Özet:

This is the book of Isaiah. 476/1083) is about the ictihad and its opinions on matters related to it. This is the story of the fictional works of Shirazi in the center of the study. In this study, the method of quality research has been thoroughly investigated. In addition, many of the classical and new studies have also been scaned and the findings obtained around the Shirâzî’s views. This information was subsequently analyzed by a dialectic method. In the context of the subject, it has been found that Shirâzî has made clear the following facts: the limitations of the Act, the driving license, the judgment, the source of information, the error-related issue, etc. And he was the one who made it, and the one who did it, and the one who did it, and the one who did it, and the one who did it, and the one who did it. The fact that it is very important is that it is not limited to the fact that it is not limited to the fact. Therefore, there is a greater approach to those who see the excess of the Qur’an. It can also be said that following a facilitating path from the driving license can also help to spread this activity. The judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment. It is a matter that is directly linked to the ictihad issue. And he was in the midst of the tribe, and he was in the midst of the tribe, and he was in the midst. After the discretion of the judgment, the judgment of the judgment was clear. This is an example of the discourse of the opinions of the Mucallid about whether it is necessary to do research on the Mucallid. It is also possible to find out how the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse of the discourse.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Özet:

This article is about the opinions of Abû Ishâq al-Shîrâzî (d. 476/1083) on ijtihad and the issues related to it. In this respect, usul al-fiqh works of Shîrâzî were included in the research center of the article. In this study, in which qualitative research method was used, the mentioned works were investigated in depth. In addition, the findings obtained by scanning many classic and new studies were classified around the views of Shîrâzî. This information was then analyzed by a dialectical method. In the context of the subject, it has been determined that Shîrâzî clarifies various issues. After making the definition of ijtihad, Shîrâzî mentioned the ijtihad competence. Considering the conditions mentioned by him, it was seen to follow a facilitating way. Shîrâzî stated about limitations of ijtihad that ijtihad activity is too broad and important to be limited by qiyas. For this reason, contrary to some shafiis who narrow the frame, it is thought that Shîrâzî has expanded the area of ijtihad. It can be said that following a facilitating path in terms of ijtihad competence also helped this activity to become widespread. His view on the judgment of the ijtihad, which obliges the existence of the mujtahid, also confirms this. Shîrâzî also pointed out the judgements subject to the ijtihad. According to him, religious judgements are divided into two parts: those which are open to ijtihad and those who are not. According to him, judgements that do not express exact information are the subject of ijtihad. It would not be wrong to say that these judgements represent the majority in proportion. However, Shîrâzî stipulates that issues open to ijtihad are not based on presumption, but a knowledge such as the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma and qiyas. Because, the source of ijtihad cannot be a presumption. The error-incidence issue is one of the most discussed issues of ijtihad. Discussing this issue in a long and detailed way, Shîrâzî does not find it necessary to be accurate in the opinion of every mujtahid. For this reason, mujtahid can sometimes get the correct view as well as make mistakes. To advocate that all mujtahids are accurate in their views constitutes a contrast to religious texts and reason. For this reason, Shîrâzî stated that every mujtahid should do his best and make his ijtihad. If the mujtahid reaches the correct judgment in his opinion, he receives two rewards for good deeds, if not, one reward. Shîrâzî also touched on whether the Hz. Prophet himself or his companions did ijtihad. According to him, Hz. Prophet also ruled by ijtihad. He even made mistakes in some of his judgments, and Allah warned him in the relevant verses. But his mistake did no harm to his prophethood. Similarly, the companions actively used ijtihad. They made ijtihad not only in the absence of Hz. Prophet but also in his presence. According to Shîrâzî, the ijtihad in the presence of the Prophet expresses precise information. Because when the companions made mistakes, Hz. Prophet had the opportunity to correct them. Shîrâzî also clarified the issue of making ijtihad again when a question was asked a second time. According to him, it is necessary to make ijtihad again by not contenting with the first answer. Imitation is a matter directly related to subject of ijtihad. As a matter of fact, Shîrâzî tackled the imitation with the subject of ijtihad. After mentioning the definition of imitation, he clarified the judgements which are subject to imitation. An example of this is that he opened up to discussions on whether the muqallid should investigate the mujtahid. According to Shîrâzî, the muqallid does not need to carry out detailed research on the mujtahid who he asks questions. Because holding the muqallid responsible for such a job causes various problems. Shîrâzî made detailed analyzes by getting into the discussion about the scholar's imitation of the scholar. According to his writings, a mujtahid cannot imitate another mujtahid. Because the mujtahid’s imitation of another mujtahid means to abandon the judgment of Allah. When the statements of Shîrâzî are taken into consideration, it is seen that he took a hard attitude about imitation. We are of the opinion that the background of this attitude is the reality that imitation has become widespread. He was among the important advocates of the idea of Shîrâzî ijtihad. Thus, it is understood that he strongly disagreed with the idea that the ijtihad door was closed. Because, according to him, a scholar with sufficient conditions is responsible for making ijtihad. For this reason, he should be aware of his responsibility.