In 1330 AH, Rashid Rida (1865–1935) of Egypt, a leading scholar and jurist of his generation, visited India. He went to Dar al-‘Uloom Deoband, where a reception was held in his honour. On this occasion, he asked one of the teachers about the method of teaching Hadith there. He was told that when a Hadith is taught, the muhaddith first explains its scholarly points. If, at first glance, the Hadith appears contrary to the school of Imam Abu Hanifah, the Hanafi muhaddith then establishes its conformity with the Hanafi school. When Rashid Rida asked whether this was done with all Hadiths, he was told that it was done consistently. He found this very strange. According to the narration of Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Binnori (1908–1977), he said: Halil-hadithu Hanafiyyun, wa kayfa yumkinu dhalik, wa hal hadha illa ‘asabiyyatun ma laha min sultan—“Is the Hadith also Hanafi? How can that be? Is this not merely partisanship, for which there is no authority?”
At that time, Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri (1875–1934) was a teacher of Hadith at Dar al-‘Uloom. When this reached him, he made it the subject of his reception speech and “proved” that all Hadiths are in accordance with Hanafi jurisprudence (Nafhat al-‘Anbar, pp. 70–71).
However, towards the end of his life, Anwar Shah Kashmiri realized the weakness of this method of teaching. His student, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi‘ (1897–1976), narrates that Maulana Kashmiri said to him:
“The summary of all our efforts and struggles has been that we tried to establish the superiority of Hanafism over other schools… but what has been gained from this? Nothing, except that, at best, we prove our own school to be sawab muhtamil al-khata (a correct view with the possibility of error), and we describe the other school as khata muhtamil al-sawab (an incorrect view with the possibility of being correct). After all our research and effort, we can only say that this is correct, yet there remains the possibility it is wrong; and that is wrong, yet with the possibility that it is correct. In the grave, Munkar and Nakir will not ask whether raising the hands was right or not, whether saying Amin aloud was right or saying it quietly was right… Those things which will neither be refined in this world nor matter in the Hereafter—by pursuing them we have wasted our lives. And the true call of Islam, the call with which the prophets came… that call is not being given today… we are engaged in these subsidiary debates.”
(Wahdat-e-Ummat by Mufti Muhammad Shafi‘, Lahore, 1997, pp. 13–15; quoted from Tajdid-e-Din)
