A Researc On The Mamjūc Method In Writing Of Usūl Al-Fiqh: The Example of Ibn Al-Sāʻātī’s Nihāyat al-Wuṣūl Ilā ʻilm al-Uṣūl

Abstract

It is accepted that there are three methods in writing of usūl al-fiqh: Fuqahā, mutakallimīn and mamjūc method/tarīqa al-cemʻ. It is claimed that one of the main differences between the methods of fuqahā and mutakallimīn is related to the attitude of writers of usūl al-fiqh towards theological and fiqh issues. Accordingly, in the tarīqa al-mutakallimīn, theological terms and issues are handled a lot, but the issues related to fürū al-fiqh are excluded. On the other hand, in the tarīqa al-fuqahā, theological issues are avoided to be dealt, while the fürū al-fiqh issues are touched on more frequently. However, it can be said that it is not a difference in an essence but a degree. Because the authors writing the usūl al-fiqh by using the mutakallimīn method also complains about the discussion of the delicate theological issues in usūl al-fiqh books. For example, Abu’l-Huseyn al-Basrī, the author of Kitāb al-Muʻtemed fī usūl al-fiqh which is accepted as one of the four main Works of this method, aspires not to touch on “the delicate theological issues” in his Work as well. In addition, though not as much as in the Works of the mutakallimīn, it is seen that the theological subjects are mentioned in the Works written with the method of fuqahā too. The other difference that is claimed to be between the two methods is about the method and purpose of the determination and justification of principles’ usūl al-fiqh. A number of features related to this difference are mentioned in many studies in the modern period. It can be said that some of the features attributed to these two methods are disputable.

The first book of usūl al-fiqh written by mamjūc method (the tarīqah al-cemʻ) is Muzaffer al-dīn Ibn al-Sāʻātī's book called Nihāyat al-wuṣūl ilā ʻilm al-uṣūl. Ibn al-Sāʻātī has written his Work on the basis of Usūl al-Pezdevī and Āmidī's al-İhkām, which are the basic texts of the methods of fuqahā and mutakallimīn. Ibn al-Sāʻātī says that he has prepared his book by summarizing al-İhkām and adorning it with the valuable information available in Usūl al-Pezdevī. After pointing out the outstanding characteristics of both Works, he states that he has brought these two Works together for the reader, introduced the methods and terms of them and he made them suitable for use thanks to his book. 

In an atmosphere in which there was a dispute between the fiqh madhhabs on many issues about furū and usūl al-fiqh and, the madhhabs have gained stability in the furū and usūl al-fiqh, and an inter-sectarian legal reasoning is not acceptable; the questions such as “why mamjūc method emerges in a theoretical discipline such as usūl al-fiqh”, "What the purpose of this method is", “at what points and how the majc/combination occurs” are awaiting to be replied.

One of the most important factors in the emergence of the mamjūc method is the relative deficiency that some Hanafi scholars have about the “plenary principles of usūl” or “rational principles” in the fuqahā method. For example, according to Ibn al-Sāʻātī, the characteristic of al-İhkām is that it includes the plenary principles of usūl, the characteristic of Usūl al-Pezdevī is that it contains the detail issues of furū al-fiqh. When this depiction is read from opposite aspect, it can be claimed Pezdevi's Work is not considered competent in terms of the plenary principles of usūl- at least as much as al-İhkām- and this situation reveals a necessity of writing a new Work on usūl al-fiqh combining the successful aspects of the both. In fact, one of the main features of the mamjūc method is making the language of logic dominant over Hanafi usūl.

It is known that during and before the period of Ibn al-Sāʻātī, there were attempts to combine various scientific disciplines or establish close connections and common language between them. It is seen, at the end of the process initiated by Ghazâlî, theology (kelam) and philosophy have been combined, philosophical-theology has emerged, logic has become the scientific language of Islamology. In our opinion, in the emergence of mamjūc method in writing usūl al-fiqh, the wish to apply this combination (mezc) process in the other Islamic sciences to usūl al-fiqh writing has been influential. On the other hand, - at least for Ibn al-Sāʻātī's book called Nihāyat al-wuṣūl - it does not seem possible to accept that the search for constructing the principles of usūl al-fiqh on the adopted theological (kelāmī) principles, seeking the common grounds among the Sunni madhhabs; and the effort of reconciliation and the search for originality have been effective.

Since al-İhkām is largely determinant within the formation of the main chapters and subtitles of Nihāyat al-wuṣūla, for the most part, the combination process is out of question in the subject sequence of the work. However, there are some examples showing that Usūl al-Pezdevī has been also taken into consideration in in this connection. When considered within the contents, it is seen that the process done in Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl, as the author himself expresses, is to combine the contents of Usûlü’l-Pezdevî and el-İhkâm –by focusing on the latter one more– compendiously. This summation reaches a level distorting meaning in various parts of it. It can be said that al-İhkām’s being much more determinant in the subject sequence, content and method in Nihāyat al-wuṣūl, has caused the Work to be closer to the mutakallimīn method. Mostly mutakallimīn scholars of usūl al-fiqh’s writing explanations on Nihāyat al-wuṣūl can be commentated as a result or an indicator of it. Al-İhkām’s being so much determinant in the content of Nihāyat al-wuṣūl and the method used by Ibn al-Sāʻātī during examination of the topics prevents the Work from conveying the issues in the Hanafi’s usūl al-fiqh completely and representing Hanafi’s usūl al-fiqh.

Nihāyat al-wuṣūl includes partly the characteristics of the fuqahā method in the sections summarized from Usūl al-Pezdevī and the characteristics of mutakallimīn method in the sections summarized from al-İhkām. However, it is not possible to approve the widespread description in the modern period about mamjūc method that “firstly the intangible principles of usūl al-fiqh were determined from the Shari sources and later these principles were applied to the furūl al-fiqh” is valid for the whole Work. In other words, Ibn al-Sāʻātī’s Work is far from combining all the characteristic features of the methods of fukahā and mutakallimīnin in all parts of the book. In fact, it is not realistic to expect all the features claimed to be in the methods fukahā and mutakallimīn to be combined in a single work.

In Nihāyat al-wuṣūl, languages and terms of logic are used especially on discussing contradictory documents and making definitions. The Work’s being too much compendious has not enabled “tahkīk method” to be reflected in it. In the definitions in Nihāyat al-wuṣūl, there is an obvious decisiveness of Āmidī and Ibn al-Ḥājib. Therefore, it may be stated that the method of the mutakallimīn is preferred rather than combining the two methods within defining the terms. In our opinion, the most important reason for this is the fact that the definition technique and the rules of logic are paid more attention as compared with the Hanafi usūl al-fiqh Works written in pre-Ibn al-Sāʻātī period. Although Ibn al-Sāʻātī does not advert the name, it should be expressed that also Ibn al-Ḥājib's Mukhtaṣaral-Muntahā has been effective in the definition of the terms and it has been incorporated into the combining process. On the other hand, it seems that while defining the same term, Ibn al-Sāʻātī’s taking the definitions of both scholars and Pezdevī and trying to reflect them in his work has caused some problems with regards to the system and coherency in Nihāyat al-wuṣūl.

Ibn al-Sāʻātī does not hesitate to convey the issues disputed by the scholars of fukahā and mutakallimīn in his Work. It is clear that he does not aim to make a combination by ignoring or minimizing the contradictive issues. Additionally, he does not strive to reconcile and synthesize between the usūl al-fiqh principles of these two methods or search for another way. He always advocates the views of Hanafi scholars on controversial issues. Analyzing these issues, although he generally summarizes the content of al-İhkām, he arranges it in a way presenting he supports the opinions of the Hanafis and prefers them.

Keywords

• Islamic Law,The mamzūc method/the tarīqah al-cemʻ,Ibn al-Sāʻātī,Nihāyat al-wuṣūl,Uṣūl al-Pezdevī,Āmidī,al-Ihkām

Fıkıh Usûlü Yazımında Memzûc Metot Üzerine Bir İnceleme: İbnü’s-sââtî’nin Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl’ü Örneği

Abstract

Fıkıh usûlü yazımında fukahâ, mütekellimîn ve memzûc olmak üzere üç metodun var olduğu kabul edilir. Memzûc metotla yazılan kitap Muzafferuddin İbnü’s-Sââti’nin Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl ilâ ilmi’l-usûl’üdür. İbnü’s-Sââti bu eserini Usûlü’l-Pezdevî ile Âmidî’nin el-İhkâm’ını esas alarak yazmıştır. Memzûc yöntemin neden ortaya çıktığı, amacı, bu mezc işlemin nasıl ve hangi noktalarda gerçekleştiği gibi sorular cevaplanmayı beklemektedir. Bu makalede, memzûc metot, Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl’ü merkeze alınarak incelenecektir.

Memzûc yöntemin ortaya çıkışındaki en önemli etkenlerden birisi, bazı Hanefî usulcülerin “küllî usûl ilkeleri veya aklî ilkeler” konusunda fukahâ yönteminde hissettikleri görece eksikliktir. Bu metodun ortaya çıkışında, diğer İslâmî ilimlerdeki mezc işlemini fıkıh usûlü yazımına uygulama arzusu da etkili olmuştur. Öte yandan bu yöntemin ortaya çıkışında, usûl ilkelerini kelâmî kabuller üzerine inşâ etme; sünnî mezhepler arasında ortak paydalar arama ve uzlaşı çabasının etkili olduğunu en azından Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl için kabul etmek mümkün gözükmemektedir.

Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl’ün konu dizimi, içerik ve yönteminde el-İhkâm’ın çok fazla belirleyici oluşu, eserin mütekellimîn metoduna daha yakın olmasına neden olmuştur denebilir. İbnü’s-Sââtî’nin eseri, fukahâ ve mütekellimin yöntemlerinin karakteristik bütün özellikleri kitabın tamamında geçerli olacak şekilde birleştirmekten uzaktır. Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl’de özellikle karşıt deliller tartışılırken ve tanımlar yapılırken mantık dil ve terimleri kullanılmıştır. Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl’deki tanımlarda Âmidî ve İbnü’l-Hâcib’in bariz bir belirleyici söz konusudur. Bu nedenle tanımlar konusunda mezcden ziyade mütekellimîn usûlünün tercih edildiği söylenebilir.

İbnü’s-Sââtî fukahâ ve mütekellimîn usûlcülerinin ihtilaf ettikleri meseleleri aktarmaktan kaçınmaz. Onun ihtilaflı konuları görmezden gelerek veya en aza indirerek bir mezc hedeflemediği açıktır. Ayrıca ilke bazında, iki yöntem arasında arabuluculuk, sentez yahut üçüncü bir yol bulma arayışı içerisinde de değildir.

Keywords

• İslam hukuku,Memzûc Metot,İbnü's-Sââtî,Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl,Usûlü’l-Pezdevî,Âmidî,el-İhkâm

References

1. ABDÜLAZİZ EL-BUHÂRÎ, Alâeddin. Keşfüʼl-esrâr ʻan Usûli Fahriʼl-İslâm el-Pezdevî. Nşr. Abdullah Mahmûd Muhammed. 4 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1997.EL-ÂMİDÎ, Seyfüddîn Ebu’l-Hasen Ali b. Muhammed. el-İhkâm fî usûli’l-ahkâm. Thk. Abdürrezzâk Afîfî. 4 Cilt. Riyad: Dâru’s-Samîʻî, 2003.APAYDIN, Yunus. İslam Hukuk Usulü, 3. Baskı. Kayseri: Kimlik Yayınları, 2017.ATAR, Fahrettin. Fıkıh Usûlü, 5. Baskı. İstanbul: İfav, 2002.EBU’L-HUSEYN EL-BASRÎ, Muhammed b. Ali. Kitâbü’l-Mu‘temed fî usûli’l-fıkh. Nşr: Muhammed Hamîdullah. 2 Cilt. Dımaşk, 1964.BEDİR, Murteza. Fıkıh, Mezhep ve Sünnet. İstanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2004.BEDİR, Murteza. “Kelâmcı ve Fıkıhçı Usul Geleneklerine İlişkin Bazı Eleştirel Mülahazalar”, İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29 (2013): 65-97.EL-CESSÂS, Ebû Bekr er-Râzî. el-Füsûl fi’l-usûl. Nşr. ‘Uceyl Casim en-Neşemî. 2.Baskı. 4 Cilt. Kuveyt: Vizâretü’l-Evkâf ve’ş-Şüûnü’l-İslâmiyye, 1994.EL-CÜVEYNÎ, İmâmü’l- Haremeyn Ebü’l-Meâlî. el-Burhân fî usûli’l-fıkh. Nşr. Abdülazîm ed-Dîb. 2 Cilt. Doha: Câmiatü Katar, 1399. ED-DEBÛSÎ, Ebû Zeyd Ubeydullah b. Ömer. Takvîmüʼl-edille fî usûliʼl-fıkh. Thk. Halil Muhyiddin el-Meys. Beyrut: Dârüʼl-Kütübiʼl-İlmiyye, 2001.EBÛ SÜLEYMAN, Abdülvehhâb b. İbrahim. el-Fikru’l-usûlî. Cidde: Dârü’ş-Şurûk, 1983.EBÛ ZEHRA, Muhammed. Usûlü’l-fıkh. Dârü’l-Fikri’l-Arabi, t.s. EL-ENSÂRÎ, Muhammed b. Nizâmüddin. Fevâtihu’r-rahamût Şerhu Müsellemü’s-sübût. 2 Cilt. Bulak, 1322.EL-GAZZÂLÎ, Ebû Hâmid Muhammed b. Muhammed. el-Mustasfâ min ʻilmi’l-usûl. 2 Cilt. Bulak, 1322.GÜL, Mutlu. Hanefî Usûlünde Hadis Tenkidi. İstanbul: İfav, 2018.HALLÂF, Abdülvehhâb. İlmi usûli’l-fıkh. Kâhire: Mektebetü Dâri’t-Türâs, t.s.HUDARİ Bey, Muhammed. Usûlü’l-fıkh. 6. Baskı. Kâhire: el-Mektebetü’t-Ticâriyyeti’l-Kübrâ, t.s. İBN ABDİŞŞEKÛR, Muhibbullah. Müsellemü’s-sübût. 2 Cilt. Bulak, 1322.İBN AKÎL, Ebuʼl-Vefâ. el-Vâzıh fî usûliʼl-fıkh. Thk. Abdullah b. Abdülmuhsin et-Türkî. 5 Cilt. Beyrut: Müessesetüʼr-Risâle, 1999.İBN HALDÛN, Abdurrahman. Mukaddime. Beyrut: Dârü’l-fikr, 2003.İBNÜ’L-HÂCİB, Ebû Amr Osman. Muhtasaru’l-Müntehe’l-usûlî. Thk. Muhammed Hasan İsmail. 3 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 2004.İBNÜʼL-HÜMÂM, Kemâlüddin. et-Tahrîr. 4 Cilt. Kahire: Mektebetü Mustafa el-Halebî, 1351. (Emir Padişah’ın Teysîru’t-Tahrîr’i ile birlikte.)İBNÜ’S-SÂÂTÎ, Muzafferuddîn Ahmed b. Ali. Nihâyetü’l-vüsûl ilâ ʻilmi’l-usûl. Nşr. Saʻd b. Ğarîr Mehdî es-Sülemî. 2 Cilt. Mekke: Câmiʻatü Ümmü’l-Kurâ, 1418.İLTAŞ, Davut. “Fıkıh Usûlü Yazımında ‘Kelamcılar Yöntemi ve Fakihler Yöntemi’ Ayrışmasının Mahiyeti Üzerine”, Bilimname, XVII, 2009/2: 65-95.İSMAİL, Şaban Muhammed. Usûlü’l-fıkh. Riyad: Dârü’l-Merîh, 1981.KAHRAMAN, Abdullah. Fıkıh Usulü. 3. Baskı. İstanbul: Rağbet Yayınları, 2014.KARA, Mustafa. Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar Tarihi. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2016.KÂTİP ÇELEBİ, Keşfü’z-zunûn ʻan esâmi’l-kütüp ve’l-fünûn. Nrş. Şerafettin Yaltkaya. 2 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü İhyâi’t-Türâsi’l-Arabî, t.s.KÖKSAL, Asım Cüneyd. Fıkıh Usûlünün Mahiyeti ve Gayesi. İstanbul: İsam Yayınları, 2008.KÖKSAL, Asım Cüneyd. “Osmanlılarda Mukaddimat-ı Erbaa Literatürü”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatürü Dergisi 14/27 (2016): 101-132.KÖKSAL, Asım Cüneyd- Dönmez, İbrahim Kâfi. “Usûl-i Fıkıh”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. 42: 201-210. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2012. EL-LÂMİŞÎ, Ebu’s-Senâ Mahmûd b. Zeyd. Kitâbün fî usûli’l-fıkh. Thk. Abdülmecîd Türkî. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Ğarbi’l-İslâmî, 1995.MOLLA FENÂRÎ, Muhammed b. Hamza. Füsûlüʼl-bedâyiʻ fî usûliʼş-şerâʻi. Thk. Muhammed Hasan İsmail. 2 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 2006. MOLLA HÜSREV, Muhammed b. Feramuz. Mirʼâtüʼl-usûl fî şerhi Mirkâtiʼl-vüsûl. 2 Cilt. İstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1309.ÖZEN, Şükrü. “Tenkîhu’l-usûl”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. 40: 454-458. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2011.EL-PEZDEVÎ, Ebu’l-‘Usr Fahru’l-İslam Ali b. Muhammed. Usûl. Nşr. Abdullah Mahmûd Muhammed. 4 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1997. (Abdülaziz Buhârî’nin Keşfü’l-esrâr’ı ile birlikte).EL-PEZDEVÎ, Ebu’l-Yüsr Muhammed b. Muhammed. Maʻrifetü’l-huceci’ş-şerʻiyye. Thk. Abdülkadir b. Yasin el-Hatîb. Beyrut: Müessesetü’r-Risâle, 2000.ER-RÂZÎ, Ebû Abdullah Fahreddîn. el-Mahsûl fî ʻilmi usûli’l-fıkh. Thk. Câbir Feyyâz el-Alvânî. 6 Cilt. Beyrut: Müessesetü’r-Risâle, ts.SADRUŞŞERÎA, Ubeydullah b. Mesud el-Mahbûbî. et-Tavdîh şerhu’t-Tenkîh. Nşr. Muhammed Adnân Dervîş. 2 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârüʼl-Erkam, 1998.ES-SEMÂNÎ, Ebuʼl-Muzaffer. Kavâtıʻuʼl-edille fiʼl-usûl. Thk. Muhammed Hasan eş-Şâfiî. 2 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1997. ES-SEMERKANDÎ, Ebû Bekr Alâeddin. Mîzânü’l-usûl fî netâiciʼl-ʻukûl. Thk. Muhammed Zekî Abdüʼl-Berr. Kahire: Mektebetü Dârüʼt-Türâs, 1984.SERAHSÎ, Ebû Bekr Muhammed b. Ahmed. Usûlüʼs-Serahsî. Thk. Ebûʼl-Vefâ el-Efgânî. 2 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1993.SEYYİD BEY, Usûl-i fıkh. İstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1333.ŞABAN, Zekiyyüddîn. İslam Hukuk İlminin Esasları. 5. Baskı. Trc. İbrahim Kâfi Dönemz. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 2001.TAŞKÖPRİZADE, Ahmed b. Mustafa. Miftâhu’s-saʻâde ve misbâhu’s-siyâde fî mevzûʻâtü’l-ʻulûm. 3 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye 1985.TEFTÂZÂNÎ, Saʻdüdîn Mesʻûd b. Ömer. et-Telvîh ale’t-Tavdîh. Nşr. Muhammed Adnân Dervîş. 2 Cilt. Beyrut: Dârüʼl-Erkam, 1998.TOPALOĞLU, Bekir. Kelam İlmi (İstanbul: Damla Yayınevi, ts.EL-ÜSMENDÎ, Ebuʼl-feth Alâeddîn. Bezlüʼn-nazar fiʼl-usûl. Nşr. Muhammed Zeki Abdülber. Kâhire: Mektebetü Dâriʼt-Türâs, 1992.YEŞİLYURT, Temel. “Matüridilerde Tekvin Sıfatı ve Temellendirilişi”, Kastamonu Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1/1 (2017): 9-23.YIGIN, Adem. “Fukahâ Metodunun Genel Yapısı Üzerine”, M.Ü. İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, sy:24 (2003/1): 65-105.YIGIN, Adem. Fukahâ Metoduna Göre Yazılan Fıkıh Usûlü Eserlerinin Temel Özellikleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2004.ZEYDAN, Abdülkerim. el-Vecîz fî usûli’l-fıkh. Beyrut: Müessesetü’r-Risâle, 2002.