Ibn Abī ‘Arūba’s Kitāb al-Manāsik in Terms of the Method of Narration and Isnād
Kenan OralWritten by Abū al-Nadr Sa‘īd ibn Abī ‘Arūba al-‘Adawī (d. 156/773), Kitāb al-Manāsik is one of the first hadith books classified in Baṣrah. The analysis of the isnād structure and narration method of this book has great importance in terms of the development of the sciences of hadith and fiqh. Not enough studies have dealt with this work in terms of classification, text, narration style, and sanad [chain of transmission]. For this reason, my first article on the subject discussed Kitāb al-Manāsik in terms of classification and text. The current article, however, analyzes Kitāb al-Manāsik in terms of its source structure, diversity, and narration design. In order to determine the position this work has in hadith history and the literature more clearly, the article compares it with the prominent works of the same period in terms of some basic points. Kitāb al-Manāsik has not fully survived to the present day and has characteristics similar to the works that were compiled in the same century. Kitāb al-Manāsik involves hadiths marfū‘ [attributed only to the Prophet] and mawqūf [attributed to a companion], but mainly consists of hadith makṭū‘ [attributed to a successor of the companions]. Of the hadiths in Kitāb al-Manāsik, 30.5% have the munqaṭi‘ [interrupted], mursal [sent/transmitted missing a companion] or mubham [involving an unknown person] types of defective isnād. This situation relates to the general soft attitude of the author’s hadith circle. No clear information exists that Abū al-Nadr had transmitted directly from a written source. However, the hadith assembly in with which he was involved was known to have had a more liberal attitude on this point. Abū al-Nadr, who has sufficient written sources, does not see any theoretical problem in this regard.
Rivayet ve İsnad Açısından İbn Ebî Arûbe’nin Kitâbü’l-Menâsik’i
Kenan Oralİbn Ebî Arûbe’nin (ö. 156/773) telif ettiği Kitâbü’l-Menâsik, Basra’da tasnif edilen ilk hadis kitapları arasındadır. Hicrî ikinci asırda hadis ve fıkıh ilminin gelişimine katkı sağlayan söz konusu eserin isnad yapısı ve rivayet yönteminin tahlili büyük önem taşımaktadır. İlk tasnifler arasında olmasına rağmen bu eseri; tasnif, metin ve rivayet açısından ele alan yeterli nitelikte çalışmalar yapılmamıştır. Bu nedenle konuyla ilgili ilk makalemizde tasnif ve metin unsurları yönüyle ele alınan Menâsik, burada kaynak dağılımı, mürsel, mübhem ve münkatı‘ rivayetleri ile diğer sened özelliklerinin yanı sıra rivayet usul ve üslubu gibi açılardan analiz edildi. Eserin hadis tarihi ve edebiyatındaki konumunun daha net bir şekilde tespiti için temel noktalarda aynı dönemin farklı bölgelerde öne çıkan eserleri ile karşılaştırma yoluna gidildi. Çalışmada günümüze tam olarak ulaşamayan Menâsik’in, sened ve rivayet özellikleri açısından aynı yüzyılda telif edilen çalışmalarla yakın özellikler taşıdığı görülmüştür. Eser, hicrî ikinci asrın sünnet anlayışına uygun bir şekilde merfû ve mevkuf olanları içermekle birlikte ağırlıklı olarak maktû rivayetlerden oluşmaktadır. Menâsik, hicrî ikinci yüzyılın ilk yarısında kaleme alınan kitaplardan biri olarak %30,5 oranında münkatı‘, mürsel ve mübhem türünde muttasıl olmayan senedler barındırır. Bu durum müellifin ders halkasının, bilgileri sahibine dayandırma noktasındaki genel mütesâhil tavırlarıyla ilişkilidir. Eseri telif ederken İbn Ebî Arûbe’nin, doğrudan bir yazılı kaynaktan rivayet aldığına dair elimizde açık bir bilgi bulunmamakla birlikte müellifin, teorik düzlemde bu konuda bir sorun görmediği ve fiziki olarak da elinde yeterli yazılı kaynak bulunduğu anlaşılmıştır.
Abū al-Nadr Sa‘īd b. Abī ‘Arūba al-‘Adawī was born around the year 76/696 and died in 156/773. He compiled his Kitāb al-Manāsik in the first half of the 2nd century AH when the subject-centered classification of al-Hadith began. Despite being among the first classified hadith books in Baṣrah, not enough studies have dealt with this work in terms of classification, text, narration style, and sanad [chain of transmission]. For this reason, my first article on the subject discussed Kitāb al-Manāsik in terms of classification and text by comparing it to the major hadith books of the period. This current article analyzes Kitāb al-Manāsik in terms of its source structure, diversity, and narration pattern. In order to determine the place Kitāb al-Manāsik has in the history and literature of al-hadith in the 2nd century AH, it has been compared to Ma‘mar’s (d.153/770) al-Jāmi‘, Mālik’s (d.179/795) al-Muwaṭṭa’, Abū Yūsuf’s (d.183/798-9) al-Āthār, and Shaybānī’s (d.189/804) al-Āthār.
Kitāb al-Manāsik has not fully survived to the present day and contains 167 hadith. This work has characteristics similar to the works that were compiled in the same century in terms of the features of sanad [chain of transmission] and narration. This book is similar to Shaybānī’s Kitāb al-Āthār and Abū Yūsuf’s Kitāb al-Āthār in that the narrations of a single teacher constitute the majority of the book. Kitāb al-Manāsik was primarily compiled based on the narrations of the those from the same hadith school, such as Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Qatāda, and Maṭar al-Warrāk. In addition to these, Kitāb al-Manāsik also includes narrations from other hadith scholars in Baṣrah and the isnād [plural of sanad] of Kūfa, Mecca, and Medīna.
Kitāb al-Manāsik includes hadith marfū‘ and mawkūf, but mainly consists of hadith makṭū‘. Abū al-Nadr uses expressions common to his period when stating a narration to be attributed to the Prophet without giving the whole isnād. This shows the book to have a narration style of the 2nd century AH. This is also a proof that the fiqh solutions of the jurists and Muslims in the first period being later attributed to the Prophet with perfect isnād as some Orientalists have claimed does not need to be inferred. Abū al-Nadr’s sources on hadith mawkūf are mostly the ṣaḥāba [companions] who pioneered the Ḥijāz and Kūfa schools. Due to Abū al-Nadr’s perspective on fiqh, the ṣaḥāba have a significant proportion of faqīh [jurist] among them. Abū al-Nadr was not content with only the tābi‘ūn [successors] scholars of his own hadith circle and region but also conveyed the hadiths from other science centers in the makṭū‘ narrations.
Of the hadiths in Kitāb al-Manāsik, 30.5% have the munqaṭi‘ [interrupted], mursal [sent/ transmitted missing a companion] or mubham [involving an unknown person] types of defective isnād. This situation pertains to the general soft attitude of Abū al-Nadr’s hadith circle with regard to attributing information to the owner. These issues, which were considered defects in the following centuries, actually show that Abū al-Nadr had not engaged in activities such as correcting and completing deficiencies in the isnād, as some Orientalists have pointed out. Abū al-Nadr can be mentioned to have also included hadith with mubham isnād, to have not seen any such necessity due to the conditions of the period, to have thought that he would extend the book, to have listened to many of his teachers, to have had trouble remembering, and to have had a fiqh-centered perspective. His fiqh point of view and transmission pattern are seen to have been effective in combining isnād.
Abū al-Nadr used the natural transmission forms in daily speech and discourses, as well as the forms used by those who’d gained the meaning of terms such as ‘an‘ana, taḥdīth, and inbā’ with regard to tahammul [learning] and adā [teaching] hadith.
No clear information exists about Abū al-Nadr having transmitted directly from a written source. However, the hadith assembly with which he was involved was known to have had a more liberal attitude on this point, and an author with sufficient written sources does not see any theoretical problem in this regard.
Finally, pointing out some issues that resulted from the study prepared on Kitāb al-Manāsik appears useful. First of all, reconstructing the remaining section of Kitāb al-Manāsik, which was compiled in the 2nd century AH and has not fully survived to the present, by making use of Abū al-Nadr’s contemporaries and later hadith classifications would have great importance. Secondly, the influence Kitāb al-Manāsik had on the works in Abū al-Nadr’s own period needs to be dealt separately from the influence it had on works in the 3rd century AH. Lastly, the importance of dealing with the narrations in Kitāb al-Manāsik comprehensively within the framework of the phenomenon of raf‘ [raising] isnād and isnād completion by taking into account hadith history studies and Orientalist claims must also be stated.
