Marife Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi

Öz

Zahirism is a school of Islamic jurisprudence that emerged as a result of the strict stance adopted by the people of hadith, who distanced themselves from analogy and opinion. The defender and first representative of this school of thought was Daud al-Zahiri (d. 270/884) from Iraq. The introduction of Zāhirism to Andalus occurred with the arrival of some of Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī’s students in the region. In fact, Zahirism not only spread to Andalusia but also became systematized and developed into a school of thought in the region. On the other hand, Andalusia was also an important region in terms of hadith commentary activities. The fifth century AH was a period when extensive commentary works emerged in this region. The commentaries reveal that Andalusian commentators followed a fiqh-oriented commentary method and, while belonging to the Maliki school, were close to the Ahl al-Hadith school of thought. As a result of following a fiqh-centered commentary method, Andalusian commentators included and discussed the views of many jurists in their works; they accepted some of these views and criticized others. The Zahiris were among the most criticized. At times, they even went too far in their criticism, resorting to insults such as calling them “ignorant.” The geographical and temporal factors may explain why Andalusian commentators frequently refer to the Zahiris. This is because Zahirism was systematized in this region during the fifth century AH thanks to Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064) and continued for a time through his followers. For this reason, Ibn Battal (d. 449/1057) and Ibn Abdilber (d. 463/1071), who were contemporaries of Ibn Hazm and whose views were known to them, are among the foremost Andalusian jurists who frequently mention and criticize the Zahiris in their commentaries. This study, which addresses these criticisms as problematic, focuses on the Andalusian jurists' criticism of the Zahiris. The aim of this study is to identify and analyze how and to what extent the Zahiris were criticized by Andalusian commentators. This will enable a comprehensive understanding of the Andalusian method of hadith commentary and provide insight into the role and function of commentary.
The article is limited to the hadith commentaries of Ibn Battal and Ibn Abdilber, who lived particularly in the 5th century AH. The fact that Bâcî (d. 474/1081) and Ibn al-Arabî's (d. 543/1148) commentaries give very little space to the Zahiris is among the reasons for this limitation. In this context, the document analysis method, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. In addition, considering the volume of the study, the places where Andalusian commentators criticized the Zāhirīs were presented as examples. As a result of this method, the study reveals that when referring to the Zahiris, Andalusian commentators mostly made explicit references such as “ehlü'z-Zâhir” or “ashâbu Dâvûd,” and sometimes made indirect references to them by stating that the apparent meaning should not be derived from the hadith. Furthermore, according to the data obtained in the study, the Zahiri approach was generally criticized and not accepted in Andalusian hadith commentaries. Andalusian jurists, in line with the understanding of the people of hadith, resorted to interpretations that emphasized meaning and intent, placed special importance on the distinction between the concise and the explicit, and criticized the Zahiris for issuing rulings without considering this distinction. Similarly, Andalusian jurists, in line with the understanding of the people of hadith, defended analogy as an important methodological tool in the process of deriving rulings and criticized the Zahiris for rejecting analogy. At the same time, they argued that the Zahiris unknowingly used analogy in some matters, thus contradicting their own methodology. The Zāhirīs' limitation of the ijma to the period of the Companions was also criticized by the Andalusian commentators. The jurists explained that the opinions of the Zahiris that fell outside of ijma had no value. Finally, the article reveals that, unlike the Zahiris, the Andalusian jurists based their opinions on meaning rather than wording, that commentaries played a mediating role in the dissemination and discussion of opinions, and that geography had an impact on commentaries.