Özet:

Bukharī and Muslim received authentic ḥadiths in their books. The narrators should be just and keep the records in order for the narration to be authentic. It is well-known that Bukharī was more sensitive compared to Muslim about these issues. The narrators who narrated a ḥadith are considered to be just and zâbıt if Bukharī and Muslim received that ḥadith in their books. al-Ḏh̲ahabī claims that Bukharī and Muslim included ḥadiths in their books from narrators who were criticized. ʾİḥtijāj means including the narration of the narrator as it is, not as a related appendage and parallesilism. As al-Ḏh̲ahabī stated, the narrations of Bukharī and Muslim from the criticized narrators are mostly in the form of parallesilism. In this study, the narrators for whom al-Ḏh̲ahabī used the phrase ’ihtajja bihī şhaykhayn were examined, brief biographies of these narrators were presented, and the narrations of these narrators in Sahîhayn were investigated. al-Ḏh̲ahabī's judgment on the subject was also examined, and it was tried to determine whether the narration was used for parallesilism or ʾiḥtijāj. In this study, it was found that al-Ḏh̲ahabī used the word ʾiḥtijāj for a total of narrators. In nine of them, al-Ḏh̲ahabī concluded that Şhaykhayn (Bukharī and Muslim) included then in their books with the intention of ʾiḥtijāj. One of these is as al-Ḏh̲ahabī concluded. However, six of them were mentioned with the intention of istişhâd and mutabaat, not with the intention of ʾiḥtijāj. Muslim included the remaining two with the intention of ʾİḥtijāj, while Bukharī included them with the intention of parallesilism. al-Ḏh̲ahabī concluded that Bukharī included 5 narrators in his book with the intention of ʾİḥtijāj. As al-Ḏh̲ahabī concluded, Bukharī included one of these narrators in his book with the intention of ʾİḥtijāj, but this is not correct for the other four narrators. On the other hand, al-Ḏh̲ahabī concluded that Muslim included 5 narrators in his book with the intention of ʾiḥtijāj. As al-Ḏh̲ahabī concluded, Muslim included two of these narrators in his book with the intention of ʾİḥtijāj, but this is not correct for the other three narrators. It has been found that most of the narrators, which al-Ḏh̲ahabī came up with the conclusion of “Bukharī and Muslim included them in their books with the intention of ʾiḥtijāj”, were included books by Muslim with the intention of ʾiḥtijāj, and by Bukharī with the intention of parallesilism and istişhâd. This is closely related to the evaluation criteria of Bukharī and Muslim. It is a well-known fact that Bukharī is more strict scholar (obsessed) with narrators compared to Muslim. According to the findings of this study, al-Ḏh̲ahabī considered the narrations mentioned in the form of istişhâd and parallesilism as narrating with the intention of ʾİḥtijāj. The reason why he made such a judgment is that the narator's narration is included in Sahîhayn. The ʾiḥtijāj method of al-Ḏh̲ahabī is not different from other scholars. However, it is certain that there is a difference between the method adopted and practice. Actually, this is not very surprising. Because scholars set certain rules about the method to be adopted. Because, they may defy these rules on occasion and provide examples that do not fit into this method. In our opinion, according to al-Ḏh̲ahabī, Bukharī and Muslim's including a ḥadith of a narrator in their books means ta'dil about that narrator. Maybe this is why he used the expression "فلان قفز القنطرة" that this narrator has passed the scales of justice. Zerkeşī also said that Mizzī and al-Ḏh̲ahabī applied this principle.

Anahtar Kelimeler: