Search

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]

The syllogism, which is one of the methods of deducing judgments, is based on four main foundations: the principal, the far‘, the judgment of the principal, and the cause. The ʻilla, which refers to the proof or negation of the same ruling for both of them by attributing the far‘ to the principal due to a reason that unites the principal and the far‘, is the most debated element in the syllogism. As a matter of fact, the ʻilla has been the subject of in-depth discussions both within the same school and among the jurists belonging to different schools in terms of its nature, its parts, the ways of determination (masālik al-ʻilla), and the conditions related to the ʻilla. Again, one of the most important issues on which the jurists disagreed is the objections to the cause. The differences of opinion about the names and numbers of the objections to the cause, which are generally seen among the sects, have also manifested themselves among the jurists belonging to the same sect. The subject of objections, which has the basic characteristics of the sciences of jadal and khilāf in terms of the style of argumentation, is actually counted among the subjects of these sciences. Although the debate on whether or not these issues should be discussed in the works of the uṣūl al-fiqh continues, the majority of the jurists treated the objections to the cause in detail in their works. This has made the objections to the cause the most fundamental topics of the uṣūl al-fiqh in general and the causes in particular. Considering the aforementioned issues, in order to examine the objections to the cause in a multidimensional way, the methodologists of both the mutakallim and the fuqahā methodology. Where necessary, al-Āmidī's view on the subject is compared and contrasted with the views of other Shāfi‘ī jurists. alĀmidī increased the number of objections to the cause to twenty-five and created the most extensive and systematic form of the subject. In this context, he named some of the objections that some jurists mentioned in terms of content without naming them and dealt with each of them in detail. Having analyzed the objection of the heart in detail, al-Āmidī divided this objection into three parts: qalb al-da'wā, qalb al-da īl, and qalb al-taswiya, and then made some evaluations about qalb and its types. One of the most important aspects of al-Āmidī's evaluations of the objection of qalb is that the juristic examples he uses are almost identical to those of other Shāfiʿī jurists. When we look at the definition of the objection of qalb, it is generally seen that each Shāfiʿī jurist tries to define the objection with the method of qalb by taking into account a certain feature or type of qalb. It is understood that al-Āmidī also takes a similar approach to the Shāfiʿī jurists. As a matter of fact, he defined the objection of qalb in different ways according to its types. According to al-Āmidī, the basis of the objection of qalb consists of the types of qalb such as "the evidence put forward by the proponent against the mutterer that a quality is a cause is not in his favor but against him" or "the quality put forward as evidence that it is a cause is both in favor and against the proponent". alĀmidī noted that the former constitutes the first level of qalb and the latter the second. [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]

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]

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]