Publication: Ebu Hanife’nin deliller hiyerarşisinde sahabi kavlinin konumu
Abstract
Kaynaklarda aralarında Hanefî âlimlerin de bulunduğu pek çok muhaddis ve fakîh, sahâbî kavlini şer‘î bir delil kabul edip onunla amel ettiklerine, kitap, sünnet ve icmâ‘dan muahhar, kıyastan ise mukaddem kabul ettiklerine yönelik Ebû Hanîfe (ö. 150/ 767), Ebû Yûsuf (ö. 182/ 798) ve Muhammed eş-Şeybânî (ö. 189/ 805)’den müsned ve gayrı müsned otuzu aşkın rivâyette bulunmuştur. Öte yandan Ebû Hanîfe ve İmâmeyn kıyasla/ akılla idrak edilsin ya da edilmesin fer‘î meselelere verdikleri birçok hükme sahâbe kavillerini gerekçe olarak sunmuş ve sahâbe kavli karşısında kıyası terk etmişlerdir. Ancak bütün bunlara rağmen, pek çok Hanefî usûl âlimi imamların, akılla idrak edilemeyen hususlarda kendi nesilleri içinde hiçbir muhâlefet olmaksızın bir sahâbîden rivayet edilen sahâbî kavliyle amel ettiğini, akılla idrak edilebilen konularda ise sahâbî kavliyle amel ettiklerine yönelik onlardan hiçbir rivâyet gelmediğini, hatta onların akılla idrak edilebilen konularda sahâbî kavli hususundaki tatbikatlarının birleşmediğini ve sahâbî kavlini kıyasa takdim etmediklerini iddiâ etmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra Hanefî usûl bilginleri, kendi nesilleri içinde hiçbir muhâlefet olmaksızın bir sahâbîden nakledilen sahâbî kavlinin kıyasla/ akılla idrak edilemeyen konularda hüccet olduğu hususunda ittifak etmişler, kıyasla/ akılla idrak edilebilen konularda kıyastan mukaddem olup olmadığı konusunda ise iki gruba ayrılmışlardır. Ebû Saîd el-Berdâî (ö. 317/ 930)’nin öncülük ettiği ilk grup, gerek akılla/ kıyasla idrak edilemeyen gerekse de edilebilen hususlarda sahâbî kavliyle amel etmenin vâcip olup, sahâbî kavli mevcutken kıyasa gitmenin câiz olmadığını savunurken, Ebû’l-Hasen el-Kerhî (ö. 340/ 952)’nin başını çektiği ikinci grup ise, yalnızca akılla/ kıyasla idrak edilemeyen hususlarda sahâbî kavli ile amel etmenin câiz olduğunu ve sahâbi kavlinin kıyas karşısında herhangi bir üstünlüğünün bulunmadığını söylemiştir.
Many narrators of Prophet sayings or scribes including important hanafi scholars related more than 30 hadiths from Abu Hanîfa (150/ 767), Abu Yûsuf (182/ 798) and Muhammad al-Shabânî ( 189/ 805) without any predicate or deed towards their acceptings the word of companions of prophet Muhammed as a religious evidence and later than consensus of Islamic scholars, the Quran and sunnah; prior than comparison. Besides Abu Hanîfa Abu Yûsuf and Muhammad al-Shabânî showed the sayings of companions reason for their judgements to the secondary subjects and leaved the comparison against these sayings no matter comprehended with sense or not. But despite all of these, many Hanafi method scholars claimed that they are acting with the sayings of companions which is related from a companion in their own generations without any oppositions, but there is not any rumors coming from them towards their acting with the words of companions about the subjects which are cogniseable so sometimes they are acting with the words of companinons and the other times with the comparison, thus their implementations about the sayings of companinos in the cogniseable subjects are not fitting and they are not putting the sayings of companions forward the comparison. Besides Hanafi method scholars agreed that a saying of a companion which was related from another companion is hujjat in the uncogniseable subjects with the comparison/ sense in their own generation without any oppositions, but they divided into two in the cogniseable subjects with comparison/ sense if it is prior than the comparison or no. The first group which is being led Abu Saed al-Berdâî (317/ 930) asserted that it is obligatory to act with the sayings of companions both in the uncogniseable subjects with comparison/ sense and in the cogniseable subjects. But the other group which is being led by Abu 'l-Hasan al-Karhî (340/ 952) stated that it is allowable to act with the sayings of companions only in uncogniseable subjects with comparison/ sense and the sayings of companions have no superiority against comparison.
Many narrators of Prophet sayings or scribes including important hanafi scholars related more than 30 hadiths from Abu Hanîfa (150/ 767), Abu Yûsuf (182/ 798) and Muhammad al-Shabânî ( 189/ 805) without any predicate or deed towards their acceptings the word of companions of prophet Muhammed as a religious evidence and later than consensus of Islamic scholars, the Quran and sunnah; prior than comparison. Besides Abu Hanîfa Abu Yûsuf and Muhammad al-Shabânî showed the sayings of companions reason for their judgements to the secondary subjects and leaved the comparison against these sayings no matter comprehended with sense or not. But despite all of these, many Hanafi method scholars claimed that they are acting with the sayings of companions which is related from a companion in their own generations without any oppositions, but there is not any rumors coming from them towards their acting with the words of companions about the subjects which are cogniseable so sometimes they are acting with the words of companinons and the other times with the comparison, thus their implementations about the sayings of companinos in the cogniseable subjects are not fitting and they are not putting the sayings of companions forward the comparison. Besides Hanafi method scholars agreed that a saying of a companion which was related from another companion is hujjat in the uncogniseable subjects with the comparison/ sense in their own generation without any oppositions, but they divided into two in the cogniseable subjects with comparison/ sense if it is prior than the comparison or no. The first group which is being led Abu Saed al-Berdâî (317/ 930) asserted that it is obligatory to act with the sayings of companions both in the uncogniseable subjects with comparison/ sense and in the cogniseable subjects. But the other group which is being led by Abu 'l-Hasan al-Karhî (340/ 952) stated that it is allowable to act with the sayings of companions only in uncogniseable subjects with comparison/ sense and the sayings of companions have no superiority against comparison.