Özet:

The researchers, who study on periodization on the Ja‘fari methodology, divided the history of the Ja‘fari methodology into periods, considering certain criteria and prominent names. According to the evaluations by some researchers of the history of the methodology, The Bihbihānī period, which we have settled as the subject of this article, covers the time between the term of Wahid Al Bihbihānī (d. 1205/1791) and Sheikh Murtadha Al Ansari (d. 1281/1864). Works of Sheikh Murtadha Al Ansari are not among the sources of this article because he is accepted as the initiator of a new era due to the innovations he brought to the discipline of methodology. It is accepted that the Bihbihānī period is a term in which the influence of Ak̲h̲bāriyya went down and Uṣūliyya became dominant. Among the most significant issues of this period are the role of the reason in understanding the religious (shar’i) judgement, the value of conjectural (zanni) knowledge in fiqh, the validity of khabar al-wahid, the possibility of ijtihad. These were also the subjects of heated debates between Ak̲h̲bāriyya and Uṣūliyya. The foremost methodologists of this period were Wahid Al Bihbihānī, Mohammad Mahdi Al Naraqi, Mohsin Al Aʻraji Qashifulgita, Mirdha Al Qummi, Mohammad Taqi Al Isfahani, Mohammad Husain Al Hairi Al Isfahani, Ahmad Al Naraqi and Abraham Al Qazwini. The works of the aforementioned scholars have are the primary source of this article. In the methodology works of the period we discussed, the issue of husn-qubh was widely examined in the context of validity of reason as an evidence in the methodology of fiqh. In addition, significant evaluations were made in order to prove the rationality of husn and qubh. For the rationality of husn and qubh, the Ja‘fari scholars adopted the views of Mu'tazila as the main line. For this reason, in our article, it was referred to the views of Mu'tazila related to the subject from time to time. However, the approaches of Ash'ariyya to the subject and their claims and justifications, regarding whether the husn and qubh are shar’i, are excluded from the scope of the article. There are certain substantial topics come to the forefront in the article. These are the importance of the issue of husn and qubh in both theology and methodology, the meanings attributed to husn and qubh and whether husn and qubh inherently exist in actions. It is important to clarify the issue of the meanings attributed to husn and qubh in terms of deblurring the discussion frame. In this regard, it should be stated that there is a general affirmation that husn and qubh have five meanings. These meanings are perfection and inadequacy, suitability and contradiction to purpose; conformity with and avoidance of human nature; distress and ease, and praise and reproach. There is no conflict on some of these meanings among the sects. The main point of disagreement on the subject is over the meaning of husn and qubh as praise and satire. Accordingly, good (hasan) means that the person who does the deed is worthy of praise, and evil (qabeeh) means that the person who does the deed deserves criticism. The purpose of making this meaning of husn and qubh a subject of discussion is a try at reaching the shar'i judgment based on the principle of husn and qubuh. As follows, when the mind decides that an action is good (hasan), it will decide that the person who did it is worthy of praise. Since the legislative (shaari') is also an intelligent being, the person who does this deed will be praised by the shaari' as well. For the praise of the shaari’ will be given as a reward to the person in the hereafter, what He gives must be an obligatory deed (wajib) or a deed that is demanded at a lower level. In order to make this justification by following the footsteps of the previous scholars, the Ja‘fari methodologists of the Bihbihānī period opened up for discussion whether husn and qubh are inherently present in actions. Even though there are different approaches to this issue, as a result the acts were subjected to a division. In this respect, it was principally accepted that husn and qubh are inherent features in some actions; in some, they are inseparable features of the action, and in some, husn and qubh will vary according to the context and results of the action. Finally, it has been regarded that the issue of rationality of husn and qubh, as a matter of discussion widely in both theology and methodology, was typically defended through rational justifications in the methodology works we have examined.

Anahtar Kelimeler: