Ebû Hanîfe’nın Müteârız Hadislere Yaklaşımı

Abstract

ÖZ Müteârız hadislerin çözüme kavuşturulması, hadis ilimleri içerisindeki en önemli disiplinlerden biridir. Bununla birlikte, hicrî ikinci asrın son çeyreğinden itibaren bu sahaya dair pek çok eser ortaya konmuştur. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmada da; hicrî ikinci asrın en önemli âlimlerinden Ebû Hanîfe’nin mezkûr disipline ilişkin yorumları, mukayeseli olarak değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmaktadır. Giriş ve üç bölümden oluşan çalışmanın Giriş bölümünde; kavramsallaşma sürecinde müteârız hadisler ilmi incelenmekte; Birinci bölümde, Ebû Hanîfe’nin hayatı, ilmî kişiliği ve hadisçi kimliği ele alınmakta; İkinci bölümde, Ebû Hanîfe ve Hanefî âlimlerinin teâruzu gidermede başvurdukları çözüm yolları tetkik edilmekte; Üçüncü bölümde ise bu ilme ait ilkeler, Ebû Hanîfe’nin yaklaşımı açısından örnekler eşliğinde tespite çalışılmaktadır. Ebû Hanîfe’nin yaşadığı dönemde farklı mezheplere mensup ulema tarafından görüş ve eser türünden bu ilme dair bir birikim oluşmuştur. Bu alanda otorite sayılan Ebû Hanîfe’nin tetkike konu edilmesi; Onun fikir ve tasarruflarının ilgili alandaki önemi ve etkisinin anlaşılmasına katkı sağlayacaktır.

ABSTRACT The scholars who combine Hanafi and Shafi'i methods give the order to be followed in the event of conflicting hadiths, arranged in this way: naskh, tarjih, jame, tesâkut and taqrîrü'l-usûl. In many contemporary studies, the order of Hanafis has been recorded in this way. In fact, attributing this ranking to the majority in the Hanafi school is a (groundless) claim that is not based on a scientific method; because the ordering of the steps of resolving the conflict in this way is contrary to the origins of the imams of the school of thought on the one hand, and on the other hand it was not referred to in the books of the Hanafi jurisprudence until the end of the fifth century (as far as I know). The transmission and explanations of scholars such as Isa Ibn Eban, Tahavi, Maturidi, Cessâs and Debûsî reveal the general approach to the subject of Tearuz. In addition, the methodology represented by these scholars differs from the approach of the later ones, and it is more compatible with Abu Hanifa's ijtihads. However, in the historical process, this line did not take the place it deserves, instead the line of Sadru sharia, Teftâzânî, İbnü'l-Hümâm and Muhibullah ibn Abdshakur, which has a systematic aspect and can be taught more easily, has come to the fore. To learn more about Abu Hanifa’s approach to refuting the contradiction, we studied his views and evidence on the jurisprudential (Fikh) issues, and we relied on the books of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Usul (Zâhirü’r-rivâye), El-Hücce ʿalâ ehli’l-Medîne, and El-Âsâr. In addition to Al-Tahawi's books: "Şerh-u Şerh-u Müşkili'l Âsâr" and "Meâni'l Âsâr". This study highlighted Abu Hanifa’s understanding of hadith. In our thesis, a comparison was made between the general rules and principles of Abu Hanifa and his practical steps to push back the contradiction, as well as the comparison between the method shown by Issa bin Aban and transmitted and supported by al-Jassas with the principles of Imam Abu Hanifa. The path of terminological and methodological development in the subject of Tearuz was also followed. We came to the conclusion that the criteria of Imam Abu Hanifa in dealing with the two contradictory hadiths are as follows: Ijma salaf, Delaleu-usool and İjtihad. Hanafi scholars, who wrote the rules and principles in a systematic way, examined the evidence in terms of hujjet, hukum, mahal and zaman in case of an unreal contradiction (zâhirî teâruz). However, the following procedure is followed in the case of a real contradiction (hakiki teâruz); After (Tasakut el-delileyn), the next dalil is applied in the order, taking into account the hierarchy of evidence (Edile shariyya).

Keywords: Abu Hanifa, Muhtelef, Hadith, Naskh, Cam, Tarcih.