Muhaddislerin Metin Tenkidi Yapmadıkları İddiasına Yönelik Bir Eleştiri: Ebû Dâvûd’un Sünen’inde Metin Tenkidi

Abstract

Hadīths were subjected to many examinations during the process of compilation and recording in books. The first stage of these examinations is to determine whether the hadīth's script is sahīh or not. After the hadīths with valid conditions were included in the books by the authors, they were sometimes evaluated in terms of textual criticism. However, it has been claimed in some classical works that the text is not given importance and in some recent studies that textual criticism is not practiced by muhaddiths. The basis of their criticism of classical sources is the idea that only the different tarīqs of hadīths were tried to be brought together and that no attention was paid to understanding the hadīths. Names such as Goldziher, Caetani, and Juynboll, on the other hand, argued that only the isnād was taken as a basis for the acceptance of hadīths. However, they were of the opinion that if the hadīths were reliable, they were accepted directly, and the hadīth texts were not examined in terms of intellectual and historical aspects. These allegations bring to mind the idea that the hadīths are not sufficiently analyzed in terms of acceptance and rejection and that the text is not taken into account in judging and evaluating the hadīths. It is necessary to determine whether this is really the case because hadīths are the most fundamental source for understanding religion after the Qur'an. The claim that the hadīths, which constitute the basis of fiqh, have not been sufficiently analyzed is suspicious and undermines the reliability of the main hadīth sources. Based on the data showing that textual criticism was made in Abū Dāwūd's (d. 275/889) Sunan, it was seen that the aforementioned claims were open to criticism, and it was aimed to criticize these claims. The statements that the Muhaddiths did not perform textual criticism were determined by scanning the books to which the criticisms were directed. These criticisms were compared with the data in the Sunan. It has been determined that the data on textual criticism in the Sunan is included in different sections, and it has been seen that the author only performs textual criticism on issues that may cause confusion. It was also found that some of the hadīths were presented and interpreted by Abū Dāwūd according to the actual Sunnah. The practice of the Companions was also taken as evidence in the textual criticism as a criterion that directly affects the ruling of the hadīth. In addition, the author performed a criticism activity by evaluating some of the hadīths rationally. In addition, explanations on issues directly related to the text, such as tashif-tahrif, ziyāda, and idrāj, were found to be effective in understanding the text. This shows that the author cares about the text as much as the isnād and that he endeavors to understand the hadīths and analyze the text. However, the author made explanations on the issue of Ikhtilāf al-ḥadîth by identifying the discrepancy in the text. He contributed to the comprehension of the text by making many references to the issue of gharīb al-hadīth. His explanations and references to the rulings of hadīths show that an activity related to the content of the text took place in the context of fiqh al-hadīth. All of this shows that the claims that there is no textual criticism in classical sources, that only the isnād is dealt with, and that the text is ignored do not reflect the truth in the context of the Sunan. Based on this study, it is thought that the existence of issues related to textual criticism in hadīth sources other than the Sunan can be the subject of more comprehensive research.