razwīyāt

Aqdas

Aqdas

Ridawi.org
Staff member
razwiyat is the study of the life and works of alaHazrat imam ahmad rida khan barelwi. [/font]

mawlana sayyid wajahat rasul qadri has written that he first used the term in the late 80's and does not know of its use before then. the term is similar to iqbaliyat for 'allama iqbal and ghalibiyat for mirza ghalib.
 
Last edited:
there is a term only used by molana ahmed raza khan sahab 'fasiq e mulin'...brother if possible, can you please tell me if a person with no beard or shorter than qubza, according razwiyat, would he be considered a witness or a reliable witness or can that person who is fasiq e mulin become a witness in nikah? please give detailed reply if you can. jazakAllah.
 
sorry for interjecting, even though you were asking aqdas. (and posting in an entirely unrelated thread)

a term only used by molana ahmed raza khan sahab 'fasiq e mulin'.
Click to expand...
is it so?

according razwiyat,
Click to expand...
i think you missed aqdas' point. razwiyat does not mean fatawa of alahazrat - they are known as 'rulings of the shariah', or 'opinion of ahlu's sunnah'. razwiyat means STUDY OF imam ahmed raza's life.

...fasiq e mulin become a witness in nikah?
Click to expand...
yes.
 
Last edited:
yes 'fasiq e mulin' does not exist as such in other hanafi texts, if it does then please let me know. however, ..so it means that such a person cannot be a witness in shariah courts?

-----
i dont want to argue at all especially about your hadith understanding but your denial of 'dirayah' dear brother abu hasan says it all. only rijaal theory would lead one to urinate whilst standing!
 
so it means that such a person cannot be a witness in shariah courts?
Click to expand...
i have commented earlier on your comprehension and i know where this is leading. your logic is convoluted and you simply ignore anything else other than your own harp. cacofonix would be delighted to meet his match.

if you have something to say, you may please state it explicitly. do not try elaborate charades to try to sneak your opinion.

your insincerity is obvious in the misstep you have made. if you not noticed, i have answered 'YES' to the question; but it stumbled you up and you end up asking a question as if i replied 'no.'

i said: YES, a fasiq mu'lin can be a witness in nikah.

now, which part of 'YES' did you not understand?

---
yes 'fasiq e mulin' does not exist as such in other hanafi texts
Click to expand...
do you have any problem with that?
 
Last edited:
Idas would have met his match in you. however, that was just to level out the sledging match you are most fond of...

why i am asking is that credibility of a witness in shariah as far as i know depends on the witness not being a fasiq e mulin.
what i understand from your reply is that a fasiq e mulin can be a credible witness such as in cases of murder, qazaf as well as nikah.
 
however, that was just to level out the sledging match you are most fond of...
Click to expand...
yeah, everybody can see that.

why i am asking is that credibility of a witness in shariah as far as i know depends on the witness not being a fasiq e mulin.
Click to expand...
'as far as you know' is aptly put, and you have demonstrated your knowledge quite well.

what i understand from your reply is that a fasiq e mulin can be a credible witness such as in cases of murder, qazaf as well as nikah.
Click to expand...
i applaud your 'understanding' for the fluency of its imagination and the alacrity in hallucination which is pretty flabbergasting.

where did murder, qazaf come in? did i ever say it?

all i said was that a fasiq mu'lin can be a witness for a nikah. the rest you add/adduce, thanks to your outstanding understanding.
 
Last edited:
abu Hasan said:
where did murder, qazaf come in? did i ever say it?

all i said was that a fasiq mu'lin can be a witness for a nikah. the rest you add/adduce, thanks to your outstanding understanding.
Click to expand...

it is not your fault to be able to speak to the point. kuch cheezen peechay se chali aati hain.

so according to your understanding molana ahmed raza khan barelvy sahab(r)'s interpretation is that a fasiq e mulin, for example, one without qubza beard cannot be a witness in shariah court in matters of murder, qazaf. thank you allahumma zid fa zid.
 
it is not your fault to be able to speak to the point.
Click to expand...
as i said earlier, is 'YES' not to the point? or is it not the point you were looking for?

so according to your understanding molana ahmed raza khan barelvy sahab(r)'s interpretation is that a fasiq e mulin, for example, one without qubza beard cannot be a witness in shariah court in matters of murder, qazaf. thank you allahumma zid fa zid.
Click to expand...
i did not say anything except a pointed answer that a fasiq mulin can be a witness in nikah.


---
unless you answer my previous question, you will not be allowed to post anything on this forum. you need to learn some manners and discipline. there is another option: you are free to go away like many others before.

ubaid said:
yes 'fasiq e mulin' does not exist as such in other hanafi texts
Click to expand...
and i asked:
do you have any problem with that?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
it is true isn't it?
and you are mistakenly treating it as derogatory. what my concern is that with less then qubza beard means you cannot be a witness to hudud, for instance, and this is what i find problematic and not the great man himself, nauzobillah. perhaps you will be kind enough to make sense of it for all of us, if you can.
 
they say, asking a proper question and asking it properly, is half the knowledge.

it is true isn't it?
Click to expand...
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.
yes 'fasiq e mulin' does not exist as such in other hanafi texts, if it does then please let me know.
Click to expand...
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).

---
with less then qubza beard means you cannot be a witness to hudud, for instance, and this is what i find problematic
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
One person on Facebook said why have a separate branch called Rizwiyyat. No one ever did this before. Why not just call it History?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top