Some Thoughts on the Claims about al-Nasāʾī’s Adherence to Madhabs

Veli Tatar; Nurullah Agitoğlu

Makale detayları

Some Thoughts on the Claims about al-Nasāʾī’s Adherence to Madhabs

Yazarlar:

Veli Tatar | Nurullah Agitoğlu

Yayıncı:

Harran University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.141-160

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303766

pISSN:

2791-6812

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Human beings are influenced by the political, social and cultural structure of the society in which they live, as well as its madhab and intellectual structure. Moreover, they directly or indirectly reflect such influence in their lives. That is, this influence manifests itself in the ideological views of politicians, behaviour of people, and works of authors. One could possibly find the traces of the doctrines of the society or those of the madhab to which they belong in the works of authors who write books in a particular field. Apparently, Islamic scholars directly or indirectly reflect, in their works, the doctrines of the madhabs they belong to and ideological ideas they hold. In Islamic history, both politicaltheological and jurisprudential factions were formed in line with the views of scholars on certain issues. Following the division between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in the earlier period, the first madhab divisions emerged i.e., Sunnism, Shīʿism and Khārijism. Later, these madhabs were followed by others, such as al-Murjiʾa, Jabriya, Qadariya and Muʿtazila, and each of them gathered masses of followers over time. Likewise, the schools of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Raʾy became systematised as of the early third century, and their followers gradually increased. However, these schools were soon replaced by Shāfiʿism and Ḥanafism. The Ḥanafī madhab became widespread in the regions where raʾy was predominant, and the Shāfiʿī madhab became famous in the regions where nass the Quān and ḥadīths was predominant. Therefore, an individual who was born and grew up in a society where the Ḥanafī madhab was predominant felt attached to this madhab because his family and society were affiliated with it. The same was true for Shāfiʿī madhab as well as others. This is because the sense of belonging to a school or madhab adopted by the society inevitably permeates every phenomenon in life. Among the scholars who areclaimed to have belonged to theological and jurisprudential madhabs are also scholars called muḥaddith. One particular muḥaddith is Imām al-Nasāʾī, who brought many valuable works to the world of science with his Sunan. Al-Nasāʾī was typically influenced by the intellectual and socio-cultural structure of the society he lived in. Therefore, he partially reflected the scholarly, intellectual and socio-cultural structure of his environment in his works. Al-Nasāʾī lived in a politically and ideologically intense and turbulent period in which the content of his works caused him to be accused of being a member some madhabs in terms of theology and jurisprudence. Although it is claimed that al-Nasāi politicallytheologically belonged to Shīʿism and jurisprudentially to Shāfiʿism, these claims are not based on solid evidence. Especially the Sunan he compiled shows that these accusations are not true. The purpose of the present study is to examine the validity of the claims that al-Nasāʾī belonged to Shīʿa theologically and Shafiʾism jurisprudentially. The roots of this claim are compared with information from the ḥadīths in al-Nasāʾīs al-Sunan. Thus, based on the ḥadīths in his Sunan, the present study elaborates on the degree of accuracy of the claim that al-Nasāʾī belonged to these madhabs.

 Human beings are influenced by the political, social and cultural structure of the society in which they live, as well as its madhab and intellectual structure. Moreover, they directly or indirectly reflect such influence in their lives. That is, this influence manifests itself in the ideological views of politicians, behaviour of people, and works of authors. One could possibly find the traces of the doctrines of the society or those of the madhab to which they belong in the works of authors who write books in a particular field. Apparently, Islamic scholars directly or indirectly reflect, in their works, the doctrines of the madhabs they belong to and ideological ideas they hold. In Islamic history, both politicaltheological and jurisprudential factions were formed in line with the views of scholars on certain issues. Following the division between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in the earlier period, the first madhab divisions emerged i.e., Sunnism, Shīʿism and Khārijism. Later, these madhabs were followed by others, such as al-Murjiʾa, Jabriya, Qadariya and Muʿtazila, and each of them gathered masses of followers over time. Likewise, the schools of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Raʾy became systematised as of the early third century, and their followers gradually increased. However, these schools were soon replaced by Shāfiʿism and Ḥanafism. The Ḥanafī madhab became widespread in the regions where raʾy was predominant, and the Shāfiʿī madhab became famous in the regions where nass the Quān and ḥadīths was predominant. Therefore, an individual who was born and grew up in a society where the Ḥanafī madhab was predominant felt attached to this madhab because his family and society were affiliated with it. The same was true for Shāfiʿī madhab as well as others. This is because the sense of belonging to a school or madhab adopted by the society inevitably permeates every phenomenon in life. Among the scholars who areclaimed to have belonged to theological and jurisprudential madhabs are also scholars called muḥaddith. One particular muḥaddith is Imām al-Nasāʾī, who brought many valuable works to the world of science with his Sunan. Al-Nasāʾī was typically influenced by the intellectual and socio-cultural structure of the society he lived in. Therefore, he partially reflected the scholarly, intellectual and socio-cultural structure of his environment in his works. Al-Nasāʾī lived in a politically and ideologically intense and turbulent period in which the content of his works caused him to be accused of being a member some madhabs in terms of theology and jurisprudence. Although it is claimed that al-Nasāi politicallytheologically belonged to Shīʿism and jurisprudentially to Shāfiʿism, these claims are not based on solid evidence. Especially the Sunan he compiled shows that these accusations are not true. The purpose of the present study is to examine the validity of the claims that al-Nasāʾī belonged to Shīʿa theologically and Shafiʾism jurisprudentially. The roots of this claim are compared with information from the ḥadīths in al-Nasāʾīs al-Sunan. Thus, based on the ḥadīths in his Sunan, the present study elaborates on the degree of accuracy of the claim that al-Nasāʾī belonged to these madhabs.

 Human beings are influenced by the political, social and cultural structure of the society in which they live, as well as its madhab and intellectual structure. Moreover, they directly or indirectly reflect such influence in their lives. That is, this influence manifests itself in the ideological views of politicians, behaviour of people, and works of authors. One could possibly find the traces of the doctrines of the society or those of the madhab to which they belong in the works of authors who write books in a particular field. Apparently, Islamic scholars directly or indirectly reflect, in their works, the doctrines of the madhabs they belong to and ideological ideas they hold. In Islamic history, both politicaltheological and jurisprudential factions were formed in line with the views of scholars on certain issues. Following the division between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in the earlier period, the first madhab divisions emerged i.e., Sunnism, Shīʿism and Khārijism. Later, these madhabs were followed by others, such as al-Murjiʾa, Jabriya, Qadariya and Muʿtazila, and each of them gathered masses of followers over time. Likewise, the schools of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Raʾy became systematised as of the early third century, and their followers gradually increased. However, these schools were soon replaced by Shāfiʿism and Ḥanafism. The Ḥanafī madhab became widespread in the regions where raʾy was predominant, and the Shāfiʿī madhab became famous in the regions where nass the Quān and ḥadīths was predominant. Therefore, an individual who was born and grew up in a society where the Ḥanafī madhab was predominant felt attached to this madhab because his family and society were affiliated with it. The same was true for Shāfiʿī madhab as well as others. This is because the sense of belonging to a school or madhab adopted by the society inevitably permeates every phenomenon in life. Among the scholars who areclaimed to have belonged to theological and jurisprudential madhabs are also scholars called muḥaddith. One particular muḥaddith is Imām al-Nasāʾī, who brought many valuable works to the world of science with his Sunan. Al-Nasāʾī was typically influenced by the intellectual and socio-cultural structure of the society he lived in. Therefore, he partially reflected the scholarly, intellectual and socio-cultural structure of his environment in his works. Al-Nasāʾī lived in a politically and ideologically intense and turbulent period in which the content of his works caused him to be accused of being a member some madhabs in terms of theology and jurisprudence. Although it is claimed that al-Nasāi politicallytheologically belonged to Shīʿism and jurisprudentially to Shāfiʿism, these claims are not based on solid evidence. Especially the Sunan he compiled shows that these accusations are not true. The purpose of the present study is to examine the validity of the claims that al-Nasāʾī belonged to Shīʿa theologically and Shafiʾism jurisprudentially. The roots of this claim are compared with information from the ḥadīths in al-Nasāʾīs al-Sunan. Thus, based on the ḥadīths in his Sunan, the present study elaborates on the degree of accuracy of the claim that al-Nasāʾī belonged to these madhabs.

 İnsan, içinde yaşadığı toplumun siyasi, sosyal ve kültürel yapısından etkilendiği gibi fikrî ve mezhebi yapısından da etkilenir ve bunu hayatına ya tamamen ya da kısmen yansıtır. Bu etkilenme siyasiler için ideolojik görüşlerinde, halk için davranışlarında kitap müellifleri için de eserlerinde kendini gösterir. Herhangi bir alanda kitap telif eden müelliflerin eserlerinde, içinde yaşadığı toplumun veya kendisinin mensubu olduğu mezhebin doktrinlerinin izlerine rastlamak mümkündür. İslam âlimlerinin bir kısmının da mensubu olduğu mehzep ve ideolojik fikirlerin doktrinlerini telif ettikleri eserlerinde doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak yansıttıkları anlaşılmaktadır. İslam tarihinde bazı âlimlerin birtakım meseleler hakkındaki görüşleri doğrultusunda hem siyasîitikadî hem de fıkhi gruplaşmalar oluşmuştur. İlk dönemde Hz. Ali ile Muaviye arasında meydana gelen bölünme sonrası itikadî olarak Sünnilik, Şiîlik ve Haricîlik şeklinde ilk mezhepsel ayrışmalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Daha sonra bu mezhepleri Mürcie, Cebriye, Kaderiye ve Mutezile gibi mezhepler takip etmiş ve zamanla her biri belli bir kitleye ulaşmıştır. Aynı şekilde Ehl-i Hadis ve Ehl-i Rey olarak teşekkül eden ekoller Hicrî III. asrın başlarından itibaren sistematik hale gelmiş ve bu mezheplerin müntesipleri giderek çoğalmıştır. Hemen ardından bu ekoller yerini Şâfiîlik ve Hanefîliğe bırakmıştır. Rey ağırlıklı bölgelerde Hanefî mezhebi, nassa ağırlık veren bölgelerde de Şafii mezhebi yaygınlaşmıştır. Dolayısıyla Hanefi mezhebinin ağırlıkta olduğu bir toplum içerisinde doğan ve büyüyen bir birey ailesinin ve toplumunun Hanefi olması sebebiyle kendisini bu mezhebe bağlı hissetmiştir. Aynı husus Şafii ve diğer mezhepler için de geçerli olmaktadır. İnsanın içinde yaşadığı toplumun benimsemiş olduğu ekol veya mezhebe olan aidiyet duygusu, kişinin hayatında yer verdiği her olguya ister istemez sirayet etmiştir. itikadî ve fıkhî mezheplere mensup olduğu iddia edilen alimler arasında muhaddisler de yer almaktadır. Bu muhaddislerden birisi de Süneni ile beraber ilim dünyasına birçok değerli eser kazandıran İmam Nesâîdir. Nesâî de her birey gibi içinde yaşadığı toplumun fikrî ve sosyo-kültürel yapısından etkilenmiştir. Dolayısıyla telif ettiği eserlerine yaşadığı çevrenin ilmî, fikrî ve sosyo-kültürel yapısını kısmen yansıtmıştır. Gerek Nesâînin siyasî ve ideolojik olarak yoğun ve çalkantılı bir dönemde yaşamış olması gerekse de telif etmiş oldukları eserlerin muhtevaları itikadî ve fıkhî olarak bazı mezheplere mensup olmakla itham edilmesine sebep olmuştur. Kaynaklarda Nesâînin siyasîitikadî olarak Şiîliğe fıkhî olarak da Şâfiî mezhebine mensup olduğu iddia edilmişse de bunlar sağlam delillere dayanmamaktadır. Özellikle telif ettiği Süneni bu ithamların doğru olmadığını gösterir mahiyettedir. Bu çalışmada amaç, Nesâînin itîkadî olarak Şîaya fıkhî olarak da Şafiî mezhebine bağlı olduğu yönünde kaynaklarda geçen iddiaların geçerlilik durumunu incelemektir. Yöntem olarak da söz konusu iddiaların dayandırıldığı bilgiler Nesâînin Sünenindeki hadisler ile mukayese edilecektir. Böylece Sünenindeki hadisler bağlamında Nesâînin bu mezheplere mensup olduğu hususunun doğruluk derecesi ortaya konmaya çalışılacaktır.

Makale detayları

Some Thoughts on the Claims about al-Nasāʾī’s Adherence to Madhabs

Yazarlar:

Veli Tatar | Nurullah Agitoğlu

Yayıncı:

Harran University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.141-160

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303766

pISSN:

2791-6812

Ḥadīth

Sunan

Shīʿism

Shāfiʿism

al-NasāʾīHadis

Sünen

Şiîlik

Şâfiîlik

Nesâî

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Veli Tatar | Nurullah Agitoğlu

Yayıncı: Harran University

Ana Başlıklar: Hadis

Dergi: Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.141-160

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001303766

pISSN: 2791-6812

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Veli Tatar | Nurullah Agitoğlu

Yayıncı:

Harran University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.141-160

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303766

pISSN:

2791-6812