Publication: Şer”iyye sicilleri ışığında islam yargılama hukukunda bilirkişilik
Abstract
Tarihin hemen her döneminde yargılamada bilirkişiye ihtiyaç duyulmuştur ve bu ihtiyaç giderek artmaktadır. Hz. Peygamber'in yargılama yaparken bilfiil bilirkişi mütalaasına başvurduğuna rastlanmamaktadır. Râşid halifeler dönemindeyse ilk halife Hz.Ebû Bekir'den itibaren yargılamada bilirkişiden yardım alındığı anlaşılmaktadır. İslâm Hukukçuları bilirkişilik için çeşitli kavramlar geliştirmişler ve, onun yargılamadaki fonksiyonunu göz önünde tuturak çeşitli nitelemelerde bulunmuşlardır. İslâm hukukçuları bilirkişinin mahiyet için ileri sürülen modellerden Bilirkişiyi bir açıdan ispat vasıtası, diğer yönden hâkim yardımcısı sayan modeli benimsemişlerdir. Hukukçular bilirkişinin mahiyetinin anlaşılması için yargılama içindeki fonksiyonunun incelenmesi gerektiği kanaatine varmışlardır. Bu kanaat onları hâkimin mesleği gereği neleri bilmesi gerektiğinin tespitine yöneltmiştir. Yapılan çalışmalar sonucu hakimin hukuk normlarını ve genel tecrübe kurallarını bilmesi gerektiği, bu alanda bilirkişi görüşüne başvuramayacağı görşü doktrinde ağırlık kazanmıştır. Buna karşılık örf ve âdet kurallarıyla yabancı hukuk normları sahasında bu kurala istisna getirilmiştir. Aynı şeyleri İslâm hukuk için de söylemek mümkündür. Hâkimin bilirkişi yardımına başvurması gereken asıl saha, özel ve meslekî tecrübe isteyen saha olarak kabul edilmiştir. Osmanlılar yargılamayı İslâm hukukuna göre yürüttükleri için bilirkişilik için kanunî bir düzenleme getirmemişlerdir. Bununla birlikte padişahlar tarafından ihtiyaç oldukça çıkarılan kanunnâmelerden İhtisap kanunnâmelerinde ehl-i hibre, ehl-i vukûf terimleri sıkça kullanılmakla birlikte, bu kişiler -bilirkişilik fonksiyonu görebilecek kişiler olsalar bile- her halükârda bilirkişi değillerdir. Şer 'iyye sicillerinde bilirkişi incelemesi yaptırılan vâkıaların, klasik dönem İslâm hukuk literatüründe öngörülen vâkıalara nispeten çok genişlemiş ve çeşitlenmiş olduğu görülmektedir. Sicillerde yargılama hukuku açısından dikkati çeken nokta, Osmanlı yargı sisteminin yargılamada aleniyet ilkesine titizlikle riayet etmiş olduğudur. Önümüzdeki dönemlerde de bilirkişilik kurumunun gerçek fonksiyonu ve yargılama içerisindeki konumunun canlı bir ilgi ve tartışma odağı teşkil edeceğini söylemek mümkündür
(expertness in Islamic judgements According to Shar 'iyya Records) Throughout the history humanity needed experts in judicial rulings and the need is growing even stronger. There is no evidence showing that the Prophet had recourse to experts in his judgements, and it seems that experts began to be appealed for during the time of the Abu Bakr, the first one of the four rightly guided caliphs. The fuqaha, considering the function of the experts in judicial rulings, have developed various terms for their qualificatin. Among the various definitions used for the experts they accepted the one tahat sees tehem as an agent for confirmation in one respect and an associate to the judge in other. Jurists have reached to the opinion that the true nature of experts can only be understood by identifying their function in judicial process. And this opinion led them to establish the qualifications of the judge, i.e.what should he know in order to carry out his duties. After the research they concluded that the judge must know the rules of jurisprudecnce and the rules of generel experience becaus in these two areas he can not resort to experts. On the other hand they added that it is not a must for the judge to know the rules of custom and the rules of foreign jurisprudence. The same may be said for islamic Jurisprudence where it is also accepted that the judge may only resort to experts in private and profeesional fields. The Ottomans carried out judgements according to İslamıc laws and they did not lay down a law for expertness. However in code of laws which were issued by Sultans from time to time the terms ahl al-hibra and ahl al-vuquf were used frequently; but these people -even if they qualified as experts- as experts- were not experts in legal sense. It seems that in Ottoman Shar'iyya records there are more casese on which the experts opinions are sought than the cases offered by classiacal litarature of İslamıc jurisprudence. İn shar'iyya records, one point is worthy of mention about judgements, that is the Ottoman judicial systm put much emphasis on principle of publicity. İt is possible to say that, in the future, the rtue function of experts and their place within the judicial system will attract more studies and debates.
(expertness in Islamic judgements According to Shar 'iyya Records) Throughout the history humanity needed experts in judicial rulings and the need is growing even stronger. There is no evidence showing that the Prophet had recourse to experts in his judgements, and it seems that experts began to be appealed for during the time of the Abu Bakr, the first one of the four rightly guided caliphs. The fuqaha, considering the function of the experts in judicial rulings, have developed various terms for their qualificatin. Among the various definitions used for the experts they accepted the one tahat sees tehem as an agent for confirmation in one respect and an associate to the judge in other. Jurists have reached to the opinion that the true nature of experts can only be understood by identifying their function in judicial process. And this opinion led them to establish the qualifications of the judge, i.e.what should he know in order to carry out his duties. After the research they concluded that the judge must know the rules of jurisprudecnce and the rules of generel experience becaus in these two areas he can not resort to experts. On the other hand they added that it is not a must for the judge to know the rules of custom and the rules of foreign jurisprudence. The same may be said for islamic Jurisprudence where it is also accepted that the judge may only resort to experts in private and profeesional fields. The Ottomans carried out judgements according to İslamıc laws and they did not lay down a law for expertness. However in code of laws which were issued by Sultans from time to time the terms ahl al-hibra and ahl al-vuquf were used frequently; but these people -even if they qualified as experts- as experts- were not experts in legal sense. It seems that in Ottoman Shar'iyya records there are more casese on which the experts opinions are sought than the cases offered by classiacal litarature of İslamıc jurisprudence. İn shar'iyya records, one point is worthy of mention about judgements, that is the Ottoman judicial systm put much emphasis on principle of publicity. İt is possible to say that, in the future, the rtue function of experts and their place within the judicial system will attract more studies and debates.