As a side note, the “wa muslimah” addition is also in Kashf al-Mahjub, but as Shaykh said, it’s not mentioned in primary Hadith texts
however, in secondary sources, it has been narrated thus - such as zarnuji's "ta'lim al-muta'llim" --- even though i have not seen the additional word "wa muslimah" in hadith narrations. ibn abdu'l barr included most routes (if not all) of this narration including weak, but the word "wa muslimah" is not part of the hadith. even though the meaning is correct. sakahwi in maqaSid al-hasanah says the same: under hadith #660 alahazrat has also mentioned this in fatawa ridawiyyah [as pointed out by @HASSAN ] --- from fawatih rahmut 1/53: === my point was: these are harmless errors, and oversight happens by all authors; zameel in his jealousy and hatred picks up on such things and highlights as if the sky has fallen, all the while ignoring blunders committed in interpretation and aqidah.
nanotvi in his tahzirun naas cited the the hadith as: كنت نبيا وآدم بين الماء والطين while ulama have used this phrase in the opening lines of a fatwa or a book, but citing it explicitly as a hadith? [hint: this hadith is not narrated in this wording, even though the meaning is correct.] [note: apart from the issue of inference in this whole para where tries to prove that the attribute of nubuwwah is intrinsic for our Master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and extraneous for other prophets, which the dajjal qadiyani latched on to and claimed to be a buruuzi nabi].
thanawi in his bihishti zeywar, cites the hadith as: طلب العلم فريضة على كل مسلم ومسلمة imagine if a sunni alim ever made such a mistake! zameel would lose his mind and bark as if he were bitten by a rabid dog. does the hadith narration has "wa muslimah"?
question khatm of bukhari in times of distress is bid'at or not? according to gangohi - bukhari was not written in the first three centuries. imam bukhari passed away in 256 AH. and bukhari was written approximately fifty years after the passing of imam bukhari - i.e. post 300 AH. imagine the hell zameel would raise if any prominent sunni aalim would have said that! regardless, its khatm is valid and doing dua is accepted because it has roots in the shariah, so it is not bid'ah. wah gangohi ji kay tafaqquh ka jawaab nahin! p11 of andhay ka fatawa
perhaps we need to show the mirror to the khisyani billi / polluting puppy on the "level" of ignorance and obduracy of his devbandi elders. their blind guide (andha rashid) - jo mar kar mitti mein milgaya. this pipsqueak of a zameel whines that sunni ulama differ from shah abdul aziz - whereas neither ismayil nor his minions cared for shah abdul aziz dihlawi. justification for the titles i have used for the blind gangohi. 1. gangohi said: "all masayil in tafwiyatu'l iman are correct" 2. tafwiyatul iman says: "whoever it is - respect them only as much as elder brother, and be even brief" 3. that gangohi was blind is a fact; blind to haqq is obvious. there is no harm in stating the fact. andhaa rashid. 4. in the same accursed book of ismayil paleed - "main bhi mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon" referring to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. so devbandis should not feel offended if we describe their tawagheet in such words. 5. anyways, someone asked rashid gangohi that ismayil went against shah abdul azeez dihlawi. 6. the cunning blind mufti simply ignored that part - meaning he implicitly approved this. in other words, the filthy maulvi ismayil can explicitly go against shah abdul aziz dihlawi, but he is not against the manhaj of shah abdul aziz, but shah abdul aziz 'approved' of a book, which is against some masayil of ahl al-sunnah, which even shah abdul aziz dihlawi holds! yet those who reject that "approved" book are against manhaj of shah abdul aziz. according to zameel shah abdul aziz is against the manhaj of shah abdul aziz. truly, shameless and witless - zameel devbandi. fatawa rashidiyah, old, p.63-64. ==== see rashid ahmad gangohi did not know the aqayid of muhammad ibn abdul wahab here. but in another place he says the aqayid of muhammad ibn abdul wahab and his followers were "umdah" / excellent.
it's my humble opinion that Fatawa Ridawiyyah, if translated from cover to cover in Arabic - it will 1) establish its status as the natural successor to Fatawa Alamgiri/Hindiyya to the non-desis; and be universally accepted as a genuine and reliable work of Hanafi fiqh just as Alamgiri is; 2) serve as a great exposition to the Arab and non-desi world about the caliber of Ala Hazrat vs the devbandis; and with ZERO active refutation of devbandis, will show real scholars and students of knowledge (non-desis) what is genuine scholarship and what is shallow, shoddy and fake scholarship. 3) in fact, i'd go as far as saying it will even aid many sincere and honest to themselves students of knowledge in abandoning the devbandi path and becoming Sunnis
just because bihishti zeywar was mentioned - allamah hashmat ali wrote a four volume critique on the mistakes in bihishti zeywar: islah e bihishti zeywar https://archive.org/details/islah-bahishti-zewar/page/n191/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/islah-b...parts-by-allama-hashmat-ali-khan-lakhnavi-r.a.
many of alahazrat's works on have no arabic equivalent. bahar e shariat is also another work that has no arabic equivalent in hanafi fiqh. some people foolishly assume that bahar e shariat is similar to bihishti zeywar, even though it cannot be compared to sadru'sh sharia's work in any way. while the former is a standard manual of hanafi fiqh and a ready reference for mufta bih masayil organised in the fashion of traditional fiqh text books, the latter is a hotch potch of masayil, musings, advice, stories and a manual of diseases and treatments. thanavi's BZ is a collection of masayil ostensibly aimed towards women, and given that age - mostly homemakers. it is definitely not a reference for scholars, as there is no comprehensive treatment of masayil. there is no order and there is repetition across volumes. in vol.11, thanvi sahib thought of adding masayil that are of concern to men complementing earlier volumes (written for women), so it is as a series of addendums and appendices titled "bihishti gauhar". on top of it, there are topics discussed there which have no place in fiqh works - such as: how to make pickles and recipes for syrups, juices and quack remedies, advice on housekeeping like "how to preserve meat". in later volumes strays into advice on eating habits, etc. BZ vol.9 is all about diseases and treatments. even though thanawi was just echoing the practice of that time, he has some very strange and quack remedies on how to increase penis size and fertility treatments in vol.11 (continuation of vol.9 treatments and medical advice). advice on treatment for loss of libido starts at p.126 (old edition of 1914) goes on to p.136. there is one such treatment on using fat of a frog - and the frog should be an aquatic frog. ---- Allah ta'ala knows best.
@abu Hasan in your opinion are there any books in Urdu (or any other language) which have no Arabic equivalents?
