Shunday qilib, U zann asosida e'tiqodda ergashishdan keyin yuz beradigan adashishni kufr deb belgilagan. Demak, bu oyatning mavzusi aqoid ekanligini ko'rsatadi. Boshqa jihatdan, Rasulullah ﷺ yakka xabar bilan hukm chiqarganligi isbotlangan. Uning davrida musulmonlar shar'iy hukmni yakka xabar (Xabar al-Ahad) orqali qabul qilar edilar va u ﷺ buni ma'qullagan. Shunday ekan, Rasulullah ﷺ hadisi bu oyatlarni shar'iy hukmdan boshqa narsada, ya'ni aqoidda tahsis qilgan. Shuning uchun, ba'zi oyatlar umumiy (ʼAmm) shaklda bo'lishi nazarda tutilib, Rasulullah ﷺ hadisi shar'iy hukmni oyatlardan chiqarib tashlagan.
So He defined the Dhalal as Kufr, which happens after following conjecture (Zann) in belief. Thus, this indicates that the subject matter of the ayat is the ‘Aqa’id. From another angle, it has been established that the Messenger judged using the solitary report. In his time, the Muslims accepted the Hukm Shar’i by the solitary report (Khabar al-Ahad) and he accepted that. Thus the Hadith of the Messenger specified these verses in other than Hukm Shar’i i.e. in the Aqa’id. Therefore, the Hadith of the Messenger excluded Hukm Shar’i from the verses on the assumption that some of the verses are general (‘Aamm) in form.
Payg'ambar ﷺ ning yakka elchilarni hukmdorlarga va yakka xabarchilarni o'z 'amillariga yuborgani, shuningdek, sahobalarning Shariat hukmini – (Ka'baga yuzlanish) buyrug'ini, spirtli ichimliklarni taqiqlash buyrug'ini, Payg'ambar ﷺ ning 'Aliyni odamlarga "Tavba" surasini o'qib berish uchun yuborgani va boshqa shu kabilarni – xabar qilishda bitta kishining so'zini qabul qilgani rivoyat qilingan. Bu aqidada xabari ahad qabul qilinganini emas, balki da'vatni (tabligh) yetkazishda, shariat hukmlarini yetkazishda yoki Islomning o'zini yetkazishda xabari ahadning qabul qilinganini ko'rsatadi. Islomning xabarini qabul qilish aqidani qabul qilish deb da'vo qilinmasligi kerak. Chunki Islomning xabarini qabul qilish xabarni qabul qilishdir, aqidani qabul qilish emas. Buning dalili shuki, kendisiga xabar yetkazilgan kishi o'ziga yetgan narsa haqida aqlidan foydalanishi kerak. Agar unga bu narsa uchun aniq dalil o'rnatilsa, unga iymon keltirishi kerak va agar unga inkor qilsa, hisobga tortiladi. Shunday ekan, Islom haqidagi xabarni rad etish kufr hisoblanmaydi, balki unga aniq dalil o'rnatilgan Islomni rad etish kufr hisoblanadi. Demak, Islomni yetkazish aqidaning bir qismi hisoblanmaydi. Yakka kishining xabarini yetkazishda qabul qilish borasida ixtilof yo'q. Barcha rivoyat qilingan voqealar tarqatilgan xabar Islomni, Qur'onni yoki hukmlarni yetkazish bo'lganini ko'rsatadi. Aqidani yetkazishga kelsak, uni yakka xabardan keltirib chiqarish uchun dalil yo'q.
As for what has been reported about the Prophet that he sent single envoys to the rulers and single messengers to his 'Amils and what has been reported that the Sahabah used to accept the saying of a single Messenger in informing them of the Sharī’ah rule such as (the order to) face the Ka'ba, the order prohibiting alcohol, the Messenger's sending of 'Ali to the people to read to them sura 'al-Tawba' and so on. This does not indicate the acceptance of the khabar al-ahad in ‘aqīdah but the acceptance of khabar al-ahad in conveing (tabligh) the Dawah, whether in conveying the Sharī’ah rules or conveying Islam itself. It should not be claimed that accepting the conveyance of the message of Islam is a conveyance of the ‘aqīdah. Since accepting the conveyance of Islam is an acceptance of a report and not the acceptance of ‘aqīdah. As evidenced by the fact that the one to whom a report is conveyed must use his intellect regarding that which has reached him. If decisive evidence is established for him upon it, he should believe in it and he will be accounted if he disbelieves in it. Thus, the rejection of a report about Islam is not considered kufr, but the rejection of Islam for which the decisive evidence has been established for him is what is considered to be an act of kufr. Therefore, conveying Islam is not considered part of ‘aqīdah. There is no dispute about the acceptance of a report of a single person in conveyance. All the reported incidents indicate that spreading the message constituted either the conveyance of Islam, Qur’ān or the rules. As for the conveyance of ‘aqīdah, there is no evidence for educing it from the khabar al-ahad.
Shuning uchun aqidaning dalillari qat'iy, ya'ni aniq dalil bo'lishi kerak. Chunki aqida qat'iy va hal qiluvchi (aniq) narsadir. U qat'iy dalildan kelib chiqmasa, qat'iy va hal qiluvchi bo'lmaydi. Demak, dalil Qur'on yoki ma'nosi qat'iy bo'lgan mutavotir hadis bo'lishi kerak. Ikkalasi ham ma'no jihatidan qat'iy bo'lishi lozim. U aqidada ham, shariat hukmlarida ham qabul qilinishi kerak. Uni rad etgan kishi, shuningdek, u ko'rsatayotgan narsani, ya'ni e'tiqod bo'lsin yoki shariat hukmi bo'lsin, inkor etgan kishi kufrda ayblanadi.
Therefore, the evidence of the ‘aqīdah must be certain, i.e, definite evidence. Because the ‘aqīdah is definitive and decisive. It is not definitive or decisive unless derived from definite evidence. Therefore, the evidence must be Qur’ān or Hadith mutawatir such that both are definite in meaning. It has to be taken in ‘aqīdah and Sharī’ah rules. The one who rejects it is charged with kufr as well as the one who denies what it indicates, whether it is a belief or a Sharī’ah rule.
Agar dalil yakka rivoyat (Xabar al-Ahad) asosida bo‘lsa, u holda u qat’iy bo‘lmaydi. Agar u sahih bo‘lsa, u yuqori ehtimollikni ko‘rsatadi va u olib kelgan aqidalar (‘Aqa’id) zanniy, ya’ni taxminiy deb qabul qilinadi, qat’iy deb emas. Bunday aqidalarga e’tiqod qilish joiz emas, chunki ular qat’iy emas. Sababi, aqida qat’iylik va aniqlik masalasidir, yakka rivoyat (Xabar al-Ahad) esa faqat ehtimollikni bildiradi. Yakka rivoyatni rad etgan kishi kofir hisoblanmaydi. Biroq uni yolg‘onga chiqarish joiz emas, chunki agar uni yolg‘onga chiqarish ruxsat etilganda, zanniy dalillardan chiqarilgan barcha shar’iy hukmlarni ham yolg‘onga chiqarish ruxsat etilgan bo‘lar edi, bu esa musulmonlar hech qachon gapirmagan masaladir.
However, if the evidence is based on a solitary report (Khabar al-Ahad), then it would not be definite (Qat’i). If it is sound (Sahih) then it would indicate high probability and the creed (‘Aqa’id) brought by it would be accepted as speculative, but not as definite. It is not permitted to believe in such ‘Aqa’id as it would not be decisive. This is because ‘aqīdah is a matter of decisiveness and certainity, while the solitary report (Khabar al-Ahad) only indicates probability. The one who rejects the solitary report (Khabar al-Ahad) is not considered a Kafir. However it is not allowed to belie it because if it was allowed to belie it then it would be allowed to belie all the Ahkam Sharī’ah inferred from the speculative (zanni) evidences, a matter of which no Muslims ever talked about.
Ushbu masalada Xabar al-ahad Qur’on kabidir. Qur’on Ummatga tavotur (ko‘p ravoyatlar orqali uzluksiz naql qilinish) yo‘li bilan yetib kelgan, shuning uchun musulmonlar bunga iymon keltirishlari shart va buni inkor qilgan kishi kofir hisoblanadi. Biroq Xabar al-ahad orqali naql qilingan Qur’on oyatlari Qur’ondan hisoblanmaydi va ularga iymon keltirish ham majburiy emas. Garchi bu oyatlar Qur’on sifatida naql qilingan bo‘lsa-da, ular yakka xabar (Xabar al-ahad) orqali yetib kelgan va bu ularning Qur’ondan ekanligini inkor qiladi, shuning uchun ularga iymon keltirish majburiyati ham bekor bo‘ladi. Bu xuddi shunday, sözde oyat kabidir.
In this matter, Khabar al-Ahad is like the Qur’ān. The Qur’ān was delivered to the Ummah by Tawatur (recurrent narration), so the Muslims must believe in this and whoever denies this is considered a Kafir. However those Ayahs of the Qur’ān narrated through Khabar al-Ahad are not considered as being from the Qur’ān nor must we believe in them. Though these Ayahs were narrated as Qur’ān, they were narrated through solitary report (Khabar al-Ahad) and this negates their validity of them being from the Qur’ān and therefore negates the obligation of believing in them. This is like the so-called ayah