Naseeriyyat. So even contemporaries have their -iyyāt but some today cry when it's for Alahazrat. Seems like jealousy and an inferiority complex.
for kawthariyyat: al-imam al-kawthari original works, introductory notes and annotated critical editions. https://archive.org/details/Elkawthari
if no one did it before, why should it be a problem? it only means that study of alahazrat - as a man and his works. his collected works and commentaries on his works, etc. there is nothing out of the ordinary here - such studies are done about many famous authors. the only difference is the NUMBER of people writing about alahazrat. if so many people find so many things to talk about ONE person, and present evidence for their arguments - surely, there should be something extraordinary about this man? --- such works are written by earlier scholars about prolific authors. see: az'har al-riyad fi akhbar iyad in 5 volumes: https://archive.org/details/Ayade_85 encyclopedia on abul hasan ash'ari. collection of articles by various contemporary authors in 4 volumes: mawsu'ah abul hasan al-ash'ari: https://archive.org/details/abouhassanashaari/page/n5 ---- ulama like imam bukhari, imam bayhaqi, imam nawawi etc have also received dedicated biographies apart from mention in dozens of works on tabaqat and siyar. the fact that sahih al-bukhari has multiple commentaries, glosses, abridged editions etc. - you can call it bukhariyat if you want. imam suyuti's works - collected works or his biography etc: suyutiyat. imam ibn Hajar: Hajariyat. etc. the same with fiqh works like hidayah (see my upcoming paper annotations on alahazrat's sanad in fiqh) on which there are more than 80 known works. what is in a name? that which you call rizwiyat will be as beneficial and mind-boggling, if you were to call it by any other name. ---- wa billahi't tawfiq. PS: in an older post i had said: razwiyat does not refer to alahazrat's works but works about alahazrat's life and works. well that can be extended to include alahazrat's works too as they are part of alahazrat studies. however, the opinions of alahazrat specifically, are fatawa. Allah knows best.
when ghalib and iqbal have written only a few books and mostly literary works. what about alahazrat who wrote hundreds of works, many of which are published and available (not just claims of admirers).
ghalibiyyat: https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/risala-nuqoosh-mein-zakhira-e-ghalibiyat-naeela-anjum-ebooks https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/ghalibiyat-par-teen-yadgar-taqrirein-ebooks
One person on Facebook said why have a separate branch called Rizwiyyat. No one ever did this before. Why not just call it History?
Brother ubaid in the english translation of Sayyidi Ala Hazrats (Rahmatulah Aley) Al Malfuz Al Shareef page number 108 there is a Q+A on whether it is a major or a minor sin to shave off or cut the beard very short...Our noble Mujadid replies: "To shave off completely or trim the beard very short once is a minor sin and to habitually do so is a major sin. This continuous act will make you a Fasiq al -Mu'lin (open transgressor) and the court of Shariah will reject you as a valid witness. To perform Salaah with jamaat behind such a person is forbidden and if Salaah performed, it will be incumbent to repeat that Salaah. If one does not do so one will be a great sinner." Brother Ubaid You really shouldn't put words into the mouths of others or just simply assume things...i myself have done this to my cost and insha'Allaah i'm trying to stop doing so as it's a bad character flaw.
i did not say that. as usual, you are distorting and adducing things where none exist. if you have not read or understood it yet, here is my simple and precise statement that i have been making over and over: "a person without qubza beard can be a witness for nikah". period.
thank you for making it clear that aalahazrat ahmed raza khan(r) considers a man with less than qubza or no beard as a valid witness in hudud.
they say, asking a proper question and asking it properly, is half the knowledge. i don't know if you do it deliberately, or whether you have an ingrained habit and therefore do it unconsciously, but you always throw loaded questions. and when you are not asking a loaded question, you are begging the question. many examples can be found in this thread alone. it was YOU who made the comment that ONLY alahazrat used the term fasiq mulin. and i have not made that comment and neither would i because it is unwise to make sweeping statements. see my accusation above for a proof here. anyway, YOU are making the claim; not i. and only those who have gone through all (which is impossible) or at least most (about 40 treatises for a number, some spanning 20 volumes) can make that claim. i am a beginner-student and i do not have such breadth of reading; so i would not make such a claim (except when i quote some other reputed scholar). --- you probably expect that the kinds of witnesses, the situations and conditions to be few. whereas the subject of witness is an extensive chapter. there are varying requirements for witnesses in various scenarios; and the number of witnesses also varies. there is sound usul (principles) for these reasons and they can be easily found in fiqh-supercommentaries. and then there are differences among madh'habs and intra-madh'hab along with lone-opinions. to give you an idea, the chapter on witness in al-binayah (being the sharh of hidayah) is about 100 pages. in fat'h al-qadir, is about 90 pages. for example, in fat'h al-qadir: 'imam abu hanifah rejects the witness of a miser.' [bakhil] summary of hidayah and its commentaries: "witness of people who eat in the streets is rejected" because it is undignified and against etiquette. or those (men) who wear only the lower garment (and are naked from the top). kamal ibn humam hinted (of his time) about being bare-headed is also blameworthy though he does not squarely categorize such persons as liable to be rejected witnesses. reading the hanafi/shafiyi fiqh manuals on shahadaat, one feels that their `adalah is long invalid. al-iyadhu billah, wa nastaghfirullah.
