Is It Possible for the Hanafi Jurisprudents of the Later Period to Disagree with the Founding Imams?: An Examination Special to Ibn Al-Humam

Ünal Şahin

Article Details

Is It Possible for the Hanafi Jurisprudents of the Later Period to Disagree with the Founding Imams?: An Examination Special to Ibn Al-Humam

Authors:

Ünal Şahin

Publisher:

Erciyes University

Main Topics:

İslam Hukuku

Journal:

Bilimname Issue 51, pp.313-350

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001305197

pISSN:

1304-1878

Keywords:

Abstract:

 In this study, the issue of whether there can be opposition to the founding imams of the Hanafi sect in terms of procedure will be discussed. The general acceptance in the Hanafi sect on the subject is that there is no opposition to the founding imams in terms of procedure. It is possible to say that this perception in the sect continued until the Industrial Revolution. However, it is later observed that the issue evolved to a different point. Especially in modern period studies, the existence, limits and quality of the real opposition to the founding imams have been questioned. When we look at the issue specifically for Ibn al-Humam, a different picture emerges. As a Hanafi jurist who lived in Egyptian geography in the 9th century Hijri, he presents a different prototype of a scholar and makes ijtihad on procedural issues. The opinions in question differ from the texts that find stability in the sect and reflect the views of the founding imams. It should also be stated that these issues consist of opinions that change according to customs, traditions, time and place and do not constitute fatwas. In this respect, it is seen that Ibn al-Humam put forward different views on procedural issues in the sect than the established perception in the sect and tried to base them. On the other hand, this aspect of Ibn al-Humam is clear evidence that his ijtihad activities continue on particular issues without departing from the sectarian method. It is understood that when the scholars of the sect reached scientific competence, they made ijtihad even in the field of usul, let alone fiqh. It should be noted that these jurisprudences are not the preferences of a different sect, but rather the conclusions reached based on evidence. In addition, each of his different views, which differ from the stable approach in the Hanafi sect, is not ijtihad but can sometimes be a preference on the subject. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly examine whether such differences are jurisprudence or preference.

 In this study, the issue of whether there can be opposition to the founding imams of the Hanafi sect in terms of procedure will be discussed. The general acceptance in the Hanafi sect on the subject is that there is no opposition to the founding imams in terms of procedure. It is possible to say that this perception in the sect continued until the Industrial Revolution. However, it is later observed that the issue evolved to a different point. Especially in modern period studies, the existence, limits and quality of the real opposition to the founding imams have been questioned. When we look at the issue specifically for Ibn al-Humam, a different picture emerges. As a Hanafi jurist who lived in Egyptian geography in the 9th century Hijri, he presents a different prototype of a scholar and makes ijtihad on procedural issues. The opinions in question differ from the texts that find stability in the sect and reflect the views of the founding imams. It should also be stated that these issues consist of opinions that change according to customs, traditions, time and place and do not constitute fatwas. In this respect, it is seen that Ibn al-Humam put forward different views on procedural issues in the sect than the established perception in the sect and tried to base them. On the other hand, this aspect of Ibn al-Humam is clear evidence that his ijtihad activities continue on particular issues without departing from the sectarian method. It is understood that when the scholars of the sect reached scientific competence, they made ijtihad even in the field of usul, let alone fiqh. It should be noted that these jurisprudences are not the preferences of a different sect, but rather the conclusions reached based on evidence. In addition, each of his different views, which differ from the stable approach in the Hanafi sect, is not ijtihad but can sometimes be a preference on the subject. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly examine whether such differences are jurisprudence or preference.

 In this study, the issue of whether there can be opposition to the founding imams of the Hanafi sect in terms of procedure will be discussed. The general acceptance in the Hanafi sect on the subject is that there is no opposition to the founding imams in terms of procedure. It is possible to say that this perception in the sect continued until the Industrial Revolution. However, it is later observed that the issue evolved to a different point. Especially in modern period studies, the existence, limits and quality of the real opposition to the founding imams have been questioned. When we look at the issue specifically for Ibn al-Humam, a different picture emerges. As a Hanafi jurist who lived in Egyptian geography in the 9th century Hijri, he presents a different prototype of a scholar and makes ijtihad on procedural issues. The opinions in question differ from the texts that find stability in the sect and reflect the views of the founding imams. It should also be stated that these issues consist of opinions that change according to customs, traditions, time and place and do not constitute fatwas. In this respect, it is seen that Ibn al-Humam put forward different views on procedural issues in the sect than the established perception in the sect and tried to base them. On the other hand, this aspect of Ibn al-Humam is clear evidence that his ijtihad activities continue on particular issues without departing from the sectarian method. It is understood that when the scholars of the sect reached scientific competence, they made ijtihad even in the field of usul, let alone fiqh. It should be noted that these jurisprudences are not the preferences of a different sect, but rather the conclusions reached based on evidence. In addition, each of his different views, which differ from the stable approach in the Hanafi sect, is not ijtihad but can sometimes be a preference on the subject. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly examine whether such differences are jurisprudence or preference.

 Bu çalışmada Hanefî mezhebinin kurucu imamlarına müteahhir dönem mezhep fakihlerinin usul mesailinde muhalefet edip edemeyeceği hususu ele alınmıştır. Konu hakkında Hanefî mezhebinde genel kabul, kurucu imamlara usulde muhalefetin olmadığı yönündedir. Mezhepteki bu kabulün Sanayi Devrimine kadar devam ettiğini söylemek mümkündür. Ancak sonraki dönemlerde meselenin farklı bir noktaya evrildiği müşahede edilmektedir. Bilhassa modern dönem çalışmalarında kurucu imamlara gerçek anlamda muhalefetin varlığı, sınırları ve keyfiyeti sorgulanmıştır. İbnül-Hümâm ö. 8611457 özelinde meseleye bakıldığında ise daha farklı bir tablo karşımıza çıkmaktadır. O, hicri 9uncu asırda Mısır coğrafyasında yaşamış bir Hanefî fakihi olarak, farklı bir âlim prototipi ortaya koymakta ve usul meselelerinde içtihatta bulunmaktadır. Bu içtihatlar, mezhepte istikrar bulan ve kurucu imamların görüşlerini yansıtan metinlerden farklılık arz etmektedir. Onun, muhalefet ettiği konuların örf, âdet, zaman ve zemine göre değişen ayrıca, fetva mahiyetinde olmayan görüşlerden müteşekkil olduğunu da ifade etmek gerekmektedir. Bu kapsamda İbnül-Hümâmın usulî konularda mezhepteki yerleşik yaklaşımdan farklı görüşler ileri sürdüğü ve bunları temellendirmeye çalıştığı görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan İbnül-Hümâmın bu yönü, mezhep usulünden bütünüyle ayrılmadan tikel meselelerde içtihat faaliyetinin de devam ettiğinin açık delillerindendir. Buradan, mezhep ulemasının ilmî yetkinliğe ulaştığında fürû fıkıh bir tarafa usul mesailinde dahi içtihat ettiği anlaşılmaktadır. Bu içtihatların, farklı bir mezhep görüşünün tercihi olmadığı bilakis, delilden hareketle ulaşılan neticeler olduğu belirtilmelidir. Ayrıca onun Hanefî mezhebinde istikrar bulan yaklaşımdan ayrılan her bir farklı görüşü, içtihat merkezli olmayıp bazen konu hakkında tercih olabilmektedir. Bundan dolayı bu gibi farklılıkların içtihat mı yoksa tercih mi olduğunun iyice tetkik edilmesi gerekmektedir.

Article Details

Is It Possible for the Hanafi Jurisprudents of the Later Period to Disagree with the Founding Imams?: An Examination Special to Ibn Al-Humam

Authors:

Ünal Şahin

Publisher:

Erciyes University

Main Topics:

İslam Hukuku

Journal:

Bilimname Issue 51, pp.313-350

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001305197

pISSN:

1304-1878

Islamic Law

Founding Imam

Ibn al-Humam

Procedure

Oppositionİslam Hukuku

Kurucu imam

İbnü’l-Hümâm

Usul

Muhalefet

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Ünal Şahin

Publisher: Erciyes University

Main Topics: İslam Hukuku

Journal: Bilimname Issue 51, pp.313-350

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 4/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001305197

pISSN: 1304-1878

Issues

Authors:

Ünal Şahin

Publisher:

Erciyes University

Main Topics:

İslam Hukuku

Journal:

Bilimname Issue 51, pp.313-350

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001305197

pISSN:

1304-1878