The Methodology and Style of Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi in Jurisprudential Disagreements with Allama Ibn Abidin Shami

امام احمد رضا بریلوی کا علامہ ابنِ عابدین شامی سے فقہی اختلاف کا منہج و اسلوب

Abstract

This research article presents a scholarly analysis of the methodology and stylistic approach employed by Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi in his jurisprudential disagreements with Allama Ibn Abidin Shami, two distinguished luminaries of Hanafi Fiqh. While Allama Shami’s Radd al-Muhtar is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of Hanafi jurisprudence in the later era, Imam Ahmad Raza has offered profound critiques and disagreements in numerous instances within his marginalia Jadd al-Mumtar and his comprehensive work Fatawa Ridwiyya. This paper underscores that the disagreements of Imam Ahmad Raza are not merely superficial or peripheral but are rooted in rigorous foundational principles, linguistic precision, scientific observations, and the contextual variance of regional customs (Urf-e-Bilad). The study concludes that Imam Ahmad Raza’s critical style is highly academic, well-reasoned, and dignified, embodying profound scholarly integrity. His methodology emphasizes the centrality of primary scriptural sources (Nusus), the application of logical inference, and the meticulous correction of scholarly oversights made by later jurists. By illuminating these aspects, this research introduces the academic world to the refined ethics of disagreement and innovative research frameworks, thereby significantly enriching the intellectual heritage of Hanafi jurisprudence.

Keywords: Imam Ahmad Raza, Allama Ibn Abidin Shami, Jadd al-Mumtar, Hanafi Fiqh, Methodology of Disagreement, Jurisprudential Style, Radd al-Muhtar