Search

Copyright of Journal of the Faculty of Divinity of Ankara University / Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi 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 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.)

تتجه هذه الدراسة إلى تحليل كتابين من الكتب التي وصلتنا عن أبي يوسف يعقوب بن إبراهيم الأنصاري (113-182/731-798) تلميذ أبي حنيفة النعمان (80-150/699-767)، -وهما كتاب اختلاف أبي حنيفة وابن أبي ليلى، وكتاب الرد على سير الأوزاعي -، تحليلا كميا كيفيا. ولا يخفى أن علاقة أبي يوسف مع الأوزاعي (88-157/707-774) هي من جنس الخلاف العالي باعتباره قريبا من مدرسة الحديث. وأن علاقته مع ابن أبي ليلى (74-148/693-765) هي من جنس الخلاف النازل باعتباره قريبا من مدرسة الرأي. وأما عن أسئلة الدراسة فأهمها: كيف تعامل أبو يوسف في كتابيه مع سؤال توثيق السنة؟ وهل احتجَّ أبو يوسف بمنهج المحدثين في التصحيح؟ وهل هناك فروق منهجية في جدله مع كل من الأوزاعي وابن أبي ليلى؟ وخلصت الدراسة إلى أن الحجية عند أبي يوسف هي للعمل قبل الرواية، وأن التوثيق يكون برواية الفقهاء لا الحفاظ فحسب. وقد وجَّهنا استخدامه لمصطلح ثقات في كتبه إلى الفقهاء الثقات لا الرواة الثقاة. وأوضحت الدراسة أن هناك فارقا كبيرا بين منهجية أبي يوسف في الرد على الأوزاعي باعتباره من أهل الحديث، وبين منهجيته في الرد على ابن أبي ليلى باعتباره من أهل الرأي، فإنه ما كان يتوسع في حشد الأدلة الحديثية وفي توثيقها مع ابن أبي ليلى بقدر تركيزه على فهمها وتأويلها لأن الخلاف معه خلاف نازل. ولكنه في الخلاف العالي مع الأوزاعي فإنه كان يهتم بإيراد الأحاديث وبجودة أسانيدها باعتبارها حجة ملزمة للطرف الآخر.

The claim that Abû Hanîfa (d. 150/767) and Hanafis are weak in hadith and do not give the hadith the necessary importance is made against Hanafi scholars from time to time. The hadith narrations of Abû Hanîfa and his disciples can be considered as a response to such accusations. The hadiths which the Hanafi scholar Bishr b. Walîd al-Kindî (d. 238/853), the student of Abu Yusuf (d. 182/798) who was one of the founders defining the thoughts of Hanafi sect, can be considered as one of these answers. Bishr was a Hanafi scholar who learned and narrated hadith according to science tradition. It has been seen that no study has been done about searching the identity of Bishr as a narrator of hadith and hadiths that he narrated. For this reason, it was thought that it would be useful in terms of serving to Hanafis science of hadith to collect and analyze his narrations. Bishr's narrations are included in some hadith books other than Kutub-i Sitta. In this study, 146 narrations which Bishr got from 34 various scholars and were in the Bishr’s 13 hadith books that were compiled in hijr third and fourth century has been studied in terms of source, isnâd and content. Of the hadiths Bishr transmitted, 134 are Marfu’, nine are Mawquf, and three are Maqtû’. When the Marfu’ narrations are examined according to their subjects, it is understood that approximately two-thirds of the narrations conveyed by Bishr are related to the issues of Ahkâm (laws). His being a faqih is an important factor in the fact that he has many narrations on the subjects of Ahkâm. Very few of the hadiths in the books where Bishr's transmissions are mentioned consist of repetitive narrations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the intersection of microeconomic theory and Islamic jurisprudence. We analyze three legal disputes from Islamic history that can be conceived as fair division problems in microeconomics. The solutions proposed by jurists of that time are scrutinized and compared with answers posited by classical division rules. The effected comparisons highlight the similarities and differences between Islamic and conventional economic resolutions. We use the axiomatic approach to define generalizable rules based on the solutions offered by eminent Islamic jurists Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Our analysis reveals that Abu Hanifa's methodology and the concede-and-divide rule are identical. Moreover, Abu Yusuf's approach mirrors the constrained Ibn Ezra rule. We examine the principles characterizing the concede-and-divide and Ibn Ezra rules and find these doctrines compatible with Islamic tenets. In conclusion, our study connects Islamic law with microeconomic theory through its unique exploration of legal disputes perceived through the lens of fair division problems. Our findings contribute to the scholarly understanding of how established division rules can be adapted to align with Islamic values and how Islamic allocation methods can be illustrated using an axiomatic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Satın alma gücündeki azalmayı ifade eden enflasyon, küresel ekonominin öne çıkan problemlerinden biridir. Bu müşkül, paraya dair tüm sözleşmeleri etkilemektedir. Öte yandan, İslâm hukukunun faiz yasağı konusundaki tutumu da yapılan akitlerle yakından ilişkilidir. Nitekim kâğıt parayla yapılan sözleşmelerde akit gerçekleşip borç ödenmeden önce, parada bir değer kaybı söz konusu olduğunda borcun nasıl ödeneceği tartışmalı hale gelmektedir. Mesela kimi İslâm hukukçuları, Hanefî mezhebinin kurucu önderlerinden Ebû Yûsuf’un (ö. 182/798) alışverişlerde bozuk para olarak kullanılan felsin değer değişimine ilişkin fetvasını kaynak göstererek kâğıt paradaki değer dalgalanmalarında, sözleşmenin yapıldığı tarihteki değer üzerinden ödeme yapılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Öte yandan diğer bazıları ise Ebû Yûsuf’un görüşünün kâğıt paraları içermediğini iddia etmektedir. Ebû Yûsuf’un felse ilişkin yaklaşımının kâğıt parayı kapsadığını savunanların temel argümanı, kâğıt paranın felsler gibi itibari bir değere sahip olduğudur. Bu, felste dikkate alınan değer kaybının kâğıt parada da dikkate alınacağı anlamına gelir. Meseleye ilişkin diğer bir argüman ise alışverişlerde bozuk para olarak kullanılan felste dikkate alınan değer değişiminin günümüzde asli para birimi olarak kullanılan kâğıt parada evleviyetle itibara alınacağıdır. Öte yandan, bu yaklaşımı kabul etmeyenler, felsin semen olması nedeniyle kıyemî olarak değerlendirilemeyeceğini ve Ebû Yûsuf’un ilgili görüşünün yalnızca alışverişlerde bozuk para olarak kullanılan felsle sınırlı olduğunu savunmaktadır. Çalışmamızda, andığımız bu iki yaklaşımı, sosyal bilimler nitel araştırma yöntemine başvurarak ele alacağız. Konunun analizi sırasında, güncel literatürde öne çıkan görüş ve tutumları kapsamlı bir biçimde ortaya koyup değerlendireceğiz. Ardından Ebû Yûsuf’un görüşünü borcun sebebi ve konusu bakımından irdeleyeceğiz. Böylelikle ilgili görüşün tarihsel veriler ışığında Hanefî mezhebi literatüründeki durumunu belirginleştirmiş olacağız. Ayrıca bu yaklaşımın günümüz kâğıt parası için geçerli olup olmadığı meselesine ışık tutacağız. Eldeki veriler ışığında, Ebû Yûsuf’un felsle ilgili görüşünün kâğıt parayı kapsamayacağını iddia edenlerin argümanlarının sorunlu olduğunu gözlemlendi. Çünkü ikinci görüşü benimseyenlerin gerekçelerinden biri, felsin alışverişlerde dirhemlerin küsuratını tamamlayan bozuk para olmasından dolayı günümüz kâğıt parasıyla bir tutulamayacağıdır. Örneğin ünlü Mısırlı tarihçilerden Makrîzî’nin (ö. 845/1442) bildirdiğine göre, felsler yalnızca bozuk para olarak değil aynı zamanda asli para birimi olarak da kullanılmıştır. Bu nedenle, asli para birimi olarak işlev gören felslerin değerinde gerçekleşen dalgalanmaların Ebû Yûsuf’un görüşü çerçevesinde ele alınması gerekir. Ayrıca bazı Hanefî fakihlerin Ebû Yûsuf’un görüşüne eklemeler yaptığı görülür. Söz gelimi, son dönem Hanefî mezhebinin önde gelen simalarından İbn Âbidîn (ö. 1307/1889) meseleye dair kaleme aldığı müstakil risalesinde, katkı maddesi fazla olan dirhemleri (mağlubü’l-gış/مغلوب الغش) fels kategorisinde değerlendirmiştir. Bu da Ebû Yûsuf’un yaklaşımının günümüz kâğıt parası için geçerliliğini destekler niteliktedir. Dolayısıyla, çalışmamız boyunca Ebû Yûsuf’un felslere ilişkin görüşünün günümüz kâğıt parası için de geçerli olduğu kanaatinin temel bir bulgu olarak öne çıktığını söyleyebiliriz. Çünkü Ebû Yûsuf, -İbn Âbidîn’in de belirttiği gibi- felslerin para olarak üretilmediğini, bu nedenle de itibari bir değeri haiz olduğunu iddia eder. Buradan hareketle kâğıt parada görülen değer dalgalanmasına dair Ebû Yûsuf’un görüşünü referans aldığımızda akit günündeki değer üzerinden ödeme yapılması gerektiğini savunanların daha isabetli bir tutum sergilediği anlaşılmaktadır.

Inflation, which refers to the decrease in purchasing power, is one of the prominent problems of the global economy. This problem affects all contracts related to money. On the other hand, Islamic law's approach towards the prohibition of interest is closely associated with the contracts. Indeed, in contracts made with paper money, the legal status of the contract becomes controversial when there is a depreciation in the value of the money before the contract is fulfilled and the debt is paid. For example, some jurists, citing the fatwa of Abu Yūsuf (d. 182/798), one of the founding leaders of the Hanafi school, on the change in the value of fels used as coins in transactions, argue that in case of fluctuations in the value of paper money, payment should be made according to the value at the date of the contract. Meanwhile, others argue that Abu Yusuf's opinion does not extend to paper money. In this study, I will analyze these two approaches by applying the qualitative research method in social sciences. As part of the analysis of the subject, I will comprehensively present and evaluate the views and approaches that appear in the contemporary literature. Then, I will discuss Abu Yusuf's view regarding the cause and subject matter of the debt. Thus, I will highlight the position of this view in the Hanafi madhhab literature based on historical data. I will also show whether this approach is valid for today's paper money. The main argument of those who claim that Abu Yusuf's approach to fels includes paper money is that paper money, like fels, has a nominal value. This means that the depreciation that is taken into account in fels is also taken into account in paper money. Another argument is that the change in value that is taken into account in fels, which is used as coins in transactions, will be taken into account in paper money, which is used as the main currency today. On the other hand, those who do not accept this approach argue that fels cannot be considered qiyamī because it is semen, and Abu Yusuf's opinion is limited to fels used as coins in transactions. According to the available data, I consider the arguments of those who claim that Abu Yūsuf's opinion on fels does not extend to paper money as problematic. Because one of the reasons given by those who hold the latter view is that fels cannot be equated with today's paper money since it was a type of coin that completed the fractions of dirhams in transactions. For example, according to the well-known Egyptian historian al-Maqrizī (d. 845/1442), fels were used not only as coins but also as the main currency. Therefore, the fluctuations in the value of fels, which functioned as the main currency, should be evaluated within the framework of Abu Yūsuf’s view. In addition, some Hanafi jurists expanded upon Abu Yūsuf’s view. For example, Ibn Ābidīn (d. 1307/1889), one of the leading figures of the late Hanafi school, in his treatise on the issue, evaluated the debased dirhams (maghlūb al-ghāsh/ مغلوب الغش (in the category of fels. This shows that Abu Yūsuf's approach is also applicable to today’s paper money. Therefore, we can say that Abu Yūsuf’s view on fels is also applicable to today's paper money. This is because Abu Yūsuf, as stated by Ibn Ābidīn, claims that fels is not produced as money and therefore has a nominal value. As a result, according to Abu Yūsuf's opinion regarding the fluctuation in the value of paper money, it is understood that those who claim that payment should be carried out based on the value on the day of the contract have a more accurate attitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

K. al-Ḥujjah ʿalā ahl al-Madīnah by Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (d. 189/804-5) is a witness to the state of the regional school of Medina before it had been absorbed by (survived only in) the Mālikī personal school. Schacht asserts that each regional school had its characteristic authorities among the Followers, and the Ḥujjah confirms that, sometimes appealing to Kufan Followers against Medinese, sometimes complaining that the Medinese are not staying loyal to their own Medinese Followers. Sometimes also the Ḥujjah testifies to Mālik's pre-eminence among the Medinese of his time, sometimes by appealing to him as 'your faqīh ', with whom the Medinese ought to agree but do not, but mainly as their pre-eminent traditionist. Schacht observed that Shaybānī adduced hadith more often than Abū Yūsuf, and the Ḥujjah often adduces hadith in its arguments against the Medinese. Most often, however, it adduces logical consistency against Medinese positions. Altogether, it suggests that personal schools evolved out of regional by accentuation of the personal element already present in the tradition of regional authorities. By adducing hadith from a wider range of authorities than the Muwaṭṭaʾ , it implicitly argues that Ḥanafi law is superior because it represents the jurisprudence of the whole Empire, not just one centre. Résumé: Le K. al-Ḥujjah ʿalā ahl al-Madīnah de Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (m. 189/804-5) est un témoin de l'état de l'école régionale de Médine avant qu'elle ne soit absorbée par (n'a survécu que dans) l'école personnelle Mālikī. Schacht affirme que chaque école régionale avait ses autorités caractéristiques parmi les adeptes, et le K. al-Ḥujjah le confirme, en faisant appel tantôt aux adeptes de Kufan contre les Médinois tantôt en se plaignant que les Médinois ne restent pas fidèles à leurs propres adeptes médinois. Parfois aussi, le K. al-Ḥujjah témoigne de la prééminence de Mālik parmi les Médinois de son temps, parfois en faisant appel à lui comme "votre faqīh", avec lequel les Médinois devraient être d'accord mais ne le sont pas, en particulier comme leur traditionniste prééminent. Schacht a observé que Shaybānī validait plus souvent des hadiths qu'Abū Yūsuf, et que le K. Ḥujjah adoptait souvent des hadiths dans ses arguments contre les Médinois. Le plus souvent, cependant, il présente la cohérence logique contre les positions médinoises. Dans l'ensemble, il suggère que les écoles personnelles ont évolué à partir des écoles régionales en accentuant l'élément personnel déjà présent dans la tradition des autorités régionales. En présentant des hadiths provenant d'un plus large éventail d'autorités que le Muwaṭṭaʾ , il soutient implicitement que la loi hanafite est supérieure parce qu'elle représente la jurisprudence de tout l'Empire, et non d'un seul centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, I address the longstanding debate on attributing legal texts to formative-period authors by focusing on the transmission of one early text: Ikhtilāf Abī Ḥanīfa wa-Ibn Abī Laylā , attributed to Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798), and its reception by one early jurist: Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/933). I argue that al-Ṭaḥāwī's written work attests to the existence of multiple independent transmissions of Abū Yūsuf's text and that these transmissions confirm the attribution of the text to Abū Yūsuf. I then reflect on the formative-period written materials consulted by al-Ṭaḥāwī and his contemporaries, arguing that their access to material from a period in which oral transmission was predominant gave them a unique standing in the eyes of classical-era jurists. Finally, I reflect on the role of digests (mukhtaṣar s), particularly those of al-Ṭaḥāwī and al-Qudūrī (d. 428/1037), in sealing the movement from orality in the formative period to fixed written texts in the classical period. [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.)

The first half of the Hijri second century is important in that the period of hadīth narration continues and indicating the first examples of sectarian methods that will occur in the following periods. Therefore, it is essential to determine the understanding of Abū Ḥanīfa's (d. 150/767) - one of the most important scholar of this period-hadīth narrative. In this study, the reasons why Abū Ḥanīfa's narrations are not included in the hadīth studies written after the first quarter of the Hijri third century will first be examined by determining his understanding of the hadīth narration. The works named Kitāb al-āthâr narrated by Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-S̲h̲aybānī will be analyzed while determining Abū Ḥanīfa's method of hadīth narrative. Subsequently, Abū Ḥanīfa's method will be compared with the other written works of the hijri second century and it will be questioned whether there are different aspects of the narrative method in this century. As a result of the data obtained at the end of this research, it will be tried to determine whether the structure of the isnāds used by Abu Hanifa in the hadith narration is the reason for his negligence in the following periods. In addition, al-dj̲arḥ expressions about Abū Hanīfa in the biography books written after the hijri second century will be briefly explained. However, the focus will be on the wheter these claims are a reason for Abū Hanīfa's negligence in the hijri third century hadīth sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In early Islamic economics, five different dimensions of analysis are broadly identified. First, economic issues have been discussed by Mufassirin in the light of the Holy Quran. For instance, discussions on the prohibition of usury and the encouragement of economic activities for human welfare. Second; economic issues have been discussed in the light of Fiqh. For example the legal aspects of Mudharibah and Musharikah have been dealt within this discipline in great detail. Third; economic matters have been discussed by Muslims in the light of ethical system of Islam for moral development. The works of Ulama, Sufis, Muslim philosophers and reformers come under this category. Fourthly, some good pieces of works, related to economics have been written by some great scholars of Islam in response to the needs of their times while holding important government offices. The works related to public finance, public revenues, land tax, public expenditure fall under this category. The book Kitab al Kharaj by Imam Abu Yusuf is one such example. Finally some Islamic Scholars and philosophers have provided objective analysis in the field of economics. The analysis made by Imam Ghazzali, Ibn Taimiyah, Ibn Khaldun and lately by Shah Waliullah Dehlwi fall under this category.

Abu Yusuf and Shaybani, who are the first to among the most famous mujtahid students of Abu Hanifa, are also the names who made great contributions in the codification and consolidation of the school of law that is attributed to himself. While it is possible to reach lots of information regarding these two names in biographical studies, the same cannot be said for their life chronology. This paper attempts to construct a short biographical chronology by identifying the time-space connections and context of Abu Yusuf and Shaybani's educational activities and judicial duties. With this concise chronology, it is aimed to make a humble contribution to the historical gap in their biographies. [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 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.)

Copyright of Dinbilimleri Journal is the property of Dinbilimleri Journal 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 change is a reality and necessity in jurisprudence. The change in Islamic Jurisprudence (fiqh) is taken up during the Prophet's life by the term of naskh. After the Prophet's life, the fact of change appears in the opinions of al-mujtahids. In the beginning part of the article, we studied the fact of ruju' as "the change in the opinion of a mujtehid about a subject that he commanded before" in Abu Yusuf's juridical judgements. Afterwards we mentioned recourses, reasons of the Abu Yusuf's that is in the category of worship in fiqh. Finally, we made analysis by mentioning the resources of recourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abu Yusuf adalah ulama yang hidup pada tahun 113-182 H/731-798 M, merupakan seorang ahli fiqih yang lahir pada masa Ummayah namun berkarya dan diakui pada masa Abassiah. Karya terbesarnya adalah Kitab Al-Kharaj yang merupakan kitab pertama memuat tentang cara menghimpun semua pemasukan daulah islamiyah dan pos-pos pengeluaran berdasarkan kitabullah dan sunnah rasul saw. Kitab ini berupaya membangun sebuah sistem keuangan publik yang mudah dilaksanakan yang sesuai dengan hukum islam yang sesuai dengan persyaratan ekonomi Latar belakang pemikirannya tentang ekonomi, setidaknya dipengaruhi beberapa faktor, baik intern maupun ekstern. Yang menjadi kekuatan utama pemikiran Abu Yusuf adalah dalam masalah keuangan publik. Sistem ekonomi yang dikehendaki oleh Abu yusuf adalah satu upaya untuk mencapai kemaslahatan ummat. Kemaslahatan ini didasarkan pada al-Qur’an, al- Hadits, maupun landasan-landasan lainnya.

Abu Yusuf's Opinion Detection and Exam, nation Releted to “When the Custom Change the custom based on the nass variability” This study examines two issues; one of them is essential the other is subsidiary The essential issue to determine jurisprudence relation “the custom has based on the nass” whic was attributed Abu Yusuf. In recent years, this jurisprudence, is interpreted that the custom can be considered as the sole and absolute criteria in the provisions of Islamic social life. The second issue intended investigation is the subject of claims to be Abu Yusuf's jurisprudence (Ijtihad ) whether there will be use or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798) and Muhammad b. Hasan al-Shaybānī's (d. 189/805) Āthār's, two pre-canonical works which played an important role in the transmission and understanding of the sunnah, constitute the two primary sources of this paper. By accepting asbāb al-wurūd -reasons for the appearance of hadīths- in these two works, which provide the information on why, when, where, how, and for/to whom the Prophet said/did what he said/did, as an integral component of nusūs, this paper deals with their effect on understanding and establishing legal rulings. In so doing, both the importance of asbāb al-wurūd for Islamic law and how to utilize the afore-mentioned works in the understanding of ahādīth are presented by using examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hanafi school whose name is attributed to Abû Hanîfa, today one of the four living fiqh secrets (mazhab), is a school established as collectively by Abû Hanîfa and his students and friends (ashâb-i Abâ Hanâfa). Among Abû Hanîfa's friends Abû Yusuf and Muhammad b. Hasan aşŞaybâî made the biggest services with their works and their activities in carrying out in institunalization and advancement of this school. In this article, the hierarchic degrees of these three major imams of Hanafi school insight the mazhab and the legal differences of view between Abû Hanîfa and his friends are to be tried to examine with its examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]