%0 Journal Article
%T Determination of Medina £¿aram Region: A Disputed Narration in £¿a£¿¨©£¿ al-Bukh¨¡r¨©
%A Tahir Ayas
%J -
%D 2018
%X Some prophetic traditions (£¿ad¨©th) express that Medina is a £¿aram region, similar to Mecca. A majority of them do not specify the boundaries of Medina¡¯s £¿aram region, citing only geographical formations like mountains and stony areas. According to a tradition in the £¿a£¿¨©fa of ¡®Ali b. Ab¨± £¿¨¡lib, however, £¿Ayr/£¿¨¡£¿ir and Thawr Mountains were clearly determined as the north-south boundaries of the region. This tradition has been criticized since the early period on the basis that Thawr Mountain was unknown to the inhabitants of Medina. Moreover, it was also argued that a particular part of the tradition ¡ª the part that contains Thawr Mountain ¡ª was added as a result of the transmitter¡¯s delusions. Al-Q¨¡sim ibn Sall¨¡m and other scholars found the mention of Thawr in the tradition to be unsound, given the details that the inhabitants of the city did not know about the mountain. It has been argued that, influenced by the criticism, some transmitters and scholars categorizing the tradition made some changes to the relevant parts of the tradition. Al-Bukh¨¡r¨© and his work, al-J¨¡mi£¿ al-£¿a£¿¨©£¿, stand at the center of criticism. This article aims to examine criticism addressed to the transmitters of the tradition that determines the boundaries as £¿Ayr and Thawr as well as to al-Bukh¨¡r¨© who included this tradition in his collection. It also hopes to locate the reflections of initial critiques on the tradition¡¯s text. Therefore, it aims at underlining the fact that, aside from certain (un)intended additions to the tradition¡¯s texts, some additions may have been intended to compensate for critiques of the texts. First, the article explores whether the mountains £¿Ayr and Thawr actually exist in Medina based on geographic sources and studies of the city of Medina. Indeed, we understand that two small mountains do exist ¡ª one of them is to the south of the city with the name £¿Ayr and the second one stands behind Mount Uhud, named Thawr. Then the article outlines the scholars who criticized the tradition and their arguments in chronological order. These critiques could be due to several factors, including the small size of Thawr, the reputation of Mount Uhud and the existence of another small mountain named Thawr in Mecca. These scholars¡¯ suggestion that the mountain mentioned is Mount Uhud instead of Thawr does not seem to be accurate, due to the fact that the transmission has flaws in its isn¨¡d; it does not appear in the sound collections of prophetic traditions and it remains marginal to other transmissions. When we compare all the chains of transmissions, including the
%K Medine
%K Sevr da£¿£¿
%K Buhar£¿
%K el-Camiu¡¯s-sah£¿h
%K hadis tenkidi
%K ravi tasarrufu
%U http://dergipark.org.tr/isad/issue/39495/459754