Özet:

Dār al-Funūn Theology founded in 1924 was a modern educational institution which adopted both traditional and modern approaches to Islamic Sciences. The changes in the field of hadith during the process of transition to the university caused a change in the definitions and the titles of the courses such as from hadith al-sharīf and usul al-hadīth to hadith and the history of hadith and the time allocated to each course was gradually reduced. The preparation of the texts by the teachers in the hadith history courses and their content will answer the question of whether there is a transformation in the field of hadith in the early years of the Republic of Turkey. As a matter of fact, Izmirli Ismaïl Ḥaqqī's History of Ḥadīth and Ḥuseyin ʿAvnīʿ Arapkīrli's al-Buġya al-Hasîs fī Tārīh al-Hadīth which were written in this period, pioneered the studies based on the field of the history of hadīth in Turkish hadīth literature. In addition, these works are the main source in understanding the period. In this study, the mentioned works will be textally analyzed through the induction method. Therefore, the subjects that would reflect the ideas of the teachers will be discussed. Thus, it will be tried to determine whether the courses of the history of hadith are closer to tradition or modern ideas and, how the education of hadith is practiced. Summary: After the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the Faculty of Theology was opened at Istanbul University as a result of the abolition of madrasas issuing a law regarding the Unification of Education announced in 1924. With the opening of this faculty, the education in the field of Religious Sciences continued its presence on a new foundation, which can be considered modern, until 1933. In this study, it was attempted to trace the courses of Ḥadīth and the History of Ḥadīth given in the Faculty of Theology at Istanbul University between 1924 and 1933. First, a brief history of the courses will be given, and then it is among the purposes of this study to perform a text analysis of the works written by the teachers of these courses. While doing this, Ismirli Ismail Hakkı's History of Ḥadīth, which was written as course notes and Huseyin Avni Arapkirli's al-Buġya al-Hasîs fī Tārīh al-Hadīth, which has not been known until discussed it this article for the first time, were focused on.  These works are very important in terms of initiating the History of Ḥadīth literature. Furthermore, these are the first works in the field of hadith in the Turkish Republic, and they are very important sources for revealing the ideological infrastructure of the period. To begin with, it is necessary to attract attention to the change in the course names and duration if there is a need to briefly mention the history of hadīth courses in University. In the universities founded before the opening of the Faculty of Theology, the courses were named as Ḥadīth al-sharīf and usul al-hadīth. Besides, these courses were included in the curriculum for four years, which constituted the duration of the education. In the university founded in 1924 after the proclamation of the Republic, the name was changed as Ḥadīth and the History of Ḥadīth. It is seen that the courses of Hadith and the History of Hadith were taught three hours a week for two years from the opening of the Faculty of Theology until 1931. From 1931 to 1933, when the faculty was closed, the courses continued to be given two hours a week. When the content of the works is viewed, it can be seen that Izmirli Ismail Ḥaqqī followed a historical system in his work History of Ḥadīth. Beginning the subject with the classification of sciences, Izmirli touches upon the topics such as the writing and codification of hadiths. Afterwards, he also deals with the methodology of in detail. He then mentions about the history of hadith by Shiʿā and draws a general map of the history of hadith as of the third century of the Islamic calendar. This work differs from the previous tradition of the education of hadith in terms of including the Shi'ā's history of hadith and especially of ahl al-ra'y's understanding of the hadith. In addition, the detailed discussion of hadith practice in the work is significant in terms of showing that the content of the course did not only cover the history of hadith. Moreover, it is observed that Izmirli touched upon controversial topics in his work such as the writing of hadith, Bukhari’s criticism and hadith-history relationship. However, Mishra does not express his approach to these topics so clearly. In doing so, he hides his views between lines, using ambiguous statements related to the topics while trying to base the views on authority.  For example, he says that the hadiths were written on the special pages of the companions in the early periods when it comes to writing hadiths, which was one of the most important topics of the history of hadith. Even though this gives an impression that the hadiths were written in the companion period, it is stated in the following explanations that the hadiths had not been gathered and written down in one place. Izmirli also says that they refer to the hadiths in the hearts of the companion. In another example, he mentioned that there is no doubt about the accuracy of the narrations in Bukhārī's work. However, in the following pages, he states that there are narrators, who are not trustworthy, in Bukhārī's work and says Dāraqutnī's criticisms related to Bukhārī. When the aforementioned two examples are examined, it can be stated that Mr. Gomez acted a bit more cautiously especially in controversial topics. When it comes to Ḥuseyin ʿAvnīʿ Arabkīrli, who starts his work with the classification of sciences as Izmirli does, it is seen that he discusses the part of practice much more briefly. Additionally, he gives more attention to the Prophet Muhammad and companion period of the hadith history. In his work, he also provides detailed information about the formation of the hadith literature in the third century of the Islamic calendar and afterwards. When the issue is reviewed within the scope of the topics discussed by Ḥuseyin ʿAvnīʿ in his work, it is necessary to mention that the topics related to the history of hadīth were more dominant in the work.  Unlike Izmir, he does not allocate much space to controversial topics in his work. However, it should also be noted that he partially touched upon some controversial topics such as hadīth -history relationship and writing of hadīths. Huseyin ʿAvnīʿ considers the history of hadīth as a sub-heading of history. Regarding the writing of hadiths, he openly states that the hadiths generally were not written down because of the possibility for them to be mixed up with the Qur'an in the early periods, and this continued until the time of caliphate ʿOmer bin ʿAbd al-Azīz. Thus, it can be said that both writers, who applied different methods in their works, looked for a new method. However, it should be remembered that these names were part of the Ottoman educational system and included in a new system together with their background. Consequently, the fact that they were somewhere between old and new.