Özet:

It is the story of the literature in the literature V/XI. It is a general acceptance that begins with the covenant. In the subsequent period, this thought axis that he established was given some valuable material in relation to the text, but this remained more valuable than the other text subjects and VIII/XIV. There has not been a significant record in this area until the end. It began with the worship of the righteous. The main characteristic of this thing is that it is not a subject of the procedure, but a special discipline, and it is systematized according to it. But his successors did not show the same sensitivity in this matter. This is the case of XIV/XX. It continued until the century. From this century, the scientists have given the importance in the workplace, and they have done a lot of valuable work in this field. One of the issues discussed in these studies is whether the proof is not considered a specific proof. But this discussion is in the form of a superficial contact when the issues related to the matter are discussed rather than the subject is addressed individually. At this point, three points of view have been identified. The first point of view is the absolute proof of the sheriff. Those who are in the struggle with us are the ones who are in the struggle. The second point of view is opposite. The researchers who accept this view, even though they admit that drinking is a fundamental element of healthy making, do not see it as an independent evidence of sheriff. In the third part of the trial, the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial. It is not a matter of the fact that the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof. In our study, we discussed the theoretical dimension of the sheriff. This is the way to see the nature of the matter, the importance of it, the subtility and the shamelessness of various aspects. After that, the evidence of the proof was found on the problem. In this framework, it is also tried to identify those who accept the proof as a specific proof and the opposite approach of those who defend the proof. For example, in the first instance, the researchers have found that the researchers are able to identify the facts of the previous researchers, as well as the facts of the previous researchers. In addition, the study has also pointed to important aspects such as what has played an important role in the health interpretation of the charity, the reconciliation of the evidence considered to be the truth or the preference of one to the other.

Özet:

Abstract It is generally accepted that the view of Şer‘î makâsıd took place in the literature as it started with Cüveyni since the century V/XI of the heijra. Even if some valuable acquaintance was given in the center of this view that it founded in the further periods, this remained more insignificant than the other method subjects and any significant accumulations were not revealed in this field up to the century VIII/XIV. The single consideration of Makâsıd started with Şâtıbî. The main feature which takes Şâtıbî away from the other methodologists is that he accepted the makâsıd as a distinct discipline but not a subject of method and became systematized by it. However, his successors were not as sensitive as him about this issue. This situation went on to the century XIV/XX. The scholars gave the necessary importance on the makâsıd since this century and made many valuable studies on this field. One of the issues discussed in these studies is whether the aims are counted as independent evidence. However, this discussion is in the form of a superficial contact when dealing with matters of purpose rather than an independent consideration of the issue.   Three views were determined about this point. According to the first view, şer‘î makâsıd is definitely accepted as a single evidence. Advocates of this view present their aims in case of conflict with textual evidence. The second view defends the opposite one. The researchers who adopt this view accept the makâsıd as a main factor to make the opinion sturdily and they don’t accept it as a distinct şer’i evidence. According to the third view which is more moderate than the aforementioned views, makâsıd can be the şer’i sources in the events which are not available in the provisional nas. Accordingly, there is not any objection about that makâsıd which is definite or stable with the evidences thereabouts is an evidence for the events that there is not nas about it and occurs newly. In our study the theoretical aspect of şer’i makâsıd was considered firstly. So the nature of makâsıd was revealed, its importance and varieties were reviewed in terms of the certainty and scope. Subsequently, the problem that the makâsıd is accepted as a single evidence was focused. In this context, the more accurate view was tried to be determined as the approaches of those who accept the makâsıd as a single evidence and those who defend the opposite one were reviewed. The statements of previous methodologists which can be associated with the subject were used with the acquaintances that the coeval researchers provided about the subject for the determination of accurate view. Moreover, the important issues about that the makâsıd has an important role in the interpretation of şer’i nas sturdily, the evidences which are seen as disagreement are removed or it guided the interpreter of islamic law for the manner that one of them is preferred to the other one.

Anahtar Kelimeler: