Ahi Evran'ın Hadis Kültürü
Ahi Evran’s Hadith Culture
Yazar: Özsoy, Abdulvahap
Dergi: Bilimname No. 46, 2021
Anahtar kelimeler: Hadis,Ahi Evran,Tasavvuf,Yorum. ; Hadith,Ahi Evran,Sufism,Interpretation.

Anadolu’nun İslamlaşmasında önemli katkıları olan kurumların başında bir esnaf birliği olan ve tasavvufi özellikleri ile ön plana çıkan ahi teşkilatı gelmektedir. Anadolu’da bu teşkilatı kuran ve yerleşmesini sağlayan en önemli aktör Ahi Evran’dır. Ahi Evran’ın halk arasında dolaşan efsanevi kişiliğinin yanında yirminin üzerinde eser kaleme alan ilim adamlığı özelliğinin de olduğu bilinmektedir. Ahi Evran’ı önemli kılan kurmuş olduğu ahilik teşkilatının günümüz açısından bile önemini koruması ve meslek birlikleri açısından örnek bir model olmasıdır. Bu yönü itibariyle ahilik ve Ahi Evran üzerine birçok çalışma yapılmıştır. Ancak günümüze kadar yapılan çalışmalarda daha çok ahilik ve Ahi Evran’ın toplumsal katkıları üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu çalışmada ise günümüzde Ahi Evran’a ait oldukları hususunda kuvvetli kanaatin meydana geldiği eserleri çerçevesinde Ahi Evran’ın ilmî kişiliği aydınlatılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Ahi Evran söylemlerindeki sünnî vurguya paralel olarak eserlerinde de sürekli kitap ve sünnet birlikteliğine işaret etmiş ve ele aldığı konuları ayetler ve hadisler çerçevesinde işlemiştir. Bu çerçevede çalışmada özellikle Tabsiretu’l-mübtedî ve tezkiretu’l-muntehi isimli eserinde yer alan hadisler tek tek tespit edilmiş, bunların kaynakları belirlenmiş ve hadis metodolojisi açısından değerlendirmeleri yapılmıştır. Böylece Ahi Evran’ın hadis kültürü ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Nihayetinde Ahi Evran’ın hadisleri aktarırken bir hadisçi titizliğiyle hareket etmediği görülmüştür. Aktardığı hadislerin çoğunda takti yapmış, ilgili hadis metninin tümünü vermemiş, sadece konuyla ilgili bölümüne değinmiştir. Eserlerini Farsça olarak kaleme almış olan Ahi Evran gerek hadis metinleri, gerekse diğer alimlere ait bilgilerin önemli bir bölümünü Arapça olarak kaydetmiştir. Aktardığı rivayetlerin hadis olduğuna her zaman işaret etmediği, hadis olduğuna işaret ettiklerinde de sistematik bir üslup birliği uygulamadığı görülmüştür. Hadis yorumlarında tıpkı ayet yorumlarında olduğu gibi genellikle işarî mahiyette yorumlarda bulunduğu anlaşılmaktadır.  Kullandığı hadislerin yer aldığı kaynaklara bakıldığında tasavvufi eserlerin ön plana çıktığı görülmüştür. Eserde yer verilen rivayetler sıhhat açısından incelendiğinde benzer içeriğe sahip eserlerle paralel oranlarda farklı sıhhat seviyelerine sahip hadislerin yer aldığı görülmüştür.

Standing out with its sufistic characteristics, Ahi organisation is one of the leading foundations with major contributions in the Islamisation of Anatolia. Ahi Evran is the key actor who established and settled this organisation in Anatolia. Alongside his legendary personality, Ahi Evran is known as a scholar having written more than twenty books. However, until today studies have generally focused on Ahi community and his social contributions rather than detailed analyses of his works. Within the context of books strongly considered to belong to Ahi Evran, this study tries to clarify his scholarly personality. Parallel to the Sunnī emphasis in his discourses, Ahi Evran always pointed out to togetherness of Qur’an and Sunnah and discussed the subjects pursuant to ḥadīths and verses. As it is not possible to identify each report in all of his works to understand his ḥadīth culture in this study, one of his books is focused upon to benefit from other ones, as well. In this context, each of the ḥadīths especially in Tabṣirat al-Mubtadi wa Tadhkirah al-Muntahi were identified, and the style and methodology in their uses were traced and Ahi Evran’s ḥadīth culture is tried to be presented. As far as we have determined, in Ahi Evran’s Tabṣirat al-Mubtadi wa Tadhkirah al-Muntahi there are 48 reports. These reports were analysed in terms of their authenticity and 18 sahih (sound), 13 with unknown resources, 11 fabricated and 5 ḍaʻīf (weak) ḥadīths were found. Ahi Evran did not follow a systematic method in reporting these riwāyas. Sometimes he referred to the Prophet as Mustafa to indicate these were ḥadīths, and at times he narrated them in poems without stating that they are ḥadīths, which insinuates that he was not systematically educated about ḥadīths.When the resources of the 48 riwāyas are examined, it is seen that they had been written in Al-Ghazālī's Iḥyā′ 'Ulūm al-Dīn by 17%. When we add 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudair’s al-Risala al-Qushayriyya by 4%, Abu Talib al-Makki’s Qut al-Qulub by 9% and other sufistic works by 11%, it is obvious that a remarkable part does not consist of ḥadīth resources. It can be said that most of the problematic riwāyas in the book were from this 41% of sufistic books. Therefore, it can be stated that Ahi Evran’s report from sufistic scholars is due to his trust in them. When especially problematic ones are analysed among these riwāyas, it is seen that there are transfers about basic doctrines of Sufism. Here, it is observed that the riwāya “I was a Hidden Treasure; I loved to be known, so I created the creation in order to be known”, which also reflects the sufis’ approach towards creation of humanity, is repeated several times. Another riwāya expressing the sufistic approach about creation “Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe” is also in this work. Similarly, other riwāyas stating that Allah created the Prophet Muhammad for Himself, and all other creation thanks to himself are considered products of the same approach. Apart from these, reports such as the riwāya “Love for this world is the root of all evil”, which forms the sufis’ world view, the riwāya “The scholars of my ummah are like the Prophets of other ummahs” to refer to their sheikhs, and the hopeful riwāyas such as “My mercy prevails over my wrath” reflect sufistic perspectives.Though Ahi Evran wrote his books in Persian, he noted many words in Arabic. Among these, there are words of famous Sufis, idiomatic expressions and ḥadīth texts. As ḥadīth texts are not noted, it is really difficult to identify them in the book. Ahi Evran is seen to hardly use hadith terminology, and to use some terms in accordance with their literal meanings. To illustrate, he uses the word sunnah both as the sunnah of the Prophet, and pursuant to its literal meaning used in Qur’an which means eternal sunnah. In conclusion, it is seen that Ahi Evran did not act studiously like a muhaddith. He did clipping in most of the ḥadīths he reported, and took only the relevant parts. He noted either the ḥadīth texts or most of the information about other scholars in Arabic. It is understood that he did not point out that he would report a ḥadīth, and when he did, there was no unity of method. Like he did in the verses, it is observed that he made mystical interpretations for ḥadīths. When the sources from which he took the ḥadīths are examined, it is seen that sufistic works stand out. When the riwāya in the book are examined for authenticity, it is understood that there are ḥadīths from different authenticity levels, which is parallel to other works with similar content.