In the 19th century, Punjab saw the emergence of significant Ḥadīth scholarship. Two obscure Punjabi scholars in particular produced impressive Ḥawāshī on the Sunans of Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah: the Ḥanafī M. Bārakallāh (d. 1893) and the Ahl-i Ḥadīth Jīwān 'Alawī (b. 1869).

ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Laknawī (d. 1886) was one of the most accomplished scholars of the 19th century. Beyond phenomenal memory, what helped him develop his rare polymathic skills? In his own words, simple: the Protégé Effect (aka takrār)—teaching a subject after studying it.

In the late 1800s, Shihāb al-Dīn al-Marjānī (d. 1889) had already observed that the Muṣḥaf now held in Tashkent was not an original ʿUthmānic codex—by comparing its orthography (rasm) with early historical records. Philological criticism at its finest!

Like Abul Ḥasan Sindī before him, Aḥmad ʿAlī Saharanpūrī (d. 1880) was the most prolific hadith muḥāshshī in the 19th century. Alongside critically editing texts, Saharanpūrī wrote insightful ḥawāshī on several ḥadīth compilations—read by millions of students to this day.

While Delhi is regarded as the center of ḥadīth scholarship in the subcontinent—thanks to Shāh Waliullāh—an equally vibrant hadith nexus emerged from Sindh and Gujarat (via Ḥijāz). Ṭāhir Paṭṭānī and Ḥayāt Sindī were a drop in the Indian Ocean scholarship from the 15-1850.

Here's a paper that I published on dealing with the conflict between Hadith and empirical data in the Journal of Islamic Sciences (CIS).

Interesting to see two major Mamluk-era historians disagree on the conflict between historical reports and empirical data: 1. al-Maqrīzī (d. 845 AH) defends the transmitted reports about human giants, 2. Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808 AH) rejects them as myth, privileging observation.

Suyūṭī was so offended by Qasṭallānī’s alleged plagiarism that when the latter showed up barefoot and bareheaded to make amends, Suyūṭī responded, “You’re forgiven!”… through a firmly shut door. Forgive? Sure. Forget? Tough.

Reading Siyar this morning, I came across two noteworthy tangents by Dhahabī in the entries of ʿĀṣim and Qatāda: 1. A scholar can be a specialist in one field yet a novice in another. 2. Someone with an overall strong track record should be excused for certain flaws.

Just finished a quick read of Dr. Sāʾid Bakdāsh’s new primer on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Concise, accessible, and ideal for beginning to intermediate students. A welcome contribution from a leading editor in the field. Here are a few reflections:

A manuscript's cover page is always fascinating to read thanks to the scattered notes left by the many individuals who handled it over the centuries. In a sense, it's an open scholarly canvas (a kind of intellectual graffiti wall) constantly updated with random fawāʾid.

Hadith scholars make the HCM look like child’s play. As a simple example, Imam Muslim tosses a hadith. Why? Two solid reasons: it clashes with stronger reports and its narrator stands alone pace trusted peers. Then Muslim lays out "his critical method," systematic and testable.

Imagine thinking hadith scholars needed the HCM to catch historical inconsistencies. Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī and Imām Aḥmad would’ve just called that… anachronistic.

To date, the most rigorous study on Imām al-Bukhārī’s life and the compilation of his Ṣaḥīḥ is Aḥmad al-Aqṭash’s Qiṣṣat Ḥayāt al-Bukhārī (Aḥmed ElAḳṭash أحمد الأقطش). I reviewed the book for AJIS, covering its strengths, highlights, and limitations. ajis.org/index.php/ajis…

My paper “A Tale of Two Ḥanafīs,” recently published in the Journal of Hanafi Studies, compares the intellectual legacies of Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (d. 1933) and Zāhid al-Kawtharī (d. 1952) across six disciplines. You can obtain a copy of the journal from Journal of Hanafi Studies

Just received a copy of the Maṭbaʿ-i Niẓāmī edition of Sunan al-Dārimī, the very first lithographic printing of the work published in Kanpur in 1876. Hard to wrap my head around the fact that this copy is now a century and a half old. Thanks to Uwais Namazi for the gift!

Ibn ʿAsākir’s mammoth 80 volume Tārīkh Dimashq always fascinates me. Mundhirī once said that Ibn ʿAsākir must have begun writing it once he “came to his senses” to complete it in his lifetime! Reminds me of Subkī’s comment that time-defying authorship is a miracle of the Umma!

From the six books, Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī was often preferred for its accessibility and breadth compared to the more subtle and technical Ṣaḥīḥayn, as noted by Harawī (d. 481). No wonder some scholars preferred Jāmi al-Tirmidhī as the primary teaching text for Dawrat al-ḥadīth.

The historian al-Ṣāliḥī (d. 942 AH) could not afford side-quests in writing; he had to finish his Sīrah encyclopedia, built on many borrowed books whose loan period, he hints, may already have expired. Ah, but who can resist the sweetness of side-quests?