بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Understanding the explanation of the Kursi (Footstool) of Allah according to the opinion of the righteous early Muslims and those who followed them in that which is correct.
Allah says;
As translated in the English language;
"Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Kursi doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)."2-255
So here Allah says, His kursi doth extend over the heavens and the earth, so the question is, what is the meaning of kursi, and how did Allahs Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and the Companions (رضي الله عنهم) believe in it?
At-Tabari (310 Hijri, رحمه الله) the exemplary scholar of Qur'an exegesis, as mentioned in his explanation of this verse, is of the opinion that "kursi " means Allahs knowledge, and by believing so, it is alleged that he broke away from the crystal clear belief of the Early Righteous Predecessors (Salaf-as-Saalih) in regards to the Attributes of Allah (Sifaat), and did Ta'weel (blameworthy interpretation) of the verse away from it's apparent meaning, however this accusation against the Imam can easily be dismantled. Which will come shortly.
So Imam At-Tabari said:
“And for all of these explanations (that he previously mentioned in his tafseer regarding the word kursi) there is a point of view and a methodology, however if it were to be explained (Taweel, here meaning Tafseer), then that which comes first in explaining it is the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم):
Where Umar (رضي الله عنه) said:
“A woman came to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and said to him, “Call upon Allah so that He enters me into Paradise.” The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) glorified the Lord (Allah) and said, “His Kursi is above the heavens and earth, and He is upon it (يقعد عليه), so that there remains on the Kursi the space of 4 fingers,“ Then he shown four of his fingers together, and said, “And it has a sound, the sound similar to a new saddle if one were to ride on it.”
“A woman came to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and said to him, “Call upon Allah so that He enters me into Paradise.” The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) glorified the Lord (Allah) and said, “His Kursi is above the heavens and earth, and He is upon it (يقعد عليه), so that there remains on the Kursi the space of 4 fingers,“ Then he shown four of his fingers together, and said, “And it has a sound, the sound similar to a new saddle if one were to ride on it.”
Imam At-Tabari goes on to say:
"The outward wording of the Qur’an (Dhaahir) indicates the correctness of the saying of Ibn Abbas narrated by Ja’far bin Abi Al-Mughira on the authority of Sa’eed bin Jubair that says, that Ibn Abbas said Kursi means His (Allahs) knowledge, and this is because of the statement of Allah, “and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them“, and He informed us that He feeleth no fatigue in preserving (all) that He knows, and He encompasses (all things) with it (His knowledge) (all) that is in the heavens and earth. Similar to how He informed us concerning the angels in that they said in their supplication. “Our Lord! Thou embracest all things in mercy and knowledge” -40:7.
So Allah mentioned that His Knowledge (Kursi) extends over the heavens and the earth, and the origin of Al-Kursi, is Knowledge (Linguistically), and in regards to this being known linguistically (The word Kursi) is said in some newsletters in which knowledge is written in booklet form.(Kuraasa)“-end of the quote of Imam At-Tabari.
However there are multiple points here that prove that neither Ibn Abbas nor At-Tabari did Ta'weel (Blameworthy Explanation) that changes the apparent meaning of the word, from them are:
1) The narration that Imam At-Tabari first mentioned of Umar (رضي الله عنه), in regards to being more correct when explaining the verse is authentic, it is mentioned in "Al-Ibaana al-Kubraa"-by Ibn Al-Batta (387 Hijri, رحمه الله), and it's mentioned that this narrations chain is authentic similar to that of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim. So if this is true, then according to this narration the word "Kursi" can also hold the same meaning as "Al-Arsh"-Throne, which is in fact linguistically possible, and if the narration is authentic (Saheeh), then there is no problem with describing the throne (Al-Arsh) as Kursi (Meaning throne), and this "Ta'weel" mentioned by Imam At-Tabari here using the narration of Umar is considered explanation (Tafseer) that is acceptable not reprehensible.
2) The narration of Ibn Abbas concerning him saying "Al-Kursi" meaning knowledge, includes in it's chain Ja’far bin Abi’l-Mugheerah who has some weakness, al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar summarized the ruling on him by saying “Sudooq (truthful), but makes mistakes” and the likes of these individuals are unacceptable to take sole narrations from alone, according to the Scholars of Hadeeth. This is especially the case in regards to those who report a lot from Sa’eed bin Jubayr. For if such a narrator adds something which opposes the trustworthy (Thiqaat) who reported a lot from the companions of Sa’eed bin Jubayr then there is no doubt that the specific ruling on such a narrator is that he has erred and reported something strange (shaadh), as is the case here.
A) Ja'far bin Abi Al-Mugheerah went against those who are more reliable than him in regards to this narration, by the way of Sa'eed bin Jubair.
Muslim Al-Bateen reported on the authority of Sa'eed bin Jubair on the authority of Ibn Abbas that he said "His Kursi (footstool) is the place of His (Allahs) feet."-And Al-Haakim said this narration is authentic (Saheeh) according to the conditions of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
3) Even if we accept that Imam At-Tabari believed the narration of Ibn Abbas to be acceptable that Kursi is Allahs Knowledge ('Ilm) this still can't be used as proof for the companions doing Ta'weel (Dispraised Explanation) that Ahl As-Sunnah consider incorrect, and here is why:
a) Imam At-Tabari says that the APPARENT (Dhaahir) meaning of the verse attests to the fact that Kursi means knowledge, and then he is using the narration of Ibn Abbas (although having weakness) and the Arabic language to further solidify his point, by saying that the ORIGIN of the word Kursi means knowledge. So if the origin of the word Kursi means knowledge, and he is taking this word upon it's apparent meaning, this is NOT Ta'weel (Blameworthy Explanation) that is disliked by Ahl As-Sunnah, even if he was wrong in his assessment. Because we as Ahl As-Sunnah agree that the true original Arabic language of the Arabs before and during the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) is the Arabic that can be used to explain the Qu'ran.
b) If we accept that Kursi here means Allahs knowledge, that means that it is an attribute of Allah (Sifah), and by accepting it upon it's apparent meaning (by saying the origin of the word Kursi means knowledge) he is doing exactly what other than him have done by accepting and confirming the attributes of Allah how they came upon their original Arabic meaning without changing, or negating.
c) If we say that Kursi here doesn't mean Allahs knowledge, rather it is a creation of Allah, and is the footstool (and this too is linguistically possible), then this too is not changing the meaning (Blameworthy Ta'weel) rather it is taking it upon it's apparent meaning ('Alaa Dhaahirihi), according to how the Arabs understood it, according to the Authentic Narration (Saheeh hadeeth) quoted above.
d) If it was an explanation from Footstool/Throne to Knowledge of Allah, then this wouldn't be a good example of the Ta'weel (Explanation) that those who encourage Ta'weel (Blameworthy explanation) are trying to prove, because:
1) At-Tabari already explained this is the apparent meaning of the verse and not explanation (Ta'weel), and never denied (rather confirmed indirectly) that kursi can have multiple meanings.
2) There is no proof to say that the companions changed the meaning of kursi in other narrations to mean other than knowledge and thus, Instead of changing a confirmed attribute of Allah that may lead to anthropomorphism (In the minds of those who allege so), to a better, less controversial meaning (for example they would explain Yadd Allah (hand) as power (Quwa) which is no doubt an attribute), they are now taking a word that can linguistically mean Throne or Footstool (Not at all an attribute if used in the proper context as proven in authentic reports) and saying it only means the knowledge of Allah, which in actuality is going a step further and doing the exact opposite of what their foundations tell them to do, which is "Changing the first meaning or selecting a secondly meaning for an Attribute of Allah (which gives them doubts) away from it's apparent meaning in order to remove the (supposed) likelihood of making a similitude between Allah and the creation, so that Allah is exalted by doing so."-In short, by saying that the definition of kursi means knowledge, now we are left needing other explanation as to why it has been explained in authentic narrations that kursi (Allahs knowledge according to them) is smaller in size than the Throne? Otherwise, they have forced people to commit kufr and fall into the same mistake they attempt to get them out of (supposedly) in regards to other attributes.
Rather we say;
-It's possible words can be confirmed upon their apparent meanings and still be considered explanation, and we Ahl As-Sunnah agree with that if it's done with proof from the Prophet (رضي الله عنهم) or His Companions.(رضي الله عنهم)
- The Companions and early pious Muslims didn't do ta'weel (blameworthy explanation) that changed the meaning of the word away from it's apparent meaning, and the apparent meaning of the word comes about in the context of the sentence according to classical Arabic. In the case of issues related to the unseen, the concept of silence and of stopping where the texts have stopped comes into affect, and this is the Methodology of the Salaf.
-Here (If we follow common sense) they are saying that a word that CAN mean Throne/Footstool (a creation and proven in other authentic reports), IS His knowledge (an attribute), essentially going into the same problem that they themselves are trying to get out of. Is this not, according to their foundations, confirming for Allah an attribute that will lead the innocent minds of the Muslims to disbelief via anthropomorphism? That according to them Allahs Attribute of Knowledge was (Throne/Footstool) and then Ibn Abbas did ta'weel (explanation) away from the apparent meaning, to a less controversial meaning? So by Ibn Abbas saying that the word kursi here means knowledge, then we must ask well then where is the Ta'weel of the other narrations where the Kursi is compared in size to The Throne? If no such ta'weel exist then you are now saying that the kursi is Allahs knowledge and the knowledge of Allah is smaller than the creation? Why not take the safer way out and just say it is NOT an attribute in any verse or narration, so as not to put the Muslims into disbelief? Rather do actual explaining (If according to them the origin is knowledge) and say it means only Footstool (Since this would be their ta'weel) as to not cause the Muslims to fall into anthropomorphism? Or that kursi is not always knowledge, when in proper context according to the format of the sentence and meaning, which is always how Ahl As-Sunnah have understood the Qur'an and Sunnah/
So if I read for example that Allahs Throne is larger than His kursi, and I should believe that His kursi is His knowledge (According to them), am I not now faced with the same dilemma that they try to get us out of? Am I not now forced to believe (according to their opinion) that I am saying the creation is larger than an attribute of Allah? (May Allah protect us from such an atrocious belief)
If you are not saying that the Kursi is always knowledge you then agree that words have different connotations according to the understanding of the sentence, and the early pious Muslims always took them upon their apparent meaning, thus NOT making them those who do not know the correct meaning of the attributes of Allah (Mufawidheen) nor of those who change them with blameworthy explanation via Ta'weel.
By them staying silent in the issues of comparing the size of the kursi to the throne, and by not bringing us further explanation of those narrations, you have forced people to commit disbelief. (By saying that kursi only means Knowledge), or you agree that the companions understood the words that are related to attributes upon their apparent meaning without the need for blameworthy explanation (Ta'weel).
If you are agreeing that the narrations are taken upon their apparent meaning, without explanation and without relinquishing the entire meaning to Allah, you have agreed with the Methodology of the early pious Muslims (Salaf) and those who follow them. (Agreeing that it's possible kursi can either mean knowledge, footstool, or throne, according to the understanding of the Arabic language and authentic narrations of the Prophet -صلى الله عليه و سلم- or his companions)
1) At-Tabari already explained this is the apparent meaning of the verse and not explanation (Ta'weel), and never denied (rather confirmed indirectly) that kursi can have multiple meanings.
2) There is no proof to say that the companions changed the meaning of kursi in other narrations to mean other than knowledge and thus, Instead of changing a confirmed attribute of Allah that may lead to anthropomorphism (In the minds of those who allege so), to a better, less controversial meaning (for example they would explain Yadd Allah (hand) as power (Quwa) which is no doubt an attribute), they are now taking a word that can linguistically mean Throne or Footstool (Not at all an attribute if used in the proper context as proven in authentic reports) and saying it only means the knowledge of Allah, which in actuality is going a step further and doing the exact opposite of what their foundations tell them to do, which is "Changing the first meaning or selecting a secondly meaning for an Attribute of Allah (which gives them doubts) away from it's apparent meaning in order to remove the (supposed) likelihood of making a similitude between Allah and the creation, so that Allah is exalted by doing so."-In short, by saying that the definition of kursi means knowledge, now we are left needing other explanation as to why it has been explained in authentic narrations that kursi (Allahs knowledge according to them) is smaller in size than the Throne? Otherwise, they have forced people to commit kufr and fall into the same mistake they attempt to get them out of (supposedly) in regards to other attributes.
Rather we say;
-It's possible words can be confirmed upon their apparent meanings and still be considered explanation, and we Ahl As-Sunnah agree with that if it's done with proof from the Prophet (رضي الله عنهم) or His Companions.(رضي الله عنهم)
- The Companions and early pious Muslims didn't do ta'weel (blameworthy explanation) that changed the meaning of the word away from it's apparent meaning, and the apparent meaning of the word comes about in the context of the sentence according to classical Arabic. In the case of issues related to the unseen, the concept of silence and of stopping where the texts have stopped comes into affect, and this is the Methodology of the Salaf.
-Here (If we follow common sense) they are saying that a word that CAN mean Throne/Footstool (a creation and proven in other authentic reports), IS His knowledge (an attribute), essentially going into the same problem that they themselves are trying to get out of. Is this not, according to their foundations, confirming for Allah an attribute that will lead the innocent minds of the Muslims to disbelief via anthropomorphism? That according to them Allahs Attribute of Knowledge was (Throne/Footstool) and then Ibn Abbas did ta'weel (explanation) away from the apparent meaning, to a less controversial meaning? So by Ibn Abbas saying that the word kursi here means knowledge, then we must ask well then where is the Ta'weel of the other narrations where the Kursi is compared in size to The Throne? If no such ta'weel exist then you are now saying that the kursi is Allahs knowledge and the knowledge of Allah is smaller than the creation? Why not take the safer way out and just say it is NOT an attribute in any verse or narration, so as not to put the Muslims into disbelief? Rather do actual explaining (If according to them the origin is knowledge) and say it means only Footstool (Since this would be their ta'weel) as to not cause the Muslims to fall into anthropomorphism? Or that kursi is not always knowledge, when in proper context according to the format of the sentence and meaning, which is always how Ahl As-Sunnah have understood the Qur'an and Sunnah/
So if I read for example that Allahs Throne is larger than His kursi, and I should believe that His kursi is His knowledge (According to them), am I not now faced with the same dilemma that they try to get us out of? Am I not now forced to believe (according to their opinion) that I am saying the creation is larger than an attribute of Allah? (May Allah protect us from such an atrocious belief)
If you are not saying that the Kursi is always knowledge you then agree that words have different connotations according to the understanding of the sentence, and the early pious Muslims always took them upon their apparent meaning, thus NOT making them those who do not know the correct meaning of the attributes of Allah (Mufawidheen) nor of those who change them with blameworthy explanation via Ta'weel.
By them staying silent in the issues of comparing the size of the kursi to the throne, and by not bringing us further explanation of those narrations, you have forced people to commit disbelief. (By saying that kursi only means Knowledge), or you agree that the companions understood the words that are related to attributes upon their apparent meaning without the need for blameworthy explanation (Ta'weel).
If you are agreeing that the narrations are taken upon their apparent meaning, without explanation and without relinquishing the entire meaning to Allah, you have agreed with the Methodology of the early pious Muslims (Salaf) and those who follow them. (Agreeing that it's possible kursi can either mean knowledge, footstool, or throne, according to the understanding of the Arabic language and authentic narrations of the Prophet -صلى الله عليه و سلم- or his companions)
e) How can we accept the statement of At-Tabari (Even if it's linguistically possible) when there are other stronger narrations to rely upon? And even if we did rely upon his explanation, that still wouldn't be considered a disliked explanation (BlameworthyTa'weel ) rather it would be Tafseer (explanation) of the Qur'an by the original language of the Arabs (with proof that he used) because according to him, that is the original meaning of the word. Rather, even if we agreed that Kursi can linguistically mean Knowledge, and that it is the (Only) correct explanation of Kursi in this verse (2:255) we, Ahl As-Sunnah haven't fell into any problem whatsoever, because, according to the statement of At-Tabari this would be the Apparent meaning of the verse, with proof (in his opinion) to back up his statement.
However, point being, in light of there being multiple narrations and explanations, one should return back to that which is stronger, and that is the saying that it is the Footstool (In 2:255), yet those who do not even accept authentic narrations that are singular (Al-Ahaad) when it comes to Belief (Aqeedah), want us to rely upon narrations that have weakness when stronger narrations exist?
f) By saying Imam At-Tabari confirmed that Kursi means knowledge upon it's apparent meaning, they themselves are admitting that Imam At-Tabari did NOT relinquish the meaning of the attributes to Allah alone, rather he confirmed the apparent meaning of it, even when the word had multiple meanings.
f) By saying Imam At-Tabari confirmed that Kursi means knowledge upon it's apparent meaning, they themselves are admitting that Imam At-Tabari did NOT relinquish the meaning of the attributes to Allah alone, rather he confirmed the apparent meaning of it, even when the word had multiple meanings.
4) Understanding the word Kursi to ONLY mean knowledge, would not be possible and this is because of numerous authentic narrations negating that it can only mean so.
a) The one we mentioned above of Umar, and this is because here Kursi is used as Throne.
b) The Narration of Mujaahid (رحمه الله) which is Mursal, in which he said:
"What is the Kursi (Footstool) in comparison to the 'Arsh (Throne) except that it (The kursi) is like a ring (that one wears on his finger) thrown into an open country."-Graded Authentic (Saheeh) by Ibn Hajr.
-In this narration, the Kursi (Footstool) is NOT the Throne, because The Throne (Al-Arsh Al-Majeed) is said to be larger in size.
-Is not considered to be knowledge because if Kursi here meant Allahs knowledge, it would mean that the creation (The Throne of Allah) is larger in size than His Attribute of Knowledge(We Seek refuge in Allah from such a wicked belief).
-Is neither, His Knowledge, Nor the Throne, rather if we return back to the Authentic narration we will see that it is in reference to the Footstool.
In summary,
1) The narration of Ibn Abbas that Imam At-Tabari used as proof has weakness, thus stronger evidences have to be used as proof for the meaning of kursi.
2) Imam At-Tabari didn't believe knowledge to be the explanation (Blameworthy Ta'weel) of the word kursi, rather he believed that to be THE APPARENT meaning of the word according to the Arabic language, and used a narration having weakness of Ibn Abbas to strengthen his argument.
3) If this is the case, then this further solidifies our argument that the early righteous Muslims were neither those who didn't understand the meaning of the attributes upon their apparent meaning (not Mufawidheen), nor those who changed them with a blameworthy explanation (Ta'weel).
4) If made to believe that knowledge is the only meaning of kursi, we are faced with a dilemma as to why in authentic narrations the early righteous Muslims compared the size of the Throne to the Kursi (Alleged to be only knowledge) and said the throne is larger, and never explained them away from their alleged apparent meaning of knowledge when it could make a person commit disbelief. This proving that the early righteous Muslims could not have been those who didn't understand the attributes of Allah (or didn't know which meaning from among the many meanings was the intended meaning of Allah), nor of those who explained them with a blameworthy explanation, especially when no such authentic narrations reach us in regards to any of these attributes. Rather it becomes clear that the apparent meaning is clear from disbelief in any and all circumstances.
5) Essentially there is no problem in believing that the word kursi itself can mean knowledge, or throne, or footstool or other than that, because they all may have origins in the Arabic language, and would be taken into consideration when understood in the context of the sentence (Verse or Narration), and then be looked at under the scope of which narration is more authentic than the other. However, none of this would be blameworthy explaining (Ta'weel) rather it would be considered taking it upon the apparent meaning.
6) Even we were to say it is ta'weel it would NOT be the same ta'weel (explaining) the Ashairah/Maaturidiyah do when it comes to for example the Hands of Allah or Face or Rising, because their whole purpose of doing ta'weel of Hand to Power is to make sure the Muslim doesn't commit disbelief by the way of anthropomorphism. So what is the purpose of doing ta'weel of Kursi (CHAIR, FOOTSTOOL) to KNOWLEDGE by Ibn Abbas? Because if we left it as Chair or Footstool, that has nothing to do with the attributes of Allah and would NOT be problematic for a Muslim and not cause him to become an anthropomorphisist, and thus these would be two types of ta'weel and it would not be possible to to extract from this ta'weel, the permissibility of doing it to the Attributes of Allah.
7) The whole argument to begin with is a fallacy called "Straw man" In that they are building their argument using false pretenses, and making it seem as though that was our argument to begin with. Rather, even if the narration of Ibn Abbas saying Kursi means Knowledge was absolutely authentic, or any other scholar saying so, it doesn't matter, because as testified by At-Tabari that is the linguistic origin of the word kursi, and thus that is NOT ta'weel. However, in order to confirm this is in fact the correct explanation (Tafsir) of Kursi then we need authentic narrations, but for discussions sake, we are just pointing out that the argument itself is a straw man.
And Allah knows best.
In summary,
1) The narration of Ibn Abbas that Imam At-Tabari used as proof has weakness, thus stronger evidences have to be used as proof for the meaning of kursi.
2) Imam At-Tabari didn't believe knowledge to be the explanation (Blameworthy Ta'weel) of the word kursi, rather he believed that to be THE APPARENT meaning of the word according to the Arabic language, and used a narration having weakness of Ibn Abbas to strengthen his argument.
3) If this is the case, then this further solidifies our argument that the early righteous Muslims were neither those who didn't understand the meaning of the attributes upon their apparent meaning (not Mufawidheen), nor those who changed them with a blameworthy explanation (Ta'weel).
4) If made to believe that knowledge is the only meaning of kursi, we are faced with a dilemma as to why in authentic narrations the early righteous Muslims compared the size of the Throne to the Kursi (Alleged to be only knowledge) and said the throne is larger, and never explained them away from their alleged apparent meaning of knowledge when it could make a person commit disbelief. This proving that the early righteous Muslims could not have been those who didn't understand the attributes of Allah (or didn't know which meaning from among the many meanings was the intended meaning of Allah), nor of those who explained them with a blameworthy explanation, especially when no such authentic narrations reach us in regards to any of these attributes. Rather it becomes clear that the apparent meaning is clear from disbelief in any and all circumstances.
5) Essentially there is no problem in believing that the word kursi itself can mean knowledge, or throne, or footstool or other than that, because they all may have origins in the Arabic language, and would be taken into consideration when understood in the context of the sentence (Verse or Narration), and then be looked at under the scope of which narration is more authentic than the other. However, none of this would be blameworthy explaining (Ta'weel) rather it would be considered taking it upon the apparent meaning.
6) Even we were to say it is ta'weel it would NOT be the same ta'weel (explaining) the Ashairah/Maaturidiyah do when it comes to for example the Hands of Allah or Face or Rising, because their whole purpose of doing ta'weel of Hand to Power is to make sure the Muslim doesn't commit disbelief by the way of anthropomorphism. So what is the purpose of doing ta'weel of Kursi (CHAIR, FOOTSTOOL) to KNOWLEDGE by Ibn Abbas? Because if we left it as Chair or Footstool, that has nothing to do with the attributes of Allah and would NOT be problematic for a Muslim and not cause him to become an anthropomorphisist, and thus these would be two types of ta'weel and it would not be possible to to extract from this ta'weel, the permissibility of doing it to the Attributes of Allah.
7) The whole argument to begin with is a fallacy called "Straw man" In that they are building their argument using false pretenses, and making it seem as though that was our argument to begin with. Rather, even if the narration of Ibn Abbas saying Kursi means Knowledge was absolutely authentic, or any other scholar saying so, it doesn't matter, because as testified by At-Tabari that is the linguistic origin of the word kursi, and thus that is NOT ta'weel. However, in order to confirm this is in fact the correct explanation (Tafsir) of Kursi then we need authentic narrations, but for discussions sake, we are just pointing out that the argument itself is a straw man.
And Allah knows best.
May Allah send peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all of his companions, and May Allah have mercy upon all of the scholars and all of the Muslims.
