Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi

Öz

This article focuses on the approaches of muhaddithians (hadīth scholars) towards the profession of qadi (judge) and criticisms directed towards hadith scholars who assumed the role of a qadi. A qualitative method was employed in this study, and a literature review was conducted. While addressing the attitudes towards the qadi profession in the article, criticisms directed towards hadith scholars who served as qadis, particularly due to their increased prevalence after the Umayyad period, have been excluded. The research has been limited to qadis recognized for their hadīth transmission in the second century of the Islamic calendar. When the early period of Islam is examined within a historical perspective, it holds significant importance in understanding how political and social developments, particularly the vital profession of qadis (judges), influenced the attitudes and behaviors of muhaddithians. An important characteristic of this era is to comprehend how the political changes that occurred with the birth and spread of Islam affected various segments of Islamic society. During the time of Prophet Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs, the role of qadis did not pose any significant problems for society and intellectual life. During these periods, muhaddithians primarily focused on the foundational principles of Islam, prioritizing the transmission of religious teachings and the preservation of sources. Consequently, many hadīth scholars chose not to involve themselves in state affairs, dedicating themselves solely to the science of hadīth. However, as the Islamic state strengthened over time and the political and administrative power of the caliphs increased, the attitudes of muhaddithians toward taking on state duties began to change. Especially during the Umayyad era, after the assassinations of Caliphs Uthman and Ali, hadīth scholars began to criticize the rulers. Nevertheless, these criticisms did not transform into concrete actions such as resigning from their state positions. With the development of political events, the anti-establishment sentiments among muhaddithians grew stronger, although some continued to serve as judges in the government while acknowledging individual mistakes. The negative perception of the qadis' role became more pronounced, particularly after the time of Caliph Muawiyah, leading muhaddithians to distance themselves from the government and engage in criticism. These reactions found broad support among the public. With the advent of the Abbasid era, muhaddithians came to perceive official positions like the qadis' role as flawed, yet those who held these positions were not categorically disparaged. Hadīth scholars had various reasons for their reservations about assuming qadis' roles. Among these reasons were the presence of warnings against rulers in the hadīths, concerns that qadis' duties could lead to the forgetting of hadīths and the corruption of memory, fear of injustice, and the desire to stay away from rulers. In conclusion, it is important to investigate how the political and societal conditions of early Islam influenced the attitudes of muhaddithians toward taking on qadis' roles and the impact of these attitudes on the science of hadīth. Through this research, it becomes evident that a narrator assuming the role of a qadi alone was not a cause for criticism (cerh), but rather, flaws that emerged during this duty, such as memory lapses, led to the narrator's criticism.