Özet:

The subject of general utterances (al-lafdh al-āmm) being certain or presumptive in their use as an indication to all their members is controversial among the methodists. Ḥanafī methodists suggest that the indication of general utterances to all of their members as certain and unless they are specified with a certain evidence, they cannot be specified with a presumptive evidence. Like the ḥanafī methodists, the āhirī methodists also suggest that the general utterance is a certain indicator for all of its members and can be specified only with another evidence in the same rank. The main difference between the two groups focuses on whether al-khabar al-wāhid (single prophetic narration) is a certain or a presumptive evidence in terms of certainty. According to ḥanafīs, al-khabar al-wāhid is a presumptive evidence and unless the general utterances in the Qur'ān are specified initially with another certain evidence, they cannot be specified with al-khabar al-wāhid. However, al-khabar al-wāhid is a certain evidence according to āhirīs and it can specify general utterances in the Qur'an. In this study, the comparison of the views of the methodists of two schools regarding the indication of general utterances in the Quran and their specification (takhsīs) with al-akhbar al-wāhid is made and their influence on Islamic Law regulations is studied afterwards. In this study, the two sect’s approaches are compared over the provision of reading al-Fatehah during prayer, the number of milk sucking to establish the kinship, the rights of women divorced with bain talaq and the execution of the death penalty in the Harem region. The purpose of this study is to try to demonstrate that an assertion in the Ph.D. thesis, The History and Doctrine of āhirī Madhhab, completed by Amr Osman in 2010 is incorrect. It can be summarized that in his study, Amr Osman claims that the affiliation of the schools to ahl-al-hadith and ahl-al-ra'y in conventional classification is wrong. According to him, contrary to what is known, the School of āhiriyya is closer to the School of Ḥanafiyya rather than schools coming out of ahl-al-hadith. In this study, one of the arguments he relied on to support his claim is studied in order to prove that his claim was inaccurate. Osman claims that āhirīs are closer to ḥanifīs, based on the view that in both schools the general utterances embrace all of their members in their use and they are a certain indicator to all of their members. At this stage, although the views of both schools are common, the ḥanifīs don't accept the idea that the general statements of the Qur'an can be established with al-khabar-al-wāhid, those which they recognize as presumptive as of certainty. However, according to the āhirīs, the certainty of al-khabar al-wāhid is as accurate as the narrated report, so it can specify the general statements of the Qur'an which are in equal power. The related dispute between the schools has been reflected on many Islamic law regulations. Some of them are: 1. Hanafīs states that the correct Quranic prayer may be performed by reading any or a few verses of the Qur'an in prayer, which is a practice based on the verse "Read what you can read from the Qur'an now." On the other hand, the āhirīs have established the related order based on the report "There is no prayer without reading Umm Al-Quran (Surah al-Fatehah)" and it is obligatory (fardh) to read Surah al-Fatehah in prayers. 2nd Because that the terms milk-mother and milk sister are in general form in the verse "It is forbidden to you to marry these people... Your milk-mothers who nursed you, your milk-sisters who nursed you" the ḥanafīs clarify that it is sufficient for a child to breastfeed only one time in order to form a milk-kinship. They do not act in accordance with the solitary report (al-khabar-al-wāhids) which indicates that the milk kinship specificing the verse shall only be formed with at least three or five breastfeeding. However, one of the āhirīs, Dāwūd al-āhirī, has specified the verse with the report indicating that the breed shall not be formed with less than three breastfeeding by the child, and Ibn Ḥazm has specified it with Salim hadith which indicates that the breed shall be formed with five breastfeeding. and 3. According to ḥanafīs, there is an alimony and inhabiting right of the widow woman to be procured by the husband within the period of delay who divorced either with irreversible divorce (talāq al-bāin) or reversible divorce (talāq al-ric'ī) according to the generalization of the verse "Give shelter to them (the women you have divorced) in some part of your household within your capacity." They did not act with the report of Fātima binti Qays, who specified the generalization of the verse. On the other hand, the āhirīs recognizes the abovementioned rights only for the women who got divorced with irreversible divorce or those who are pregnant, specificing the verse with the report indicating that His Holiness the Prophet does not grant alimony and inhabiting to the woman who was divorced with reversible divorce. The fourth. According to ḥanafīs, the criminal who committed a crime that would require a death penalty and took refuge in the Harem region could not be executed while in Ḥarem, according to the common statement of the verse, "Whoever enters there will be safe. Dāwūd al-āhirī, one of the āhirīs has specified the verse with the report indicating that His Holiness the Prophet has authorized the execution of the sentence to Ibn Khattal in Ḥarem on the day of the conquest of Mecca and he states that the death sentence can be executed wherever the criminal is caught, even if it is inside the Harem. Ibn Ḥazm shares the same view with ḥanafīs regarding the provision of this issue. However, the reason for his opinion stems from the fact that the report about Ibn Khattal was an event specific to that day. As it is seen, even though the ḥanefīs and āhirīs share the same opinion about the general utterances being a certain indicant to all their members, they have disagreements on the argument about the general utterances of the Quran being specified by al-khabar al-wāhid and many Islamic Law regulations have been issued by these schools based on such disagreements. According to us, in the final analysis, Amr Osman's claim must be met with caution.

Anahtar Kelimeler: