Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bibliography' started by Umar99, May 25, 2021.
i showed this to a mufti sahib, who opines that this particular line cannot be alahazrat's writing. so it is moot.
however, he concedes that the main text is in alahazrat's hand.
[in the screenshot below, the main text is alahazrat's, the line on the margin is unconfirmed]
another interesting note
alahazrat probably considered naming husam al haramayn as:
Husam al-Haram al-ameen ala riqab al-kafirin
but on some pages in the next copy - for example see p35 of the MS alahazrat has written the 'latest' hawashi. these are annotations in jotted in madinah,
any history about this MS (obviously there are two MSs here; one is alahazrat's own hand - another fair copy)
that is correct.
starting from p26 is in the hand of shaykh husayn ibn abdul qadir tarabulsi, as noted by the scribe.
upon further research, he is not the son of shaykh abdul qadir tawfiq shalbi tarablusi, the 34th signatory of husam al-haramayn, who passed away in 1369 AH - 29 years after alahazrat.
the scribe mentions that his father has passed away, HOWEVER, he prays for the long life of the author, (i.e. alahazrat) in the last lines.
obviously these are two different scholars - besides, alahazrat notes that the signatory on husam, sh. abdul qadir tawfiq shalbi was a young man (born in 1295 AH, he would be 28 years old at the time of husam al-haramayn/dulah makkiyyah in 1323 AH).
am i correct in understanding the first part in the dark brown is the work of alahazrat and the latter part is by a later scribe?
on page 18, alahazrat has not finalised the name 'al-duulatu'l makkiyah'. he is calculating the abjad
in "who is alahazrat", i wanted to expound on the name of the book - and the background of the book, but since it was a bit lengthy and wouldn't fit in a footnote, i decided to move it to TKM and since it would also explain why dawlah/duulah was written. i had an unfinished footnote in TKM and in the final editing, it was removed.
anyway, i will try to make amends in updates to who-is and TKM. in sha'Allah.
while alahazrat seems to have decided on the final name above, as the abjad adds up (and we know that it was the final name), you can notice that he has considered a slightly different name, which was most certainly altered because of the abjad not adding up to 1323
secondly it is confirmed that alahazrat meant it to be "duulah".
previously considered name: al-dulatu'l makkiyyah
here is a brief update (i am not able to find the original notes i had made)
the name دولة : according to ibn sidah, jawhari, ibn manzur, raghib, fayruzabadi, zabidi and other major lexicographers, the word can be read both as dawlah and duulah.
it means ghalabah, dominion, power, authority, or by what it implies "the state".
it is also said that duulah is a noun, that can be physically 'handed over' [mutadawalah] and dawlah is a verb.
dawlah/dulah is the turning over of circumstances [inqilab al-zaman] by which a desperate situation, a precarious condition is converted into one of exultation [ ghibtah - one that causes envy; i.e., beneficial and jubilant] and one of happiness and bliss. as it is said in in taj al-arus:
الــدَّوْلَةُ: انقِلابُ الزَّمان مِن حالِ البُؤسِ والضُّرِّ إِلَى حَال الغِبطَة والسُّرور
if it is said about a war/contest, when one side turns the tables on the other [from an impending defeat to a victory].
thus dawlah also means victory.
duulah used in the qur'an as - exchange of monies, wealth [literally - wealth changing hands]
surah al-hashr, 59:7
كَيْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الْأَغْنِيَاءِ مِنكُمْ
other considerations for translations of al-Dulat al-Makkiyyah are:
if you have read the background of the circumstances, (see malfuzat), you will immediately correlate with all the above.
yes this is alahazrat's own handwriting - besides the corrections etc, clearly indicate that they are the original, first draft.
ma sha'Allah! excellent job.
try finding sultanat e mustafa now...
Dawlatu'l Makkiyah manuscript. Is this the handwriting of Alahazrat?