Or Alternatively click on the following: Siddiq Hassan Khan Part 1
Or Alternatively click on the following: Siddiq Hassan Khan Part 2
From the fundamental principles of the Madhab of the Ahlul-Hadith is to reject blind-following (التقليد) anybody in the issues of the Deen regardless of whether that scholar be an Imam or a great scholar of the Ahlul-Hadith.
It is for this reason that the Ahlul-Hadith can easily profess without any hesitation that on a certain issue Sheikul-Islam Nadheer Hussain Dehlawee (d.1902) or Allamah Siddiq Hasan Khan (d.1890) may have made a mistake or been wrong. It is from their methodology to refute the mistake and preserve the honor with Islamic etiquettes.
The Madhab of the Ahlul-Hadith has no room for bigoted partisanship towards any particular person. We understand no human being is infallible. Full allegiance is only to Allah and His Messenger.
On the other hand, we have the Hanafees who are split into two groups in today’s era, the Deobandis and Barailwees. These two groups are always striving to refute and attack the Ahlul-Hadith without proper etiquettes. When it comes to their own Hanafee scholars then their mistakes are defended and given the strangest of explanations. Even if that Hanafee was a Mutazilee in Aqeedah, due to the fact he was Hanafi in Fiqh they will defend him.
A just person can see the contrast between the Ahlul-Hadith and the advocates of the Hanafee Madhab and can easily distinguish between those who adhere to their scholars by blind following them in everything, and following their whims and desires, and those who adhere to following the truth based upon evidence without being prejudice and not accepting the mistakes of their scholars. Historical facts and books of Fiqh have hundreds of examples of this.
For example, Maulana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi Deobandi (d.1905) uses to say many times: ‘Listen carefully! The truth is only what is uttered by the tongue of Rasheed Ahmad, and I swear that I am nothing, but in this age, guidance and success is dependent upon my Ittiba (following). ()
Ahmed Raza Khan Barailwee (d. 1921) uttered the followings words two hours and seventeen minutes before he died ‘My sons, I request you that my religion is that which is in my books, and to follow that is the greatest obligation of all the major obligations… ()
I ask, if the truth is restricted upon the tongue of Maulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, and the greatest obligation is to restrict yourself by following the books of Ahmed Raza Khan, if this is not considered fanatic blind following then what is? Where does Imam Abu Haneefah fit in all this? What about blindly following Imam Abu Haneefah absolutely as claimed?
When contemplating over the current situation, at times I considered that this was a new propaganda started by the current advocates of the Hanafee Madhab, the Deobandis & Barailwees of this time, which is to tarnish attack and speak against the Ahlul-Hadith and their scholars with the aim of belittling them and no knowledge and academic based arguments and discussions.
However, the reality was something different, after research, it became transparent that these two groups from their predecessors inherited this methodology. A famous Arabic saying comes to my mind:
لكل قوم وارث
‘Every single kind of people leave behind successors to continue their work and mission.’
Sheikh Abul-Hasanat Abdul-Hay Lucknowi (d.1886) who is known as the Imam of the Hanafi Fiqh in the Indian sub-continent of his time and was a contemporary of Allamah Sayyid Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan (1248-1307 AH). It saddens me to say that Sheikh Abdul-Hay Lucknowi made it his objective to defame and attack the great Ahlul-Hadith scholar Sayyid Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan. It was as though that Sheikh Abdul-Hay made it his mission to search for the mistakes of Sayyid Nawab Siddiq Hasn Khan and ridicule him.
When we look at Sheikh Abdul-Hay Lucknowi’s peers and predecessors, some of the Hanafi Jurists, who would go to the extent of quoting fabricated Hadith, and making major errors in Fiqh and its rulings, Sheikh Abdul-Hay Lucknowi would give them the benefit of doubt and make excuses for them by saying that they were jurists and not scholars of Hadith, hence could not distinguish fabricated narrations, or their stance would be interpreted in a manner that they could be excused of their error.
However, when it came to Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan making mistakes, Sheikh Abdul-Hay Lucknowi did not adopt the same methodology he adopted for his predecessors, rather he ridiculed Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan and constantly tried to give the impression that Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan was a Jaahil (ignorant). In reality, Sheikh Abdul Hay Lucknowi attacked Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan because of his animosity towards the Ahlul-Hadith of the Indian sub-continent.
Without being biased to Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, it could be argued that on many issues mentioned by Sheikh Abdul-Hay in his evaluation may have been correct and Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan may have made some of those errors, as no man is perfect. Nevertheless, when you compare the hunderds of books Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan wrote in Arabic, Persian & Urdu, those errors and mistakes of Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan in comparison to his hundreds of works equal nothing.
The following is a small treatise in the Arabic language written by Sheikh Abdul-Mueed Salafee, who has conducted a case study of what has been ascribed and alleged by Sheikh Abdul-Hay in regards to Allamah Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan.
The introduction consists of 28 pages that discuss in detail the position of Abul-al-Hasanaat Abdul-Hay Lucknowi concerning the Ahlul-Hadith. The first chapter from pages 33-83 discusses the alleged mistakes Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan made in quoting historical facts. The second chapter from pages 83-128 discusses his alleged mistakes in terms of general knowledge and Fiqh.
Zulfiker Ibrahim Memon
Head of MSL
 Tazkiratur-Rasheed, Volume 2, page 17 compiled by Ashiq Ilahi Mirathi.
 Wasaayaa-Shareef, compiled by Husnain Raza Khan, page 16-19.