The Ulama and Contestations on Religious Authority 217mufti’s responsa ought to be based only on works that were in fact widely avail-
able (cf. Ibn al-Humam 1970, vol. 7: 256). This meant that works on which
earlier jurists might have relied extensively could no longer be used if they were
deemed insuffi ciently accessible at a particular time or place; it also meant that,
for all his mobility and cosmopolitanism, a scholar who might have had access
to a text in one locale would not be able to invoke it in another, where it might
not be widely available. Mahmud b. Ahmad al-Bukhari (d. 1219), a Central
Asian jurist of the Hanafi school of law, had noted, in the Preface to his Muhit
al-burhani, that the legal writings of his ancestors were all in circulation, that
they were relied upon by judges and muftis and that he had compiled his own
compendium of Hanafi law in order to join their scholarly company (al-Bukhari
2003: vol. 1, pp. 22–3). Ironically, however, the Muhit itself fell out of circula-
tion, and some scholars – notably the Egyptian Hanafi jurist Ibn Nujaym (d.
1563) – disallowed fatwas with reference to it (Ibn Nujaym 1998: 291). In his
biographical dictionary of Hanafi scholars, Abd al-Hayy Laknawi, the afore-
mentioned Farangi Mahall scholar, notes that, like some others before him, he
had assumed the disallowing of fatwas on the basis of the Muhit to have been a
function of the book’s poor quality. But, having chanced upon a copy of the
manuscript, he found it to be a generally sound work. He writes:
It then became clear to me, that [Ibn Nujaym’s] interdiction of fatwas on its basis
had to do, not with the intrinsic qualities of this work or [the credentials] of its
author, but only with the fact that the book had become inaccessible. This is a
matter that varies from one age or region to another. Many a book is extinct
in one place but available in another, hard to fi nd at one time and plentiful
at another.... Consequently, if a work [like the Muhit] is found to be in wide
circulation at a particular time or place, the [earlier] ruling [concerning its
inadmissibility in fatwas] is revoked... (Laknawi 1973: 206)Although the Muhit itself did not become available in print more than a century
after the death of Abd al-Hayy, his comment may nonetheless be taken to
refl ect the dawn of an age when the technology of print as well as new means
of travel and communication had, in fact, begun to make long-forgotten works
available afresh to scholars.
Even as older commentaries are printed, notably in South Asia, Iran and
the Arab Middle East, at least some among the ulama have also continued to
produce their own, new commentaries. Major commentaries on hadith have
been written, notably, but not only, by Deobandi scholars in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries and published both in South Asia and the Arab Middle
East. One of the most ambitious of such works is the twenty-one volume Ila
al-sunan by Zafar Ahmad Uthmani (d. 1974), which seeks to elucidate hadith
reports deemed specifi cally to have a legal content and to do so in a way that
shows, against the claims of sectarian rivals, the conformity of the Hanafi school