İmam Mâturîdî ve Cessâs’ın Tefsirlerinde Hırsızlık Haddine Yaklaşımları.

Within the framework of today‟s human rights conceptions, the punishment envisaged by Islamic law for the thief has been found severe and the word “cut off hand” (hadd) in the relevant verse has been interpreted in different ways. However, it has been observed that these ta‟wīls (interpretations) that may constitute a source for these ta‟wīls are not included in the literature. In this context, in this study, the approaches of Imam al-Māturīdī, one of the leading commentators and jurists of the Samarkand shyakhs, and al- Jassās, one of the prominent names of the Iraqi shyakhs, are discussed. There are partial differences in usūl and furū between the legal traditions to which both authors belong. Imam al-Māturīdī has expressed his view on the hadd of theft within the framework of his methodical thought. He argues that since there is doubt about the meaning of ām words, there needs to be an evidence showing that they refer to a general or a particular meaning. However, he argues that the name "thief" in the 38th verse of the chapter of al-Mā‟idah, which regulates the crime of theft, is ām, on the other hand, the act of stealing is not of this nature and is hās (particular). Accordingly, every thief should be punished with hadd. However, not every act of theft can be punished in this way. As a matter of fact, in the verse, the value of the stolen property required for the punishment of theft to be applied, the hirz (protected area), from whom it was stolen, etc. terms are not disclosed. The determination of these is left to the mujtahids. Imam al-Māturīdī implies that the nisāb (quorum) in theft may vary in different times and geographies, based on the fact that the Sahābī and Tābi‟ūn disagreed on the value of the stolen property and made their own determinations. Al-Jassās also states that the verse refers to the general, but he is on the opinion that the crime of stealing is closed in the rukn (its conditions). It is seen that Imam al-Māturīdī and al-Jassās did not go beyond the opinions of the founding imams in their ijtihad and preferences on the provisions of theft. However, both authors put forward their own preferences on the disputed issues. In addition, both commentators gave place to the views of the Sahābī and Tābi‟ūn while dealing with the subjects. al-Jassās, acting on the views of Iraqi jurists, sometimes gave the views of jurists outside the Hanafī tradition, such as Imam Shāfī. Imam al- Māturīdī, on the other hand, while giving place to the opinions of the founding imams in the commentary of the verses containing judgment in general, did not mention their views on theft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]