Ramin Golmakani; sayyed Ali Delbari; mahmoud moqaddas sharq
Abstract
Among the Islamic traditions, there are narrations of great renown and profound theological, philosophical, and mystical significance that, with minor variations in wording, have been ...
Read More
Among the Islamic traditions, there are narrations of great renown and profound theological, philosophical, and mystical significance that, with minor variations in wording, have been transmitted in various Ḥadīth, theological, mystical, and even jurisprudential sources, and have always been a subject of reflection and debate. One such famous Qudsī Ḥadīth states: “I have never hesitated in any of My actions, except in taking the soul and death of the believing servant, for he dislikes death, and I do not approve of causing him distress and discomfort.” This Ḥadīth has been transmitted both independently and within the well‑known traditions of “the nearness through supererogatory acts” (Qurb al‑Nawāfil) and “the nearness through obligatory acts” (Qurb al‑Farāʾiḍ), as well as in certain supplications. The main objective of this research is a comparative study of the views of traditionists (Muḥaddithīn), jurists (Fuqahā), theologians (Mutakallimīn), philosophers (Falāsafah), and mystics (ʿurafā) regarding the interpretation of the meaning of divine hesitation in this narration. Employing a descriptive‑analytical method, this research evaluates the authenticity of the chain of transmission and the textual indications of the Ḥadīth, and examines the various opinions. The findings indicate that by preserving the apparent wording of the Ḥadīth and drawing upon philosophical and mystical principles, a reasonable interpretation of this narration can be obtained that does not conflict with the views of traditionists and jurists.
