Özet:

The name of the creator, the name of the creator, the name of the creator. 430/1039), for the first time in the world law history, is a lawyer who discusses fundamental and irreversible human rights. For the first time in the history of the world, he has been the one who has the right to do so, and the one who has the right to do so, and the one who has the right to do so, and the one who has the right to do so, and the one who has the right to do so. This distinction has been widely accepted in the Hanefî tradition. This tradition acknowledges that on the ground of the body driving license there is "symmet", that is, the legal personality in the modern sense, but, unlike modern approaches, it has linked driving license and symmet with "symmet", that is, the responsibility and ability to voluntarily serve the Supreme Creator and the "First Agreement" made by mankind with the Supreme God. As a principle of understanding the divine word, the mind, as the ground of the entrance of the person under legal and moral obligations, as well as the zimmeti has been identified, the mind and zimmeti are equipped with three fundamental and irreversible rights, i.e. the right, the freedom, and the powerfulness, in order to be able to see the function of the mind and zimmeti. As reason and humility are given to man by God, these three fundamental rights are also given by Him, and the man who is charged with emancy is given to fulfil the humanity duty. Thus, the theory of fundamental and irreversible rights has been expressed for the first time in the world’s history in the theory of Islam-Hanefi law. In the West, the word ius naturale covers both the “natural law” and the “natural rights” which have an ancient history. While the objective natural rights/classic natural law tradition is centered on duty and obligation, the subjective natural rights/modern natural law conception is based on the idea of individual freedom and individual sovereignty. The classical natural law concept goes hand in hand with the ideas of the order and purpose of things (the direction of a purpose of each existence depending on itself). It will be a moral and moral order with all the elements of the world. Some advocates argue that modern natural rights are a continuation of the classical natural law, while some argue that modern natural rights are a gap from the natural law. According to Leo Strauss, this transformation that begins with Hobbes and Locke is a fundamental transformation that requires us to see both as different doctrines. While Michel Villey initiates the modern subjective natural right understanding with William of Ockham, Brian Tierney initiates the origins of this understanding far before William, with the work of the canon (Church Law) lawyers who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. But no researcher, with subjective natural rights. There was no connection between the three fundamental rights of Debussy who died in the first half of the century. In addition to the approaches found in the thought of Christian law of the 12th and 13th centuries when the natural understanding of human rights is a Western invention, there are also those who claim that the natural understanding of human rights is a modern invention. In the criticism of the essence-centric concept of modernity, this thought arises, and in this approach, the natural concept of human rights is seen as an unacceptable idea because it is understood as an inseparable element of subjective individuality. Since rights can only apply to those who can be understood as an independent individual, socialist and communist ideas based on society have also seen and rejected the natural idea of human rights as a characteristic element of liberalism. The rights are not the responsibilities, but the responsibilities. The legal positivists have dismissed the concept of right because it is metaphysically loaded. John Locke’s Western Thought. The three fundamental rights, which he expressed and which are the same as the list of Debussy, formed the core idea of the modern understanding of human rights over time. John Locke states that, in the nature of all people before the formation of political society, the rights of life, freedom and property are equally and in an unacceptable manner. It appears that the theory of authority and natural rights, which was first expressed by Debussy and later became the client-conscious understanding of the Hanefists, was adapted by Locke — directly or indirectly through the Middle Ages’ lawyers — in the way that it was partially secularized into its own conception of liberal rights, and then this conception was further secularized (the relationship with God was completely cut off) and formed the nucleus of the basic human rights conception we know today. Since social and political life is fundamental in Muslim societies, there is no need for a sense of a natural state (status naturae) that the thinkers like Hobbes and Locke have imagined. The idea of natural human rights has been the source of inspiration for the great revolutions of the 18th century. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 states that all people are created equally and that some rights are granted to them by God. Thirteen years later, in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen), the concept of natural rights is regarded as an obvious sign of truth, but no reference is made to the source of these rights, i.e. to God. The natural concept of human rights was revised in the 19th century because it was seen as a metaphysical balance due to the rule of legal positivism, and in the first half of the 20th century, due to the actual obligations of the two world wars, it was again in the agenda of the Western law and political thought. But the metaphysical ground on which natural rights are based is no longer left, so today the natural human rights are in a philosophical source crisis.

Anahtar Kelimeler: