Özet:

The first aim of this article is to determine whether the fact that a ḥadīth which is accepted valid according to the criteria of narration does not express the same meaning according to fuḳahāʾ is valid in the scale of Ṣaḥīḥāyn or not; if it is valid, whether such narrations which are not in force reach a meaningful number or not. We also investigated whether disregarded narrations reach a significant number. In the investigation carried out in the parts of Kitāb al-Ṭahāra of the Ṣaḥīḥāyn, the existence of narrations that have the aforementioned characteristics was determined, and the approaches of Buk̲h̲ārī and Muslim were tried to be comparatively set forth with both the classification methods of both authors and the commentaries. Seven narrations or narrations groups that are available in the Ṣaḥīḥāyn but are not put into practice by three schools of Islamic jurisprudence have been identified. Almost all of these take place in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, while Ṣaḥīḥ al- Buk̲h̲ārī includes only three of them. From their perspective on these seven narrated groups, it was concluded that it would be more appropriate to see Muslim, not Buk̲h̲ārī, as the representative of Ahl al- ḥadīth school that generally approaches ḥadīths literally. The study also provides examples of the fact that it is wrong to generalize with phrases like Ahl al- ḥadīth in expressing an opinion or judgment. Certainly studying this topic separately to include the whole Ṣaḥīḥāyn will yield healthier results.

Anahtar Kelimeler: