Fukahâ-i Seb’a ve Amel-i Ehl-i Medine’nin Delil Değeri

Sümeyye ONUK DEMİRCİ

Makale detayları

Fukahâ-i Seb’a ve Amel-i Ehl-i Medine’nin Delil Değeri

Yazarlar:

Sümeyye ONUK DEMİRCİ

Yayıncı:

Anadolu İlahiyat Akademisi

Ana Başlıklar:

Din

Dergi:

Eskiyeni 2019 Issue 39, pp.347-365

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2019

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000418108

eISSN:

2636-8536

pISSN:

1306-6218

Özet:

 


Al-Fuqahāʾ al-sab’a
is a concept that used to refer to the seven famous scholars from Medina who
lived in the era of tābiūn (successors). Different opinions have been proposed
regarding who these seven faqihs are. However, this difference was only on the
seventh name and an consensus was reached on the other six names. Accordingly,
the six names accepted by the union; Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab (d. 94/713), ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr (d. 94/713),
Qāsim b. Muḥammad (d. 107/725), Kharija b. Zayd (d.
100/718), ʿUbaydallāh b. ʿAbdallāh (d. 98/716) and Sulaymān b. Yasār
(d. 107/725). For the seventh scholar, three
different names were mentioned: Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 94/713), Abū Salama
b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 94/713) and Sālim
b. ʿAbdallāh (d. 106/725). In this
research, the seventh name, Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, was acknowledged.
Because this is the adoption of Abū l-Zinād (d. 130/748) and the first traces of
the concept are found in his use.


The ‘amal
of Medinese (the judicial practice of Medinese), which is accepted as a
binding evidence for Mālikī sect and frequently referred by Mālikī, is used to
express the judicial practice and consensus of the people of Medina on a
religious issue. Imām Mālik’s compilation of the judicial practice of the
people of Medina and the follow-up of a method that takes into consideration
the judicial practice in his fatwas led to the concept rather being associated
with Imām Mālik. However, the ‘amal of Medinese is also used both as a concept
and method before him. Although it is possible to determine the tradition of
pointing to the consensus and common practices of the past from the first period,
after a certain period, especially from the second half of the first century,
in the era of tābiūn (Successors), of which al-fuqahāʾ
al-sab’a belonged, it can be said that this attitude
gained widespread popularity during that period.


Al-Fuqahāʾ al-sab’a,
which pioneered the conduct of the fiqh activities in Medina during the tābiūn
period, accepted the ‘amal of Medinese as a proof and made judgements based on
it using concept that points to the judicial practice. Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab’s statement “ajma’a ahl al-Medina (consensus of
people of Medina reached)”, his meaning by the concept of “sunna” as views and
practices that are generally based on the Prophet (pbuh) but which are alos
later accepted, his knowledge of sunna maḍiya (the
well-established precedent) and the praises about him in this field; examples
that are shown in the ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr and Qāsim b. Muḥammad as “al-amr (the practice)”, and the
phrases, that are used by almost all of them and reflect some kind of common
acceptance, like “people I lived in the same era”, “the people” indicate to the
‘amal of Medinese. It is quite difficult to determine exactly who al-fuqahāʾ al-sab’a caste
are by phrase “people I lived in the same era”. These statements may include
the whole of the people of Madina, as well as those who are either fuqahās or
scholars, or teachers who his opnion conveyed, or a much more limited group.
Similar concepts have also been used more systematically by Imām Mālik.
However, it was not determined exactly what he meant by these concepts and it
was the subject of discussion between the scholars.


Another issue that can be
evaluated within the scope of ‘amal of Medinese is the transfers made regarding
the practices of Caliph ʿUmar and acceptance of
these convenctions as a relatively powerful evidence. It was seen as a sign of
competence during the period of al-fuqahāʾ al-sab’a to be a aware of to the practices of Caliph ‘Umar. It can be said that
the basis of this such importance of Caliph ‘Umar’s practices is the
idea of some kind of consensus (ijmāʿ). Because Caliph ‘Umar did not allow the major companions to leave from
Medina, he often consulted them in his decisions and thus some kind of
consensus was reached. This approach also gives ideas about the essence of
judicial practice in one aspect.


Relation with the judicial practice for
al-fuqahāʾ al-sab’a, who plays an important role in the formation,
detection and transfer of the judicial practice in Medina, was also
investigated in the latter periods and a number of claims were made in this
context. One of them is the claim that the consensuses in Imām Mālik’s Muwattaʾ were “the consensuses of al-fuqahāʾ
al-sab’a” or “the consensuses of a group of ten people,
including al-fuqahāʾ al-sab’a”. However, this claim was rejected and was not
found to be reputable in the eyes of the Mālikīs.


Another claim on the subject is orientalist
Schacht’s (d. 1969) thesis that “transformation from anonymous schools to
personal schools”. According to Schacht, the consensus of the scholars was
anonymous. However, since the middle of the second century, this anonymous
consensus has been credited to the great personalities of the past in order to
give theoretical legitimacy to this tradition based on the idea of continuity
at the core of the concept of sunna. In this context, the people of Medina
grounded their doctrines on some ancient authorities who died at the end of the
first or early second century. In a later period, seven of these authorities
were elected and seven lawyers from Medina (al-fuqahāʾ
al-sab’a) were referred to as. This retrospective
attribution process was not limited to these scholars, and each region based
its doctrine on a local companion of the prophet. The Medinaians accepted
Caliph ʿUmar
and his son ʿAbdallāh Ibn ʿUmar as two important authorities. Schacht says
that any doctrine based on these ancient authorities cannot be considered
authentic. Because according to him, this attribution process was attached
later and it is unfounded. Schacht’s thesis of “transformation of personal
schools from regional schools” was rejected by another orientalist, Hallaq. One
of the Islamic scholars, Muṣṭafā al-A’zamī (d. 2017),
presented his rejection of Schacht’s claims against Islamic sciences and
criticized the aforementioned claim.















This article
focuses on al-fuqahāʾ al-sab’a’s approach to the judicial
practice and tries to point out the roles it takes in the formation,
determination and transfer of ‘amal of Medinese and discusses the aforementioned claims.


.

Makale detayları

Fukahâ-i Seb’a ve Amel-i Ehl-i Medine’nin Delil Değeri

Yazarlar: Sümeyye ONUK DEMİRCİ

Yayıncı: Anadolu İlahiyat Akademisi

Ana Başlıklar: Din

Dergi: Eskiyeni 2019 Issue 39, pp.347-365

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 9/2019

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2000418108

eISSN: 2636-8536

pISSN: 1306-6218

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Sümeyye ONUK DEMİRCİ

Yayıncı:

Anadolu İlahiyat Akademisi

Ana Başlıklar:

Din

Dergi:

Eskiyeni 2019 Issue 39, pp.347-365

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2019

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2000418108

eISSN:

2636-8536

pISSN:

1306-6218