Justification of al-Shafi'i's View that Adultery Does Not Require Hurmat al-Musāheraha

Selman Demirboğa

Makale detayları

Justification of al-Shafi'i's View that Adultery Does Not Require Hurmat al-Musāheraha

Yazarlar:

Selman Demirboğa

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 49, pp.245-274

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319530

pISSN:

2146-9806

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The Muslim jurists have analyzed the prohibitions for a marriage contract under two categories: permanent and temporary. Permanent prohibitions on marriage are divided into three categories: blood, milk siblinghood and consanguinity. There is no dispute among the jurists about the prohibition of blood and milk siblinghood, but there is a dispute about kinship by marriage. This kinship arising from the marriage between the parties is referred to in classical fiqh literature as the intimacy of kinship hurmat-i musāhara. In this context, it has been a matter of debate among jurists whether adultery, like marriage, requires a prohibition of marriage. The history of this debate goes back to the Companions, the tāâbiīîn and the taba-i tābiīn. This issue, which was a matter of debate among the first three generations, was also debated among the imams of the fiqh schools. Thus, two views have emerged in the doctrine regarding the problem of whether adultery requires hurmat al-musāhara. According to the first view, which is held by the majority of Hanafis, Hanbalis and Shia jurists, adultery requires hurmat al-musāharah. According to the second view, advocated by the Shafiis, Malikis, Zahiris, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, hurmat al-musahara is not established by adultery. In this case, it is permissible for the parties to marry each others usūl and furu. In classical fiqh sources, the question of whether it is halal to marry the daughter of adultery is discussed in connection with this issue. According to the jurists who hold that adultery entails the intimacy of consanguinity, it is forbidden for the adulterer to marry his daughter of adultery. According to the jurists who hold this view, sexual intercourse requires prohibition, regardless of whether it is through lawful means, such as nikah, or unlawful means, such as fornication zina. According to them, in this case, it is the child itself, not the adultery, that requires the intimacy of kinship. Therefore, the causesexual intercourse has replaced the causative agentchild. These opinion holders have argued that the existence of the link of juziyyah between the adulterer and the daughter resulting from adultery is a proper cause for prohibition. This is because a doubt functions as truth when it comes to necessitating haram.

 The Muslim jurists have analyzed the prohibitions for a marriage contract under two categories: permanent and temporary. Permanent prohibitions on marriage are divided into three categories: blood, milk siblinghood and consanguinity. There is no dispute among the jurists about the prohibition of blood and milk siblinghood, but there is a dispute about kinship by marriage. This kinship arising from the marriage between the parties is referred to in classical fiqh literature as the intimacy of kinship hurmat-i musāhara. In this context, it has been a matter of debate among jurists whether adultery, like marriage, requires a prohibition of marriage. The history of this debate goes back to the Companions, the tāâbiīîn and the taba-i tābiīn. This issue, which was a matter of debate among the first three generations, was also debated among the imams of the fiqh schools. Thus, two views have emerged in the doctrine regarding the problem of whether adultery requires hurmat al-musāhara. According to the first view, which is held by the majority of Hanafis, Hanbalis and Shia jurists, adultery requires hurmat al-musāharah. According to the second view, advocated by the Shafiis, Malikis, Zahiris, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, hurmat al-musahara is not established by adultery. In this case, it is permissible for the parties to marry each others usūl and furu. In classical fiqh sources, the question of whether it is halal to marry the daughter of adultery is discussed in connection with this issue. According to the jurists who hold that adultery entails the intimacy of consanguinity, it is forbidden for the adulterer to marry his daughter of adultery. According to the jurists who hold this view, sexual intercourse requires prohibition, regardless of whether it is through lawful means, such as nikah, or unlawful means, such as fornication zina. According to them, in this case, it is the child itself, not the adultery, that requires the intimacy of kinship. Therefore, the causesexual intercourse has replaced the causative agentchild. These opinion holders have argued that the existence of the link of juziyyah between the adulterer and the daughter resulting from adultery is a proper cause for prohibition. This is because a doubt functions as truth when it comes to necessitating haram.

 The Muslim jurists have analyzed the prohibitions for a marriage contract under two categories: permanent and temporary. Permanent prohibitions on marriage are divided into three categories: blood, milk siblinghood and consanguinity. There is no dispute among the jurists about the prohibition of blood and milk siblinghood, but there is a dispute about kinship by marriage. This kinship arising from the marriage between the parties is referred to in classical fiqh literature as the intimacy of kinship hurmat-i musāhara. In this context, it has been a matter of debate among jurists whether adultery, like marriage, requires a prohibition of marriage. The history of this debate goes back to the Companions, the tāâbiīîn and the taba-i tābiīn. This issue, which was a matter of debate among the first three generations, was also debated among the imams of the fiqh schools. Thus, two views have emerged in the doctrine regarding the problem of whether adultery requires hurmat al-musāhara. According to the first view, which is held by the majority of Hanafis, Hanbalis and Shia jurists, adultery requires hurmat al-musāharah. According to the second view, advocated by the Shafiis, Malikis, Zahiris, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, hurmat al-musahara is not established by adultery. In this case, it is permissible for the parties to marry each others usūl and furu. In classical fiqh sources, the question of whether it is halal to marry the daughter of adultery is discussed in connection with this issue. According to the jurists who hold that adultery entails the intimacy of consanguinity, it is forbidden for the adulterer to marry his daughter of adultery. According to the jurists who hold this view, sexual intercourse requires prohibition, regardless of whether it is through lawful means, such as nikah, or unlawful means, such as fornication zina. According to them, in this case, it is the child itself, not the adultery, that requires the intimacy of kinship. Therefore, the causesexual intercourse has replaced the causative agentchild. These opinion holders have argued that the existence of the link of juziyyah between the adulterer and the daughter resulting from adultery is a proper cause for prohibition. This is because a doubt functions as truth when it comes to necessitating haram.

 Fakihler evlenme engellerini sürekli ve geçici olmak üzere iki kısım altında ele almışlardır. Sürekli evlenme engelleri de kan bağı, süt ve sıhriyet yoluyla oluşan haramlık olmak üzere üç kısma ayrılmaktadır. Kan bağı ve süt yoluyla oluşan haramlık konusunda fakihler arasında bir tartışma bulunmamakla birlikte sıhrî hısımlıkla ilgili ihtilaf bulunmaktadır. Evlenmenin taraflar arasında doğurduğu bu hısımlık, klasik fıkıh literatüründe sıhriyet mahremiyeti hürmet-i musâhere olarak ifade edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda zinanın hürmet-i musâhereyi gerektirip gerektirmediği problemiyle ilgili olarak doktrinde iki görüş ortaya çıkmıştır. Hanefîler, Hanbelîler ve Şiî fakihlerin ekseriyetinin savunduğu birinci görüşe göre zina, hürmet-i musâhereyi gerektirir. Buna karşılık Şâfiîler, Mâlikîler, Zâhirîler ve Hanbelîlerden İbn Kayyim el-Cevziyyenin savunduğu ikinci görüşe göre ise zina ile hürmet-i musâhere sabit olmaz. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, zinanın hürmet-i musâhereyi gerektirmediği görüşünde olan Şâfiînin görüşünü temellendirmektir. Zira tespit edebildiğimiz kadarıyla Şâfiînin bu meseleyle ilgili görüşünün temellendirilmesi konusunda spesifik bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle fakihlerin zinanın hürmet-i musâhereyi gerektirip gerektirmediği konusundaki görüş ve gerekçeleri ele alınmıştır. Daha sonra Şâfiî ve Şâfiî fakihlerin konuyla ilgili görüş ve gerekçeleri zikredilmiş ve bu yönüyle Şâfiînin savunduğu hukuk mantığı ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılmıştır. Konuyla ilgili görüş ve gerekçeler her ekolün temel fıkıh eserleri esas alınarak incelenmiştir.

Makale detayları

Justification of al-Shafi'i's View that Adultery Does Not Require Hurmat al-Musāheraha

Yazarlar:

Selman Demirboğa

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 49, pp.245-274

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319530

pISSN:

2146-9806

Islamic Law

Shafi

Marriage

Hurmat al-Musāhara

Adultery.İslam Hukuku

Şâfiî

Nikah

Hürmet-i Musâhere

Zina.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Selman Demirboğa

Yayıncı: Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 49, pp.245-274

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001319530

pISSN: 2146-9806

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Selman Demirboğa

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 49, pp.245-274

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319530

pISSN:

2146-9806