Özet:

This article focuses on an unfinished commentary by Ibn al-Shalāḥ (d. 643/1245) entitled Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. The study will attempt to give detailed information about this unfinished commentary with regards to its author, history and social context. The Ṣiyāna is recognized as one of the most significant works produced on Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj's (d. 261/875) al-Musnad al-ṣaḥíḥ in the history of Islam. Providing information on such important issues as al-Shahih's composition, content, and history of transmission, the Shahih explains and elucidates on 157 Shahih from the beginning of the book. Despite its importance, S.A. has not been studied in-depth within contemporary academic literature. One may even notice, in the Turkish ḥadīth literature, uncertainty regarding its genre and where this book truly fits. This article asserts that S.A. is indeed an incomplete commentary on S.A. and identifies its characteristics as well as discussing its impact on later S.A. commentaries. In addition to providing valuable information on al-Shahih, the Shahih is also distinguished for its comparisons between several manuscripts of al-Shahih, and its critical treatment of early commentators' views. Furthermore, a sizable content is dedicated to identifying the correct reading of the transmitters' names and other Arabic terms. Having received a warm reception from the ḥadīth scholars, the Ṣiyāna has been an authoritative text on al-Şaḥīḥ, for ḥadīth commentators, including scholars such as Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277) and Muḥammad b. by Ali al-Wallawi. The commentators made use of the Tsipras in two distinctive ways. First, they relied heavily on the Ṣiyāna in their introductions to commentaries, where they were expected to provide information on their base-text i.e. by al-Shahihih. Among the issues raised in these introductions are the transmission of al-Shahih, its composition and chapter headings, and the epistemological value of its ḥadīths. Second, the commentators employed the Ṣiyāna in their interpretation of individual ḥadīths. However, since Chayana covered only 157 ḥadīths from the beginning of al-Shayah, such references to the book are found only in the first few volumes of these commentaries. In order to contextually study the Ṣiyāna, the article focuses on Ibn al-Shalāḥ's interest in the ḥadīth collections. Due to his long journey to the Khurāsān region, Ibn al-Shalāḥ was able to accumulate a considerable amount of knowledge on the ḥadīth collections, including works such as al-Shalāḥayn and Sunan al-Bayhaqī. During his journey, he studied Dhaḥḥ Muslim with two major influential authorities, Abū al-Qāsim Manṣūr b. 'Abd al-Mun'im al-Furāwī (d. 608/1212) and Abū al-Ḥasan Mu'ayyad b. Muḥammad al-Tūsī (d. 617/1220). It is clear from the historical sources that subsequently to this journey he taught at different madrasas including the prestigious Dār al-ḥadīth al-Ashrafiyya. He probably wrote the Ṣiyāna during the last ten years of his life while he taught al-Shahihah at al-Ashrafiyya. Therefore, from the perspective of Muslim intellectual history the book can also be considered a product of teaching practices and should be recorded down as such. Moreover, it could be argued that this kind of sources may offer a new perspective to the study of how knowledge was transmitted and taught. The ultimate objective of the article is to analyze the Ṣiyāna in terms of its content and within the context of the history of the hadith. It is evident from the historical sources that the Ṣiyāna would have been as popular as the commentaries of al-Qāḍī ʻIyāḍ (d. 544/1149) and al-Nawawī if it had been completed during its historical period. Nevertheless, the book still deserves serious attention and consideration due to its insights into the nature of the Islamic commentary tradition and its perception of the Muslims during the medieval period.

Anahtar Kelimeler: