Özet:

Mursal ḥadīth in the eyes of ḥadīth scholars; is defined as the ḥadīth conveyed by tābiʿīn from the Prophet. On the other hand, methodology scholars, unlike ḥadīth scholars, used the term mursal for ḥadīth with interruption (inqitā‘) in its narration chain. Considering their recipe; It is understood that Ḥadīth such as mu‘ḍal and muʿallaḳ, which have an interruption (inqitā‘) found in their narration chain, are also evaluated under the term mursal. As a matter of fact, when the ḥadīth that methodology scholars call mursal is examined, it is seen that this term is not used only for the ḥadīth narrated by tabiin from the Prophet. In fact, the attribution of the ḥadīth to the Prophet by a narrator from tabe-i tābiʿīn or another stratum is also called mursal. Ḥadīth scholars have accepted the mursal ḥadīth as weak due to the interruption (inqiṭā') found in its narration chain and stated that it is not suitable for being proof. It is seen that methodology scholars follow a different path regarding the mursal ḥadīth. In our study, the Ḥanafī sect's approach to mursal ḥadīth was questioned and the arguments of Ḥanafī methodology scholars about the evidence of mursal ḥadīth were examined. In this study, first of all, the mursal ḥadīth approach of Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) was tried to be determined. Then the approach of Ḥanafī methodology scholars, especially ʿĪsā b. Abān (d. 221/836), Abū’l-Ḥasan al-Karkhī (d. 340/952), Caṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981), Dabūsī (d. 430/1039), Bazdawī (d. 482/1089) and Saraḫsī (d. 483/1090) on this issue has been tried to be revealed. As a result of the research, some methodology scholars accepted the mursal rumors of scholars with scientific depth and competence; It has been determined that people who do not have the competence stated that the mursal rumors should be rejected. In addition, among the scholars of Ḥanafī methodology, there are scholars who see the mursal ḥadīth as stronger than the musnad ḥadīth and thus prioritize the musnad Ḥadīth over the mursal Ḥadīth. Because, according to them, the person who narrates Ḥadīth as mursal assumes the credibility of the person whose name he has not mentioned. The person who narrated the Ḥadīth in a consistent (mursal reports) left it up to the researcher to determine whether the narrator is reliable or not. In our study, Imam Mālik's approach to mursal hadit was examined and two different narrations about whether he accepted the mursal ḥadīth or not were discussed. While some said that he accepted the mursal ḥadīth as a proof, others argued that he did not consider the mursal ḥadīth suitable to be used as an evidence. For this reason, we have tried to determine which claim is true in practice, taking into account the work of Imam Mālik called al-Muwaṭṭaʾ. Then, the approach of the Mālikī methodology scholars to the mursal ḥadīth has been put forward and it has been tried to determine what criteria they base on the as an evidence of the mursal ḥadīth. Majority of Mālikī methodology scholars said that if the narrator was reliable, the rumor he conveyed as mursal would be accepted. Although as an evidence the mursal ḥadīth is accepted in the Mālikī sect, it should be noted that there are also a number of different views. Because scholars such as Abū l-Faraj ʿAmr b. Muḥammad al-Mālikī (d. 330/941) and Abū Bakr al-Abharī (d. 375/986) from Mālikī methodology scholars that there is no difference between mursal Ḥadīth and musnad Ḥadīth in terms of evidence; some scholars such as Abū Isḥāq Ismāʿīl al-Baṣrī (d. 282/895) and Abū Bakr b. Cahm (d. 329/940) stated that the Ḥadīth scholars could not be taken as an evidence. In addition, there are those who prioritize the mursal ḥadīth to the musnad ḥadīth, and stipulate a different set of criteria. Scholars of methodology expressed their views on ḥadīth mostly in the works they wrote about legal methodology scholars. For this reason, it is seen that they generally share their thoughts on the subject in the chapters titled "Kıtābu’l-Aḫbār". As a matter of fact, in the works of fıḳḥ, it is observed that many issues related to ḥadīth methodology are handled and examined under such headings. Scientific studies in our country on the approaches of methodology scholars to ḥadīth and the sunna have not reached the desired level yet. For this reason, in our study, the approach of Ḥanafī and Mālikī methodology scholars to the mursal ḥadīth has been tried to be discussed with the main lines.

Anahtar Kelimeler: