Özet:

After passing away of the Prophet of Islam, the need for ḥadīth and sunna, which is the second-degree source in Islam, was began to be occured intensely in determining the decisions (aḥkām) of the religious issues. Besides, the dissension events that took place in the Islamic society during Ali's caliphate led to start of the ḥadīth fabrication movement. These two main reasons paved the way forthe emergence of initiatives to develop methods of obtaining reliable and accurate information/report (khabar). Because the reliability and accuracy of the report is the most important element that ensures the Islamic thought, belief (īmān) and action (‘amal) structure to based on sound foundations. The precision shown on this issue has given rise to a theory of khabar exclusive to Islamic Literature. The Muḥaddiths (expert on hadith) made important contributions to this theory as isnād system (chains of transmission of the hadiths) that is developed during the identification, compilation and classification process of the ḥadīths. The Muḥaddiths, whose main purpose is to determine ḥadīths’ certainty and whether they belong to the Prophet or not, built the science of “Mustalah al-Ḥadīth” (the Classification of Ḥadīth). The Muhaddiths classified the hadiths in this science by certainity of them via connection to the Prophet, they divided the hadiths in to ṣaḥīḥ (authentic), ḥasan (good), ḍa`īf (weak) and sub-sections. Fiqh scholars and Kalām theologians, on the other hand, accepted this division of muhaddiths, but they took a different approach due to their aims and made the distinction between mutawātir (successive) and āḥād (singular) hadiths based on the ḥujjat (evident) and informational values of the reports. Because for them, a report has a valueif it has the features that can be used as evidence in belief (īmān) and action (‘amal). The Muḥaddiths did not consider the distinction between mutawātir and āḥād among the subjects of ʻilm al-ḥadīth' (the science of ḥadīth), on the grounds that it was not suitable for their scientific purposes. However, starting with al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, one of the fifth century muhaddiths, some of them adopted the distinction between mutawātir and āḥād. Āḥād reports, which constitutes the majority of the ḥadīth narrations, has been the most discussional type of the reports its definition, informational values and depending on these being ḥujjat, due to the differences in the purposes and methods of Islamic sciences. According to our findings in this study, the intersection of the number of narrators expressed with out being limited as “one and more than one” in āḥād report and the minimum number of five specified for mutawātir report is one of the reasons for the emergence of different opinions. Another reason is the definition of "report that does not meet the requirements of mutawātir", which is dependent on mutawātir and does not adequately reflect its own characteristics. This situation has brought up the issue of relativity to a great extent about the definitions of the other report types, especially āḥād report, and about the values of ḥujjat. Although our subject is here "being ḥujjat (evident) of āḥād report", it has therefore become necessary to explain the features of mutawātir, mashūr and mustafidh (famous and popular) reports related to āḥād reports in a minimum level. Because, by comparing āḥād report with other types of reports, the nature of āḥād report and its status as evidence will be better understood. IbnḤazm, the leading name of Ẓāhirī understanding (a Sunnī school) argued that the absolute truthful āḥād report corresponds the knowledge. Although according to common acceptance, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, who is accepted as the representative of the ḥadīth school, accepted āḥād report indicating as the knowledge, but some Ḥanbalī uṣūl scholars have calimed that for Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal āḥād report indicates just zann (suspicion). Additionally, kalām theologians, fiqh scholars and some ḥadīth scholars also agree that āḥād report generally corresponds zann. However, it seems that the majority of those who hold this view accepted that the āḥād report corresponds discur inductive knowledge if it has some supporting power factors such as being “talakki'l-umma bi'l-kabûl”, “muttafakun alaih” (agreed upon) or being "qarīna". This knowledge, on the other hand, is one of the types of knowledge that mutawātir report corresponds. This is a feature revealed by the element of relativity regarding the definitions and information values of the reports. At the end of the study, by the given comparative views of a group of leading muhaddiths, jurists and theologians about āḥād and other types of report will be confirmed these findings of this study.

Anahtar Kelimeler: