supported by any authentic foundation whatsoever. The report attributed to ʿAbd al-Razzāq is of unknown isnād, and—Allah willing—I shall treat it separately in my book “al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa” (Weak Ḥadīths).

This ḥadīth also refutes those who claim that the Throne (al-ʿArsh) was the first thing to be created. No explicit statement to that effect is traceable to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ; those who advocate it—such as Ibn Taymiyyah and others—do so only by inference and personal reasoning. Therefore, adhering to this ḥadīth—and to the other reports that convey the same purport—takes precedence, for it is a decisive text on the matter, and, as is well known, independent reasoning has no place where an explicit text exists.

Interpreting the narration to mean that the Pen was created after the Throne is invalid. Such an interpretation would be conceivable only if there were a definitive text declaring that the Throne was the very first of all created things, the Pen included; since no such text exists, that interpretation is impermissible.

The ḥadīth likewise nullifies the view that there is an infinite regress of created events and that every creature is preceded by another ad infinitum, such that one could never designate a “first creation.” This narration overturns that notion and affirms that the Pen is the first created entity, with absolute certainty—nothing preceded it.

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—wrote at length in refutation of the philosophers, endeavoring to prove the existence of temporal events with no beginning. In the course of that discussion he ventured into matters that baffle the intellect and that most hearts cannot accept, so much so that his adversaries accused him of holding that the created realm is eternal without beginning. He himself explicitly states that every created thing is preceded by non-existence, yet he still affirms a chain of events extending backward without beginning, just as he and others affirm a chain of events extending forward without end. That opinion is unacceptable; rather, this ḥadīth categorically rejects it.

We would have preferred that Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—not have entered that arena, for such discourse resembles philosophy and speculative theology (kalām), fields from which we have learned only caution and aversion. Imām Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—spoke the truth when he said, “There is no one among us whose words are accepted in their entirety and rejected in none of them, save the occupant of this grave ﷺ.”