Enlightenment in the birth of the luminous lamp and the bearer of good news and warning

Enlightenment in the birth of the luminous lamp and the herald of good news Dar Fares The scholar Ibn Dihya (died 633 AH) arrived in Irbil and this coincided with the birthday of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, so he authored this beautiful book, and dedicated it to its king. It is a precious book on the noble biography, beginning with the noble lineage, then he elaborated on many incidents of the biography, its events, and the states of its owner, peace be upon him. He filled it with various benefits in different sciences, in language, genealogy, tafsir, hadith, jurisprudence, fundamentals, and others. So the book came enjoyable and not tiresome, to transfer among knowledge, and its good presentation for the refined and noble humor. Among them, for example: - The origin of derivation in the year (p.143). - Narration of reports about the description of the seal of prophecy (p.285), which are fifteen reports, and he said “none collected them but me.” - His transfer (p.296) that the gifts of the Prophet ﷺ to the people on Hunain gathered and estimated at 500 thousand thousand; that is: 500 million [and I do not know whether the estimate is in dinar or dirham], Ibn Dihya said: “And this is the end of generosity that has not been heard of its like in existence.” - He transferred benefits he heard from Al-Suhayli in his mosque in Malaga (p.343). - Mentioned 50 benefits of secrets and wisdoms in the Isra and Miraj (p.410-421). - Mentioned the saying of Abu Bakr “So I drank until I was pleased” and not “I watered” as in common publications (p.437). And from the fine points of the biography he mentioned — and which are also mentioned in others — that صلى الله عليه وسلم used to name his belongings, weapons, and mounts with names. And this is a sweet meaning. He named his she-camel Al-Qaswa, his mule Daldal, his donkey A’four, his armor with Al-Fudul, his spear Al-Nab’aa, his horse Al-Sakib, his saddle Rukwa, and similar things found in extensive biographical works. I looked in some books to see the reason for these names, and I found that it was a custom of the Arabs, and their purpose was to achieve differentiation so that if someone asked for his mount by name, he would recognize it among his other mounts. Now, it may be strange to name some personal or household belongings with names, and this may be related to the change in personal relationship with tools and household furniture in later times after the industrial revolution, as pointed out by the German sociologist Georg Simmel (died 1918). He sees that the effort made in making, decorating, and exclusive personal use of an item makes it part of the person himself or almost. He indicates the extreme difficulty in buying used handmade manufactured items among natural or “primitive” tribes and peoples, because they acquire a special intimacy due to the nature of self-production. Therefore, furniture is no longer locally made or produced but personal, which weakens the individual’s relationship with it. This is the first sign of change in the relationship with furniture and household tools. The second sign appears in the rapid change of furniture and tools due to the new form of capitalist consumption. The furniture that a child experiences does not remain until he grows up but changes repeatedly. The relationship is hardly built with the “thing” for the individual, let alone generations as before. The third sign manifests in the increase and proliferation of tools themselves in an unprecedented manner. It is clear that the abundance of “things in the house” weakens the formation of a close relationship with them and disperses them. Simmel explains the complaints of housewives at that time — that is, in the first quarter of the twentieth century — about the heaviness and misery of household chores, as returning to the objective separation from the many manufactured objects piled inside the house, which burden the burden of caring for and attending to them. Meanwhile, the old nurturing activity of the wife was more exhausting and comprehensive; but wives did not feel this degree of misery because the work and objects were stable and linked to the personality for generations or decades. This emotional distancing or separation from “household objects” also perhaps explains the phenomenon of excessive concern with minute details in daily household matters, which implicitly seeks to create this intimate connection with “things” that are manufactured.