A Discussion on the Effort to Reconcile Contradictory Verbal and Practical Reports in Uṣūl al-Fiqh: The Legislative (Teşrîʿ) and Binding Value of Makrūh Acts Attributed to the Prophet

Fatiha Bozbaş

Makale detayları

A Discussion on the Effort to Reconcile Contradictory Verbal and Practical Reports in Uṣūl al-Fiqh: The Legislative (Teşrîʿ) and Binding Value of Makrūh Acts Attributed to the Prophet

Yazarlar:

Fatiha Bozbaş

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.8 Issue 1, pp.162-178

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001350296

pISSN:

2757-8399

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The legislative nature and binding authority of the actions and statements of the Prophet Muhammad are significant topics of discussion in Islamic legal literature. In the field of uṣūl al-fiqh, it is generally accepted that his actions indicate legal rulings ranging from obligation to permissibility, while an act classified as forbidden ḥarām would not be attributed to him. However, the attribution of an act considered makrūh discouraged to the Prophet is a matter of scholarly dispute. This attribution does not imply that the act was makrūh for the Prophet himself but rather concerns whether such acts carry the quality of makrūh in terms of imitation ittibā and their legislative significance. This study examines how the Prophets actions, which are deemed makrūh, should be understood in a legislative context. It is observed that scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh, when addressing the apparent contradictions between certain verbal and practical narrations attributed to the Prophet, did not resolve them using traditional methods of reconciliation such as combining jam, abrogation naskh, or preference tarjīḥ. Instead, they reinterpreted the binding nature of these reports. The fact that the Prophet sometimes engaged in actions that he himself prohibited or acted contrary to recommended sunnahmustaḥabb practices led to two main interpretations regarding the legal bindingness of such acts. One group of scholars argued that such actions indicate permissibility mubāḥ for the Muslim community, while another group held that these actions still retain a makrūh status. The study concludes that these differing perspectives are not confined to a particular school of thought but rather stem from individual methodological interpretations within uṣūl al-fiqh. Additionally, the article analyzes how this disagreement affects everyday practices such as ablution wuḍū, acts of worship, and purification. For instance, differing legal opinions have emerged among Islamic schools of thought concerning sleeping without performing ablution after major ritual impurity janābah, drinking water while standing, or using water licked by a cat for ablution. These disputes highlight the influence of existing uṣūl perspectives on the classification of legal rulings regarding makrūh acts.

 The legislative nature and binding authority of the actions and statements of the Prophet Muhammad are significant topics of discussion in Islamic legal literature. In the field of uṣūl al-fiqh, it is generally accepted that his actions indicate legal rulings ranging from obligation to permissibility, while an act classified as forbidden ḥarām would not be attributed to him. However, the attribution of an act considered makrūh discouraged to the Prophet is a matter of scholarly dispute. This attribution does not imply that the act was makrūh for the Prophet himself but rather concerns whether such acts carry the quality of makrūh in terms of imitation ittibā and their legislative significance. This study examines how the Prophets actions, which are deemed makrūh, should be understood in a legislative context. It is observed that scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh, when addressing the apparent contradictions between certain verbal and practical narrations attributed to the Prophet, did not resolve them using traditional methods of reconciliation such as combining jam, abrogation naskh, or preference tarjīḥ. Instead, they reinterpreted the binding nature of these reports. The fact that the Prophet sometimes engaged in actions that he himself prohibited or acted contrary to recommended sunnahmustaḥabb practices led to two main interpretations regarding the legal bindingness of such acts. One group of scholars argued that such actions indicate permissibility mubāḥ for the Muslim community, while another group held that these actions still retain a makrūh status. The study concludes that these differing perspectives are not confined to a particular school of thought but rather stem from individual methodological interpretations within uṣūl al-fiqh. Additionally, the article analyzes how this disagreement affects everyday practices such as ablution wuḍū, acts of worship, and purification. For instance, differing legal opinions have emerged among Islamic schools of thought concerning sleeping without performing ablution after major ritual impurity janābah, drinking water while standing, or using water licked by a cat for ablution. These disputes highlight the influence of existing uṣūl perspectives on the classification of legal rulings regarding makrūh acts.

 The legislative nature and binding authority of the actions and statements of the Prophet Muhammad are significant topics of discussion in Islamic legal literature. In the field of uṣūl al-fiqh, it is generally accepted that his actions indicate legal rulings ranging from obligation to permissibility, while an act classified as forbidden ḥarām would not be attributed to him. However, the attribution of an act considered makrūh discouraged to the Prophet is a matter of scholarly dispute. This attribution does not imply that the act was makrūh for the Prophet himself but rather concerns whether such acts carry the quality of makrūh in terms of imitation ittibā and their legislative significance. This study examines how the Prophets actions, which are deemed makrūh, should be understood in a legislative context. It is observed that scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh, when addressing the apparent contradictions between certain verbal and practical narrations attributed to the Prophet, did not resolve them using traditional methods of reconciliation such as combining jam, abrogation naskh, or preference tarjīḥ. Instead, they reinterpreted the binding nature of these reports. The fact that the Prophet sometimes engaged in actions that he himself prohibited or acted contrary to recommended sunnahmustaḥabb practices led to two main interpretations regarding the legal bindingness of such acts. One group of scholars argued that such actions indicate permissibility mubāḥ for the Muslim community, while another group held that these actions still retain a makrūh status. The study concludes that these differing perspectives are not confined to a particular school of thought but rather stem from individual methodological interpretations within uṣūl al-fiqh. Additionally, the article analyzes how this disagreement affects everyday practices such as ablution wuḍū, acts of worship, and purification. For instance, differing legal opinions have emerged among Islamic schools of thought concerning sleeping without performing ablution after major ritual impurity janābah, drinking water while standing, or using water licked by a cat for ablution. These disputes highlight the influence of existing uṣūl perspectives on the classification of legal rulings regarding makrūh acts.

 Hz. Peygamberin fiil ve sözlerinin teşrî niteliği ve bağlayıcılık değeri, İslâm hukuku literatüründe önemli bir tartışma konusudur. Fıkıh usulü eserlerinde, onun fiillerinin farz ile mubah arasındaki hükümlere delalet edeceği, haram nitelikli bir fiilin ise kendisinden sadır olmayacağı kabul edilmiştir. Mekruh olarak değerlendirilen bir fiilin Hz. Peygambere nispeti ise ihtilâflı bir meseledir. Burada nispetten kastedilen, işlenen fiilin Hz. Peygamber açısından mekruh olması değil, ittibâ açısından mekruhluk vasfını taşıması bir başka ifadeyle bu tür fiillerin teşrî değeri açısından ne anlam ifade ettiği meselesidir. Bu çalışmada, Hz. Peygamberin mekruh olarak değerlendirilen fiillerinin teşrî bağlamında nasıl anlaşılması gerektiğine dair tartışma ele alınmıştır. Bu bağlamda konuyu ele alan usulcülerin, Hz. Peygambere nispet edilen bazı kavlî ve fiilî rivayetler arasındaki zâhirî zıtlıkları, teâruzu giderme metotları olan cem, nesh veya tercih vb. yöntemlerle gidermedikleri, bunun yerine rivayetlerin bağlayıcılık değerini yeniden yorumladıkları tespit edilmiştir. Hz. Peygamberin nehyettiği bir fiili bizzat işlemesi veya sünnetmüstehap bir fiile aykırı davranması gibi durumların, ilgili fiillerin şerî bağlayıcılığı konusunda iki temel yoruma yol açtığı görülmüştür. Bir grup usulcü, bu tür fiillerin ümmet için mubah olduğunu savunurken, diğer bir grup ise bu durumların mekruh vasfı taşıdığı görüşünü benimsemiştir. Çalışmada her iki yaklaşımın da belirli bir mezhebe özgü olmadığı ve daha ziyade fıkıh usulündeki bireysel yorum farklılıklarından kaynaklandığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Makale, ayrıca bu ihtilâfın günlük hayatta abdest, ibadet ve temizlik gibi konular üzerindeki etkilerini de incelemektedir. Örneğin, cünüp iken abdest almadan uyumak, ayakta su içmek veya kedinin artığı ile abdest almak gibi meselelerde, mezhepler arasında farklı yorumlar geliştirilmiştir. Bu ihtilâflar, mekruh nitelikli fiillerin fıkhî değerine dair mevcut usul görüşlerinin, fıkıh hükümlerinin tasnifine olan etkisini ortaya koymaktadır.

Makale detayları

A Discussion on the Effort to Reconcile Contradictory Verbal and Practical Reports in Uṣūl al-Fiqh: The Legislative (Teşrîʿ) and Binding Value of Makrūh Acts Attributed to the Prophet

Yazarlar:

Fatiha Bozbaş

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.8 Issue 1, pp.162-178

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001350296

pISSN:

2757-8399

Fiqh

Uṣūl of Fiqh

Prophet

Praktices

Ḥukm

Makrūh

Acts of the ProphetFıkıh

Fıkıh Usûlü

Hz. Peygamber

Fiil

Hüküm

Mekruh

Ef'âl-i Nebî

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Fatiha Bozbaş

Yayıncı: Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.8 Issue 1, pp.162-178

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001350296

pISSN: 2757-8399

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Fatiha Bozbaş

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.8 Issue 1, pp.162-178

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001350296

pISSN:

2757-8399