Some Notes on the History of the Categorization of Imāmī Ḥadīth

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 215 - 233, 31.12.2019

Aun Hasan Ali

Öz

The
formative period of Imāmī law is generally placed in Buwayhid Baghdad. However,
by the end of the Buwayhid era, Imāmī law had not yet developed all of the
features that would enable future scholars to elaborate the law along
particular methodological lines. In particular, it was not until the 7^th/13^th
century that Imāmī scholars invented a typology to systematize the use of ḥadīth as an
independent source of law. Because the bulk of substantive law rests on the
Sunnah, and because the main source of Muslims’ knowledge of the Sunnah is ḥadīth, it is
argued that the moment when ḥadīth
come to be regarded as an independent source of law is a strong indication of
its formative period. While some scholars have tried to locate this development
in an earlier stage of the development of Imāmī law, a careful examination of
key passages in the relevant texts demonstrate that their argument is based on
a misunderstanding of the nature of early bio-bibliographical writing as well
as a misunderstanding of the arguments of critics of the typology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sects, Shia, Imamism, Hadith, Hilla

İmâmî Hadîs’in Sınıflandırma Tarihi Hakkında Bazı Notlar

Öz

İmamiyye fıkhının gelişme dönemi genellikle Bağdad Büveyhileri dönemi olarak kabul edilir. Ancak Büveyhi döneminin sonunda İmamiyye fıkhı henüz tüm yönleriyle gelişmemişti. Bu, sonraki araştırmacıların İmamiyye fıkhını belirli metodolojik sınırlarla belirlemesine olanak sağlamıştır. Özellikle, İmami alimlerin hadisi fıkhın bağımsız kaynağı olarak kullanımını sistemlendirdikleri tipoloji 7/13. asra kadar gerçekleşmemiştir. Kurumsal fıkhın büyük bir kısmı Sünnete dayandığından ve Müslümanların Sünnete dair temel kaynağı da hadis olduğundan, hadisin müstakil bir fıkhi kaynak olarak kabul edildiği zamanın fıkhın gelişimini belirlemek için kuvvetli bir işaret olduğu iddia edilir. Bazı araştırmacılar bu gelişmeyi Imāmīyye fıkhının gelişiminin daha erken bir aşamasında bulmaya çalışsa da, ilgili metinlerdeki kilit pasajlara dair detaylı inceleme, onların argümanlarının erken dönem biyo-bibliyografik yazımın mahiyetini yanlış anladıklarını ve tipolojinin eleştirisindeki argümanları yanlış anladıklarını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mezhepler, Şiilik, İmamiyye, Hadis, Hille

Kaynakça

• Afsaruddin, Asma. “An Insight into the Ḥadīth Methodology of Jamāl alDīn Aḥmad b. Ṭāwūs.” Der Islam 72, no. 1 (1995): 25-46.
• Āl Rāḍī, Muḥammad Hādī. “Ḍarūrīyāt al-dīn wa-l-madhhab,” Turāthunā 83/84 (1426): 93–183.
• ʿĀmilī, al-Ḥasan b. Zayn al-Dīn. Maʿālim al-dīn. Qom: Muʾassasat alNashr al-Islāmī, 1416.
• ʿĀmilī, al-Ḥasan b. Zayn al-Dīn. Muntaqā l-jumān. Tehran: Chāp-i jāvīd, 1959.
• ʿĀmilī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Wasāʾil al-shīʿah. Edited by Muḥammad al-Rāzī. Tehran: al-Maktabah al-Islāmiyyah, 1451.
• ʿĀmilī, Zayn al-Dīn b. ʿAlī. “Dirāyat al-ḥadīth.” In Introduction to Ḥadīth, translated by Nazmina Virjee. London: ICAS Press, 2002.
• Ansari, Hassan. L’imamat et l’Occultation selon l’imamisme: études bibliographique et histoire de textes. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
• Ansari, Hassan. “Nimūnah-iy az Dafātir-i Muḥaddithān : Kitāb alIkhtiṣāṣ Manṣub bih Shaykh Mufīd.” URL = <ansari.kateban.com/post/1233> (accessed November 29, 2019).
• Aʿrajī, Zuhayr. “Taʾrīkh al-naẓarīya al-rijālīya fī l-madrasah alimāmīyyah.” Turāthunā 91/92 (1428): 100–112.
• Araki, Mohsen. “Causality and Freedom.” Al-Tawhid 17, no. 2 (2003).
• Baḥrānī, Yūsuf. al-Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira fī aḥkām al-ʿitra al-ṭāhira. Edited by Muḥammad Taqī al-Īrwānī. Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1985.
• Baḥrānī, Yūsuf. Luʾluʾat al-baḥrayn. Edited by Muḥammad Ṣādiq Baḥr al-ʿUlūm. Qom: Muʾassasat āl al-bayt, 1969.
• Buyukkara, Mehmet Ali. “The Imāmī-Shīʿī Movement in the Time of Mūsā al-Kāẓim and ʿAlī al-Riḍā.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1997.
• Ghurayfī, Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Mūsawī. Qawāʿid al-ḥadīth. Qom: Maktabat al-Mufīd, 1983.
• Gleave, Robert. “Between Ḥadīth and Fiqh: the ‘Canonical’ Imāmī Collections of Akhbār.” Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 350– 82.
• Gleave, Robert. “Imāmī Shīʿī Refutations of Qiyās.” In Studies in Islamic Legal Theory, edited by Bernard G. Weiss, 267–92. London: Brill, 2002.
• Gleave, Robert. “Marrying Fatimid Women: Legal Theory and Substantive Law in Shīʿī Jurisprudence.” Islamic Law and Society 6, no. 1 (1999): 38–68.
• Hallaq, Wael B. The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Ḥillī, al-Ḥasan b. Yūsuf. Khulāṣat al-aqwāl fī maʿrifat al-rijāl. Edited by Jawād al-Qayyūmī. Muʾassasat Nashr al-Faqāha, 1417.
• Ḥillī, Ibn Dāwūd. Rijāl Ibn Dāwūd. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 1342.
• Ḥillī, Ibn Idris. Kitāb al-sarāʾir al-ḥāwī li-taḥrīr al-fatāwī. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 1410.
• Ibn al-Nadīm. al-Fihrist. Edited by Yūsuf ʿAlī Ṭawīl. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīya, 1996.
• Jalālī, Suhaylā. “Pizhūhish-iy dar bārah-yi Uṣūl-i Arbaʿumiʾah.” ʿUlūm-i Ḥadīth 6 (1376): 187–231.
• Kāshānī, Muḥammad b. Murtaḍā. Kitāb al-wāfī. Qom: Manshūrāt Maktabat Āyat Allāh al-ʿUẓmā al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1404.
• Khūʾī, Abū al-Qāsim. Muʿjam rijāl al-ḥadīth. Beirut: Dār al-Zahrā, 1403/1983.
• Kohlberg, Etan. “Al-Uṣūl al-arbaʿumi’a.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 10 (1987): 128–66.
• Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb. al-Kāfī. Edited by ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah, 1383.
• Maʿārif, Majīd. Pizhūhishi dar Tārīkh-i Ḥadīth-i Shīʿah. Tehran, 1374.
• Madelung, Wilfred. “Imāmism and Muʿtazilite Theology.” In Le Shīʿism imāmite: Colloque de Strasbourg 1968. Edited by T. Fahd. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970.
• Māmaqānī, ʿAbd Allāh. Miqbās al-hidāyah fī ʿilm al-dirāya. Edited by Muḥammad Riḍā al-Māmaqānī. Beirut: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt li-Iḥyā al-Turāth, 1991.
• Modarressi, Hossein. “Essential Islam: The Minimum that a Muslim is Required to Acknowledge.” In Accusations of Unbelief in Islam: A Diachronic Perspective on Takfīr, edited by Camilla Adang, Hassan Ansari, Maribel Fierro, and Sabine Schmitdke, 395–412. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
• Modarressi, Hossein. “Facts or Fables? Muslims’ Evaluation of Historical Memory.” Studia Islamica 114 (2019): 205–218.
• Modarressi, Hossein. An Introduction to Shīʿī Law: A Bibliographical Survey. London: Ithaca Press, 1984.
• Modarressi, Hossein. Tradition and Survival. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003.
• Muẓaffar, Muḥammad Riḍā. Uṣūl al-fiqh. Najaf: Maktabat al-Amīn, 1962.
• Najāshi, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. Rijāl al-Najāshī. Edited by Mūsā al-Shubayrī alZanjānī. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 1407.
• Nawbakhtī, al-Ḥasan b. Mūsā. Shīʿa Sects. Translated by Abbas Kadhim. London: ICAS Press, 2007.
• Newman, Andrew J. The Formative Period of Twelver Shīʿism: Ḥadīth as Discourse Between Qum and Baghdad. Richmond: Curzon, 2000.
• Pfeiffer, Judith. “Conversion Versions: Sultan Oljeytu’s Conversion to Shiʿism (709/1309) in Muslim Narrative Sources.” Mongolian Studies 22 (1999): 35–67.
• Qummī, Ibn Bābawayh. Kamāl al-dīn wa-tamām al-niʿmah. Tehran, 1958.
• Qummī, Ibn Bābawayh. Man lā yaḥḍuruh al-faqīh. Edited by Ḥasan alMūsawī al-Khirsān. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah, 1383.
• Qummī, Ibn Bābawayh. al-Muqniʿ wa al-hidāya. Qom: Muʾassasat alMaṭbūʿāt al-Dīnīya, 1377.
• Qummī, Ibn Qūlawayh. Kāmil al-ziyārāt. Edited by Jawād al-Qayyūmī. Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 1417.
• Ṣadr, Ḥasan. Taʾsīs al-shīʿa li-ʿulūm al-islām. Baghdad: Sharikat al-Nashr wa-l-Ṭibāʿah al-ʿIrāqiyyah, 1951.
• Ṣadr, Muḥammad Bāqir. al-Fatāwā al-wāḍiḥah. Beirut: Dār al-Taʿāruf lil-Maṭbūʿāt, 1979.
• Shīrāzī, Ṣādiq. al-Mūjaz fī al-manṭiq. Translated by ʿAli ʿAbdur-Rasheed. Madani E-Publications, 2006.
• Subḥānī, Jaʿfar. Kullīyāt fī ʿilm al-rijāl. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr alIslāmī, 1428.
• Ṭarābulusī, Ibn al-Barrāj, al-Muhadhdhab (Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 1404), 2:587–89.
• Ṭihrānī, Āqā Buzurg. al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿah. Beirut: Dār alAḍwāʾ, 1983.
• Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. al-Fihrist. Edited by Muḥammad Ṣādiq Āl Baḥr al-ʿUlūm. Najaf, 1960.
• Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Ikhtiyār maʿrifat al-rijāl. Edited by Mahdī al-Rajāʾī. Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt, 1404.
• Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. al-Mabsūṭ fī fiqh al-imāmiyyah. Edited by Muḥammad al-Bāqir al-Bihbūdī. Tehran: al-Maktaba alMurtaḍawīya, 1967 or 1968-1973.
• Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. al-ʿUdda fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Edited by Muḥammad Riḍā al-Ansārī. Qom: al-Muḥaqqiq, 1996 or 1997.
• Vilozny, Roy. “Pre-Būyid Ḥadīth Literature: The Case of al-Barqī from Qumm (d. 274/888 or 280/894) in Twelve Sections.” In The Study of Shiʿi Islam, edited by F. Daftary and G. Miskinzoda, 203–230. London and NY: Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2014.
• Young, M. J. L. “Arabic biographical writing.” In Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Learning and Science in the ʿAbbāsid Period,” edited by M. J. L. Young, J. D. Latham and R. B. Serjeant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.