Badiʿal-Din al-Sindi's critique of Zafar Ahmad al-Thanawi: A study in the context of Naqd Qawaʿid fi ʿUlum al-Hadith

The division between Ahl al-Raʾy (the People of Reason) and Ahl al-Hadith (the People of Tradition), which has persisted since the era of the Companions (Sahāba), is one of the factors that has prepared the ground for the writing of polemical works throughout the history of Islamic sciences. The Hanafis, who, like other schools of jurisprudence (fiqh), approach hadiths based on their applicability in practice, have traditionally addressed the methodologies for establishing hadith/sunnah within the "Sunnah" chapters of their books on the principles of jurisprudence (uṣūl al-fiqh), rather than in separate works on the principles of hadith. With the revival of Salafi thought in the modern era, the connection of the legal schools (madhhabs) to the Qur'an and Sunnah became a subject of debate once again. In this context, Salafi thought called upon Muslims to return directly to the "Qur'an and Sunnah," alleging that many of the rulings of the madhhabs contradicted the primary texts (nass). This call targeted the Māturīdī and Ashʿarī schools in matters of creed (ʿaqīdah) and, in jurisprudence, the Hanafi school in particular. In response to this anti-madhhab stance, Hanafi scholars felt the need to author independent works on their principles (uṣūl) to demonstrate the school's approach to hadith/sunnah. In this context, Qawāʿid fī ʿulūmi'l-ḥadīth, authored by the 20th-century Hanafi scholar from the Indian subcontinent, Zafar Aḥmad al-Tāhanawī, can be considered one of the first examples in the literature on Hanafi hadith/sunnah methodology. Due to this pioneering role, the work garnered significant attention and also became a target of criticism from Salafi scholars. The only standalone work written in response to it is a refutation titled Naqẓu Qawāʿid fī ʿulūmi'l-ḥadīth by Badīʿ al-Dīn al-Sindī, a scholar of Salafi orientation, also from the Indian subcontinent. This research focuses on the criticisms directed by al-Sindī at al-Tāhanawī in his Naqẓ, revealing the nature of the critiques faced by the first independent text on the Hanafi methodology for establishing hadith/sunnah. Within the scope of this study, Badīʿ al-Dīn al-Sindī, the author of these criticisms about whom no information exists in Turkish literature, is introduced. His critiques are evaluated, and this assessment provides, to a certain extent, an insight into his scholarly standing and methodology. Based on al-Sindī's criticisms, it is concluded that he leaned towards Zahirism, that despite his extensive knowledge, he was unable to process this knowledge systematically, and that his critiques were largely insufficient in conclusively refuting his opponent. Therefore, it can be argued that the al-Sindī–al-Tāhanawī debate is of a lesser quality compared to other contemporary Ahl al-Raʾy – Ahl al-Hadith polemics, such as those between al-Ghumārī and al-Kawtharī, and al-Muʿallimī and al-Kawtharī.