Massignon, Passion2, as well as Allard, Attributs, 103 f.

279. The three were Abu ‘Abdallah al-Jassas, Ja’far b. ‘Arafah, and al-Bayadi. The identification of al-Bayadi with Abu ‘Ali Muhammad b. ‘lsa al -Bayadi was proposed by the editor of Irshid, VI, 436, n. 1, but requires confirmation. This individual, whose family claimed ‘Abbasid descent, wrote on Qur’an reading. He was killed by the Qarmatians in 294/906 on his return from the pilgrimage, see TB, II, 401; Sam’ani, Ansab, 384.

On the incident, see also Goldziher, Muslim Studies, II, 158 (II, 168, of the original German). Goldziher’s reference was to Suyuti, Tahdhir, 161, whose source scurrilously attributes this information to a storyteller in the streets of Baghdad. (Ibid., pp. 72-73)

285. Sec Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 1, 375 f., 398 f., III, 354, for traditions on intercession. For the tradition of Gabriel sitting “on a footstool” or “on the throne,” presumably the divine Throne, between heaven and earth, see Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, III, 306: Ibn Hajar, Fath, X, 305.

286. See Laoust, Profession de foi d’Ibn Batta, text, 61, trans., 112 f., especially note I. In addition to Mujahid, al-Wahidi (d. 468/1075) refers to a tradition of Ibn Masud, see Razi, Tafsir, XXI, 32. He may have the same tradition in mind, mixing up, as it sometimes happens, ‘Abdallah b. Umar and ‘Abdallah b. Masud. A tradition of ‘A’ishah on the subject is discussed in Ibn al-Jawzi, Daf’, 81, hadith no. 39.

287. See Tafsir, XV, 97, 1. 10-100, 1. 22. See the translation below, Appendix A, below, pp. 149-51. For another partial translation, see Andrae, Person, 270-2. For Tabari’s real feelings about Mujahid and his tradition, it may be indicative that he rejects a view expressed by him with unusual harshness in connection with his commentary on the same verse of the Qur’an, see Tafsir, XV, 96, 11. 26-31. (Ibid., p. 75)

291. Not much can be made in this connection of the allegation that Mujahid used material provided by Christians and Jews in his Qur’an commentary. See Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, V, 344, 1. 7, and the remark transmitted through Abu Bakr b. ‘Ayyash (below, translation, n. 72) in Dhahabi, Mizan, III, 439; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, X, 43; Sezgin, GAS, 1, 29. As one would expect, Dhahabi refers to Mujahid’s view of makaman mahmudan with disapproval.

On Mujahid and the vibrating of the divine Throne, see Goldziher, Richtungen, 108 f.

A similar but different idea was already expressed in Khallil, Musnad, 82. The Muslims would be the laughing stock of Christians if they denied to Muhammad the honor of sitting on the divine Throne, while granting semidivine status to Jesus. (Ibid., p. 277)

Hadith of Adam’s tawassul through the Prophet

Hadith of Adam’s tawassul through the Prophet

by GF Haddad—Rabi al-Awwal 1427—April 2006

– The hadith of Adam’s tawassul through the Prophet is related from three Companions – Maysara, Ibn ‘Abbas, and Ibn ‘Umar – with chains varying in strength from strong to very weak:

I. Ibn al-Jawzi narrated in al-Wafa with his chain through al-Bayhaqi’s and al-Khatib’s shaykh, the trustworthy hafiz Abu al-Husayn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah, known as Ibn Bishran al-‘Adl al-Umawi al-Baghdadi al-Mu‘addal (d. 411 or 415) in his Fawa’id, from the trustworthy hafiz and Musnid of Baghdad Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Bakhtari al-Razzaz, from Ahmad ibn Ishaq ibn Salihi al-Wazzan al-Jurjani (d. 281 “la ba’sa bihi” according to al-Daraqutni), from Muhammad ibn Sinin al-‘Awqi (d. 223, al-Bukhari’s shaykh in the sahih), from Ibrahim ibn Rahman (one of the narrators of the Sahihayn), from Budayl ibn Maysara (one of the narrators in Sahih Muslim), from ‘Abd Allah ibn Shaqiq (one of the narrators in Sahih Muslim), from the Companion Maysarat al-Fajr:

I said: “Messenger of Allah, when were you made a Prophet?” He replied: “When Allah created the earth and turned to the heavens, arranging them into seven heavens, and He created the Throne, He wrote on the leg of the Throne: MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH AND THE SEAL OF PROPHETS. And Allah created Paradise in which He made Adam and Hawwa’ dwell, then He wrote my name [there] on the gates, the tree-leaves, the houses and tents, while Adam was still between the spirit and the body. When Allah Most High brought him to life, he looked at the Throne and saw my name, whereupon Allah Most High informed him: ‘He is the liege-lord of your offspring.’ When shaytan deceived them, they repented and sought intercession with my name from Him.”

The hadith master al-Salihi cited it in Subul al-Huda wal-Rashad (Beirut ed. 1:86=Cairo ed. 1:104) and said “Its chain is good and there is no harm in it.”1 Al-Halabi also cited it in his Sira (1:355).

Al-Bayhaqi narrates with the above chain only the reply “While Adam was still between the spirit and the body” in his Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (1:84) while Ibn Taymiyya cites the entire wording with the full chain in Majmu’ al-Fatawa (2:150-151) but he adds “from Muhammad ibn Salihi between Ahmad ibn Ishaq al-Wazzan and Ibn Sinin al-‘Awqi. If correct, this additional link could be either the trustworthy hafiz Muhammad ibn Salihi ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Anmal al-Sufi known as Kaylaja (d. 271) or Muhammad ibn Salihi al-Wasiti Ka‘b al-Dhira who is also trustworthy, so the chain remains a strong chain, and Allah knows best.

II. Al-Khallil narrated in al-Sunna (1:261): Al-Fa\l ibn Muslim al-Muwaribi narrated to us: Muhammad ibn ‘Isma narrated to us: Jundul [ibn Waliq, thiqa per al-Haythami] narrated to us: ‘Amr ibn Aws al-Anari [mastur per al-Dhahabi] narrated to us: from Sa’id ibn Abi ;Aruba: from Qatada: from Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab: from Ibn Abbas: “Allah Most High revealed to ‘Isa: ‘O ‘Isa, Believe in Muhammad and command whosoever reaches his time among your Community that they believe in him. Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise or Hellfire. Indeed, I created the Throne on top of the water and it shook, so I inscribed upon it LA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH MUAAMMADUN RASULULLAH, whereupon it stood still.’” Al-Khallal said: “I read it to Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Sharik and he concurred with it,” i.e. with its being authentic.

Al-Hakim similarly narrated in the Mustadrak (2:614-615=2:271): ‘Ali ibn Hamshadh al-‘Adl (258-338) [Abu al- Hasan al-Naysaburi, a major trustworthy hafiz] narrated to us by dictation: Harun ibn al-‘Abbas al-Hashimi (208-275) [thiqa per al-Khatib] narrated to us: Jundul ibn Waliq narrated to us, to the end of the above chain and text. Al-Hakim said: “This is a sound-chained hadith but al-Bukhari and Muslim did not narrate it.”2

Al-Dhahabi in his Talkhi al-Mustadrak and Mizan al-Itidal (s.v. ‘Amr ibn Aws) conjectures that Ibn ‘Abbas’s narration is forged (“azunnuhu mawdu’an”) but brings no proof, as its chain contains neither a liar nor a forger and is a fair chain by the Salaf’s criteria for fada’il hadiths.

III. Al-Albani narrated in al-Mu‘jam al-Saghir (2:82 §992) and al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat (6:313-614 §6502) : Muhammad ibn Dawud ibn Aslam al-Safadi narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Sa‘id al-Madani al-Fihri narrated to us:

‘Abd Allah ibn Ismail al-Madani narrated to us: from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father, from his grandfather, from ‘Umar ibn al-Khatab:

The Prophet œ said: “When Adam committed the sin he made, he raised his head toward the Throne and said: ‘I am asking You by the right of Muhammad to forgive me.’ Allah Most High revealed to him: ‘What is Muhammad? Who is Muhammad?’ He replied: ‘Glorified be Your Name! When You created me I raised my head toward Your Throne and [saw] there was written on it: LA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH MUHAMMADUN RASULULLAH. I knew that there was no one more magnificent in Your sight than him whose name You placed next to Your Name.’ Allah Most High revealed to him: ‘O Adam, truly He is the last of the Prophets from your seed and his Community are the last of all Communities from your seed. Were it not for him, O Adam, I would not have created you.’”

The above is also narrated by al-Hakim (2:615) and al-Bayhaqi in Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (5:488-489) thus: Abu Sa‘id ‘Amr ibn Muhammad ibn Mansur al-‘Adl narrated to us: Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanbali narrated to us: Abu al-Harith ‘Abd Allah ibn Muslim al-Fihri narrated to us in Egypt: Isma‘il ibn Maslama narrated to us: ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam informed us: from his father: from his grandfather: from ‘Umar ibn al-Khatab:

The Prophet said: “When Adam committed his mistake he said: ‘O my Lord, I am asking you to forgive me for the sake of Muhammad.’ Allah Most High said: ‘O Adam, and how do you know about Muhammad whom I have not yet created?’ Adam replied: ‘O my Lord, after You created me with your hand and breathed into me of Your spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne: LA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH MUHAMMADUN RASULULLAH. I knew that You would not place next to Your Name but the most beloved one of Your creation.’ Allah Most High said: ‘O Adam, I have forgiven you, and were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you.’”3

So the pivot of this narration is ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam whom al-Bayhaqi declared weak although Ibn ‘Adi in his Kamil considered that his narrations were overall fair. Al-Dhahabi went to excess in declaring the hadith forged.

The hadith is also narrated from our liege-lord ‘Umar in mawquf form by the Shafi’i hadith master Abu Bakr al- Ajurri al-Makki – he was the shaykh of Ibn Bishran’s brother Abi al-Qasim ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Bishran – in al-Shari’a (p. 432) with his chain.

Al-Ajurri also narrates it (p. 430 §963) from the Tabi’i Abi al-Zinad with an extremely weak chain.

A similar wording is also narrated from Muhammad al-Baqir by Ibn al-Mundhir in his Tafsir according to al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur (1:60).4

The exchange “How do you know of Muhammad” and our liege-lord Adam’s reply is also narrated from Ibn Masud by Ibn Abi al-Dunya with his chain in al-Ishraf fi Manazil al-Ashraf (p. 113-114 §24).

Additional Narrations

Al-Daylami in al-Firdaws bi-Ma’thur al-Khitab (5:227 §8031) cited without chain from Ibn ‘Abbas: “Allah Most High says: ‘I swear it by My Power and My Glory! Were it not for you [O Muhammad], I would not have created the world.’”5

Al-Albani rejected it in his Silsila Da’ifa (§282). Al-Khallil in al-Sunna (1:237) narrated it from the Hanbali Harun ibn al-‘Abbas al-Hisni who added that whoever rejects this hadith is a zindiq. This ruling is reminiscent of the expression of the Shafi Imam Taqi al-Din al-i|n in the book he wrote against Ibn Taymiyya entitled Daf Shubahi man Shabbaha wa-Tamarrad in which he said:

Whoever denies the use of the Prophet œ as intermediary (al-tawassul bihi) and the use of him as intercessor (al-tashaffu bihi) after his death, or claims that his sanctity ended with his death, has announced to the people and proclaimed against himself that his state is worse than that of the Jews, who used him as intermediary before he appeared into existence, and that there is in his heart a Al-Salihi in Subul al-Huda (‘Ilmiyya ed. 1:75) cites it as narrated from our liege-lord ‘Ali by al-Azafi in his Mawlid and Ibn Sabi in Shifa’ al-Sudur in the wording: “O Muhammad! I swear it by My Power and My Glory! Were it not for you, I would not have created my earth, or my heaven, nor would I have raised up this sky or flattened this land.”

He also mentions that Ibn Asakir (3:517-518) narrated with a very weak chain from Salman: “Since I took Ibrahim as my intimate friend (khallil), I took you as my beloved friend (habibi), and I did not create anything dearer to Me than you, and I have created the world and its people to make your honor and rank known to them, and were it not for you I would not have created the world.” This is part of a much longer narration which Ibn al-Jawzi declared “forged beyond doubt” in his Mawduat (1:288-289).

Al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur (3:117) and al-Salihi (1:85=Cairo ed. 1:104) mentioned that Ibn Abi Hat’im in his Musnad (= al-Sunna p. 306) and Abu Nu’aym narrated from Anas that Allah Most High said to Musa: “O Musa, whoever meets Me disbelieving in Muhammad, I shall cause him to enter the Fire.” Musa said: “Who is Muhammad?” He replied: “O Musa, I swear it by My Power and My Glory! I never created anything dearer to Me than him. I have written his name together with My Name on the Throne before I created the heavens and the earth and the sun and moon by two thousand years.” Its chain is so weak that al-Dhahabi in his Mizan declared it among the forgeries of Sa’id ibn Musa al-Umawi. This is also cited from Ibn ‘Abbas6 and the “two thousand year” period is also related from the Tabi’ ‘Ata.7

Ibn Abi al-Dunya in his Manazil al-Ashraf (p. 113 §23) narrated with his chain that Sa’id ibn Jubayr said: “The children of Adam differed over who was the dearest of creatures to Allah Most High, some of them saying it was the angels who never disobey Allah. They went to Adam who replied: ‘Truly, I am the dearest of all creatures except that when the spirit was breathed into me, it had hardly reached my feet before I sat up fully and the Throne glimmered before me and I gazed at it; lo and behold! there was [written] on it MUHAMMADUN RASULULLAH. In reality, he is the dearest of all creatures to Allah.’”

The Ulema generally agreed that creation was for the sake of the Prophet. Hence, when they mentioned the narration that were it not for him Allah would not have created anything, they said its meaning was true.8 Ibn Taymiyya gave the most eloquent expression of this verification of the meaning:

Muhammad is the Chief of the Children of Adam, the Best of Creation, the noblest of them in the sight of Allah Most High. This is why some have said that “Allah created the Universe due to him,” or that “Were it not for him, He would have neither created a Throne, nor a Footstool, nor a heaven, earth, sun or moon.” However, this is not a hadith on the authority of the Prophet… but it may be explained from a correct aspect…

Since the best of the righteous of the children of Adam is Muhammad œ, creating him was a desirable end of deep-seated purposeful wisdom, more than for anyone else, and hence the completion of creation and the fulfillment of perfection was attained with Muhammad… The Chief of the Children of Adam is Muhammad, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace, Adam and his children being under his banner. He, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace, said: “Truly, I was written as the Seal of the Prophets with Allah Most High, when Adam was going to-and-fro in his clay,” i.e. that my prophethood was decreed and manifested when Adam was created but before the breathing of the Spirit into him, just as Allah decrees the livelihood, lifespan, deeds and misery or happiness of the slave when He creates the embryo but before the breathing of the Spirit into it.

Since man is the seal and last of all creation, and its microcosm, and since the best of man is thus the best of all creation absolutely, then Muhammad œ, being the Pupil of the Eye, the Axis of the Mill, and the Distributor to the Collective, is as it were the Ultimate Purpose from amongst all the purposes of creation. Thus it cannot be denied to say that “Due to him all of this was created,” or that “Were it not for him, all this would not have been created,” so if statements like this are thus explained according to what the Book and the Sunna indicate, it is acceptable.9

And Allah knows best.

1 A grading confirmed by ‘Abd Allah al-Ghumari in Murshid al-Ha’ir (p. 37) and al-Radd al-Muhkam (p. 138-139) as well as his student Mahmud Mamduh in Raf‘ al-Minara (p. 247-249).

2 Also Abu al-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Asfahaniyyin according to al-Lacknawi in al-Athar al-Marfu‘a (p. 44), and Abu Sa‘d al-Naysaburi in Sharaf al-Mustafa (1:163-165 §15).

3 Cited also by Abu Sa‘d al-Naysaburi in Sharaf al-Mustafa (1:165-166 §16) and Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya (1:81=1:91 and 2:322=2:393), al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (1:320), and Qisas al-Anbiya’ (1:29)

4 Reproduced in full by Mamduh in Raf al-Minsra (p. 246-247).

5 Cf. Kanz al-‘Ummal (§32025).

6 By Abu Sa‘d al-Naysaburi in Sharaf al-Mudafa (1:166-167 §17) and al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur (6:418-419) after Ibn Marduyah.

7 With a very weak chain by al-Ajurri in al-Shari‘a (p. 429-430 §962).

8 Cf. al-Khallal in al-Sunna and those he cites, Abu Muhammad Makki and Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi as cited by al-Hisni in Daf Shubah man Shabbaha wa-Tamarrad, al-Qastallani in the Mawahib and al-Zurqani in its Sharh, al-Salihi in Subul al-Huda, al-‘Ajluni in Kashf al-Khafa, al-Qari in the Asrar, al-Lacknawi in al-Athar al-Marfu’a….

9 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmua al-Fatawa (11:95-97).

DAMNING ADMISSIONS OF A MUSLIM AUTHOR CONCERNING JESUS

In this post I will be quoting from Muslim author Mustafa Akyol’s The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims.

Aykol’s book has been highly acclaimed by Muslims, including Shabir Ally who did a review of it on his show “Let the Quran Speak,” praising it: Book Review: The Islamic Jesus by Mustafa Akyol.

Even Paul Williams, a rabid anti-Christian and anti-Evangelical Muhammadan polemicist, loved the book so much that he interviewed the author for his youtube channel: The Islamic Jesus with Mustafa Akyol.

I have therefore decided to post some excerpts to show that Akyol makes certain admissions which actually affirm what Christian apologists and scholars of Islam have been saying regarding the Quran’s confusing and contradictory Christology, and its view of the Holy Bible

All bold and/or capital emphasis will be mine.

JESUS AS THE SINLESS SEMIDIVINE ANGELIC CREATOR AND LIFE-GIVER

According to a hadith, the number of all the prophets sent to humankind is as high as twenty-four thousand–suggesting that not just the Children of Israel or Muslims themselves are the receivers of divine guidance. All these known and unknown prophets must be respected by Muslims, the Qur’an reminds believers, and they should not “differentiate between any of them.” Yet still, another verse of the Qur’an notes that God Himself elevated certain messengers:

We favoured some of these messengers above others. God spoke to some; others He raised in rank. We gave Jesus, son of Mary, Our clear signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit.

The term “holy spirit” here may catch the attention of Christians, and rightly so. For while describing Jesus, the Qur’an uses some of the powerful concepts of Christian theology–but often not exactly with the same meaning, as we shall see. It also uses its own theological concepts to praise Jesus–an exceptionally sublime praise given TO NO ONE ELSE, INCLUDING THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD. In one of the best short summaries of the Qur’anic picture of Jesus, Geoffrey Parrinder, the late British scholar of religion and a Methodist minister, observed:

He is called by his proper name Jesus, by the title Messiah (Christ) and Son of Mary, and by the names Messenger, Prophet, Servant, Word and Spirit of God. The Qur’an gives two accounts of the annunciation and birth of Jesus, and refers to his teachings and healings, and his death and exaltation…Jesus is always spoken of in the Qur’an with reverence; there is no breath of criticism, for he is the Christ of God. (Chapter Six: The Qur’anic Jesus, pp. 133-134)

What is more striking in these Qur’anic passages, though, is a third genre of miracle attributed to Jesus, which is quite remarkable, but which is totally absent from the New Testament: that he gave life to birds made of clay. Or that he declared, to quote his words again, “I will create the shape of a bird out of clay for you and then breathe into it and it will be a bird by God’s permission.”

Both Muslim and Christian commentators have been intrigued by this miracle, for in both religions giving life to inanimate matter is seen as a power that belongs ONLY TO GOD. To add more awe to the matter, the Qur’an’s terminology here has interesting parallels. First, the verb used to denote that Jesus “created” the shape of a bird from clay is khalaqa, the very verb that the Qur’an USES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY to God’s creative act. Second, the substance that Jesus used, which is clay, or tin, IS THE EXACT SAME SUBSTANCE FROM WHICH GOD CREATED THE FIRST MAN. Third, the verb used to Jesus “breathing” into clay, nafakha, is again THE EXACT SAME WORD INDICATING GOD’S “BREATHING” INTO CLAY to create the first man or His “breathing” into Mary to create Jesus himself.      

Looking at these clues, the prominent twelfth-century exegete of the Qur’an Fakhraddin al-Razi argued that perhaps Jesus’ breath had some unusual power–that God might have “endowed Jesus’ breath with the particular efficacy so that when he blew into things it caused them to come to life.” Others suggested that Jesus was “allowed to exercise THE DIVINE PREROGATIVE OF CREATING LIFE”–which was the case with neither Abraham, nor Moses, nor Muhammad himself. Hence the life-giving breath of Jesus, dam-i-Isa, became a mystical concept in Islam, especially among the Sufis. The great Sufi Ibn al-Arabi wrote the following to describe the Christ:

A SPIRIT from none other than God,

So that he might raise the dead and bring forth birds

from clay

AND BECOME WORTHY TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS LORD

By which he exerted great influence, both high and low.

God purified him in a body AND MADE HIM TRANSCENDENT

In the spirit, MAKING HIM LIKE HIMSELF IN CREATING. (Ibid., pp. 137-139)

Islam recognized the particular function of Jesus, which … differed from that of other prophets who usually brought a law or reformed a previous one, by acknowledging his particular nature AS THE “SPIRIT OF GOD.”

–Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic philosopher (Chapter Seven: Islamic Christology, p. 158)

… However, Jesus, as we can see is not only a prophet. He is also “Word from God,” EVEN “WORD OF GOD,” and also a “Spirit from God.”

Since both of these terms–“Word” and “Spirit”–ARE NEVER USED FOR ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING IN THE QUR’AN, they have generated curiosity for centuries…

However, in the Islamic tradition, there are also some hints, and some overt comments, that Jesus was the Word of God in a more elevated sense as well. These hints come first of all from the Qur’an, which suggests that Jesus had an unusual nature not merely in terms of his birth, but also other miraculous aspects of his life. He spoke in his cradle–and perhaps even in his mother’s womb, depending on how one reads the passage about Mary’s birth pains. He also gave life to inanimate matter, by raising the dead or breathing into clay figures and making them alive. Especially the latter miracle puzzled some Muslim exegetes, for creating life is a power ascribed ONLY TO GOD. One of them, al-Razi, asked:  

Is it that God had deposited a special power in Jesus, so that whenever he breathed into a thing it became alive, or is that God created life in that thing when Jesus breathed into it order for God to manifest His miracles!

Al-Razi then opted for the second option, but added that since “Jesus was generated from the breath of Gabriel into Mary … It is not improbable that the breath of Jesus could infuse life and spirit.”

In the overall Qur’anic story of Jesus, there is something else that is curious. When the Qur’an narrates the stories of prophets in detail, it often mentions their flaws, which the Islamic tradition conceptualized as zalla or “lapse.” Adam ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, for example; Moses hit a man and killed him; and Muhammad neglected a blind man searching for wisdom, which led to his censure by the Qur’an. The Jesus of the Qur’an, however, has no zalla, no mistake, no lapse. He is simply flawless. No wonder Mary was heralded with “a faultless son.” And Jesus himself said, “God… has made be blessed, wherever I am.”

Besides the Qur’an, a hadith found in the collection of Imam Bukhari also implies an exceptional nature for Jesus. “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers,” the Prophet Muhammad reportedly says here. “Except Jesus, the son of Mary.”

Based on such clues, some Muslims commentators, including Ibn Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad, have suggested that Jesus was the Word of God in a higher sense than the mere “creative Word” in his generation. But in exactly what sense? Nishapuri, a Persian Shiite scholar of the fourteenth century, has offered an answer, first by defining a “perfect man” in union with God, and then noting, “Jesus was specially favored, among all other prophets and saints, by being called ‘word’ because he was created with the inherent capacity for this perfection.”

Two centuries earlier, another Shiite scholar, Shaykh Tabarsi, had discussed the meaning of Jesus’ speech in the cradle and suggested that “God had perfected his reason even at that age…revealing to him what he uttered.” Accordingly, Jesus was not merely receiving occasional revelations like other prophets; EVERY WORD OF HIS was revelation by God

Among contemporary Muslim thinkers, one who ventured into such territory of mysteries to offer a notably higher version of Islamic Christology is Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen, an American philosopher, a convert to Islam, and a professor at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute in Iran. Legenhausen apparently builds upon the tradition started by Tabarsi that Jesus may be the Word of God not as “merely a creative word, but also a word of revelation.” In this view, unlike the Prophet Muhammad, who was a normal human being who just occasionally received God’s revelation, JESUS BECOMES THE REVELATION ITSELF. The parallel to Jesus in Islam thus becomes not the Prophet Muhammad, BUT THE QUR’AN.

When one recalls that some key Muslim defenders of the “uncreated Qur’an” doctrine also saw the Torah and Gospel as “uncreated” as well–the latter of which, in this interpretation, would be Jesus himself–one gets an Islamic Christology NOT EXTREMELY FAR FROM CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY: Here you have a Jesus AS THE UNCREATED, PREEXISTING WORD. Add to this that the same doctrine saw God’s “attributes,” including His Word, as “not He, [but] NOT OTHER THAN HE,” and there emerges an interesting theological bridge between Islam and Christianity.   

Yet still, the higher Qur’anic Word theology would not make Jesus divine in the sense of making him an object of worship, as some Christian have suggested since the time of John of Damascus. Muslims, after all, do not worship the Qur’an, even if they consider it as the uncreated Word of God. That is why, as the Muslim academic Mahmoud Ayoub once RIGHTLY observed, Muslims MAY AGREE WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” But they can not agree with what follows next: “And the Word was God.”

Nevertheless, a higher Qur’anic Word theology puts Jesus somewhere BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS AND GOD–somewhere, one could suggest, on the same level with the angels. It is therefore perhaps telling that in its rejection of the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ, the Qur’an mentions him in the same breath with the angels near to God:

The Messiah would never disdain to be a servant to God nor would the angels near to Him. If any do disdain to worship Him, and grow arrogant, He will in any case gather them all to Him.  

The Messiah was likened to an angel also by the great twelfth-century Sufi master Ibn al-Arabi, who wrote poems concerning Jesus. Ibn Arabi pondered the meaning of Jesus being “the Spirit of God,” and interpreted it AS JESUS’ POWER TO BREATHE LIFE INTO THE DEAD, with God’s permission, just as Angel Gabriel breathed life into his mother:

Jesus came forth raising the dead BECAUSE HE WAS A DIVINE SPIRIT. In this the quickening was of God, while the blowing itself came from Jesus, just as the blowing was from Gabriel, while the Word was of God.”…

Hence, it seems fair to say that the Qur’an may be in line with Jewish Christianity in terms of its christology, as well: that the Messiah is no God, BUT ALSO NO ORDINARY MORTAL.  (Ibid., pp. 161-166)      

97. The verse that seems to target the doctrine of the Trinity reads: “Those who say that God is the third of three are unbelievers. There is no god but One God. If they do not stop saying what they say, a painful punishment will afflict those among them who are unbelievers” (5:73).  But one curious detail here is that the word Trinity does not exactly suggest “God is the third of three.” So there have been many discussions on this verse, on whether it presents the Trinity correctly, or whether it targets an unorthodox form of it that would be heretical for mainstream Christians as well. (NOTES, p. 248)

22. The Arabic term in this verse for Jesus is ghulaaman-zakiyyan, often translated as “a most-holy boy.” The word zakiyya, meaning “blameless,” appears only twice in the Qur’an. The other occasion is in the story about Moses in which he meets a young man who is described as being innocent (18:74). But in that case, the word only referred to the young man’s innocence of any crime deserving of death. In Jesus’ case, however, the angel seems to describe HIS WHOLE BEING BEFORE HE WAS EVER BORN. (Ibid., p. 256)

33. The argument that the Qur’an accepts the divinity with the Word theology was revived in the modern era by Ibrahim Luqa, an Egyptian Coptic priest, in his 1938 work, Al-Masihiyya fi l-Islam, or “Christianity in Islam.” The book, after its third printing in 1967, was banned by Egyptian authorities. In it Luqa PERSUASIVELY argued that the Qur’an depicts A SUPERHUMAN MESSIAH, but less convincing is his conclusion that this amounts to the affirmation of the Messiah’s divinity. See Ivor Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth (Milton Keynes, UK: Regnun, 2005), pp. 123-125. (Ibid., p. 257)

Interestingly, the view of Jesus being an angelic human can be traced back to the earliest Sunni Muslim tradition:

According to Ibn Humayd–Salamah–Ibn Ishaq: The Christians assert that God granted him death for seven hours of the day, and then resurrected him saying, “Descend upon Mary Magdalene on her mountain, for nobody wept for thee as she did, nor did anybody grieve for thee as she did. Let her assemble for thee the apostles, and send them forth as preachers for God, for you have not done that.” God let him descend to her; the mountain was aglow with light as he descended, and she gathered the apostles. Jesus sent them out and commanded them to tell men in his name of the divine injunction. Then God raised Jesus unto Himself, gave him wings of an angel and dressed him in radiance. No longer did Jesus relish food or drink; he was flying along with the angels, around the throne.

He was (both) human and angelic, celestial and terrestrial. The apostles then dispersed, as commanded. The night on which he was sent down is celebrated by the Christians with frankincense. (The History of al-Tabari: The Ancient Kingdoms, translated and annotated by Moshe Perlmann [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1987], Volume IV (4), pp. 122-123; bold emphasis mine)

THE QURANIC VIEW OF THE HOLY BIBLE

In fact, as a monotheistic revolution in a polytheistic society, Islam clearly perceived former monotheisms, especially Judaism and Christianity, as sister faiths and even allies. The Qur’an defined Jews and Christians as the “People of the Book,” respecting their scriptures–the Tawrat, which is the Torah, the Zabur, which is the Psalms, and the Injil, which is the gospel, derived from the Greek word evangelion. The Qur’an held that it was not a major novelty, but a confirmation of those older books, or “what was there before it.”

 Hence the older monotheists were not called to convert to Islam necessarily BUT TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES WHOLEHEARTEDLY. “The People of the Gospel,” the Qur’an openly declared, “should judge by what God sent down.” Jews and Christians, in other words, were called to be better Jews and Christians. A Qur’anic verse promised salvation to them, as long as they had faith and good deeds:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, and whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

The term “Sabians” here, which apparently refers to a religious community known to the earliest Muslims, has been much discussed. The common view is that the Qur’an’s Sabians were Mandaeists, the members of a gnostic Mesopotamian religion that bore influences of Zoroastrianism but also of Christianity, with John the Baptist being the central figure. The fact that the Qur’an promises salvation for them, along with Jews and Christians, reflects a theological liberality in early Islam that most contemporary Muslims would have a hard time to consider… The specific believers who followed Muhammad were called Muslims–muslimun, a term used in the Qur’an seventy-five times. But these Muslims spearheaded a “confessionally open religious movement,” which “enjoined all monotheists to live in strict observance of the law that God had repeatedly revealed to humankind–whether in the form of the Torah, the Gospels, or the Qur’an. (Chapter Three: A Rebirth in Arabia, pp. 67-69)    

… In Islam, the Qur’an is taken as the “Word of God.” In Christianity, however, the “Word of God” is not a book, but Jesus himself. The New Testament merely narrates the Word, which became flesh in the form of Jesus.

Yet still, there remains a discrepancy between the New Testament and the way Islam defines it: the Qur’an speaks of “the gospel” as a single book like itself. “He has sent down the Book to you with truth confirming what was before it,” a Qur’anic verse tells Muhammad. “And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.” The word translated here as “Gospel” is Injil in its Arabic original. It is a word that occurs twelve times in the Qur’an, nine of them in conjuncture with Tawrat. Scholars have little doubt that both words came into Arabic FROM FOREIGN SOURCES–Tawrat from the Hebrew Torah, and Injil from Greek Evangelion, or its Ethiopian derivative, Wangel.

The Qur’an shows great respect for both the Torah and the Gospel–and also for Zabur, which is the Arabic word for “Psalms.”…

The rest of this passage is even more interesting: “So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it.” This seems to suggest that, instead of calling Christians to convert to Islam, the Qur’an rather asks Christians to follow their own scripture firmly–offering a vision of religious pluralism that many contemporary Muslims will have a hard time accepting.

Yet the problem still remains: The Qur’an speaks of a single “Gospel” “given” to Jesus by God. But we rather have several Gospels written by different evangelists… So how do we make sense of this difference? Some of the EARLY MUSLIM EXEGETES of the Qur’an found the solution by suggesting that the Qur’an’s “Gospel” MERELY REFERS TO THE WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT, as the Quran’s “Torah” MIGHT BE A REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE OLD TESTAMENT. Some Western scholars rather suggested that the Qur’an was perhaps referring to the Diatessaron, the “gospel harmony” compiled by Tatian, a second-century Christian theologian. This was a combination of the four gospels into a single text and was widely used among Syrian Christians until the fifth century, perhaps by Jewish Christians as well. Yet we don’t have any evidence of [sic] being it used in the time and milieu of the Qur’an. (Chapter Six, pp. 144-145)

FURTHER READING

ISA RUHULLAH: ALLAH’S UNCREATED SPIRIT BECOMES HUMAN

WHAT ABOUT JESUS? UNVEILING ISLAM’S OTHER ILAH BESIDES ALLAH

The Quran Testifies: Jesus is the Eternal Creative Word of God

Does the Quran confirm the Bible and the Canonical Gospels?

Does Taurat Refer Only to the Revelation Given to Moses?

AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS CONCERNING THE BIBLE