Publication: Hicri V. asır fıkıh usulü eserlerinde emrin delaleti tartışmaları
Abstract
HİCRİ V. ASIR FIKIH USULÜ ESERLERİNDE EMRİN DELALETİ TARTIŞMALARI Hicrî V. asır fıkıh usulünün en önemli asrıdır. Bu asırda telif edilen fıkıh usulü eserlerinde emrin delaleti konusuna geniş yer ayrılmıştır. Bu konu ciddi tartışmaların ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Usulcülerin çoğuna göre dilde emrin bir sıygası vardır ve o sıygayla emir manası anlaşılır. Emrin delalet ettiği hüküm, miktar ve zaman hakkında usul bilginleri arasında görüş birliği yoktur. Usulcülerin çoğu mutlak emrin vücubu gerektirdiğini söylemiştir. Yasaklamadan sonra gelen emir yasaklamayı karine kabul edenler tarafında ibâhaya hamledilmiştir. Bu yasaklamayı karine kabul etmeyenler ise emrin delalet ettiği asıl hükmün devam ettiğini söylemişlerdir. Usulcülerin çoğuna göre emir zıddında nehyi gerektirir. Emrin gerektirdiği miktar konusunda çoğunluk bir defa yapma taraftarıdır. Emrin gerektirdiği zaman hakkında ise usul bilginlerinin bir kısmı emrin hemen yapmayı (fevr) gerektirdiğini iddia ederken bir kısmı da geciktirerek yapmayı gerektirdiğini (terâhî) söylemiştir. Usulcüler bu tartışmalarda büyük ölçüde dilbilimsel deliller kullanmışlardır. Bu delillerden bazıları oldukça zayıftır. Hatta bazı deliller zıt görüşlü yaklaşımlar tarafından kullanılmıştır. Bu durum bazı usulcülerin bu delillerden hareketle usul kurallarına ulaşmadıkları fakat zihinlerinde zaten var olan bu kurallardan hareketle deliller ortaya koydukları izlenimini uyandırmaktadır.
THE DEBATES ON THE COMMAND’S INDICATION IN JURISRPUDENCE BOOKS IN THE 5th CENTURY A.H. The fifth century a.h. is the most important era for jurisprudence. In the jurisprudence books of this century the subject of command’s indication takes a wide place. This subject has caused serious debates to arise. According to the majority of Muslim jurists there is a mood for command in language and the meaning of the command is understood from that mood. There is no any consensus about the legal rule (hukm), amount and time which the command indicates among Muslim jurists. The majority of Muslim jurists state that the command requires necessity (vucub). The jurists who regard forbidding as evidence for the command which comes after forbidding state that the command indicates ibâha while the jurists who don’t regard it as evidence claim that the original legal rule which the command indicate continues. According to the majority of Muslim jurists the command requires forbidding in its opposition. About the amount which the command requires the majority say that the command require one particular practice. About the time which the command requires while some jurists claim that the command require immediacy (favr), the others say that it requires late doing (terâhî). The Muslim jurists generally have used linguistic arguments at these discussions. Some of these arguments are rather weak. Moreover the same arguments have been used by jurists have opposite perspectives. This situation invokes the impression that some jurists haven’t gained the juristic rules by using these arguments on the contrary they reached these arguments from the rules they already have in their minds.
THE DEBATES ON THE COMMAND’S INDICATION IN JURISRPUDENCE BOOKS IN THE 5th CENTURY A.H. The fifth century a.h. is the most important era for jurisprudence. In the jurisprudence books of this century the subject of command’s indication takes a wide place. This subject has caused serious debates to arise. According to the majority of Muslim jurists there is a mood for command in language and the meaning of the command is understood from that mood. There is no any consensus about the legal rule (hukm), amount and time which the command indicates among Muslim jurists. The majority of Muslim jurists state that the command requires necessity (vucub). The jurists who regard forbidding as evidence for the command which comes after forbidding state that the command indicates ibâha while the jurists who don’t regard it as evidence claim that the original legal rule which the command indicate continues. According to the majority of Muslim jurists the command requires forbidding in its opposition. About the amount which the command requires the majority say that the command require one particular practice. About the time which the command requires while some jurists claim that the command require immediacy (favr), the others say that it requires late doing (terâhî). The Muslim jurists generally have used linguistic arguments at these discussions. Some of these arguments are rather weak. Moreover the same arguments have been used by jurists have opposite perspectives. This situation invokes the impression that some jurists haven’t gained the juristic rules by using these arguments on the contrary they reached these arguments from the rules they already have in their minds.