Görüntüleme
43
İndirme
6
İslam hukukuna dayalı kanunlaştırmanın ilk örneği olan Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye, hazırlanış şekli ve içeriği itibariyle farklı açılardan eleştiriye konu olmuştur. Kazuistik yöntemin izlenmesi, Hanefi mezhebiyle sınırlı kalınması ve bu nedenle bazı meselelerdeki düzenlemelerin dönemin ihtiyaçlarını karşılayacak nitelikte olmaması, medeni kanun içeriğine uygun olmayan eksik ve fazlalıkların bulunması başlıca tenkit sebepleridir. Mecelle şârihi Ali Haydar Efendi de Mecelle’yi farklı açılardan eleştirmiştir. Bu çalışmada, Ali Haydar Efendi’nin Mecelle’ye yönelik tenkitlerini tespit, tasvir ve tasnif etmek amaçlanmış, -bazı istisnalar dışında- şârihin eleştirilerine yönelik bir değerlendirme yapılmamıştır. Mecelle’nin en kapsamlı ve meşhur şerhi olan Dürerü’l-hukkâm müellifi Ali Haydar Efendi, Mecelle’yi hem kanun tekniği hem de içerik açısından tenkit etmiş, eleştirilerini gerekçelendirmiş, eleştirdiği hususlara ilişkin alternatif öneriler de getirmiştir. Ali Haydar Efendi, bir maddeyi genellikle tek sebeple eleştirmiş olmakla birlikte bazı maddeleri birden fazla açıdan tenkit etmiştir. Makalede Ali Haydar Efendi’nin Mecelle maddelerine yönelttiği eleştirilerin her biri ayrı başlık altında, birden fazla açıdan tenkit edilen maddeler de müstakil bir başlık altında ele alınmış ve mümkün olduğunca örneklendirilmiştir. Ali Haydar Efendi’nin kanun tekniği açısından Mecelle’ye yönelttiği tenkitler şunlardır: Maddelerin ifadesinin yanlış hüküm çıkarmaya müsait olması genel nitelikli olmaması kavramların yerinde kullanılmaması gerek kavramların gerekse maddelerin birbirleriyle ve fıkıh kitaplarıyla uyumlu olmaması maddelerde birtakım eksik, gereksiz veya hatalı ifadelerin olması ifadelerdeki kayıtların yerinde olmaması. İçerik itibariyle yapılan eleştiriler arasında ilk olarak maddenin içerdiği hükmün fıkıh kitaplarındaki hükme veya mezhep görüşüne aykırı olması zikredilmelidir. İçerik açısından yöneltilen tenkitlerin bir kısmı ise Mecelle hazırlanırken yapılan tercihlerle ilgilidir. Bu kapsamda tercih edilen bazı görüşlerin dönemin ihtiyaçlarına veya mezhepteki râcih görüşe uygun olmaması, yer yer tercihler arasında çelişkiye düşülmesi ve bazı ihtilaflı meselelerde tercih yapılmaması eleştiri konusu edilmiştir. Zamanın gereklerine uygun olmayan hükümlerin varlığı ve asıl- fer uyumsuzluğu da bir diğer tenkit nedenidir. Bu tür yöndeki tenkitlerde genellikle kanun içeriğinin çeşitli açılardan mezhep kitaplarına uygunluğu ortaya konulmaya çalışılmış, uygun olmayan yönler eleştirilmiştir. Ancak Ali Haydar Efendi, bunun yanında kanun metninin mezhep hükümlerine uygun olmakla birlikte zamanın ihtiyaçlarını karşılamaması sebebiyle farklı mezheplerin hükümlerinden istifadeyle hazırlanması gereğine de işaret etmiştir. Ali Haydar Efendi, Mecelle’yi, bazı konuların eksik bırakılmış olması veya yeterince düzenlenmemesi bakımından da eleştirmiş, Mecelle’de yer alması gerektiği halde ele alınmayan karz akdi ve hayvanlara yönelik suçlara dair hükümlere yer vermiştir. Ancak yine Mecelle’de ele alınması gerektiği halde ele alınmayan sarf ve ribâ konularına hiç değinmemiştir. Lukata, hacr gibi konuları ele alan maddelerde de bu konulara dair bazı şartlara yer verilmemesi sebebiyle eksiklik olduğunu belirtmiştir. Ali Haydar Efendi, Mecelle’yi, maddelerin içerdiği hükümler arasındaki tenâkuz maddeler arasında dil, üslûp ve terminoloji birliği sağlanamaması hem maddeler arası hem de madde içerisinde gereksiz tekrarlara düşülmesi yönünden de eleştirmektedir. Mecelle’nin kazuistik metotla hazırlanması sebebiyle yapılan tekrarlara dair herhangi bir eleştiri yöneltmeyen Ali Haydar Efendi, bunun dışındaki tekrarları gerekçelendirmiş veya eleştirmiş, bu tür tekrarlara düşmemek için öneriler sunmuştur. Ayrıca ona göre Mecelle’de bilinçli tekrarlar da vardır. Ayrıca o, bunların yanında Mecelle’yi başlık içerik uyumsuzluğu, benzer konuların farklı fasıl/madde/fıkralarda düzenlenmesi veya farklı konuların aynı fasıl/madde/fıkrada ele alınması gibi sistematik kusurla nedeniyle de eleştirmiştir. Ali Haydar Efendi’nin Mecelle’ye yönelttiği bir diğer eleştiri de tanımlarla ilgilidir. O, yapılan tanımları efrâdını câmî, ağyârını mâni olmamak ve devir gibi tanım tekniği açısından eleştirdiği gibi kapsamlı olmamak, Mecelle’de yapılan diğer tanımlarda takip edilen usûle aykırılık ve fıkıh kitaplarında yer almamak gerekçesiyle de tenkit etmiştir.
The first example of the legislation based on Islamic law, Mecelle-i Ahkâm, was the subject of criticism from different points of view, according to the form and content of the preparation. The follow-up of the Kazuistic method, its limitation to the Hanefi discipline and therefore the regulations in some matters are not in the capacity to meet the needs of the period, the existence of deficiencies and excesses that are not in accordance with the contents of the civil law is the main reason for the existence of excesses. The Mecelle sharihi Ali Haydar Efendi also criticized Mecelle from different points of view. In this study, there was no assessment of the criticism of Ali Haydar Efendi, which was intended to identify, describe and classify his tents to the Mecelle, -except for some exceptions - to the criticism of the sharia. The most comprehensive and famous charity of Mecelle, Dürerü’l-hukkâm Mülali Ali Haydar Efendi, has acclaimed Mecelle from the point of view of both law and content, justified his criticism, and brought alternative suggestions on the issues he criticized. Ali Haydar Efendi has often criticized a matter for a single reason, but some matter has been reviewed in several ways. In the article, all the criticisms addressed by Ali Haydar Efendi to the Mecelle subjects are subject to a separate title, and the subjects referred to in multiple aspects are also addressed under a particular title and as exemplary as possible. In terms of the law technique, Ali Haydar Efendi addresses Mecelle the following: that the expression of the subjects is available to make wrong judgment; that it is not general; that the concepts are not used in place; that the subjects are not compatible with each other and with the fictional books; that there are a number of missing, unnecessary or wrong expression in the subjects; that the records in the expression are not in place. It is important to note that, among the criticisms made in terms of content, first the judgment contained in the article is contrary to the judgment or the religious opinion in the fictional books. Some of them are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones who are the ones. Some of the preferred opinions in this scope were criticized that they were not in accordance with the needs of the period or the preferred opinions in the discipline, that the place place preferences were contradicted and that some controversial matters were not preferred. The existence of provisions that are not in accordance with the requirements of the time and the original incompatibility is also another reason for the tenk. In such a direction, subjects are often criticized by the unsuitable aspects that have been tried to reveal the conformity of the contents of the law to the religious books from various points of view. But Ali Haydar Efendi, in addition, pointed out that the text of the law is in accordance with the disciplinary provisions, but because it does not meet the needs of time, the different disciplines must be prepared with the provisions of the law. Ali Haydar Efendi has criticized Mecelle because some issues are missing or not sufficiently organized, and has placed the ruling on crimes against animals and carbs that should not be dealt with in Mecelle. But he has not yet been discussed in Mecelle, but he has not been discussed in the matter of sarf and ribas. Lukata pointed out that in the subjects that deal with the topics such as hacker, there is also a lack of conditions for these subjects. Ali Haydar Efendi criticizes Mecelle for the discontinuity between the provisions of the materials; for the failure to provide a language, language, and terminology union between the materials; for the failure to repeat both the materials and the materials. Ali Haydar Efendi, who did not criticize any repetitions due to the preparation of Mecelle by the casuistic method, justified or criticized other repetitions, has made suggestions to avoid such repetitions. He also said that there are conscious repetitions in Mecelle. In addition, he also criticized Mecelle because of its systemic defects, such as the incompatibility of the title content, the arrangement of similar subjects in different phases/subjects/subjects or the dealing with different subjects in the same phases/subjects/subjects. Another criticism that Ali Haydar Efendi addressed to Mecelle is also related to definitions. He has made the definitions; his efrad is camî, his brother is non-manî, and he is not as comprehensive as he criticizes from the point of view of the definition technique as devir, and the other definitions in Mecelle are followed by the procedure of contradiction and not included in the books of fûh.
Majalla al-Aḥkam al-‘Adliyyah, which is the first example of codification based on Islamic law, has been the subject of criticism from different angles in terms of its preparation and content. The main reasons for criticism are following the casuistic method, being limited to the Hanafi sect, and therefore, the regulations on some issues not meeting the needs of the period, and the lack and excesses that do not comply with the content of the civil law. The commentator of the Majalla, ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi, also criticized Majalla from different angles. In this study, it was aimed to identify, describe, and classify Ali Ḥaydar Efendi's critics of the Majalla, and -with some exceptions- no evaluation was made about the criticism of the commentator. Ali Ḥaydar Efendi, the author of the most comprehensive and famous commentary of the Majalla, Dureru'l-hukkâm, criticized the Majalla both in terms of law technique and content, justified his criticisms, and offered alternative suggestions regarding the issues he criticized. Although Ali Ḥaydar Efendi criticized an item for only one reason, he criticized some items from more than one point of view. In the article, each of the criticisms of Ali Ḥaydar Efendi on the Majalla’s items is discussed under a separate heading, and the items criticized from more than one point of view are discussed under a separate heading and exemplified as much as possible. His criticisms of the Majalla in terms of law technique are as follows: The statements of the items are prone to making wrong judgments, not of a general nature, the concepts are not used appropriately, both the concepts and the items are not compatible with each other and with the fiqh books, having some missing, unnecessary or incorrect statements in the items, and the lack of records in the statements. Among the criticisms made in terms of content, first of all, the fact that the provision contained in the article is contrary to the ruling in the fiqh books or the view of the sect should be mentioned. Some of the criticisms in terms of content are related to the preferences made while preparing the Majalla. In this context, it has been the subject of criticism that some of the preferred views are not suitable for the needs of the period or the preferred view in the madhhab, conflicting between preferences from time to time, and not making a choice in some controversial issues. The existence of provisions that do not comply with the requirements of the time, and the asl-far' incompatibility is another reason for criticism. In such criticisms, the suitability of the content of the law with the madhhab books in various aspects has been tried to be revealed, and inappropriate aspects have been criticized. However, ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi also pointed out that the text of the law should be prepared by making use of the provisions of different madhhabs, since it does not meet the needs of the time, although it is in accordance with the provisions of the madhhab. ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi also criticized the Majalla in terms of missing some issues or not being regulated sufficiently, and included provisions regarding the qarḍ contract and crimes against animals, which were not dealt with even though they should have been included in the Majalla. However, he never touched upon the subjects of consumption and ribā, which were not dealt with in the Majalla, although they should have been. ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi said that there is a deficiency in the items dealing with subjects such as luqata and hacr, since some conditions regarding these issues are not included. ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi also criticizes the Majalla in terms of the contradiction between the provisions contained in the items; the lack of unity in language, style and terminology among the items; and unnecessary repetitions both between the items and within the items. ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi, who did not make any criticism about the repetitions due to the fact that the Majalla was prepared with the casuistic method, justified or criticized the other repetitions and offered suggestions to avoid such repetitions. Also, according to him, there are deliberate repetitions in the Majalla. In addition, he also criticized the Majalla from a systematic point of view, such as the incompatibility of the title and content, the arrangement of similar subjects in different chapters/items/paragraphs, or the handling of different subjects in the same chapter/item/paragraph. Another criticism of ‘Ali Ḥaydar Efendi about the Majalla is about definitions. He criticizes the definitions made as not being collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive and not being in the definition technique such as the tautology, but also on the grounds that it is not comprehensive, contrary to the method followed in other definitions made in the Majalla, and not being included in the fiqh books.
Alan : İlahiyat
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
