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]

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.)

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.)

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 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.)

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]

Cause stand for reason that brings out a thing . According to the philosophers, God is the first cause of the universe. But theologists prefer "maker and creator" words instead of cause. İt is accepted four reason among the scholars since Aristo. Final cause is one of these reasons. The theologists who don?t accept justification have refused final cause too. But in the course of time, the final cause have been accepted in the theology. According to theologists, there is a will of God intended for things but the philosophers don?t accept this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]