Critical Edition, Translation, and Evaluation of Three Treatises on the Legal Effect of the Phrase ‘I Left His’ in the Context of Divorce

Muharrem Yılmaz

Makale detayları

Critical Edition, Translation, and Evaluation of Three Treatises on the Legal Effect of the Phrase ‘I Left His’ in the Context of Divorce

Yazarlar:

Muharrem Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Tokat İlmiyat Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.31-62

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001351902

pISSN:

2717-610X

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This article presents the critical edition and translation of three treatises that examine how the concept of ṭalāq divorce was interpreted in the Ottoman period within the framework of specific expressions. The first of these treatises was authored by ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi d. 12231808, and the second by the Şeyhülislām Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi d. 12491834, both of whom investigate whether the Turkish expression bıraktım I have left his can be understood as a declaration of divorce. The third treatise, penned by Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi d. 12531838, also an Ottoman Şeyhülislām, serves as a refutation of Ṣidqizādes opinions. These treatises are preserved in the Asʿad Efendi Collection of the Süleymāniyye Library under manuscript number 916. ʿĀkifzādes treatise is found on folios 48a49a, Ṣidqizādes on 45a47a, and Qāḍīzādes on 47b48a. ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi argues that expressions which have become customary can result in divorce without the necessity of intent. According to him, if the phrase bıraktım becomes a customary expression indicating either bāʾin irrevocable or rajʿī revocable divorce, then divorce would be effected without requiring intention. Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi begins by outlining the standard rule in Islamic jurisprudence: that unequivocal expressions of divorce result in divorce without intent, whereas ambiguous expressions require both intent and contextual indicators. He classifies bıraktım not as an unequivocal ṣarīḥ expression of divorce, but rather as an ambiguous kināyah one whose meaning depends on the context. However, he also acknowledges that the phrase has, in some cases, become customary in signifying divorce. In such cases, he argues, bıraktımeven as a kināyahmay result in bāʾin divorce without the need for intent. He supports his claims through references to various classical sources. In contrast, Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi objects to this interpretation, contending that bıraktım is not fixed in customary usage with a singular meaning as either ṣarīḥ or kināyah. According to him, the term can correspond to both bāʾin and rajʿī forms of divorce within custom, and thus remains ambiguous unless clarified by intention. Therefore, the claim that a phrase like bıraktım, even if customary, denotes bāʾin divorce without intent is incorrect, as intention remains essential in all cases.

 This article presents the critical edition and translation of three treatises that examine how the concept of ṭalāq divorce was interpreted in the Ottoman period within the framework of specific expressions. The first of these treatises was authored by ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi d. 12231808, and the second by the Şeyhülislām Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi d. 12491834, both of whom investigate whether the Turkish expression bıraktım I have left his can be understood as a declaration of divorce. The third treatise, penned by Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi d. 12531838, also an Ottoman Şeyhülislām, serves as a refutation of Ṣidqizādes opinions. These treatises are preserved in the Asʿad Efendi Collection of the Süleymāniyye Library under manuscript number 916. ʿĀkifzādes treatise is found on folios 48a49a, Ṣidqizādes on 45a47a, and Qāḍīzādes on 47b48a. ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi argues that expressions which have become customary can result in divorce without the necessity of intent. According to him, if the phrase bıraktım becomes a customary expression indicating either bāʾin irrevocable or rajʿī revocable divorce, then divorce would be effected without requiring intention. Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi begins by outlining the standard rule in Islamic jurisprudence: that unequivocal expressions of divorce result in divorce without intent, whereas ambiguous expressions require both intent and contextual indicators. He classifies bıraktım not as an unequivocal ṣarīḥ expression of divorce, but rather as an ambiguous kināyah one whose meaning depends on the context. However, he also acknowledges that the phrase has, in some cases, become customary in signifying divorce. In such cases, he argues, bıraktımeven as a kināyahmay result in bāʾin divorce without the need for intent. He supports his claims through references to various classical sources. In contrast, Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi objects to this interpretation, contending that bıraktım is not fixed in customary usage with a singular meaning as either ṣarīḥ or kināyah. According to him, the term can correspond to both bāʾin and rajʿī forms of divorce within custom, and thus remains ambiguous unless clarified by intention. Therefore, the claim that a phrase like bıraktım, even if customary, denotes bāʾin divorce without intent is incorrect, as intention remains essential in all cases.

 This article presents the critical edition and translation of three treatises that examine how the concept of ṭalāq divorce was interpreted in the Ottoman period within the framework of specific expressions. The first of these treatises was authored by ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi d. 12231808, and the second by the Şeyhülislām Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi d. 12491834, both of whom investigate whether the Turkish expression bıraktım I have left his can be understood as a declaration of divorce. The third treatise, penned by Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi d. 12531838, also an Ottoman Şeyhülislām, serves as a refutation of Ṣidqizādes opinions. These treatises are preserved in the Asʿad Efendi Collection of the Süleymāniyye Library under manuscript number 916. ʿĀkifzādes treatise is found on folios 48a49a, Ṣidqizādes on 45a47a, and Qāḍīzādes on 47b48a. ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi argues that expressions which have become customary can result in divorce without the necessity of intent. According to him, if the phrase bıraktım becomes a customary expression indicating either bāʾin irrevocable or rajʿī revocable divorce, then divorce would be effected without requiring intention. Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi begins by outlining the standard rule in Islamic jurisprudence: that unequivocal expressions of divorce result in divorce without intent, whereas ambiguous expressions require both intent and contextual indicators. He classifies bıraktım not as an unequivocal ṣarīḥ expression of divorce, but rather as an ambiguous kināyah one whose meaning depends on the context. However, he also acknowledges that the phrase has, in some cases, become customary in signifying divorce. In such cases, he argues, bıraktımeven as a kināyahmay result in bāʾin divorce without the need for intent. He supports his claims through references to various classical sources. In contrast, Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi objects to this interpretation, contending that bıraktım is not fixed in customary usage with a singular meaning as either ṣarīḥ or kināyah. According to him, the term can correspond to both bāʾin and rajʿī forms of divorce within custom, and thus remains ambiguous unless clarified by intention. Therefore, the claim that a phrase like bıraktım, even if customary, denotes bāʾin divorce without intent is incorrect, as intention remains essential in all cases.

 Bu makale, Osmanlı döneminde talâk kavramının belirli ifadeler çerçevesinde nasıl değerlendirildiğini ele alan üç risâlenin neşir, çeviri ve değerlendirmesini içermektedir. Risâlelerden ilki, Akifzâde Abdurrahim Efendi 12231808 tarafından ikincisi ise Şeyhülislam Sıdkızâde Ahmed Reşid Efendi 12491834 tarafından yazılmış olup, Türkçede bıraktım ifadesinin boşama anlamında kullanılabilirliğini incelemektedir. Üçüncü risâle de, Osmanlı şeyhülislamlarından Kadızâde Mehmed Tahir Efendiye 12531838 aittir ve Sıdkızâdenin görüşlerine karşı bir reddiye niteliğindedir. Bu risâleler, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Esad Efendi koleksiyonunda 916 numara ile kayıtlı olup, Akifzâde Abdurrahim Efendinin risâlesi ise 48a-49a, Sıdkızâde Ahmed Reşid Efendinin risâlesi 45a-47a, Kadızâde Mehmed Tahir Efendininki ise 47b-48a ve varaklarında yer almaktadır. Akifzâde Abdurrahim Efendi, örfleşen ifadelerin niyet gerekmeksizin boşama hükmü doğurabileceğini savunur ve bıraktım lafzının bâin veya ricî talâk olarak örfleşmesi durumunda, niyete gerek olmadan boşamanın gerçekleşeceğini öne sürer. Sıdkızâde Ahmed Reşid Efendi, önce talâk konusunda genel geçer kural olan, sarih lafızlarla niyet olmaksızın; kinayeli lafızlarla ise niyet ve karineyle beraber talâkın gerçekleşeceği hususuna değinir. Sıdkızâde Ahmed Reşid Efendi, bıraktım ifadesini doğrudan boşama sarih talâk ifadesi değil, anlamını bağlama göre kazanan kinâyeli bir lafız olarak değerlendirir. Ardından, bıraktım lafzının boşama hususunda örf haline geldiği bilgisini ekler. Ona göre, boşamada kinâye bir lafız olarak örf haline gelen bıraktım kelimesi, niyet olmaksızın da bâin talâk sonucunu doğurur. Ahmed Reşid Efendi, muhtelif kaynaklardan yaptığı alıntılarla görüşünü destekler mahiyette çıkarımlar yapar. Kadızâde Mehmed Tahir Efendi ise, bu görüşe itiraz ederek, bıraktım lafzının örfte sarih veya kinâye olarak tek anlam üzere sabit olmadığını; örf içinde bâin kesin ve ricî geri dönebilir boşama şeklinde iki anlamı da karşılayabileceğini belirtir. Tahir Efendiye göre, bu tür bir lafız ancak niyetin açık olduğu durumda anlam bakımından belirgin hale gelebilir. Dolayısıyla, bâin boşama olarak örfleşmiş bıraktım kelimesi niyet olmasa da bâin boşamaya delalet eder iddiası yanlıştır; çünkü niyet, her halükârda belirleyicidir.

Makale detayları

Critical Edition, Translation, and Evaluation of Three Treatises on the Legal Effect of the Phrase ‘I Left His’ in the Context of Divorce

Yazarlar:

Muharrem Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Tokat İlmiyat Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.31-62

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001351902

pISSN:

2717-610X

Islamic Jurisprudence

Treatise

ʿĀkifzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Efendi

Ṣidqizāde Aḥmad Rashīd Efendi

Qāḍīzāde Muḥammad Ṭāhir Efendi.Fıkıh

Risâle

Akifzâde Abdurrahim Efendi

Sıdkızâde Ahmed Reşid Efendi

Kadızâde Mehmed Tahir Efendi.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Muharrem Yılmaz

Yayıncı: Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Tokat İlmiyat Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.31-62

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001351902

pISSN: 2717-610X

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Muharrem Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Tokat İlmiyat Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 1, pp.31-62

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001351902

pISSN:

2717-610X