Özet:

The science of jarh-tadil, which has an important place in the science of hadith, has undertaken an important task in determining the reliability of the narrators. In addition to the characterization of jarh-tadil activity as gossip in the early periods, the subjective decisions of critic scholars were also criticized in the later periods. The differences that emerged from the early periods of Islam in terms of jurisprudence, creed, social and political issues led to the emergence of many different sects such as Ahl al-Hadith, Ahl al-Ra’y, Ahl al-Sunnah, Mu’tazila, Jahmiyya, Qadariyya, and Murjia. Hadith narrators and scholars of Jarh-Ta’dil have adhered to any sect due to their opinions, and later on, they have been criticized for the possibility of being influenced by the sects they belong to. For this reason, some conditions have been sought such that Jarh-Ta’dil scholars should be free from all sectarian fanaticism, be objective and free from excesses. Abu Ishak al-Juzjani, who is one of the early scholars of Jarh-Ta’dil, was accused of being influenced by the sectarian fanaticism and even being a Nasibi in his evaluations of Kufan narrators. Therefore, it was stated that his evaluations of Kufan narrators should not be taken into account and should be researched from other sources. These allegations have been the subject of various studies, and the accuracy/incorrectness of the situation has been determined. However, there is no study on Basran narrators, which is the second group that Juzjani criticized the most. Therefore, in this study, Juzjani’s evaluations of Basran narrators, which he described as “Qadari” were examined in the context of sectarian fanaticism. The aim of the study is to determine whether this accusation against Juzjani is also valid for the Basra narrators. In order to achieve the aforementioned aim, the Basran narrators, whom Juzjani described as “Qadari” in his work Ahval al-rical, were discussed, the opinions of other critic scholars about the narrators were determined and compared with the views of Juzjani. While doing this, the method followed by Juzjani in his work was preferred, and the narrators were examined under two headings: “Basran Narrators” and “Qadari Narrators”. The Qadari accusation against twenty-one narrators was evaluated, eleven of them under the first title, and ten under the second title. Before moving on to the evaluations of the narrators, brief information was given about Juzjani and his work, and some information was provided about the history and dimensions of Qadari accusations in the science of Hadith. As a result of the study, it was found that Juzjani’s evaluations about the Basran narrators largely overlap with the views of other critic scholars; it has been determined that Juzjani acted excessive in the evaluation of only two of the twenty-one narrators. Although there is no accusation of Qadari accusations in the sources regarding Abu Ubaid al-Naji and Abd al-Wahid ibn Zaid, Juzjani criticized them on the grounds that they were Qadaris. Similarly, Abbad ibn Mansur and Awf ibn Abi Jamila, whom Juzjani described as weak and Qadaris, were considered reliable in the field of hadith by other critics. It has been found in the study that Juzjani was alone in calling Ata ibn Abi Maymunah “the leader of the Qadaris”, while other critics believed that he had only a few Qadari views. As can be seen, while Juzjani and other critics’ views do not agree on a very small number of narrators’ evaluations, there is a great deal of compatibility in other evaluations. Therefore, it does not seem possible to say that Juzjani was influenced by sect fanaticism in his narrator evaluations. Based on this, it is necessary to express the necessity of similar studies for the evaluations of other critics who have sect fanaticism.

Anahtar Kelimeler: