An Evaluation on Ignaz Goldziher’s Claims About the Composition of Ḥadīths

Ahmet Emin Seyhan

Makale detayları

An Evaluation on Ignaz Goldziher’s Claims About the Composition of Ḥadīths

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Emin Seyhan

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.213-237

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319315

pISSN:

2757-8399

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The essential material of oral cultures is memory; however, written records consolidate memory and make information unforgettable. Because the memory of human beings is subject to forgetfulness. Some of the companions recorded ḥadīths during the period of the Prophet Muhammad, and some others recorded them after his death. They used writing as well as memorization to discuss among themselves what they had heard and seen from him. While some of the companions opposed the writing of ḥadīth on the grounds that the Quran would be neglected, the majority thought that the prohibition on writing down the Prophets sayings was not general, but a temporary prohibition due to the possibility of mixing ḥadīths with verses, and they wrote down the ḥadīths. The efforts for recording ḥadīths in parts and pages also continued during the period of successors; a collection activity was carried out with the support of the state; the tasnif period started after the tadvin; main ḥadīth sources were copyrighted; and thus, it was ensured that ḥadīths were reliably transmitted to future generations. Ḥadīths, as claimed, were not narrated only verbally during the first century, but written narration was also increasingly applied along with oral narration. It is known that the Prophet Muhammad did not get his words collected as the Quran and did not give any instructions for this. However, this does not mean that the Prophet Muhammad never dictated ḥadīth or did not allow his words to be written down. The accurate and weak narrations that writing of ḥadīths that the Messenger of Allah got some of his words written himself and responded positively to the requests of some of his companions to the write ḥadīths. Although the Prophet Muhammad forbade writing his words as a temporary precaution in the beginning in order to prevent his words from being confused with the Quran and to ensure that all efforts were directed towards the Quran, he gave special permission to some companions when these reasons were eliminated. Ignaz Goldziher d. 1921, a Jewish orientalist known for his research on Islam, especially in the field of hadith, argued that hadiths were not written down in the early periods and were only narrated orally, citing hadiths transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh that his words should not be written down. The reason for writing this article is to evaluate Goldzihers claims related to the composition of ḥadīths in his article Kampfe um die Stellung des Hadit im Islam Struggles around the Place of Ḥadīth in Islam published in 1907. As a consequence of the research, it was seen that there was no other research independently analyzing the opinions that Goldziher put forward in his mentioned article before, and the present article was written to fill this gap. The research was limited to analysing Goldzihers claims in his mentioned study, and the data collection and analysis method was used in the article. At the end of the research, it was concluded that Goldziher attempted to undermine trust in ḥadīth collections by showing the presence of abundant ḥadīths narrated from the companions musnads as a discrepancy even though there were companions avoiding from narrating ḥadīth. Similarly, it was concluded that his accusation that Hz. Omar d. 23644 did not incline toward ḥadīth narration since he did not want his actions against the ḥadīths to be known were also a subjective analyzes which were not based on serious proof and aimed at creating negative perception. It was detected that his claim that there were very few narrations the truthoriginality of which could reach the Prophet Muhammad in safety was arbitrary and discretionary comments that aims to undermine the reliability of ḥadīths. It was also detected that he interpreted the narration mentioning that Hz. Omar had the pages on which the ḥadīths were written, burnt with the concern that they would abandon the Quran in a way that supported his thesis. It was seen that Goldzihers claim that those who hesitated in the verbal narration of ḥadīths did not also positively view their recording in writing reflected his desires rather than his detections. It was also seen that he had a positive attitude towards the narrations that prohibited the writing of ḥadīths, while he had a negative attitude towards those who allowed it. Additionally, it was concluded that Goldzihers claim that there were people who reacted to those claiming that revelation separate from the Quran was given to the Prophet Muhammad, there were people who criticised the theologists considering the Quran and sunnah equivalent and remarking that sunnah could abrogate the Quran, and there were people who opposed the view of dual revelation were partially justified.

 Sözlü kültürlerin vazgeçilmez malzemesi hafızadır, ancak belleği takviye eden ve bilgileri unutulmaz kılanlar da yazılı kayıtlardır. Zira hafıza-i beşer nisyân ile mâluldür. Sahâbeden bazıları hadisleri Hz. Peygamber döneminde, bazıları da onun vefatından sonra kayıt altına almış, ezberle beraber yazıyı da kullanarak ondan dinledikleri ve gördüklerini kendi aralarında müzâkere etmek için yazmışlardır. Bazı sahâbîler, Kurânın ihmal edileceği gerekçesiyle hadis kitâbetine karşı çıkarken çoğunluk, Hz. Peygamberin sözlerinin yazılmasıyla ilgili yasağın umumi olmadığını, hadislerin âyetlerle karıştırılması ihtimali nedeniyle alınmış geçici bir yasak olduğunu düşünmüş ve hadisleri yazmışlardır. Tabiîn döneminde de cüz ve sahîfelerde hadisleri kayıt altına alma çabaları devam etmiş, resmî tedvîn faaliyeti gerçekleştirilmiş, tedvînden sonra tasnif dönemine geçilmiş, temel hadis kaynakları telif edilmiş, böylece hadislerin güvenilir bir şekilde gelecek nesillere ulaştırılması sağlanmıştır. Hadisler, iddia edildiği gibi ilk bir asır boyunca sadece şifâhen rivayet edilmemiş, sözlü naklin yanında gittikçe artan oranda yazılı nakle de başvurulmuştur. Hz. Peygamberin sözlerini Kurân-ı Kerîm gibi tedvîn ettirmediği ve bunun için de herhangi bir emir vermediği bilinmektedir. Ancak bu durum, Hz. Muhammedin hiç hadis yazdırmadığı veya sözlerinin yazılmasına müsaade etmediği manasına da gelmemektedir. Zira hadislerin yazımına izin veren sahîh ve zayıf rivayetler, Resûlullahın bir kısım sözlerini bizzat kendisinin yazdırdığını ve bazı sahâbîlerin hadis yazma taleplerine olumlu cevap verdiğini göstermektedir. Hz. Peygamber, Kurân ile karıştırılmasını önleme ve bütün gayretlerin Kurâna yönelmesini temin etme amacıyla ilk zamanlarda sözlerinin yazılmasını geçici bir tedbir olarak yasaklamışsa da bu sebepler ortadan kalkınca bazı sahâbîlere özel izin vermiştir. İslâma yönelik ve özellikle de hadis alanında yaptığı araştırmalarla tanınan Yahudi oryantalist Ignaz Goldziher öl. 1921 ise Hz. Peygamberden sözlerinin yazılmaması yönünde nakledilen hadisleri gerekçe göstererek hadislerin ilk dönemlerde yazılmadığını ve sadece şifâhen rivayet edildiğini savunmuştur. Bu makalenin yazılma nedeni Goldziherin 1907 yılında yayınlanan Kampfe um die Stellung des Hadit im Islam İslâmda Hadisin Yeri Etrafında Mücadeleler isimli makalesindeki hadislerin kitâbetine dair iddialarını değerlendirmektir. Araştırmalarımız neticesinde daha önce Goldziherin söz konusu makalesinde ileri sürdüğü görüşleri müstakil olarak inceleyen başka bir çalışmanın bulunmadığı görülmüş, bu boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla makale yazılmıştır. Araştırma, Goldziherin adı geçen çalışmasındaki iddialarını tahlil etmekle sınırlandırılmış, makalede veri toplama ve analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonunda Goldziherin hadis rivayet etmekten sakınan sahâbîler olmasına rağmen müsnedlerde sahâbeden nakledilen bol miktarda hadis bulunmasını çelişki gibi gösterip hadis koleksiyonlarına duyulan güveni sarsmaya çalıştığı kanaatine varılmıştır. Aynı şekilde Hz. Ömerin ö. 23644 hadislere aykırı yaptığı işlerin bilinmesini istemediği için hadis rivayetine sıcak bakmadığı şeklindeki ithamının da ciddi delile dayanmayan, menfî algı oluşturma amaçlı sübjektif analizler olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Hz. Peygambere emniyet içinde ulaşabilen çok az rivayet bulunduğu şeklindeki iddiasının ise hadislerin güvenilirliğine gölge düşürmeyi amaçlayan indî ve keyfî yorumlar olduğu, Hz. Ömerin Kurânı terk edecekleri endişesiyle hadislerin yazıldığı sahîfeleri yaktırmasından bahseden rivayeti de tezini destekleyecek şekilde tevil ettiği tespit edilmiştir. Goldziherin hadislerin şifâhen rivayetinde tereddüt gösterenlerin yazıyla kayıt altına alınmasına da olumlu bakmadıkları şeklindeki iddiasının ise tespitlerinden ziyade temennilerini yansıttığı, hadislerin yazılmasını yasaklayan rivayetlere müspet yaklaşırken yazılmasına izin verenlere karşı menfî bir tutum sergilediği görülmüştür. Bununla birlikte Goldziherin Hz. Muhammede Kurândan ayrı vahiy verildiğini savunanlara tepki gösterenlerin bulunduğu, Kurân ile sünneti aynı değerde görüp sünnetin Kurânı nesh edebileceğini söyleyen ilahiyatçıları eleştirenlerin olduğu ve ikili vahiy görüşüne karşı çıkanların olduğu şeklindeki tespitlerinin ise kısmen haklılık payı taşıdığı neticesine ulaşılmıştır.

 The essential material of oral cultures is memory; however, written records consolidate memory and make information unforgettable. Because the memory of human beings is subject to forgetfulness. Some of the companions recorded ḥadīths during the period of the Prophet Muhammad, and some others recorded them after his death. They used writing as well as memorization to discuss among themselves what they had heard and seen from him. While some of the companions opposed the writing of ḥadīth on the grounds that the Quran would be neglected, the majority thought that the prohibition on writing down the Prophets sayings was not general, but a temporary prohibition due to the possibility of mixing ḥadīths with verses, and they wrote down the ḥadīths. The efforts for recording ḥadīths in parts and pages also continued during the period of successors; a collection activity was carried out with the support of the state; the tasnif period started after the tadvin; main ḥadīth sources were copyrighted; and thus, it was ensured that ḥadīths were reliably transmitted to future generations. Ḥadīths, as claimed, were not narrated only verbally during the first century, but written narration was also increasingly applied along with oral narration. It is known that the Prophet Muhammad did not get his words collected as the Quran and did not give any instructions for this. However, this does not mean that the Prophet Muhammad never dictated ḥadīth or did not allow his words to be written down. The accurate and weak narrations that writing of ḥadīths that the Messenger of Allah got some of his words written himself and responded positively to the requests of some of his companions to the write ḥadīths. Although the Prophet Muhammad forbade writing his words as a temporary precaution in the beginning in order to prevent his words from being confused with the Quran and to ensure that all efforts were directed towards the Quran, he gave special permission to some companions when these reasons were eliminated. Ignaz Goldziher d. 1921, a Jewish orientalist known for his research on Islam, especially in the field of hadith, argued that hadiths were not written down in the early periods and were only narrated orally, citing hadiths transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh that his words should not be written down. The reason for writing this article is to evaluate Goldzihers claims related to the composition of ḥadīths in his article Kampfe um die Stellung des Hadit im Islam Struggles around the Place of Ḥadīth in Islam published in 1907. As a consequence of the research, it was seen that there was no other research independently analyzing the opinions that Goldziher put forward in his mentioned article before, and the present article was written to fill this gap. The research was limited to analysing Goldzihers claims in his mentioned study, and the data collection and analysis method was used in the article. At the end of the research, it was concluded that Goldziher attempted to undermine trust in ḥadīth collections by showing the presence of abundant ḥadīths narrated from the companions musnads as a discrepancy even though there were companions avoiding from narrating ḥadīth. Similarly, it was concluded that his accusation that Hz. Omar d. 23644 did not incline toward ḥadīth narration since he did not want his actions against the ḥadīths to be known were also a subjective analyzes which were not based on serious proof and aimed at creating negative perception. It was detected that his claim that there were very few narrations the truthoriginality of which could reach the Prophet Muhammad in safety was arbitrary and discretionary comments that aims to undermine the reliability of ḥadīths. It was also detected that he interpreted the narration mentioning that Hz. Omar had the pages on which the ḥadīths were written, burnt with the concern that they would abandon the Quran in a way that supported his thesis. It was seen that Goldzihers claim that those who hesitated in the verbal narration of ḥadīths did not also positively view their recording in writing reflected his desires rather than his detections. It was also seen that he had a positive attitude towards the narrations that prohibited the writing of ḥadīths, while he had a negative attitude towards those who allowed it. Additionally, it was concluded that Goldzihers claim that there were people who reacted to those claiming that revelation separate from the Quran was given to the Prophet Muhammad, there were people who criticised the theologists considering the Quran and sunnah equivalent and remarking that sunnah could abrogate the Quran, and there were people who opposed the view of dual revelation were partially justified.

 The essential material of oral cultures is memory; however, written records consolidate memory and make information unforgettable. Because the memory of human beings is subject to forgetfulness. Some of the companions recorded ḥadīths during the period of the Prophet Muhammad, and some others recorded them after his death. They used writing as well as memorization to discuss among themselves what they had heard and seen from him. While some of the companions opposed the writing of ḥadīth on the grounds that the Quran would be neglected, the majority thought that the prohibition on writing down the Prophets sayings was not general, but a temporary prohibition due to the possibility of mixing ḥadīths with verses, and they wrote down the ḥadīths. The efforts for recording ḥadīths in parts and pages also continued during the period of successors; a collection activity was carried out with the support of the state; the tasnif period started after the tadvin; main ḥadīth sources were copyrighted; and thus, it was ensured that ḥadīths were reliably transmitted to future generations. Ḥadīths, as claimed, were not narrated only verbally during the first century, but written narration was also increasingly applied along with oral narration. It is known that the Prophet Muhammad did not get his words collected as the Quran and did not give any instructions for this. However, this does not mean that the Prophet Muhammad never dictated ḥadīth or did not allow his words to be written down. The accurate and weak narrations that writing of ḥadīths that the Messenger of Allah got some of his words written himself and responded positively to the requests of some of his companions to the write ḥadīths. Although the Prophet Muhammad forbade writing his words as a temporary precaution in the beginning in order to prevent his words from being confused with the Quran and to ensure that all efforts were directed towards the Quran, he gave special permission to some companions when these reasons were eliminated. Ignaz Goldziher d. 1921, a Jewish orientalist known for his research on Islam, especially in the field of hadith, argued that hadiths were not written down in the early periods and were only narrated orally, citing hadiths transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh that his words should not be written down. The reason for writing this article is to evaluate Goldzihers claims related to the composition of ḥadīths in his article Kampfe um die Stellung des Hadit im Islam Struggles around the Place of Ḥadīth in Islam published in 1907. As a consequence of the research, it was seen that there was no other research independently analyzing the opinions that Goldziher put forward in his mentioned article before, and the present article was written to fill this gap. The research was limited to analysing Goldzihers claims in his mentioned study, and the data collection and analysis method was used in the article. At the end of the research, it was concluded that Goldziher attempted to undermine trust in ḥadīth collections by showing the presence of abundant ḥadīths narrated from the companions musnads as a discrepancy even though there were companions avoiding from narrating ḥadīth. Similarly, it was concluded that his accusation that Hz. Omar d. 23644 did not incline toward ḥadīth narration since he did not want his actions against the ḥadīths to be known were also a subjective analyzes which were not based on serious proof and aimed at creating negative perception. It was detected that his claim that there were very few narrations the truthoriginality of which could reach the Prophet Muhammad in safety was arbitrary and discretionary comments that aims to undermine the reliability of ḥadīths. It was also detected that he interpreted the narration mentioning that Hz. Omar had the pages on which the ḥadīths were written, burnt with the concern that they would abandon the Quran in a way that supported his thesis. It was seen that Goldzihers claim that those who hesitated in the verbal narration of ḥadīths did not also positively view their recording in writing reflected his desires rather than his detections. It was also seen that he had a positive attitude towards the narrations that prohibited the writing of ḥadīths, while he had a negative attitude towards those who allowed it. Additionally, it was concluded that Goldzihers claim that there were people who reacted to those claiming that revelation separate from the Quran was given to the Prophet Muhammad, there were people who criticised the theologists considering the Quran and sunnah equivalent and remarking that sunnah could abrogate the Quran, and there were people who opposed the view of dual revelation were partially justified.

Makale detayları

An Evaluation on Ignaz Goldziher’s Claims About the Composition of Ḥadīths

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Emin Seyhan

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.213-237

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319315

pISSN:

2757-8399

Ḥadīth

Ignaz Goldziher

Composition of Ḥadīths

Tadvin

Tasnif

OrientalismHadis

Ignaz Goldziher

Hadislerin kitâbeti

Tedvîn

Tasnif

Oryantalizm

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ahmet Emin Seyhan

Yayıncı: Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar: Hadis

Dergi: Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.213-237

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001319315

pISSN: 2757-8399

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Emin Seyhan

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hadis

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.213-237

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319315

pISSN:

2757-8399