Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi, cilt.66, sa.2, ss.1097-1126, 2025 (Scopus, TRDizin)
Although Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī has been widely recognized in the Islamic scholarly tradition and is generally regarded by the Muslim ummah as the most authentic hadith collection, certain narrations within it were subject to criticism by early scholars in terms of both isnād and matn. This article aims to examine how two different works of hadith criticism approach certain narrations found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. In this context, the study focuses on the critiques made by the early Andalusian hadith scholar Qāḍī al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣ ufra (d. 435/1044) regarding specific narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and investigates how these critiques were addressed by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) in his commentary Fatḥ al-Bārī. As a methodological approach, ten narrations that al-Muhallab considered defective (Muʿallal) were selected, specifically those on which Ibn Ḥajar also offered commentary. Thus, the reasons behind al-Muhallab’s critiques were analyzed and subsequently compared with the responses provided by Ibn Ḥajar. al-Muhallab’s identification of narrations that he deemed defective in terms of chain of transmission and content can be regarded as one of the early examples of a critical approach to al-Bukhārī’s (d. 256/870) method of transmission. This comparative approach, therefore, not only reveals the nature of al-Muhallab’s early criticisms but also highlights how the later commentary tradition, exemplified by Ibn Ḥajar’s Fatḥ al-Bārī, engaged with these critiques. Furthermore, the findings aim to shed light on the methodological tendencies of works composed during and after the period in which the consensus of the ummah (ijmāʿ) regarding Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī was formed. In this respect, the study is significant in demonstrating the nature of early criticisms directed at Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and how these criticisms were evaluated within the later commentary literature. The study concludes that both scholars made their assessments within the framework of hadith methodology and the classical hadith criticism methods, although certain methodological differences exist between them. Nonetheless, it was determined that early criticisms and Ibn Ḥajar’s responses to them are not, by themselves, sufficient to definitively determine the extent of methodological differences between the periods; hence, a broader and more comprehensive study is required.