Publication: Tirmizi’nin Câmi’i üzerine Hint Pakistan alt kıtasında yazılan başlıca şerhler ve özellikleri (son üç asır)
Abstract
Tirmizî’nin câmi adıyla meşhur olmuş ve İslami literatürde önemli bir yere sahip olup. Hint Pakistan alt kıtasında da büyük bir önem ve değer vardır. Bu coğrafyada özellikle son iki yüzyılda Câmi‘u't-Tirmizî, medreselerde ve üniversitelerde ders kitabı olarak okutulmaktadır. Ayrıca sahihi ve zayıfıyla bütün hadis çeşitlerini içermesi, fakihlerin amel ettiği hadislerin derlenmiş olması ve fıkhi görüş farklılıklarına işaret edilmesi nedeniyle VI./ XII. yüzyıldan itibaren üzerine şerh, haşiye ve ta‘liklerin yazıldığı bir eser olmuştur. Bu çalışmada Hint alt kıtasında özellikle son üç asırda kaleme alınan Câmi‘u’t-Tirmizî'nin şerhleri tetkik edilmiştir. Şerhlerin tetkikinde betimleyici, analitik, karşılaştırmalı ve eleştirel bir tümevarımsal yaklaşım takip edilmiştir. Bu yaklaşım, ilmî materyalin incelenmesi ve metinlerin örnekler verilerek analiz edilmesi, şerhlerin birbirleriyle karşılaştırılması ve değerlendirilmesi yoluyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada Câmi‘u’t-Tirmizî'nin Hint Pakistan alt kıtasındaki en önemli şerhleri tanıtılmış, her bir şerhi diğerinden ayıran hususun ne olduğu açıklanmış ve Hint alt kıtasındaki âlimlerin Câmi‘u’t-Tirmizî şerhleri aracılığıyla hadis ilmine katkıları tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Hint alt kıtası Tirmizî şerhlerinde görülen en bariz özellik, Ehl-i hadis ile Ehl-i rey ekolleri arasındaki ihtilafın vurgulanmasıdır. Ehl-i hadis mensuplarından bazıları Hanefîlere karşı aşırı tepki verince bu durum, Hanefîleri de aynı şekilde cevap vermeye zorlamış ve iki ekol arasındaki teorik mesafe daha da açılmıştır. Bu durum Câmi‘ şerhlerini çeşitli yönlerden etkilemiştir. Bölgede kaleme alınan Tirmizî şerhleri üzerine yapılan bazı araştırmalarda özellikle Hanefî ulemanın yalnızca rey ve kıyasa dayandığı, ancak hadisle istidlal bakımından zayıf kaldıkları yönünde birtakım eleştiriler bulunmaktadır. Hanefî mezhebi şarihlerinin delillere ve kanıtlara dayandığı, hadis ve fıkıh açısından sağlam bir temele sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte bir ehl-i hadis mensubu olan Mübarekpûrî’nin Tuhfetü'l-ahvezî adlı Tirmizî şerhinin en kapsamlı şerh olduğu ve geniş bir mukaddime ile öne çıktığı ve Sirhindî şerhi ve et-Tîbü’ş-şezî ile de uyuştuğu görülmektedir. Şerhin, hadislerin tahrîci ve râvi biyografileri konusundaki titizliği de önem taşır. Bir diğer Tirmizî şarihi Şeyh el-Bennûrî ise, konuları ve meseleleri düzenli ve başarılı bir şekilde başlıklandırmasıyla öne çıkmıştır. Şerhlerin hepsi hadislerden elde edilen hükümleri ihtiva etmeleri açısından hemen hemen aynı düzeydedir. Hanefî âlimlerin Câmi‘u’t-Tirmizî üzerine yazdıkları en önemli şerhleri genellikle tamamlanmamış veya çeşitli yönlerden eksik kalmıştır. Bu nedenle Sirâc Ahmed es-Sirhindî'nin şerhi, İşfâkurrahman el-Kandehlevî'nin et-Tîbü’ş-şezî’si ve Bennûrî'nin Me‘ârifü’s-sünen’inin müstakil çalışmalarda detaylı bir şekilde ele alınması gerekmektedir.
The work titled al-Jāmiʿ al-Mukhtaṣar, commonly known as al-Jāmiʿal-Tirmidhī, holds a significant position in Islamic literature. In the Indian subcontinent, including present-day India and Pakistan, this compilation is also highly esteemed. Particularly over the past two centuries, Sunan al-Tirmidhī has been taught as a core textbook in madrasas and universities across this region. On the other hand, due to its inclusion of all types of hadith—both authentic and weak—the compilation of hadiths acted upon by jurists, and its references to differences in juristic opinions, Sunan al-Tirmidhī has been the subject of various commentaries (sharḥ), marginal notes (ḥāshiya), and annotations (taʿlīq) since the 6th/ 12th century. This study investigates the commentaries (shurūḥ) written on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī in the Indian subcontinent, particularly those composed over the past two centuries. A descriptive, analytical, comparative, and critical inductive approach has been employed in the examination of these commentaries. This methodology involves the study of scholarly material, the analysis of texts through illustrative examples, and the comparison and evaluation of the commentaries with one another. The study introduces the most significant commentaries on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī from the Indian subcontinent, highlighting the distinguishing features of each commentary. It also identifies the contributions of scholars from this region to the science of hadith through their commentaries on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī. One of the most prominent characteristics observed in these South Asian commentaries is the emphasis placed on the disagreements between the Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Raʾy schools of thought. When some proponents of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth school reacted excessively against the Ḥanafīs, it compelled the Ḥanafīs to respond in kind, further widening the theoretical gap between the two schools. This tension had a notable impact on various aspects of the commentaries on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī. In several studies focusing on the Tirmidhī commentaries produced in the region, critiques have emerged—particularly from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth perspective—claiming that Ḥanafī scholars relied primarily on reason and analogy (raʾy and qiyās), while allegedly falling short in substantiating their positions with hadith evidence. On the contrary, it is evident that Ḥanafī commentators grounded their works in strong evidences and proofs, and that their interpretations rest on a solid foundation both in terms of hadith and jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the commentary Tuhfat al-Aḥwadhī by Mubārakpūrī, a scholar affiliated with the Ahl al-Ḥadīth school, stands out as the most comprehensive among the Tirmidhī commentaries. It is distinguished by an extensive introduction and is noted for its alignment with other prominent commentaries from the region, such as the Sirhindī Sharḥ and al-Ṭīb al-Shadhī. The meticulous attention given to the documentation of hadiths (takhrīj) and the biographical details of narrators in Mubārakpūrī’s commentary is also of particular significance. Another prominent commentator on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, Shaykh al-Bannūrī, is distinguished by his well-organized and systematic use of headings to categorize topics and legal issues. In terms of deriving legal rulings from hadiths, all the commentaries are more or less on a similar level. However, the major commentaries written by Ḥanafī scholars on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī are generally either incomplete or lacking in certain respects. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in detail the works of Sirāj Aḥmad al-Sirhindī, Ishfāq al-Raḥmān al-Kandahlawī’s al-Ṭīb al-Shadhī, and Bannūrī’s Maʿārif al-Sunan in independent academic studies.
The work titled al-Jāmiʿ al-Mukhtaṣar, commonly known as al-Jāmiʿal-Tirmidhī, holds a significant position in Islamic literature. In the Indian subcontinent, including present-day India and Pakistan, this compilation is also highly esteemed. Particularly over the past two centuries, Sunan al-Tirmidhī has been taught as a core textbook in madrasas and universities across this region. On the other hand, due to its inclusion of all types of hadith—both authentic and weak—the compilation of hadiths acted upon by jurists, and its references to differences in juristic opinions, Sunan al-Tirmidhī has been the subject of various commentaries (sharḥ), marginal notes (ḥāshiya), and annotations (taʿlīq) since the 6th/ 12th century. This study investigates the commentaries (shurūḥ) written on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī in the Indian subcontinent, particularly those composed over the past two centuries. A descriptive, analytical, comparative, and critical inductive approach has been employed in the examination of these commentaries. This methodology involves the study of scholarly material, the analysis of texts through illustrative examples, and the comparison and evaluation of the commentaries with one another. The study introduces the most significant commentaries on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī from the Indian subcontinent, highlighting the distinguishing features of each commentary. It also identifies the contributions of scholars from this region to the science of hadith through their commentaries on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī. One of the most prominent characteristics observed in these South Asian commentaries is the emphasis placed on the disagreements between the Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Raʾy schools of thought. When some proponents of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth school reacted excessively against the Ḥanafīs, it compelled the Ḥanafīs to respond in kind, further widening the theoretical gap between the two schools. This tension had a notable impact on various aspects of the commentaries on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī. In several studies focusing on the Tirmidhī commentaries produced in the region, critiques have emerged—particularly from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth perspective—claiming that Ḥanafī scholars relied primarily on reason and analogy (raʾy and qiyās), while allegedly falling short in substantiating their positions with hadith evidence. On the contrary, it is evident that Ḥanafī commentators grounded their works in strong evidences and proofs, and that their interpretations rest on a solid foundation both in terms of hadith and jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the commentary Tuhfat al-Aḥwadhī by Mubārakpūrī, a scholar affiliated with the Ahl al-Ḥadīth school, stands out as the most comprehensive among the Tirmidhī commentaries. It is distinguished by an extensive introduction and is noted for its alignment with other prominent commentaries from the region, such as the Sirhindī Sharḥ and al-Ṭīb al-Shadhī. The meticulous attention given to the documentation of hadiths (takhrīj) and the biographical details of narrators in Mubārakpūrī’s commentary is also of particular significance. Another prominent commentator on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, Shaykh al-Bannūrī, is distinguished by his well-organized and systematic use of headings to categorize topics and legal issues. In terms of deriving legal rulings from hadiths, all the commentaries are more or less on a similar level. However, the major commentaries written by Ḥanafī scholars on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī are generally either incomplete or lacking in certain respects. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in detail the works of Sirāj Aḥmad al-Sirhindī, Ishfāq al-Raḥmān al-Kandahlawī’s al-Ṭīb al-Shadhī, and Bannūrī’s Maʿārif al-Sunan in independent academic studies.