Ibn al-Qāṣṣ (d. 335/946), one of the representatives of the Shāfiʿī school of law in the 4th/10th century, compiled a short treatise of extraordinary nature: Fawāʾid Ḥadīth Abī ʿUmeyr. In this work, he deduces sixty different wajhs (verdicts, comments) from a ḥadīth reporting the Prophet’s interest and affection to a child known as Abū ʿUmayr and his family during a visit he paid after Abū ʿUmayr’s birdie died by jokingly telling him in rhyme, “yā Abā ʿUmayr, mā faʿala al-nughayr” (O (...) Abū ʿUmayr, what happened to the nughayr?) This study deals with the primary goal of the composition of the Fawāʾid, its content, and structural qualities as well as the author’s approach in deducing verdicts. As one of the aṣḥāb al-wujūh, the author’s legal/madhhab notion and the literalist and external perspective he developed regarding the interpretation of texts, seems to have directly affected his deductive reasoning and determined his approach. This concise work not only sheds light over certain aspects of the relationship between ḥadīth and fiqh at the time of Ibn al-Qāṣṣ, but also exemplifies to what extent methodological tendencies and personal factors might affect the process of deriving verdicts from ḥadīth and could push the limits in that regard. Summary: Ibn al-Qāṣṣ (d. 335/946), one of the representatives of the Shāfiʿī school of law in the 4th/10th century, compiled a short treatise of extraordinary nature: Fawāʾid Ḥadīth Abī ʿUmeyr. In this work, he deduces sixty different wajhs (verdicts, comments) from a ḥadīth reporting the Prophet’s interest and affection to a child known as Abū ʿUmayr and his family during a visit he paid after Abū ʿUmayr’s birdie died by jokingly telling him in rhyme, “yā Abā ʿUmayr, mā faʿala al-nughayr” (O Abū ʿUmayr, what happened to the nughayr?) The report of Abū ʿUmayr, which is in the focus of the work, is, in essence, reflects a singular and special aspect of the close relationship between the Prophet and Anas b. Malik’s family. Nevertheless, it is surprising that many ḥadīth scholars from the early times, not only Ibn al-Qāṣṣ, have chosen this ḥadīth as an example in which they can demonstrate their skill in the field of fiqh al- ḥadīth. Fawāʾid seems to be a work in which the juridical point of view centered and resembles the classical fiqh commentaries in a sense. In the work, different variants of the Abū ʿUmayr report were brought together and evaluated within the framework of the text and textual possibilities as possible. The author also analyzed some words in the narrative text for being a base for a verdict, referred to Qurʾānic verses, prophetic ḥadīths, reports, and legal opinions, tried to solve the disputes and the conflicts among legal evidences in various ways, and stated occasionally his personal opinions. Fawāʾid reflects the author’s rich accumulation of legal knowledge, while at the same time gives an idea about his knowledge of ḥadīth and his approach to the ḥadīth. Considering what the author did and wanted to do, it is understood that he deals with ḥadīth as well as fiqh, and he has a certain level of relationship not only with fuqahāʾ (muslim jurisprudents), but also with ḥadīth scholars. Ibn al-Qāṣṣ’s interest in fiqh and ḥadīth must have lead him to take initiative to eliminate the tension between the ahl al-ḥadīth of Shāfiʿī school of law who focused on transmitting ḥadīths and the fuqahāʾ of Shāfiʿī school of law who care about the fiqh perspective, in that period of time. It can also be said that he tried to establish a reconciliation between the ahl al-ḥadīth (the traditionists) and the ahl al-raʾy (the rationalists) and bring the parties together in the middle way. The work seems to have been written as a result of such considerations. As Ibn al-Qāṣṣ was considered as one of the aṣḥāb al-wujūh, that is, as a jurist who was bound of a madhhab Imām for legal reasoning, he seems to have followed the methodology of Shāfiʿī school of law for deriving legal solutions from the sources. Legal notion of the author and his literalist and textualist perspective with regards to the interpretation of texts, seems to have directly affected his way of reasoning from the ḥadīth and determined his approach. This approach, as mentioned in many contemporary studies, is not sufficient and appropriate for the evaluation of ḥadīth texts, which were transmitted by meaning, not word-by-word, and shaped by the transmitter’s dispositions. It is also difficult to say that Ibn al-Qāṣṣ sufficiently considered the physical, historical, social, and cultural context surrounding the text as well as other extra-textual elements, which complete the meaning. This situation implies that some of the wajhs recorded in the work are the author’s attempt to find a base and evidence for his ideas, which he already had, rather than deductions drawn from the ḥadīth. It makes the scientific quality and accuracy of his efforts controversial. The verdicts presented in the work, as wajh and fāʾida are predominantly jurisprudential and compatible with the opinions of the Shāfiʿī School of law, however, there are also controversial ones, and the author pointed to them without revealing his own tendency. It does not seem that these wajhs in the work are systematically ranked. In this vein, similar wajhs are sometimes in succession, sometimes scattered, and some wajhs are repetitive. The degree of accuracy, clarity and quality of some wajhs also seem arguable. Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī (d. 806/1404), who made a general evaluation of these wajhs, said that: “Some of the (meanings of the) wajhs in the work are apparent, some of them are hidden and some are strained.” The work’s editor drew attention in the footnotes to the wajhs, which might be subject to objection. The early ḥadīth scholars, who reported this ḥadīth in their compilations, deduced six or seven judgments from the ḥadīth under the headings (bāb) specified for this ḥadīth. This appears quite modest in comparison to the treatise of Ibn al-Qāṣṣ. The given ḥadīth has also taken its place in the fiqh literature, and it has been questioned in the context of the issue of Madīna’s being of ḥarām region (holy land) and hunting ban in this region. In conclusion, Ibn al-Qāṣṣ’s treatise of Fawāʾid Ḥadīth Abī ʿUmayr, is a short but worthy example of the ḥadīth literature in terms of its purpose and interesting content. This work can be considered as a study that exemplifies how the purpose of writing can be determinative on the structure of a work, and in particular to what extent methodological tendencies and personal factors might affect the process of deriving verdicts from ḥadīth and could push the limits in that regard. The author’s universe of meaning, which focused on the apparent meaning and to draw as many judgments as possible from the text, should be related to his personal intention and purpose as well as to the fiqh perspective of his time. Due to the textual approach and the method for drawing inferences, which are observed in the work, the tool-purpose relationship between the text and the judgment sometimes remains obscure and sometimes becomes unimportant. In some respects, this work is a striking example of the consequences of ignoring the context and historical reality surrounding texts for specific purposes. (shrink)

Translation of the section on metaphysics in Sabzavari's "Sharh al-manzumah fi al-hikmah," a commentary on his poem "Ghurar al-fara'id," both originally written in Arabic.

This research aims to describe and analyze Ibn Taymiyyah’s philosophical-constructive critique of Ibn ‘Arabī’s waḥdat al-wujūd thought. The method used in this research is descriptive-analytical. The primary data used in this research are the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Arabī. Meanwhile, secondary data in this research are books, journal articles, and other websites that discuss the thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Arabī. The research results show that Ibn Taymiyyah rejected thinking of waḥdat al-wujūd, because of his understanding of (...) the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd This is different from the understanding of Ibn ‘Arabī and his followers. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, waḥdat al-wujūd is the equating of God with nature. In modern terms synonymous with pantheism. Ibn Taymiyyah said those who adhere to waḥdat al-wujūd say that existence is one, and wajib al-wujūd what God has is the same as possible waḥdat al-wujūd that a creature has. Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticism emerged because he only saw aspects of tashabbuh (equation of God with his creatures) from understanding waḥdat al-wujūd, and did not see aspects of tanzīh (purification of God from the likeness of his creatures) from the same understanding. These two aspects are combined into one in the teachings of Ibn ‘Arabī. Even according to Ibn Taymiyyah, the understanding that considers God’s existence to be united with the existence of His creatures is a form of disbelief for God, a form of disbelief and shirk in Him. (shrink)

İbn Hacer’in Nuhbetü’l-Fiker ’i ve onun şerhi olan Nüzhetü’n-Nazar ’ının, kendisinden sonra yazılan hadis usûlü eserlerine kaynaklık etmesi ve onları etkilemesi açısından usûl tarihinde önemli bir yeri vardır. Nitekim mezkûr eserler üzerine yapılan şerh ve hâşiye çalışmalarının çokluğu bu önemi ortaya koymaktadır. Fıkıh ve hadis başta olmak üzere çeşitli ilim dallarında 100’ün üzerinde eser kaleme alan ve aynı zamanda İbn Hacer’in de talebelerinden olan Kasım b. Kutluboğa da bahsedilen eser üzerine çalışma yapan âlimlerden biridir. İbn Kutluboğa, hocası İbn Hacer’i birçok (...) yönden eleştirmiş ve çeşitli katkılarda bulunmuştur. Bu makalede İbn Kutluboğa’nın Nüzhetü’n-Nazar üzerine yazdığı Hâşiyetü İbn Kutluboğa adlı eserindeki itirazlar bağlamında kısaca red/itiraz kültüründen bahsedilerek örnekler ortaya konulacak ve mezkûr itirazlar esere hâşiye yazan ilgili bazı âlimlerin görüşleri çerçevesinde değerlendirilecektir. Ele alınan itirazlardan da anlaşılacağı üzere İbn Kutluboğa’nın polemik türü ve muhatabını ilzam edici itirazlarının neredeyse olmadığı ve yönelttiği kimi eleştirilerinde hadis usûlünde bilinen kurallardan farklı görüşler ortaya koyduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca İbn Kutluboğa’nın öne sürdüğü her itirazında isabetli yorumlar ortaya koymadığını da söylemek mümkündür. (shrink)

Taftāzānī, Masʻūd ibn ʻUmar, 1322-1389?; criticiam and intepretation; Islamic law; early works.

Bibliography of work by and on al-Fārabī, classical Muslim scholar.

Ibn Arab? (1165-1240) stands out for the immense magnitude of his work and for the depth and breadth of his thinking. His works are the result of divine inspiration and multiple mystical, visionary experiences in the course of a life devoted to teaching and travel throughout the Maghreb and the Middle East.

ʿImād al-Dīn Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), is an important historian, mufassir, muhaddith and Shāfiʿī jurist who lived in the 8th century. Ibn Kathīr’s work titled Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem, beside its tafsir identity, can be utilized due to its rich ḥadīth content and its comments on isnad and text of the ḥadīths. Ibn Kathīr, due to his competency in history and ḥadīth, analyzed the ḥadīth rigorously and noted any necessary aspect regarding the isnad or the text. In this paper, the analysis (...) and criticism of ḥadīth texts in Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is examined. Regarding the analysis aiming to understand the meaning of the ḥadīth, issues such as explanation of unknown words, utilizing the chapter headings, evaluation of all related ḥadīths, comments of previous scholars as well as Ibn Kathīr’s original interpretations are examined. Regarding the criticism of the text, issues such as general criticism under the heading of munkar which indicates a ḥadīth the text of which contains unacceptable meanings, specific criticisms due to conflict with the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, reasoning and historical facts, solutions regarding the ḥadīths which have conflicting meanings are examined. Summary: Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) who lived in the 8th century is a competent scholar in fields such as ḥadīth, history, tafsir and jurisprudence. In this article the criticism and analysis of ḥadīths in the Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem by Ibn Kathīr who is an authority in ḥadīth and history are studied. Although the structure and plan of this book do not give it an appearance of a classic ḥadīth commentary, the rich ḥadīth content which it has, and the examination of this content with respect to isnad and text as in a ḥadīth commentary provide this book a ḥadīth commentary identity besides its tafsir identity. Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is distinguished among other tafsirs by the ḥadīth commentary method and ḥadīth criticism that it employs. This is because it does not only provide ḥadīths as is seen in many other tafsirs, but also informs about the important issues that need to be known about these ḥadīths, and even in many times makes original evaluations. It is possible that Ibn Kathīr provides important evaluations about a ḥadīth which other famous commentators do not provide. He corrects some of the great ḥadīth scholars by showing the presence of isnads for ḥadīths that these scholars think do not exist. With all these aspects, Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem is an invaluable source for both tafsir readers and ḥadīth scholars due to its rich ḥadīth content, the skillful application of ḥadīth methodology and ḥadīth commentary. Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is also an important ḥadīth source due to its very rich ḥadīth content. According to the catalogue at the end of the book, it includes over eight thousand ḥadīths which corresponds to a content similar to that of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Looking at the studies over Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem, it can be said that it has been subject to many examinations with respect to tafsir, however, it has not received the same attention with respect to ḥadīth at a sufficient level. It is aimed in this study on one side to prove the value and originality of Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem as a ḥadīth commentary and on the other side to attract attention to the text criticism activities of ḥadīth scholars by using both specific criteria and concepts such as munkar.In our study the criticism and analysis of ḥadīth texts in Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir are studied under various headings. It is quite important to identify possible mistakes in ḥadīth texts as well as to understand the ḥadīth texts correctly. For this purpose the principles of text criticism such as conflict with the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, reasoning and historical facts have been used since the time of the Companions. Ibn Kathīr has approached ḥadīths in view of these text criticism principles and pointed to the mistakes in the texts of the ḥadīths which are in conflict with these principles. Often times, Ibn Kathīr criticized the points in ḥadīth texts which are not in line with the general principles of Islam and which he perceived not appropriate by using the term munkar in a general manner. He utilized this concept explicitly for isnad and text. He always warned the reader against baseless information. Finally, he pointed out to instances which can be determined as a result of the comparison of the various channels of a ḥadīth. Text analyses are efforts to correctly understand the ḥadīth text which enable to clarify the meaning of the ḥadīth. Efforts such as the explanation of the unknown words, the evaluation of all the ḥadīths related to a subject in a unified manner, making use of another ḥadīth in understanding of a ḥadīth, making using of the opinions of the previous ḥadīth scholars and making original interpretations, identification of the unknown persons in the text, making connections with the chapter headings to better understand the meaning, explanations of the contradictions arising from different ḥadīths and collecting different historical ḥadīths in a common theme contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of ḥadīths. It can be seen clearly how Ibn Kathīr applied these text analyses with success through sample ḥadīth texts selected from his tafsir.Two points that we think important are underlined at the end of our study. First, it is the exceptional position of Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem among the Qurʾān tafsirs with respect to ḥadīth content and analysis. When compared with the famous tafsirs that emerge in the tafsir history, Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is easily distinguished. When the importance of ḥadīth in the Qurʾān tafsir is thought, it is important that the ḥadīth material is filtered with respect to its authenticity and the meaning of the ḥadīth is clarified at a sufficient level. Compared to the limited number of ḥadīths in the famous tafsirs that are used to explain the verses, the rich information with respect to isnad and text in Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem makes significant contribution in the explanation of the verses and provide the reader with valuable ḥadīth knowledge.The second point that we think is important is that the text criticism efforts seen in Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem help to correct the opinion that ḥadīth scholars ignored text criticism compared to isnad criticism. In this respect, it is evaluated that our study is a contribution to the recent studies that shed light on the text criticism efforts of the ḥadīth scholars. In this regard, it seems important to make use of a criterion such as “conflict with the inner consistency of a ḥadīth” among other criteria. Moreover, it is pointed out in our study that the munkar concept and the thesis that this concept has been utilized by ḥadīth scholars in text criticism, is a topic which attracted the interest of the researchers and the usage of this concept in Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir contributes to this thesis. (shrink)

Hadislerin doğru anlaşılması ve yorumlanması çabası ilk defa Hz. Peygamber döneminde başlamış, tâbiîn ve tebeu’t-tâbiîn döneminde hadislerin tedviniyle birlikte hız kazanmış ve bu hususta önemli çalışmalar yapılmıştır. İlerleyen süreçte fıkıh usulünün verilerini kullanarak ahkâm hadislerinden hüküm çıkarma ve lafız-mâna ilişkisi konusunda hakikat-mecaz ekseninde yeni yorum yöntemleriyle uygulamalı olarak ele alınan eserler telif edilmiştir. Bu eserlerin başında İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in, Şerḥu’l-İlmâm bi-eḥâdîs̱i’l-aḥkâm’ı gelmektedir. Şerḥu’l-İlmâm hadis şerh edebiyatında muhteva zenginliğini arttıran ve kullanılan bazı izah yöntemlerini geliştirerek kendisinden önceki şerhleri geride bırakmış bir eserdir. (...) Bu çalışmada İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in hadisleri anlamada ve yorumlamada mecazi anlatım üslubu babında ortaya koyduğu yaklaşım ele alınmıştır. Böyle bir konunun tercih edilmesindeki ana etmenlerin başında mezkûr eserde hüküm istinbâtında hakikat-mecaz bağlamında benzer şerh çalışmalarına nispetle, analitik yaklaşımların ön plana çıkması ve alana katkı sağlaması gelmektedir. Çalışmanın hedefi, Şerḥu’l-İlmâm’da hakikat-mecaz ekseninde İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in hadisleri nasıl yorumladığını ortaya çıkarmak ve elde edilen bulgularla yeni yorum imkânlarına alan açmaktır. Lafzın mânaya delaleti konusunda hakikat ve mecaz arasındaki ilişki ve kesişim noktaları çoğu zaman bir problem olarak durmaktadır. Hadis metinlerinin yorumlanmasında hakikat ve mecazın birlikte kullanım alanlarının tespit edilmesi ve hakikat-mecaz ayırımının işlevsel yönünün ortaya çıkarılması, hadislerin doğru anlaşılmasına ve yorumlanmasına katkı sağlayacaktır. Araştırmada öncelikli olarak Şerḥu’l-İlmâm’ın hadis ve fıkıh sahasındaki önemi ve değeriyle ilgili bilgi verilmiş, sonra hakikat ve mecaz kavramlarının tanımlarına geçilmiştir. Mecaz türleri arasında sadece İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in atıf yaptığı istiare, teşbih, teşbîhu’l-mânevî ve teşbîhu’s-sûrî gibi kavramlara yer verilmiştir. Son olarak İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in hakikat ve mecazı bir yöntem olarak nasıl kullandığı konusu örnekler çerçevesinde tahlil edilmiştir. Araştırmada, İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in hakikat ve mecazın zamansal boyutuna, hakikat ve mecaz ayırımında tazmînin rolüne, hakikat ve mecazın cemʿine, hakikate en yakın mecazlara ve hakikat-mecaz arasındaki tercih sebeplerine değinerek hakikat ve mecazı bir yöntem olarak kullandığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. İbn Dakīkulʿîd’in hakikat ve mecazı birlikte kullanmasının işlevsel yönleri ve faydaları arasında; lafızların lugatlarda geçtiği anlamları keşfetmek, lafzın anlamında derin ve net açılımlar yapmak, tekellüflü mânaları ayıklamak, mecaza hamledilmeyi gerekli kılan alâkaları/bağları belirlemek, çözümlemeci yaklaşımla muhtemel mânaları ortaya çıkarmak gibi hususlar yer almaktadır. Eğer İbn Dakîku'l-Îd, el-İlmâm'da sadece 57 hadisi değil de bütün hadisleri şerh etme imkânı bulmuş olsaydı Şerhu'l-İlmâm, hadislerin hakikat ve mecaz temelinde şerh edildiği bugün üzerinde en çok konuşulan eserlerden biri olurdu. (shrink)

Bu çalışmanın amacı İbn Kesîr’in (öl. 774/1373) el-Bidâye ve’n-nihâye isimli tarih çalışmasının siyer bölümünde Sahîhayn hadislerini muhteva açısından tenkidinin araştırılması ve tahlilidir. Çalışmamızın konusu ise İbn Kesîr’in mezkûr eserinde yirmi Sahihayn hadisini Kur’ân-ı Kerîm (3 hadis), akıl (1 hadis), icmâ (1 hadis), sahih hadisler (7 hadis) ve sağlam târihî bilgilere (8 hadis) uygunluk/aykırılık kıstaslarını kullanarak tenkidi ve on dört hadiste izah getiremediği yanlışların birer hata olduğunu kaydetmesidir. İbn Kesîr’in incelenen hadislerin muhteva tenkidine müsait bir hâle gelmesine yol açan râvi tasarruflarına (...) dair verdiği bilgiler ayrıca kıymetlidir. Bu çalışmanın kapsamını oluşturan hadislerden yedi tanesi hem Sahîh-i Buhârî hem Sahîh-i Müslim, altı tanesi sadece Sahîh-i Buhârî, yedi tanesi de sadece Sahîh-i Müslim’de yer almaktadır. Hem Sahîh-i Buhârî hem Sahîh-i Müslim’de yer alan hadisler Hayber’de müt‘a nikahının yasaklanışı, Rasulullah’ın (s.a.v.) umre ve hacca niyeti, Hz. Peygamber’in gümüş yüzüğü atması, kıblenin değişimi haberinin Kubâ’ya ertesi sabah ulaşması, namazda konuşma yasağının zamanı, ye’cûc ve me’cûc’un seddinin delinmesi ve Hz. Peygamber’in (s.a.v.) miras bırakmaması konulu hadislerdir. Sadece Sahîh-i Buhârî’de geçen hadisler isranın vahiy gelmesinden önce vukuu, Hamrâülesed seferine katılanların sayısı, Sa‘d b. Ebî Vakkas’ın İslam’a girişi, Hz. Ali’nin Hz. Ebû Bekir’e biatı, Recî‘ vak‘asıyla ilgili bazı bilgiler ve mirac hadisinde Beyt-i Makdis’e yolculuğun zikredilmemesi konulu hadislerdir. Son olarak, sadece Sahîh-i Müslim’de yer alan hadisler ise Huneyn savaşında müslümanların sayısı ve Taif kuşatmasının müddeti, yeryüzünün yedi günde yaratılışı, Amr b. Abese’nin İslam’a girişi, Bedir için Sa‘d b. Ubâde ile istişâre, sahâbînin sıcak kumlardan şikâyeti, Ümmü Habîbe ile evlilik ve kurban bayramında öğle namazının yeri konulu hadislerdir. Araştırmamızın yöntemi kaynak taraması ve sonuçların diğer şarihlerinkiyle mukayeseli tahlilidir. Araştırmamızın sonucunda eleştirilen hadislerin büyük bir kısmında İbn Kesîr’in değerlendirmelerinin İbn Hacer ve Nevevî gibi muhaddislerinkinden farklı olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmamızın önemi İbn Kesîr’in tenkitlerinin muhaddislerin senedin sıhhatinin metnin sıhhatini temin etmeyeceğine dair tespitlerinin uygulamadaki somut delillerini oluşturmasıdır. Kısaca İbn Kesîr’in, eserine güçlü tenkit zihniyetini, özgün görüşlerini ve geniş ilmî birikimini başarıyla yansıttığı görülmektedir. (shrink)

İslâmî ilimlerin muhtelif dallarında birçok kıymetli eser vermiş olan İbn Kesir’in (ö. 774/1373) el-Bidâye ve’n-nihâye isimli eserinin siyer bölümü Hz. Peygamber’in (sav) hayatı, şemâili ve mucizelerini geniş bir şekilde ele almaktadır. İbn Kesir bu eserinde hadis ve siyer rivayetlerini titiz bir tenkid sürecinden geçirmiş ve muhtevayla ilgili dikkatini çeken sorunları dile getirmiştir. Bu kapsamda onun Kur’ân-ı Kerîm’e, sahih hadislere ve sünnete, icmâa, akla, dinin temel öğretilerine ve sağlam târihî bilgilere muhalefet, nübüvvet/sahâbe kelamına benzememe, kalabalık bir grubun şahit olduğu bir olayın (...) bir kişi tarafından aktarılması, naklini gerektiren birçok sebep bulunan bir olayın bir kişi tarafından aktarılması, metin içi tutarsızlık, lafız rekâketi, mana nekâreti, sezgisel tenkit ve israiliyât içerme gibi birçok muhteva tenkidi kıstasına başvurduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, İbn Kesir’in “garib”, “garib cidden”, “garâbet” gibi tabirleri zaman zaman teferrüde işaret etmek amacından ziyade açıkça muhteva tenkidi bağlamında kullandığı belirlenmiştir. Makalede İbn Kesir’in söz konusu eserinin Siyer kısmında başvurduğu muhteva tenkidi kıstaslarının sistematik ve kapsamlı bir tahlili ve garâbet tabirini muhteva tenkidi bağlamında kullanımının incelenmesi hedeflenmiştir. (shrink)

It is well-known that Ibn al-Salāh al-Shahrazūrī (d. 643/1245) has an important place in the field of hadith methodology. In this context, it is possible to see Ibn-al Salah’s influence in a large proportion of the hadith terminology. The fact that the term ḥasan was not substantially included in the hadith method studies before Ibn-al Salah and that this concept became widely known in the field after him led to study the contributions of al Salah on the subject of ḥasan (...) hadith and in this regard, his effect on the term ḥasan. As result it was found that authorities such as Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848-49), Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) used the concept of ḥasan in various meanings before al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) who, according to general acceptance, made the term ḥasan famous for its terminological use. However, it is possible to say that ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī was the first to use the terminological meaning of the concept ḥasan. Actually, the fact that Shafii’ used the term ḥasan isnād for an authentic hadith that al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Muslim b. Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875) would later unanimously narrate, and Ahmad b. Hanbal used ḥasan as gharib, is evidence for the unsystematic use of the term in the early periods. Even though, thanks to al-Tirmidhī, an important place was opened for the concept in riwāya literature, there was no serious mention of the term in later hadith methodology. Therefore, it has been seen that hadith scholars considered the term ḥasan within the scope of ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʻīf hadith, since they accepted the term as an intermediate concept, and for this reason they did not include the term ḥasan among the subjects of hadith methodology until Ibn al-Salāh. An examination of the argument, that one can act upon a ḍaʻīf hadith, would show that ḥasan hadith might have been interpreted within the scope of ḍaʻīf hadith. On the other hand, the fact that some scholars such as Mughulṭāy b. Qilīj (d. 762/1361) state that a hadith would be called ṣaḥīḥ if it is maqbūl with any presumption, and that there is no point in calling such a hadith ḥasan shows that the ḥasan hadith is considered within the scope of ṣaḥīḥ hadith. The fact that hadith methodology scholars did not mention ḥasan hadith before Ibn al-Salāh stems from the ambiguity of the subject. Contrary to his predecessors, Ibn al-Salāh tried to save the term ḥasan from its ambiguity by combining the different specifications put forward by al-Tirmidhī, al-Khaṭṭābī (d. 388/998), and Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201). The specifications and interpretations of the term presented by Ibn al-Salāh via his meticulous efforts, have also been adopted by his successors. The term ḥasan hadith has gained an important place in the literature of hadith methodology thanks to the views and definitions built on the descriptions and interpretations of Ibn al-Salāh. In this context, while there are those who agree with Ibn al-Salāh’s descriptions and evaluations of the term, there are also those who criticize his remarks on the subject. However, it has been seen that those who criticize Ibn al-Salāh, along with those who follow him, criticized him by following the path drawn by Ibn al-Salāh. Based on this and similar situations, it was concluded that not only the descriptions and comments that Ibn al-Salāh made, but also his style and methods of handling the subject gave direction to the studies on hadith methodology. In addition, it has been observed that the most compact description of the term ḥasan is put forward by Ibn Hajar and today’s studies are predicated on his description. Within this framework, after emphasizing that there are four degrees of maqbūl hadiths, Ibn Hajar defined the two fields, which were covered by two different descriptions of Ibn al-Salāh, as ḥasan li-zatih and lighairih by Ibn al-Ḥajar. (d. 852/1449) By doing so Ibn al-Ḥajar gave the final shape to the ḥasan hadith terms. He also captured the fundamental point where ḥasan hadith differs from the ṣaḥīḥ hadith because the basic point in question, which was not directly stated before, is a slight flaw in the narrator’s grip. At the end of the study, it was concluded that -as al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348) also stated- it does not seem possible to determine a comprehensive rule that gathers ḥasan hadiths under a single description. Considering the historical context of the term ḥasan, it has been observed that the most effective description of the ḥasan hadith are the terms ḥasan li-zatih and ḥasan lighairih, which were put forward by Ibn Hajar by transforming the dual division mentioned by Ibn al-Salāh into a more understandable form. (shrink)

The contribution of the generation of Tâbi’un in the formation of Islamic sciences in general and in the development of hadith in particular is known. Various studies have been done on the quality of this contribution. Being a part of such an aim is among the targets of this study as well. Not to conducted any work on the hadithism of especially Abdullah b. Abbas' student and after him Atâ ibn Abi Rabah who the most famous teacher of the Mecca (...) school was another encouraging reason. While examining the life and scientific personality of Ata who was one of the early personalities, it has been tried to reach some results with the information obtained from the sources from the first period, especially the fatwa and rumors belonging to him. Atâ who was leading an observable, active political life, lived in the intellectual and social turmoil that emerged in the early period. Atâ who drawing attention with his educator personality, added his own experiences to the scientific heritage he received from the companions in the first instance Ibn Abbas, and had been passed it on to the next generations. Being a fatwa authority in Makkah mufti and pilgrimage organizations for many years is one of his important experiences. In addition to being well-known for his devotion to the Sunnah, he has been taken place between those known among the generation of Tâbi’un with his fatwa and ijtihad. Ata, who is a critical hadith reciter, is accepted as the absolute authority in the hadith. The fact that he was one of the first to make talfiq in the hadith shows that he knew the diversity of the sources he reported and the many tarikh of the narrations. He wrote narrations and encouraged writing of hadith. He contributed to the development of hadith terms with some of the hadith concepts he used and drew attention with the abundance of mursal hadiths. (shrink)

Hādī ilá al-ḥaqq, Yaḥyá ibn al-Ḥusayn, 859-910; view on Islamic philosophy; Islam; doctrines.

Müksirûndan biri olan Abdullâh b. Abbâs 1660 hadis nakletmiş ve İslâmi ilimlerin farklı birçok alanlarıyla birlikte hadis ilmiyle temâyüz etmiştir. Kur’ân’daki incelikleri kavrayıp yorumlaması için Rasûlullah’ın özel duasına mazhar olan Abdullâh b. Abbâs, fetvaları oldukça meşhur fakih bir sahâbîdir. Rasûlullah’ın sünnetini anlamaya yönelik çabaları sahâbenin gözlemine bağlı olarak farklılık arz etmektedir. Ayrıca onların her birinin hadisleri anlayış ve kavrayışları aynı seviyede değildi. Bundan dolayı rivâyetler hususunda farklı anlayışlar, yorumlamalar, unutmalar ve yapılan hatalar sebebiyle sahâbe birbirini tenkit etmiştir. Büyük bir ilmi (...) birikime sahip olan İbn Abbâs sahâbeden mirasa dair nakledilen bazı rivâyetleri, uygulama ve fetvaları düzeltmiş ve onları tenkit etmiştir. İbn Abbâs’ın hayatına ve hadis, tefsir ve fıkıh ilmindeki konumuna dair çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Ancak onun ferâiz hususundaki istidrâkleri hadis ilmi açısından incelenmemiştir. Araştırmamızda onun hadis ilmi çerçevesinde Rasûlullah’ın sözlerinin ve uygulamasının doğru anlaşılması için mirasa dair yaptığı istidrâkleri ele alınmıştır. Abdullāh Ibn Abbās is one of the companions well known for his verdicts in the area of the Islamic law of inheritance and the abundance of his verdicts in jurisprudence. In this regard, the inheritance sections of the jurisprudence books often include Ibn Abbās's verdicts and applications. He approached the matters regarding jurisprudence from a different perspective, ruled differently from the companions, and provided corrections mainly in terms of the science of inheritance regarding the sayings narrated by the companions, applications and verdicts of the companions. In this regard, Ibn Abbās considered the jurisprudential aspects of the sayings and applications of Prophet Muhammad and made a ruling by interpreting the same narration by his wide understanding and knowledge and considering the meaning of the sayings. Ibn Abbās, who made different interpretations and evaluations in his corrections regarding the law of inheritance, objected to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan, criticized and corrected the narrations of Zayd Ibn Thabit. Ibn Abbās, who interpreted the matters regarding inheritance according to the principles of the Qur'ān, made rulings according to the apparent meanings of the related verses of the Qur'ān. (shrink)

This article analyzes the position of Ibn Hilāl, who is regarded as nāsıbī and ghālī, in the science of Shia rijāl, his reports and the validity of the accusations against him. It is found that narrators are criticized for various reasons in the science of Shiʻa rijāl. Some of them are the Shiite followers that the imams cursed and wanted to be kept away from their adherence. It is seen that the narrations reported by some of the narrators are included (...) in the main sources of Shiite hadith, albeit these narrators were cursed by the innocent imams. Ahmed Ibn Hilāl (d. 267/880) is one of these narrators cursed by the imams and his name is found in the report (the isnād) of many early narrations. Ibn Hilāl, one of the close companions of Shia's 10th imam Ali b. Muḥammed al-Hādī (d. 254/868) and 11th imam Ḥasan al-ʻAskarī (d. 260/874), was first cursed by the letter of al-Askarī allegedly sent, and the Shiite followers were ordered to move away from him. Ibn Hilāl refused to accept the ambassadoriality of Muḥammed b. Osman (d. 305/918), the ambassador of the 12th Imam. Thus, he was cursed by Muḥammad al-Mahdī as well. In later periods, Ibn Hilāl was accused of being nāsıbī and ghālī. However, there are also some Shiite scholars who supported (tavthîk) Ibn Hilāl. In the Shi'a tradition, Nāsibism indicated the meaning of hating ʻAli and Ahl al-bayt or feeling anger towards them. Later on, this meaning has been changed into a meaning including the haters of ʻAli and then the Shiʻa Nāsibism is regarded as a position towards Shiʻa outside of Shiʻa. Ghulāt is a form of a belief generally found in the Shi'a tradition. In the belief of Ghulāt, holiness is attributed to the imams. When the Shiite sources are examined, it can be seeb that Ibn Hilāl represents neither a ghālī nor a nāsıbī position. In the Shiʻa, when the narrator leaves his sect, his narrations are evaluated differently. Therefore, among Ibn Hilāl's narrations only those which narrated before he left can be accepted. The likely reason for this attitude can be those narrators such as Ibn Hilāl brought in many narrations to the Shiite hadith literature. Ibn Bābeveyh and Sheikh Sadūk reported many narrations that includes Ibn Hilāl in their report chain (the isnad). Among these narrations, they criticized only one. Again, in the 4th century of Hijrī, Numānī, al-Hazzāz, Ibn Qavlaveyh and Mufīd reported many narrations transmitted by Ibn Hilāl. However, none of them mentioned about the negative perception on Ibn Hilāl in any of these narrations. This shows that Ibn Hilāl was not regarded as nāsıbī or ghālī in the eyes of the these scholars. As regards to, Tūsī, in the 5th century after Hijra, claimed that Ibn Hilāl was a ghālī and he was accused of being an adherent to this religion. He narrated in sum fifty narrations that included Ibn Hilāl in the report chain, but Tūsī criticized only three of them because of including Ibn Hilāl. The reason why Ibn Hilāl was accused of being nāsıbī and ghālī, which Shiʻa deemed the worst, was probably related to the political conditions of that period. On the other hand, there is no report that Ibn Hilāl shared a nāsıbī and ghālī thought or had a tendency towards them. It is obvious that if Ibn Hilâl, who has an important place in the eyes of the Shiite community, does not accept the second ambassador of al-Mahdī, and that this would cause discord among the followers. This complex situation was tried to be remedied by letters alleged to have been written by the imams, cursing Ibn Hilâl and ordering them to stay away from him. Later, Ibn Hilāl was accused of being a nāsıbî or ghālī who expressed the attitudes and thoughts that Shiʻa saw the most distant from him. Sadūk first reported the narration that Ibn Hilāl was Nāsıbî. Tūsī, on the other hand, described Ibn Hilāl as ghālī in the 5th century (after hijra). This study tries to reveal that there is no explicit evidence that proves Ibn Hilāl’s nāsıbī or ghālī position. (shrink)

The type of ‘Al-isnād al-āli’ (higher chain of authority) which has great importance for the science of ḥadīths that constitutes the second best source of the Islam, expresses the value in terms of its proximity to the period of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). If ḥadīth has ‘al-isnād al-āli’ in the works of the scholars provides us with assurance on the intend of the ḥadīth. For this reason, the values of the works of those authors who have constructed (...) their works with al-isnād al-āli undoubted in the science of ḥadīth. However the work of Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī’s (d. 228/842) named al-Juz‘ had that kind of ḥadīth, it has not appreciated by scholars, he could not get enough attention in his period and after it. His work contains famous scholar al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d’s (d. 175/791) narrative who claimed by ḥadīth scholars that his students neglected and omitted his ḥadīths and knowledge. Al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d was known doing transmission by written copies. The similarity of al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d narrations in al-Juz‘ with al-Layth narrations, which are also found in other sources, strengthens the claims of the existence of a narrative process based on the written texts in the early periods. In this study, these transfers of Abu al-Jahm reflected on other works will be examined and tried to build narrations of his teacher al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d. country, we can say that the article will contribute to the studies of the history of religions.Summary: Ḥadīth works written in the third century of hijri are the most distinguished sources. The most fundamental works in the science of ḥadīth were written in this time. In the following period, numerous studies have been committed to paper on them. One of the eminent works is the named al-Juz’, which belongs to Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī (d. 228/842). The author was not a person that was taken into consideration much during his time. It is possible to that he has been criticized about his scientific proficiency (al-Jarh). Nevertheless, al-Juz’ attracts attention due to the fact that it contains the type of ‘al-Isnād al-āli’ (higher chain of authority). Al-Isnād al-āli, which means access with the least number of narration from the author to the Prophet has very major role to determining of being dependable and certainty of the ḥadīths. The work of Abu al-Jahm which contains the ‘al-Isnād al-āli’ did not attract enough attention. However, another value of the al-Juz‘ is that its been included the narration of famous muhaddith Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd (d. 175/791). He is one of the valued mujtahid imams who have played an active and important role in second century of hijri. Al-Layth's narrations have been available insufficient amount present day. At this point the al-Juz‘ of Abu al-Jahm has great important because it contains many narrations of his shaykh Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd.The Juz‘ seems to has attracted the attention of the ḥadīths scholars in the following period. Indeed, various authors had the get authorization to narrate al-Juz‘. Furthermore, it is also known that some scholar in his period utilized his narration in their own study. For in¬stance, it was declared by Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449) that al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) had a narra¬tion belonging to Abu al-Jahm in his work ‘al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’ with a muʻallaq chain (Omit¬ting his name). In the following periods, we come across famous muhaddith such as Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), al-Ṭabaranī (d. 360/971), Abū Bakr al-Marwazī (d. 292/905), al-Dāraquṭnī (d.385/995) and al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) who received qualify of Juz's narra¬tion. Although the narrations of Abu al-Jahm are included in the prominent works of schol¬ars, it is clearly seems that the Juz‘ had not enough value except being procure as a written text. As far as we determined there are eleven narration of Abu al-Jahm in the main ḥadīth sources. In addition, we detected that some studies which contain some ḥadīth of al-Juz’ are list them in the same layout and order. This situation indicates that al-Juz’ is owned by these people as a duplicated edition and they narrated by not only orally transmitted but also spread by writing copy. This inference strengthens the theory which conceived by Modern researcher Fuad Sezgin (1924-2018) that ḥadīth transmission had conducted not only through oral transfer but also through written copies.Even though he lived in a very active time of oral transmission of ḥadīth and the time of specific journey for learning and pursuing ḥadīth, it is seen that Abu al-Jahm formed his Juz‘ from the ḥadīths that he procured only from his six shaykhs. That was quite less amount in that period. Juz‘, has an ʿAlāʾ al-Rijāl classification (ranked according to narrators) as ex¬pected in his period method. Abu al-Jahm began his study with his shaykh Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd’s narration, then completed with Sufyān ibn ʿUyayna’s. Juz‘ includes 112 ḥadīths. Ex¬cept two muʻallaq isnāds (omitting one or more narrators), all of ḥadīth has muttaṣil isnāds (narrators in the chain connected each other without omitting). Al-Juz‘ available nowadays in a published form. It seems that some of ḥadīth datas included in the Juz‘ have content against Islamic juris-prudential judgements. For example, the Prophet’s sayings ‘One or two swallow of breast milk does not make haram’ and ‘Nobody can fast or pilgrimage for the benefit of someone else’; allowing to Subay‘a al-Aslamī to marry without waiting her ‘iddah (waiting period of a woman after the death of her husband or divorce); when she gave birth, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān’s permission to al-Rubay‘a bint Mu‘avvidh not to wait her ‘iddah; when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar has nasal bleeding he leaves the prayer, goes to wash, then back and continue where he leave off, without taking ablution; and describing marriage with polytheist women as for¬bidden (ḥarām). Of course, all this information must be examined within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. However, Abu al-Jahm stands alone (tafarrūd) in such issues, it can be seen as the reasons to be recognized as a censured person (majrūḥ).Al-Juz‘ included 66 isnāds of Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd’s narration. Therefore it leaves behind all the works that compile the narration of Ibn Sa'd. That is why, we hypothesize that Juz‘ is a form of Al-Layth’s study that has survived to the present days. As a matter of fact, the muhaddiths who included the narrations of Al-Layth in their works, especially Ibn ḳuṭlūbughā could not ignore the Juz‘ of Abu al-Jahm; on the contrary, they took it as reference. In this case, it should be said that Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī is a loyal follower of Al-Layth and the word at¬tributed to Imām Shāfi‘ī and characterizing Al-Layth’s followers with disloyalty is invalid. (shrink)

İslam düşünce tarihinin erken dönemlerine kadar uzanan selef olgusunun aksine Selefîlik, son birkaç asırda varlığını hissettiren bir yapı olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. İslam’ın selef nesline dayalı bir biçimde anlaşılması ve yaşanması ülküsünü güden Selefîlik, ortaya çıkışının ardından araştırma ve tartışmalara konu edinilerek birbirinden farklı anlama ve yorumlama çabalarına maruz bırakılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda Selefîliğin selef olgusuyla yani sahâbe, tâbiîn ve tebe-i tâbiîn ile ilişkisi; ehl-i hadis, Hanbelîlik, Ehl-i Sünnet, Vehhâbîlik, ıslahat hareketleri, radikal akımlar hatta Haricîlikle benzer ve farklı yönleri analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca (...) Selefîliğin Ahmed b. Hanbel, İbn Teymiyye ve Muhammed b. Abdilvehhâb ile bağlantısı; tarihlendirilmesi, tanımlanması ve tasnif edilmesi, bu anlama ve yorumlama çabalarının mihverini oluşturmuştur. Her ne şekilde olursa olsun Selefîlik, özellikle içerisinde bulunduğumuz asırda araştırmacıların dikkatini çekmiş ve son dönemlerde ortaya çıkan dinî-siyasî akımlardan belirgin bir şekilde ayrılacak düzeyde yoğun analizlere tabi tutulmuştur. Ülkemize ek olarak dünyanın büyük bir kısmında Selefîlikle ilgili yayın faaliyetlerinin artarak devam ediyor olması, bu durumun en önemli göstergesidir. Böylece Suûd yarımadasında ortaya çıkarak başta İslam ülkeleri olmak üzere dünyanın büyük bir kısmında yayılım gösteren Selefîlik, her bölgede aynı etki düzeyine sahip olmasa da ilgi açısından başta Türkiye olmak üzere birçok ülkenin dikkatini çekmiştir. Bu durumun neticesinde Selefîlik, son yılların önemli tartışma konularından biri konumunda bulunmakta ve oldukça farklı mecralarda araştırma konusu olarak varlığını sürdürmektedir. Çoğunlukla makale veya tebliğ konusu şeklinde ele alınan Selefîlik, tez ve kitap çalışmalarında da kendisine yer bulmaktadır. Son yılların yazın faaliyetine bakıldığında Selefîlik konusunu ele alan sempozyumların ve özel sayıların da yayımlandığı görülür. Diğer yayın türlerine nazaran Selefîlik konusunu ele alan özel sayıların konuyu daha derli toplu ve konsantre bir şekilde etüt ettiği belirtilmelidir. Özel sayılar, Selefîlik olgusunun belirli ve daha dar bir alanda ayrıca mukayeseli bir biçimde ele alınmasını sağlamaktadır. Bize bu imkânı sağlayan yayınlardan biri de İstanbul Müftülüğü’nün hakemli resmî yayın organı olan Din ve Hayat Dergisinin Selefîlik özel sayısıdır. Derginin 2023 yılının Temmuz ayında yayımlanan 47. sayısı, Selefîlik konusuna hasredilmiştir. Bu sayıda farklı uzmanlık alanlarına sahip 19 akademisyen tarafından Selefîlikle ilgili muhtelif konuları içeren makaleler kaleme alınmıştır. Özel sayı olması nedeniyle kendine özgü hususiyetleri barındıran bu yayın faaliyeti, Selefîlik olgusunun farklı yönleriyle analizi açısından önem taşımaktadır. Bu nedenle makalemizde Din ve Hayat Dergisi Selefîlik özel sayısında yer alan makaleler, inceleme konusu yapılmıştır. Böylece bu özel sayı üzerinden Türk ilahiyat akademyasının Selefîlik birikim ve anlayışının günümüzde geldiği nokta, imkânlar dâhilinde ortaya koyulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu amaçla makalemizde Selefîlik olgusunun ilgili metinler üzerinden etraflı ve karşılaştırmalı analizine odaklanılmıştır. İlgili analiz faaliyetinin gerçekçi sonuçlara ulaşması adına Selefîlik araştırmalarının en sorunlu yönleri olan tanımlama, tarihlendirme, ilişkilendirme ve konumlandırma gibi hususlar ön planda tutulmuştur. Böylece hem Selefîlik araştırmalarının önümüze çıkardığı sorun alanlarına dikkat çekilmiş hem de bu sorunlara dönük bazı çözüm önerilerinde bulunulmuştur. Tüm bu girişimlerin oldukça yakın bir zamanda kaleme alınan metinler üzerinden gerçekleştirilmiş olması ayrıca önemlidir. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımına dayalı olarak yürüttüğümüz çalışmamızda doküman analizi yöntemi benimsenmiştir. Söz konusu doküman analizi, metinler üzerinde derinleşme ve mukayeseli kaynak kritiği şeklindeki usûl ilkeleriyle somutlaştırılmıştır. İlgili metinlerin kapsamlı ve mukayeseli analizi neticesinde Selefîlikle ilgili araştırmalarda görülen bazı sorunların günümüzde devam ettiği ve bu sorunların tanımlama, tarihlendirme ve ilişkilendirme gibi hususlar etrafında şekillendiği tespit edilmiştir. (shrink)

Bu araştırma hicri birinci asrın ilk yarısında varlık gösteren Basra’nın, fıkhıyla meşhur bazı sahâbîlere ev sahipliği yapmasına rağmen hadis ve fıkıh ilimlerinde, aynı dönemde öne çıkan Kûfe’den geri kalmasının muhtemel sebeplerine odaklanmaktadır. Söz konusu sahâbe arasında öne çıkanlar, Basra’da on iki sene ikamet etmiş olan Ebû Musa el-Eş’arî ve dört sene bulunan İbn Abbas’tır. Mezkûr iki sahâbenin fıkhî müktesabatlarının yanında çok sayıda hadis rivayetine sahip olduğu da bilinmektedir. Ancak buna rağmen her ikisinin de İbn Mes‘ûd’un, Kûfe’de yaptığı etkiyi gösterdikleri söylenemez. (...) Araştırmada, Basra’da meskûn bulunan sahâbeyle ilgili rivayetlerin tahlil ve değerlendirmesine dayalı bir yöntem takip edilmiş olup, özellikle sahâbe ile tâbiînin ilmî ilişkilerine yoğunlaşılmıştır. Bununla beraber coğrafya ve kuruluş bakımından benzerlik gösteren Kûfe şehrindeki sahâbenin ilmî etkisi ve tâbiîn neslinin faaliyetleri bakımından bir takım karşılaştırmalarda bulunulmaktadır. Makalenin, konu hakkında öngördüğü birinci ihtimal, söz konusu sahâbîlerin ordugâh şehrinde yaşamanın gereği olarak fetihlerle meşgul olmalarıdır. Bu sonuç ilk olarak Ebû Musa el-Eş’arî’nin sireti üzerine yapılan incelemelerde ortaya çıkmıştır. Söz konusu ilmî gecikmeye sebep olan ikinci ihtimalin ise bahsi geçen sahâbenin ilimlerini yaymak adına aktif davranmamaları olduğu söylenebilir. Bu durumda sahâbenin ilmî kişiliklerinin önemli bir rol oynadığı düşünülmektedir. Diğer bir ihtimal, Basra’daki tâbiîn neslinin, sahâbeden ilim alma hususunda sarfettikleri çabanın, Kûfelilere kıyasla daha az olmasıdır. Bahsi geçen durumda Basra’nın bedevî kabile yapısının önemli bir etkili olduğu düşünülmektedir. Konuyla ilgili zikredilebilecek son ihtimal ise ilmî yapının teşekkül etmeye başladığı süreçte vuku bulan fitne ve karışıklıklardır. Nitekim bir müddet valilik görevini yürüten İbn Abbas’ın, bu süre zarfında ilim ve eğitim faaliyetleriyle ilgilenemediği görülür. Özetle araştırmanın ulaştığı en önemli sonuç; Basra’nın hicri birinci asrın ilk yarısında, İbn Mes’ûd tarafından kurulan Kûfe’ye kıyasla hadis ve fıkıh ilimlerinde gelişmiş bir şehir olmadığıdır. (shrink)

Bu çalışma hicrî birinci asrın ikinci yarısında Basra’da hadis ve fıkıh sahasındaki ilmî hareketliliği konu edinir. İlgili dönemde, orada yaşayan sahâbenin en meşhuru ve Hz. Peygamber’le en uzun süre birlikteliğe sahip olması hasebiyle, Enes b. Mâlik’in Basra’daki etkisi özel olarak ele alınır. Bu amaçla Enes b. Mâlik’le ilgili birçok rivayet tahlil edilir ve onun hem Basra’da hem de diğer şehirlerde yaşayan sahâbe ve tâbiûnla arasındaki ilmî ilişkileri üzerinde durulur. Çalışma mezkûr zaman diliminde Basra’da hadis faaliyetlerinin fazla, fıkıh faaliyetlerinin ise az (...) olduğunun tezahürlerini gösterir. Enes’in öğrencileri üzerindeki etkisi; öğrencilerinin fakih mi yoksa muhaddis mi olduğu araştırılır. Enes’in tabiûnla ilişkileri, kendisine yapılan rihleler, başka şehirlerde yaşayan fakih tabiûnun ondan rivayeti, İbn Ebî Şeybe’nin Musannef’i çerçevesinde onun fıkhî şahsiyeti ve başka meseleler incelenir. Böylece onun fıkhî melekesinin İbn Abbas ve İbn Ömer’le aynı derecede olmadığı ve benzer şekilde Basra’nın sahabenin fakihlerinden tabiûnun fakihlerine nakledilen “amel-i mütevâres”e önem veren Medine ve Kufe gibi bir fıkıh şehri olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılır. Basra, müksirûndan olan sahabî Enes b. Malik sayesinde hadislerin rivayetine, yayılmasına ve onlarla amel edilmesine önem verilen bir şehirdi. Ancak bu hadislerin yayılması aynı dönemde Mekke’de İbn Abbas’ın faaliyetleri ile kıyaslanabilecek bir fıkhî faaliyeti de beraberinde getirmedi. Dolayısıyla Basra sahabe döneminde fıkıh ilmî açısından geri kalırken hadis sahasında hareketliydi. Bu nedenle ona fıkıh ve “amel-i mütevâres” değil rivayet şehri denilmesini hak etmektedir. (shrink)

Arap dili gramerinde istişhâd ameliyesinde diğer naklî deliller kadar olmasa da hadise de yer verilmiştir. Nahivde hadisle istişhâd denilince kimi çevrelerce sadece Hz. Peygamber’in sözleri anlaşılır olmuştur. Oysaki hadis kavramı bundan daha geniş bir içeriğe sahip olup sahâbî ve tâbiî sözlerini de kapsamaktadır. Yine nahiv literatüründe istişhâda dair ortaya konmuş görüşler gözden geçirildiğinde sadece Hz. Peygamber’in sözleri değil az da olsa sahâbenin hatta tâbiînden bazılarının kavillerinin dahi referans alındığı görülmektedir. Bu olgudan hareketle sahâbe ve tâbiîn kavillerinin hadisler içindeki yeri, kavliyle (...) istişhâdda bulunulan sahâbe ve tâbiînin kimler olduğu ve istişhâda etkilerinin niceliksel ve niteliksel durumu gibi hipotezler gündeme gelmektedir. Diğer yandan bir kısmı hâlis Arap olan sahâbe ve tâbiînin sözlerinin “Arap kavli” içinde değerlendirilip değerlendirilmeyeceği konusu da akla gelen bir diğer güçlü soru işaretidir. İşte bu varsayımlardan hareketle şu amaçlar gözetilerek bu araştırmada bir neticeye varılabileceği kanaati hâsıl olmuştur: 1- Sahâbî ve tâbiîn sözlerinin Arap kavliyle ilişkisi 2- Hadisin kavramsal boyuttaki mahiyeti ve sınırlılıkları 3- Hadisle istişhâd çerçevesindeki teorik tartışmalar bir yana literatürde sahâbî ve tâbiî kavliyle istişhâd özelinde pratiğin tespit edilmesi. 4- Elde edilen verilere bağlı olarak literatürde teoriyle pratiğin bağdaşıklık durumunun saptanması. Buna göre araştırmada öncelikle hem erken dönemde hem geç dönemde istişhâd bağlamında eserlerinde sahâbî kavline ve varsa tâbiî kavline yer veren nahiv bilginleri tespit edilmiş, bunlardan öne çıkanlarının her biri için alt başlıklar açılmıştır. Bu başlıklar altında öncelikle ilgili bilginin hadisle istişhâd noktasındaki genel tutumuna kısaca değinilmiş, daha sonra hem sahâbî kavliyle istişhâdına dair dikkat çekici bir örneğe yer verilmeye çalışılmış hem de sahâbî kavliyle istişhâd tavırlarının niteliksel ve niceliksel yönlerine dikkat çekilmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırmada ulaşılan sonuç erken dönemde Sîbeveyhi (öl. 180/796), Yahyâ b. Ziyâd el-Ferrâ (öl. 207/822), Ahfeş el-Evsat (öl. 215/830 [?]) ve Müberred (öl. 286/900) gibi nahiv âlimlerinin fesahatleriyle ün yapmış olan Hz. Ömer (öl. 23/644) ve Hz. Ali (öl. 40/661) gibi sahâbenin öncü isimlerinin kavillerini az da olsa hüccet edindiği, geç dönemde ise ilk kez Zemahşerî’nin (öl. 538/1144) bu iki sahâbînin dışında farklı kavillerle istişhâd etmesi sonrasında zamanla Abdurrahman b. Abdullah Süheylî (öl. 581/1185), İbn Mâlik et-Tâî (ö. 672/1274), Radî el-Esterâbâdî (öl. 688/1289’dan sonra), Ebû Hayyân el-Endelüsî (öl. 745/1344) ve İbn Hişâm en-Nahvî (öl. 761/1360) başta olmak üzere sonraki dönemin meşhur bilginleri sayesinde daha fazla sahâbî ve tâbiî kavlinin nahiv literatürüne girdiği şeklindedir. Son tahlilde pratikte hadisle istişhâd adı altında başta Hz. Peygamber’in (s.a.s.) bizzat kendi sözlerinin yanı sıra bir miktar sahâbe ve tâbiîn kavlinin de yer aldığı ve bu kavillerin Arap kavli içerisinde yeri olmakla birlikte hadis kategorisine daha yakın olduğu çıkarımına ulaşılmıştır. Yine geç dönemde Zemahşerî, İbn Hazm (öl. 456/1064), Süheylî ve İbn Harûf el-İşbîlî (öl. 609/1212) gibi bilginlerin başta Hz. Peygamber’in (s.a.s.) sözleriyle olmak üzere sahâbe ve tâbiînin kavilleriyle, bir diğer ifadeyle çok hadisle istişhâdın öncül karakterleri olduğu, dolayısıyla çok hadisle istişhâda sadece İbn Mâlik ekseninde bakılamayacağı, sosyolojik denklemler ekseninde dönemsel bir olgu olarak bakılması gereği gibi hususlar diğer çözüm önerileri olarak gündeme getirilmiştir. (shrink)

Each narration or text, as it informs about an event, situation or person in history, has a history that sheds light on both its formation and how it arrived to us. The illumination of this history is at least as important as the content analysis of the information. For this reason, it is necessary both to examine whether the source in which the information is given has survived to the present day as it was created by the author without being (...) exposed to any external intervention, and to analyze the narration in terms of reliability and indication within the integrity of the isnād-text. In that case, when the word “text criticism” is mentioned, an understanding of a specific criticism should come to mind, which includes both critical edition (scholarly editing) of the first source and the critique of the narration by making sound research in terms of isnād and literary criticism (naqd al-isnād wa-l-matn). Due to reasons such as the inability to follow a standard method, the limited number of the copies and/or the distance of the copies from the author in terms of history and commercial concerns, many classical works published with relative verification contain such errors require a re-examination. One of these works is Ibn Hibbān’s (d. 354/965) book al-Majrūhīn. In his work al-Majrūhīn, Ibn Hibbān divided the narrators into two groups according to their reliability and collected the ones that he determined as weak according to his opinion. In this work, he placed Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) at the top of the list. First, he denounced Abū Ḥanīfa with the following expressions: Sahib al-ra’y, child of slaves, bicker, hypocrite, had little knowledge of hadith, a Murji’ī propagandist, a narrator who was blamed by imams. Then he tried to justify these claims by about thirty narrations from various salaf scholars. These narratives are completely different from the largely intellecutal discussions and criticisms of scholars such as al-Awza'i (d. 157/774), Ibn Abī Laylā (d. 148/765) and Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) on Abu Ḥanīfa and his school. The narrations compiled by Ibn Hibbān are display insulting and polemical narrations against Abu Ḥanīfa’s personality and reliability. In terms of being a source for later periods, it is important to examine and criticize these narratives in terms of the narration techniques. The al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl is important part of the hadith science. al-Mejrūhīn, one of the leading works of this science is remarkable in many respects. According to this narration Abū Ḥanīfa Nuʿmān b. S̱ābit b. Zūtā b. Māh’ın (öl. 150/767) said, "If a man worships this mule to get closer to Allah, I see no harm in it." According to our analysis, there are the following determinations about the narrators in the chain of this narrative. Ibn Abī Mushir is unknown (majhūl), the narrator who is written as “Mahfūz b. Abī Savba” but his correct name is “Tawba” is matrūk. Ahmad b. al-Walīd al-Mahramī al-Karkhī is weak, and Yahyā b. Hamza, source person, is qadari who narrates from people with munkar al-hadith; but is also considered as a thiḳa narrator. As for Sa‘īd b. Abd al-Azīz, he has nothing to do with the reception and transmission of the narrative. In addition, there is also a break in the chain. First of all, what is expected from a basic work such as al-Majrūhīn, whose subject and purpose is purely a narrator analysis, is that the report in it should be acceptable, at least in terms of isnād. When the narrative in question, which is also included in earlier sources such as al-Fesewī (d. 277/890), is evaluated in terms of both the isnād and the text, one realizes the transformation of an expression circulating in the form of gossip against Abu Ḥanīfa in Damascus around the subject of ʾirjāʾ. ʾIrjāʾ was at the forefront of the heated debates in the second half of the second century into semā form in terms of isnād and text, besides, the word النعل/clog is transformed into البغل/mule. Apart from the weak points of the chain, Sa‘īd b. Abd al-Azīz, who has nothing to do with the reception and transmission of the narrative, has also been turned into the narrator/source of the report with the samā expression. Regardless of the purpose and the criteria of the narration technically, during the conversation with Sa‘īd, Yahyā b. Hamza’s sincere friend and teacher, a special speech in which a common report attributed to Abu Ḥanīfa was expressed, was transformed into Yahyâ’s samā‘ in the form of jazm. As a result, the word “shoe” or “clog” has evolved into mule. It would be a reductionist and over optimistic approach to assume that all this may have resulted from tashīf and tahrīf of the copyists. The narration we discussed is a typical example in terms of showing the effect of the conflict of ideas between Ahl al-Hadīth and Ahl ar-Ra’y on the narrations. Of course, this shoud be not regarded as the only example. (shrink)

The Islamic thought has experienced many ruptures in history. One of them is the Mihna period. The main argument of the mihna period, which started during the reign of the Abbasid Khalifa Me'mun, was the issue of the khalq al-Qur'an. The leading figures of the period were dictated to accept the idea that the Qur'an was created. Those who took an opposing stance were oppressed and tortured. In this period, people like Ahmed b. Hanbal, who did not bow to oppresion, (...) were made heroic by the people. This time, the reverse Mihna period started and those who spoke about the people of the Qur'an were criticized. Many of the muhaddith considered the approach to the issue of the khalq al-Qur'an as a bid'ah. This situation has created a field of criticism for people and segments who do not like each other. For this reason, unfair perceptions have been created about some people and their authorities in the society have been targeted with unfounded claims. Therefore, it is important to consider the approaches of Islamic scholars or sects to the subject objectively and to evaluate them in this context. In this study, the approaches of Dâwûd az-Zâhirî (d. 270/884), the founder of the Zâhirî sect, who were negatively affected by the situation in question, and other Zâhirî scholars to 'khalq al-Qur'an' were examined. In addition to the perception made about them, it is aimed to determine the accuracy of the discourses attributed to them. In this context, first of all, the views attributed to them are (i) The Qur'an in our hands, which consists of paper and ink, is not created, whereas the Qur'an in the preserved tablet is not created. (ii) The Qur'an is muhdes (created). (iii) The Qur'an is muhdes, and it is a creature in terms of its pronunciation. (iv) When the Qur'an is recited, the pronunciation that occurs as a result of the movements made by the servant to extract the letters has been classified as creature. These discourses attributed to them were compared with the information found in the works of Zâhirî scholars and it was determined whether they were consistent or not. As a result of the researches, Dâwûd az-Zâhirî, who was in Nishapur during the years when the mihna process continued, expressed some discourses about the creation of the Qur'an; however, with the end of the mihna, it was concluded that he gave up his discourses in question. Ibn Abi Asim (d. 287/900), Ibn Niftawayh (d. 323/935), Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064), and Ibn al-Kaysarani (d. 507/1113), who are among the apparent scholars, have openly stated that the Qur'an is not a creature and they also blaspheme those who claim otherwise. In addition, it has been observed that the perception made independently of the correctness or falsity of the discourses attributed to them negatively affects the Zâhirî scholars in many ways. For example, it is because of this that Zâhirî scholars who are exposed to such perceptions lose value both in the eyes of the public and in the scientific assemblies. (shrink)

The narration of tashahhud being a conversation between Allah, the Prophet and the angels is quite common among people. This article examines the authenticity of this narration and questions whether it has an informative value. In this context, the research undertaken in Hadith, Siyar, Tafsīr and Fiqh sources resulted that the narration was not stated in the hadith books -with sanad (the chain of narrators) or without sanad. The first and only summary version of the script was included in the (...) commentary of Thaʿlebī (d. 427/1035), which has very problematic sanads. The first narration without sanad but having a full text (matn) was narrated by Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273). It appears that various commentators of hadith, fuqahāʾ (expert in Islamic jurisprudence), mufassirs (commentators on the Qur’ān) and historians followed Thaʿlabî and Qurṭubī by narrating from them. In fact, these group of scholars did not specify a sanad for the narration but they usually used tamrīd forms (a form which shows that the hadith is weak or deficient), which suggests that they also did not convinced that the narrarion was makbūl (accepted). On the other hand, the fact that this narration did not accompany authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) hadiths on the emergence of tashahhud narrated by hadith scholars, such as Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Nasāʾī and Ibn Mājah, which also indicates another problem with this narration. Summary: The narration on the emergence of the prophetic prayer that is called tashahhud in the fiqh literature as it includes the word shahadah (testimony) and known as “al-tahiyyat” and “tahiyyat” is constantly transmitted among people. According to this narration, the Prophet (pbuh) praised Allāh by saying “al-taḥiyyātu lillāhi wa-al-salawātu wa-al-ṭayyibāt” on the night of Miʿrāj when he met Allāh. Our Lord responded to him by saying “al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatullāhi wa-barakātuhu”. The honorable Prophet also included his ummah in this prayer by saying “al-salāmu ʿalayna wa-ʿalā ʿibād Allāh al-ṣāliḥīn” and the Gabriel (and/or angel community) who witnessed this greeting said “ashhadu an lā illāha illallāh wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa-rasūluhu.”This article examines the authenticty of the narration and whether it has an informative value. The findings of the research undertaken in hadith, siyar, tafsir and fiqh sources suggests that the narration was not included in any hadith books with sanad or without sanad. The first and only narration with sanad is found in Thaʿlabī’s tafsīr titled al-Kasfh wa-al-bayān. However, it is a summary version of the narration and its sanads are very problematic. In this tafsīr, Thaʿlabī combines two different chains of narrators in one text. The sanads of these two narrations combined by Thaʿlabī as follows:1. Sanad: Zuhrī → Ibn Salimah b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān → Jābir b. ʿAbdullāh → Prophet (pbuh).2. Sanad: Suddī → Muḥammad b. al-Sāib → Bāzān → Ibn ʿAbbās → Prophet (pbuh).The identity of Ibn Salimah mentioned in the first sanad is disputed. The rijāl (literally; men, refers to knowledge of men/narrators) scholars, such as Ibn Abī Ḥātim stated that he is a man whose memory is corrupted in his old age. In the second sanad there are three dhaʽīf (weak) narrators, namely Suddī, Muḥammad b. al-Sāib and Bāzān. Ibn Abī Ḥātim stated that some parts of Kalbī’s (Muḥammad b. al-Sāib) narration with ṭarīkh (synonym of sanad) of Bāzān from Ibn ʿAbbās was fabricated. Moreover, Thaʿlabī who narrated these two sanads in his tafsīr was accused of being conveying fabricated narrations in his books.As far as we can ascertain, Qurṭubī narrated the first narration of this story without sanad and without referring to a source. However, he narrated the full version of the text. Similarly this narration was also transmitted by Suhaylī and ʿAlī al-Qārī without sanad and a reference but they transmitted it by seperating into two slightly different texts. According to Suhaylī’s text in al-Ravḍ al-Unuf, angels stated “al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatallāhi wa-barakātuhu” not Allāh. According to ʿAlī al-Qārī’s text in Sharḥ al-Shifa, when Allāh Said “al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatallāhi wa-barakātuhu”, the Prophet (pbuh) responded by saying: “Allāhumma anta al-Salām wa-minka al-Salām wa-ilayka yarjiuʿ al-Salām, al-Salām alaynā wa-alā ibād Allāh al-sālihīn.” It is clear that there are disputes about the contents of some sentences as well as their subjects in the text of Tashahhud’s narration.The full text and summary versions of this narrarion can be found in tafsīr books, such as Rāzī's Mafātiḥ al-ghayb, Samarqandī's Baḥr al-ʿulūm and Bursavī's Rūḥ al-bayān; in fiqh books, such as Bābartī's al-ʿInâyah, Ḥaddād's al-Javharah al-nayyirah, ʿAynī’s al-Bināyah, Molla Khusraw’s Durar al-ḥukkām, Jamal’s Futūḥāt al-Wahhāb and Bujayramī’s al-Tajrīd; and in various hadith commentaries and in some siyar books. The authors of these books did not mention sanads of their narrations and they usually used tamrīd forms. This suggests that they also did not consider this narration as authentic. On the other hand, the fact that all narrations transmitted in these books are not compatible with those authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) hadiths about the emergence of tashahhud, which were reported by muhaddiths, such as Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Nasāī and Ibn Mājah. This also indicates another problem with this narration. The authentic hadiths on the issue as follows: 1. Bukhārī→Musaddad→Yaḥyā→Aʿmash→Shaqīq→Ibn Masʿūd: He said:When we prayed with the Messenger of Allāh (pbuh), we used to say: “Peace (al-Salām) be upon Allāh, peace be upon Jibrīl, peace be upon Mikāʿīl.” The Messenger of Allāh (pbuh) said: “Do not say: Peace (al-Salām) be upon Allāh, for Allāh is al-Salām.” Rather say: “al-taḥiyyātu lillāhi wa-al-salawātu wa-al-ṭayyibāt, al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatallāhi wa-barakātuhu. Al-salāmu ʿalayna wa-ʿalā ʿibād Allāh al-ṣāliḥīn, ashhadu an lā ilāha illallāh wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa-rasūluhu (Allāh compliments, prayers and pure words are due to Allāh. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allāh and his blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous slaves of Allāh. I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except Allāh and I bear witness that Muḥammad is His slave and Messenger.”2. Bukhārī→Abū Nuaym→Sayf→Mucāhid→Abū Maʿmar ʿAbdullāh b. Saḥbarah→Ibn Masʿūd: He said:Allāh’s Messenger (pbuh) taught me Tashahhud as he taught me a sūrah (chapter) from the Qur’ān, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashahhud was): “All the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allāh. Peace and Allāh’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allāh, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh, and I also testify that Muhammad is Allāh’s slave and His Apostle.” (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh), but when he had died, we used to say: “Peace be on the Prophet.”As a result, it is unlikely that the Prophet (pbuh) did not touch upon the relationship between the Miʿrāj and the Tashahhud while teaching it. It is also unlikely that his companions who narrated this occasion did not mention about this important detail although they had such knowledge. Indeed, hadith scholars did not include the narrations that associated tashahhud with the Miʿrāj but they reported two other aforementioned narrations on the emergence of the Tashahhud in their books, which raises doubts over the authenticity of the relevant narration in question. (shrink)

The Sufyānī narration, which is also referred in some studies carried out today, is mentioned in the early Shiite and Sunnī sources. The anticipated savior perception of the period has an important place in understanding the Sufyānī narrations in the emergence process of which political and sectarian events were effective. Narrations stating that the Mahdī named Muḥammad, one of the descendants of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh), would appear in the end of times and establish justice by bringing order to the (...) world where oppression, injustice and inequity have spread, were effective in the political and social life after the Prophet (pbuh). The emergence of the Sufyānī narrations, whose intellectual infrastructure was constituted by the expected Mahdī perception that is effective in the society, was the result of the political conflicts of the period. The death of Muʻāwiya ibn Yazīd (d. 64/684), the third Caliph of the Umayyad State, without leaving a crown behind caused a political crisis. The cousin of the Muʻāwiya II, Marwān bin al-Ḥakam, the experienced politician who turned this moment of crisis into an opportunity and who was from the same dynasty but from a different family, took over the administration and thus the sultanate continued. Although the reign continued from the sons of Umayyad, the administration passed from sons of Sufyān to the sons of Marwān, who were from the same dynasty. This situation caused discomfort in Sufyānīs. Thus, Muʻāwiya II's brother Khālid ibn Yazīd, whose right of administration was seized from him, with the intention of gaining his lost reputation in the society and turning the pessimism towards his family into hope and desire, has been claimed to spread the savior Sufyānī narrations expected from the sons of Sufyān, parallel to the Mahdī narrations expected from the sons of Alī, which was influential in the society. Thus, the Sufyānī came to be expected like the expected Mahdī, who was influential in society and exploited by the Shiite sects in their own belief systems. The rebellions carried out by the sons of Sufyān against the administration in the 2nd century hijrī and afterwards were conceived as the appearance of the Sufyānī expected by the society and the person who led the rebellion was described as Sufyānī. The most important of these rebellions is the revolt of ʻAlī ibn Abdullah ibn Khālid nicknamed Abū ʻAmayṭar, formed by the coalition of sons of ʻAlī and sons of Sufyān who descend from the sons of Umayya. Abū ʻAmayṭar, who is considered to be the Sufyānī and some sections of whose life constitute a source for many narrations on the Sufyānī, declared his caliphate during the period of Abbasī Caliph al-Amīn (d. 198/813) and called for allegiance to himself. The announcement of his caliphate was considered by his supporters as the expected savior. The period of Abū ʻAmayṭar and the sayings about him are extremely important in terms of presenting the expected savior perception in the society, the Sufyānī understanding and the date of his emergence. Sections from Abū ʻAmayṭar's life reflected in the narrations about the Sufyānī in many Shiite and Sunnī sources. In this article, it is tried to examine the emergence of the Sufyānī narrations, its development and particularly its transformation within the Shiite sect, in a detailed manner and especially based on political and sectarian events of the early period. (shrink)

In this article, the introduction to the book of Kitāb al-Mulakhkhas al-Muwatta' by Qābisī (d. 403/1012), one of the hadith scholars of Maghrib geography, is discussed. The author wrote this work in order to bring together the continual documents in the Ibn al-Qāsim narra-tion of Mālik b. Anas' (d. 179/795) al-Muwatta. In the introduction, the author first stated the purpose of the writing of Kitāb al-Mulakhkhas al-Muwatta''s and the method followed in the work. Namely, he states that he compiled this (...) work to respond to the demands of those who asked him to bring together the hadiths of Mālik b. Anas, whose chain is complete. In the compilation of the work, he was content with the only narration of Muwatta. He followed the method of collecting the musnad hadiths in this narration, the ones with clear continuous. However, he preferred not to include the narrations that were closed in his continuous in his work. After this information, the author has included some issues of hadith methodology in the introduction part. The main purpose of the study is to determine the concepts and subjects of the hadith methodology that he discussed in this section. In this context, firstly, information about Qābisī's life was given, and his education was mentioned. Then, some information about the features of the work in question is presented. Afterwards, the concepts of hadith methodology that he mentioned in the introduction of his work and his explanations on these issues were examined under separate headings. Although he is encouraged to narrate hadiths in this introduction, he provides information about the refraining of many hadith transmissions, the conditions of endurance of hadith, the words of the narration considered as 'muttasil and munqati', the narration with the meaning of the hadiths and the lahn in the hadith. When the approaches of Qābisī on these issues are examined, it is revealed that he tends towards the views of the Mālikī school, which he is a follower of and Imam Mālik. For this reason, the parts in which he adopted Mālik’s approaches and tended to explain the issues by referring to him are mentioned. (shrink)

In order for the Islamic message to be delivered to people, The Prophet (pbuh) and his companions have made great efforts. A great part of the companions (ashab) were not in the places where they lived after death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). They have made enormous sacrifices by abandoning their homeland in order to bring Islam to different lands/intercounty. Especially the second Khalif Omer period has passed with the struggles against the two great states of the time, Sasani and (...) Byzantine. In this period, Muslims conquered many places such as Palestine, Egypt, Damascus, Hama, Aleppo, Antakya, Rakka and Urfa. Thus, the Islamic armies came to Anatolia. One of the companion who participated in the activities of conquest actively is Iyâz b. Ghanm who died in 20/641. Iyâz b. Ghanm who was brought to the governor of al-Cezîrah by Khalif Omer has conquered many places such as Nusaybin, Dârâ, Sincar, Meyyâfarikîn (Silvan) and Mardin and he has been conducive in meeting the region with Islam. Thus, in a time that could be counted as short as seven years from the death of the Prophet, the Islamic message reached remote geographies. The aim of this study is to give information about Iyâz b. Ghanm, who was at the head of the army that conquered the al-Jazeera region and to determine whether there are narrations that are personally transmitted from him or that it is included in isnad. As can be seen when the narrative literature is researched, some hadiths narrated by Iyâz b. Ghanm are in the following hadith sources: Sahîh-Bukhârî and Ibn Hibbân; Şuabu’l-Îmân and Sunan al-Kubrâ-Beyhakî; Musned-Ebû Ya’lâ and Ahmed b. Hanbel; al-Mu’cam al-Kebîr-Taberânî. Determination of these narratives will reveal the contribution of the Islamic commander, who has a significant place in the memory of the inhabitants of al-Jazeera region and the adjacent surroundings, to the hadith. (shrink)

The issue of acting on weak hadiths has been a debated issue throughout history. Scholars have adopted different views on this issue. While there are scholars who argue that weak hadiths should not be acted upon at all, there are also scholars who argue that there is no harm in acting upon them under certain conditions. While scholars such as Müslim, Yahya b. Ma'in and Subhi Salih in the modern period adopt the view that weak hadiths should not be acted (...) upon, Imam Şafiî, Imam Ahmed and Ebu Davud prefer the view that if there is no sound hadith on a subject, weak hadiths should be acted upon. Apart from these two groups, there are also scholars, such as Ibn Hajar, who adopt the middle path and emphasize that weak hadiths should be acted upon under certain conditions.It is seen that the approaches expressing their opinions on the issue of acting on weak hadiths generally differ depending on whether the topics are provisions or virtues. While some scholars do not consider it permissible to act on weak hadiths, whether they are subject to provisions or not; It is seen that some of them are of the opinion that, under certain conditions, virtues and even provisions can be acted upon when necessary. Although the Scholars are generally of the opinion that one should not act on a weak hadith regarding the provisions, some of them stated that there is no harm in acting on it if it meets certain conditions regarding the provisions. Acting with weak hadiths regarding virtue has been a subject mentioned by many scholars. It has been seen that many hadith scholars, from the early periods, have adopted a positive attitude towards hadith narrations regarding virtue. This shows that the idea of acting with weak hadiths has existed since then.Ulama who follow the Hanafi sect generally made inferences based on weak hadiths. It is seen that Hanafi scholars, who attach importance to ray and qiyas, prefer weak hadiths to ray and qiyas in some cases. This situation is mostly the result of the necessity of extracting the provisions regarding ta'abbudi issues from the hadiths. It is also possible that they use weak hadiths in order to encourage people to do good and avoid bad situations regarding the virtue of deeds. In some cases, the use of hadiths that are in accordance with precautions is a common situation among Hanafi scholars. For this and similar reasons, it is possible to see the use of weak hadith among Hanafi scholars.It would not be right to limit the issue of weak hadith and deeds only to Hanafi ulema. The issue of acting with weak hadith has been discussed a lot in the sources on the Sunni hadith method. Hadith scholars have examined these hadiths under two main headings: provisions and virtues. They did not see any problems in the narration of weak hadiths, provided that they were not on matters related to belief and rules; It is possible to say that they acted more inclusively when they narrated hadiths on subjects such as maw'iza, virtue of deeds and stories, as well as issues related to tafsir and megazi. Weak hadith narration and acting on weak hadith, and some scholars preferring weak hadiths to qiyas, indicate that this is because it is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.Commentators generally give a lot of space to weak hadiths, fabricated news andİsraelites in their tafsir books. In particular, it is seen that the commentators of narration use every material they find about the virtues of the suras, without evaluating their authenticity. It is seen that Muhaddith scholars frequently resort to weak hadiths as well as sound narrations, especially on subjects such as fedailu'l-quran, fedailu's-suver, fedailu'l-ayat.In this context, if the hadiths used by Nasafi regarding the virtues of the suras in his work called et-Teysîr fi't-tefsîr are examined, it will be seen that he gives a lot of place to weak hadiths. It is important that, in addition to the scholars who adopt the view that weak hadiths cannot be acted upon, there are also scholars such as Nasafi, who believe that there is no harm in acting on weak hadiths on some issues, especially regarding virtues. As a matter of fact, although the fact that Nasafi was a muhaddith as well as a commentator gave the impression that he would select and use the hadiths more meticulously, it has been observed that he did not behave differently from other commentators and used weak hadiths and fabricated news about the virtues of the suras. In this respect, it is seen that Nasefi reflects the general attitude of commentators in his work. It is possible to see that a scholar who is knowledgeable in many fields resorts to weak hadiths, especially regarding virtues, shows a moderate approach to the status of these hadiths, and accepts that weak hadiths are suitable for narration and can be acted upon. (shrink)

Hadiths that have been discussed in this paper consist of narrations regarding divine attributes and having some problematic meanings between supporters of Bişr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī. These narrations were mostly accepted denounced (munkar) by Bişr al-Marīsī and his sopporters due to having an anthropormophist and corporealist content about God. They rejected divine attributes according to their understanding of God based on incomparability (tanzīh) which provided by Mutazilite approach towards divine attributes even though they conveyed some features of Ahl al-Ra’y. (...) They found contradicted of attributing human features to God based on their tanzīh understanding, therefore, they interpreted such this kind of narra-tions in terms of their approach or rejected at all. At the other hand, a hard Hadith scholar Uth-man al-Darimi believed that one should accept divine attributes as they are in the Qur’an and Sunna. According to his belief, he considered the explicit meanings of the narrations without interpretation of divine attributes, and based on his perpective he denied Bişr al-Marīsī and his supporters’ interpretations claiming they would cause divesting God of all attributes (ta‘tīl). He argues that these narrations should be taken into considerations based on their explicit mea-nings. The discussions on these hadiths are important due to showing different approaches of scholars from the schools of Ahl al-Ra’y and the ones from Ahl al-Hadith towards the hadith du-ring the period when the main Hadith works were collected. Discussions on the narrations stu-died in this paper reveal two schools’ understandings of divine issues, their approaches to divi-ne attributes, as well inform us their perspectives of hadith in general.Summary: The present paper examines the debates between ʿUthmān al-Dārimī (d. 280/894) and the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī (d. 218/833) on the divine attributes mentioned in some hadiths in the period when the main hadith books were composed (i.e., III/IXth century). These debates that took place between the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y concern the un-derstanding and interpretation of the hadiths in a certain way.It could be stated that the debates focus on how the hadiths should be understood, or whether it is the explicit meaning of the words or the possible methaphorical meanings beyond them that should be considered.It is worth briefly introducing the parties who discussed the hadiths studied here. The aforementioned discussions about some hadith narrations are between the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, one of the important figures of the Ahl al-Hadith who wrote a separate work on these hadiths. This work was written as a rejection of the views of Bishr al-Marīsī and his two students on the attributes of God and some issues regarding hadith.Bishr al-Marīsī was regarded as an important scholar of Kalam who received fiqh education from Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798). He is a scholar of Ahl al-Ra’y who made scientific dis-cussions with many scholars including Imam al-Shafiʿī (d. 204/820). He was on the council of the Caliph Al-Mamūn (d. 218/833) and had a significant role in the adoption of the idea of the createdness of the Qurʾān (khalq al-Qurʾān).Uthmān al-Dārimī,on the other hand, was a scholar of Ahl al-Hadith who learned ha-dith from the authorities of his era such as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233/847), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848), Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh (d. 237/851), and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Having visited all the important cities for the training of hadith, he learned the hadiths and conveyed them.With the understanding of proving the divine attributes and the opposition of the misin-terpretation of the narratives related to them, the groups advocating the appropriation of these lines in accordance with the understanding of incomparability (tanzīh) have complied the works since the first period. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the rejection of the divine attributes by Mu'tazila was influential in the emergence of the criticism literature of the Ahl al-Hadith and many authors wrote works in this direction.Regarding a narration by Abū Hurayra, an opponent reports that this narration gives the impression that God has the eyes and ears as we know. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī reports that this hadith proves sight and hearing not the eyes and ear organs. He indicates that God has no like by no means. Therefore, it is slanderous to refer the claim that Allah is made of organs to the Ahl al-Hadith. Abū Dāwūd states that with this hadith the attributes of sight and hearing for God are proved and Jahmiyya’s denial of the divine attributes are rejected.The opponent also considered Abū Hurayra's narration referring to the Prophet: "Faith is from Yemen, wisdom is from Yemen! I feel the breath of your Lord from Yemen!" as denounced (munkar). Because, according to Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions, breath can only come from those with an abdominal cavity, and Allah is free from it. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the opponent misunderstood. What is meant here is the wind that blows from Yemen and comforts people. In the context of this narration, we see that supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī evaluate the narrative literally, while ʿUthmān al-Dārimī interpret the narrative.Regarding the narration, "You can not approach Allah with something more virtuous than what comes out of it (the Qur'ān)" Ibn al-Saljī reports that Mushabbiha understands this as one with an abdominal cavity and from whom speech comes out. This understanding is in-valid since God is "samad" in the sense that He has no void. With this hadith, it is meant that the Qur'ān comes out of Allah’s presence rather than Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the real aim of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny God's attribute of speech. There is no doubt that the Qur'ān comes from Him, and those who do not accept it merely deny His attribute of speech.Attributed to Ibn Abbas; The meaning of "yamīn Allah" (the right hand of Allah) in narration "Black Stone (al-ḥajar al-aswad) is the right hand of Allah on earth, handshakes with the people" is not the right hand that we know according to Ibn al-Saljī, it is blessing and grace of Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who acknowledges that Black Stone is not meant to be a hand, the purpose of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny the two hands mentioned in the verses and ha-diths about Allah with invalid interpretations.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who criticized that Ibn al-Saljī quoted from another narration which Ibn Abbās heard from the Prophet, says that such poor narrations should not be spread. In addition, he points out that Ibn al-Saljī's interpretation is ugly and he criticizes it. Because Allah who is mentioned in the narrative is depicted as a young man with curly hair in a green suit. Such a narration is also an untrustworthy narration as it contradicts the authentic narrations of the Prophet. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who made this assessment of the narration, rejects the com-ments that the opponent made about the narration. According to the opponent, the phrase "I have come to Allah" means "to come into the presence of Allah in the Garden of Eden." Accor-ding to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī’s understanding, such complicated hadiths should not be only narra-ted.About the narration that are based on the Prophet and he does not know the answer to what he has come to know of himself, then he feels the coolness of his fingers as he puts his hand on his back and learns everything, the opponent evaluates the following: He was not Allah who came to the Prophet, but a well-behaved angel who was being directed by Allah and he was the angel who put his hand. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī rejects this interpretation of that oppo-nent. This comment is also contrary to other authentic hadiths. After he refused to the com-ment of the opponent about relevant narration, ʿUthmān al-Dārimī stated that he could not trust this comment on the basis of the authentic narrations he mentioned.Salaf scholars have preferred to be silent in this regard, as it is seen among the most difficult subjects to talk about divine attributes. However, subsequent generations have held dif-ferent paths in this regard. The basic approaches to understanding the divine attributes can be summarized in three main titles: tafwīd, tashbīh, and ta’wīl. Tafwīd is the path adopted by the early salaf scholars and means to leaving the knowledge about Allah’s entity and attributes to His knowledge. Tashbīh means to compare Allah to the created or the created to Allah. Ta'wīl is to interpret the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths that give the impression that Allah is like the crea-tures with semantics and rational deduction. The ones who deny the adjectives are called as Muʿattila and those who prove their attributes are called as Sifatiyya. According to Ahl al-Ra’y, it is necessary to appropriately make interpretation (ta'wīl) of the attributes giving the impression of anthropomorphism in terms of the dictionary. In the divine attributes, Muʿtazila advoca-ted the incomparability (tanzīh), whereas Ashʿariyya and Māturīdiyya adopted interpretation in accordance with incomparability. Mushabbiha and the Wahhābī-Salafī understanding has also taken the expressions regarding divine attributes with their explicit meanings.The debate between the scholars who lived in the ages II/VIII and III/IX, when the most important works are composed in the science of hadith, is important in that it is the first turn. In addition to this, the debate also contains important information on the approach to the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths, in that it shows two basic approaches, one of which represents the school of Ahl al-Ra’y, and the other represents the school of Ahl al-Hadith.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī generally advocates adhering to the explicit meaning of the narra-tion, while Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions criticize the narration labeling it as denied (mun-kar) or making an interpretation. On rare occasions, the places where ʿUthmān al-Dārimī re-jects the narration and makes interpretation, or where Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions de-fend the narrative can be seen.Interpretations made by Bishr al-Marīsī on the problematic narratives have influenced on the next scholars. Alongside Muʿtazilite scholars such as al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024) and Abū l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 436/1044), his interpretations have been quoted by Sunni scholars such as al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513/1119) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).The fact that the truth can be put forward in the science of hadith, which is based on the narration, does not favor one of the "narration" and "ra’y", it should be kept in mind that both of these depend on the proper and balanced use of both. To reveal the truth, the narration is in need of the opinion and the opinion (ra’y) is in need of the narration. Narration and opinion sho-uld be seen as complementary elements, not each other's opponents. (shrink)

Özet Hz. Peygamber’in her hâlini bizzat müşahede edecek kadar yakın ve Kur’ân’ın ilk muhatapları olan sahabe neslinin örnek hayatı ve ilmi kişilikleri hakkında çalışmak, bilgi edinmek, Kur’ân’ı ve Rasûlullah’ı doğru anlamanın temel yöntemini teşkil eder. Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd, ilmi yönden zengin birikime sahip ve yaşantısı bakımından farklı bir kişiliği vardır. Müslüman olduktan sonra Rasulullah’ın yanından hiç ayrılmayan, her türlü hizmetinde bulunan, öyleki ehl-i beytten fark edilmeyecek kadar O’na yakın olan İbn Mesʿud, aynı zamanda hemen hemen bütün savaşlarda Rasulullah’ın yanında bulunmaktan (...) geri durmayan diğer taraftan Resulullh’tan sonra da Kur’ân ve İslâm’a hizmet eden ve müslümanları eğiten bir muallimdir. Kur’ân-ı Kerîm’e ve Arapçaya olan vukûfiyeti, başta kıraat olmak üzere tefsir, hadis ve fıkıh ilmine dâir derin bilgisiyle öne çıkmış ve isim yapmış olan Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd Rasulullah’ın övgüsüne mazhar olmuş ashabın büyüklerindendir. Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd’un Kur’ân’ın nüzûlünün neredeyse tamamına şahit olması ve Peygamber’in yakınında bulunması, Kur’ân ve Kıraat ilimler açısından çok önemlidir. Abdullah İbn Mesʿud’un kıraatı iki gruptan oluşmaktadır. Birincisi hemen birçok kıraat-ı aşere imamının senetlerinde yer alan ve üzerinde ittifak edilen sahih kıraatler, ikincisi de müfessirlerin tefsirlerinde ele aldıkları ve tefsir kabilinden izahatları, dil bakımından istişhadda bulundukları, ihticac için kullandığı veya sadece müteradif olarak ele aldığı ifadeleridir. Bu çalışmada kıraatini bizzat Hz. Peygamber’den alan İbn Mes’ûd’un kıraat ilmini elde ettiği yol ve alanları irdelenmiştir. Özellikle onun Hz. Peygamber’den Kur’ân tâʿlimi, Allah Rasûlu ve Cebrail’in katılımıyla gerçekleşen Kur’ân’ın arzına katıldığını söylemesi, genelde İslâmî ilimlere özelde Kıraat’a yaptığı katkı, cem, istinsah ve Mushaflar konusundaki tutumu, ashâbın onun kıraati hakkındaki sözleri ve görüşleri gibi konuları incelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak birçok ilim dalında söz sahibi olduğu gibi Kıraat ilminde de imam olan büyük sahabi Abdullah ibn Mesʿdun kıratinin mahiyeti hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. (shrink)

In the ḥadīth sources it is being conveyed that the companions (ṣaḥāba) refrained from asking questions to the Prophet. This situation is generally associated with the verse of sūrat al-Māʾida 5:101. An-Navvās b. Samʿān (d. 50/670), Abū Umāma al-Bāhilī (d. 86/705) and Anas b. Mālik (d. 93/711-12) are among the companions who consider this situation as the ban on the asking questions. The concern that asking questions may cause additional obligations that were not presumed to be obligatory also attracts attention (...) in these records. Keeping all numerous questions addressed to the Prophet in mind we may ask if there is a Prophetic prohibition on asking questions. We will seek an answer to this question, which constitutes the main axis of this article, especially in the framework of the narrations mentioned among the reasons of the al-Māʾida 101. We will evaluate the information concerned in their historical context and internal coherence inductively. Our investigation differs in this respect from the investigations, which dealt with the disapproval of excessive and unnecessary questions. As a result of our research, we think that it is possible to talk about a ban on asking questions about religious issues in the last three years of the Medina period. We will first discuss the dating and nature of this ban, from which only Bedouin and visitors who come to Madina were excluded. Then, we especially will evaluate the theological consequences of answer of the Prophet, which mentioned in the same context, of whether the pilgrimage is religious duty for every year. In the last part of the article, the prohibition of asking questions will be discussed in the light of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s principle “Der hermeneutische Vorrang der Frage”, which deals with the effect of the questions on the direction and nature of the answer.Summary: It is reported in Qurʾān and Ḥadīth that the Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH) was asked a lot of questions and he responded based on the revealed knowledge or his own. He did not like the questions which remain outside of the daily religious life like the questions whether he is able to know the end of the world or to show miracle. There are some reports which covey that the Prophet frowned upon some questions because they could cause new assignments or lead to complicate the existing ones. The Companions like an-Nawwās b- Samʿān (d. 50/670), Abū Umāma al-Bāhilī (d. 86/705) and Anas b. Mālik (d. 93/711-12) have been describing this situation as the ban of asking of religious implications.This issue which companions formulated exactly as the ban of the asking questions was regarded in research until now just as the depreciation of the Prophet upon the unnecessary questions. In this interpretation the idea played a role that the ban of the asking may not conform to the religious pedagogic of the Prophet and the real existence of a lot of asked questions contradict that. Therefore the imperative “do not ask” in al-Māʾida 5:101 (O believers, do not ask about things which, if made known to you, may vex you) were interpreted not as the prohibition of the asking questions in real sense, but as just the depreciation of the unnecessary questions.We argue that it is possible to talk about a prohibition of the asking questions in real sense. We are of the view that the asking to religious matters was prohibited in the last years of the Medina period. In a time of Madina period when the fundamental principles of Islam emerged the questions of companions let the Prophet think that they may lead to additional religious obligations. Therefore the Prophet warned his companions in these words: “Do not ask me about the details of the things which I do not mention to you” and “Allāh Taʿālā has remained silent about some things, out of compassion for you, not forgetfulness so do not seek after them.”The imperative “do not ask” in al-Māʾida 5:101 has to been understood in the light of the Prophet’s advice as quoted above. According to the expressions of the companions reported in hadith collections, it is obvious that the imperative “do not ask” signifies not only “do not ask unnecessary questions”, but “do not ask questions related to theology matters in general”.Anas b. Mālik served the Prophet nine or ten years and was not criticised by the Prophet anytime. A companion like Anas cannot have refrained from the asking questions because they may be unnecessary. Anas interpreted “ do not ask” in al-Māʾida 5:101 in words: “We were forbidden in the Qurʾān that we ask the Prophet anything". Anas’s observation reveals that the companions considered the “do not ask” in al-Māʾida 5:101 as a general prohibition for the questions to religious issue.According to our research it seems this ban was promulgated in last three years of Medina Period, and Bedouin and visitors were excluded. Al-Nawwās b. Samʿān noticed that the ban of the asking questions was only for the residents in Medina: “I was in Medina one year. The reason why I did not stay in Medina was my wish to ask the Prophet a religious issue. So, whoever stayed in Medina was not permitted to ask the Prophet questions.” Abū Umāma al-Bāhilī interpreted the ban of the asking in al-Māʾida 5:101 as a general ban. He reported that the companions give a garment (burda) as gift to a Bedouin in order to let him ask the Prophet questions. The ban on asking questions in Medina was not related to unnecessary questions. It was indeed related to the questions that might have caused addition to already well-defined obligatory rulings in Islam. Accordingly, the questions became unnecessary because they were asked in the time of revelation. With the ban of the asking the Prophet questions accentuated that God and his Messenger are aware what necessary and what was not. It means that God can intervene if it is necessary. For that they do not need ask the Prophet. Aṭ-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, en-Nawawī, Ibn RaJab el-Ḥanbalī and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī are the scholars who interpreted the ban of asking in this general sense.We especially will evaluate the theological consequences of the Prophet’s response, as reported in the sources: “ If I said yes, the pilgrimage will be a religious duty for every year.” Here one may not misconstrue that the Prophet could determine the religious obligations arbitrarily. He meant that the believers have to practice only that which were revealed to them. The Prophet wanted to teach his followers the principle that became essential rule of Islamic jurisprudence: “What is not forbidden is permitted”.The Prophet did not perform tarāwīḥ-prayer in congregation in the month of fasting due to the apprehension that it might become obligatory for the believers and they would not be able to follow it. In this human reaction of the Prophet we see that the Prophet did not consider himself as the founder of the Islamic norms. In this context the following questions are important: Does God consider the human questions when making something obligatory? Is God influenceable in terms of His orders? Ibn Ḥajar observes: The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah accept the causality in terms of the Islamic norms. Accordingly something can become a religious norm because the humans asked about that. But God’s decision does not depend on the humans. God can consider human questions, if He so wills. (shrink)

El trabajo expone, analiza, y evalúa los datos de una nueva fuente sobre las visiones jurídicas de los ‛ulamā’ con respecto al estatuto islámico de las comunidades islámicas bajo dominio cristiano en la Península Ibérica desde el siglo XII hasta el siglo XVI. Se trata de una fetua desconocida e inédita del sabio andalusí Ibn Rabī‛ y fetuas desconocidas de los principales cadíes de los cuatro madhabs sunníes en El Cairo hacia 1510 A.D. Muy probablemente, hay que relacionar la primera (...) fetua con los acontecimientos en Murcia tras la sublevación mudejar de 1265 y la reconquista cristiana de la ciudad en 1266. El muftí subraya que los musulmanes que viven bajo dominio cristiano están imperativamente obligados a emigrar a territorio islámico. Los principales cadíes de los cuatro madhabs sunníes en El Cairo al principio del siglo XVI, sin embargo, defienden un modo de ver mucho más pragmático. Probablemente, las preguntas fueron planteadas por mudejares de Valencia, que estaban en El Cairo camino de la peregrinación. Finalmente, los autores plantean que hay que distinguir dos tipos coexistentes de visiones con respecto al estatuto del Islam bajo dominio cristiano en la Península Ibérica desde principios del siglo xii; una visión pragmática, equivalente a un reconocimiento de facto del Islam bajo dominio cristiano, y una visión «de rechazo», que asume la obligación de emigrar de la España cristiana a Dār al-Islām. El impacto variable de estas visiones jurídicas merece un estudio más profundo dentro del ambiente histórico de las complejas y cambiantes relaciones políticas entre Islam y Cristiandad en esa época. (shrink)

Some of the Hadith narrators who narrated Hadiths from Ahl al-Bayt (p) lived in historical Azerbaijani territories. Those narrators who lived in Azerbaijani territories were mainly the disciples of imams such as Imam al-Sadiq (p), Imam al-Kadhim (p), Imam al-Rida (p), Imam al-Jawad (p), Imam al-Hadi (p), and Imam Hasan al-Askari (p), and they were spreading these imams’ teachings throughout the Caucasus. They continued their activities until the Minor and Major Occultation of the Twelfth Imam (p). During the Minor (...) Occultation period, the masters of Ahmad ibn Mahammad ibn Khalid Barqi and Sheikh al-Kuleyni, and during the Major Occultation, the masters and disciples of Sheikh Saduq, Sheikh Tusi, and Sheikh Mufid were living in this region. (shrink)

Kadınların mukaddes görevlerini, insan neslinin devamlılığını sağlamayı yerine getirebilmelerine imkân veren aylık kanama dönemlerinin ironik bir şekilde kirlilik sebebi sayılması kadim bir kabuldür. Belki de ilkel inançlarda kana yüklenen tabu anlamı bu kabulün benimsenmesinde rol oynamıştır. Her ne kadar feminist akımlarla beşeriyet tarihinin başlangıcındaki anaerkil dönemde kadınlara kutsallık katan doğurganlıklarının bir uzantısı olan adet görmelerinin, ataerkil düzene geçişle bir aşağılanma ve murdarlık sebebi sayılmaya başlandığı iddia edilmiştir. Fakat bu görüşün dayanakları doğruluğunu ispatlayacak sağlamlıkta olmadığı gibi alanın uzmanlarınca da ortaya atılmıştır. (...) Bir hukukçunun mitolojik anlatıları da referans alarak yaptığı taraflı bir antropolojik okumadır. Ayrıca tarihi süreçte kadınların regl dönemlerindeyken bereket ve şifa kaynağı görüldüklerinin de etrafına pislik bulaştıran bir murdarlık halinde kabul edildiklerinin de örnekleri bulunmak mümkündür. Bununla birlikte hayızlı kadını kirli kabul eden anlayışın daha yaygın olduğu söylenebilir. Özellikle bu güne ulaşan şekliyle Yahudilikte, Cennette işlediği ilk günah sebebiyle cezalandırılmasının sonucu olarak adet gördüğü kabul edilen kadın, manen kirlidir ve bu kiri dokunduğu her şeye bulaştırdığından tecrit edilmelidir. Kanaması bittiğinde temizlenmesiyse özel ritüellerle mümkündür. Zaten Yahudilikte kirlilik sebepleri ve kirliliğin toplumda yaygınlaşmaması için alınması gereken tedbirler ile ilgili ahkâm, geniş ve karmaşıktır. Onlara göre cüzzam hastalığına yakalanmak da kirlilik sebeplerindendir ve cüzzamlı olan kişi de, özellikle din adamlarından, tecrit edilmelidir. Güncel Hristiyanlık, Yahudiliğin hayızlı kadınla ilgili düzenlemelerinin neredeyse uygulanamaz yükünden hepsini yok sayarak kurtulmuştur. Fakat ontolojik açıdan kadını ilk günahtan sorumlu tutma anlayışını genel olarak devam ettirmektedir. Cüzzamlıysa Hz. İsa (as) aracılığıyla tedavi edilerek Tanrı'nın rahmetinin ulaştığı bir konuma gelmiştir. İslam dini ise ilk günahı işlemede kadına ayrı bir sorumluluk yüklemediği gibi adet dönemini de bir kirlilik sebebi saymaz. Ama Medine'de Yahudilerle bir arada yaşayan Müslümanların, İslam öncesi Arap kültüründe de bulunan adetli kadını kirli sayma inancından etkilendiği anlaşılmaktadır. Öyle ki Yahudiler gibi hayızlı eşlerini evden çıkarmaları gerekip gerekmediğini, yaptıkları yemeği yiyip yiyemeyeceklerini sorgulamışlardır. Hz. Muhammed (as), hayızlı kadın hakkında indirilen ayetteki ifadeleri açıklarken, kadınları kirli kabul edip tecrit etmenin yanlış bir yorum olduğunu vurgulamıştır. Aksine bu dönemdeki kadınların temiz oldukları hakikatini hem sözleriyle hem de uygulamalarıyla göstermiştir. Sünnete uygun davranışın adetli eşle, tam bir cinsel birliktelik hariç, ilişkinin devam ettirilmesi olduğunu açığa çıkaran rivayetlerin sayısı çoktur. Öncellikle uygulamaya bizzat şahit olan müminlerin annelerinden ve diğer sahâbeden; Hz. Peygamber'in hayızlı eşiyle aynı yatak ve yorganı kullandığını, aynı sofrada yemek yediği hatta onun ısırdığı yerden ısırıp bardakta dudağının değdiği yerden içtiğini, hayızlı kadının elinin, kan bulaşmadıkça giydiklerinin, tükürüğünün temiz olduğunu açıklayan bilgiler aktarılmaktadır. Yine de konu etrafındaki tartışma ve yanlış uygulamalar tabiîn döneminde devam etmiştir. Zira adetli eşle yatılır mı, aynı yorgan kullanılır mı, yaptığı yemek yenilir mi, döktüğü suyla abdest alınır mı gibi sorgulamalar sürdürülmüştür. Hz. Peygamber'in aile efradından İbn Abbas'ın hayızlı hizmetlisine saçını taratmaktan çekindiği, tabiîn fakihlerinden loğusalık kanaması bittiği halde eşini kırk gün geçmeden yanına kabul etmeyenin veya aynı yorganla yatmamayı tavsiye edenin olduğu nakledilmektedir. Kadim inançların değişiminin zorluğu bu örnekte de açığa çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca kadınların aybaşı hali İslamî literatürde çoğunlukla fıkhî açıdan ele alınmıştır. Çünkü kadınların bu dönemde bulunması ibadetler ve muamelat açısından farklı sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Bu arada kadınla ilgili kökleri Eski Ahid'deki yaratılış kıssasına giden ontolojik suçluluğu ve cezayı hak ettiği inanışlarının Hz. Peygamber'in sünnetiyle ret edilmesinin önemi dikkatten kaçmaktadır. Kur'an'ın deyimiyle eza/sıkıntı çeken kadına muhabbet ve ilgi gösterip desteklemenin sünnette vurgulanması da meselenin ihmal edilen bir yönüdür. Oysaki nasıl cüzzamlı Hz. İsa aracılığıyla uzak durulması gereken murdarlıktan Allah'ın bir peygamberi aracılığıyla şifa ulaştırılmasına layık kulu konumuna geldiyse, hayızlı kadın da Hz. Muhammed'in sünnetindeki uygulamayla bir arada yaşanacak, manen temiz kişi konumuna getirilmiştir. (shrink)

The first eulogies (Qaṣāīd) about the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) appeared when he was still alive. Ḥassān ibn Thābit (d. 60/680 [?]), ʿAbd Allāh b. Rawāḥa (d. 8/629) and Kaʿb b. Mālik (d. 50/670), important Muslim poets of the period, praised the Prophet and inspired future generations of poets. Depending on the developments in the following centuries, there had been a great increase in the number of poems sung to express enthusiastic feelings towards the Prophet and to defend him and his (...) Prophethood. Andalusia is one of the places where this genre increased the most. The first examples of the praise of the Prophet appeared in Andalusia during the Mulūk al-Ṭawāʾif period (1031-1090). The praises of the Prophet, which were processed in the poems of asceticism, dirge and elegy until the end of the 5th/11th century, became an independent genre called al-Madāʾiḥ al-Nabawiyyah/Nabawiyyāt thanks to the ever-increasing Ṣūfī thoughts penetrating literary circles. The turning point of the praise of the Prophet in Andalusia, as in the East, is the period of the The Almohads (1147-1238), which coincides with the 7th/13th century. The mawlid celebrations, which were first initiated by the Fāṭimids in the 4th/10th century to give legitimacy to their rule, and held every year in North Africa on the twelfth of the month of Rabi'ulawwal, moved to Andalusia at the end of the The Almohad period and gradually became one of the largest official and religious holidays in Andalusia. Giving awards to high-quality poems read on the mawlid festival and celebrations made all over Andalusia has greatly contributed to the literary richness in this field. In praise of the Prophet, talented poets such as Abū Zayd al-Fāzāzī (d. 627/ 1230), Ibn al-Jannān al-Anṣārī (d. 650/1252), Ibn Jābir (d. 780/1378) and Ibn Zumruk (d. 797/1395) emerged. Abū Zayd al-Fāzāzī, one of the most distinguished Prophetic ode poets of the Almohad period is said to have first pioneered the spread of Prophetic praises in Andalusia before the Iraqi poet Yaḥyā al-Ṣarṣarī (d. 656/1258) and the Egyptian poet Būṣīrī (d. 695/1296). He has a dīvān called al-Wasā’il al-mutaqabbalah, which he wrote in alphabetical order and dedicated to the praise of the Prophet. The fame of the odes he uttered about the Prophet spread as far as North Africa, and it has become a tradition to read his odes on special days. Because of the abundance and quality of Prophetic odes, Ibn al-Jannān, who witnessed the glorious days and the collapse of the The Almohad state, also commemorated the poet Ḥassān ibn Thābit, The Prophet’s Odic Poet. Ibn Jābir al-Andalusī, on the other hand, wrote the second ode in this field after Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Ḥilli (d. 749/1348), the inventor of the axiomatic odes, and became the pioneer of axiomatic odes in Andalusia. The effect of political instability on Prophetic odes in Andalusia, which entered its collapse with the end of the Almohad state, is obvious. According to many poets, salvation from this plight of Muslims in Andalusia is possible by once again adhering to the Sunnah of the Prophet. Probably as a reflection of this idea, many poets from 7th/13th centuries onwards devoted their odes to narrating the Prophet and his Sunnah. Poets who describe the Prophet elaborately in their poems hope to be saved from the troubles they have fallen into and to reach the highest rank in heaven. Poets who touched upon the physical characteristics of the Prophet often likened his smiling face to a bright sun and a full moon. In terms of oratory, they stated that he had a fluent language and never uttered bad words. Andalusian poets, who praised the Prophet with moral virtues such as tolerance, justice and courage, stated that there was nobody more merciful and generous than him due to the abundance of his blessings resembling torrential rain. Andalusian Prophetic ode poets adhered to the traditional forms of Arabic poetry in terms of the structure of eulogy. In the introductory parts of odes, they generally express longing for the Prophet and the holy places. The main theme is mostly the Prophet and his outstanding virtues, and they usually end their eulogies with salutation to the Prophet. Save a few Sufi poets, it can be said that they used simple and understandable language in their poems. The sources of inspiration for their poems are the Qur'an and hadiths. Andalusian poets used non-material axiomatic arts in their poems without disturbing the structure of eulogy. In addition to the art of pun, they provided musicality in the poem with the ‘tent-frame’ meter and rhyme scheme, sometimes supporting it through repetition. It is possible to see all kinds of repetitions in, Ibn al-Jannān's odes. In this study, the place of the Prophet in Andalusia and odes, which are reflections of the love for him, will be examined. In addition, the concept of the Prophet in Andalusia will be explained within the political, social and cultural framework of the period. (shrink)

Şâfiî müctehidlerin muteber şahsiyetlerinden biri olan Râfiî el-Kazvînî, ilk olarak babası Muhammed b. Abdilkerîm el-Kazvînî (ö. 580/1184) ve annesinin dayısı Ebü’l-Hayr Ahmed et-Tâlkânî’nin (ö. 589/1193) rahle-i tedrisinde bulunduktan sonra alanında uzman birçok kişiden tefsir, hadis ve fıkıh sahasına ilişkin seviyeli bir eğitim almıştır. Yaşadığı asrın ileri gelen ulemasından İslâmî ilimleri okuyarak fıkıh ilminde ihtisas sahibi olan Râfiî, Kazvîn’de ders halkaları oluşturarak tedris faaliyetinde bulunmuş; dönemin halifeleri tarafından Şam ve Mısır baş kadılık görevine atanan Ahmed b. Halîl el-Mühellebî (ö. 638/1240), Zekiyyüddin (...) el-Münzirî (656/1258) ve İbn Sükkerî (ö.713/1313) gibi önemli simalar yetiştirmiştir. Zekâsı, aklı ve özellikle haiz olduğu fıkhî meseleleri ayırt etme yetisiyle Râfiî, doktrin içerisinde yer alan dağınık görüşleri toplayarak ilgili görüşlerden hangisinin daha kuvvetli olabileceğine dair tespitlerde bulunup mezhebi tahrîr/tenkîh etmiş, bir bakıma mezhebin görüşlerini ilmî elekten geçirip ayıklamıştır. Mezhep içerisindeki görüşleri inceleyerek farklı tarikleri birleştirme ve dağınık bilgileri ayıklayıp mezhep birikimini veciz ifadelerle yansıtma faaliyetinden dolayı ulemanın dikkatini üzerine çeken Râfiî, mezhepte iki otoriteden biri anlamına gelen Şeyhân’dan biri olma -diğeri ise Nevevî (ö. 676/1277)- unvanına layık görülmüştür. Bu yüzden onun hayatına ve ilmî kişiliğine Şâfiî terâcim eserlerinde oldukça yer verilmiştir. Bu çalışmada, sonraki dönemlerde mezhep görüşünü temsilde belirleyici olan Râfiî’nin ilmî kişiliği yanında mezhebi tahrîr/tenkîh etmesindeki rolüne yer verilecektir. (shrink)

Bu makalede, müşriklerle sosyal ilişkinin mahiyetine dair Müslüman düşünce geleneğinde ortaya konulan literatür genel hatlarıyla ele alınmaktadır. Söz konusu literatür, “müşrikler bu yıldan sonra Mescid-i Harâm’a yaklaşmasınlar” (Tevbe 9/28) ayeti temelinde şekillenmiştir. Bu bağlamda âlimler şirkin mahiyeti, Mescid-i Harâm bölgesinin sınırları ile bu bölgeye yaklaşmamayı ifade eden fiilin içeriği ve özellikle de ayetteki uyarının Hac ibadeti ile sınırlı/kayıtlı olup olmadığı gibi hususları tartışma konusu yapmışlardır. Bu ayet çerçevesinde ortaya konulan literatürde iki görüşün ön plana çıktığı görülmektedir. Bunlardan ilki, Mescid-i Harâm (...) ifadesiyle kastedilen mananın tüm mescitleri kapsayacağı düşüncesinden hareketle “yaklaşmama” yasağın sınırlarını genişletirken diğer görüş, maslahatçı bir yaklaşımla söz konusu bölgenin Kâbe ve çevresiyle sınırlı olduğu iddiasına dayanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda ilk görüşte, harem bölgesine müşriklerin hiçbir surette giremeyeceği savunulurken ikinci görüşte, müşriklerin cahiliye döneminde yaptıkları tarzda hac ve umre ibadeti yapmak amacıyla söz konusu bölgeye giremeyecekleri ancak ticaret, seyahat vb. farklı maksatlarla gelebilecekleri vurgulamaktadır. Makalede konu H. VII. yüzyıla kadar kaleme alınan rivayet, dirayet, ahkâm ve Şiî tefsirler temelinde irdelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda Mukātil b. Süleymân, İmâm Şâfiî, Cassâs, Ebû Bekir İbnü’l-Arabî ve Kurtubî’nin kaleme aldığı ahkâm tefsirleri; Taberî, İbn Ebî Hâtim, Ebû İshak es-Sa‘lebî ve İbn Kesîr’in yazdığı rivayet tefsirleri; Mâtürîdî, Zemahşerî, Fahreddin er-Râzî, Beyzâvî ve Ebu’l- Berakât en-Nesefî’nin dirayet tefsirleri ile Şiî müfessirler Kummî, Ayyâşî, Ebû Ca‘fer et-Tûsîve Tabersî’nin tefsirleri incelenmiştir. Konunun bahsi geçen tefsirler temelinde ele alınmasındaki amaç ayetin anlaşılmasına bağlı olarak ortaya konulan fıkhî hükümleri ve gerekçelerini tespit ederek mukayese yapmaktır. Zira Tevbe suresi 28. ayetin anlaşılmasında, dini anlama tarzları bakımından Ashâbu’l-Hadis ve Ashâbu’r-Rey olarak nitelenen âlimlerin görüşlerinin belirleyici olduğu görülmektedir. Konu bağlamında Şiî tefsirlerin incelenmesindeki amaç ise söz konusu literatürde Tevbe suresi 28. ayetin ele alınmasına ilişkin bakış açısının Ashabu’l Hâdis’e mi Ashabu’r-Rey’e mi yakın olduğunu tespite yöneliktir. İncelenen tefsirlerde ilk görüşün İmâm Mâlik ve İmam Şâfiî’ye ait olduğu belirtilirken ikinci görüş Ebû Hanîfe’ye nispet edilmiştir. İmâm Mâlik ve İmam Şâfiî’ye ait olan görüş genel kabul görürken Ebû Hanîfe ve Mâtürîdî’nin benimsediği, Hanefî-Mâtürîdî âlimler tarafından kabul gören ikinci görüş, tarihsel süreçte şaz olarak nitelendirilmiş ve dikkate alınmamıştır. Makalede, H.7. yüzyıl’a kadar yazılan rivayet, dirayet, ahkâm ve Şiî tefsirleri özelinde bu görüşlerin temel mantığı, ortaya çıkış süreçleri ve bu çerçevede üretilen fıkhî hükümler analitik bir bakış açısıyla irdelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Makalede sonuç olarak Ashabu’l-Hadis’e mensup âlimlerden İmâm Mâlik ve İmâm Şâfiî’nin konuyu sadece müşrikleri değil tüm gayr-i müslimleri içerecek şekilde ele aldıkları ve bu gruplarla kurulacak sosyal, ekonomik ve siyasi ilişkinin mahiyeti hakkında fıhkî hükümler koydukları görülmektedir. Bu hükümlerle, Müslüman düşünce geleneğinde gayr-i Müslimlerin özellikle sosyo-kültürel açıdan ötekileştirilmeleri meşrulaştırılmıştır. Bu bakış açısı Müslümanların birlikte yaşama kültürüne katkı sağlamalarını engellediği gibi insana saygıyı temel alan Kur’an’ın bakış açısı ile de çelişmektedir. Bu bağlamda Ashabu’r-Rey’in önemli temsilcilerinden biri olan Ebu Hanîfe’nin yasaklama emrini cahiliye döneminde yapılan hac fiili ile sınırlaması konuya ilişkin bakış açısında ciddi farklılıklara imkân tanımaktadır. Ebû Hanîfe’nin bu anlama biçimi, gayr-ı Müslimlere ilişkin olumsuz bir uygulamaya imkân vermediği gibi takipçisi Mâtürîdî tarafından geliştirilerek ahlakî bir boyutta ela alınmıştır. Süreç içerisinde söz konusu anlama biçimi, aynı düşünce geleneğine mensup olan Cassâs ve Ebû’l-Berekât en-Nesefî tarafından devam ettirilerek geliştirilmiştir. (shrink)