Contributions and Objections to Ibn al-Salah in the Particular Case of al-Bâʿisü'l-Hasîs II

Hasan Küçükosman

Makale detayları

Contributions and Objections to Ibn al-Salah in the Particular Case of al-Bâʿisü'l-Hasîs II

Yazarlar:

Hasan Küçükosman

Yayıncı:

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.947-970

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001325960

pISSN:

2147-8171

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This study focuses on Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs commentary on al-Bāʿis al-hasīs and examines the contributions and criticisms made to the views of Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn Kathīr. The work that Ibn al-Salah prepared for the benefit of students at the Ashrafiyya Madrasah includes sixty-five sections of the usul al-hadith. Due to its systematic structure and consideration of earlier works, his work gained popularity in the scientific community and later underwent numerous commentaries and summaries. Additionally, numerous scholars have raised objections to Ibn al-Salahs work in these studies. Instead of producing a separate body of work, the science was sustained by the incorporation of contributions and objections, all centred around the work of Ibn al-Salah. Despite assertions made by certain individuals, the field of Usul has not experienced stagnation, but rather has consistently undergone renewal over each century. Among the works that were investigated in the study, the commentary work of Ahmed Muhammed Şakir, Bâʿisül-hasîs, and the work of Ibn Kathir, Ihtisaru Ulûmil-hadis, were examined. In our investigation, it is evident that Ibn Kathir had fewer objections compared to Ahmed Muhammad Shakir, who presented various perspectives and ultimately made a selection among them. Ibn al-Salahs superiority in the realm of hadith is evident from the combination of Ibn Kathirs few objections and their near proximity in time. When presented with differing viewpoints or arguments, hadith scholars generally agree with Ibn al-Salahs position. Nevertheless, Ahmed Muhammad Shāqirs perspective indicates that we have reached the conclusion of the history of hadith, and he was aware of the allegations against Ibn al-Salah. Consequently, it is evident that Ahmea Muhammad Shāqir did not hesitate to express his differing viewpoints on specific topics, despite the authority of Ibn al-Salah. However, he used a pure language in his objections and stated that his opinion was different. In this context, he clarified the areas that Ibn Kathir neglected and presented the reader with a variety of perspectives on the subject. In some places, he even gave detailed information in order to comment on Ibn al-Salāhs work or while explaining the subject, he mentioned the places that were not included in the commentary although they were explained extensively in Ibn al-Salāhs work. Again, it is seen that some subjects are mentioned in Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs commentary although Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn Kathīr did not include them in their work. In some places, Ahmad Muhammad Shākir objected to Ibn al-Salāh by defending Ibn Kathīrs opinion, and sometimes he defended the opinion of these two imāms even though it was contrary to the hadīth scholars in general. In this context, Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs work contains almost all the necessary information on hadīth methodology. Ahmed Muhammad Shāqir has presented both his own view and the views of the people of hadith. In the same way, he provides the reader with more information by indicating where Ibn al-Salāh is on his side. For this reason, while the views of Ibn al-Salāh and Shākir are mostly discussed in our study, the places that offer a choice on the subject are also pointed out. In our opinion, the views of Ibn al-Salah in these locations gained greater preference subsequent to his time. Thus, Ibn al-Salāhs pioneering role in the methodology of hadīth is confirmed. Despite centuries passing, Ahmed Muhammad Shakirs adherence to Ibn al-Salahs teachings on numerous occasions highlights Ibn al-Salahs enduring authority in the field of hadith methodology.

 This study focuses on Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs commentary on al-Bāʿis al-hasīs and examines the contributions and criticisms made to the views of Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn Kathīr. The work that Ibn al-Salah prepared for the benefit of students at the Ashrafiyya Madrasah includes sixty-five sections of the usul al-hadith. Due to its systematic structure and consideration of earlier works, his work gained popularity in the scientific community and later underwent numerous commentaries and summaries. Additionally, numerous scholars have raised objections to Ibn al-Salahs work in these studies. Instead of producing a separate body of work, the science was sustained by the incorporation of contributions and objections, all centred around the work of Ibn al-Salah. Despite assertions made by certain individuals, the field of Usul has not experienced stagnation, but rather has consistently undergone renewal over each century. Among the works that were investigated in the study, the commentary work of Ahmed Muhammed Şakir, Bâʿisül-hasîs, and the work of Ibn Kathir, Ihtisaru Ulûmil-hadis, were examined. In our investigation, it is evident that Ibn Kathir had fewer objections compared to Ahmed Muhammad Shakir, who presented various perspectives and ultimately made a selection among them. Ibn al-Salahs superiority in the realm of hadith is evident from the combination of Ibn Kathirs few objections and their near proximity in time. When presented with differing viewpoints or arguments, hadith scholars generally agree with Ibn al-Salahs position. Nevertheless, Ahmed Muhammad Shāqirs perspective indicates that we have reached the conclusion of the history of hadith, and he was aware of the allegations against Ibn al-Salah. Consequently, it is evident that Ahmea Muhammad Shāqir did not hesitate to express his differing viewpoints on specific topics, despite the authority of Ibn al-Salah. However, he used a pure language in his objections and stated that his opinion was different. In this context, he clarified the areas that Ibn Kathir neglected and presented the reader with a variety of perspectives on the subject. In some places, he even gave detailed information in order to comment on Ibn al-Salāhs work or while explaining the subject, he mentioned the places that were not included in the commentary although they were explained extensively in Ibn al-Salāhs work. Again, it is seen that some subjects are mentioned in Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs commentary although Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn Kathīr did not include them in their work. In some places, Ahmad Muhammad Shākir objected to Ibn al-Salāh by defending Ibn Kathīrs opinion, and sometimes he defended the opinion of these two imāms even though it was contrary to the hadīth scholars in general. In this context, Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs work contains almost all the necessary information on hadīth methodology. Ahmed Muhammad Shāqir has presented both his own view and the views of the people of hadith. In the same way, he provides the reader with more information by indicating where Ibn al-Salāh is on his side. For this reason, while the views of Ibn al-Salāh and Shākir are mostly discussed in our study, the places that offer a choice on the subject are also pointed out. In our opinion, the views of Ibn al-Salah in these locations gained greater preference subsequent to his time. Thus, Ibn al-Salāhs pioneering role in the methodology of hadīth is confirmed. Despite centuries passing, Ahmed Muhammad Shakirs adherence to Ibn al-Salahs teachings on numerous occasions highlights Ibn al-Salahs enduring authority in the field of hadith methodology.

 This study focuses on Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs commentary on al-Bāʿis al-hasīs and examines the contributions and criticisms made to the views of Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn Kathīr. The work that Ibn al-Salah prepared for the benefit of students at the Ashrafiyya Madrasah includes sixty-five sections of the usul al-hadith. Due to its systematic structure and consideration of earlier works, his work gained popularity in the scientific community and later underwent numerous commentaries and summaries. Additionally, numerous scholars have raised objections to Ibn al-Salahs work in these studies. Instead of producing a separate body of work, the science was sustained by the incorporation of contributions and objections, all centred around the work of Ibn al-Salah. Despite assertions made by certain individuals, the field of Usul has not experienced stagnation, but rather has consistently undergone renewal over each century. Among the works that were investigated in the study, the commentary work of Ahmed Muhammed Şakir, Bâʿisül-hasîs, and the work of Ibn Kathir, Ihtisaru Ulûmil-hadis, were examined. In our investigation, it is evident that Ibn Kathir had fewer objections compared to Ahmed Muhammad Shakir, who presented various perspectives and ultimately made a selection among them. Ibn al-Salahs superiority in the realm of hadith is evident from the combination of Ibn Kathirs few objections and their near proximity in time. When presented with differing viewpoints or arguments, hadith scholars generally agree with Ibn al-Salahs position. Nevertheless, Ahmed Muhammad Shāqirs perspective indicates that we have reached the conclusion of the history of hadith, and he was aware of the allegations against Ibn al-Salah. Consequently, it is evident that Ahmea Muhammad Shāqir did not hesitate to express his differing viewpoints on specific topics, despite the authority of Ibn al-Salah. However, he used a pure language in his objections and stated that his opinion was different. In this context, he clarified the areas that Ibn Kathir neglected and presented the reader with a variety of perspectives on the subject. In some places, he even gave detailed information in order to comment on Ibn al-Salāhs work or while explaining the subject, he mentioned the places that were not included in the commentary although they were explained extensively in Ibn al-Salāhs work. Again, it is seen that some subjects are mentioned in Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs commentary although Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn Kathīr did not include them in their work. In some places, Ahmad Muhammad Shākir objected to Ibn al-Salāh by defending Ibn Kathīrs opinion, and sometimes he defended the opinion of these two imāms even though it was contrary to the hadīth scholars in general. In this context, Ahmad Muhammad Shāqirs work contains almost all the necessary information on hadīth methodology. Ahmed Muhammad Shāqir has presented both his own view and the views of the people of hadith. In the same way, he provides the reader with more information by indicating where Ibn al-Salāh is on his side. For this reason, while the views of Ibn al-Salāh and Shākir are mostly discussed in our study, the places that offer a choice on the subject are also pointed out. In our opinion, the views of Ibn al-Salah in these locations gained greater preference subsequent to his time. Thus, Ibn al-Salāhs pioneering role in the methodology of hadīth is confirmed. Despite centuries passing, Ahmed Muhammad Shakirs adherence to Ibn al-Salahs teachings on numerous occasions highlights Ibn al-Salahs enduring authority in the field of hadith methodology.

 Bu çalışma Ahmed Muhammed Şâkirin el-Bâʿisül-hasîs adlı şerhini merkeze alarak İbnüs-Salâh ve İbn Kesîrin görüşleri üzerinden yapılan katkı ve eleştirileri konu edinmektedir. İbnüs-Salâhın Eşrefiyye medresesinde öğrencilerin istifadesine uygun olarak hazırladığı eseri hadis usulünün atmış beş bölümünü içermektedir. Sistematik yapısı ve kendisinden önce yapılan çalışmaları ele almasıyla ilim sahasında revaç gören çalışması daha sonra pek çok şerh ve ihtisar amacıyla düzenlenmiştir. İbnüs-Salâhın eseri üzerine yapılan bu çalışmalarda pek çok âlimin itirazları da mevcuttur. Bu anlamı ile müstakil eser oluşturmak yerine daha çok İbnüs-Salâhın eseri merkeze alınırken yapılan katkı ve itirazlar ile ilmin canlı kalması sağlanmıştır. Bazı kimselerin iddia ettiği gibi usul ilmi donuk hale gelmemiş her asırda yenilenmeye devam etmiştir. Pek çok farklı görüşün ortaya atıldığı eserler içerisinde ele aldığımız çalışmada İbn Kesîrin İhtisaru Ulûmil-hadîs adlı eseri ve bu eser üzerine Ahmed Muhammed Şâkirin yaptığı şerh çalışması olan el-Bâʿisül-hasîs adlı eseri incelenmiştir. Çalışmamızda gördüğümüz üzere İbn Kesîrin itirazları daha az iken Ahmed Muhammed Şâkir hem farklı görüşleri ortaya koymuş hem de bunlar arasından seçim yapmıştır. İbn Kesîrin itirazlarının az olması İbnüs-Salâh ile yakın dönemde yaşamış olması ile beraber İbnüs-Salâhın hadis alanında ne derece üstün olduğunu da göstermektedir. Zira farklı görüşlerin ortaya atıldığı ya da İbnüs-Salâha itirazların edildiği pek çok yerde hadis âlimlerinin genel görüşü İbnüs-Salâhın görüşü ile örtüşmektedir. Ancak Ahmed Muhammed Şâkir tarafından baktığımız zaman hem hadis tarihinde son döneme girilmiş hem de kendisi İbnüs-Salâha yapılan itirazlara vâkıf olmuştur. Dolayısıyla Ahmed Muhammed Şâkirin, İbnüs-Salâhın otoritesine rağmen belli noktalarda farklı görüş zikretmekten de geri durmadığı görülmektedir. Ancak itirazlarında saf bir dil kullanmış ve düşüncesinin farklı olduğunu söylemiştir. Bu bağlamda hem İbn Kesîrin kapalı bıraktığı yerleri açıklamış hem de konu hakkında okuyucuya farklı görüşleri aktarmıştır. Hatta bazı yerlerde İbnüs-Salâhın eserini şerh etme amacı ile detay bilgi vermiştir. Ya da konu hakkında açıklama yaparken İbnüs-Salâhın eserinde geniş biçimde anlatıldığı halde ihtisara alınmayan yerleri aynen zikretmiştir. Yine İbnüs-Salâhın ve İbn Kesîrin eserine almadığı halde bazı konuların Ahmed Muhammed Şâkirin şerhinde geçtiği görülmektedir. Ahmed Muhammed Şâkir kimi yerlerde İbn Kesîrin düşüncesini savunarak İbnüs-Salâha itiraz etmiş kimi zaman da genel olarak hadis ulemasına aykırı olduğu halde bu iki imamın düşüncesini savunmuştur. Bu bağlamda Ahmed Muhammed Şâkirin çalışması hadis usulü konularında hemen hemen gerekli her bilgiyi barındırmaktadır. Zira Ahmed Muhammed Şâkir hem kendi görüşünü hem de hadis ehlinin görüşlerini aktarmıştır. Aynı şekilde İbnüs-Salâhın tarafında olduğu yerleri de belirterek okuyucuya daha geniş bilgi imkânı sunmaktadır. Bu nedenle araştırmamızda daha çok İbnüs-Salâh ve Şâkirin görüşleri ele alınırken konu hakkında tercih imkânı sunulan yerlere de işaret edilmiştir. Kanaatimizce bu yerlerdeki İbnüs-Salâhın görüşleri kendisinden sonra daha çok tercih edilmiştir. Böylece İbnüs-Salâhın hadis usulünde kendisine biçilen öncü kişiliği sabit olmaktadır. Zira hadis usulünde asırlar geçmesine rağmen Ahmed Muhammed Şâkirin dahi pek çok noktada İbnüs-Salâha muvafık hareket etmiş olması günümüzde de devam eden İbnüs-Salâhın otoritesine işaret etmektedir.

Makale detayları

Contributions and Objections to Ibn al-Salah in the Particular Case of al-Bâʿisü'l-Hasîs II

Yazarlar:

Hasan Küçükosman

Yayıncı:

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.947-970

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001325960

pISSN:

2147-8171

Hadith

Ibn al-Salah

Ibn Kathir

İkhtisar

Ahmed Muhammed Şâkir

ObjectionHadis

İbnü’s-Salah

İbn Kesîr

İhtisar

Ahmed Muhammed Şâkir

İtiraz

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Hasan Küçükosman

Yayıncı: Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Ana Başlıklar: Hadis

Dergi: Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.947-970

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 9/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001325960

pISSN: 2147-8171

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Hasan Küçükosman

Yayıncı:

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.947-970

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001325960

pISSN:

2147-8171