EPISTEMOLOGI STUDI HADIS KONTEMPORER KESARJANAAN MUSLIM DAN BARAT (STUDI KOMPARATIF ANTARA HARALD MOTZKI DAN IFTIKHAR ZAMAN)

Lutfi Rahmatullah, NIM.: 20300011052 (2024) EPISTEMOLOGI STUDI HADIS KONTEMPORER KESARJANAAN MUSLIM DAN BARAT (STUDI KOMPARATIF ANTARA HARALD MOTZKI DAN IFTIKHAR ZAMAN). Doctoral thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (EPISTEMOLOGI STUDI HADIS KONTEMPORER KESARJANAAN MUSLIM DAN BARAT (STUDI KOMPARATIF ANTARA HARALD MOTZKI DAN IFTIKHAR ZAMAN)) 20300011052_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (7MB) | Preview
	Text (EPISTEMOLOGI STUDI HADIS KONTEMPORER KESARJANAAN MUSLIM DAN BARAT (STUDI KOMPARATIF ANTARA HARALD MOTZKI DAN IFTIKHAR ZAMAN)) 20300011052_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (22MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Contemporary hadith studies are distinguished by the dynamics of discourse on hadith studies that emerge in two distinct spheres, Muslim and Western scholars. Each of these areas have produced epistemological structures that do not complement one another and frequently come into conflict. Despite the fact that the hadith material examined is the same, their orientations and techniques of development differ. Communication gaps frequently occur, and it is not unusual for one group to refuse to accept the presence of another. The question therefore becomes how to develop a hadith epistemology capable of serving as a bridge between the two paradigms of hadith thinking mentioned above, allowing the standstill in scientific discussion that has happened so far to be resolved. There will be no more intellectual cynicism based on the assumption that each other is not capable of being scientific. The academic issues raised above inspired the author to delve further into the ideas of Harald Motzki-Germany (1948-2019) and Iftikhar Zaman-Pakistan (1960-...) in the study of hadith. The epistemological building developed by both of them is significant enough to be synergized into a form of creative synthesis that is expected to give birth to the epistemological structure of contemporary hadith studies and create a deadlock in the communication and scientific dialogue by producing an engagement between two groups of hadith scholarship that is based on assumptions and testing methods that is acceptable to both parties. This dissertation's problem formulation takes the form of a series of questions. First, how has the structure of hadith studies evolved in Muslim intellectual traditions (Muslim scholars) and Western scholars? Why does this dichotomy result in different academic traditions in the realm of hadith studies while the material object under investigation is the same? Second, what are Harald Motzki and Iftikhar Zaman’s fundamental/core concepts (primary ideas) in hadith studies? Third, what is the epistemological framework of hadith studies as represented by these two scholars from distinct academic traditions? Fourth, what are the consequences of Harald Motzki and Iftikhar Zaman’s ideas for the advancement of contemporary hadith studies? The author applies the analytical-comparative technique to link ideas, clarify the breadth of possibilities, and emphasize shared ground of thinking while preserving and clarifying existing disparities. Epistemology and the history of ideas serve as a theoretical framework for identifying basic (fundamental) beliefs about the topic of the problem under study. The historical-philosophical approach to the genetic structuralism model is important in this study. The author takes a historical method to tracing all of the foundations of thinking, revealing a framework of diversity, change, and continuity. Meanwhile, a philosophical method is employed to show the fundamental structure of the two persons' views, despite their disparate socio-cultural origins. Several results drawn from this research demonstrate that: first, the disparities in hadith study traditions between Muslim and Western scholars are related to variances in epistemological frameworks developed in each location. The most basic distinction is epistemology, which has an impact on every facet of the evolving scientific architecture. The intellectual effort of Muslim and Western academics has formed the heart of hadith studies, resulting in epistemological grounds that frequently contradict. The two academic traditions’ epistemological structures differ in terms of bibliographic corpus, assumptions, analytical methods, and terminology. Secondly, Motzki and Zaman's thoughts on the study of hadith represent their essential principles. Motzki’s key concepts are framed in the logic of showing the authenticity of hadith, whereas Zaman depends on the link between the variety of isna>d (the act of relating the chain of narration) and the diversity of matn (the text), created via the theory of the science of rija>l . Third, the epistemological framework of Motzki’s hadith studies belong to the paradigmatic group, which corresponds to traditionalist middle ground. The reference source is Mus}annaf ‘Abdul Razza>q, while the historical method relies on biographical literature. Motzki also employed the historical critical method, which combines form with redaction criticism. Meanwhile, Motzki’s theoretical framework is based on dating (when, who, and where) and a sanad (the chain of narration) and matn calendar pattern. Meanwhile, Zaman established an epistemological framework that indicates an interaction effort between two schools of thought: the classical heritage of hadith studies and the Western historical critical tradition. Zaman provided a novel interpretation of the common link theory, which was integrated with other Western academic ideas to explain the presence of isna>d routes by which matn versions are narrated. The study of rija>l theory was primarily developed to determine which transmitters were the most skilful and meticulous in preserving and transmitting hadith. Although the hadith is not explicitly dated, the resources offered by the notion of the science of rija>l allow us to identify when, where, and by whom the hadith was widely spread. Fourth, the implications of the thoughts of Motzki and Zaman on the development of hadith studies can be recognized, first, by means of investigation. These two scholars were able to shift the direction or basic assumptions that had previously believed by Western academics, who oftentimes disputing the reliability of the sunnah or hadith, to be something whose validity can be academically proven. Second, it demonstrates the relationship between Muslim and Western scholarship, particularly in hadith studies; they are not all mutually exclusive. Third, through this relatively recent research, Motzki and Zaman have produced new achievements in current hadith studies, inspiring future scholars. In general, this style of inquiry is rare among Muslim and Western academics since Western researchers base their studies on fundamental skepticism, making them hesitant to draw inferences from extant classical literature. It contrasts with Motzki, who used a traditional-historical technique to date the content from the book Mus}annaf ‘Abdul Razza>q, demonstrating the legitimacy of classical literary material. Meanwhile, Zaman proposed a theory that offered a new and more significant meaning to numerous classical literatures via a Western lens, which had previously questioned the information in transmission mechanism included in the hadith’s chain of narration.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item