Benefits of the Hadith: (The Arabs are of equal status to one another, and the Mawali are of equal status to one another, except for a weaver or a cupper)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We take the benefits from this hadith, and afterwards, if it is proven to be invalid, its benefits are invalid.
This hadith indicates that the Arabs are of equal status to one another, even if some tribes are more noble than others. That is, if some tribes are more noble than others, the Arabs are all of equal status to one another. This benefit is derived from it.
It is also derived from this: that what some of those claiming descent from the Prophet’s family do in our present time, namely that a Hashimi man does not marry except a Hashimi woman, is a denunciation with no basis in the Shari'ah. For this reason, you find women among them remaining unmarried and young men in distress, because in their customs, a young man cannot marry anyone other than a Hashimi woman or a woman from the Prophet’s family, and young women also cannot be married to anyone other than a Hashimi or a man from the Prophet’s family. Much harm results from this, even though this claim has no basis. The family of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) undoubtedly have special characteristics, but it is not among their characteristics that they do not marry anyone, or that no one marries them. This is an error. So the apparent meaning of this hadith is that the Arabs are of equal status to one another absolutely. However, we must note what we mentioned in the introduction of the research: what is meant by equal status?
The student: Religion.
The Shaykh : Religion. So the disbelieving Arab is not of equal status to the Muslim Arab, no matter who he is, even if the disbeliever is from the People of the Book. If we assume that an Arab became a Christian and wanted to take a Muslim woman, we would say: No, that is not the case.
Here is a problem raised by some Christians. They said: Glory be to Allah, there is no justice in Islam. There is no justice in Islam. Why? They said: Because it allows its followers to marry Christian women, but it does not allow a Christian to marry a Muslim woman. Is this injustice? Yes or no?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not correct, there is no doubt. But these are their doubts that they bring up. It is said that this was raised to some of the students of knowledge, and he said: The answer to this is easy. Because the Muslim believes in Muhammad and 'Isa, and the Christian does not believe except in 'Isa. He marries a Christian woman because he believes in her messenger, and we cannot marry her to a man who does not believe in her messenger. Is that clear? This is an answer, meaning an answer to the one who walks, but it is a correct and convincing answer, meaning convincing.
Now, among the benefits of this hadith: that the Mawali are of equal status to one another. That the Mawali are of equal status to one another. Is it derived from this that the Mawla is not of equal status to the Arab? It may be derived from it, and it may not be derived from it. Listen to the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:178] And it is known that the slave is killed in retaliation for the free man, even though Allah the Exalted says: [Al-Baqarah 2:178] And if the slave killed a free man, he would be killed. Correct. If the free man killed a slave, it would be the case for many scholars that he would not be killed, even though there is disagreement on the issue. Some scholars say: If the free man kills a slave, he is killed for it. They argue with the general texts and other evidence, which, if Allah wills, will come in the chapter of retaliation.
Now, it is derived from this hadith: that the weaver is not of equal status to one who is not a weaver, due to his saying: And that the cupper is not of equal status to one who is not a cupper, due to his saying: And if we say: This hadith is weak?
The student: It has fallen.
The Shaykh : These benefits have fallen, except for what is witnessed by other texts, such as the equal status of religion, for example.
Then he said: "And it has a corroborating narration in al-Bazzar from Mu'adh ibn Jabal with a broken chain"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, and what is the benefit? A corroborating narration with a broken chain. We may say that this corroborating narration is not acceptable. Why? Because the chain is broken. The breaking of the chain. Who is this broken one? It may be from the liars, we do not know. The first one, his narrator was not named, and the second one, his chain is broken. So where is the strength of this with that? Then Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him) denounced it, either through the text or through the chain, meaning he said: It is a denounced narration.
This hadith indicates that the Arabs are of equal status to one another, even if some tribes are more noble than others. That is, if some tribes are more noble than others, the Arabs are all of equal status to one another. This benefit is derived from it.
It is also derived from this: that what some of those claiming descent from the Prophet’s family do in our present time, namely that a Hashimi man does not marry except a Hashimi woman, is a denunciation with no basis in the Shari'ah. For this reason, you find women among them remaining unmarried and young men in distress, because in their customs, a young man cannot marry anyone other than a Hashimi woman or a woman from the Prophet’s family, and young women also cannot be married to anyone other than a Hashimi or a man from the Prophet’s family. Much harm results from this, even though this claim has no basis. The family of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) undoubtedly have special characteristics, but it is not among their characteristics that they do not marry anyone, or that no one marries them. This is an error. So the apparent meaning of this hadith is that the Arabs are of equal status to one another absolutely. However, we must note what we mentioned in the introduction of the research: what is meant by equal status?
The student: Religion.
The Shaykh : Religion. So the disbelieving Arab is not of equal status to the Muslim Arab, no matter who he is, even if the disbeliever is from the People of the Book. If we assume that an Arab became a Christian and wanted to take a Muslim woman, we would say: No, that is not the case.
Here is a problem raised by some Christians. They said: Glory be to Allah, there is no justice in Islam. There is no justice in Islam. Why? They said: Because it allows its followers to marry Christian women, but it does not allow a Christian to marry a Muslim woman. Is this injustice? Yes or no?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not correct, there is no doubt. But these are their doubts that they bring up. It is said that this was raised to some of the students of knowledge, and he said: The answer to this is easy. Because the Muslim believes in Muhammad and 'Isa, and the Christian does not believe except in 'Isa. He marries a Christian woman because he believes in her messenger, and we cannot marry her to a man who does not believe in her messenger. Is that clear? This is an answer, meaning an answer to the one who walks, but it is a correct and convincing answer, meaning convincing.
Now, among the benefits of this hadith: that the Mawali are of equal status to one another. That the Mawali are of equal status to one another. Is it derived from this that the Mawla is not of equal status to the Arab? It may be derived from it, and it may not be derived from it. Listen to the saying of Allah the Exalted:
O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female
يا أيها الذين آمنوا كتب عليكم القصاص في القتلى الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثىthe free for the free, the slave for the slave
الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبدNow, it is derived from this hadith: that the weaver is not of equal status to one who is not a weaver, due to his saying:
Except a weaver
إلا حائكًاOr a cupper
أو حجامًاThe student: It has fallen.
The Shaykh : These benefits have fallen, except for what is witnessed by other texts, such as the equal status of religion, for example.
Then he said: "And it has a corroborating narration in al-Bazzar from Mu'adh ibn Jabal with a broken chain"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, and what is the benefit? A corroborating narration with a broken chain. We may say that this corroborating narration is not acceptable. Why? Because the chain is broken. The breaking of the chain. Who is this broken one? It may be from the liars, we do not know. The first one, his narrator was not named, and the second one, his chain is broken. So where is the strength of this with that? Then Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him) denounced it, either through the text or through the chain, meaning he said: It is a denounced narration.