Özet:

al-Hidāyah was written by the famous Ḥanafī scholar Burhān al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī. It is one of the most famous and respected texts of the Ḥanafī school. The period of Mutaakhirīn is one of the most popular works of Ḥanafī jurists. It has been used as a textbook in Ḥanafī madrasas for years. It has maintained its reputation to this day. Prominent scholars of the Ḥanafī sect have annotated this work. al-Hidāyah has become a popular and highly reliable work due to Marghīnānī 's scientific power and competence, his handling of the subjects as a whole, and the beauty of his style. In fact, it has been observed that different arrangements have been made in the work, although it adhered to the fiqh systematics of the previous Ḥanafī scholars. It is also notable that the author has different views from other lawyers. However, it is seen that there is some erroneous information in the work. It is possible that these statements were written inadvertently and were incomplete and inaccurate information transfer made by Marghīnānī. In this research, information will be given about how the commentators evaluate the incorrect information in al-Hidāyah. We tried to examine the subject under three headings. Under the first title, errors in worship issues have been identified. These topics include the following sub-headings: 1. The ruling of the ghusl on Friday. 2. The issue of counting the belly as awrah. 3. Prayer at the Kaʿbah. 4. To intend to fast after the time of zawāl. 5. Fasting expiation. 6. The situation of the person who is surrounded in ʿUmrah. 7. The time of slaughter of the imposition sacrifice. 8. The stand in the Muzdalifah. 9. The expression in the animal slaughter section. Under the second title, the errors in the transactions were examined. These topics include the following subheadings: 1. Mut'a marriage. 2. The issue of witnessing breastfeeding. 3. Returning the found property to its owner. 4. The question of testimony upon testimony. 5. The view attributed to Ḥanafī imāms in the testament section. Under the third title, some errors are detected in the ḥadīths that Marghīnānī mentions. Under this title are the following sub-titles: 1. Evaluation of the ḥadīth mentioned in the adhan and imamate. 2. Incorrect name of Abu Dujanah, was mentioned in the funeral prayer. 4. The ḥadīth about the morning prayer in Muzdalifah. 5. The ḥadīth about performing Ḥajj on behalf of someone else. 6. The ḥadīth that is mentioned about the expiation of ẓihār. 7. The ḥadīth mentioned in the section on various issues in the shopping section. 9. The name in the ḥadīth in the will section. In this research, in which some errors in al-Hidāyah are tried to be determined through the commentaries, the text of al-Hidāyah, the commentaries written on it, the critique studies, and other sources related to the mentioned issues examined. First of all, after the expressions in the text were mentioned, it was determined how these expressions were used in other sources, and then the evaluations on the text were conveyed. As a result of the research, it has been seen that the views of al-Imām Mālik and imām al-Shāfiʿī are given a lot of places while the views of the Ḥanafī sect are discussed in al-Hidāyah. The information provided by Marghīnānī about the views of these imāms is generally in accordance with their sectarian sources. However, it has been determined that information is given on some issues, contrary to their opinion or the preferred opinion within the sect. It is also possible that the views of Ḥanafī imāms were confused with the similar views of other madhhab imāms. However, it has also been seen that the disagreement between the imāms of the Ḥanafī school is transmitted like the disagreement between the Ḥanafīs and other imāms. In addition, it can be stated that there are some errors in the ḥadīth mentioned in the work. There are some reasons why Marghīnānī gave incorrect or incomplete information. First of all, it can be claimed that this erroneous information was written by Marghīnānī inadvertently or that it was a copyist error. In addition, it is possible that one of the two views attributed to the imāms was preferred or that non-authentic narrations were used. The fact that difference in terminology between the sects and that some words were used outside of the linguistic meaning can be mentioned among these reasons.

Anahtar Kelimeler: