Mütekaddimûn Dönemi Hanefî Âlimlerinin Umûmu'l-Belvâ Bağlamında Âhâd Haberle İlgili Görüşleri

The Isolated Ḥadīth in the Context of ‘Umūm-al-Balwā: Examining the Issue in the Light of the First Generation of Ḥanafī Scholars

Özet

Bu çalışma, Hanefî mezhebinde “‘umûmu’l-belvâ” ile ilgili âhâd haberlerin terk edilmesi meselesini ele almaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle konuyla ilgili terimler incelenmiş ve ilk dönem Hanefî âlimlerinin görüşleri ele alınarak konunun vuzuha kavuşturulması hedeflenmiştir. Ebû Hanîfe’den nakledilen görüşlerde konuyla ilgili bazı esaslar bulunsa da bu meselede bize ulaşan en erken metin Cessâs’a aittir. Cessâs, umûmu’l-belvâyla ilgili zikrettiği görüşleri Îsâ b. Ebân’a nispet etmekle birlikte zikrettiği deliller ve muhaliflerin tenkitlerine verdiği cevaplarla konuyla ilgili ilave açıklamalar da yapmıştır. Çalışmada, umûmu’l-belvânın şartları da ele alınmıştır. Söz konusu şartlar, cumhurun bu konuda Hanefîlere yönelttiği tenkitlere cevap niteliği taşımaktadır. Son olarak konunun, fıkhî meselelerdeki işlevselliği ve Hanefî mezhebi dışındaki fıkıh literatürüne ve hadis tenkit metoduna girişi bazı örnekler zikredilerek ele alınmış ve bu şekilde çalışma nihayete erdirilmiştir.

Abstract

The aim of this research is to discuss the issue of Ḥanafī scholars’ abandoning the isolated ḥadīth in the context of ‘Umūm al-Balwā, which is one of the controversial issues in contrast to Ahl al-Ra’y. Most of the Mutakallimūn and Muḥaddithūn do not accept this criterion in differentiating between the accepted prophetic narrations and the rejected ones.There are two methodologies in the classical Islamic points of view that govern this topic. The first is the causal approach, which seeks the integration of evidence and the coherence in the texts. In the context of the supposed conflict of evidence, they resort to interpretation, they do not accept breaking the general rules except for the context of certainty, which means the authentic certain mutawātir or the mashhūr ḥadīth.The Second is the apparent "Ẓāhirī" approach that looks for the individual evidence and texts. It works on making all of the narrations applicable. In the context of the contradiction between the general and special texts, they erase the conflict by specialization or restriction, and resort to the interpretation only when it is necessary.These two approaches appeared during the earliest Islamic era, when the companions interpreted the famous hadith of Banū Qurayẓa about praying the ‘Aṣr prayer and then they appeared in the following historical periods, especially in the main two streams of Sunnī schools, namely Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Ra’y. One of the results of these two methods is the issue of ‘Umūm al-Balwā which is appealed to by the first approach. It means not accepting the isolated ḥadīth which reaches us by the individual narrators and rejecting it in the case that its details and contexts requires it to be mutawātir, because the content requires that not only should many people have learnt it but that it then needs to have been transmitted. When such a hadith brings us down to one person, it makes itself suspicious, and it needs to be reconsidered as to whether it will be accepted or left to the original rules and aḥkām. It is clear that the second approach does not accept such an argument. That approach deals with each hadith as an independent hadith.So, this issue is located in a common area between the Uṣūl al-ḥadīth and Uṣūl al fiqh. Both the Muḥaddithūn and the Uṣūliyyūn studied it. This research aims to take a profound look at this issue in the earliest texts of Ahl al-Ra’y. Thus, to explore it and trying to understand it from their point of view and not the later views, i.e. the muta’akhirūn, of the Ḥanafī scholars.

Anahtar kelimeler: ‘Umûmu’l-belvâ, âhâd haber, Hanefî mezhebi, Cessâs, İsa b. Ebân