Beyond Verification: Hadith Sciences, Sufi Historiography, and Epistemic Pluralism in Early Modern Islam

This paper argues that hadith sciences in early modern Islamic thought were more than mechanisms of textual verification; they served as dynamic tools for negotiating epistemic authority and historical plausibility within competing religious and intellectual traditions. By analyzing a significant eighteenth-century debate between two prominent South Asian scholars— Shāh Walī Allāh (d.1762), a distinguished Islamic scholar affiliated with the Naqshbandī Sufi order, renowned for his expertise in Hadith studies, Islamic jurisprudence, and theology , and Fakhr al-Dīn Dehlavī (d.1783), an influential Chishtī Sufi master and accomplished muḥaddith, recognized for his contributions to Hadith scholarship and Sufi practices—this study demonstrates how hadith criticism functioned as a critical site through which broader questions of historical authenticity, spiritual lineage, and religious legitimacy were actively negotiated.

The paper foregrounds their debate surrounding the historical connection between the early ascetic Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 728) and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 661), a lineage central to Chishtī Sufi identity and widely significant within multiple Sufi traditions, including various branches of the Qādirī, Suhrawardī, and Shādhilī orders, but particularly pivotal in shaping Chishtī genealogical claims and self-understanding.While Shāh Walī Allāh ultimately rejected the historical plausibility of the Baṣrī–ʿAlī connection on the basis of rigorous isnād criticism, his position should not be read simply as a dismissal of Sufi genealogical traditions. Rather, his intervention reflected a nuanced intellectual stance wherein the verification standards of hadith sciences served as a crucial epistemic benchmark, even as he himself remained deeply invested in inherited spiritual lineages and mystical authority, as demonstrated extensively across his scholarly corpus. Indeed, several of his writings affirm his profound commitment to Sufi genealogies, spiritual transmission, and inherited mystical authority. Walī Allāh’s critique was thus embedded within a broader intellectual framework seeking to reconcile the emergent epistemological primacy of textual authenticity with longstanding commitments to inherited spiritual traditions and the legitimacy of Sufi affiliation.

In contrast, Fakhr al-Dīn Dehlavī responded to Walī Allāh’s critique by mobilizing the very methodological principles of hadith criticism that underpinned his contemporary’s rejection, employing rigorous isnād-analysis and textual argumentation not simply as defensive measures, but as sophisticated hermeneutic strategies. Fakhr al-Dīn’s response highlighted the inherent interpretive elasticity within classical hadith sciences themselves, underscoring that epistemic rigor and methodological scrutiny could yield divergent yet equally viable historical conclusions. Crucially, his work suggests that hadith criticism need not be viewed solely through a lens of exclusion or restriction; rather, it could serve as an intellectually fertile ground enabling Sufi scholars to actively negotiate, refine, and reaffirm inherited genealogical traditions. Thus, Fakhr al-Dīn demonstrated that rigorous hadith methodologies, far from undermining mystical authority, could be creatively mobilized to articulate alternative epistemic possibilities, reaffirming Sufi lineages while simultaneously engaging with—and at times challenging—the emergent norms of textual authenticity.

This argument is significant because it challenges dominant scholarly paradigms that frame hadith criticism strictly within a legalistic or exclusionary logic. Instead, this study reveals that early modern Islamic scholars navigated complex epistemological landscapes where hadith sciences functioned as adaptable frameworks, capable of both affirming and critically evaluating historical claims. Focusing on the engagements of Shāh Walī Allāh and Fakhr al-Dīn with hadith methodologies, this paper examines how their intellectual projects were shaped by, and in turn reshaped, the evolving contours of epistemic authority, interpretive practice, and scholarly negotiation. Rather than treating hadith criticism as a static instrument of authentication, this study foregrounds its role as an intellectual modality—one that functioned as a site of critical reasoning, methodological contestation, and the reconfiguration of inherited traditions. By reframing hadith sciences as a site where competing claims to religious and historiographical authority were actively adjudicated, this study expands our understanding of the mechanisms through which early modern Sufis engaged with and shaped broader epistemic structures.

By integrating recent scholarship in Islamic intellectual history—including Ahmad Dallal’s (2019) exploration of knowledge production in early modern Islam, SherAli Tareen’s (2020) examination of reformist intellectual discourses, and Shahzad Bashir’s (2021) work on Sufi historiographical practices—this paper positions hadith criticism as a crucial yet underappreciated site of epistemic negotiation within Sufi historiography, emphasizing its role in the articulation and contestation of intellectual and religious identities.

Ultimately, this paper contributes to the field by proposing a nuanced historiographical framework that emphasizes the active role of hadith scholarship as an epistemic practice shaping historical memory, spiritual legitimacy, and intellectual pluralism in early modern Islamic thought. Through this analysis, the study demonstrates that hadith criticism was not merely a technical exercise in authentication but a crucial arena where Sufi scholars strategically navigated the politics of spiritual lineage. By mobilizing isnād-verification, they not only legitimized or contested genealogies of knowledge but also asserted their place within the shifting intellectual and religious currents of early modern Islamic thought. This paper, therefore, repositions hadith sciences as a dynamic site of scholarly negotiation, where competing claims to tradition, authority, and spiritual legitimacy were contested, refined, and reconfigured in response to shifting historiographical and epistemic demands.