Ignaz Goldziher’in Ahmed b. Hanbel’in el-Müsned’ine Yönelik İddialarına Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım.

Ignaz Goldziher, the founder of Islamic studies in the West and considered “the spiritual father of the new Islamologists" among Western Islamic scholars, deeply influenced many orientalists with his studies. The scholarly evaluations of Goldziher’s books and articles based on rich sources, to which he is highly regarded in both the West and the East, show that he was overcome by his emotions in many places, that he reached baseless and wrong conclusions, that he tried to force the sources to confirm what he had constructed in his mind, that he selected the material suitable for his axiom, that he generalized too easily, that when he could not find narrations in the historical material to support his thesis, he resorted to intellectual interpretations and distorted the facts. These scholarly analyses reveal that Goldziher ignores evidence that contradicts his own view, tries to prove what he rejects in one place, takes and uses information that suits his purpose even if it is from unreliable sources, disregards evidence that contradicts his opinion, and does not value the opinions of Muslim scholars who contradict his thesis. Therefore, all these findings indicate that Goldziher lost his scholarly objectivity and abandoned scientific research methods. The reason for writing this article is to evaluate Goldziher’s accusations against Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s al-Musnad in his article “Neue Materialien zur Litteratur des Ueberlieferungswesens bei den Muhammadanern (New Materials on the Literature of Narration among Muslims)” published in 1896. As a result of our research, it has been observed that there is no other study that has been critical of Goldziher’s allegations in the aforementioned article, and this article has been written in order to fill this gap and to contribute to the correct introduction of the aforementioned orientalist. The article is limited to analyzing Goldziher’s accusations against al-Musnad. The method of data collection and analysis was used in the study, and various studies on the aforementioned orientalist were also utilized. At the end of the article, it was determined that Goldziher tried to devalue alMusnad by saying that Ibn Hanbal included many ḥadīths with problematic isnads because he was a member of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and that the narrations in al-Musnad had many kussās (religious storytellers) in their isnads. Likewise, despite his son Abdullah’s warning, Ibn Hanbal tried to soften the situation of a kezzāb narrator and tried to discredit al-Musnad by claiming that Bukhārī and Muslim wrote their own books to save the ḥadīths in al-Musnad from the state of sloppiness and that this showed that even at that time the state of trust in the authenticity of ḥadīths was very bad. Goldziher likened al-Musnad to a large pile of rubble consisting of waste materials by claiming that there were too many narrations of those who fabricated ḥadīths to encourage people to worship, ḥadīths of fitnah that were transmitted by naming people, places, and events, and fabricated ḥadīths praising the Umayyads and Abbasids, and that if this difficult obstacle could be overcome, some valuable pieces of information could be reached, thus undermining the reputation of al-Musnad. It is concluded that Goldziher’s interpretation of Abdullah ibn Ahmad’s statement after the narrations recommending the writing of ḥadīths as “creating a counterweight to the narrations in al-Musnad that prohibit the writing of ḥadīths” and “legitimizing the reasons for the existence of compilations such as musnad” is both a reading of intentions and a way of presenting his assumptions as absolute truths. In sum, it is concluded that Goldziher’s approach to Ibn Hanbal’s al-Musnad is not positive, that he aims to raise doubts about this main source of ḥadīth, and that he continues his extreme skeptical attitude towards ḥadīth in this article [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]