Medine Harem Bölgesinin Tespiti: Eleştiriler Bağlamında Bir Buhârî Rivayetinin Serüveni

Autor: AYAS, Tahir
Jazyk: turečtina
Rok vydání: 2018
Předmět:
Zdroj: Issue: 40 1-45
İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi
ISSN: 1301-3289
2822-2903
Popis: Someprophetic traditions (ḥadīth) express that Medina is a ḥaram region, similar to Mecca.A majority of them do not specify the boundaries of Medina’s ḥaram region,citing only geographical formations like mountains and stony areas. Accordingto a tradition in the ṣaḥīfa of ‘Ali b. Abū Ṭālib, however, ʿAyr/ʿĀʾir and ThawrMountains were clearly determined as the north-south boundaries of the region.This tradition has been criticized since the early period on the basis thatThawr Mountain was unknown to the inhabitants of Medina. Moreover, it was alsoargued that a particular part of the tradition — the part that contains ThawrMountain — was added as a result of the transmitter’s delusions. Al-Qāsim ibnSallām and other scholars found the mention of Thawr in the tradition to beunsound, given the details that the inhabitants of the city did not know aboutthe mountain.It has been argued that, influencedby the criticism, some transmitters and scholars categorizing the traditionmade some changes to the relevant parts of the tradition. Al-Bukhārī and hiswork, al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaḥīḥ, stand at the center of criticism. This articleaims to examine criticism addressed to the transmitters of the tradition thatdetermines the boundaries as ʿAyr and Thawr as well as to al-Bukhārī whoincluded this tradition in his collection. It also hopes to locate thereflections of initial critiques on the tradition’s text. Therefore, it aims atunderlining the fact that, aside from certain (un)intended additions to thetradition’s texts, some additions may have been intended to compensate forcritiques of the texts.First, the article explores whetherthe mountains ʿAyr and Thawr actually exist in Medina based on geographicsources and studies of the city of Medina. Indeed, we understand that two smallmountains do exist — one of them is to the south of the city with the name ʿAyrand the second one stands behind Mount Uhud, named Thawr. Then the articleoutlines the scholars who criticized the tradition and their arguments inchronological order. These critiques could be due to several factors, includingthe small size of Thawr, the reputation of Mount Uhud and the existence ofanother small mountain named Thawr in Mecca. These scholars’ suggestion thatthe mountain mentioned is Mount Uhud instead of Thawr does not seem to beaccurate, due to the fact that the transmission has flaws in its isnād; it doesnot appear in the sound collections of prophetic traditions and it remainsmarginal to other transmissions. When we compare all the chains oftransmissions, including the ḥaram status of Medina, some chains arerecorded vaguely in the form of “kadhā”. Some scholars explain thisdifference by memorization deficiencies on behalf of transmitters. Some ofthem, on the other hand, suggest that the transmitters and collectors ofprophetic traditions made intentional changes in response to critiques. We locate this vagueness only inal-Bukhārī’s work. The transmitters he received from were criticized, as washe, for leaving the second boundary blank and replacing it with the word“kadhā”. When we contextualize the transmission chains through the light ofbiographical dictionaries, the transmitters seem not to have made any changesto the tradition during the process of transmission. Therefore, the critiquesare attributed to al-Bukhārī. In addition, al-Bukhārī’s work notes that theform of this tradition with Thawr is incorrect. However, Ṣaḥīḥ includesthis tradition with Thawr, which could mean that he would not make any changesto the text of the tradition based on this note. Indeed, some scholars such asIbn Ḥajar try to neutralize the critiques by emphasizing this fact. Theaccounts on diverging information based on various copies of al-Bukhārī’s workmanifest that defending al-Bukhārī from the phrases including Thawr isinaccurate. They also indicate that some transmitters/editors of al-Bukhārī’swork made some changes to the related section. Someonemay think that al-Bukhārī made the change originally because his work quotes itin the form of “kadhā”, contrary to other tradition cataloguers, despite theirmutual transmitter sources and because al-Bukhārī states openly that the use ofthe word Thawr is incorrect. However, various copies of al-Bukhārī’s work havediverging texts on the related part, leading us to approach the critiques ofal-Bukhārī with caution. Initial critiques of the tradition and al-Bukhārī’sopinion might have influenced the later copy editors and they might have madesome changes to the related section. The accounts relate that some copies leftthe place of Thawr blank and some others crossed out the word Thawr. Thisarticle discusses the possibility of changes by later copy editors after thecomposer al-Bukhārī to the relevant section of the tradition. Wecan argue that the copy editors of Ṣaḥīḥ made changes to the text of thetradition and the differences in the tradition in various copies could be dueto the editors’ alterations. However, we are not sure whether this alterationintended to clarify a vague point and repeat a blank section, or whether itintended to make a section ambiguous because of the critiques to thetransmission of the second boundary and al-Bukhārī’s opinions on the subject.This latter possibility is supported by certain examples of editors’alterations on al-Bukhārī’s text in order to correct or complete it, phrases ontheir open changes on the word Thawr in the tradition in the ṣaḥīfa aswell as by some points for which al-Bukhārī’s notes were applied to the text.Some other works stating that clear boundaries were made ambiguous also supportthis argument. According to this, al-Bukhārī made nochange to the text of the tradition and it was, in fact, the copy editors whoadded the word “kadhā”. Besides, various answers appear to the questionwhy certain manuscripts of Bukhārī’s work record Thawr as the second boundary.If the later editors made an alteration at this point, we would expect them todo the same thing throughout the entirety of the transmissions. First,manuscripts that mention the second boundary as “kadhā” rarely mention Thawrwith a clear signifier of boundary. Therefore, it has been suggested that someeditors may have missed it. In addition, while one source records the boundaryas blank in a manuscript, another source reports it as Thawr in the same manuscript.It seems probable that an editor left a blank space, which other editors filledin with Thawr with the help of notes in other sources. Ultimately,it seems that Ṣaḥīḥ has survived to us through alterations byal-Bukhārī, who included the tradition in his work, or by later editors as aresult of the critiques of some scholars, principally Qāsim b. Sallām. Somecritiques of the commentators who tried to bring extreme interpretations to thetransmission were influential. Editors were in some way certainly involved inthe process of some alterations of the tradition’s transmission. Most likely,they changed the boundary, which was mentioned clearly in Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī,to an ambiguous form. As for al-Bukhārī, he does not seem to have made a clearalteration to the text.Bylooking at similar examples in the literature of prophetic traditions, we cantrace the influence of critiques at various stages, such as transmissions,records on books, commentaries and reproductions of books and on the texts oftraditions. Studies of this sort will bring more stable ground for discussionson the reasons for differences in manuscripts, the process of transmission ofworks, the attitudes of transmitters/cataloguers and al-Bukhārī and his work.
Bazıhadislerde Mekke gibi Medine’nin de harem bölgesi olduğundan bahsedilmektedir.Hz. Ali’nin kılıcının kınında muhafaza ettiği bildirilen sahîfede yer alanrivayette, Medine’nin harem bölgesinin sınırları, şehrin kuzey ve güneyindebulunan Âir (Ayr) ve Sevr dağları olarak tespit edilmiştir. Ancak bu dağların,özellikle Sevr dağının Medine’de mevcudiyetinin bilinmediği gerekçesiyle erkendönemden itibaren rivayete eleştiriler yöneltilmiş, hadisin bu kısmında birvehim olduğu ileri sürülmüştür. Bunun neticesinde söz konusu hadisi nakledenrâvilerin ve eserine alan musanniflerin, tenkitlerin etkisinde kalarak hadisinilgili kısmı üzerinde birtakım tasarruflarda bulundukları ileri sürülmüştür.Eleştirilerin merkezinde ise Buhârî ve eseri el-Câmiu’s-sahîh yeralmaktadır. Bu makale Medine’nin harem sınırlarını Ayr ve Sevr olarak belirtenrivayetin râvilerine ve hadise eserinde yer veren Buhârî’ye yöneltilmiştenkitleri tahlil edip, başlangıçta rivayete yöneltilmiş eleştirilerin hadisinmetni üzerindeki yansımalarını tespit etmeyi hedeflemektedir. Böylece hadismetinlerinde meydana gelmiş kasıtlı kasıtsız pek çok tasarruf örneğininyanında, metne yönelik eleştiriler neticesinde meydana gelebilecek tasarruflarada dikkat çekme amaçlanmaktadır.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: