Views
63
Downloands
12
İslâm hukuk metodolojisinde hükmün tanımı ile ilgili biri kaynağını, diğeri muhatabını esas alan iki temel yaklaşım vardır. Kaynağını esas alan yaklaşıma göre hüküm Şâri’in hitabı, muhatabını esas alan yaklaşıma göre ise hüküm Şâri’in hitabının sonucudur. Her iki yaklaşıma göre de hükmün tanımında biri “talep/iktizâ”, diğeri “tahyîr/muhayyerlik” olmak üzere iki temel kavram yer almaktadır. Hükmün tanımında yer alan “talep/iktizâ” kavramı farz/vacip, mendup, mekruh ve haram gibi şer’î hükümleri içermektedir. “Tahyîr” ise mubah olan hükümleri ifade etmektedir. Klasik dönem İslâm hukuku metodolojisinde mubahın mahiyetiyle ilgili “teklîfî hüküm olup olmaması”, “şer’î hüküm olup olmaması”, “emredilmiş olup olmaması” ve “talep içerip içermemesi” gibi birçok konu tartışılmıştır. Hiç şüphesiz bu konulardan en önemlisi, “mubahın şer’î hüküm olup olmaması” hakkında cumhur ile Mu’tezilî âlimler arasında geçen tartışmadır. Cumhur, mubahın teklîfî/şer’î hükümlerden biri olduğunu söylemektedir. Buna mukabil Mu’tezilî âlimlerden Abu’l-Kasim al-Belhî el-Kâ‘bî (öl. 319/911) ve onun taraftarları ise mubahın şer‘î bir hüküm olmadığını söylemektedirler. Diğer taraftan Mubahın şer’î hüküm olup olmaması meselesi, “kamu otoritesinin mubahı/cevazı sınırlandırma yetkisi” bağlamında son dönemlerde de tartışılmaya devam etmektedir. Nitekim Osmanlı’nın son dönemlerinde Mansurizâde Said (1864-1923), kamu otoritesinin mubahı sınırlandırması bağlamında “cevazın ahkâm-ı şer’iyyeden olmadığına dair” makaleler yazmıştır. Günümüz İslâm hukukçularından bazıları da Mansurizâde’nin görüşünü haklı bulmaktadır. Ancak kanaatimizce bu iki konu, yani mubahın şer’î hüküm olması ile mubahın kamu otoritesi tarafından sınırlandırılması arasında doğrudan bir ilişki bulunmamaktadır.
In the Islamic law methodology, there are two basic approaches that rely on the definition of judgment one is based on the source and the other is based on the interlocutor. According to the approach that is based on the source, the word of the judgment is the result of the word of the judgment, and according to the approach that is based on the interlocutor, the word of the judgment is the result of the word of the judgment. Both approaches include the definition of judgment, one “seek” and the other “tahyir/muhayyerlik” two basic concepts. The term “treatment” in the definition of the judgment contains sheriff provisions such as farz/vacip, mendup, mekruh and haram. The word “Tahîr” means the judgment of the Mubah. In the classical Islamic law methodology, many topics are discussed about the nature of the mosquito, such as "whether it is a exclusive judgment", "whether it is a sheriff judgment", "whether it is ordered or not" and "whether it contains demand or not". There is no doubt that this is the question of the discourse between the Republic and the Mu'tezili allies about whether the "mubarak is a sheriff judgment." He says that he is one of the worshippers. This is the case of the worship of the worship of the worship of the worship of the worship of God. 319/911) and his supporters say that the Mubarak is not a sheriff judgment. On the other hand, the question of whether the Mubah's sheriff judgment is not, in the context of "the authority of the public authority's authority to restrict the Mubah's/Voice" continues to be discussed in recent periods. In fact, in the latter periods of Ottoman, Mansurizâde Said (1864-1923), in the context of the limitation of the public authority, wrote articles that "the answer is not from the ahkâm-i sher'iyah." Some of today’s Islamic lawyers also find Mansurizade’s opinion right. But we believe that there is no direct connection between these two issues, that is, the judgment of the Mubarak and the limitation of the Mubarak by the public authority.
In Islamic Law Methodology, there are two basic approaches related to the definition of the religious provision, one based on its source and the other based on its addressee / interlocutor. According to the former approach, religious provision is addressing / appeal of the Shari (Lawmaker) and according to the latter approach, religious provision is result of addressing of the Shari (Lawmaker). According to both approaches, there are two basic concepts in the definition of the provision, one of which is "talab / iktidha" and the other is "tahyir / being muhayyar". The concept of "talab / iktidha" in the definition of the provision; It includes religious provisions such as fard / wajib, mandub, makruh and haram. “Tahyir” refers to the religious provisions that are permissible (mubah / legal freedom). In the classical period Islamic law methodology (usûl al-fiqh), about the nature of mubah; many issues such as “whether there is a proposal”, “whether there is a religious provision”, “whether it is ordered” and “whether it contains a request” are discussed. Undoubtedly, the most important of these issues is the debate among majority of Islamic lawyers and the Mu’tezilite scholars about “whether there is a religious provision”. Majority of Islamic jurists say that mubah is one of religious provisions. On the other hand, Mu’tezilite scholar Abu’l-Qasim al-Balkhi el-Ka‘bi (d. 319/911) and his supporters say that mubah is not a religious provision. On the other hand, the issue of whether or not mubah is a religious provision still being discussed recently in the context of the public authority's limitation of mubah. As a matter of fact, in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, Mansurizada Said (1864-1923) wrote articles about “that mubah is not one of the religious provision” in the context of public authority’s limitation of mubah. Some of today’s Islamic lawyers justify this view of Mansurizada. However, in our opinion, there is no direct relationship between these two issues, namely, the fact that mubah is the religious provision and the limitation of mubah by the public authority.
Field : İlahiyat
Journal Type : Uluslararası
Article Detail 
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Cite
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
