Is it permissible to say that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) will seat His Prophet on the Throne on the Day of Resurrection, as mentioned by Imam Ahmad and al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on them both) and others?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And the second [issue].
The questioner : The second issue is the matter of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) seating His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) on the Throne. You know that Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is strict on this issue and affirms it. Al-Dhahabi mentioned that more than one of the Salaf followed Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) in this. Does it have a basis in the Sunnah, and is it permissible to affirm it?
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. We live today in an atmosphere of returning to the Book and the Sunnah, in which most Muslims fight us, led by their shaykhs who hold that creed is not established by ahad hadiths. You know that the term "ahad hadith" is a technical term not understood by the general public, as it is the opposite of mutawatir hadith. If we assume that the number for mutawatir transmission—and there is complete disagreement on this—is ten people: ten Companions from the Messenger, and from them ten from the Tabi'un, and so on down. If we assume this is the number for mutawatir, and a hadith is found that does not reach this number but is short by one, it is called an ahad report. The enemies of the Sunnah today and before today say, "This hadith that has nine routes—this is an assumption—do not accept it specifically; this is an ahad hadith, so creed is not established by it." Here comes what I referred to earlier regarding the issue of the woman's face. We must look at the issue from two sides, not from the side of a specific country where there is full hijab and so on. He does not want to hear a statement that might encourage some of them to be lenient with this hijab, because there are other parties who do not reach with us to this permissible limit, nor to the best limit. The issue here is exactly the same. The majority of Muslim shaykhs today, who follow the madhahib, whether in some of the fiqh madhahib or the creedal madhahib, if I may use the expression, their brains—plural of "brain"—are filled with the idea that a correct hadith that is short by one from the number of mutawatir does not establish creed. So how can we want them to believe that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) will seat His Prophet on the Day of Resurrection on His Throne, when there is absolutely no hadith regarding that? So it is not befitting for us to fight people over every creed that is not established in the Sunnah. It is sufficient for us if they agree with us on what is established in the correct Sunnah, even if it is ahad. And in this regard, when I abridged the book *Al-Uluw* by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, I stated in the introduction that I deleted from it the weak hadiths and the athar that were not established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). I believe I mentioned something similar to this meaning: that if we can get these shaykhs to believe with us in what is authentic from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) regarding matters of the unseen in general, or regarding the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and His names in particular, we will have made great progress and drawn closer to them. As for coming to them and saying that Imam Ahmad or others said that Mujahid said that Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) will seat Muhammad on the Day of Resurrection on His Throne, I excuse them if we invite them to believe in something like this and they distance themselves from us by believing in what they are obligated to believe in from the correct ahad hadiths.
Therefore, and I feel that the problem, whether with the majority of shaykhs or Muslims, is taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and this ailment also exists in many of those who claim to belong to the madhab of the righteous Salaf: it is taqlid. So the way out is to constantly and always emphasize getting rid of this taqlid, whether in creed or in rulings. I am amazed how this creed becomes a creed of the Khalaf (the later generations) following the Salaf, when it has no basis in the Sunnah. Yes, it is authentic from Mujahid, and I know this, but as I said earlier regarding the narration of 'Ubayd al-Salmani that he recited the verse and interpreted it by uncovering one eye—if this were raised to the Messenger (peace be upon him), it would be a mursal (a report missing the Companion link) hadith, and mursal is among the categories of weak hadith. How much more so when it is muqta' (a report with a broken chain) and mawquf (a report stopping at a Companion)? So if Mujahid's narration were raised to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it would be a mursal hadith. How much more so when it was not narrated from him as marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet)? We should not hesitate in not accepting this creed. And thirdly, what?
The questioner : Before we move to the third point, Ibn Kathir mentioned in *Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya* in the events of the year 317 that a disagreement occurred between the Hanbalis, the followers of Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, and the common people regarding the interpretation of the saying of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He):[Al-Isra 17:79] The Hanbalis said: It is seating the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with his Lord on the Throne. And the common people said: It is intercession. And fighting occurred between them, and many were killed from both sides.
The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest!
The questioner : Based on this issue.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : The second issue is the matter of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) seating His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) on the Throne. You know that Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is strict on this issue and affirms it. Al-Dhahabi mentioned that more than one of the Salaf followed Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) in this. Does it have a basis in the Sunnah, and is it permissible to affirm it?
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. We live today in an atmosphere of returning to the Book and the Sunnah, in which most Muslims fight us, led by their shaykhs who hold that creed is not established by ahad hadiths. You know that the term "ahad hadith" is a technical term not understood by the general public, as it is the opposite of mutawatir hadith. If we assume that the number for mutawatir transmission—and there is complete disagreement on this—is ten people: ten Companions from the Messenger, and from them ten from the Tabi'un, and so on down. If we assume this is the number for mutawatir, and a hadith is found that does not reach this number but is short by one, it is called an ahad report. The enemies of the Sunnah today and before today say, "This hadith that has nine routes—this is an assumption—do not accept it specifically; this is an ahad hadith, so creed is not established by it." Here comes what I referred to earlier regarding the issue of the woman's face. We must look at the issue from two sides, not from the side of a specific country where there is full hijab and so on. He does not want to hear a statement that might encourage some of them to be lenient with this hijab, because there are other parties who do not reach with us to this permissible limit, nor to the best limit. The issue here is exactly the same. The majority of Muslim shaykhs today, who follow the madhahib, whether in some of the fiqh madhahib or the creedal madhahib, if I may use the expression, their brains—plural of "brain"—are filled with the idea that a correct hadith that is short by one from the number of mutawatir does not establish creed. So how can we want them to believe that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) will seat His Prophet on the Day of Resurrection on His Throne, when there is absolutely no hadith regarding that? So it is not befitting for us to fight people over every creed that is not established in the Sunnah. It is sufficient for us if they agree with us on what is established in the correct Sunnah, even if it is ahad. And in this regard, when I abridged the book *Al-Uluw* by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, I stated in the introduction that I deleted from it the weak hadiths and the athar that were not established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). I believe I mentioned something similar to this meaning: that if we can get these shaykhs to believe with us in what is authentic from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) regarding matters of the unseen in general, or regarding the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and His names in particular, we will have made great progress and drawn closer to them. As for coming to them and saying that Imam Ahmad or others said that Mujahid said that Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) will seat Muhammad on the Day of Resurrection on His Throne, I excuse them if we invite them to believe in something like this and they distance themselves from us by believing in what they are obligated to believe in from the correct ahad hadiths.
Therefore, and I feel that the problem, whether with the majority of shaykhs or Muslims, is taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and this ailment also exists in many of those who claim to belong to the madhab of the righteous Salaf: it is taqlid. So the way out is to constantly and always emphasize getting rid of this taqlid, whether in creed or in rulings. I am amazed how this creed becomes a creed of the Khalaf (the later generations) following the Salaf, when it has no basis in the Sunnah. Yes, it is authentic from Mujahid, and I know this, but as I said earlier regarding the narration of 'Ubayd al-Salmani that he recited the verse and interpreted it by uncovering one eye—if this were raised to the Messenger (peace be upon him), it would be a mursal (a report missing the Companion link) hadith, and mursal is among the categories of weak hadith. How much more so when it is muqta' (a report with a broken chain) and mawquf (a report stopping at a Companion)? So if Mujahid's narration were raised to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it would be a mursal hadith. How much more so when it was not narrated from him as marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet)? We should not hesitate in not accepting this creed. And thirdly, what?
The questioner : Before we move to the third point, Ibn Kathir mentioned in *Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya* in the events of the year 317 that a disagreement occurred between the Hanbalis, the followers of Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, and the common people regarding the interpretation of the saying of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He):
it is expected that your Lord will resurrect you to a praised station.
عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاماً محموداًThe Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest!
The questioner : Based on this issue.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.