Publication: Zayıf Hadisleri şerh metodu
Abstract
Bu tez çalışması, hadis şerh literatüründe zayıf rivayetlere yönelik yaklaşımları tespit etmeyi ve şârihlerin bu tür rivayetler karşısında sergiledikleri tutumları sistematik biçimde analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın temel problemi, “Şârihler, zayıf hadisleri şerh ederken nasıl bir metot izler ve hangi tutumları ortaya koyarlar?” sorusu etrafında şekillenmiştir. Zayıf hadislerin mevzû rivayetlerle eşdeğer görülerek tamamen reddedilmesi ve şerh literatürünün yöntemsel eksikliklerine dair çeşitli eleştirilerin bulunması, bu konuda sistematik bir tarama ve analiz ihtiyacını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda araştırmada Sünen-i Erbaa ile derleme eserlerden Begavî’nin Mesâbîh’i ve Tebrîzî’nin Mişkât’ında musannifler tarafından tenkid edildiği tespit edilen 1716 rivayet, on farklı şerh üzerinden incelenmiştir. Bu çerçevede, şârihlerin zayıf hadislere yönelik yaklaşımlarının; musannifin eleştirilerini destekleme, eleştirilere itiraz etme veya hadisin sıhhatine dair herhangi bir kanaat belirtmeme olduğu belirlenmiştir. Şârihlerin, musannif eleştirilerini destekleme gerekçelerinin şahsi kanaat belirtme, ek gerekçeler sunma ve örtük destek şekillerinde olduğu görülmektedir. Musannifin eleştirilerine itiraz ederek rivayetleri sahih kabul ederken ise râviyi tevsîk, mütâbaâtın bulunması, teâruz halindeki rivayetler arasını cemʻ ve te’lîf, nüsha farklılığı gerekçelerini kullanmaktadırlar. Elde edilen bulgular, hadis şerhlerinin durağan ya da yalnızca nakil merkezli metinler olmadığını; aksine eleştirel düşünceyi, metinsel çözümlemeyi ve ilmî tercihleri içeren dinamik yorum alanları olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırmanın hem zayıf hadislerin hem de şerh literatüründeki yaklaşımların taşıdığı anlamı görünür kılması, böylece dinî ilimlerin sürekliliğine, kaynakların tutarlı biçimde anlaşılmasına ve ilmî mirasın günümüz araştırmalarına yön verecek şekilde yeniden değerlendirilmesine katkı sunması beklenmektedir.
This study investigates how weak ḥadīths are treated in the ḥadīth commentary (sharḥ) tradition and analyzes the attitudes adopted by commentators (shāriḥs) toward such narrations. It centers on the question: “What methods and positions do commentators adopt when interpreting weak ḥadīths?” In modern times, weak narrations are often dismissed as equivalent to fabricated ones (mawḍūʿ), and the sharḥ tradition has faced criticism for its perceived methodological shortcomings. These factors underline the need for a systematic analysis of how weak ḥadīths have been handled historically. The study analyzes 1,720 narrations identified as criticized by the original compilers of the Sunan al-Arbaʿa, al-Baghawī’s Masābīḥ, and al-Tabrīzī’s Mishkāt, through ten selected commentaries. The findings reveal that commentators approach weak narrations in various ways: support or reject the compiler’s critique, or remain silent on the narration’s authenticity. Support for the compiler’s critique is expressed through personal opinion, supplementary reasoning, or implicit agreement. Rejection of the critique often involves defending the narrator’s reliability, citing corroborative reports (mutābaʿāt), reconciling conflicting reports (jamʿ wa-taʾlīf), or pointing to manuscript variations. Ultimately, the study demonstrates that ḥadīth commentaries are not merely passive repositories but dynamic intellectual efforts involving critique, textual interpretation, and scholarly judgment. It is hoped that this study will shed light on the significance of weak narrations and the diverse approaches found in the commentary tradition, thereby contributing to the continuity of religious scholarship, a more accurate understanding of primary sources, and the re-evaluation of the scholarly heritage in light of contemporary academic inquiry.
This study investigates how weak ḥadīths are treated in the ḥadīth commentary (sharḥ) tradition and analyzes the attitudes adopted by commentators (shāriḥs) toward such narrations. It centers on the question: “What methods and positions do commentators adopt when interpreting weak ḥadīths?” In modern times, weak narrations are often dismissed as equivalent to fabricated ones (mawḍūʿ), and the sharḥ tradition has faced criticism for its perceived methodological shortcomings. These factors underline the need for a systematic analysis of how weak ḥadīths have been handled historically. The study analyzes 1,720 narrations identified as criticized by the original compilers of the Sunan al-Arbaʿa, al-Baghawī’s Masābīḥ, and al-Tabrīzī’s Mishkāt, through ten selected commentaries. The findings reveal that commentators approach weak narrations in various ways: support or reject the compiler’s critique, or remain silent on the narration’s authenticity. Support for the compiler’s critique is expressed through personal opinion, supplementary reasoning, or implicit agreement. Rejection of the critique often involves defending the narrator’s reliability, citing corroborative reports (mutābaʿāt), reconciling conflicting reports (jamʿ wa-taʾlīf), or pointing to manuscript variations. Ultimately, the study demonstrates that ḥadīth commentaries are not merely passive repositories but dynamic intellectual efforts involving critique, textual interpretation, and scholarly judgment. It is hoped that this study will shed light on the significance of weak narrations and the diverse approaches found in the commentary tradition, thereby contributing to the continuity of religious scholarship, a more accurate understanding of primary sources, and the re-evaluation of the scholarly heritage in light of contemporary academic inquiry.