CRITICS AND RESPONSES TO IMAM BUKHARI IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PREFERENCE OF HANAFI TO OTHER SECTS (EXAMPLE TO EKMELEDDIN EL-BÂBERTÎ AND SADREDDIN ALI B. ALI B. MUHAMMED IBN EBI’L-IZZ AL-HANAFI

Year 2020, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 91 - 101, 24.06.2020

Ahmet İnanır

Abstract

Fiqh sects in the history of Islamic law; They are institutions that allow individuals and society to live with their state practices in a value-centered system. The existence of different fiqh sects in a state and their place and effectiveness in the state institution bring with about arguments of debate, choice and superiority. The existence of different fiqh sects in a state and their place and effectiveness in the state institution, together with the grounds for discussions of comparison, choice and superiority. The debates and arguments were not limited to science councils, they were the subject of various articles and books and a fiqh literature named “al-hilaf” developed over time.

In the VIII/XIV. century, Mamluks became a place where many scholars took refuge in the centuries when Muslims in the east suffered from the invasion of the Mongols and the Andalusian were invaded by the Crusaders. In order to determine the supremacy of the denomination or the provisions for evidence such as the Book and the Sunnah, some treatises have been written. In the Mamluk period of the Baberti lived, he did not know the hadiths of Abu Hanifa (ö. 150/767) which Buhârî (ö. 256/870) supposedly described as Sahih, therefore, some of the views of the Hanafi sect are opposed to the hadiths of the Prophet, accusatory claims have been put forward. He also wrote a treatise in order to inform his members about Abu Hanifa, in order to show that the allegedly weak aspects were actually strong. Of course, some determinations related to Imam Bukhari were also made in this work. According to him, Bukhari lived in Bukhara and learned the hadiths that were acquired there. All members of his family are Hanafi. the hadiths brought together by him are clear evidence that they are present in the Hanafis. On the other hand, he characterized Bukhari as a “fable narrator” Muhammed b. İsmail. Ibn Abu’l-Izz el-Hanafi, however, wrote a refusal to respond to these claims of Bukhari.

In fact, the origins of these discussions are based on the method and opinion difference of scholars in using the discourse and hadith. As a result, the fiqh of Iraq with Medina and Kufah centered and the fiqh of Iraq was formed and these were named as Ahl al-hadith and Ahl al-re. He became prominent as the representative of the People of Imam Bukhari period. However, due to his high reputation, he was tried to be inspected, because he was the musnif of al-Câmiu’s-Sahih, one of the two most valuable sources of the Islamic hadith complex. Because this work has been a unique favor among Muslims, and even hatims have been sent down with them. Although Buhârî's al-Câmiu's-Sahih is a work that compiles authentic hadiths, what he gave against Ehl-i hadith as a result of the differentiation of Ehl-i hadîs and Ehl-i re'y in the history of Islamic thought. It is possible to evaluate it as fiqh answers. As it is known, Bukhari aimed to bring together the muslim hadiths in al-Câmiu’s-Sahih, and also described such hadiths as sunnah. In addition to the narration, he tried to employ hadiths in a certain way of contingency and jurisprudence, and tried to reveal his view of fiqh through the order of babies and the titles of the babies he associated with, as well as the well-being of the hadiths he narrated. For this reason, the word “Bukhari's fiqh is found in the headlines of bab” has become famous. He also expressed his own opinion according to the situation of the issue right after some hadiths, and sometimes he did not hesitate to criticize them by giving place to opposing views. Especially the position of al-Câmiu’s-Sahih before ulama and the people, the place of sacredness and flawlessness that has reached the claim of icma, has been tried to be used as evidence in the criticisms of Abu Hanifa and its sect in almost every period. Therefore, considering this background, Bukhari is neither the first nor the last of those who criticize Abu Hanifa.

Bâbertî considers the criticism of Abu Hanifa as if he did not know the hadiths in al-Câmiu’s-Sahih, as an injustice to Abu Hanifa. On the one hand, he claims the al-Câmiu’s-Sahih as a Hanafi with the claim that the hadiths in Bukhari are taken from Hanafis, on the other hand, he refers to the negative literature within the sect against Bukhari. On the other hand, Ibn Abi-Iz evaluated Buhhari as a mujtahid in matters in conflict with Abu Hanifa. Therefore, besides Buhârî's predecessor, he tries to express that as a great judge and mujtahid, it is natural that he thinks that his opinion as a result of the case law he made duly, like other mujtahids, is correct and other opinions are not correct. It includes various examples to justify that the hadiths in al-Câmiu’s-Sahih contain authentic hadiths, except for a few. In the study, it will be preferred to understand the issue directly with the words of the interlocutors by mentioning the Bukhari claims and answers together. Thus, it is aimed to better understand the nature of the Bukhari debate during this period.

Both studies in the VIII. (XIV) century it is understood that Mamluk Egypt was a product of the political and socio-cultural background. Because in this period, it is possible to say that the rivalry and conflict between Mameluk administrators emerged on the basis of sectarian preference. Both authors are the parties to the conflict in question, and their works bear the traces of this conflicted environment. In terms of the value attributed to the sect, it is seen that Hanafi scholars have different approaches even among themselves. While Bâbertî proposes to be attached to the Hanafi sect for the sake of public interest and legal stability, Ibn Abi-Iz opposes the imitation of the Hanafi sect even though he is a Hanafi himself. Instead, he proposes the reference in the sense of being subject to evidence. Due to the imperative in practice in the Islamic states, the understanding of the Bahridi was dominant. Because, at a time when there was no law enforcement, it was tried to deal with the legal instability that different opinions reveal even within the Hanafi sect. de There was able to survive in two insights in history. Therefore, when considering the rejection of Ibn Abi-Iz against the opinions of the Bâbertî, it is not correct to make a general evaluation about this period through one of the parties. It is evident that the subject of our study, the Bâbertî's effort to keep the Hanafi sect in force and to be passed on to the next generations. On the other hand, Ibn Abi-Iz's anti-imitation evidence-oriented efforts still remain important and value, although they could not be evaluated in those circumstances.

HANEFÎ MEZHEBİNİ DİĞER MEZHEPLERE TERCİH BAĞLAMINDA İMAM BUHÂRÎ’YE YÖNELİK TENKİTLER VE CEVAPLAR EKMELEDDİN EL-BÂBERTÎ VE İBN EBİ’L-İZ EL-HANEFÎ ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

İslâm hukuk tarihinde fıkhî mezhepler; birey ve toplum yaşayışları ile devlet uygulamalarını değer merkezli bir sistem içinde yapmalarına imkân veren kurumlardır. Bir devlet içinde farklı fıkhî mezheplerin bulunması ve bunların devlet kurumundaki yeri ve etkinliği beraberinde mukayese, tercih ve üstünlük tartışmalarına zemin hazırlamaktadır. Bu münazara ve münakaşalar ilim meclislerinde sözlü olarak yapılmakla kalmamış çeşitli risale ve kitaplara konu olmuş zaman içinde “el-hilâf” adında bir fıkhî literatür gelişmiştir.
VIII. (XIV) asırda Memluklar, doğudaki Müslümanların Moğol, En¬dülüs'ün ise Haçlı istilâsına uğradığı asırlarda pek çok âlimin sığındığı bir yer olmuştur. Haliyle bu dönemde Mısır’da mezhep üstünlüğünü veya Kitap ve Sünnet gibi delillere en uygun hükmün ve mezhebin tespitine yönelik bazı eser ve risaleler yazılmıştır. Bâbertî’nin yaşadığı dönem Memlûk devletinde Ebû Hanife’nin (ö. 150/767) güya Buhârî’nin (ö. 256/870) sahih olarak nitelediği hadisleri bilmediği, bu yüzden de Hanefi mezhebinin bazı görüşlerinin Hz. Peygamber’in hadislerine muhalefet ettiği gibi itham edici bazı iddialar ortaya atılmıştır. O da Ebû Hanife hakkında mensuplarını bilgilendirmek, zayıf olduğu iddia edilen yönlerinin aslında güçlü olduğunu göstermek amacıyla bir risale yazmıştır. Tabii bu eserde İmam Buhârî’yle ilgili bazı tespitlerde de bulunmuştur. Ona göre Buhârî, Buhara’da yaşamış ve elde ettiği hadisleri de oradan almıştır. Ayrıca ailesinin bütün bireyleri Hanefi’dir. Bu durum onun bir araya getirdiği hadislerin Hanefilerde mevcut olduğunun açık bir delilidir. Diğer taraftan o, Buhârî’yi “Kıssacı” Muhammed b. İsmail olarak nitelendirmiştir. İbn Ebi’l-İz el-Hanefi ise onun Buhârî’yle ilgili bu iddialarına da cevap veren bir reddiye yazmıştır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu görüşler, Buhârî’yi merkeze alarak değerlendirilmeye çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

İslam Hukuku

References

• Atar, F. (2016). İttibâ. Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt Ek-1, 679-681 ss.). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Aynî, Bedruddîn (1420/2000). el-Binâye Şerhu’l-Hidâye. Beyrut: Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye. A'zamî, M. M. (2012). Buhârî, Muhammed b. İsmâil. Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 6, 368-372 ss.). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Azîmâbâdî, Ebû’t-Tayyib M. (ts.), Raf’u’l-İltibâs an Ba’dı’n-Nâs, yy.:Dâru’s-Sahve. Bâbertî, Ekmeleddin Muhammed b. Mahmud b. Ahmed(1997). en-Nüketü’z-zarîfe fî tercîhi mezhebi Ebî Hanife. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Ayasofya, 1384, vr. 204b-211a. Bâbertî, Ekmeleddin Muhammed b. Mahmud b. Ahmed(1997). Tercihü’l-mezheb’il-müsemma: en-nüketü'z-zarîfe fî tercîhi mezhebi Ebî Hanife, Haz. Bele Hasan Ömer Müsaid, Riyad: Kral Suûd Üniv Eğitim Fak. Yay. Bardakoğlu. A. (1997). Hanefi Mezhebi. Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 16, 1-21 ss.). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Bayraktutar, M. (2015). İmâm Şafiî’nin Hadis Yorum metodolojisi. Ankara: Otto Yay. Buhârî, İ. (H. 1422). el-Câmî’u’s-Sahîh. thk. Muhammed Züheyr, yy.: Dâru Tavkı’n-Necât. Çakın, K. (1997). Buhârî’nin Otoritesini Kazanma Süreci. İslâmi Araştırmalar, Ankara, 10(2), 101–109. (Doktora tezi), Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum. Ebû Zehrâ, M. (1959). Ebû Hanife. Çev. Osman Keskioğlu, Konya: Can Kitabevi. Erdem M. (2016). İmam Buhârî’nin Kitaplarında İmam Ebû Hanife Hakkındaki Rivayetlerin Tespit ve Tahlili. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5/2, 70-84. Eren, M. (2003). Buhârî'nin Sahih'inde Re'y Ehline İtiraz Ettiği Bazı Meseleler. Dini Araştırmalar, 5(15), 139-164. Eymen Fuâd Seyyid (2003). Makrîzî, Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 27, 448-451 ss.). Ankara: TDV Yay. DİA, , , c. XXVII, s. 448 Güler, Z. (2015). Buhari ve el-Camiu's-Sahih'i Üzerine. Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 1-24. Hatiboğlu, Mehmet S. (1997). “Müslüman Âlimlerin Buhârî ve Müslim’e Yönelik Eleştirileri”. İslâmî Araştırmalar (Hadis-Sünnet Özel sayısı), 10(1-2-3), 1-29. İbn Ebi’l-İz, Sadreddin Ali b. Ali b. Muhammed b. Ebi’l-İz el-Hanefi el-Ezdî (1985). İttibâ. Thk. Muhammed Ataullah Hanif-Ebû Suheyb Abdullah b. Asım el-Karyûtî. 2. Baskı, Mektebetü’s- Lahor: Selefiyye Yay. İbn Ebî Şeybe, Ebû Bekr Abdullah b. M. (1994). el-Musannef fi’l-Ehâdîs ve’l-Âsâr, nşr. Saîd Muhammed el-Lahhâm, Beyrut: Dâru’l-Fikr. İbn Hacer, A. (1379), Fethu’l-Bârî Şerhu Sahîhi’l-Buhârî, Beyrut: Dâru’l-ma’rife. İnanır, A. (2012). Ekmeleddin el-Bâbertî’nin en-Nüketü’z-zarîfetü fi tercih-i mezheb-i Ebî Hanife Adlı Risalesi Bağlamında Türklerin Hanefîligi Tercih Gerekçeleri. İslâmî İlimler Dergisi, 7(2), 77-93. İnanır, A. (2013). Ekmeleddin el-Bâbertî’nin en-Nüketü’z-zarîfetü fi tercih-i mezheb-i Ebî Hanife Adlı Risalesinin Metin ve Tercümesi. İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi, (21), 71-93. İnanır, A. (2013). İbn Ebi’l-İz’in İttibâ Adlı Risalesi Bağlamında Ebu Hanife ve Hanefi Mezhebi Örneğinde Taklide Dair Görüşleri. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 225-260. Kaya, Eyyüp S.(2003). “Mâlikî Mezhebi”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. (27: 519-535). Ankara: TDV Yay. Kevserî, Muhammed Zâhid b. el-Hasen, en-Nüketü’t-Tarîfe fi’t-Tahaddüsan Rudûdi İbn Ebî Şeybe alâ Ebî Hanîfe, Matbaatü’l-Envâr, Kahire 1356. Koca, F. (1991). İbn Ebi'I-İz. Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 19, 468-469 ss.). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Koçyiğit, Talat (1985). Hadis Tarihi. Ankara: AÜİF Yay. Kopraman, Kazım Y. (1992). “Baybars I”. Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 5, 221-223 ss.). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Merttürkmen, M. H. (1976). Buhârî’nin Ebû Hanife’ye Yönelttiği İtirazları ve Aralarındaki İhtilaflar, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora). Meydânî, Abdulganî (ts.). , Keşfu’l-İltibâs Ammâ Evredehû’l-Buhârî alâ Ba’dı’n-Nâs (Abdulmecîd Mahmûd’un Dirâsetun Mutkanetun li’l-Mesâili’l-Fıkhiyye’si ile birlikte). Haleb: Mektebetü’l-Matbû’âti’l-İslâmiyye. Öğüt, S. (1994), Ehl-i Hadîs. Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 10, 508-512 ss.). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Sezgin, M. F.(1956). Buhârî'nin Kaynaklan Hakkında Araştırmalar, İstanbul: AÜİFY. İbrahim Sezgin, M. Fuad, Buhıln~nin Kaynaklan Hakkında Araştırmalar, s. ı 07. Koçyiğit, Talat, Hadis Tarihi, s. 230. Şeşen, R. (1995). ‚Eyyûbîler‛, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. (12: 20-31). İstanbul: TDV Yay. Tekindağ, M. C. Şehabeddin (1961). Berkuk Devrinde Memlûk Sultanlığı, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edeb. Fak. Yay. 147; Heffening, W. (1979). Şafiî, Muhammed b. İdris. İslâm Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul, MEB Yay. Türcan, Z. (2012/1). Tarihte Buhârî Algılamaları. Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(21), 73-97.