The Ruling of Denying Ḥadīths According to Islamic Scholars

İdris Tüzün

Article Details

The Ruling of Denying Ḥadīths According to Islamic Scholars

Authors:

İdris Tüzün

Publisher:

Harran University

Main Topics:

Hadis

Journal:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.183-197

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303765

pISSN:

2791-6812

Keywords:

Abstract:

 In some verses of the Qurʾān, Muslims are ordered to obey the Prophet, and people who obeyed him are praised while those who disobeyed him are condemned. Adhering to this command since the first period of Islam, Muslims have accepted both the Qurʾān and Sunnah the codes of life based on the ḥadīths of the Prophet as two primary sources of Islamic Jurisprudence. Since the period of the Ṣaḥaba Companions, Tābiʿūn Adherers, those who saw and adhered to the Companions and Tābiʿ al-Tābiʿīn those who saw and adhered to the Adherers, until the 19th century, Muslims remained loyal to these two original sources and did not express any serious disagreements on this issue, but only a single exceptional group denying all ḥadīths was mentioned in the period of Imām al-Shāfiʿī. After the British domination of India and Egypt in the 19th century, some groups that denied Sunnah emerged in these countries. The widespread denial of the ḤadīthSunnah as the second most important source of religion after the Qurʾān first emerged following the British domination of India in 1850. In India, a group calling themselves the Qurʾāniyyun Quranists denied ḥadīths as evidence in religion. Similar claims were made in Egypt after the British invasion of this region in 1880. It is quite thought-provoking that such claims emerged in India and Egypt, especially after the British invasion. In modern-day Türkiye, opinions similar to those in India and Egypt have been put forward as well. People who hardly know Arabic and may not even read the Arabic script have been presented as Islamic scholars by the media, and they have denied all ḥadīths on the pretext of rejecting some ḥadīths that run counter to their mindsets. On the other hand, there were also those who rejected these views and defended the Sunnah as proof. Both sides have written articles, books and defended their views in different ways on social media. However, those who defended the Sunnah did not focus on the judgement of denying it. This study discusses the views of earlier scholars on the ruling of denying the Sunnah. It was observed that this issue was rarely discussed in books on ḥadīth methodology, while it was more frequently emphasised in books on fiqh methodology and kalām, and these books were cited in the present study. Islamic scholars, such as Imām al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn Ḥazm, al-Suyūṭī, ʿAbd al-Kāhir, al-Baghdādī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, noted that those who deny the whole Sunnah fall into disbelief. In the last century, approximately 1000 scholars from India issued a fatwā declaring that those who deny ḥadīths leave the circle of Islam and become disbelievers. According to some scholars, the Ummah unanimously agrees that people who deny the Sunnah are disbelievers. Scholars justified this by noting that some of the ḥadīths were based on revelation and that a considerable number of verses in the Qurʾān ordered believers to obey the Prophet, and therefore those who deny the Sunnah became disbelievers. Furthermore, since mutawātir ḥadīths were certainly narrated from the Prophet and they express certainty, it is stressed that those who deny them also deny the Prophet implicitly and therefore they fall into disbelief. The denial of famous ḥadīths of khabar al-wāḥid is regarded as bidʿa and misguidance. It is accepted that those who ridicule khabar al-wāḥid or reject ḥadīths even though they accept that they belong to the Prophet also commit kufr, which means denying the Prophets prophethood. People are said to become fāsiq if they deny the authenticity of a saḥīḥ ḥadīth, which has been accepted by major scholars, by denying its authenticity and blaming the narrators rather than the Prophet himself. This study provides only a survey of the views of the jurists of Islam, with no comments on these views. In other words, the judgement as to accepting or rejecting the perspectives of scholars is left to the reader.

 In some verses of the Qurʾān, Muslims are ordered to obey the Prophet, and people who obeyed him are praised while those who disobeyed him are condemned. Adhering to this command since the first period of Islam, Muslims have accepted both the Qurʾān and Sunnah the codes of life based on the ḥadīths of the Prophet as two primary sources of Islamic Jurisprudence. Since the period of the Ṣaḥaba Companions, Tābiʿūn Adherers, those who saw and adhered to the Companions and Tābiʿ al-Tābiʿīn those who saw and adhered to the Adherers, until the 19th century, Muslims remained loyal to these two original sources and did not express any serious disagreements on this issue, but only a single exceptional group denying all ḥadīths was mentioned in the period of Imām al-Shāfiʿī. After the British domination of India and Egypt in the 19th century, some groups that denied Sunnah emerged in these countries. The widespread denial of the ḤadīthSunnah as the second most important source of religion after the Qurʾān first emerged following the British domination of India in 1850. In India, a group calling themselves the Qurʾāniyyun Quranists denied ḥadīths as evidence in religion. Similar claims were made in Egypt after the British invasion of this region in 1880. It is quite thought-provoking that such claims emerged in India and Egypt, especially after the British invasion. In modern-day Türkiye, opinions similar to those in India and Egypt have been put forward as well. People who hardly know Arabic and may not even read the Arabic script have been presented as Islamic scholars by the media, and they have denied all ḥadīths on the pretext of rejecting some ḥadīths that run counter to their mindsets. On the other hand, there were also those who rejected these views and defended the Sunnah as proof. Both sides have written articles, books and defended their views in different ways on social media. However, those who defended the Sunnah did not focus on the judgement of denying it. This study discusses the views of earlier scholars on the ruling of denying the Sunnah. It was observed that this issue was rarely discussed in books on ḥadīth methodology, while it was more frequently emphasised in books on fiqh methodology and kalām, and these books were cited in the present study. Islamic scholars, such as Imām al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn Ḥazm, al-Suyūṭī, ʿAbd al-Kāhir, al-Baghdādī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, noted that those who deny the whole Sunnah fall into disbelief. In the last century, approximately 1000 scholars from India issued a fatwā declaring that those who deny ḥadīths leave the circle of Islam and become disbelievers. According to some scholars, the Ummah unanimously agrees that people who deny the Sunnah are disbelievers. Scholars justified this by noting that some of the ḥadīths were based on revelation and that a considerable number of verses in the Qurʾān ordered believers to obey the Prophet, and therefore those who deny the Sunnah became disbelievers. Furthermore, since mutawātir ḥadīths were certainly narrated from the Prophet and they express certainty, it is stressed that those who deny them also deny the Prophet implicitly and therefore they fall into disbelief. The denial of famous ḥadīths of khabar al-wāḥid is regarded as bidʿa and misguidance. It is accepted that those who ridicule khabar al-wāḥid or reject ḥadīths even though they accept that they belong to the Prophet also commit kufr, which means denying the Prophets prophethood. People are said to become fāsiq if they deny the authenticity of a saḥīḥ ḥadīth, which has been accepted by major scholars, by denying its authenticity and blaming the narrators rather than the Prophet himself. This study provides only a survey of the views of the jurists of Islam, with no comments on these views. In other words, the judgement as to accepting or rejecting the perspectives of scholars is left to the reader.

 In some verses of the Qurʾān, Muslims are ordered to obey the Prophet, and people who obeyed him are praised while those who disobeyed him are condemned. Adhering to this command since the first period of Islam, Muslims have accepted both the Qurʾān and Sunnah the codes of life based on the ḥadīths of the Prophet as two primary sources of Islamic Jurisprudence. Since the period of the Ṣaḥaba Companions, Tābiʿūn Adherers, those who saw and adhered to the Companions and Tābiʿ al-Tābiʿīn those who saw and adhered to the Adherers, until the 19th century, Muslims remained loyal to these two original sources and did not express any serious disagreements on this issue, but only a single exceptional group denying all ḥadīths was mentioned in the period of Imām al-Shāfiʿī. After the British domination of India and Egypt in the 19th century, some groups that denied Sunnah emerged in these countries. The widespread denial of the ḤadīthSunnah as the second most important source of religion after the Qurʾān first emerged following the British domination of India in 1850. In India, a group calling themselves the Qurʾāniyyun Quranists denied ḥadīths as evidence in religion. Similar claims were made in Egypt after the British invasion of this region in 1880. It is quite thought-provoking that such claims emerged in India and Egypt, especially after the British invasion. In modern-day Türkiye, opinions similar to those in India and Egypt have been put forward as well. People who hardly know Arabic and may not even read the Arabic script have been presented as Islamic scholars by the media, and they have denied all ḥadīths on the pretext of rejecting some ḥadīths that run counter to their mindsets. On the other hand, there were also those who rejected these views and defended the Sunnah as proof. Both sides have written articles, books and defended their views in different ways on social media. However, those who defended the Sunnah did not focus on the judgement of denying it. This study discusses the views of earlier scholars on the ruling of denying the Sunnah. It was observed that this issue was rarely discussed in books on ḥadīth methodology, while it was more frequently emphasised in books on fiqh methodology and kalām, and these books were cited in the present study. Islamic scholars, such as Imām al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn Ḥazm, al-Suyūṭī, ʿAbd al-Kāhir, al-Baghdādī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, noted that those who deny the whole Sunnah fall into disbelief. In the last century, approximately 1000 scholars from India issued a fatwā declaring that those who deny ḥadīths leave the circle of Islam and become disbelievers. According to some scholars, the Ummah unanimously agrees that people who deny the Sunnah are disbelievers. Scholars justified this by noting that some of the ḥadīths were based on revelation and that a considerable number of verses in the Qurʾān ordered believers to obey the Prophet, and therefore those who deny the Sunnah became disbelievers. Furthermore, since mutawātir ḥadīths were certainly narrated from the Prophet and they express certainty, it is stressed that those who deny them also deny the Prophet implicitly and therefore they fall into disbelief. The denial of famous ḥadīths of khabar al-wāḥid is regarded as bidʿa and misguidance. It is accepted that those who ridicule khabar al-wāḥid or reject ḥadīths even though they accept that they belong to the Prophet also commit kufr, which means denying the Prophets prophethood. People are said to become fāsiq if they deny the authenticity of a saḥīḥ ḥadīth, which has been accepted by major scholars, by denying its authenticity and blaming the narrators rather than the Prophet himself. This study provides only a survey of the views of the jurists of Islam, with no comments on these views. In other words, the judgement as to accepting or rejecting the perspectives of scholars is left to the reader.

 Kurânın bazı âyetlerinde müminlerin Hz. Peygambere itaat etmesi emredilmiş ve itaat edenler övülmüş, itaat etmeyenler de zemmedilmiştir. İslâmın ilk döneminden itibaren Müslümanlar bu emre ittibaen hem Kurânı hem de sünneti iki aslî şerî kaynak kabul etmişlerdir. Sahâbe, tâbiîn ve tebeû tâbiîn döneminden itibaren 19. Yüzyıla gelinceye kadar Müslümanlar bu iki asla bağlı kalmışlar bu konuda ciddi her hangi bir ihtilafa düşmemişlerdir. Bununla beraber, sahâbe ve tâbiîn döneminde istisnaî diyebileceğimiz bazı şahısların Bize sünnetten değil, Kurândan bahsedin! dedikleri, fakat sünneti inkâr etmedikleri nakledilmiştir. Yalnızca İmâm Şâfiî kendi döneminde sünnetin hüccet oluşunu inkâr eden bazı şahıslardan bahsetmiştir. Fakat bu durum istisnâî bir durum olmuştur. HadisinSünnetin Kurândan sonra dinin en önemli ikinci kaynağı oluşunun geniş çapta inkârı, ilk defa İngilizlerin 1850 yılında Hindistanı işgal etmelerinden sonra ortaya çıkmıştır. Hindistanda kendilerini Kurâniyyûn olarak adlandıran bir grup, hadislerin dinde delil oluşunu inkâr etmişlerdir. İngilizlerin 1880 yılında Mısırı işgal etmesinden sonra Mısırda da benzer iddialar ortaya atılmıştır. Hindistan ve Mısırda bu tür iddiaların özellikle İngilizlerin işgalinden sonra başlaması oldukça düşündürücüdür. Günümüz Türkiyesinde de son zamanlarda Hindistan ve Mısırdaki iddialara benzer görüşler ortaya atılmıştır. Arapça bilmeyen hatta Kurânı yüzünden okuyup okuyamadığı şüpheli şahıslar, medya tarafından İslâm âlimi olarak takdim edilmiş, bunlar da akıllarına yatmayan bazı hadisleri bahane ederek bütün hadisleri inkâr etmişlerdir. Buna mukabil bu görüşleri reddeden, sünnetin hüccet olduğunu savunanlar da olmuştur. Her iki tarafta makaleler, kitaplar yazmış, sosyal medyada değişik şekillerde görüşlerini savunmuşlardır. Bununla beraber sünneti savunanlar sünneti inkâr etmenin hükmü üzerinde fazlaca durmamışlardır. Bu çalışmada geçmişteki âlimlerin sünneti inkâr etmenin hükmü ile ilgili görüşleri ele alınmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırma esnasında Hadis Usûlü kitaplarında bu konunun çok az ele alınırken, Fıkıh Usûlü ve Kelâm ile ilgili kitaplarda üzerinde daha çok durulduğu görülmüş ve bu kitaplardan iktibaslar yapılmıştır. İslâm âlimlerinden İmam Şâfiî, İbn Hazm, İmam Suyûtî, Abdulkâhir Bağdâdî, Cessâs ve Fahrettin Razî gibi âlimler sünneti bütünüyle inkâr edenlerin kâfir olduğunu söylemişlerdir. Son yüzyılda Hindistanlı 1000 kadar âlim de bir fetva hazırlayarak hadisleri inkâr edenlerin İslâm dairesinden çıkıp kâfir olduğunu ilân etmişlerdir. Bazı âlimler sünneti inkâr edenlerin kâfir olduğunda ümmetin ittifakı olduğunu söylemiştir. Âlimler buna gerekçe olarak bir kısım hadislerin vahye vahy-i gayr-ı metlüve dayandığını ve Kurândaki azımsanmayacak derecedeki âyetlerin peygambere tabi olmayı emrettiğini, bu sebepten sünneti bütünüyle inkâr edenlerin küfre girdiklerini söylemişlerdir. Ayrıca mütevâtir hadislerin peygamberimizden rivâyeti kesin olup, yakîn ifade ettiği için onu inkâr edenlerin peygamberi de inkâr ettiği dolayısıyla onların da küfre girdiği söylenmiştir. Haber-i vâhidlerden meşhûru inkâr ise bidat ve dalâlet kabul edilmiştir. Diğer haber-i vâhidleri istihza edenler veya hadisin peygambere ait olduğunu kabul etmekle beraber reddedenlerin de küfre girdiği, bunun peygamberin risâletini inkâr manasında olduğu kabul edilmiştir. Âlimlerin kabulüne mazhar olmuş, sahih bir hadisin sıhhatini reddederek, peygamberi değil râvîleri suçlayarak inkâr edenlerinse fâsık olduğu söylenmiştir. Bu çalışmada yalnızca bir durum tesbiti yapılmış, âlimlerin görüşleri takdim edilmiş, bu görüşler hakkında herhangi bir yoruma gidilmemiştir. Yorum, diğer ifadeyle âlimlerin hükümlerini kabul edip, etmemek okurlara bırakılmıştır.

Article Details

The Ruling of Denying Ḥadīths According to Islamic Scholars

Authors:

İdris Tüzün

Publisher:

Harran University

Main Topics:

Hadis

Journal:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.183-197

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303765

pISSN:

2791-6812

Ḥadīth

Mutawātir

Mashhūr

Āḥād

Kufr

Ahl al-Bidʿa

FāsiqFâsık.

Hadis

Mütevâtir

Meşhûr

Âhâd

Küfür

Ehl-i Bid‘a

Fâsık

Issues

Article Details

Authors: İdris Tüzün

Publisher: Harran University

Main Topics: Hadis

Journal: Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.183-197

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 12/2023

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001303765

pISSN: 2791-6812

Issues

Authors:

İdris Tüzün

Publisher:

Harran University

Main Topics:

Hadis

Journal:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 50, pp.183-197

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001303765

pISSN:

2791-6812