Camel Hump Hijab Sequel: Important Rule Regarding Descriptions in Texts

In The Name of the Most Clement

 With whose name all affairs are initiated

The following analysis is an important exposition which provides context to the camel hump hijab post and summarises it in the jargon of legal theory or hermeneutical commentary. It shall prove invaluable to readers in Hadith literature, given the frequent employment of such rhetorical style and expression as found in the "camel hump hijab" narration.

I pray this brief analysis, acting as sequel, dispels any confusion from the original post --- "and this is not difficult for God". It too, like the original post, is from the pen of Sheikh al-Sharif Hatim al-'Awni. May Allah continue to extend His munificence upon him. 

اللهم علمنا ما ينفعنا، وانفعنا بما علمتنا، وزدنا علما وعملا يا أرحم الراحمين

----------------------------------------

Descriptions may appear in the Quran and Hadith in the context of praise or blame, and they are neither of them in reality. Instead, the texts are commending or rebuking *the condition* the described person is upon.

Take for example the Hadith, "and how many of those with unkempt hair, dirty bodies, tattered clothes, and who are not attending to it, were they to swear by Allah's name He would surely sanctify it."

Despite this Hadith being in the context of praise, no one has argued that tatty hair and dirt on the body are praiseworthy attributes by themselves. Rather, it is against the Prophet's Sunnah and contradicts his blessed practice - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. 

It is, however, a metaphor of poverty and need or for being occupied with Allah so much as to not being able to look after one's appearance properly. This assumption is supported by the Prophet's statement at the end of the Hadith, "and al-Bara' ibn Malik is amongst them." - radhiyallahu 'anhu.

One of the ascetics was once asked about what the pilgrim's dishevelled appearance signified. He replied, "to leave beautifying oneself so that God sees your disinterest in yourself and sees that you are true in devoting yourself to struggling for Him."

In summary, to deliberately not take care of one's hair and to befoul one's appearance is not praiseworthy. However, were it to occur unintentionally as a consequence of one's engrossment with what is more important then this is not blameworthy. It may well be praiseworthy for his preoccupation with what is more important.

This rule is applicable to many descriptions that have come in the context of praise or blame. These descriptions are not intended in and of themselves. Rather it is the resultant condition that is intended." [Allah knows best.]

UN

P.S. Here's the original Arabic:

قد يرد الوصف في الكتاب والسنة في سياق الذم أو المدح، ولا يكون مذموما لذاته، ولا يكون ممدوحا لذاته، وإنما تذم وتمدح الحالة التي كان عليها صاحب الوصف

كقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : وكم من أشعث أغبر ذي طمرين، لا يؤبه له: لو أقسم على الله لأبره 

 فمع أن السياق سياق مدح، إلا أن شعث الرأس واغبرار الجسد ليس ممدوحا بذاته عند أحد، بل هما خلاف سنته صلى الله عليه وسلم وخلاف هديه الشريف، لكنه كناية عن الفقر والحاجة، أو عن الانشغال بالله عن إصلاح الهيئة، وقد يشهد له قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم في آخر الحديث: ومنهم البراء بن مالك

وسئل أحد الزهاد عن الإشارة في شعث الحاج المحرم ؟ فقال: ترك التصنع لها، ليشهد الحق منك الإعراض عن العناية بنفسك، فيشهد صدقك في بذلها لمجاهدته 

والخلاصة: أن تقصد الشعث وتعمد الاغبرار ليس محمودا، لكن من وقع منه ذلك دون قصد، لانشغاله بما هو أهم، لا يكون مذموما، وربما كان ممدوحا لانشغاله بالأهم وهذه قاعدة في كثير من الصفات الواردة في سياق المدح والذم، أنها قد لا تكون مقصودة لذاتها بالمدح والذم، وإنما المقصود الحالة المصاحبة لها

Re: The Camel Hump Hijab

Recently a trend has emerged amongst British Muslim females of predominantly non-Arab descent to scarf in a fashion that has its origin in an exotic Arabia. This trend, which is part of a broader project of “consuming piety” and rich cultural exchanges within a global multicultural society/context, has elicited a peculiar fatwa I wish to occasion with here. It proscribes the practice of donning the Hijab in a camel hump manner, associating it with a Hadith found in Sahih Muslim.

In a culture obsessed with appearances and images, and where realities are pinned exclusively to manifestations, it is not surprising to find quasi-jurists and novice legal practitioners confound resemblance with imitation. It is thanks to my dear comrade Moulana Uzair Khan of Bra'ford who brings to my attention developments on the gender front, which are otherwise seldom noted, that I present the following passages as a token of affection and comradeship.

A more perceptible message in the form of simplified glossy posters has been the corollary of the fatwa since, one of which I append to this post. It gave rise to some discussion amongst our fraternity. A few days ago, Sheikh al-Sharif Hatim ibn 'Arif al-'Awni of Ta’if posted his response to the issue engaging with an unnamed jurist who, logically following his literal reading to its end, extended the prohibition of wearing the camel hump headscarf “to even the confines of intimacy with one’s spouse”. His rebuttal is forceful and sufficient.

A translation of it is produced here after an example of one of the gloss posters currently being circulated amongst young teens:

-----------------------

Imam Muslim records in his Sahih that the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, said:

“There are two types of dwellers in Hell I have not seen: 1) a community who will have whips like the tails of cows, with which they will flog people and 2) naked clothed women, seducing and attracting, their heads like the titled humps of camels. These women will not enter Paradise nor will they find its fragrance --- and its fragrance can be found from such and such a distance (i.e. from very far).”

As for the clause in the Prophetic dictum "their heads like the tilted humps of camels", there is nothing in it that indicates the prohibition of wrapping hair on top of the head, lest someone claim that it is prohibited for the female to do so, even in the privacy of her home and in front of her husband. This is why no scholar has stipulated this prohibition, nor has any Hadith commentator from the great Imams --- al-Maziri, al-Qadhi 'Iyadh, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, al-Suyuti, al-Munawi et al. --- asserted the prohibition of tying hair in this manner.

Otherwise, according to this understanding, it would be illicit for a woman to wear tight clothes in front of her husband due of the clause "clothed naked women", as well as talk titillatingly to him which is one of the interpretations of the clause "[women who] seduce and attract".

All these descriptions have appeared in the Hadith report.  Why, then, does he narrow the prohibition to the particular case of wearing the scarf in a camel hump fashion in front the husband alone, to the exclusion of the other descriptions?

Furthermore, given the Hadith has depicted the whip as being characteristic of one of the two groups threatened with Hell, this erroneous understanding would entail the unconditional prohibition of utilising oxtail like whips even if it is not used for abusing humans or animals.

So what is the meaning of the Hadith then?

The Hadith came to prophesise an unknown event that was/is to occur, of oppressors who will flog people with whips like oxtails and of promiscuous women that will lure strangers and draw their attention through various means.

The Hadith makes reference to some women who beautify themselves to lure strangers. Does this, however, prove the impermissibility of make-up and beautification? Or does it apply only to those who take beautification as a means to seduce others?

The Hadith has not come with an unconditional prohibition of oxtail like whips, …, nor wearing tight clothes even in front of one's spouse.

Thus, the understanding that the Hadith prohibits the gathering of hair on top of one’s head in a camel hump fashion is poor and considerably inaccurate. It necessitates several inconsistent and flawed stipulations, none of which have been held by any scholar as mentioned above.

Extending this weak understanding to the prohibition of the deed, even in the intimate company of one's spouse, then is flawed and innovative - again, owing to the fact that none of the previous scholars of note have voiced this opinion.

In fact, statements like this do not fall under the rubric of reliable ijtihad. Rather, it is an unreliable ijtihad for its innovativeness, in addition to it having no rational or textual basis.

If we are to explore the rational grounds behind the ruling and its purpose, then this approach will place the flawed opinion in complete contradiction with reason. However I have sufficed on demonstrating its divergence from the text leaving aside the rational arguments. Those interested in them can pursue them for themselves.

The purpose of this exposition is to show how the correct understanding of texts should be and how the incorrect understanding of texts contradicts not only with texts but also reason and scholarly consensus.

UN

Malfuz Shah Wasi Allah: 'Amal is Easier than 'Ilm

I'm currently reading a book comprising of two condensed biographies of my Hazrat's Shaikhs: Shah Wasi Allah Fatehpuri, who also happens to be his father-in-law, and Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Partapgari. The book has been compiled by his son Moulana Mahbub Ahmed and is titled, Shaykhan: 'Aynan Tajriyan.

Each biography is supplemented with select utterances, commonly referred to as "malfuzat", of the personages introduced. This Hazrat notes is to imbibe practice because "the purpose of knowledge is practice."

As I was browsing through the book, I came across an interesting proposition from Shah Wasi Allah that has made me reconsider my own thought with regards to this issue. Shah Wasi Allah requires no introduction and I will hopefully post a brief overview of his bio later insha Allah. Suffice it to note here that he is one of the senior Khulafa' of Moulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi.

The compiler of Shah Wasi Allah's malfuzat deserves mention. He is Dr. 'Ali Malpa Bhatkali and is one of Shah Wasi Allah's khulafa. I had the pleasure of meeting him at his residence in Bhatkal, thanks to my fellow classmate and host at Bhatkal, soon-to-be Dr. Habib Mohtisham Nadwi. I'm not sure if Fazil Malpa (that's how he was referred to by those close to him) is still alive, he was quite frail and ill when I visited him in 06. I pray that Allah's mercy be with him in either state.

Here is a translation of the Malfuz:

'Amal is easier than 'Ilm

I gave a talk in Allahabad once in which I stated that knowledge ('ilm) is difficult and observance (amal) is easy.

People were taken aback, primarily because they have the exact opposite in their heads.

I explained that knowledge has various categories and sciences. Furthermore there is one science that is exoteric (zahir) and another esoteric (batin), and the grasp of each is difficult.

This is not the case with observance ('amal) because it concerns the Self (nafs, or soul). So long as it remains lethargic it seizes to practise but once the lethargy is fought off and is prepared/determined to undertake action, then observance becomes easy and no longer remains difficult.

It is for this reason devout worshippers are visible everywhere, yet it is difficult to find a talented scholar. Towns and districts are empty of erudite scholars even though the Qur'an and Hadith bear explicit and exclusive virtues for acquiring knowledge and the people of knowledge.

Take, for example, the Hadith, "the virtue/excellence of a scholar over the worshipper is that of my virtue/excellence over the lowest amongst you." (فضل العالم على العابد كفضلي على أدناكم) (Tirmidhi 2685) Subhan Allah, what an incredible virtue this is. Only the Prophet, and none other, could have made such a statement. Now who would have the audacity to disparage this position set by the Prophet himself?

It is worth mentioning, however, that this virtue is only for the true God-fearing scholar (alim-e-rabbani), not the ostentatious and name-sake scholar. This is because Jewish scholars who gave in to material temptations have been despised in the Qur'an on numerous occasions. The Quran says about such a people: "Will you command others to piety and forget yourselves..." (2:44)

The author of ruh al-bayan (Alusi) submits the following exegesis under the cited verse, each scholar should reflect deeply upon it and judge himself individually:

ثم إن هذا التوبيخ والتقريع وإن كان خطابا لبني إسرائيل، إلا أنه عام من حيث المعنى لكل واعظ يأمر ولا يأتمر ويزجر ولا ينجزر، ينادي الناس البدار البدار ويرضى لنفسه التخلف والبوار، ويدعو الخلق إلى الحق وينفر عنه، ويطالب العوام بالحقائق ولا يشم ريحها منه، وهذا هو الذي يُبدأ بعذابه قبل عبدة الأوثان ويعظم ما يلقى لوفور تقصيره يوم لا حاكم إلا الملك الديان

"Although the reproach [of verse 2:44] is addressing the Jews, it is nonetheless general in its meaning. It encompasses the speaker who commands but does not follow suit himself; who disciplines others but not himself; who calls upon people to follow quickly and impatiently and yet is contented with himself lagging behind and leading to destruction; who invites the creation of Allah to the truth and excuses himself from it; who demands truths from the public, yet not even its scent is found with him. The torment of such a person will begin even before the Idolaters, the severity of which is increased due to his paramount neglect, on the day when there will be no Judge except the Just Rewarding Ruler."

وعن محمد بن واسع قال: بلغني أن أناسا من أهل الجنة اطلعوا على ناس من أهل النار، فقالوا لهم: قد كنتم تأمروننا بأشياء عملناها فدخلنا الجنة، قالوا: كنا نأمرهم بها ونخالف إلى غيرها

"It is reported from Muhammad ibn Wasi' that he said: it has reached me that the dwellers of Paradise will encounter people in Hell and say to them: you used to command us of things we observed and entered Paradise as a consequence. They will say: we used to command people with these things but would contradict them ourselves."

This penalisation is worth thinking about. The unobserving scholar will receive torment even before the Idolaters. Can there be greater admonishment for scholars beyond this? And is this not enough to call upon scholars to fill their hearts with fear? If this is not, then what will?

Therefore and, in conclusion, the scholar is more worthy of observing fear and austerity than others. Furthermore, and by extension, it necessitates that he acquires thorough knowledge of right and wrong (ma'ruf wa munkar), so that he can observe the right and abstain from wrong himself as well as guide others accordingly. This will bring [much-needed] reformation (islah). And Allah is the Custodian of Assistance.

A Friend's Review of Arguments for Homosexuality

At the root of the acceptance of homosexuality are three basic arguments: 1. It is a private act and not a public one. Therefore it should be judged against private or individual standards of morality. 2. It is a permanent state of identity with an indeterminate cause, which falls outside of genetic or environmental exclusivity. Therefore if it just “happens” irreversibly then it is an act of nature. And to deny it or to act in contradiction to it would be artificial, unnatural and futile. Furthermore, if this phenomenon fulfils characteristics with which one can classify it as natural then, as with other “natural” acts, it is morally acceptable. 3. As a society we promote the actualisation of individual desires where one is free of moral absolutism. Expression of sexual preference falls within this category. Therefore given points 1 and 2 and the centrality of moral relativism in the predominant liberal movement, homosexuality should be protected in line with other characteristics such as gender, race and religion; Or indeed any other characteristic that has suffered from moral absolutism. I have tried to sketch out in a short space the arguments which form the root of the acceptance of homosexuality in a liberal philosophical environment. I will leave it to the reader to work out how various, fuller arguments follow from these basic premises. The purpose at my attempt to reduce these arguments to this basic level is to show that the acceptance of these fundamental arguments requires the acceptance of certain subjective principles and that acceptance of these subjective principles does not occur in traditions outside of the western liberal framework. Therefore it would be unreasonable for us to expect that other moral frameworks will as readily adopt homosexuality. The first argument rests upon the distinction between public and private domains. [what is the implication of this]. As Raymond Guess argues in his book “public goods, private goods”, our demarcation between “public” and “private” is subjective. Geuss gives the example of Diogenes of Sinope’s masturbation in the marketplace and how the expulsion of bodily fluid is seen as morally wrong. Clearly, masturbation or the expulsion of bodily fluid is a private act but when conducted in a public forum it becomes a public act and judged to a different moral code. If we are to claim that homosexuality is a private act what are we to make of it when it enters the public domain. For example, do we adopt the public moral code when we see to homosexuals display affection on the street? Or even less obviously what is the appropriate code for any outward displays of homosexuality? By this I mean any outward symbolism, say clothing, mannerisms, language or even congregation at places. Clearly, a line has to be drawn somewhere for one cannot expect to be a homosexual and have zero outward symbols. For me this highlights a problem; is there in actual fact a public and private section of a moral code and if there is can we apply realistically apply them? To me it is evident that this demarcation of public and private an arbitrary one that is useful in applying the moral framework of the liberal tradition. It cannot be shown that this is a necessary or even a universal feature of moral frameworks. Argument 2 above has been a little difficult to summarise for it tries to encompass a sprawling range of arguments. What I have tried to capture are arguments that essentially rest on the idea that moral responsibility derives from actions of free will. Such arguments are given force by intrinsically arguing that the world is deterministic to a degree that is acceptable. If the world is deterministic to a degree then one cannot be held accountable for one’s actions to that degree. For example if I am inclined to homosexuality then this is determined by my mental proclivity, which is beyond my control, therefore is it right to hold me morally accountable for this which is beyond my control? When faced with such a proposition it is easier to cede this ground than to accept that the entire basis for our moral framework, as implied by a fully deterministic world, is not based on firm foundations. This argument is helped further by the modern creation of the homosexual identity. For it is more easily accepted that there is no moral responsibility for what one “is” rather than for what one “does. I hope that it is clear that argument 2 rests on ideas that are particular to the western liberal thought; a deterministic world and a moral framework wrought from the foundations of divine providence. The final argument is perhaps the most difficult to assess but it is more straightforward when trying to show that homosexuality can only thrive in an ideological framework particular to liberalism in the west. It is very difficult to pin down what this amorphous idea of “Liberalism” truly is but the key idea that is relevant to our discussion here is that within Liberalism is something akin to moral relativism developed (in large part by John Rawls) from a Kantian tradition. Here, the absolutist or universalist idea of morality as underpinned by divine authority is replaced by the acceptance that there is no universal moral standard by which we should judge the actions of people. I accept that such a position is not satisfactory in helping to build a moral framework and as such much effort has been expended on developing a system based on other ideas such as “justice” or “human rights”. Whatever the successes of such attempts, it is this idea that different moral codes can and should exist that is relevant to our discussion. For it is only because of this can we have the public/private dichotomy in argument 1 or allow individual actualisation of freedoms in argument 3. At this point perhaps it is important to make clear for my support of the acceptance of homosexuality in the western liberal tradition. I may think that the public/private demarcation is without real basis; that it is odd that we accept arguments based on the deterministic nature of free will for homosexuality but not for other behaviours; and that we are yet to build a coherent moral framework following our demolition of a divinely inspired one. Yet these choices that we have made have been important so that we can build a pluralistic society and avoid falling to the abyss of moral nihilism. However, I hope it is clear that within say an Islamic framework the current arguments of homosexuality have no grounds. In Islam there is no separation between the public and private when it comes to morality; moral responsibility of action does not rely on the deterministic nature of free will and there cannot be an acceptance that for a Muslim there is any other moral framework than that proscribed by God. Therefore if these tenets do not exist how can we expect an adoption of the acceptance of homosexuality? Indeed, taking this view it is counterproductive to attack the religion for its non-acceptance. To do so goes against the Liberal tradition as we are compelling them to accept philosophical artifices that are particular to the western liberal tradition.

On Disagreement

Imam Abul-Mudhaffar as-Sam'ani (Died: 489 Hijrii) writes in his ‘Support of the People of Hadith’:

Every issue that emerged in Islam which preoccupied the people and upon which they disagreed in a way that did it not cause enmity, hatred or division between them, and instead kept intact mutual cordiality, sincerity, mercy and compassion, we understood it to be amongst the issues that are permissible to look into and select one of the many positions cited in its regards. For it does not necessitate condemnations of heresy (tabdi’) or excommunication (takfir), and this is similar to the differing of the Companions and the Followers who kept amiability and love amongst them.

Conversely, every issue that emerged and in which people differed in a way that resulted in repulsion, mutual boycotting and estrangement - perhaps even takfir - I understood the issue has no place in religion whatsoever. Rather, it is incumbent upon every intelligent person to steer away from it. This is because Allah has conditioned to our adherence to Islam that we remain in its fold as brothers. Allah says:

“...and remember Allâh's Favour on you when you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren” (3:103)

فكل مسألة حدثت في الإسلام فخاض فيها الناس فتفرقوا واختلفوا فلم يورث ذلك الاختلاف بينهم عداوة ولا بغضا ولا تفرقا وبقيت بينهم

الألفة والنصيحة والمودة والرحمة والشفقة علمنا أن ذلك من مسائل الإسلام يحل النظر فيها والأخذ بقول من تلك الأقوال لا يوجب تبديعا

ولا تكفيرا كما ظهر مثل هذا الاختلاف بين الصحابة والتابعين مع بقاء الألفة والمودة

وكل مسألة حدثت فاختلفوا فيها فأورث اختلافهم في ذلك التولي والإعراض والتدابر والتقاطع وربما ارتقى إلى التكفير علمت أن ذلك

ليس من أمر الدين في شيء بل يجب على كل ذي عقل أن يجتنبها ويعرض عن الخوض فيها لأن الله شرط في تمسكنا بالإسلام أنا نصبح في ذلك إخوانا فقال تعالى:

واذكروا نعمة الله عليكم إذ كنتم أعداء فألف بين قلوبكم فأصبحتم بنعمته إخوانا

Ibn al-Jawzi's Comparison Between the Scholars of the World and the Hereafter

Below is an important exposition the prolific Ibn al-Jawzi has captured in his “sayd al-khatir” (lit. captivating thoughts). I had read it some time ago and felt that it was worth sharing. I am not perfect by any means and I do not claim pietistic superiority in noting this. Rather, in the words of al-Shafi’i:

أحب الصالحين ولست منهم

لعلي أن أنال بهم شفاعة

I love the pious and I'm not one of them

I hope to obtain intercession through them.

I pray that Allah make me amongst them.

This post is not directed at anyone in particular, except for myself and perhaps to whoever else identifies his or herself under the broad rubric of al-‘ulama.

A gentle reminder to folks who find themselves part of a long journey and who realise they are sailors of a ship in dangerous waters that needs saving to the shore (these are similes used by the author below). It is they who will most benefit from this, which brings to mind an Urdu couplet:

"Tufan Hey Darya Mein, Awr Na-Khuda Sowtey Hey!?

Kashti Key Muhafiz Hi Kashti Ko Dabotey Hey"

There is a storm in the ocean, and the captain is fast asleep!?

It is always those in charge of protecting the ship who are the cause of its wreckage.

----------------------------------

Chapter: A Comparison Between The Scholars of This World and Those of The Hereafter

I pondered upon the jealousy between scholars and found its source is the love of this world. The scholars of the Hereafter are full of love and do not habour jealousy. As the Lord says, “... and they have no grudge in their heart for what others are given ...” [59:9]

He also says, “And those who came after them invoking, ‘Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith, and do not place in our hearts any rancour against those who believe...'” [59:10]

The Companion Abu al-Darda’ used to pray for a group of brothers every night. Imam Ahmed said to Imam al-Shafi’i’s son, “your father is amongst the six I pray for each night before dawn.”

The deciding factor between the two camps is that the scholars of the world have their eyes fixed on power and are obsessed in accumulating wealth and praise. The scholars of the Hereafter abstain from preferring this. They fear it [i.e. power, wealth and praise] and pity those that are burdened with it.

Al-Nakh’i would not sit by a pillar (sign of a scholar, point of reference for people). ‘Alqamah said, “I dislike that my heel should be treaded upon (i.e. I do not like that people visit me). Others would stand and leave if more than four people came to sit with them. They would ask to be excused when sought for legal verdicts and preferred inconspicuity instead.

The example of these people is that of a sailor caught in the storm, he is preoccupied until he can ensure safety. And as the days follow the nights in that long journey, they pray for one another and they get help from one another because they form part of the same crew to paradise.

فصل

المقارنة بين علماء الدنيا وعلماء الآخرة

تأملت التحاسد بين العلماء، فرأيت منشأه من حب الدنيا، فإن علماء الآخرة يتوادون ولا يتحاسدون كما قال عز وجل: ((ولا يجدون في صدورهم حاجة مما أوتوا)) وقال تعالى: ((والذين جاءوا من بعدهم يقولون: ربنا اغفرلنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان، ولا تجعل في قلوبنا غلا للذين آمنوا)).

وقد كان أبو الدرداء يدعو كل ليلة لجماعة من إخوانه، وقال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل لولد الشافعي: (أبوك من الستة الذين أدعو لهم كل ليلة وقت السحر).

والأمر الفارق بين الفئتين: أن علماء الدنيا ينظرون إلى الرياسة فيها، ويحبون كثرة الجمع والثناء. وعلماء الآخرة بمعزل من إيثار ذلك، وقد كانوا يتخوفونه ويرحمون من بُلي به.

وكان النخعي لا يستند إلى سارية. وقال علقمة: (أكره أن يوطأ عقبي). وكان بعضهم إذا جلس إليه أكثر من أربعة قام عنهم، وكانوا يتدافعون الفتوى ويحبون الخمول، مثل القوم كمثل راكب البحر، وقد خِب، فعنده شغل إلى أن يوقن بالنجاة.

وإنما كان بعضهم يدعوا لبعض، ويستفيد منه لأنهم ركب تصاحبوا فتوادوا، فالأيام والليالي مراحلهم إلى سفر الجنة.

Ibn 'Arabi on the People of Hadith (Ahl al-Hadith)

Ash-Shaykh al-Akbar, Ibn ʿArabī, writes in chapter 313 of his Futūḥāt:

“The inheritors have a share spreading the message. This is why Muʿādh [ibn Jabal] and others were known as ‘the Messenger’s messenger’ – may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. No one has acquired this distinction, in addition to the privilege of being raised with the Messengers, save the Ḥadīth scholars who transmit Ḥadīth back to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessing be upon him, one generation to another through uninterrupted chains. They have a share in the Prophethood (i.e. in the duty of imparting the message). They are transmitters of revelation, and inheritors of the Prophets in conveying the message. And the jurists, if they do not obtain a share in Ḥadīth transmission then they are not of this status. They will not be resurrected with the Prophets, rather they will be raised with the masses. The title of ‘the knowledgeable’ (al-ʿulamā’) only applies to the people of Ḥadīth in all actuality.”

“And the same goes for the people of austerity (zuhd), devotion (ʿibādah) and the Hereafter. From them, those that are not amongst the people of Ḥadīth are no different to the jurists. They have no distinction in the ranks of inheritors, nor will they be resurrected with the Messengers. Rather, they too will be raised with the masses.”

وقال الشيخ محي الدين بن عربي في فتوحاته في الباب (313):

((وللورثة حظ من الرسالة، ولهذا قيل في معاذ وغيره: رسول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وما فاز بهذه المرتبة ويُحشر يوم القيامة مع الرسل إلا المحدثون الذين يروون الأحاديث بالأسانيد المتصلة بالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في كل أمة، فلهم حظ في الرسالة، وهم نقلة الوحي، وهم ورثة الأنبياء في التبليغ، والفقهاء إذا لم يكن لهم نصيب في رواية الحديث فليست لهم هذه الدرجة ولا يحشرون مع الرسل بل يحشرون في عامة الناس ولا ينطلق اسم العلماء إلا على أهل الحديث على الحقيقة))

((وكذلك الزهاد والعباد وأهل الآخرة ومن لم يكن من أهل الحديث منهم كان حكمه حكم الفقهاء لا يتميزون في الورثة ولا يحشرون مع الرسل بل يحشرون مع عموم الناس))