Hadith Notes

Seyfeddin Kara makes a strong point here. The level of hyper-skepticism directed at the hadith tradition rests on limited and overgeneralized evidence and would be scoffed at in almost any other field of history.

Had a great conversation with Dr. Sadeq a few weeks ago on some hadith related topics. Sharing the link here for anyone interested (the audio quality is poor): https://youtu.be/s47iYd87BZw

My book on Mawlānā Ahmad ʿAlī Sahāranpūrī and his contributions to Hadith literature will be available at the upcoming Cairo Book Fair.

Sh. Hamzah Bakri explains the actual role of Mustalah al-Hadith. This is an underrated point that, once you get it, everything falls into place. Mustalah books were always meant as a starting point, leading to real work with hadith: takhrij, tashih, taʿlil, ilm al-rijal, etc. It always struck me how many students spend years going through Muqaddimat Ibn al-Salah/Nuzhah with endless hawashi and nukat, but never move on to actual practice. This also answers the common complaint that Mustalah is too abstract to matter. It was never meant to give the main tools. In that sense (carefully put), it’s like usul al-fiqh in respect to fiqh and iftaʾ.

Ibn Ḥajar gives a thoughtful reply to Abū Shāmah, who suggested that there was no longer any need to study the process of taṣḥīḥ since enough authoritative books had already been written. Ibn Ḥajar’s point is that access to books does not equal expertise. Even having vast libraries (or modern tools like digital databases or AI) doesn’t by itself make someone capable of sorting, weighing, and understanding the material in a meaningful way. Tools can assist, but they don’t replace trained judgment.

Here's the PDF of the paper for those who've been asking.

My latest paper, which reconstructs a lost recension of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, has just been published in the Journal of Islamic Studies (Oxford University Press). It is available here: https://academic.oup.com/jis/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jis/etaf050/8416463?redirectedFrom=fulltext

There’s been a lot of back and forth between Ahmad Aqtash and critics of his book on the life of Imam Bukhari (I’ll share my earlier review of his book here). One of his recent responses has a lot of benefit. Interestingly, I was told by teachers that some of the most useful insights from a scholar come out in polemical exchanges, when they’re really pushed to the wall and forced to draw on everything they know. One point I especially liked in the recent response: historical reports transmitted by unknown figures shouldn’t be dismissed outright, as long as the incident itself isn’t far-fetched.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mentions a strange dream he had after once admitting that he wished he were a Hanafi. The whole episode is honestly kind of funny, but it also says a lot. Ibn Hajar was clearly impressed by how consistent the Hanafi school is in its usul and furuʿ.