1. Uyun al-hikma, et l'opuscule d'Abu'l Faraj et la réfutation d'Ibn Sina, édité et annoté par H.Z. Ülken.--2. Les opuscules d'Ibn Sina, et Le livre de la différence entre l'esprit et l'âme, par Qosta b. Luqa; édité, étudié et onnoté [sic] par H.Z. Ülken.--3. Aşkın mâhiyeti hakkında risâle, neşreden ve Türkçeye çeviren A. Ateş.

The type of ‘Al-isnād al-āli’ (higher chain of authority) which has great importance for the science of ḥadīths that constitutes the second best source of the Islam, expresses the value in terms of its proximity to the period of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). If ḥadīth has ‘al-isnād al-āli’ in the works of the scholars provides us with assurance on the intend of the ḥadīth. For this reason, the values of the works of those authors who have constructed (...) their works with al-isnād al-āli undoubted in the science of ḥadīth. However the work of Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī’s (d. 228/842) named al-Juz‘ had that kind of ḥadīth, it has not appreciated by scholars, he could not get enough attention in his period and after it. His work contains famous scholar al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d’s (d. 175/791) narrative who claimed by ḥadīth scholars that his students neglected and omitted his ḥadīths and knowledge. Al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d was known doing transmission by written copies. The similarity of al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d narrations in al-Juz‘ with al-Layth narrations, which are also found in other sources, strengthens the claims of the existence of a narrative process based on the written texts in the early periods. In this study, these transfers of Abu al-Jahm reflected on other works will be examined and tried to build narrations of his teacher al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d. country, we can say that the article will contribute to the studies of the history of religions.Summary: Ḥadīth works written in the third century of hijri are the most distinguished sources. The most fundamental works in the science of ḥadīth were written in this time. In the following period, numerous studies have been committed to paper on them. One of the eminent works is the named al-Juz’, which belongs to Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī (d. 228/842). The author was not a person that was taken into consideration much during his time. It is possible to that he has been criticized about his scientific proficiency (al-Jarh). Nevertheless, al-Juz’ attracts attention due to the fact that it contains the type of ‘al-Isnād al-āli’ (higher chain of authority). Al-Isnād al-āli, which means access with the least number of narration from the author to the Prophet has very major role to determining of being dependable and certainty of the ḥadīths. The work of Abu al-Jahm which contains the ‘al-Isnād al-āli’ did not attract enough attention. However, another value of the al-Juz‘ is that its been included the narration of famous muhaddith Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd (d. 175/791). He is one of the valued mujtahid imams who have played an active and important role in second century of hijri. Al-Layth's narrations have been available insufficient amount present day. At this point the al-Juz‘ of Abu al-Jahm has great important because it contains many narrations of his shaykh Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd.The Juz‘ seems to has attracted the attention of the ḥadīths scholars in the following period. Indeed, various authors had the get authorization to narrate al-Juz‘. Furthermore, it is also known that some scholar in his period utilized his narration in their own study. For in¬stance, it was declared by Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449) that al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) had a narra¬tion belonging to Abu al-Jahm in his work ‘al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’ with a muʻallaq chain (Omit¬ting his name). In the following periods, we come across famous muhaddith such as Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), al-Ṭabaranī (d. 360/971), Abū Bakr al-Marwazī (d. 292/905), al-Dāraquṭnī (d.385/995) and al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) who received qualify of Juz's narra¬tion. Although the narrations of Abu al-Jahm are included in the prominent works of schol¬ars, it is clearly seems that the Juz‘ had not enough value except being procure as a written text. As far as we determined there are eleven narration of Abu al-Jahm in the main ḥadīth sources. In addition, we detected that some studies which contain some ḥadīth of al-Juz’ are list them in the same layout and order. This situation indicates that al-Juz’ is owned by these people as a duplicated edition and they narrated by not only orally transmitted but also spread by writing copy. This inference strengthens the theory which conceived by Modern researcher Fuad Sezgin (1924-2018) that ḥadīth transmission had conducted not only through oral transfer but also through written copies.Even though he lived in a very active time of oral transmission of ḥadīth and the time of specific journey for learning and pursuing ḥadīth, it is seen that Abu al-Jahm formed his Juz‘ from the ḥadīths that he procured only from his six shaykhs. That was quite less amount in that period. Juz‘, has an ʿAlāʾ al-Rijāl classification (ranked according to narrators) as ex¬pected in his period method. Abu al-Jahm began his study with his shaykh Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd’s narration, then completed with Sufyān ibn ʿUyayna’s. Juz‘ includes 112 ḥadīths. Ex¬cept two muʻallaq isnāds (omitting one or more narrators), all of ḥadīth has muttaṣil isnāds (narrators in the chain connected each other without omitting). Al-Juz‘ available nowadays in a published form. It seems that some of ḥadīth datas included in the Juz‘ have content against Islamic juris-prudential judgements. For example, the Prophet’s sayings ‘One or two swallow of breast milk does not make haram’ and ‘Nobody can fast or pilgrimage for the benefit of someone else’; allowing to Subay‘a al-Aslamī to marry without waiting her ‘iddah (waiting period of a woman after the death of her husband or divorce); when she gave birth, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān’s permission to al-Rubay‘a bint Mu‘avvidh not to wait her ‘iddah; when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar has nasal bleeding he leaves the prayer, goes to wash, then back and continue where he leave off, without taking ablution; and describing marriage with polytheist women as for¬bidden (ḥarām). Of course, all this information must be examined within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. However, Abu al-Jahm stands alone (tafarrūd) in such issues, it can be seen as the reasons to be recognized as a censured person (majrūḥ).Al-Juz‘ included 66 isnāds of Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd’s narration. Therefore it leaves behind all the works that compile the narration of Ibn Sa'd. That is why, we hypothesize that Juz‘ is a form of Al-Layth’s study that has survived to the present days. As a matter of fact, the muhaddiths who included the narrations of Al-Layth in their works, especially Ibn ḳuṭlūbughā could not ignore the Juz‘ of Abu al-Jahm; on the contrary, they took it as reference. In this case, it should be said that Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī is a loyal follower of Al-Layth and the word at¬tributed to Imām Shāfi‘ī and characterizing Al-Layth’s followers with disloyalty is invalid. (shrink)

The last four sections of the first book of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s summa, entitled Kitāb al-Mu‘tabar, deal with dialectics, sophistical refutations, rhetoric, and poetics in full line with Aristotle’s Organon. However, they are not so much based on Aristotle’s works, but on a work of the young Ibn Sīnā, namely al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya. Both texts have much in common not only in their structure, but also in their very wording. The article presents a basic survey of the correspondences for all four (...) sections and also highlights the most significant differences. However, important part of these differences has a counterpart in an logical text, which is present in the manuscript Nuruosmaniye 4894 and which is, in turn, very close to, albeit not identical, with Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya as conserved in the unique manuscript Uppsala 364. Therefore, it is obvious that Abū al-Barakāt takes over many formulations and, at once, many ideas from Ibn Sīnā. However, he adds clearly personal elements that often seem to have been religiously inspired and, on occasion, consciously returns to Aristotle’s wording. (shrink)

This study seeks to investigate the treatise of Abū al-Hasan b. Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad al-Khatīb al-Shirbīnī al- Shāfiʻī (d. after 1028/1619) entitled Fatḥ al-Raḥīm al-Raḥmān fī tafsīr Āyat "inna Allāha yaʼmuru bi al-ʻadl wa al-iḥsān" based on the manuscript of the author. Shedding light on the translation of this unknown scholar, as it is evident from the title of the treatise that it contains the interpretation of this verse, which is well known among scholars and commentators as the most (...) comprehensive verse in the Qur’ān. In this tafsīr, Shirbīnī used many exegetical methods such as exegesis of the Qur'ān with the Qur'ān, exegesis of the Qur'ān with the Sunnah, exegesis of the Qur'ān with the sayings of the Companions, and al-tafsīr bi-al-raʼy, as well as tafsīr approaches such as linguistic tafsīr, the science of munāsabāt, and causality of nuzūl to analyze the meanings of the verse in depth. Another feature that increases the importance of this treatise is that al-Shirbīnī refers to the primary source tafsīr books together with their glosses, sometimes quoting from the commentators verbatim, and sometimes making meaning-based quotations from them, which is the most obvious indication of his exegetical ability and scholarly competence. In this work, he adopted a syncretic approach while emphasizing the meanings of the verse and followed an analytical-critical method while examining the subject. For this reason, he analyzed all the words in the verse one by one, dwelt on the meanings and interpretation of the words, and criticized their views after including the views of the commentators. Therefore, he applied the analytical exegesis method very successfully in this work. Accordingly, he analyzed the narrations related to tafsīr and mentioned the Companions' names during the narration. In particular, he analyzed the narrations from Ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/687-88) about the words al-ʻAdl and al-iḥsān, and stated that there was a dispute between the narrations about the phrase al-iḥsān. He took a scientific stance on the derivation of the word "Allah,” debated between those who accepted it and those who rejected it. He stated that the derivation of the word was not satisfactory and reliable. In the tafsīr of the words al-ʻAdl and al-iḥsān, he discussed the isnāds in Muqātil b. Sulayman’s (d.150/767) tafsīr emphasizing that he received the tafsīr of al-ʻAdl from Ibn 'Abbas and the tafsīr of al-iḥsān from 'Ali b. Abī Tālib. This approach is an important example for the isnād analyses of Muqātil b. Sulayman who was criticized for neglecting isnād chains in his tafsīr. He also criticized al-Baydāwī for being influenced by some of Zamakhsharī's sectarian and theological views. He classified the issue of kinship according to usūl, furū', and hawāshī, expanded the meaning of the verse, and insisted that the message of this verse encompasses all relatives, regardless of the degree of kinship. He was influenced by Latāʾif al-Ishārāt, al-Kashshāf, Mafātīhu al-ghayb, al-Baydawī, Hāshiya al-Jurjānī ala al-Kashshāf, and his grandfather al-Khatīb al-Shirbīnī’s (d.977/1570) al-Sirāj al-munīr. (shrink)

bakhsh-i 1. Majmūʻah-i 874, shāmil-i 6 risālah -- bakhsh-i 2. Majmūʻah-i 855, shāmil-i 3 risālah.

Logic; Islam and philosophy; Tunisia; early works to 1800.

Hadiths that have been discussed in this paper consist of narrations regarding divine attributes and having some problematic meanings between supporters of Bişr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī. These narrations were mostly accepted denounced (munkar) by Bişr al-Marīsī and his sopporters due to having an anthropormophist and corporealist content about God. They rejected divine attributes according to their understanding of God based on incomparability (tanzīh) which provided by Mutazilite approach towards divine attributes even though they conveyed some features of Ahl al-Ra’y. (...) They found contradicted of attributing human features to God based on their tanzīh understanding, therefore, they interpreted such this kind of narra-tions in terms of their approach or rejected at all. At the other hand, a hard Hadith scholar Uth-man al-Darimi believed that one should accept divine attributes as they are in the Qur’an and Sunna. According to his belief, he considered the explicit meanings of the narrations without interpretation of divine attributes, and based on his perpective he denied Bişr al-Marīsī and his supporters’ interpretations claiming they would cause divesting God of all attributes (ta‘tīl). He argues that these narrations should be taken into considerations based on their explicit mea-nings. The discussions on these hadiths are important due to showing different approaches of scholars from the schools of Ahl al-Ra’y and the ones from Ahl al-Hadith towards the hadith du-ring the period when the main Hadith works were collected. Discussions on the narrations stu-died in this paper reveal two schools’ understandings of divine issues, their approaches to divi-ne attributes, as well inform us their perspectives of hadith in general.Summary: The present paper examines the debates between ʿUthmān al-Dārimī (d. 280/894) and the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī (d. 218/833) on the divine attributes mentioned in some hadiths in the period when the main hadith books were composed (i.e., III/IXth century). These debates that took place between the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y concern the un-derstanding and interpretation of the hadiths in a certain way.It could be stated that the debates focus on how the hadiths should be understood, or whether it is the explicit meaning of the words or the possible methaphorical meanings beyond them that should be considered.It is worth briefly introducing the parties who discussed the hadiths studied here. The aforementioned discussions about some hadith narrations are between the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, one of the important figures of the Ahl al-Hadith who wrote a separate work on these hadiths. This work was written as a rejection of the views of Bishr al-Marīsī and his two students on the attributes of God and some issues regarding hadith.Bishr al-Marīsī was regarded as an important scholar of Kalam who received fiqh education from Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798). He is a scholar of Ahl al-Ra’y who made scientific dis-cussions with many scholars including Imam al-Shafiʿī (d. 204/820). He was on the council of the Caliph Al-Mamūn (d. 218/833) and had a significant role in the adoption of the idea of the createdness of the Qurʾān (khalq al-Qurʾān).Uthmān al-Dārimī,on the other hand, was a scholar of Ahl al-Hadith who learned ha-dith from the authorities of his era such as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233/847), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848), Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh (d. 237/851), and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Having visited all the important cities for the training of hadith, he learned the hadiths and conveyed them.With the understanding of proving the divine attributes and the opposition of the misin-terpretation of the narratives related to them, the groups advocating the appropriation of these lines in accordance with the understanding of incomparability (tanzīh) have complied the works since the first period. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the rejection of the divine attributes by Mu'tazila was influential in the emergence of the criticism literature of the Ahl al-Hadith and many authors wrote works in this direction.Regarding a narration by Abū Hurayra, an opponent reports that this narration gives the impression that God has the eyes and ears as we know. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī reports that this hadith proves sight and hearing not the eyes and ear organs. He indicates that God has no like by no means. Therefore, it is slanderous to refer the claim that Allah is made of organs to the Ahl al-Hadith. Abū Dāwūd states that with this hadith the attributes of sight and hearing for God are proved and Jahmiyya’s denial of the divine attributes are rejected.The opponent also considered Abū Hurayra's narration referring to the Prophet: "Faith is from Yemen, wisdom is from Yemen! I feel the breath of your Lord from Yemen!" as denounced (munkar). Because, according to Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions, breath can only come from those with an abdominal cavity, and Allah is free from it. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the opponent misunderstood. What is meant here is the wind that blows from Yemen and comforts people. In the context of this narration, we see that supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī evaluate the narrative literally, while ʿUthmān al-Dārimī interpret the narrative.Regarding the narration, "You can not approach Allah with something more virtuous than what comes out of it (the Qur'ān)" Ibn al-Saljī reports that Mushabbiha understands this as one with an abdominal cavity and from whom speech comes out. This understanding is in-valid since God is "samad" in the sense that He has no void. With this hadith, it is meant that the Qur'ān comes out of Allah’s presence rather than Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the real aim of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny God's attribute of speech. There is no doubt that the Qur'ān comes from Him, and those who do not accept it merely deny His attribute of speech.Attributed to Ibn Abbas; The meaning of "yamīn Allah" (the right hand of Allah) in narration "Black Stone (al-ḥajar al-aswad) is the right hand of Allah on earth, handshakes with the people" is not the right hand that we know according to Ibn al-Saljī, it is blessing and grace of Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who acknowledges that Black Stone is not meant to be a hand, the purpose of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny the two hands mentioned in the verses and ha-diths about Allah with invalid interpretations.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who criticized that Ibn al-Saljī quoted from another narration which Ibn Abbās heard from the Prophet, says that such poor narrations should not be spread. In addition, he points out that Ibn al-Saljī's interpretation is ugly and he criticizes it. Because Allah who is mentioned in the narrative is depicted as a young man with curly hair in a green suit. Such a narration is also an untrustworthy narration as it contradicts the authentic narrations of the Prophet. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who made this assessment of the narration, rejects the com-ments that the opponent made about the narration. According to the opponent, the phrase "I have come to Allah" means "to come into the presence of Allah in the Garden of Eden." Accor-ding to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī’s understanding, such complicated hadiths should not be only narra-ted.About the narration that are based on the Prophet and he does not know the answer to what he has come to know of himself, then he feels the coolness of his fingers as he puts his hand on his back and learns everything, the opponent evaluates the following: He was not Allah who came to the Prophet, but a well-behaved angel who was being directed by Allah and he was the angel who put his hand. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī rejects this interpretation of that oppo-nent. This comment is also contrary to other authentic hadiths. After he refused to the com-ment of the opponent about relevant narration, ʿUthmān al-Dārimī stated that he could not trust this comment on the basis of the authentic narrations he mentioned.Salaf scholars have preferred to be silent in this regard, as it is seen among the most difficult subjects to talk about divine attributes. However, subsequent generations have held dif-ferent paths in this regard. The basic approaches to understanding the divine attributes can be summarized in three main titles: tafwīd, tashbīh, and ta’wīl. Tafwīd is the path adopted by the early salaf scholars and means to leaving the knowledge about Allah’s entity and attributes to His knowledge. Tashbīh means to compare Allah to the created or the created to Allah. Ta'wīl is to interpret the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths that give the impression that Allah is like the crea-tures with semantics and rational deduction. The ones who deny the adjectives are called as Muʿattila and those who prove their attributes are called as Sifatiyya. According to Ahl al-Ra’y, it is necessary to appropriately make interpretation (ta'wīl) of the attributes giving the impression of anthropomorphism in terms of the dictionary. In the divine attributes, Muʿtazila advoca-ted the incomparability (tanzīh), whereas Ashʿariyya and Māturīdiyya adopted interpretation in accordance with incomparability. Mushabbiha and the Wahhābī-Salafī understanding has also taken the expressions regarding divine attributes with their explicit meanings.The debate between the scholars who lived in the ages II/VIII and III/IX, when the most important works are composed in the science of hadith, is important in that it is the first turn. In addition to this, the debate also contains important information on the approach to the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths, in that it shows two basic approaches, one of which represents the school of Ahl al-Ra’y, and the other represents the school of Ahl al-Hadith.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī generally advocates adhering to the explicit meaning of the narra-tion, while Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions criticize the narration labeling it as denied (mun-kar) or making an interpretation. On rare occasions, the places where ʿUthmān al-Dārimī re-jects the narration and makes interpretation, or where Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions de-fend the narrative can be seen.Interpretations made by Bishr al-Marīsī on the problematic narratives have influenced on the next scholars. Alongside Muʿtazilite scholars such as al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024) and Abū l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 436/1044), his interpretations have been quoted by Sunni scholars such as al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513/1119) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).The fact that the truth can be put forward in the science of hadith, which is based on the narration, does not favor one of the "narration" and "ra’y", it should be kept in mind that both of these depend on the proper and balanced use of both. To reveal the truth, the narration is in need of the opinion and the opinion (ra’y) is in need of the narration. Narration and opinion sho-uld be seen as complementary elements, not each other's opponents. (shrink)

Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında burada tartışma konusu yapılan hadisler haberî sıfatları konu alan ve müşkil nitelikte olan rivayetlerden oluşmaktadır. Bu rivayetleri genelde Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının tecsîm ve teşbîh içerdiği iddiasıyla münker kabul ettikleri görülmektedir. Ehl-i re’y özellikleri taşımakla birlikte ilahî sıfatlar konusunda Mu’tezilî bir anlayışa sahip olduklarından tenzih anlayışları gereği sıfatları reddetmektedirler. Yaratılmışlara ait niteliklerin yaratıcıya nisbet edilmesini tenzîh anlayışlarına aykırı gördüklerinden bu tür müşkil rivayetleri ya kendi anlayışları doğrultusunda te’vîl ya da reddettikleri gözlenmektedir. Sert bir (...) ehl-i hadîs âlimi olan Osman ed-Dârimî ise, ayet ve hadislerde bildirilen ilahî sıfatlara iman edilmesi gerektiğini kabul etmektedir. Bu anlayışı sebebiyle bu rivayetlerde bildirilen haberî sıfatlara da te’vîl etmeksizin lafzî anlamıyla yaklaşmakta; kendi görüşü doğrultusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının yaptığı te’vîlleri reddetmekte, bu te’vîllerin ta’tîle yol açacağını ileri sürmektedir. Bu rivayetlerin lafzî (literal) anlamları doğrultusunda anlaşılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmalar, temel hadis eserlerinin yazıldığı dönemde Ehl-i re’y ve Ehl-i hadîs ekollerine mensup âlimlerin hadislere yaklaşımlarını göstermesi bakımından önem arzetmektedir. Burada vermiş olduğumuz hadisler üzerindeki tartışmalar bu iki ekolün uluhiyet anlayışını, haberî sıfatlara yaklaşımlarını ortaya koyduğu gibi bunların genel anlamda hadis perspektifi hakkında bizlere bilgi vermektedir.ÖzetBu araştırma, temel hadis kitaplarının yazıldığı dönemde, yani III./IX asırda, haberî sıfatlar ihtiva eden bazı hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmaları ele almaktadır. Tartışma Osman ed-Dârimî (ö. 280/894) ile Bişr el-Merîsî’nin (ö. 218/833) taraftarları arasında geçmektedir. Hadisler üzerinde Ehl-i hadîs ile Ehl-i re’y mensubu âlimler arasında gerçekleşen bu tartışmalar bir yönüyle hadislerin anlaşılması ve yorumlanmasını ilgilendirmektedir. Tartışmanın, burada ele alınan hadislerin nasıl anlaşılması gerektiği; lafızların kelime anlamı mı (literal) yoksa bu lafızların ötesindeki muhtemel mecazî anlamları dikkate alınarak mı anlaşılması gerektiği noktasında odaklandığı söylenebilir. İnceleme konusu yapılan hadisleri tartışan tarafları kısaca tanıtmak yerinde olacaktır. Sözünü ettiğimiz rivayetlerle ilgili tartışmalar Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında geçmektedir. Ehl-i hadîs’in önemli simalarından biri olan Osman ed-Dârimî, hadislerle ilgili bu tartışmaları içeren ayrı bir eser yazmıştır. Bu eser, Allah’ın sıfatları ve bazı hadis meseleleri konusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve onun iki talebesinin görüşlerine reddiye olarak yazılmıştır. Bişr el-Merîsî, Ebû Yusuf’tan (ö. 182/798) fıkıh tahsil etmiş, önemli bir kelâmcı olarak tanınmıştır. O, kelâmla ilgili konularda aralarında İmâm Şâfiî’nin (ö. 204/820) de bulunduğu pek çok âlimle ilmî tartışmalar yapmış bir ehl-i re’y âlimdir. Halife Me’mûn’un (ö. 218/833) danışma meclisinde bulunmuş, Kur’ân’ın yaratılmışlığı (Halku’l-Kur’ân) görüşünün benimsenmesinde önemli payı olmuştur. Osman ed-Dârimî ise, Yahyâ b. Ma’în (ö. 233/848), Ali b. Medînî (ö. 234/848-49), İshâk b. Râhûye (ö. 238/853) ve Ahmed b. Hanbel (ö. 241/855) gibi döneminin otoritelerinden hadis öğrenmiş bir ehl-i hadîs âlimidir. Hadis tahsili için önemli bütün şehirleri dolaşarak hadis öğrenmiş ve rivayette bulunmuştur.Haberi sıfatları ispat ve bunlarla ilgili rivayetlerin teviline karşı çıkan anlayış ile, bu rivayetlerin tenzih anlayışına uygun biçimde tevilini savunan kesimler ilk dönemden itibaren eserler telif etmişlerdir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, ehl-i hadîs’in eleştiri edebiyatının ortaya çıkmasında, Mu’tezile’nin ilahî sıfatları reddetmesi etkili olmuş ve pek çok müellif bu yönde eserler yazmışlardır. Ebû Hüreyre’den nakledilen bir rivayetle ilgili olarak muârız, bu rivayetin Allah için bildiğimiz göz ve kulak organlarından oluştuğu izlenimi verildiğini söyler. Osman ed-Dârimî, bu hadisin göz ve kulak organlarını değil görme ve işitmeyi ispat ettiğini söyler. Hiçbir konuda Allah’ın benzerinin bulunmadığını belirtir. Dolayısıyla Allah’ın organlardan oluştuğu iddiasını ehl-i hadîs’e nisbet etmek iftiradır. Ebû Dâvûd, bu hadis ile Allah için görme ve işitme sıfatlarının ispat edildiğini ve Cehmiyye’nin ilahî sıfatları inkar görüşüne reddiye olduğunu belirtir. Ebû Hüreyre’in Hz. Peygamber’e nispet ederek naklettiği: "İman Yemenlidir, hikmet Yemenlidir! Ben Rabbi’nizin nefesini Yemen tarafından hissediyorum!" rivayetini de muârız münker kabul etmiştir. Çünkü Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbına göre nefes ancak karın boşluğu olanlardan çıkar, Allah ise bundan münezzehtir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, muârız yanlış anlamıştır. Burada kastedilen, Yemen tarafından esen ve insanı rahatlatan rüzgardır. Bu rivayet bağlamında bakıldığında, Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarlarının rivayeti literal değerlendirdiğini, Osman ed-Dârimî’nin ise rivayeti yorumladığını görmekteyiz. İbnü’s-Selcî, "Siz, Allah’a ondan çıkandan (Kur’ân’dan) daha faziletli bir şeyle yaklaşamazsınız!" rivayeti hakkında, Müşebbihe’nin bunu, karın boşluğu olan, kendisinden kelâm çıkan şeklinde anladıklarını belirtir. Allah boşluğu olmayan anlamında "samed" olduğundan bu anlayış geçersizdir. Bu hadisle, Kur’ân’ın Allah’tan değil O’nun katından çıkması kastedilmiştir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin asıl maksadı Allah’ın kelâm sıfatını inkâr etmektir. Kur’ân’ın O’ndan çıktığında bir şüphe yoktur, bunu sadece kelâm sıfatını kabul etmeyenler inkâr etmektedir. İbn Abbâs’a atfedilen; "Rükn (Hacerülesved) yeryüzünde Allah’ın sağ elidir, halk ile onunla musafaha eder" rivayetinde geçen "yemînullah" (Allah’ın sağ eli) sözünün anlamı, İbnü’s-Selcî’ye göre bildiğimiz sağ el değil, Allah’ın nimeti ve ikrâmıdır. Hacerülesved ile elin kastedilmediğini kabul eden Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin maksadı, geçersiz te’villerle Allah hakkında ayet ve hadislerde belirtilen iki eli inkar etmektir. İbn Abbâs’ın Hz. Peygamber’den naklettiği başka bir rivayeti İbnü’s-Selcî’nin eserine alıp nakletmesini eleştiren Osman ed-Dârimî, bu tür zayıf rivayetlerin yayılmaması gerektiğini söyler. Buna ilave olarak İbnü’s-Selcî’nin yaptığı yorumun da çirkin olduğunu belirtir ve eleştirir. Çünkü sözü edilen rivayette Allah, yeşil bir takım elbise giymiş kıvırcık saçlı bir genç olarak tasvir edilmektedir. Böyle bir rivayet Hz. Peygamber’den gelen sahih rivayetlerle çeliştiği için de güvenilmez bir rivayettir. Rivayetle ilgili bu değerlendirmeyi yapan Osman ed-Dârimî, rivayet hakkında muârızın yaptığı yorumları da reddeder. Muârıza göre, "Rabbimin yanına girdim" sözü, "Adn cennetinde Rabbimin huzuruna girdim" demektir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre bu gibi müşkil (problemli) hadisler re’y ile tefsir edilmemeli, rivayet edilip bırakılmalıdır. Hz. Peygamber’e dayandırılan ve Allah’ın kendisine geldiğinden bahisle cevabını bilemediği bazı sorulan sorduğundan, sonra Rabbinin elini sırtına koymasıyla parmaklarının serinliğini hissettiğinden ve her şeyi öğrendiğinden bahseden rivayetle ilgili olarak muarız şu değerlendirmede bulunur: Allah Resûlü’ne gelen Rabbi değil güzel suretli bir melekti, o melek Allah tarafından yönledrilmekteydi ve elini koyan da o melekti. Osman ed-Dârimî, muârızın bu yorumunu reddeder. Bu yorum aynı zamanda diğer sahih hadislere de aykırıdır. Osman ed-Dârimî, sözkonusu rivayet hakkında muârızın yorumunu reddettikten sonra zikrettiği sahih rivayetlere dayanarak buna güvenilemiyeceğini ifade etmiştir. İlahî sıfatlar hakkında konuşmak en zor konular arasında görüldüğünden, selef âlimleri bu konuda susmayı tercih etmişlerdir. Ancak sonraki nesiller bu konuda farklı yollar tutmuşlardır. İlahi sıfatları anlama konusundaki temel yaklaşımları tefvîz, teşbîh ve te’vîl şeklinde üç ana başlıkta toplamak mümkündür. Tefvîz, selef alimlerinin benimsediği yol olup, Allah’ın zâtı ve sıfatlarının mahiyetine ilişkin bilgiyi ilâhî ilme havale etmek demektir. Teşbîh, Allah’ı yaratılmışlara veya yaratılmışları Allah’a benzetmek anlamına gelir. Te’vil, Allah’ın yaratılmışlara benzediği izlenimini veren ayet ve hadisleri dil bilimi ve aklî bilgilerle yorumlamaktır. Sıfatları inkar edenlere Muattıla denilmiş, sıfatları ispat edenler Sıfâtiyye diye anılmıştır. Ehl-i re’y’e göre Allah’a atfedilen ve sözlük anlamı bakımından teşbîh ve tecsîm izlenimi veren sıfatları uygun biçimde te’vil etmek gerekir. İlâhî sıfatlarda Mu’tezile tenzihi öne çıkarmış, Eş’ariyye ve Mâtürîdiyye ise tenzihe uygun te’vili benimsemiştir. Müşebbihe, Vehhâbî-Selefî anlayış da ilahî sıfatlardaki lafızları zahiri anlamlarıyla almışlardır. Hadis ilminde en önemli temel eserlerin telif edildiği II./VIII. ve III./IX. asırda yaşamış olan âlimler arasında cereyan eden inceleme konusu yaptığımız tartışma, ilk döneme ait olması bakımından önemlidir. Bunun yanında tartışma, âyet ve hadislerden oluşan naslara yaklaşımda, iki temel yaklaşımı göstermesi bakımından da önemli bilgiler ihtiva etmektedir. Bu iki temel yaklaşımdan biri ehl-i re’y ekolünü, diğeri ise Ehl-i hadîs anlayışını temsil etmektedir. Osman ed-Dârimî genel olarak rivayetin lafzına bağlı kalmayı savunmakta, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbı ise münker olduğu gerekçesiyle rivayeti eleştirmekte ya da te’vil etmektedir. Nadir de olsa Osman ed-Dârimî’nin rivayeti ret ya da te’vil ettiği, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbının ise rivayeti savunduğu yerler de görülebilmektedir. Müteşâbih (problemli) rivayetler hakkında Bişr el-Merîsî’nin yaptığı te’viller sonraki âlimler üzerinde etkili olmuştur. Onun te’villeri, Cübbâî (ö. 303/916), Kādî Abdülcebbâr (ö. 415/1025), Ebü’l-Hüseyin el-Basrî (ö. 436/1044) gibi Mu’tezilî âlimlerin yanı sıra, İbn Fûrek, Gazâlî (ö.505/1111), İbn Akîl (ö. 513/1119), Fahreddîn er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) gibi sünnî âlimler tarafından da iktibâs edilmiştir. Rivayete dayalı olan hadis ilminde hakikatin ortaya konulabilmesi, "rivayet" ve "re’y" seçeneklerinden birini tercih etmekle değil; bunların her ikisini de yerinde ve dengeli olarak kullanılmasına bağlı olduğunu hatırda tutmak gerekir. Hakikatin ortaya çıkarılmasında rivayet re’ye, re’y de rivayete muhtaçtır. Rivayet ve re’y birbirinin rakibi değil tamamlayıcı unsurları olarak görmek gerekir. (shrink)

Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm, 1263-1328. Naqḍ al-manṭiq; Islamic philosophy; logic.