Search

Social media has become a necessity for people. The fact remains that, the increase in the number of users of social media platforms and the fact that they spend a lot of timeon social media cause some differences in the influence of users, in the desired direction of thinking and the need for verification. Recently, Instagram is among the platforms most used by university students. Starting from this, this study investigates how universities in TRNC use Instagram accounts in the context of communication. In line with this goal, the research, the posts shared by the five universities in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which have the most Instagram followers, in the fall semester of the 2021-2022 academic year, were analyzed by content analysis method. The posts were handled in 5 categories: news -announcement, promotion, culture, art, sports, social responsibility and special day. As a result of the study, the Instagram accounts of the universities were analyzed.

Sünnî fıkıh usulünde yaygın bir kabul olan kitap, sünnet, icmā‘ ve kıyas şeklindeki dörtlü şer‘î delil tertibini bir fıkıh usulü tarihi incelemesi çerçevesinde ele alan bu çalışma bu kabulün hangi evre-lerde ve ne gibi değişikliklerle ortaya çıktığını tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Farklı te’lif gelenek-leri içerisinde üretilmiş ve günümüze kadar ulaşmış fıkıh usulü eserlerinin büyük bir bölümünü ve fıkıh usulü eseri olmasa da bu konuya değinen çeşitli alanlardaki kaynaklar makalenin araştırma evreni olarak tanımlanmış bunlardan temsil kabiliyeti olanlar da çalışmada atfa değer kabul edile-rek zikredilmiştir. Tarihsel tespit ve değerlendirme çalışması olarak kurgulandığından makalede konunun hukuk felsefesi ve teorisi bakımından ilgi çekici olabilecek boyutları bir kısmı zaten yapılmış olan başka araştırmalara havale edilerek analiz kapsamına alınmamıştır. Bu makalede iki temel soru cevaplanmaya çalışılmıştır: Birincisi, kitap, sünnet, icmā‘ ve kıyas şeklinde deliller tertibinin kabul görmesinde tarihsel olarak hangi aktörler ne oranda katkı sağla-mıştır sorusudur. Bu noktada kimi çağdaş araştırmalarda iddia edilenin aksine Şāfi‘ī’nin bu delil tertibinde belirleyici otoriteye sahip olduğu yönündeki tezin isabetli olmadığı ortaya konmuştur. Hicrî ikinci ilâ dördüncü asırlarda yaşayan usulcülerin bu dört delili akıl, açık istinbat, duyu, dil, haber, meşhur rivayetler gibi farklı delillerle bir arada zikrettikleri görülmektedir. Bunlar arasında Ceṣṣāṣ’ın sonraki dönemlerin temel tartışma konusu olan kıyasın kitap, sünnet ve icmā‘ gibi bir delil sayılıp sayılamayacağına ilişkin yaptığı izah, kıyasın bu dörtlü delil tertibinde yerini almasın-daki rasyonel zemini önemli ölçüde aydınlatmıştır. Zira hicrî beşinci asırla birlikte başlayan delil kavramını kat‘î delile hasretme eğilimi kıyası deliller tertibinin dışına çıkarma yönünde bir sonucu doğurmuş; delillerin kitap, sünnet ve icmā‘ şeklinde sınırlanması genel kabul görür hale gelmiştir. Ancak aynı asrında sonla, This study deals with the four-source order, which is commonly accepted in the Sunni legal theory, within the limits of a historical investigation of Islamic legal theory. This article aims to determine in which phases this recognition has occurred and with what sort of changes. The majority of extant uṣūl works that have been produced in different traditions and some other sources in different disciplines have been defined as the research universe of this study. Among them, those which could represent these works have been cited in this article. Since it was de-signed as a historical investigation and evaluation study, some dimensions of the subject that may be of interest in terms of legal philosophy and theory are not included in the analysis. These topics some of which have already been studied in certain works are suggested for further re-search.In this article, two main questions are addressed: First, the question of which actors have histori-cally contributed to the acceptance of the four-source order in the form of kitāb, sunna, ijmā‘ and qiyās. On this point, contrary to what is claimed in some contemporary scholarship, it has been revealed that the thesis that al-Shāfi‘ī was the responsible authority for this four-source order is not accurate. It is seen that the scholars living in the second to fourth centuries A.H. mentioned these four sources together with different sources such as reason, definite deduction, sense, language, recurrent reports and famous narrations. Among these, al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s explanation as to whether qiyās can be counted as a source together with kitāb, sunna, and ijmā‘, which is the main subject of discussion in the next periods, has significantly illuminated the rational ground for qiyās to take place in this four-source order. Beginning with the fifth century, the tendency to restrict the notion of dalīl to definitive sources, had a consequence in the direction of excluding qiyās from the apparatus of source order; hence it

Sünnî fıkıh usulünde yaygın bir kabul olan kitap, sünnet, icmā‘ ve kıyas şeklindeki dörtlü şer‘î delil tertibini bir fıkıh usulü tarihi incelemesi çerçevesinde ele alan bu çalışma bu kabulün hangi evre-lerde ve ne gibi değişikliklerle ortaya çıktığını tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Farklı te’lif gelenek-leri içerisinde üretilmiş ve günümüze kadar ulaşmış fıkıh usulü eserlerinin büyük bir bölümünü ve fıkıh usulü eseri olmasa da bu konuya değinen çeşitli alanlardaki kaynaklar makalenin araştırma evreni olarak tanımlanmış bunlardan temsil kabiliyeti olanlar da çalışmada atfa değer kabul edile-rek zikredilmiştir. Tarihsel tespit ve değerlendirme çalışması olarak kurgulandığından makalede konunun hukuk felsefesi ve teorisi bakımından ilgi çekici olabilecek boyutları bir kısmı zaten yapılmış olan başka araştırmalara havale edilerek analiz kapsamına alınmamıştır. Bu makalede iki temel soru cevaplanmaya çalışılmıştır: Birincisi, kitap, sünnet, icmā‘ ve kıyas şeklinde deliller tertibinin kabul görmesinde tarihsel olarak hangi aktörler ne oranda katkı sağla-mıştır sorusudur. Bu noktada kimi çağdaş araştırmalarda iddia edilenin aksine Şāfi‘ī’nin bu delil tertibinde belirleyici otoriteye sahip olduğu yönündeki tezin isabetli olmadığı ortaya konmuştur. Hicrî ikinci ilâ dördüncü asırlarda yaşayan usulcülerin bu dört delili akıl, açık istinbat, duyu, dil, haber, meşhur rivayetler gibi farklı delillerle bir arada zikrettikleri görülmektedir. Bunlar arasında Ceṣṣāṣ’ın sonraki dönemlerin temel tartışma konusu olan kıyasın kitap, sünnet ve icmā‘ gibi bir delil sayılıp sayılamayacağına ilişkin yaptığı izah, kıyasın bu dörtlü delil tertibinde yerini almasın-daki rasyonel zemini önemli ölçüde aydınlatmıştır. Zira hicrî beşinci asırla birlikte başlayan delil kavramını kat‘î delile hasretme eğilimi kıyası deliller tertibinin dışına çıkarma yönünde bir sonucu doğurmuş; delillerin kitap, sünnet ve icmā‘ şeklinde sınırlanması genel kabul görür hale gelmiştir. Ancak aynı asrında sonla, This study deals with the four-source order, which is commonly accepted in the Sunni legal theory, within the limits of a historical investigation of Islamic legal theory. This article aims to determine in which phases this recognition has occurred and with what sort of changes. The majority of extant uṣūl works that have been produced in different traditions and some other sources in different disciplines have been defined as the research universe of this study. Among them, those which could represent these works have been cited in this article. Since it was de-signed as a historical investigation and evaluation study, some dimensions of the subject that may be of interest in terms of legal philosophy and theory are not included in the analysis. These topics some of which have already been studied in certain works are suggested for further re-search.In this article, two main questions are addressed: First, the question of which actors have histori-cally contributed to the acceptance of the four-source order in the form of kitāb, sunna, ijmā‘ and qiyās. On this point, contrary to what is claimed in some contemporary scholarship, it has been revealed that the thesis that al-Shāfi‘ī was the responsible authority for this four-source order is not accurate. It is seen that the scholars living in the second to fourth centuries A.H. mentioned these four sources together with different sources such as reason, definite deduction, sense, language, recurrent reports and famous narrations. Among these, al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s explanation as to whether qiyās can be counted as a source together with kitāb, sunna, and ijmā‘, which is the main subject of discussion in the next periods, has significantly illuminated the rational ground for qiyās to take place in this four-source order. Beginning with the fifth century, the tendency to restrict the notion of dalīl to definitive sources, had a consequence in the direction of excluding qiyās from the apparatus of source order; hence it

This paper considers the history of Islamic family law and its current applications in Turkey. As the heir of the last Muslim empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey chose an abrupt revolution in its legal system; in 1926, it cut all ties to Islamic law, which was the main law of the land during the Ottoman Empire. Secularization of the law was not uncommon among modern nation states including those, which had Muslim majority populations. However, most of these Muslim majority states allowed Islamic law to govern the private law area, especially family laws. By contrast, the young Republic of Turkey did not allow this to happen and adopted the Swiss civil code including family law with limited revisions. Despite this rushed revolution, practices emanating from Islamic family legal norms did not cease among the people and continued until now. This created a dichotomy in the lives of people between applying Islamic family law and abiding by the secular civil code, which has caused several multidimensional legal problems in the areas of marriage and divorce, as well as their legal consequences in the areas of financial support and child custody. For the first time in republican history, in 2017, the government authorized muftīs to solemnize marriages. This is seen as the only direct authority given to muftīs in a legal matter, which indirectly opens a door for applying Islamic family law in modern legal life in Turkey. In addition, family mediation will soon have some presence in the legal system. There is no direct reference, however, to Islamic family law in government official documents congruent with these recent developments. There also is significant potential for incorporating the principles of family mediation and arbitration (taḥkīm) based on Islamic legal principles. This paper first gives a brief history of Islamic family law in Turkey as well as its effect on the civil codes and applications and then evaluates these recent changes. These are prec

The 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries witnessed significant developments in Islamic intellectual history. Most of the hadith collections that later came to be recognized as canonical were compiled in this period and the major schools of law and certain theological schools also completed their formation during the same period. Despite this continuous progress in other fields of religious sciences, there is an unusual lapse of time between what is widely considered the first work in usul al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) al-Risala by al-Shafi`i (204/819), and what is recognized as the second work al-Fusul fi-al-usul by al-Jassas (370/981). Due to the absence of a major work devoted solely to usul al-fiqh from this period, the majority of contemporary scholars considered it as a period of history during which there was little or no intellectual activity in the field of usul al-fiqh and where no significant developments took place. This assumption has driven some scholars to assign a new starting point for the field of usul al-fiqh and even different definitions of usul al-fiqh. The question of what in fact took place during this `dark period,' however, has not been fully or adequately explored. This dissertation attempts to provide an answer to this question and to shed light on the development of usul al-fiqh during this period. It argues that the ostensible `gap' (or absence of scholarly production) between the years (204/819) and (370/981) in the field of usul al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) is in fact illusory. The years mentioned here are the death year of al-Shafi`i, the author of al-Risala, often reckoned to be the first treatise in usul al-fiqh and the death year of al-Jassas (370/981), the author al-Fusul fi-al-usul, the next independent treatise in the field. The presence of a gap may be defended only if understood in the sense of the absence of an independent extant work in the category of usul al-fiqh. Based upon the results of this examination of extensive docume

The 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries witnessed significant developments in Islamic intellectual history. Most of the hadith collections that later came to be recognized as canonical were compiled in this period and the major schools of law and certain theological schools also completed their formation during the same period. Despite this continuous progress in other fields of religious sciences, there is an unusual lapse of time between what is widely considered the first work in usul al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) al-Risala by al-Shafi`i (204/819), and what is recognized as the second work al-Fusul fi-al-usul by al-Jassas (370/981). Due to the absence of a major work devoted solely to usul al-fiqh from this period, the majority of contemporary scholars considered it as a period of history during which there was little or no intellectual activity in the field of usul al-fiqh and where no significant developments took place. This assumption has driven some scholars to assign a new starting point for the field of usul al-fiqh and even different definitions of usul al-fiqh. The question of what in fact took place during this `dark period,' however, has not been fully or adequately explored. This dissertation attempts to provide an answer to this question and to shed light on the development of usul al-fiqh during this period. It argues that the ostensible `gap' (or absence of scholarly production) between the years (204/819) and (370/981) in the field of usul al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) is in fact illusory. The years mentioned here are the death year of al-Shafi`i, the author of al-Risala, often reckoned to be the first treatise in usul al-fiqh and the death year of al-Jassas (370/981), the author al-Fusul fi-al-usul, the next independent treatise in the field. The presence of a gap may be defended only if understood in the sense of the absence of an independent extant work in the category of usul al-fiqh. Based upon the results of this examination of extensive docume

Nevbahar Tamçelik,1 Belgin Izgi,2 Ahmet Temel,3 Nilgun Yildirim,4 Mehmet Okka,5 Altan Özcan,6 NurÅŸen Yüksel,7 Ufuk Elgin,8 ÇiÄŸdem Altan,9 Baris Ozer10 1CerrahpaÅŸa School of Medicine, Istanbul University, 2Çapa School of Medicine, Istanbul University, 3Pendik Research and Training Hospital, Marmara University, Istanbul, 4School of Medicine, Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, 5Meram School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, 6Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, 7Kocaeli University Medical Faculty, Kocaeli, 8Ulucanlar Eye Hospital, Ankara, 9Beyoglu Eye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, 10Allergan Ä°Iaçları Tic AÅž, Istanbul, Turkey Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy, tolerability, safety, and usage patterns of prostaglandin analog/prostamide (PGA/P)-containing topical ocular hypotensives in ocular hypertension (OHT) and primary open-angle glaucoma in the Turkish clinical setting.Methods: This non-interventional, multicenter study enrolled previously treated patients who failed to achieve target IOP (or experienced unacceptable adverse events [AEs]) and were prescribed a PGA/P-containing IOP-lowering agent. Treatment was initiated at baseline (V1), and patients returned at weeks 4–6 (V2) and 8–12 (V3). The primary efficacy measure was the change in IOP from baseline at V3 in each eye. The secondary measures were physician’s assessment of IOP-lowering efficacy, patients (%) reaching target IOP determined at V1, hyperemia score, physician and patient assessment of study treatment tolerability at V3, and AE frequency/severity. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving the most common study treatment was conducted. All analyses were performed using the safety population (patients who received one or more doses and had any data available).Result