Muhammad as the “Son of Man”? Maqam Mahmud in Early Athari Theology — Ali Shukri Amin
First published on my writing site: www.aliamin.info/2026/09/muhammad-son-of-man-maqam-mahmud/
By Ali Shukri Amin. I first wrote this as comments on r/AcademicQuran, in the thread “Muhammad as the Son of Man?”, copied here as written.
First comment
I can’t speak to the Son of Man prophecy in the Bible but you did make a mistake with respect to the hadith.
There was a lot of debate in early Athari theology with respect to the concept of “Maqām Mahmūd.” (The Praised Station, the word Mahmud coming from the same trilateral root as Muhammad, Mīm-Ĥa-Dāl)
Al-Isra’ 17:79
And from [part of] the night, pray[1] with it [i.e., recitation of the Qur’ān] as additional [worship] for you; it is expected that[2] your Lord will resurrect you to a praised station. [Maqaman Mahmudan]
There are singular narrations which are maqtu’ (not attributed to the prophet himself) which states that the Maqam Mahmud means the Prophet will sit on the Throne of God.
According to Jon Hoover,
Al-Barbahārī may have been involved in riots that began in 317/929 over interpretation of the divine address to the Prophet Muḥammad ‘Perhaps your Lord will raise you up to a praiseworthy station’ (Q 17: 79). Al-Barbahārī understood this to mean that God would seat Muḥammad on the Throne beside Himself whereas semi-rationalists of the time—including followers of the renowned Qurʾān commentator al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923)—preferred to interpret this metaphorically as Muḥammad’s right to intercede for grave sinners (Melchert 2012). With the Būyid takeover of Baghdad in 334/945, Ḥanbalī animosities turned against the Shīʿīs as well, and Ḥanbalīs engaged in numerous attacks on Shīʿīs, Kalām theologians, and others well into the seventh/thirteenth century. M. Cook attributes this Ḥanbalī social power to their great numbers and a weakened state. Additionally, with the rise of the Būyids and then later the Saljuq conquest of Baghdad in 447/1055, the Ḥanbalīs and the ʿAbbāsid caliphs found common cause in undermining those foreign rulers (Sabarī 1981: 101–20; Cook 2000: 115–28).
[Cambridge Companion to Islamic Theology, Hanbali Theology, pg. 6]
There were, and still are, a swathe of Muslims whom believe Muhammad will sit on God’s Throne on the Day of Judgement. Over time it has been rendered a minority view in Islamic theology, and even most Atharis/Hanbalis today do not consider it a primary point of contention, but it’s there.
Of course this was never interpreted to suggest the level of power or divinity that your understanding of the Biblical “Son of Man” entails.
Posted September 21, 2026. Read it on Reddit.
Follow-up comment
Your argument is predicated on the historicity of the Son of Man claims in the Old Testament and the New Testament, believing that they do apply to Jesus, and that Muslims recognize the historicity of those two texts. This argument can only come from a Christian theological background. A Jew, for example, would not argue that Jesus is the Son of Man and their text is older than the New Testament. In which case, a Jew would argue that you accept the Torah, the Torah definitely does not indicate that Jesus is the Son of Man, and in fact Jesus cannot be a prophet according to Judaic law.
So your argument is a theological one, not a historical one. Even if you yourself subscribe to Christian theology, that’s fine, but at least present some robust argumentation here.
Posted September 22, 2026. Read it on Reddit.
Find me on Reddit, YouTube and Linktree; more of my work is on my portfolio, alishukriamin.com.
Read this post on aliamin.info, or browse all my writing.