Özet:

The Indian ḥadith narrator and the Islamic jurist ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī is an Islamic scholar who led the movement of the return to the main sources of the religion during the invasion of the Indian subcontinent by the British control and wrote like 120 works in different knowledge branches Laknawī in particular specialized himself in terms of obtaining judgments from evidence and was engaged in the science of Fiqh al-Ḥadith and Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadith. On the other hand, his applications related to settling the dispute considered between the evidence while achieving a judgment are present.In this study, the method followed by Leknawi when making a judgment on a subject was examined, and his approach to the science of Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadith, which has gained a separate place for itself with the formation of the science of ḥadith and has an important position in understanding, interpreting and obtaining judgments from ḥadith, has been tried to be evaluated. This evaluation is related to the work of Laknawī named Imām al-kalām fīmā yataallaq bi al-qirāa khalf al-imām in which the examined whether or not the congregation that obeys the imām must recite or not. Laknawī examined the verses and ḥadiths that were taken as evidence in his treatise and the interpretations for the understanding of these evidences and reached a conclusion by answering the objections. Therefore, the study aims to give an idea about the method and application Laknawī followed in eliminating the contradiction among ḥadiths. Laknawī, acting separately from Ḥanafīs, said that it would be correct to follow the methods of gathering, preferring and abrogation, respectively, in order to resolve the conflict between the evidences. According to him, the fact that a scholar cannot perform a gathering of seemingly contradictory narrations does not mean that another scholar cannot do it. In the same way, there is a contrary attitude towards accepting the plurality of narrators and ṭuruq as an absolute reason for preference. Laknawī thinks that the multiplicity of narrators and ṭuruq are the criteria to be respected after determining their authenticity in his two contradictory ḥādīth. Because a ḥadith can be weak even though it has many narrators and ṭuruq. The disagreement about whether the congregation will recite behind the imām, which is the subject of the article, has been shaped within the framework of whether the imām's recitation is sufficient for the congregation. In particular, the Shāfiʿīs have raised various objections, such as the unwellness of the narrations that Ḥanafīs take as evidence, the fact that Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is not considered a thiqat, and that the Prophet absolutely ordered the al-Fātiḥa to be recited in the prayer. Laknawī responded to all these objections based on the views of Ḥanafī scholars and adding his own evaluations. Laknawī, contrary to the general view of the Ḥanafī sect to which he is affiliated, is of the opinion that it would be nice for the muqtaḍī to recite the recital in the loud prayers when the imām interrupts, based on Imām Muḥammad's permissibility for the muqtaḍī recitation in silent prayers. Because Laknawī does not distinguish between silent and loud prayers. Many of the muḥaddiths agree with him on this issue. The reason for Laknawī's preference for this view can be cited as the fact that there are many conflicts in both essentials and branches issues and he thinks that it is more prudent to prefer the words of the muḥaddiths during these conflicts. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: