I am Hanafi, intrested to buy TUHFATUL AHWAAZI for research reas0n only, what can u advice me?

what is the madhab of this author?

Jazakallahu Khairan for the links provided.

The volume 5 in reality is volume 3. Therefore there are two volume 3′s. It would be nice if that could be sorted out.

Wassalaam

Nasb ar Rayah is considered a book of proofs for the Hanafis? I thought that it was simply takhrij on the hadith in Al Hidayah.

Jazak-Allah khair. This was precisely what I was looking for. If you could possibly scan the chapter of this book it would be very interesting, especially in the context of the West where students may not be able to devote themselves to full time study but still wish to read the books of hadith.

Ws

The history of lengthy hadith lectures seems to have begun with the lessons of ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri. Before him, even his own teacher, Shaykh al-Hind Mahmud al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on all of them), would suffice with short explanations and concentrate on explaining the ghara’ib. He would avoid lengthy fiqh discussions unless absolutely necessary.

The reasons behind ‘Allamah Kashmiri’s lengthy discourses have much more to do with circumstance and situation than simply the fact that his knowledge was so vast that he could fulfill the right of lengthy commentary.

However, time has shown that the format of his lectures have contributed greatly to the scholarship of the subcontinent and have helped distinguish the hadith scholarship of the subcontinent and of the Hanafi scholars from others.

Some teachers in the subcontinent, however, still suffice with a simple reading of the hadith and such was the style of the late Shaykh al-Hadith wa ‘l-Tafsir Mawlana Muhammad Na’im (may Allah have mercy on him), who graced North America with a year of hadith lessons before he passed away two years ago.

I personally believe that rigorous commentaries become more necessary only when comparative fiqh discussions do not accompany the study of Hanafi fiqh.

In my humble opinion, a good reading of Fath Bab al-’Inayah and at least a partial self-study of Nasb al-Rayah and I’la al-Sunan while studying fiqh texts makes lengthy discussions during Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud lectures unnecessary.

This allows for more concentration on the asnad, the gharib al-hadith, takhrij, mukhtalif al-hadith, mushkil al-hadith, etc…

At the same time, I do not agree with sufficing with short or partial reading of the hadith texts, as I feel that it hampers a student immensely. At least a full reading of the major books amongst the six, or a full reading of a wider collection like the Miskhat, should accompany one’s studies.

You might want to take a look at Shaykh Manazir Ahsan Gilani’s book on the curriculum of Islamic studies in the subcontinent, particularly the chapter on how hadith was taught pre-’Allamah Kashmiri, i.e. Shah Waliullah’s methods, etc…

Bilal

What I meant was that in the past perhaps the study of the six books of hadith might have taken place at quicker pace. The large well known commentaries are known, however was the actual method of teaching less rigorous but with a focus on making sure the copies the students had were accurate?

Looking through the accounts of some hadith scholars ijazat, some of them appear to have read the books of hadith in a short space of time, which would indicate that there was not much commentary involved.

Likewise I have been told that Shaykh al-Ahdal in Sana when teaching the books of hadith comments here and there as opposed to a rigorous Sharh.

Ws

Reflecting on the madhabi slant to teaching one can see that the detailed commentaries

I believe that both the tradition of hadith commentaries (shuruh) and the tradition of writing marginal notes (hawashi) ran parallel to each other. The first significant work on any hadith collection was Khattabi’s Ma’alim al-Sunan. This work is considered more of a commentary than a hashiyah.

Amongst the many causes for the emergence of such a large amount of voluminous commentaries from the Indian subcontinent was the need to prove the validity of the Hanafi body of rulings through hadith proofs. This, in addition to the effect of the Shah Waliyullahi tradition of concentration on the Qur’an and Hadith, Islam’s primary source texts, led to a shift from a satisfaction with shorter marginal notes and occasional discussion to more detailed and referenced commentary.

Additionally, many of the hashiyahs on hadith books were compiled as aides for the reading of the hadith books. They could easily be included in the margins of the actual texts and therefore were easily accessible to the average student of hadith.

Lastly, many hashiyahs were compiled from lecture notes and therefore were not meant to be thorough. They simply reflected the style of teaching hadith employed by that particular hadith master.

This tradition of collecting the amali and making them into hashiyahs upon a hadith text continues even today and was the original cause for the compilation of Ma’arif al-Sunan, as the author felt that ‘Allamah Kashmiri’s amali entitled “‘Arf al-Shazi” required more clarification than was provided in the short amount of wording of the book. Therefore, he explained the meanings of “‘Arf al-Shazi” thoroughly through “Ma’arif al-Sunan”.

Bilal

Jazaks for the clarification. I had purchased the Maarif a few years back and when flicking through it was looking for a full critique of the Tuhfa, which as you mention it is not written as, despite it referring to it at some points. I gave my edition to someone in Madrassa so this download is welcome.

Also related to Hadith commentaries generally, was it not the tradition of the ulema to mainly narrate the books with brief comments here and there? I am asking this based on some briefish taqarir notes published on hadith works, coupled with other factors such as some ulema in the Middle East still teaching in this manner.