Search

ÖZET YİĞİT Metin, `Fey', Zekat ve Talak Ayetleri Çerçevesinde Lafzı ve Gaî Yorum Tartışmaları` (Yüksek Lisans Tezi) Yöneten: Prof. Dr. Abdülbaki TURAN Kullanıldığı alana göre anlam kazanan Yorum, İslami literatürde içtihat, tefsir ve istinbat gibi terimlere tekabül eder. Buna göre yorum; kişinin Şariin muradını anlama faaliyeti olarak tanımlanır. Metnin gerçek mana ve maksadını belirleme ancak yorum faaliyetiyle mümkün olduğundan yorum, metni anlama ve yaşamanın ilk basamağını oluşturur. Dini nasslar, arzettikleri farklı özellikler nedeniyle kat'î (yoruma kapalı) ve zannî (yoruma açık) kategorilerine ayrılır. İçtihat düzeyinde yorum faaliyetinde bulunan şahsın, belli bazı nitelikleri {adalet ve ilmi ehliyet) taşıması gerekir. Yorum, metnin varlığı ve vahyin nüzûlüyle yaşıt denecek kadar eskidir. Bu nedenle Peygamber döneminden itibaren var olagelen bir yorum ve bunun teorik çerçevesini belirleyen metoda (usûl) tanık olmaktayız. Daha sonraki dönemlerde sistematik bir yapıya kavuşan bu usûl, dinamikleri itibariyle sabit ve sürekli bir özellik arzeder. Kitap, Sünnet, İcma ve İçtihat hiyerarşisi bu metodun karakteristik yapısını oluşturur. İslami nassların yorum metodolojisi olan fıkıh usûlü, yorumu iki ana çerçevede ele alır. Bunlardan biri lafza dayalı yorum, diğeri gaye ve maksada dayalı yorumdur. Lafzî Yorum, nassın taşıdığı dil ve üslûp özelliklerini incelerken; Gaî Yorum daha genel bir çerçevede metin sahibinin maksadını keşfetmeye çalışır. Lafzî ve Gaî yorum birbirine alternatif değil, birbirini tamamlayan denge unsurları olarak anlaşılmalıdır. Sağlıklı bir yorumda gaye ve espiri kadar lafız ve şekil de önem arzeder. Bunlardan birini diğerine tercih etmenin haklı hiçbir dayanağı olamaz. Bu meyanda en fazla kullanılan argümanlar, Hz. Ömer'in Fey', Zekat ve Talakla ilgili uygulamalarıdır. Ancak iyice irdelendiğinde bu uygulamaların iddia edildiği gibi kat'î nassa rağmen yoruma gitmek niteliğinde olmadığı görülecektir. Aksine Hz. Ömer, bütün uygulamalarında ya nassı olduğu gibi uygulamış ya da hükmün uygulama gerekçesinin (illet) bulunmaması nedeniyle tatbikatı durdurmuştur. ABSTRACT Yİ?İT Metin, Philologic and Teleologic Interpration in the Quranic verses ofal-Fay ', al-Zaghah andal-Talaq. Director of Tehesis: Prof. Dr. Abdulbaki TURAN. The interpretation getting meaning according to field which ara used is equivalent terms such as al-İctihad, al-Tefsir and al-İstinbat in islamic Heritage, with respect of that the interpretation is defined that it is understanding activity the purpose of the Ruler. Since the determination of the real meaning and aim of the text, only, can be enable through the interpretion actevity, the interpretation forms the first step of the text meaning and practising. The religious texts - due to the difference presenting essential chractter - fall into two catagories: Definite (Dogmatic) and Undefinite (İnterpretible) The person who brings about the interperetation activity must have some qualities like the justice and the scientific efficeny. Interpretation is as old as the text and descent of the divine inspriation. Consequentli, we have witnessed on interpretation and the method defining its therotical limit sinse the time of the prophet Mohammad (s.a.v.). This method getting a systematic structure in later periods of time has supplied a stable and constant characteristic from its dinamic's the point of view. The Method of Fiqh, which is the methodology of interpretating of the Islamic Texts, considers the interpretation in two main basis. One is the interpretation depending on words, (philologic) and the other is the interpratation depending on aim and intention (teleologic) Philologic interpretation sutudies the text with regard to its language characteristics and style, on the other hand teleologic interpretation strives to find out purpose of The Master (coinager) of The Text in a general manner. One of underconsideration interpretations is not alternative for the other. On the contrary, both complete each other. İt is understood like this way. Because the words and shape are importand as aim and delicacy as in a reliable interpretation. There can't be a valid basis for prefering one of them to on other. The most used arguments in this matter are the practices of Khalifa Omar related to al- Fay', al-Zaghah and al-Talaq. But if they are scrutinized fairly good, it can be seen that those practices didn't frefer an interpration in spite of definite text. On the contrary Omar, in all of his practices, put into practice The Text as it is, or he stopped the practices because of having no reason (justification) of practices commands. 266

220 SUMMARY Ebû Hayyân, who was one the famous scholors of his era in language and grammar lived in (654/1256- 745/1345) the first half of the 8 th. century Hegira; the 14 th. A. D. He had more than sixty works in prose and verse on language-principally in science of grammar, recitation of Qur'an and commentary. Unfortunately, we have to express that - handwriting and printed- totally only twenty copies could reach our time. Some studies on the field of grammar that Ebû Hayyân rose in fame have sepcially been made lately. `Ebû Hayyân en-Nahvî` written by Dr. Hatice el-Hadîsî is proir to these studies. We sellected, `el-Bahru'1-Muhît` the well-known commentaror of Ebû Hayyân which he was considered authority in his field, our subject matter of thesis/and tried to determine the steps he followed giving some examples we chose in various volumes and pages. In the first part of our study we gave a detailed information about Ebû Hayyân's life, childhood, surroundings, domestic position, knowledge, literary character, teachers, students, and works. In the second part, having made a general explonation how his commentory was written, its bibliography and simplifications and his ideas about commentaries and commentarors, we thought it would be a good service to make a short explanation about narrative and comprehetional commentaries which were the two basic parts of sicence of commentary. Then studying Ebû Hayyân's intenpretation from this point of view we tried fo put forward the subjects he dwelled on `el-Bahru'1-Muhîf is more a structural narrative commentary. The interpretor gave detailed explonation about his method in the preface of his work. According to this method the work used in verses were studied in a lingual, ethimological way and also their literary meanings. Then the views of successor and predecessor scholars about varient reading verses and their meanings were repo rted. Last of all they studied gramatically and analized all words used in221 verses. They made explanations and literary arts in related verses. They paid great attention to avoid dealing with jurisprudance, and theology and referred the readers to related search books and encouraged them to look into sources. Ebû Hayyân was extremelly careful about not to use tell-tales and absolitely against them. Also, we complained about some commentarors that they narrated a great number of made -up stories in their books without making any check. Though he approximated the viewes of sufies with great care he presented a negative mode agains philosophers and those out of Sunnies ideas. In short, the commentary of Ebû Hayyân was the one which gave detailed information especially about sceince of language, grammar and recitation of Qur'an. His commentary was pressed several times in eight volumes and abridged by him and also by his student îbn Mektûm (749/1348). The two abridged works were pressed together on the margins around the main text of commentary. 221

261