A Comparative Study of the Methodologies of ‘Ma‘arif al-Sunan’ and ‘Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi’ in Resolving Mukhtalif al-Hadith

Abstract

This study offers a comparative analysis of the methodologies employed by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Mubārakpūrī in Tuḥfat al-Aḥwadhī and Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Bannūrī in Maʿārif al-Sunan for addressing Mukhtalif al-Ḥadīth, particularly the apparent conflicts among Prophetic traditions in Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī. It examines the principles of jamʿ wa al-tawfīq (reconciliation), naskh (abrogation), and tarjīḥ (preference), with particular attention to the evidentiary criteria employed by both commentators. The study demonstrates that al-Mubārakpūrī predominantly follows the methodology of the hadith scholars, emphasizing isnād criticism, jarḥ wa-taʿdīl, narrator reliability, transmission routes, and the apparent meanings of the texts. Al-Bannūrī, by contrast, generally adopts a juristic and uṣūlī approach, seeking to reconcile apparently conflicting reports through contextual interpretation, specification, qualification, and consideration of juristic principles and established practice. The study further investigates the extent to which the intellectual and juridical orientations of the two scholars shape their interpretive choices and methods of resolving textual tensions. The findings indicate that, although the two commentaries employ different methodological emphases, they contribute complementary perspectives to the study of conflicting traditions: one foregrounds isnād-based hadith criticism, while the other gives greater prominence to textual, contextual, and juristic analysis. The study thus highlights the methodological diversity within the scholarly tradition of hadith commentary in the Indian subcontinent.

Keywords: Mukhtalif al-Ḥadīth; Tuḥfat al-Aḥwadhī; Maʿārif al-Sunan; Hadith Methodology; Comparative Analysis