Özet:

When the judgment of Sheriff is said, the judgment of the people about their relationships with others should be done individually or necessarily. It is a matter of fact that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact, that it is a matter of fact. The question of the definition of the righteousness and the question of the judgment, especially between Mutezile and Ehl-i Sünnet, has been a discussion of the righteousness of Allah, especially the righteousness of the righteousness, and accordingly the Qur’an is a creature. When the judgment is defined, the prosecutors naturally put the word of the Shari in the center; but as a result of some vocal acceptance, some differences arise between them regarding the definition of the judgment. One of the word discussions that reflect the definition and nature of the judgment is whether the word of God is old, and the other is whether it has a role in determining the value of the judgment of the mind. It can be said that there are generally two main approaches to the definition of the judgment. The first of them is the Mutezile and the Esharians who make up the vocal processors, and the judgment is the approach that defines the word itself. The second approach to the definition of the judgment belongs to the Hanefi prosecutors. In this approach, judgment is not the result of the word itself. First of all, the judgment is "the word of the sheriff which is to the facts of the commander of the sheriff or to the judgment of the sheriff." This is the point of the righteousness of the righteousness of the righteous. But they are generally divided from them in order to see the word and the judgment "created" (Hadis) and to see the judgments which are achieved by the way of the mind, and to see the judgments which are achieved by the way of the sheriff judgment.

Özet:

Although usul al-fiqh (the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence) is described only as evidence (dalil) especially by the mutakallim scholars of usul al-fiqh, at this point, the evidence is important in pointing to judgments (ahkam, sg. hukm). Therefore, although there are different approaches about the essentialness and priority, hukm is the basic subject of usul al-fiqh. For this reason, Molla Khusrev (d. 885 / 1480) described usul al-fiqh as a science which is used to know the situations of adilla (evidences) and ahkam (judgments) by explicitly mentioning both. Gazzâlî (d. 505 / 1111) also began his book of usul al-fiqh with the subject of hukm he explained with the semere (fruits of the tree) metaphor. Al-hukm al-shar’i (legal) is the judgment about people’s individual acts or their relations with others. From the individual point, hukm is related to the fact that an act has been fard (obligatory), wajib (necessary), sunnah (recommended), mubah (permissible), makruh (disapproved), haram (forbidden); from the legal point of view, it is related to the fact that a legal transaction has been sahih (valid), fasit (voidable), or batıl (void). The question of the definition and nature of the hukm was a discussion area about especially God's attributes and whether Quran was created or not between Mu’tazila and Ahl al-Sunnah. While defining al-hukm al-shar’i, usul al-fiqh scholars placed naturally the hitab (a speech or communication from the Shari) to the center. However, as a consequence of some Kalamic assumptions, some differences have emerged between them in the definition of the hukm. One of the arguments reflected in the definition and nature of the hukm is whether the word (kalam) of God is ancient, and the other is the function of the reason (al-akl) in judgement. There are generally two main approaches to the definition of the hukm between the scholars of usul al-fikh. The first one belongs to the mutakallimun, which is composed of the scholars of Mu’tazila and Ash’ari and is the approach that defines the hukm as the hıtab itself. The second approach to the definition of the hukm belongs to the Hanafi scholars. According to this approach, the hukm is the effect/result of the hıtab, not the hıtab itself. According to the first one, al-hukm is the hıtab of Shari about to the acts of men, which consists a demand to do something or not, or an option about both. The definition ot Mu’tazila is approximately the same. However, they differ from Ash’ari in terms of accepting the reason as the judge and seeing the ahkam reached by the reason as al-hukm al-shar’i. They also separate from them in terms of seeing kalamullah as created. According to them, the ahkam that Shari does not intervene are also included in the scope of the framework hukm. Generally speaking, according to the Mutazila, al-hukm al-shar’i is any hukm in which it is necessary to recourse to Sharia. At this point, there is a basic difference between the Sunni scholars and the Mu’tazilite scholars about the function of reason in judgement. The definition of the hukm which is relatively preferred by Hanafi scholars (fuqaha) is the effect/result of the hıtab of Shari. Some of the mutakallim scholars also adopted this definition with the idea that it allows them to avoid some of the criticisms of Mu’tazila. In fact, Najm al-Din al-Tûfî (d. 716 / 1316), who wrote in the tradition of the mutakallim method, states that if the hukm is defined not as the hıtab itself but its requirement (muktada), Mu’tazila could not object to justification of ancient hıtab with non-ancient cause. Usul al-fiqh scholars’ definitions of al-Hukm al-shar’i and the discussions on these definitions have been discussed in connection with theological (kalami) problems especially in the works of mutakallim scholars of usul al-fiqh (the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence). Since the definition of the concept al-hukm has been made in the context of a legal system in which Muslims have politically dominated throughout the history, scholars of usul al-fiqh did not need to draw attention to these external conditions for the existence of the al-hukm. From the beginning to these days, this situation gave the impression that al-hitab was perceived as a direct sharia judgement itself without any additional condition. In the modern period, the classical definition of the al-hukm was preserved as if there was no change in the historical process, the Muslim community was still dominating as a political and social power, and it was still in the dar al-Islam (places ruled by Islam).

Anahtar Kelimeler: