Aynī's method of interpretation in ʿUmda al-Qārī regarding the hadīths by which Hanafīs did not act

The Hanafīs, since the first periods of the sect, were accused of abandoning the authentic hadīths (ṣaḥīḥ) and performing with weak hadīths (ḍaʿīf) and preferring a personal opinion (ra'y) and syllogism (qiyās) rather than hadīths. The fact that the Hanafīs did not act with the hadīths in Bukhārī's Ṣaḥīḥ that was considered to be the most authentic book after the Qur'ān, was one of the principal reasons of these allegations and became a serious cause of criticism for them. Since have been interlocutor to these criticisms, some Hanafī scholars tried to defend their sect with all their efforts to prove the invalidity of the allegations. One of these Hanafī scholars is Aynī, who came into prominence in the fields of hadīth and jurisprudence and served twice as chief justice. Aynī wrote a rather voluminous commentary that is called ʿUmda al-qārī for Ṣaḥīḥ. In this commentary, he evaluated the hadīths as multidimensional. Moreover, in this commentary, in which the Hanafī point of view dominates, Aynī attached importance on the interpretation of hadīths that Hanafīs did not use and stated the valid reasons why the Hanafīs did not act with these hadīths. In the first part of the study, the life, scientific personality and works of Aynī were presented and then the hadīth methodology of the Hanafīs was given in a short and explanatory way with the aim of providing a more comprehensive understanding regarding the jurisprudence dimension of the study. In the second which is the essential part of the study, Aynī's the method of interpretation of the hadīths that are found in Bukhārī but not acted by Hanafīs, was emphasized. In this regard, within the framework of Aynī's interpretations, it was observed that the Hanafīs follow some of the criteria and quits some hadīths because of their incompatibility with these criteria. These criteria are presented under the headings of the study and the hadīths evaluated with these criteria are examined under the related title. As a result, despite some of the hadīths of Bukhārī, it was determined that the Hanafīs acted with other hadīths that correspond to their own criteria. However, it has been concluded that the criticisms that the Hanafīs did not properly incorporate the hadīths into the jurisprudential provisions are unfair allegations.