Search

Osmanlı’da usûl-i fıkıh geleneği, İslâm düşüncesinin klasik sonrası dönemine tekabül eder. Bu dönemde Hanefî kimlikle öne çıkan Osmanlı ilim çevresinin temel kaynakları şüphesiz Hanefî-fukahâ geleneği idi. Pezdevî’nin (öl. 482/1089) Uṣūl’ü Osmanlı usûlcüleri için klasik dönemi temsil eden eser olurken, klasik sonrası dönemsden Ebü’l-Berekât en-Nesefî’nin (öl. 710/1330) Menār metni ile İbn Melek (öl. 821/1418’den sonra) şerhi, Abdülaziz el-Buhârî’nin (öl. 730/1330) Pezdevî’nin Uṣūl’üne yazdığı (öl. 730/1330) Keşfü’l-esrār şerhi, Sadrüşşerîa’nın (öl. 747/1346) Tenḳīḥ’i ve Tavżiḥ şerhi Osmanlı usûlcülerinin temel kaynakları olmuş-tur. Bu eserlerden özellikle Tavżiḥ ile Teftâzânî’nin (öl. 792/1390) yazdığı Telviḥ hâşiyesi Osmanlı usûl geleneğini önemli ölçüde belirlemiştir. Tavżiḥ ve Telviḥ’in Osmanlı ilim çevresinde nispeten fazla ilgi görmesinin sebebi klasik birikimi felsefe-mantık dili üzerinden ifade etmiş olmasıdır. Osmanlı’da usûl mesaisinin diğer önemli kaynağı ise mütekellim usûl gele-neğidir. Bu geleneğin klasik sonrası dönem otoritelerinden İbnü’l-Hâcib’in (öl. 646/1249) Muht̮asar’ı, Adudüddîn el-Îcî’nin (öl. 756/1355) yazdığı şerh ile Cürcânî’nin (öl. 816/1413) söz konusu şerhe yazdığı hâşiye Osmanlı ilim geleneği için en önde gelen kaynaklar olmuştur. Cürcânî’nin bu hâşiyesi ile Teftâzânî’nin Telvîḥ’i Osmanlı’da en çok hâşiyeye konu olan iki usûl eseridir ve bu eserler farklı yüzyıllarda Osmanlı medreselerinin müfre-datında yer almıştır. Osmanlı usûl geleneğinde kaleme alınan metinlere gelince, Molla Fenârî’nin (öl. 834/1431) Füsūlü’l-Bedāi‘i ile Kirmastî’nin (öl. 900/1494) Zübdetü’l-vüsūl’ünün konu tertibi ve içerdiği pek çok konu ile İbnü’l-Hâcib’in eserine yaklaştığı görülür. Molla Hüsrev’in (öl. 885/1480) Mir’āt’ı ile Ebû Saîd Hadimî’nin (öl. 1176/1762) Mecāmi‘u’l-ḥakāik’i ise Hanefî-fukahâ geleneğine daha sadık bir görüntü çizer. Bununla birlikte her iki çizgide de felsefe-mantık dili hâkimdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, usûl-i fıkıh alanındaki ilmî mesaiden hareketle, üretilen metinlerin “memzûc” geleneğin devamı olup olmadığı, usûlde hâşiye yazımının ne anlama geldiği ve Osmanlı usûl düşünce-sinin orijinal olup olmadığı hakkında bazı sorgulamalar yapmaktır. Ottoman era corresponds to the post-classical period of Islamic thought. In this era, the main sources of the Ottoman intellectual environment known by their Hanafī identity were inherently the Hanafī-jurists tradition of legal theory (tarīqah al-fuqahā). While Pazdawī’s (d. 482/1089) Uṣūl was the representative work of the classical period for Ottoman theo-reticians, their primary post-classical sources included Ebū’l-Barakāt al-Na-safī’s (d. 710/1330) Manār and Ibn Malak’s commentary on it; Abd al-‘Azīz Bukhārī’s (d. 730/1330) commentary, Kasf al-Asrār, on Usūl; and Sadr al-sharīa’s (d. 747/1346) Tanqīh and its commentary, Tawdhīh. These works, especially Tawdhīh and its super commentary Talwīh ̣by Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390), had a significant impact on Ottoman tradition of legal theory. The reason that these two works attracted more attention in the Ottoman intellectual environment is that they employed a philosophical-logical language in their discussion of the classical scholarly heritage. Another important source of legal theory works in Ottoman Empire was the theologian tradition of legal theory (tarīqah al-mutakallimīn). Mukhtasar of Ibn al-Hājib (d. 646/1249), one of the post-classical authorities of this tradition, the commentary by Adud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756/1355) on Mukhtasar and the super commentary written by Jurjānī (d. 816/1413) on this commentary ranked among the main sources for Ottoman scholars. Hashiyah of Jurjānī and Talwīh ̣were two works in the field of Islamic legal theory on which the most glosses were written during the Ottoman period, and both were taught within the curriculum of Ottoman madrasas for centuries. As for the texts written in the Ottoman tradition of legal theory, it is seen that Molla Fenārī’s (d. 834/1431) Fuṣūl al-badāi‘ and Kirmastī’s (d. 900/1494) Zubdah al-Vuṣūl resemble to the theologian tradition of legal theory, particularly to Ibn al-Hājib’s work, in terms of their general structure and some of their content. On the other hand, Molla Khusraw’s (d. 885/1480) Mir’āt and Abū Saīd Hādimī’s (d. 1176/1762) Majāmi‘ al-ḥaqāiq appear more loyal to Hanafī tradition. However, the philosophical-logical language is predominant in both streams. This study aims to inquire whether the texts written by Ottoman scholars can be characterized as “belonging to the eclectic (mamzūj) tradition”. It also tries to shed light on the question what it meant to write a gloss in the field of legal theory as well as to figure out whether or not the Ottoman heritage of legal theory made an original contribution to the Islamic legal theory.

Tavzîh Hanefî usûl geleneğinin klasik sonrası dönemini belirleyen önde gelen metinlerdendir. Sadrüşşerîa Tavzîh’te özellikle teklîfe ilişkin meselelere geniş yer ayırmış ve burada mütekellim usûl geleneğinin klasik sonrası dönem temsilcilerinin argümanlarını eleştirmiştir. Teftâzânî ise Telvîh’te Sadrüşşerîa’nın getirdiği argümanları yorumlayıp pek çok noktada itirazlar yöneltmiştir. Tavzîh 15. yy. Osmanlı ilim çevresinde, otorite isim olan Teftâzânî’nin yorum ve eleştirileri üzerinden okunmuş; ulemanın bu ilmî mirası tartıştığı en önemli zemin Telvîh hâşiyeleri olmuştur. Bu bağlamda kaleme alınan Telvîh hâşiyelerinde hararetle tartışılan alanlardan biri şüphesiz teklîf konusudur. Bu çalışma 15. yy. Osmanlı ilim çevresinde Telvîh hâşiyelerinde teklîf konusu üzerine cereyan eden tartışmaları ortaya çıkarmayı ve bunları tarihî-fikrî bağlamına yerleştirmeyi amaçlar. Çalışmada hâşiyelerdeki tartışmaların daha ziyade görüşler değil argümanlar üzerinden cereyan ettiği ve muhaşşîlerin argümanlar üzerinden gerçekleşen bu tartışmalarda otorite figürlerin ilmî mesaisiyle irtibat kurdukları ortaya konulmuştur. Hâşiye yazarları eleştiri, yorum ve nakil/derleme olmak üzere üç farklı şekilde kurdukları irtibatlar üzerinden aynı zamanda kendi yetkinliklerini göstermeye çalışmışlardır. Çalışmada otoritelerle kurulan bu irtibat şekilleri, ele alınan tartışmalar üzerinden detaylandırılarak ortaya çıkarılmıştır. İncelenen hâşiyelerde daha çok argüman değerlendirmesine ağırlık verildiği görülmekle birlikte bu eserlerin yer yer müelliflerin fikrî eğilimlerine de ışık tuttuğu tespit edilmiştir.--------------------Tawdhīh is one of the most influential texts in the post-classical period of the Hanafī tradition of legal theory. Its author Sadr al-Sharīa works through the issues of taklīf and criticizes arguments put forward by the post-classical representatives of theologian tradition. Later, Taftāzānī deals with Sadr al-Sharīa’s arguments in his Talwīh, and criticizes many of them. In the 15th century Ottoman scholarly circle, Tawdhīh has been read through the comments and criticisms of Taftāzānī, who is considered a scholarly authority figure in this period. Ottoman scholars compose quite a few super commentaries on Talwīh, thereby find a common ground to get in contact with as well as to discuss the scholarly heritage. One of the hotly debated topics in these super commentaries is the issues of legal obligation (taklīf).This dissertation aims to reveal the debates on the issues of taklīf that took place in the super commentaries of Talwīh written in the 15th century Ottoman scholarly circle and attempts to contextualize them historically as well as intellectually. This study shows that the discussions within the super commentaries were based on arguments (adilla) rather than opinions of school (akwāl) and the Ottoman scholar found a common ground in super commentaries to get involved in dialogue with Taftāzānī and his scholarly legacy. To achieve this, they developed three methodological tools namely criticism, interpretation and paraphrasing/compilation. In this dialogue, the authors seem to attempt to prove their scholarly competence. Lastly, though usually characterized by argument evaluation, super commentaries shed light on the intellectual tendencies of the authors as well.

Thelinguistic imaginations of Islamic legal theoreticians are centered on the theoryof assignation (wad‘). The term wad‘ refers to assigning a meaning to anoun, or, as more classically called, an expression. The literal meaning of an expressionin language refers to the truth (haqīqa) whereas its usage in another meaning,in some sense connected to the original meaning, refers to the figurative/ metaphoricalmeaning. Theoretical jurisprudential literature has debated whether theliterary meaning of an expression changes by the conduct of the Shāri‘ and, ifso, whether jurists can use the term al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya (legal truths)as a kind of truth for the nouns that are argued to have acquired different meanings.Some Mu‘tazilī theoreticians argue that the Shāri‘ assigned legal andtheological meanings to some nouns by divorcing them from their literalmeanings and referring to the nouns transferred to legal meanings as al-haqīqaal-shar‘iyya and some of the nouns transferred to theological meanings asreligious truths. e Mu‘tazilī theoreticians use the term transference (naql)for describing the process of assigning new meanings to certain nouns inaddition to their literal meanings. By employing certain nouns whose meanings theShārī‘, as they argue, transferred to new theological meanings — such as belief(īmān), sinfulness (fisq) and unbelief (kufr) — theyground the theory of al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn, used for great sinners (murtakibal-kabīra), in order to identify their dubious state of being believers orunbelievers. During the fourth/tenth century, witnessing ongoing ideologicaldebates between the Mu‘tazilī and Ash‘arī theological schools, al-Qādial-Bāqillānī formulates the Ash‘arī school’s theoretical framework. Consideringthat the usage of al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya could pave the way for thepossibility of religious nouns that include theological meanings, he tries toidentify these nouns with their literal meanings. Therefore, he insists thenouns have not been transferred and their literal meanings continue to exist.By thesecond half of the fith/eleventh century, the Mu‘tazilī school lost itsdominance and new challenges to Sunni theology, such as philosophy andesotericism, began to appear. Al-Bāqillānī’s resistance to the arguments of al-haqīqaalshar‘iyya transference evolved into a lighter emphasis among Ash‘arītheologians and theoreticians. Therefore, some Ash‘arī theologians andtheoreticians criticized al-Bāqillānī’s rigid attitude and accepted the conductof the Shāri‘. By the seventh/thirteenth century, almost all Ash‘arītheologians and Hanafi theoreticians adopted the view of legal nouns as a kindof truth. Among them, al-Juwaynī and his student al-Ghazālī state that theconduct of the Shāri‘ on expressions occurs metaphorically and thismetaphorical usage gains wide-circulation. A century later, al-Rāzī (d.606/1210), like his predecessors, adopts the metaphorical conduct of the Shāri‘as well as calls legal nouns among the kinds of truth and accepts thetransference to legal meanings. However, unlike the Mu‘tazilī school, heunderlines the necessity to have an affinity at the transference between theliteral meaning and the new meaning. A half-century later, Ibn al-Hājib (d.646/1249) does not accept the metaphorical conduct of the Shāri‘ but adoptscompletely al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya by distinguishing religious and legaltruths and calls the conduct of the Shāri‘ on expressions as assignation (wad‘).Several Ash‘arī theologian theoreticians such as Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d.771/1370), Jalāl al-Dīn al-Mahallī (d.864/1459) and Hasan b. Muhammad al-‘Attār(d. 1250/1834) follow Ibn al-Hājib on accepting al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyyatotally.In thisarticle, I examine the Hanafi theoretical literature in three distinct lines byfollowing the cross-references and continuities in ideas among the legaltheoreticians. The first is the Hanafi-jurist tradition that follows theclassifications and methodology of al-Dabūsī’s Taqwīm al-adilla; the second oneis the tradition that combines Hanafi theoretical perspective with theologianmethodology; and the third one is Hanafi-Māturīdī theoretical tradition thatbuilds jurisprudential methodology on the basic premises of Māturīdītheological school. Al-Jaŝŝās (d. 370/981), a Hanafi jurist who is known forhis close connection to the Mu‘tazilī school, openly accepts that the Shāri‘assigns new meanings on nouns. Later, some Hanafi jurists such as al-Dabūsī (d.430/1039), al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090) and al-Pazdawī (d. 482/1089) describe theconduct of the Shāri‘ on nouns only metaphorically and argue, just like in thetheological tradition, that metaphorical usages of nouns have more circulation.Sadr al-Sharī‘a (d. 747/1346), a scholar of Hanafi-jurisprudential tradition,calls these nouns as kinds of truth. Maintaining two aspects of explaining theissue, al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285), argues that when one takes into considerationthe literal meanings of a noun, its literal meaning corresponds to the truthwhile its legal meaning becomes the metaphorical meaning; and when one takesinto consideration the legal meaning of a noun, its legal meaning correspondsto the truth while its literal meaning becomes the metaphorical meaning. SomeHanafi jurists following the combined tradition (such as Ibn al-Sā‘ātī and Ibnal-Humām) and Māturīdī-Hanafi theoreticians accept the transference of legalmeanings as a whole and call the nouns transferred to these meanings al-haqīqaal-shar‘iyya.In thisarticle, I will first examine some aspects of the concepts related to al-haqīqaal-shar‘iyya in a historical and intellectual context. Then, by aclose reading of the classical works of theologians and Hanafi legalscholars, I will try to show how the argument evolved from total denialof al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya (after al-Bāqillānī) into a gradual acceptancein almost all Sunni traditions (especially starting with al-Juwaynī). Myobjective is to outline the landmarks concerning the ideas on the conduct ofthe Shāri‘ on the meanings of nouns by pointing particularly to al-Bāqillānīand, after him, certain theologians and Hanafi jurists. I aim to highlight thechanges in ideas in their proper intellectual and historical contexts., Usulcülerin dil tasavvurlarınınmerkezinde vaz‘ teorisi yer alır. Vaz‘ terimi dilde bir kelimenin, klasikifadesiyle lafzın, herhangi bir anlam için tayin edilmesini ifade eder. Dildeilk tayin edildiği anlamda kullanılan lafız hakikat iken, ilk anlamlataşıdığıbir irtibat (alâka) sebebiyle başka bir anlamda kullanılan lafız mecazdır. Mecazdanfarklı olarak, dilde belli anlamlara vazedilen lafızların şeriatı vazedenintasarrufuyla farklı anlamlara yüklenip yüklenmediği ve farklı anlam kazandığıiddia edilen isimleri bir tür hakikat olarak “şer‘î hakikat” şeklinde ifadeetmenin mümkün olup olmadığı usûl-ı fıkıh düşüncesinde tartışmaya konuolmuştur. Mu‘tezile’nin itikadî anlamlar taşıyan dinî isimlerde savunduğu gibifıkhî anlamlar ihtiva eden şer‘î isimlerde de nakil olduğu ve isimlerin yeni birhakikat olduğu iddiası, IV. (X.) asırda Eş‘arî-mütekellim usulünün temsilcisi Bâkıllânî(ö. 403/1013) tarafından sert bir şekilde eleştirilmiştir. Bâkıllânî, dinî isimlerdeolduğu gibi şer‘î isimlerde de nakil iddiasını bütünüyle reddetmiş ve bu türisimlerin lugavî hakikat olduğunda ısrar etmiştir. Ancak sonrasında zaman içinde,gerek Eş‘arî-mütekellim usulcüler gerekse Hanefî usulcüler –açıklama tarzlarıdeğişse de- isimlerin şâriin tasarrufu ile yeni anlamlar kazandığını kabuletmişlerdir. Çalışmanın temel hedefi, şâriin lafızların anlamları üzerindeki tasarrufunadair görüşlerin, Bâkıllânî ve sonrasında, mütekellim ve Hanefî usul düşüncetarihinde zaman içinde nasıl değiştiğini fikrî ve tarihî gelişmelerle irtibatlıolarak ortaya koymak ve bu tasarrufa dair açıklamaların nasıl olduğunu incelemektir.

Nazarî-küllî disiplinlerde felsefe-mantık dilinin hâkim olmaya başladığı dönemde yaşayan Fahreddin er-Râzî, felsefe-mantık diliyle oluşturduğu üslubu fıkıh usûlü eseri olan el-Mahsûl'e de taşımıştır. Bu anlamda arka planında zengin bir fikrî tartışmayı barındıran umûm kavramının mahiyetini, bu üslûbun imkânlarıyla ele almaya çalışmış, mütekellim-usûl geleneğinden tevarüs ettiği umûm tasavvurunu felsefe-mantık diliyle yeniden ifade etmiştir. Mensup olduğu usûl geleneğinden Ebü'l-Hüseyin el-Basrî'nin ile Gazzâlî'nin eserlerinde verdikleri tanımları eklediği ihtirâzî kayıtlarla zenginleştiren Râzî, üçüncü tanımda mahiyete delaleti esas almıştır. İlk tanımda umûm lafzın uygun olduğu fertleri istiğrak vasfını öne çıkaran Râzî, ikinci tanımda umûmun sınırsız çokluğa delaletini vurgulamıştır. Üçüncü tanımda ise umûm lafzın mahiyete belirsiz çokluk kaydıyla delaletini esas almıştır. Üç tanımdan hareketle onun düşüncesinde umûm lafız ortak mahiyeti taşıyan fertlerin tümünü istiğrak eden lafız olarak tanımlanabilir. Mantık dilinde küllîlik cüz'îlerin/fertlerin aynı mahiyeti bedel yoluyla taşıması demek iken; usûl düşüncesinde umûmluk lafzın, mahiyeti eşit nispette taşıyan bu fertlerin tümüne istiğrak yoluyla delalet etmesidir. Nitekim Râzî'nin bu umûm tasavvuru sığaları kabul kıstaslarını da belirlemiş, ancak delalet ettiği mahiyetin tüm fertlerini istiğrak eden lafızların umûm olabileceğini ileri sürmüştür. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, living in a period in which the philosophical-logical terminology started to dominate within the theoretical-universal disciplines, wrote his book of usul, al-Mahsul, with a style composed of usage of philosophical-logical terminology. He reconsidered the essence of umum concept, which had a fertile debate in its background, with facilities of that writing style. Using the philosophical-logical terminology, he reconstructed the definitions inherited from the tradition of theologians' fiqh methodology. Razi contributed to two definitions offered by Abu'l-Husayn al-Basri and Gazzali in usul tradition by adding some excluding qualifications. Moreover he laid stress on `signifying the essence` in a third definition. In the first umum definition, he highlighted `embracement (istighraq) all of that to which it is suited` while he emphasized `signification (dalalat) unlimited plurality` in the second. In his third definition, however, he put emphasis on `signification the essence with the qualification of undetermined plurality`. Taking into account all of these definitions, according to Razi, umum is a vocable that embraces all of individuals corresponding to a common essence. While, universality in classical logic means the corresponding of the individuals/particulars to a common essence; generality (umumiyyah) in the fiqh methodology is the signification of all of those individuals/particulars with the embracement of all of them. Thus, Razi's definition determined the acceptability of umum forms (siyagh al-umum). 113

Usulcülerin dil tasavvurlarının merkezinde vaz' teorisi yer alır. Vaz' terimi dilde bir kelimenin, klasik ifadesiyle lafzın, herhangi bir anlam için tayin edilmesini ifade eder. Dilde ilk tayin edildiği anlamda kullanılan lafız hakikat iken, ilk anlamla taşıdığı bir irtibat (alâka) sebebiyle başka bir anlamda kullanılan lafız mecazdır. Mecazdan farklı olarak, dilde belli anlamlara vazedilen lafızların şeriatı vazedenin tasarrufuyla farklı anlamlara yüklenip yüklenmediği ve farklı anlam kazandığı iddia edilen isimleri bir tür hakikat olarak "şer'î hakikat" şeklinde ifade etmenin mümkün olup olmadığı usûl-ı fıkıh düşüncesinde tartışmaya konu olmuştur. Mu'tezile'nin itikadî anlamlar taşıyan dinî isimlerde savunduğu gibi fıkhî anlamlar ihtiva eden şer'î isimlerde de nakil olduğu ve isimlerin yeni bir hakikat olduğu iddiası, IV. (X.) asırda Eş'arî-mütekellim usulünün temsilcisi Bâkıllânî (ö. 403/1013) tarafından sert bir şekilde eleştirilmiştir. Bâkıllânî, dinî isimlerde olduğu gibi şer'î isimlerde de nakil iddiasını bütünüyle reddetmiş ve bu tür isimlerin lugavî hakikat olduğunda ısrar etmiştir. Ancak sonrasında zaman içinde, gerek Eş'arî-mütekellim usulcüler gerekse Hanefî usulcüler -açıklama tarzları değişse de- isimlerin şâriin tasarrufu ile yeni anlamlar kazandığını kabul etmişlerdir. Çalışmanın temel hedefi, şâriin lafızların anlamları üzerindeki tasarrufuna dair görüşlerin, Bâkıllânî ve sonrasında, mütekellim ve Hanefî usul düşünce tarihinde zaman içinde nasıl değiştiğini fikrî ve tarihî gelişmelerle irtibatlı olarak ortaya koymak ve bu tasarrufa dair açıklamaların nasıl olduğunu incelemektir. ?e linguistic imaginations of Islamic legal theoreticians are centered on the theory of assignation (wad‘). ?e term wad‘ refers to assigning a meaning to a noun, or, as more classically called, an expression. ?e literal meaning of an expression in language refers to the truth (?aq?qa) whereas its usage in another meaning, in some sense connected to the original meaning, refers to the figurative/metaphorical meaning. ?eoretical jurisprudential literature has debated whether the literary meaning of an expression changes by the conduct of the Sh?ri‘ and, if so, whether jurists can use the term al-haq?qa al-shar‘iyya (legal truths) as a kind of truth for the nouns that are argued to have acquired different meanings. Some Mu‘tazil? theoreticians argue that the Sh?ri‘ assigned legal and theological meanings to some nouns by divorcing them from their literal meanings and referring to the nouns transferred to legal meanings as alhaq?qa al-shar‘iyya and some of the nouns transferred to theological meanings as religious truths. ?e Mu‘tazil? theoreticians use the term transference (naql) for describing the process of assigning new meanings to certain nouns in addition to their literal meanings. By employing certain nouns whose meanings the Sh?r?‘, as they argue, transferred to new theological meanings — such as belief (?m?n), sinfulness (fisq) and unbelief (kufr) — they ground the theory of al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn, used for great sinners (murtakib al-kab?ra), in order to identify their dubious state of being believers or unbelievers. During the fourth/tenth century, witnessing ongoing ideological debates between the Mu‘tazil? and Ash‘ar? theological schools, al-Q?di al-B?qill?n? formulates the Ash‘ar? school’s theoretical framework. Considering that the usage of al-haq?qa al-shar‘iyya could pave the way for the possibility of religious nouns that include theological meanings, he tries to identify these nouns with their literal meanings. ?erefore, he insists the nouns have not been transferred and their literal meanings continue to exist. By the second half of the fi?h/eleventh century, the Mu‘tazil? school lost its dominance and new challenges to Sunni theology, such as philosophy and esotericism, began to appear. Al-B?qill?n?’s resistance to the arguments of al-haq?qa alshar‘iyya transference evolved into a lighter emphasis among Ash‘ar? theologians and theoreticians. ?erefore, some Ash‘ar? theologians and theoreticians criticized al-B?qill?n?’s rigid attitude and accepted the conduct of the Sh?ri‘. By the seventh/thirteenth century, almost all Ash‘ar? theologians and Hanafi theoreticians adopted the view of legal nouns as a kind of truth. Among them, al-Juwayn? and his student al-Ghaz?l? state that the conduct of the Sh?ri‘ on expressions occurs metaphorically and this metaphorical usage gains wide-circulation. A century later, al-R?z? (d. 606/1210), like his predecessors, adopts the metaphorical conduct of the Sh?ri‘ as well as calls legal nouns among the kinds of truth and accepts the transference to legal meanings. However, unlike the Mu‘tazil? school, he underlines the necessity to have an affinity at the transference between the literal meaning and the new meaning. A half-century later, Ibn al-??jib (d. 646/1249) does not accept the metaphorical conduct of the Sh?ri‘ but adopts completely alhaq?qa al-shar‘iyya by distinguishing religious and legal truths and calls the conduct of the Sh?ri‘ on expressions as assignation (wad‘). Several Ash‘ar? theologiantheoreticians such as T?j al-D?n al-Subk? (d. 771/1370), Jal?l al-D?n al-Ma?all? (d. 864/1459) and ?asan b. Mu?ammad al-‘Att?r (d. 1250/1834) follow Ibn al-??jib on accepting al-haq?qa al-shar‘iyya totally. In this article, I examine the Hanafi theoretical literature in three distinct lines by following the cross-references and continuities in ideas among the legal theoreticians. ?e first is the Hanafi-jurist tradition that follows the classifications and methodology of al-Dab?s?’s Taqw?m al-adilla; the second one is the tradition that combines Hanafi theoretical perspective with theologian methodology; and the third one is Hanafi-M?tur?d? theoretical tradition that builds jurisprudential methodology on the basic premises of M?tur?d? theological school. Al-Ja???s (d. 370/981), a Hanafi jurist who is known for his close connection to the Mu‘tazil? school, openly accepts that the Sh?ri‘ assigns new meanings on nouns. Later, some Hanafi jurists such as al-Dab?s? (d. 430/1039), al-Sarakhs? (d. 483/1090) and al-Pazdaw? (d. 482/1089) describe the conduct of the Sh?ri‘ on nouns only metaphorically and argue, just like in the theological tradition, that metaphorical usages of nouns have more circulation. ?adr al-Shar?‘a (d. 747/1346), a scholar of Hanafi-jurisprudential tradition, calls these nouns as kinds of truth. Maintaining two aspects of explaining the issue, al-Qar?f? (d. 684/1285), argues that when one takes into consideration the literal meanings of a noun, its literal meaning corresponds to the truth while its legal meaning becomes the metaphorical meaning; and when one takes into consideration the legal meaning of a noun, its legal meaning corresponds to the truth while its literal meaning becomes the metaphorical meaning. Some Hanafi jurists following the combined tradition (such as Ibn al-S?‘?t? and Ibn al-Hum?m) and M?tur?d?-Hanafi theoreticians accept the transference of legal meanings as a whole and call the nouns transferred to these meanings al-haq?qa al-shar‘iyya. In this article, I will first examine some aspects of the concepts related to alhaq?qa al-shar‘iyya in a historical and intellectual context. ?en, by a close reading of the classical works of theologians and Hanafi legal scholars, I will try to show how the argument evolved from total denial of al-haq?qa al-shar‘iyya (a?er al-B?qill?n?) into a gradual acceptance in almost all Sunni traditions (especially starting with al-Juwayn?). My objective is to outline the landmarks concerning the ideas on the conduct of the Sh?ri‘ on the meanings of nouns by pointing particularly to al-B?qill?n? and, a?er him, certain theologians and Hanafi jurists. I aim to highlight the changes in ideas in their proper intellectual and historical contexts.