Özet:

The renewal of Islamic legal hermeneutics has been a subject of controversy since the 19th century. Muslim jurists and thinkers disagree on the extent to which the sources and the procedures of istidlāl, legal reasoning, embodied in Islamic legal hermeneutics, uṣūl al-fiqh, should be restructured. This study deals with one of the most recent discussions on this question, which opposed the Tunisian A. al-Marzūqī and the Syrian M. S. Ramaḍān al-Būṭī. The answers of the two debaters are interesting in more than a case. On the one side, al-Marzūqī argued for an open and collective legal hermeneutics that would function as a public reasoning. On the other side, al-Būṭī adopts a conventional line of thought, defending the methodological self-sufficiency of Islamic law. This paper will investigate the premises, the conclusions, and the counter-arguments of each of the debaters. Besides, light will be shed on the new elements that emerged in the dispute with regard to legal reform in Islamic law.

Anahtar Kelimeler: