Hz. Peygamber’in vefatından sonra halifelik mücadelesinin tetiklediği siyasi olayların inançla ilgili sorunları yaratması nedeniyle iman ve küfrün tanımı, kapsamı, iman-amel ilişkisi gibi sorunlar tartışılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu yüzden Müslüman toplumun kendi içinde aşmaya çalıştığı ilk sorunlardan biri hiç kuşkusuz iman-küfür meselesi olmuştur. Bu itibarla geleneksel fırkaların iman-amel münasebetleri bakımından farklı yaklaşım modelleri geliştirmiş olduğu görülmektedir. Bu ekolleri ‘ameli imana dâhil eden’ ve ‘amel ile imanı birbirinden ayıran’ mezhepler olmak üzere ikiye ayırmak mümkündür. Amel-iman ilişkisine yönelik ileri sürülen fikirler akli ve nakli delillerle temellendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Amellerin imandan bir parça olmadığı görüşünü kanıtlamak amacıyla kullanılan en kuvvetli deliller dil mantığına dayalı olarak oluşturulan ‘atıf’ ve ‘şart’ delilleridir. Atıf delili, matûf ile matûfun aleyhin; şart delili ise şart ile meşrûtun dil kaideleri gereği birbirinden farklı olduğu esasına dayanan iki delildir. Bu iki delil, zaman bakımından farklılıklarla beraber Ehl-i Sünnet ekolü tarafından kullanılmış delillerdir. Biz makalemizde hem iman meselesinin temellendirilmesinde belirleyici rol oynayan atıf ve şart delillerinin tarihi sürecini hem de bu delillerin Ehl-i Sünnet’in iki kelam ekolünün iman görüşü üzerindeki etkilerini ele almayı ve analiz etmeyi hedefledik. Çalışmamızın sonunda ise bu iki delilin kaynağının Mürcie mezhebi olduğu, tüm Mâturîdîlerin de bu delili kullandığı, ancak ilk Eş’arîlerin bu delilleri kullanmayıp sonraki Eş’arîlerin kullandığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu delillerin kullanılması ile imanın artıp eksilmesi meselesi arasında bağlantı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Mürcî ve Mâturîdîlerin bu delilleri her zaman kullanmaları onların imanda artma ve eksilmeyi reddettiklerini göstermektedir. Önceki Eş’arîlerin bu delilleri kullanmayıp sonrakilerin kullanmaları ise, Eş’arîlik’te imanın artma ve eksilmesi meselesinde farklı görüşlerin varlığını ve bu konuda bir tekâmül süreci yaşandığını göstermiştir.
As a result of the social and political events which followed the death of the Prophet, the definition of faith and blasphemy and scope of these terms, relationship between faith and deeds, had begun to be discussed issues. So, the matter of faith and blasphemy indubitably has been the first problem that must be overcome. Therefore, it is observed that sects have different or similar approachment models about relations between faith and blasphemy. About this subject, it is possible to divide the Islamic sects to sects inserting deeds in faith and sects setting deeds apart from faith. The strongest evidences used in this issue are “the conditional evidence” and “the conjunctional evidence”. The conditional evidence is based on the syntactical rule which states that the conditional verb is different from its correspondence. And the conjunctional evidence is based on another syntactical rule which states that the conjunctive is different from the coordinating conjunction. These two evidences were used by two kalam schools of Ahl al-Sunnah with some differences. İn this study, we analyzed the emergence of these evidences historically and its effects on both of Ahl al-Sunnah schools. At the end of our study, it was concluded that the source of these two evidences was the Murjiah sect, and that all the Maturidists used this evidence, and the first Ash’arites did not use these evidence, but later Ash’arites used the same two evidences. There has been a connection between the use of these evidences and the matter of the increase or decrease of faith. The use of these evidences by the Murjiah and the Maturidism shows that they refuse the fact of increase or decrease in faith. The fact that the previous Ash’arite peers did not use these evidences, on the contrary of there later theologians who did, showed that there were different opinions on this issue and that there was a process of evolution in this regard in Ash’ariah.
The use of religious references in the solution of problems has not only rejected the opposing view, but also went on to otherization and excommunication. In the period when sects emerged, the most debated issue was the meaning of the terms of faith and blasphemy and the question of whether the deeds were included in faith or not. We can divide the sects into the sects that adds deeds to definition of faith and those who do not. Adding the deeds to the definition of faith the Havârij accused sinners of disbelief. And the Mu’tazilah accused them of sinfulness. Murjiah that emerged as a reaction to the accusation of takfir, also asserted that deeds and faith were completely independent of each other, and accepted that sin would not cause harm. The sect of the Ahl al-Sunnah, which emerged later, while separating the deeds from faith, did not say that the deeds were insignificant such as Murjiah. Accordingly, while the Havaric and Mu’tazilah accepting that deeds were included in faith, Murjiah and Ahl al-Sunnah did not include the deeds in faith. Both groups have proposed intellectual evidence to support their views.
Two evidences, which we refer to as “the conditional evidence” and “the conjunctional evidence”, are decisive in relation between deeds and faith. Therefore, this study which will be done in order to determine the relationship between the use of these evidences and the opinion of faith, is important for the determination of the stability and the evolution of the beliefs of the sects.
The Conditional evidence and the conjunctional evidence which are the subject of our research, are the proofs showing that the deeds are different from faith. It is possible to sum up the previously mentioned evidences to be different from each other by roughly three headings:
Firstly, the verses showing that faith and sin can coexist.
Secondly, the hadiths which show that deeds are different from faith.
Thirdly, the evidences which is based on Arabic grammar rules.
We noticed that the most powerful evidence used to prove that faith and deeds are different things is a grammatical evidence which includes conditional and conjunctional evidences. Because it is possible to claim opposing proofs against other evidences relevant to this issue but nobody could pop up with a proof that can oppose these two powerful evidences.
The Conditional and the conjunctional evidences used to prove that deeds are different from faith are based on the rule of being different from each other. Conjunctional evidence is based on another syntactical rule which states that the conjunctive is different from the coordinating conjunction. İn accordance with this evidence, Islamic theologians say that the addition of something on something requires differentiation between these two things. So, the attributions of deeds in faith in the verses are proofs which show that deed and faith are different from each other. As in this verse: “Those who believe and do righteous deeds” (al-Bakara 2/25). Theologians who accept deeds and the faith separately claimed that: İn the situation that the conditional verb is not different from its correspondence, these two things will be the same. And such an unnecessary repetition is bad in terms of Allah.
The conditional evidence is based on the syntactical rule which states that the conditional verb is different from its correspondence. Theologians who applied this rule to the verses, said that deeds and belief was different things. As in this verse: “But he who does of righteous deeds while he is a believer…” (al-Tâhâ 20/112).
As we have noticed, these two evidences are the valuable evidences that belief and deeds are different. The sect that use these two evidences for the first time was Murji’ah. Abu Hanifa and Maturidi learned these two evidences from Murji’ah and used these two evidences without mentioning their names. The next Maturidists used these evidences separately and carefully. And with Abu’l Muin Nasafi, these evidences have become two independent and traditional evidences for Maturidists about the diversity of deeds and belief.
Although the first Ash’arites defined faith as assent of the heart, they agreed to decrease and increase faith. For this reason, they did not distinguish between belief and deeds. Therefore, they have not consciously used these two evidences. This shows that they are still influenced by the Ahl al-Hadith. Razi vas the first to use these two evidence among the Ash’arite scholars. From Razi, faith and deeds were separated from each other and the effect of deeds on faith was rejected in term of increase or decrease in faith in Ash’ariah. This shows us that there is a process of development in terms of determining the relations of faith and deeds in Ash’ariah.
As a result, the attitude of Maturidists towards the conditional evidence and the conjunctional evidence, indicates that Maturidists’ understanding of faith was affected by the opinions of al-Murjiah. The attitudes of the Ash’arites towards these two evidences showed that their view about faith has evoluted. Therefore, these two evidences could be considered to be the most obvious and determinant parameters for the identification of this evolution in the Ash’ari notion.
Publication Date : June 30, 2019
|ISNAD||Aykaç, Mustafa . "Atıf ve Şart Delilleri ve Ehl-i Sünnet Kelâm Ekollerinin Gelişim Sürecindeki İzdüşümü". Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 18 / 35 (June 2019): 123-146 . https://doi.org/10.14395/hititilahiyat.476675|