Search

Causality was and still is a central focus of linguistic researchers studying morphology and grammar. It is as old as morphology itself, as it explains morphological phenomena and rules, and helps students to master and delve into this science. It is causality that explains any deletion, replacement, rationalization, or change in the structure of a word. Hence, the importance of this issue for both beginners and specialists. This study sheds light on morphological causality in Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazani's Sharh al-Tasrif, and clarifies his analytical approach by extracting all the causes mentioned in the book and classifying them according to the chapters of the book, explaining their type and locations, the justifications he used. This is done using a descriptive, analytical, and inductive approach. One of the most important findings of the study is the abundance and diversity of causes in Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazani, as he used more than forty types of causes in more than one hundred and twenty-five places. He followed Sibawayh in some causes and took what he went to. Among the most common causes in the book are the cause of lightness and heaviness, and preventing confusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Akademik-Us is the property of Akademik-US and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Since the early periods, linguists have acted on the principle of explaining each linguistic issue through its underlying causes. Although they concentrated on the science of Arabic Syntax, they also elaborate on explaining the rhetorical issues with their causes as an extension of Arabic Syntax. It is a known fact that commentators, who pay great attention to the style of the Holy Qur’ān, rely on the causes while explaining the verses. This paper aims to analyze the causes which play an important role in explaining the issues of precence and delay through the commentary of al-Zamakhsharī whom had a creative and innovative way in the style of precence and delay. For this reason, the underlying causes, he relied on to explain the issues of precedence and delay and its intended meaning, have been examined through some examples from al-Zamakhsharī's commentary. In this context, the concept of cause (ʿilla) and evidence (qarīna) s and the necessity of the causes to determine the meaning in the Holy Qur’ān are explained. This study also talks about the evidences/indications (al-qarīna al-mu‘ayyina and al-qarīna al-māni‘a) that al-Zamakhsharī used them to determine the issues of precence and delay; and for the intended meaning. This study required using analytical methods. And the research concludes that al-qarīna al-māni‘a in these issues is the Presumption of Rank. Although al-Zamakhsharī did not mention these explicitly, he suggested it indirectly, and he used contextual and situational proofs to identify the purposes of the precence. It is also noteworthy that he is the first person to explicitly mention the meaning of specialization as indication of precence. However, it would be more accurate approach to evaluate his inference as a conclusion that he reached by including the context and situation and relying on the data of previous linguists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Turkey Journal of Theological Studies is the property of Turkey Journal of Theological Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Itobiad: Journal of the Human & Social Science Researches / İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Itobiad: Journal of the Human & Social Science Researches and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of this article is to examine the public benefits and interests in determining the causes of the provisions while revealing the things that are in favor or against the person in terms of his deeds/actions by Islamic jurists from detailed/partial evidence in the context of Islamic law. While making the compotent Muslim responsible for the command, the wise Shari' Almighty has primarily taken having the faculty of reason as the basis. In this context, Muslims have also developed some sciences in order to ground religious provisions on a rational basis. The science of hadith methodology was developed for the correct transmission of the textual narrations, and the science of methodology of Islamic jurisprudence was developed for the correct understanding of such narrations. They also determined the sources/origins and evidences of the sciences called fiqh and usul al-fiqh, and the ways and rules of accessing these sciences within the framework of above-mentioned sciences. While in regards to the rulings and their causes, the objectives of Shari’a (maqaṣid) is taken into consideration in terms of Divine Lawmaker, the public interest (maslaha) is taken into consideration in terms of the compotent believers. In this context, although it is essential to worship/serve the Shari'a in prayer, the satisfaction and peace of the soul and heart, the discipline of time and the interests of accountability are taken into consideration for the competent believer. Fasting is obligatory for those who are healthy, zakat is obligatory for those who have the minimum required amount of wealth, and pilgrimage is obligatory upon those who are rich and healthy. As can be seen in these examples, objectives of Shari’a and interests of the public have been considered together. The reason also plays an active role in determining these issues, addressing them, thinking about and understanding them. As a matter of fact, although the determination of causes was not based solely on the perspective of wisdom by the jurists, a rational basis was still sought in every religious ruling. Literally, juristic cause (‘illah) literally means a situation that causes a change in its location. In the conceptual framework, it means the situation that makes it appropriate to impose the provision, the intended result, benefit, clear or stable characteristic of the provision. A person traveling during Ramadan is given the permission not to fast. The interest considered here is to relieve the burden and trouble of the traveler. Being on a journey is taken as the cause of the ruling. The conditions required for the legal cause are that it should be clear, stable, appropriate, and that it should not be specific for a certain situation. In this context, intoxication is the legal cause for the prohibition of wine while being on a journey is the legal cause for shortening of ritual prayers. In addition, when determining the legal cause, the Holy Book and the sunnah of the Prophet are the first sources to look. In the second degree, if there is a consensus among mujtahids in an age regarding that a certain quality was the cause of a religious ruling, this quality was accepted as the cause of that ruling by consensus. In this respect, reason is important in understanding religious provisions. Because when the compotent believer understands the cause existing behind a ruling, he may be more willing to do what is ordered to him by the Shari' Almighty. In this article, we have shown the role of reason and the objectives of Shari’a and the public interest, on which Islamic jurists base their views while deducing the religious provisions of the compotent believers’ actions from the detailed evidences in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah by using the method of textual analysis and the qualitative method within the framework of classical and modern scientific sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hüküm çıkarma yöntemlerinden olan kıyas, asıl, ferʿ, aslın hükmü ve illet olmak üzere dört ana temel üzerine oturtulmuştur. Asıl ile ferʿi birleştiren bir manadan dolayı ferʿi asla hamledip, her ikisinde de aynı hükmü ispat veya nefyetmeyi ifade eden illet, kıyas konusunda tartışmaların en fazla yapıldığı unsurdur. Nitekim illet; mahiyeti, kısımları, tespit yolları (mesâlikü’l-ille) ve ilgili şartları bakımından gerek aynı ekol içerisinde gerekse farklı ekollere mensup usulcüler arasında oldukça derinlikli tartışmalara konu olmuştur. İllet konusunda usulcülerin hakkında ihtilaf ettikleri en önemli konulardan birisi de illete yöneltilen itirazlardır. İllete yapılan itirazların isim ve sayıları hakkında genel olarak mezhepler arasında görülen fikir ayrılıkları aynı mezhebe mensup usulcüler arasında da kendini göstermiştir. Tartışma üslubu açısından cedel ve hilâf ilimlerinin temel özelliğini taşıyan itirazlar, esasında mezkûr ilimlerin konuları arasında sayılmıştır. Bu konuların fıkıh usulü eserlerinde anlatılmasının gerekip gerekmediği tartışması sürmekle birlikte usulcülerin çoğunluğu illete yapılan itirazları detaylı bir şekilde eserlerinde işlemişlerdir. Bu durum da illete yönelik itirazları genelde fıkıh usulünün özelde de illet bahislerinin en temel konuları haline getirmiştir. Bahsedilen hususlar da göz önünde bulundurularak illete yapılan itirazları çok yönlü olarak incelemek amacıyla gerek mütekellim gerekse fukahâ yöntemi usulcüleri içerisinde illete yapılan itirazlar konusunu en kapsamlı ve sistematik bir şekilde inceleyen Seyfeddin el-Âmidî’nin (ö. 631/1233) yaklaşımı tercih edilmiştir. İllete yönelik itirazların tamamını hatta bir kısmını ele almanın, bir makale boyutunu aşacağı kaygısından ötürü bu itirazlardan sadece kalb yöntemi ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca konunun oldukça teknik bir boyuta sahip olması da bir gerekçe olarak söylenebilir. Yine kalb itirazını ayrıntılı bir şekilde ve her yönüyle incelemek maksadıyla diğer mezhep usulcülerin görüşleriyle bir kıyaslama yapılmamıştır. Şâfiî mezhebine mensup usulcülerin görüşlerine ise kısaca atıfta bulunulmuştur. Çalışmamızda Âmidî’nin görüşlerini tercih etmemizin sebebi onun konu hakkındaki düşüncelerinin diğer Şâfiî usulcülerin kanaatlerini de kapsayacağı ya da kısmen de olsa yansıtacağı varsayımıdır. Bu bağlamda konumuza zemin hazırlaması bakımından Âmidî öncesi Şâfiî usulcülerin illete yönelttikleri itirazlara kısaca yer verildikten sonra Âmidî’nin kalb itirazıyla alâkalı verdiği bilgiler detaylı olarak ele alınıp incelenmiştir. Gerekli görüldüğü yerlerde Âmidî’nin konu hakkındaki görüşü diğer Şâfiî usulcülerin görüşleriyle karşılaştırılarak mukayese edilmiştir. Âmidî, illete yönelik itirazların sayısını yirmi beşe kadar çıkartarak konunun en geniş ve sistematik halini oluşturmuştur. Bu kapsamda bazı usulcülerin isimlendirme yoluna gitmeden muhteva açısından değindiği bir kısım itirazları isimlendirerek her birini ayrıntılı olarak ele almıştır. Kalb itirazını da detaylı bir şekilde inceleyen Âmidî, bu itirazı kalbü’d-da‘vâ, kalbü’d-delil ve kalbü’t-tesviye şeklinde üç kısma ayırdıktan sonra kalb ve çeşitleri hakkında birtakım değerlendirmelerde bulunmuştur. Âmidî’nin kalb itirazıyla ilgili değerlendirmelerinde dikkat çeken en önemli hususlardan birisi onun kullandığı fürû örneklerin diğer Şâfiî usulcülerin örnekleriyle hemen hemen aynı olmasıdır. Kalb itirazının tanımına bakıldığında genellikle her bir Şâfiî usulcünün kalbin belli bir özelliğini veya türünü dikkate alarak kalb yöntemiyle itirazı tanımlamaya çalıştıkları görülmektedir. Âmidî’nin de Şâfiî usulcülere benzer bir yaklaşım ortaya koyduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Nitekim o da kalb itirazını çeşitlerine göre farklı şekillerde tarif etmiştir. Âmidî’ye göre kalbin temelini “müstedilin muterize karşı bir vasfın illet olduğuna dair öne sürdüğü delilin, lehine değil aleyhine olması” ya da “illet olduğuna dair delil olarak öne sürülen vasfın, müstedilin hem lehine hem de aleyhine olması” şeklindeki kalb türleri oluşturmaktadır. Âmidî, birincisinin kalbin ilk mertebesini, diğerinin de ikinci mertebesini teşkil ettiğini kaydetmiştir.

Copyright of Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Erciyes University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Bozok University Journal of Faculty of Theology / Bozok Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Bozok University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Defect is a hidden defect that affects the soundness of a hadith that is considered perfect. The basis of the hadiths about the defect, which is relatively difficult to detect, has been hadith memorization, understanding and knowledge. On the other hand, it is also known that hadith scholars act on certain presumptions in the determination of defect. The absence of hadith in the book of Muhaddis is one of these presumptions. By using this presumption, the muhaddis have concluded that some hadiths are maladies. Hadith critics refer to their books when they have doubts about a narrator or want to determine that he did not feed his mistake. With this method, they try to determine whether the error is due to the narrator's book or memorization. Again, with the help of this method, they also have the opportunity to test the extent to which the narrator learned the narrations of his teacher. Yahyā b. Maīn is one of the scholars who criticize the main hadith on the grounds that it is not found in the book of the hadith. Darāwardī→Alī b. Abdirrahmān's father, Abdurrahmān b. Yakūb→Hz. Prophet's style he criticized a hadith transmitted by the stating that this hadith is included in Derawardi's book and that it is weak in the narrations he made from his memory. Ibn Abī Hātim also gave his father Hajjaj b. Sulaymān al-Kumrī→Lays b. Saʿd→Muhammad b. Aclān→Kaʿkaʿ b. Hakīm→Abu Sālih al-Sammān→Abu Huraira asked about a hadith transmitted through, and Abu Hātim criticized the hadith with the words "This hadith is not found in anyone other than Hajjaj and is not in Lays's book" and used the relevant presumption. A striking example, which Abu Hātim found illegitimate on the grounds that the hadith is not included in the book of the muhaddith, is Muhammad b. Abdillāh b. Mubārek al-Muharrimī→Waqī b. Carrāh→Ismāīl b. Abī Hālid→Kays b. Abī Hāzim→Abu Huraira and Abu Saīd b. Yahyā b. Abī Saīd→Abu Usāma→Ismāīl Abī Khalid→Kays b. Abī Hāzim→Abu Huraira was transferred with the orders of. Abu Hātim reported that this hadith was written by Bundār Muhammad b. Başşār, Yahyā b. Saīd→Ismāīl b. Abī Khalid in the book in which he wrote the hadiths he received with the order of, Yaʿlâ b. Ubayd of İsmāīl b. Abī Khalid he pointed to the malady in the hadith, saying that there were hadiths that he narrated with the order of and that they were not included in his book. What makes this example striking is that it was narrated by Bukhari. Bukhari has narrated this hadith four times in his Sahīh. Ibn Ammār al-Shahīd al-Harawī and Dārakutnī, who are known for their criticism of Muslim's Sahīh, are among the critics who criticize the hadith based on the presumption that the hadith is not included in the book of the hadith. Critics sometimes felt the need to refer to the book at the point of determining a hadith that they doubted. For example, Abdurrazzāk→Maʿmar→Zuhrī→Ubaydullāh b. Abdullāh b. Utba→Ibn Abbās→Hz. The Prophet hadith transmitted by the is related to Hishām al-Dastavāī→Abān alAttār→Abdurrahmān b. Ishāk→Zuhrī→Hz. Prophet it was asked that it was transferred as a mursal in the form of the. Both of them narrated this hadith from Ibn Jurayrc to Abdullāh b. Abī Labīd→Zuhrī→Ubaydullāh b. Saīd→Ibn Abbās that he conveyed it with the order, in confirming these words, he said that Sufyān al-Sawrī was familiar with Ibn Jurayc's book and that this hadith was transmitted to Abdullah b. Abī Labīd→Zuhrī→Ubaydullāh b. Saīd→Abdullāh Ibn Abbās narrated that he took place in the form of. In this case, the research of the hadith within the framework of the book of the hadith has emerged as both a presumption of the cause of the hadith and a method for its proof and confirmation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hadislerin sıhhatinin tespiti için muhaddisler tarafından hadisin sened ve metnini ilgilendiren birtakım şartlar belirlenmiştir. Bu şartların sened ve metne bakan yönleri bulunmaktadır. Bu şartlardan biri de hadisin illetli olmamasıdır. Hadisin sıhhatini zedeleyen gizli bir kusur olarak bilinen illetin birtakım çeşitleri ve gerekçeleri olup, muhaddislerin illet tespiti noktasında kullandıkları bazı yöntemler bulunmaktadır. Bu yöntemleri üst başlık olarak ikiye ayırmak mümkündür. Bunlardan birisi cem-i turuk yapılarak hadisin illetine ulaşma yöntemi, bir diğeri de muhaddislerin hadislerle çokça meşgul olmalarından ötürü elde ettikleri melekeyle hadisin illetine ulaşmalarıdır. İllet tespitinde kullanılan cem-i turuk yöntemi kullanım sahası olarak daha geniş, hadis melekesiyle illet tespiti ise daha özel ve kapsam olarak nispeten dar bir alanı ilgilendirmektedir. Hadis âlimlerinin illet tespitinde kullandıkları yöntemlerden biri de “filanın rivâyetine benzemiyor” tenkididir. Bu tekit yöntemi, muhaddislerin hadis melekeleriyle uyguladıkları bir yöntemdir. Bu çalışmada ilgili kaidenin kullanım alanı tespit edilmeye ve hangi gerekçelerden yola çıkılarak bu kaidenin kullanıldığı tespit edilmeye çalışılacaktır.

القياس كما هو معلوم هو المصدر التشريعي الرابع، وقد عدَّهُ الأصوليون من الأدلة المتفَق عليها، ويتمثل في إلحاق أمرٍ غير منصوصٍ أو مُجمَع على حكمه بأمرٍ آخرَ منصوصٍ أو مُجمَعٍ على حكمه؛ لِاشتراكهما في العلَّة. وقد فصَّل الأصوليون القول في القياس، وقَسَموهُ تقسيماتٍ عديدةً، واختلفت أقوالهم في تفسير بعض الأقسام، وأثيرت حول بعضها إشكالاتٌ، ومن ذلك تقسيم القياس إلى قياسٍ أَولى وقياسٍ مُساوٍ وقياسٍ أدنى، فقد مثَّل الأصوليون لِقياس الأَولى بِقياس ضرب الوالدَين على التأفيف في الحرمة، ومثَّلوا لِلقياس المساوي بِقياس الأَمَةِ على العبد في سِراية العتق، أمَّا قياس الأدنى فمثَّلوا لهُ بِقياس التفَّاح على البُرّ في الرِّبويَّة. ولَئِنْ كان قياسُ الأَولى والقياسُ المساوي متفَقاً عليهما بين الأصوليين، مع وقوع الخلاف بينهم في أنهما هل يُسمَّيان قياساً أو لا؛ فإنَّ قِسْمَ قياس الأدنى كان محلَّ اعتراضٍ من قِبَل بعض الأصوليين الذين رأوا أن القياس الصحيح لا يكون أدنى؛ لأنَّ الفرع إذا لم يكن مساوياً للأصل في العلة فالقياس فاسدٌ، واستمرَّ الاعتراض على هذا القسم لَدى بعض المعاصرين. ورغم ما أُثير حول قياس الأدنى من إشكالات؛ إلا أن الباحث لم يطَّلع على مَن أفرَدهُ بالدراسة والبحث، فمعظَم مَن كتبوا في القياس قديماً وحديثاً تكلموا عن قياس الأدنى بما لا يزيد عن سطرٍ أو سطرَين، دون الجواب عن الإشكالات التي أثيرت حوله. ثم إن الباحث لم يطَّلع على مَن تتبعَ استعمالات قياس الأدنى في كتب الفروع لِبيان الجانب التطبيقي لَه. ومن هنا مَسَّتِ الحاجةُ إلى تقديم دراسةٍ وافيةٍ تُبيِّن معنى قياس الأدنى، وتُناقشُ الاعتراضاتِ والإشكالات التي أُثيرتْ حوله، وتُوضِحُ صِلَتَهُ بأقسام القياس الأخرى، وتهتمُّ بالجانب التطبيقي لهُ. وقد استعانَ الباحث بالمنهج التحليلي، ورجع إلى أهمِّ المصادر والمراجع الأصولية قديـماً وحديثاً. وانتهى البحث إلى نتائج، أبرزُها أنَّ لِقياس الأدْنى إطلاقَينِ: أحدهما أنهُ ما كان فيه الأصل أَولَى بالحكم من الفرع، وهذه الأدْونيَّة هي من حيث الحكمُ لا من حيث العلَّةُ؛ إذ يمتنع أن تكون العلة في الفرع أضعف منها في الأصل، لكن وجه الأدونيَّة أنَّ في الأصل أوصافاً متعددة صالحةً للعليَّة، فإذا ترجح عند المجتهد أحدها جعله هو العلة، ثم ألحقَ الفرع بالأصل بناء على الاشتراك في تلك العلة، وهذا الإلحاق قائمٌ على الظَّنِّ، وعلى هذا فالحكم في الأصل أقوى؛ لأن في الأصل كافةَ الأوصاف المحتملة للعليَّة، أما الفرع فقد لا يكون فيه إلا وصفٌ واحدٌ مِن بينها. وقياس الأدنى بالإطلاق الثاني هو ما كانت فيه العلة في الفرع أضعفَ منها في الأصل، فتكون العلة في الأصل أتمَّ وأقوى، وذلك لا يقدح في صحة القياس؛ إذ المطلوبُ وجودُ العلة بِتمامها في الفرع، وذلك لا يتنافى مع كونها قد تكون في الفرع أضعف أو أقوى. ومن النتائج التي انتهى إليها البحث أيضاً أنَّ الاعتراضات التي وُجِّهتْ إلى قياس الأدنى ضعيفةٌ، لأنها ترتكز على أنَّ الأدونية معناها ضعفُ العلة في الفرع، وأنَّ هذا يستلزم قيام الفارق بين الأصل والفرع، والجواب أن المساواة بين الأصل والفرع يكفي أن تكون في نوع العلة أو جنسها، ولا يُشترط التساوي في القوة والزيادة والشدة. وأما الاعتراضات التي وُجِّهت حديثاً إلى قياس الأدنى فضعيفة أيضاً؛ إذ من الإجحافِ والتنكرِ للواقع تقسيمُ القياس إلى أولى ومساوٍ فقط، وما قاله المعترضون من أن الأصوليين لم يذكروا مثالاً صحيحاً على قياس الأدنى مخالفٌ للصواب، فقد أوردوا أمثلةً كثيرةً عليه، وأمَّا ما ادعاه المعترضون من أن الأصوليين وضعوا قسمَ قياس الأدنى لِمجرد الدفاع عن أقيسة أئمتهم؛ فهذه الدعوى تفتقر إلى الدليل، بل للأصوليين مسوِّغاتُـهم التي دفعتْهم إلى وضع هذا التقسيم. وأوضح البحث أيضاً أنَّ حديث الفقهاء عن قياس الأدنى لم يخلُ -على إيجازهِ- من فائدة، وانتهى البحث إلى أنَّ الفقهاء قصَدوا بالمصطلح كونَ الأصل أَولى بالحكم من الفرع؛ لِكونِ العلة في الأصل أتمَّ وأقوى، أي أنَّ أدونيَّة القياس عند الفقهاء هي من حيث العلة، ولم يقصدوا بالمصطلح مجردَ كون القياس ظنِّيَّاً، ولذا رأيناهم استعملوا هذا المصطلح في معرض الاعتراض؛ لأنهم رأوا أن القياس الأدون لا يُصار إليه مع إمكان إجراء قياس المساواة.

Copyright of Journal of Young Intellectuals / Genç Mütefekkirler Dergisi is the property of Journal of Young Intellectuals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

İslam hukukunda şeri hükümler doğrudan naslarda yer alan ve doğrudan naslarda yer alanla ortak illeti taşıyan olmak üzere iki kısımdır. Bu sebeple müçtehidin hüküm istinbatında bulunurken nasslardan yola çıkarak sonuca ulaşması gerekli görülmektedir. Ancak bu her zaman kolay olmayabilir. Zira illet her zaman nasta bizzat zikredilmeyebilir ve müçtehit onu kolay bir şekilde tespit edemeyebilir. Nitekim kamu, şahıs ve aile hukukunda yönelik her bir hükmün naslarda yer alamayacağı yadsınamaz bir gerçekliktir. Çünkü değişen zaman ve oluşan şartlar karşısında nasların sınırlı olması bunu zorlaştırmaktadır. Dolayısıyla hükümlerin bir kısmı naslarda açık bir şekilde mevcut iken diğer bir kısmı dolaylı olarak yer almakta olup delâlet yöntemiyle anlaşılacak mahiyetteki metinlerde bulunmaktadır. Bu durumda İslam hukukçularına sınırlı sayıdaki naslardan yola çıkarak sınırsız olay ve probleme çözüm bulma görevi düşmektedir ki bunun kolay olmayacağı açıktır. İşte bu noktada ortaya çıkan sorunların çözümünde Kitap, Sünnet ve İcma’ gibi deliller yanında bilinenden hareketle bilinmeyene ulaşıp yeni sorunlara çözüm üretecek nitelikte bir delil daha gündeme gelmektedir ki o da kıyastır. İslam hukukunda hükümler genel olarak teabbüdî ve ta’lîlî olmak üzere ikili bir ayrıma tabi tutulmuştur. Taabbudi olarak nitelenen hükümler, Şari`in hükmü vazetme erekçelerinin hikmeti bilinmeyen dolayısıyla mahiyeti itibariyle ictihada kapalı alanı kuşatan hükümlerdir. Ta`îlî hükümler ise vazolunma amaç ve gayelerinin şer’i naslarda illeti ve hikmeti açıkça yer alan ve bildirilen bu itibarla ictihada açık alanı teşkil eden hükümlerdir. Bu anlamda ta`lil fıkıh usulünde bir hükmün illetinin tespit edilmesi, sebep ve hikmetlerinin açığa çıkarılması anlamına gelmektedir. İşte sınırlı sayıda mevcut naslarla sınırsız vaka ve sorunlara çözüm bulmak ancak ta’lîlle mümkündür. Buradan da anlaşılacağı üzere nasların illet ve hikmetlerinin belirlenmesi genelde İslam hukuku için özelde ise kıyas yoluyla hüküm istinbatı için oldukça önem arz etmektedir. Peki, bilinenden hareketle bilinmeyen hususlara çözüm üretmek için kullanılan kıyas metodunda hükümleri ta’lîl ederken hikmet mi yoksa illet mi tercih edilmelidir? Çalışmamızda öncelikle konunun daha iyi anlaşılması bakımından hikmet ve illet kavramlarının sözlük ve terim anlamları yanında iki kavramın mukayesesi ve özellikleri üzerinde durulmuş ardından da hikmet ile ta’lîlin imkânı tartışılıp fukahanın görüşleri gerekçeleriyle birlikte ele alınmıştır. Çalışmamız, hikmetin illet yerine kullanılıp kullanılamayacağı ve konu hakkındaki yaklaşımların analizi bakımından önemi haizdir. Bununla birlikte çalışmada klasik kaynaklar başta olmak üzere konumuz ile ilgili yazılmış tez, bildiri ve makalelerden yararlanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda klasik ve çağdaş yaklaşımların karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır. Ezmanın tegayyürü ile ahkamın tegayyürü inkâr olunamaz prensibini bir ilke olarak benimseyen alimlerimiz hükümlerin istinbatında illet haricinde hikmetin de söz konusu olabileceğini savunmuşlardır. Bunun yanında illetin çok daha yaygın kullanıldığı ve somut sonuçlara götürdüğü gerçeği ön plana çıkmaktadır.

Copyright of Journal of Islamic Research / İslâmi Araştırmalar Dergisi is the property of Turkey Economical & Cultural Solidarity (TEK-DAV) Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Ilahiyat Researches / Ilahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi is the property of Ataturk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Bu makalede İmam Buhârî’nin muhtelif kitaplarında bulunan ve Kitab ve Sünnet’te sabit olan durumlara veya tarihî ve aklî hakikatlere muhalefet ettiği için metninde sıhhat hükmü verilmesine engel, mâna yönünden bir illet olduğunu açıkça belirttiği hadislerden kırk tanesi incelenmiştir. Bu araştırmada Buhârî’nin tasrih etmeksizin sadece metindeki illetine özlü bir ibare kullanarak işaret ettiği diğer hadislerden ise örnek alınmamıştır. İncelenen hadisler Buhârî’nin et-Tarihü’l-Kebîr, et-Tarihü’l-evsat, ed-Duafaü’s-sagir, Ref’ü’l-yedeyn fi’s-salat isimli eserlerinde Tirmizî’nin el-ʿİlelü’l-kebîr isimli eserinde yer almaktadır. Buhârî’nin illetli bulduğu hadisleri beş başlıkta incelenmiştir. Bunlar, metinleri sahih sünnete aykırı olan hadisler, metinleri söz konusu hadisin râvisi olan sahabînin diğer sahih rivayetlerine aykırı olanlar, metni sahabenin ameline aykırı olanlar, metni o hadisi rivayet eden kişinin görüşüne ve mezhebine aykırı olanlar ve metni vâkıaya aykırı olanlar şeklindedir. Araştırmamız sonucunda İmam Buhârî’nin hadis metnini tenkidde metodunun kuvvetini ve haberlerin metninin muhalefetten selameti hususuna dikkatini gördük. Makalede Buhârî’nin kullandığı “lâ yutâbeu aleyh”, “fîhi nazar” gibi bazı muhtasar ifadelerin metin tenkidiyle irtibatı da görülmektedir.

Bu makalede Müslim’in (öl. 261/875) hadis tenkidini uygulamalı olarak gösterdiği, didaktik bir gayeyle telif etmiş olduğu Kitâbu’t-Temyîz isimli ilel eserinde başvurduğu ve erken dönem hadisçilerin ortak metodu olarak nitelediği metin tenkidi metodu incelenmiştir. Ayrıca bu eserdeki izah ve uygulamalar ışığında mütekaddim münekkidlerin hadis tenkid metodu ele alınmıştır. Kitâbu’t-Temyîz’de Müslim’in hadis metinlerini, neredeyse tüm metin tenkidi esaslarına dikkat ederek değerlendirdiği görülmektedir. İncelenen yirmi beş hadisin yirmi ikisinde metin tenkidi uygulanması oldukça dikkat çekicidir. Hadis metnindeki hatanın kaynağını muâraza yöntemiyle araştıran Müslim, Şu’be, İbn Şihab gibi isimlerin hadis rivayetlerindeki hatalarını tespit etmiş, böylece senedin sıhhatinin metnin sıhhatini garantilemediğini göstermiştir. Günümüzde metin tenkidiyle alakalı çalışmalarda dikkate alınmadığı görülen Müslim’in bu değerli eserinde, Sahîh-i Buhârî gibi hadis kaynaklarında bulunan hadis rivayetlerine metin tenkidi uygulandığı tespit edilmiştir. Müslim, eserinde takip ettiği yöntemin Şu’be, Abdurrahman b. Mehdî gibi hadisçilerin ortak yöntemi olduğunu haber verir. İllet, nekâret, teferrüd ve muhalefet gibi usul kavramlarını açıkça metin tenkidi kapsamında kullanan Müslim’in eseri, ilel ve rical kaynaklarında geçen muhtasar tabirlerin arkasında yatan metin tenkidine ışık tutması yönüyle ayrıca fevkalade önem arz etmektedir. Makalede muaraza-metin tenkidi ilişkisine ve Müslim’in vasfettiği metodun Buhârî, İbn Hibbân gibi erken dönem ve Zehebî, İbn Kesîr ve İbn Hacer gibi geç dönem hadisçiler üzerindeki izdüşümüne de değinilmiştir.

One of the provisions revealed by the sunnah, which is accepted as the second source of Islamic law, is the prohibition of tattooing, eyebrow plucking, and separating and thinning the teeth. The narrations conveying this prohibition can be found in almost all hadith books starting from 'Abd alRazzak al-San'ānī's Musannaf. It is accepted that expressions such as "the Prophet forbade" and "the Prophet cursed", which are used to express the judgement of these acts, are used to declare the forbidden act. For this reason, the majority of jurists have argued that these acts are haram. Abdullah b. Mas'ûd, while narrating the forbidden of tattooing, eyebrow plucking, and separating and thinning the teeth, characterised these acts as changing Allah's creation. Most of the jurists accepted that this characterisation belonged to the Prophet and argued that the reason for the prohibition of these acts was "changing the creation of Allah". However, the fact that the acts in question are narrated in three different sentences in the hadith sources as "Allah cursed", "the Prophet cursed" and "Abdullah cursed" reveals the possibility that the characterisation of "changing the creation of Allah" belongs to Ibn Mas'ūd, not the Prophet. Considering that Ibn Mas'ūd was a Companion and that there is a difference of opinion among the sects regarding the acceptance of the opinions expressed by the Companions individually, the cause in question will cease to be mansūs. Ibn Ashūr, citing the use of the word curse for the great sin and the fact that in Islamic law it is permissible in principle to perform some procedures on the body for beautification, stated that the cause of these acts may not be "changing what Allah has created". According to him, the reason for tattooing, eyebrow plucking, and separating and thinning the teeth is that these acts were symbols of unchaste women or idolatrous women during the jahiliyyah period. Ibn Ashūr's view is supported by some of al-Qarāfī's evaluations as well as some fatwas that these acts are permissible under certain conditions. Since the ruling is based on the cause, the ruling will change according to the determination of the cause. If the cause is determined to be changing Allah's creation, then the prohibition on tattooing, eyebrow plucking, and separating and thinning the teeth will continue because of the continuation of the cause. If the cause is considered to be a symbol, then the continuation of the ruling will depend on whether these acts are signs of sin/sinners. If they are considered by the Muslim community at large to be a symbol of a particular sin(s), then they will be haram otherwise, they will be halal. The ruling on different types of tattoos will also change according to the reason determined. Accordingly, if the reason for the prohibition of these acts is considered to be changing Allah's creation, then decorations made on the skin with henna, dye and similar substances without being injected under the skin will be considered permissible. If the reason is considered to be that these acts are symbols of unchastity, it will be examined whether the figures drawn on the skin symbolise a certain sin/sinners. If these acts are perceived by the general Muslim community as a characteristic of superstitious beliefs and ideologies or as a sign of an act forbidden by Allah, they will be considered haram otherwise, they will be considered halal. The wisdom of tattooing, eyebrow plucking, and separating and thinning the teeth varies according to the cause. If the reason is determined as changing Allah's creation, it is possible to determine the wisdom as harming health and deceiving people by hiding the truth. Since these acts are harmful to people's health and conceal the true age of those who do them, Shāri' has prohibited them on the grounds of changing Allah's creation. If we accept that the reason is that these acts are prohibited because they are symbols of sin/sinners, we can determine the wisdom as getting rid of being passive in the face of sin/sinners and preventing these acts from causing turmoil and unrest in society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Near East University Islamic Research Center / Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi İslam Tetkikleri Merkezi Dergisi is the property of Journal of Near East University Islamic Research Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Mutefekkir, Faculty of Islamic Sciences is the property of Aksaray University, Faculty of Islamic Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Mistakes in hadīth transmission has taken place both in the past and contemporary times. Hadīth scholars spent considerable efforts in order to determine and correct these mistakes, explain their nature and develop terms. In this study, two hadīth with mistake, which arose from mixing two separate but similar hadīth together, one of which is in Ibn Hibban's work titled Kitābu'l-Mecrūhīn and the other is in a tafseer work published by Pres-idency of Religious Affairs titled Kur'an Yolu have been examined closely. The nature of the mistake in these two hadīth has been discussed in the context of some terms in hadīth meth-odology. Furthermore, mulzaq hadīth, its definition and its usage in hadīth works have been examined and this hadīth term has been introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Qiyās is one of the sources of law, which is used to determine legal qualification (ḥukm) of new cases and has an important place in Islamic law methodology. Although some groups and individuals who reject qiyās as a source of law appeared in history, the majority of uṣūlīs accepted it as a legal source and developed various theories. In this article, ʿAlā’ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī’s theory of qiyās, who was one of the eminent scholars of Samarqand Ḥanafīsm, is reviewed. In this context, starting from the definition of analogy, the place of analogy in the hierarchy of proofs, its being a source of law (al-ḥujja) and its epistemological value, the conditions required for a valid analogy and its function were examined on the basis of Mīzān al-uṣūl byʿAlā’ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī. In case of need, other Ḥanafī uṣūlīs works were used for the purpose of comparison. Among the methods of validating of cause (ṭuruq al-‘illa), texts (al-naṣṣ) and the method of effectiveness (istidlāl bi at-ta’thīr) were examined. Other inference (istidlāl) methods were excluded. In addition, the disputed issues as the specialization of the cause (takhṣīṣ al-ʿilla), the possibility of an intransitive cause (al-ʿilla al-qāṣira) and whether cause’s consistency (iṭṭarād) is required for a valid analogy were mentioned when appropriate. As a result of the examination, it was concluded that al-Samarqandī’s theory of qiyās dissents from the general Ḥanafī approach in some cases and this was due to difference in understanding relationship between kalām and uṣūl al-fiqh. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

İnsanı bireysel ve toplumsal hayatında ilgilendiren şer‘î hükümlerin tümü açıkça naslarda yer almamaktadır. Bu hükümlerin büyük bir kısmı, başta Kur’ân ve sünnet olmak üzere şer‘î delillerden kaynaklanan birtakım istidlâlî/ictihâdî delil ve/veya yöntemlerden elde edilmektedir. Bunların başında fıkhî kıyasa temel teşkil eden ta‘lîl yöntemi gelmektedir. Usûlcüler yolculuk ve hastalık gibi zâhir ve munzabıt/istikrarlı vasıflarla yapılan ta‘lîl türünde ittifak etmişlerdir. Ancak bu vasıflarda genellikle içkin olan ve hükümlerin asıl gerekçelerini oluşturan meşakkat ve benzeri tikel hikmetlerle/maslahatlarla yapılan ta‘lîlde ihtilaf etmişlerdir. Hikmet ve maslahatların zaman, mekân, şahıs ve durum bakımından değişken ve esnek olması, usûlcülerin bu konudaki ihtilafına yol açan nedenlerin başında gelmektedir.

In this study, lexical and terminological meanings of the term “nature” were analyzed and some Peripatetical Islamic philosophers’ opinions about this term were included. A comparison was made between the words “tabiat” and “doğa” which are used in Turkish language to meet the term “nature”. The realm of existence which Peripatetical Islamic philosophers have used “nature” in as a noun was explained. Debate between Ibn Sīnā and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) about the necessity of proving the term “nature” was mentioned. Ibn Sīnā's views on what “nature” portends in terms of being a source of motion and duration in objects were presented in comparison with Aristotle. Later definitions which are made by philosophers for “nature” as a term were presented. Peripatetical Islamic philosophers’ definition of the term “nature” which has a critical role in Islamic philosophy and the way they use it differentiates from that of Aristotle’s. The term “nature” which they especially use to explain every kind of becoming and motion enables to connect all reason to Allah in aspects of etymology. And it is also known that the term “nature” serves as a basis for differentiation between physics and metaphysics. The purpose of this article is to clarify the possible usages of the term “nature” in relation to new theories.

Bu çalışmada “tabiat” kavramının sözlük ve terim anlamı analiz edilmiş ve ona ilişkin bazı Meşşâî İslam filozoflarının görüşlerine yer verilmiştir. “Tabiat” sözcüğünü karşılamak üzere Türkçede kullanılan “tabiat” ve “doğa” sözcükleri arasında bir karşılaştırma yapılmıştır. “Tabiat”ın Meşşâî İslam filozofları tarafından isim olarak kullanıldığı varlık alanı hakkında bilgi verilmiş ve İbn Sina ile İbn Rüşd arasında cereyan eden tabiatın ispatının gerekip gerekmeyeceği tartışmasına değinilmiştir. Cisimlerde görülen hareket ve sükunun kaynağı olması bakımından “tabiat”ın nelere delalet ettiği hususunda İbn Sina’nın görüşleri Aristo ile mukayeseli olarak sunulmuştur. Daha sonra bir terim olarak “tabiat”ın filozoflar tarafından yapılan tanımı ortaya konulmuştur. İslam felsefesinde önemli bir yere sahip olan “tabiat” kavramına Meşşâî İslam filozoflarının yükledikleri anlam ve onu kullanma biçimleri, Aristo’dan farklıdır. Özellikle her türlü oluş ve hareketin kaynağını açıklamak amacıyla kullandıkları “tabiat” kavramı etimolojik açıdan tüm nedenleri Allah’a ulaştırmaya imkan sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca kavramın, “tabiat – tabiat ötesi” ayrımına dayanak teşkil ettiği de bilinmektedir. Makalenin amacı, “tabiat” kavramının günümüzde yeni teorilerle ilişkili olarak kullanılma imkanlarını belirginleştirmektir.

Copyright of Turkey Journal of Theological Studies is the property of Turkey Journal of Theological Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The comparison (qıyas) is of great importance in resolving an issue that not included in the texts (nass) in Islamic law. It's possible to resolve an issue that is not included in the text by comparing the similar event that is stated the judgment in Qur'an, Sunnah or Idjmā'. The basic principle of qıyass is cause. Islamic jurists made detailed studies on causes. One of these issues is the restriction of causes too. The restriction of cause; despite the presence of the cause, there is no at provision stayed behind due to an obstacle. Scholars are generally divided into two parts about the restriction of causes. Karkhi, Jassas, Dabusi and the majority of Iraqi Hanafi scholars have adopted the view of the restriction of cause. Most of the Transoxania's scholars such as Bazdawi, Sarakhsi and Abu Yusr opposed the restriction of cause. By linking restrictions with istihsan, Jassas argued that some of the istihsan occurred as a result of the restriction of cause. In this research, comparing among the two groups was made comparison by giving priority to Jassas's view. As a result of this performed examination, it was determined that the issue of the restriction of cause was not reflected on practice. Jassas the provision which required the comparison is not occured due to obstacle in the places where stated as the restriction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How to reveal elaborate (tafseeli) evidences from religious behavioral rules is a subject of Usūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory). Among the techniques of obtaining judgments, one of the most important and elaborate issues is qiyās (analogy). Essentially, the elements of qiyās are four; the essence, the ruling of essence, fer’, and ‘illat (rationale). However, the functionality of qiyās depends on the determination of the ‘illat and its purification from the flaws that may prevent it from being an ‘illat. In this context, some objection techniques that can be directed at ‘illat are mentioned among methodologists. As a well-known and commonly used technique, qiyās ma‘a’l-fâriq is defined as a situation where the unity of ‘illat cannot be ensured between primary and secondary. Whether if this can be accepted as qawādih/tan’ in terms of its negative impact on the validity of ‘illat or not is discussed. In this study, the essence of qiyās ma‘a’l fâriq and whether it can be accepted as a technique that is an obstacle in terms of the validity of ‘illat or not is going to be examined through the perspectives of fiqh sects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arap dilinde, gramer kurallarının tespitinde hadislerle istişhad konusu, İbnu’d-Dâi‘e kadar çok fazla tartışma konusu edilmemiştir. O ve öğrencisi Ebû Hayyân el-Endelüsî hadislerin, lafzen değil de mana ile rivayet edildiği gerekçesiyle dilde delil olamayacağını savunmuşlardır. Hicri VII. asır Endülüs nahvinde illet ve kıyas meselelerine itibar edilmemesi dikkat çeken önemli bir gelişme olmuştur. İbnu’d-Dâi‘ ve öğrencisi Ebû Hayyân el-Endelüsî gibi nahivciler de bu minvalde ilerlemişlerdir. Bu asır nahivcileri, nahvi kolaylaştırmak amacıyla başta Sîbeveyhi’nin el-Kitâb’ı olmak üzere pek çok doğulu nahivcinin eserlerine şerh ve ta‘lîkler yazmışlardır. Bu bağlamda İbnu’d-Dâi‘ Sîbeveyhi’nin el-Kitâb’ını ve ez-Zeccâcî’nin el-Cumel’ini şerh etmiştir. Bu çalışmada İbnu’d-Dâi‘in kısa biyografisi ve eserlerine yer verilerek nahiv ilmiyle ilgili bazı özgün düşünceleri ortaya konmuştur. Son tahlilde Arap dili hakkındaki tespit ve katkıları belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır

Arabic linguists have set general and comprehensive language rules concerning the whole language. But they weren't content with this and have discussed the rules which they have set in all its aspects. Especially with the emergence of language schools resulting from differences in method and opinion, the debates on language between linguists have gained intensity and speed. In these discussions, the linguists have developed a variety of ways and methods to establish the correctness of their own opinions and to invalidate the opinions of interlocutors that they found wrong. They also showed different ways of reasoning to explain, to justify the rules and to convince their respondents on controversial language issues. In this study, the several ways of reasoning that linguists frequently use will be discussed by giving various examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Social Research is the property of Journal of International Social Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Bu çalışma kıyasta şart olan illetin bilinmesini sağlayan; ihâle, istidlâl ve makâsıda riayet gibi farklı isimlerle isimlendirilen yolları açıklamaktadır. Bu, (hükümdeki) münasip illete ulaştıran aklî bir yöntemdir. Usûl alimlerine göre bunun netice verebilmesi için ya menfaat-mefsedet ya da ehl-i akıl kişilerin fiilerine göre olması gerekir. İlletteki münasebet, en fazla zannı gâlip ile tespit edilmesine rağmen kullanmak kaçışı olmayan bir durumdur. Onunla amel etmek hususundada güzel örnek sahabe-i kiramdır. Zira onlar gerçek hayatta uygulamışlar. Hüküm ile illet arasındaki münasebet üç kısımdır: Zarûrî, hâcî ve tahsînî. Zarûrî olan bütün semâvî şeraitler nezdinde “el-Mekâsıd’ül-Hamse el-Ulyâ” olarak bilinen maksadlardır. O da din, can, akıl, nesil ve malın korunmasıdır ki bunlar münasebet mertebelerinin en yücesidir. Münasebet bu denli önemli olduğundan, onunla illete üç yolla ulaşılabilir. Ya bir nas ile ya icma’ ile ya da istinbât ile ulaşılır. Bazen de illetin anlaşılması mümkün olmaz. Bununla birlikte hükme riayet illetin açığa çıkmasına bağlı değildir. Aksi takdirde yapılan kulluk mutlak teslimiyet üzerine kurulmuş hakiki kulluk olmaz.

Although there are verses and hadiths that prohibit adoption in Islam, the reason and wisdom/mystery of this provision have been the subject of curiosity and some reason has been tried to be explained. Despite this ban, Yosef and Moses that there is no condemnation or denigration in the verses concerning Moses' adoption gives the impression that the adoption ban can be mitigated. However, every provision of Shari'a has an explicit or hidden malaise or wisdom and the provisions are built in this province. In this study, the will and the wisdom of the prohibition of adoption will be tried to be evaluated with the help of the verses, and whether the events of the adoption of the two prophets will constitute an example for other Muslims will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All of the Islamic laws/terms which concern to human public and private life have not existed within the verses (of Holy Quran) and hadiths (nas) directly. Most of these terms are obtained from deductive/interpretive proofs which mainly originate from Islamic Law that is shaped by the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The method of deduction which establishes the foundation of the Canon law syllogism is the Foremost among these proofs and methods. The Methodists have agreed about the kind of deduction made by apparent and stable description like voyage and illness etc. However, they have faced with some controversies regarding the deduction made by the way of particular reasons/matters like trouble which are generally immanent in these qualifications and form the real justification of the provisions. Being variability and flexible of social time, space, individual and conditions in terms of reason and affairs have been the main conflict among Methodists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

et-Tirmizi’nin Süneni, hadis ilminde önemli bir kitaptır. Bu eser, Buhari, Müslim ve Ebu Davud’dan sonra dördüncü derecede kabul edilir. el-Tirmizi bu eserinde hadis ilmi, ravi ilmi ve fıkıh mevzularını ele almıştır. el-Tirmizi, söz konusu eserini ed-Dârimî, el-Buhari, Ebu Zur’a vs. gibi bir kısım muhaddislerin sözlerini nakletmek suretiyle oluşturmuş, bazen onlara sual sormuş ve cevaplarını yazmıştır. Bu makalede Tirmizinin ed-Darimiden naklettiği illetli hadisler toplanmak suretiyle incelenmiştir.

One of the most important subjects of Islamic Jurisprudence is the subject of qiyas, and within that there are the cause topics, where most of the disagreements take place. Various objections against the cause are mentioned, and one of them is the refutation objection, which is connected with such issues as whether or not the cause is muttarid and the possibility of limitation of the cause. The present work deals with such matters as the circumstances under which the refutation- which is the name given to the case where there is no hukm despite the existence of the cause-invalidates cause, the ways to respond to the refutation objection in order to reboot that objection, and those responses that are accepted and those refuted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Arabic language, the issue of istishhad in hadiths in the determination of grammatical rules has not been discussed as much as Ibnu'd-Dai. He and his student Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi argued that it cannot be accepted as evidence because the hadiths are not reported as they were from the mouth of the Prophet. The fact that illah and qiyas affairs are not respected has been a remarkable development in the seventh century's Andalusia nahiw. Ibnu'd-Dai and his student Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi have also advanced in this area. Scholars in this century wrote commentaries and comments for old linguist's works especially al-Kitab of Sibeweyh to facilitate grammar. In this context, Ibnu'd-Dai' commented al-Kitab of Sibeweyh and ez-Zajjaci's al-Jumel. In this study, some linguistic thoughts were revealed by taking a short biography and works of Ibnu'd-Dai. In the final analysis, attempts have been made to determine the determinations and contributions of the Arabic language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hanefiler, fıkıh mezhepleri içerisinde istihsan yöntemini en belirgin şekilde kullanmışlardır. Kural olarak istihsanı kıyasa önceleyen Hanefiler, bazen kıyası istihsana takdim etmişlerdir. Kıyasın istihsana öncelendiği yerlerdeki istihsanın aslında hafi kıyas istihsanı olduğu bir gerçektir. Hafi kıyas istihsanının, kıyas olduğu düşünüldüğünde takdim edilen kıyasın illeti burada işlevseldir. Zira illetin kuvvet ve zayıflığı kıyasın veya istihsanın tercih edilme tarafını belirleyicidir. Bu makalede, kıyasın istihsana öncelenme nedenleri incelenmiş olup, verilen örnekle açıklanmıştır. Zaruri olarak istihsanın delil oluşunu, bunu kabul eden ve etmeyen ekollerin tez ve antitezlerini de araştırmacılar bu makalede bulabilirler. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 106th verse of Baqarah surah, that is maybe the first verses for naskh theory in the Usul/methodology, has undertaken a paternal role about the existence of naskh and, the formulation of naskh’s kinds and its form of realization. This article has dealt with the naskh and nas’ as two basic concepts in the context of different mutawater readings of Quran/Qraah. The article disregards that the discussion about there is naskh in Quran or not as a popular theme by the side of interpreters/Mufassers of Quran. Despite of that, the article evaluates this issue in the frame of the data of Usul/methodology and aims to indicate that there is a distinction between naskh and nas’. Therefore, it aims to some determinations about isolating elements, which are evaluated under the nas’ concepts, from naskh. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the intellectual tradition of Muslim thinkers, self contained works were written about the problem of demonstration of necessary being (isbat al-Wajib) after 12th century. Both of the outstanding books on the problem from that time are books of Jalaladdin Dawani (d.908/1502) named as Risâletü Isbâti'l-vâcibi'l-kadîme and Risâletü İsbâti'l-vâcibi'l-cedîde. In the book, Risâletü İsbâti'l-vâcibi'l-kadîme, Jalaladdin Dawani uses both the evidence of possibility and the evidence of creation (hudus). Moreover, he deals with the issue of circularity (dawr) and backward chain (teselsul) in terms of argumentation and brings about some types of demonstration to cancel the backward chain such as burhân-ı tatbîk, burhân-ı müzâyefe and burhân-ı arşî. In the book, Risâletü Isbâti'l-vâdbi'l-cedîde which is the basic of that work, Dawani discusses about some topics such as the evidence of existence and unity of God, the relation between essence and attributes of God, the attributions of God, and the generosity of God (cûd) in relation with the perfectness of the universe, and the wisdom of God. Accepting as one or the same the essence and attributions of God, Dawani accepts that there is a perfect order in the universe. According to Dawani, the perfect order of the universe stems from wajib al-wujud, the authority of asset or God. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with Ibn Warraq's opinios on Ilal's of Nahiw. The subject of Nahiw's Ilal was examined more by classical grammarians and the different opinions were asserted in this matter. Arab grammarians agreed and disagreed on some subjects which deal with Ilal. Generally classical grammarians, especially İbnu'l Warraq, exaggerated in the Nahiw's Ilal by showing three, four and sometimes seven examples for one rule and therefor they complicated the subject. On the other hand, it must be said that the subject of Ilal which has been handled intensively by the classical grammarians caused complexity. But, as Zajjaji said, the instructional Ilals which are accepted as educational are the inseparable parts of the Arabic Language. Because of that, the handling of the Nahiw Ilals is very important in terms of the development of the studies of Arabic Language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]