Indirect Testimony in The Islamic and Ottoman Law: Naql al-Shahada

Fırat Orğun

Makale detayları

Indirect Testimony in The Islamic and Ottoman Law: Naql al-Shahada

Yazarlar:

Fırat Orğun

Yayıncı:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.61-74

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301734

pISSN:

2980-0331

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 In Islamic law, statutory evidence system has been adopted and hence, which evidence under which conditions could be accepted as a tool for judicial proof has been identified in the doctrine to a large extent. Whether or not an allegation as source of a dispute at the court is rightful and if the related right will be recognized or not depend on its testification with this specific evidence. On top of the evidence tools besides the defendants own confession iqrar come al-bayyina evidence which was set as an obligation of prosecution in a related hadith and yamin oath which is an obligation of the defense. The term al-bayyina which is interpreted as all kinds of tools for clear and conclusive proof today was directly associated with the testifier in most of the fiqh sources of pre-modern era. This phenomenon is a valuable sign which helps us identify the critical role of testimony in Islamic legal thought and practice as well as figuring out how often it was applied by judicial processes carried out by qadis judges in the mentioned period. Due to the importance of the issue; proof of testimony, its necessity, minimum number of testifiers quorum varying according to the type of the case, qualifications of the testifier for a valid testimony, court investigation of testifiers tazkiyah and tadil, perjury, refusing to testify etc. have all been elaborated in both fiqh books with general context as well as reference books focusing specifically on judicial law. Another subject mentioned in the fiqh literature in this context happens to be naql al-shahada the transfer of testimony. Sometimes shahada al-naql is also used as a replacement term for naql al-shahada which is generally reviewed under al-shahadah ala al-shahadah topic in fiqh books. Naql al-shahada which is also named as indirect testimony in Turkish literature can be defined as delivering the testimony of someone who cannot be present at the court due to some specific excuses through indirect testifiers. The excuses mentioned can be named as death, sickness, distance, getting lost or being imprisoned and security concerns. Those who saw the subject of the case with their own eyes are called main testifier while who declare main testifiers testimony upon their through their permission and request are called secondaryindirect testifier. It is known that naql al-shahada practice is an evidence and proof methodology exclusive to Islamic law. Transfer of testimony is supposed to be illicit as per qiyas asthe main testifier is not present at the court and fail to testify personally. However, scholars fuqaha considered it permissible caiz as it contributed to solution of legaljudicial problems of people by its convenience and served fulfilment idea of justice. While there exist diverse perspectives on the matter, it is generally consensual among scholars that, barring situations related to hudud and qisas, indirect testimony, when provided under specific conditions, invariably culminates in a legal outcome. On the other hand, it seems that qadis who were the most important part of the Ottoman legal and judiciary system were frequently applying this method. Likewise, there are many court case records mentioning transfer of testimony in the qadi registers of 15th and 16th centuries.

 In Islamic law, statutory evidence system has been adopted and hence, which evidence under which conditions could be accepted as a tool for judicial proof has been identified in the doctrine to a large extent. Whether or not an allegation as source of a dispute at the court is rightful and if the related right will be recognized or not depend on its testification with this specific evidence. On top of the evidence tools besides the defendants own confession iqrar come al-bayyina evidence which was set as an obligation of prosecution in a related hadith and yamin oath which is an obligation of the defense. The term al-bayyina which is interpreted as all kinds of tools for clear and conclusive proof today was directly associated with the testifier in most of the fiqh sources of pre-modern era. This phenomenon is a valuable sign which helps us identify the critical role of testimony in Islamic legal thought and practice as well as figuring out how often it was applied by judicial processes carried out by qadis judges in the mentioned period. Due to the importance of the issue; proof of testimony, its necessity, minimum number of testifiers quorum varying according to the type of the case, qualifications of the testifier for a valid testimony, court investigation of testifiers tazkiyah and tadil, perjury, refusing to testify etc. have all been elaborated in both fiqh books with general context as well as reference books focusing specifically on judicial law. Another subject mentioned in the fiqh literature in this context happens to be naql al-shahada the transfer of testimony. Sometimes shahada al-naql is also used as a replacement term for naql al-shahada which is generally reviewed under al-shahadah ala al-shahadah topic in fiqh books. Naql al-shahada which is also named as indirect testimony in Turkish literature can be defined as delivering the testimony of someone who cannot be present at the court due to some specific excuses through indirect testifiers. The excuses mentioned can be named as death, sickness, distance, getting lost or being imprisoned and security concerns. Those who saw the subject of the case with their own eyes are called main testifier while who declare main testifiers testimony upon their through their permission and request are called secondaryindirect testifier. It is known that naql al-shahada practice is an evidence and proof methodology exclusive to Islamic law. Transfer of testimony is supposed to be illicit as per qiyas asthe main testifier is not present at the court and fail to testify personally. However, scholars fuqaha considered it permissible caiz as it contributed to solution of legaljudicial problems of people by its convenience and served fulfilment idea of justice. While there exist diverse perspectives on the matter, it is generally consensual among scholars that, barring situations related to hudud and qisas, indirect testimony, when provided under specific conditions, invariably culminates in a legal outcome. On the other hand, it seems that qadis who were the most important part of the Ottoman legal and judiciary system were frequently applying this method. Likewise, there are many court case records mentioning transfer of testimony in the qadi registers of 15th and 16th centuries.

 In Islamic law, statutory evidence system has been adopted and hence, which evidence under which conditions could be accepted as a tool for judicial proof has been identified in the doctrine to a large extent. Whether or not an allegation as source of a dispute at the court is rightful and if the related right will be recognized or not depend on its testification with this specific evidence. On top of the evidence tools besides the defendants own confession iqrar come al-bayyina evidence which was set as an obligation of prosecution in a related hadith and yamin oath which is an obligation of the defense. The term al-bayyina which is interpreted as all kinds of tools for clear and conclusive proof today was directly associated with the testifier in most of the fiqh sources of pre-modern era. This phenomenon is a valuable sign which helps us identify the critical role of testimony in Islamic legal thought and practice as well as figuring out how often it was applied by judicial processes carried out by qadis judges in the mentioned period. Due to the importance of the issue; proof of testimony, its necessity, minimum number of testifiers quorum varying according to the type of the case, qualifications of the testifier for a valid testimony, court investigation of testifiers tazkiyah and tadil, perjury, refusing to testify etc. have all been elaborated in both fiqh books with general context as well as reference books focusing specifically on judicial law. Another subject mentioned in the fiqh literature in this context happens to be naql al-shahada the transfer of testimony. Sometimes shahada al-naql is also used as a replacement term for naql al-shahada which is generally reviewed under al-shahadah ala al-shahadah topic in fiqh books. Naql al-shahada which is also named as indirect testimony in Turkish literature can be defined as delivering the testimony of someone who cannot be present at the court due to some specific excuses through indirect testifiers. The excuses mentioned can be named as death, sickness, distance, getting lost or being imprisoned and security concerns. Those who saw the subject of the case with their own eyes are called main testifier while who declare main testifiers testimony upon their through their permission and request are called secondaryindirect testifier. It is known that naql al-shahada practice is an evidence and proof methodology exclusive to Islamic law. Transfer of testimony is supposed to be illicit as per qiyas asthe main testifier is not present at the court and fail to testify personally. However, scholars fuqaha considered it permissible caiz as it contributed to solution of legaljudicial problems of people by its convenience and served fulfilment idea of justice. While there exist diverse perspectives on the matter, it is generally consensual among scholars that, barring situations related to hudud and qisas, indirect testimony, when provided under specific conditions, invariably culminates in a legal outcome. On the other hand, it seems that qadis who were the most important part of the Ottoman legal and judiciary system were frequently applying this method. Likewise, there are many court case records mentioning transfer of testimony in the qadi registers of 15th and 16th centuries.

 İslam hukukunda kanuni delil sistemi benimsenmiş olup dava yargılaması yapan bir hâkimin kararını verirken hangi delili hangi şartlar dahilinde yargısal ispat vasıtası olarak kabul edebileceği büyük ölçüde öğretide belirlenmiştir. Mahkemeye intikal eden bir anlaşmazlığa kaynaklık eden iddianın doğruluğu veya yanlışlığı ile ona bağlı hakkın tahakkuk edip etmeyeceği hususu bu muayyen delillerle ispatlanmasına bağlıdır. Davalı tarafın kendi beyanı ikrarı dışında öğretide yer verilen delillerin başlıcası, konuyla ilgili hadis-i şerifte iddia makamının yükü olarak tayin edilen beyyine ile savunma tarafının yükü olan yemindir. Günümüzde genellikle her türlü açık ve kesin ispat vasıtası şeklinde yorumlanan beyyine kavramı, modern dönem öncesine ait fıkıh kaynaklarının çoğunda doğrudan şahit ile özdeş kabul edilmiştir. Bu olgu anılan dönemdeki hukuk düşüncesi ve tatbikatında şahit delilinin ne denli hayati bir mevki işgal ettiğini yanı sıra kadıların yürüttüğü yargılama süreçlerinde ne sıklıkta kullanıldığını kestirmemize yardım eden önemli bir karinedir. Meselenin önemine binaen şahitliğin delilleri, lüzumu, dava türüne bağlı değişkenlik arz eden asgari şahit sayısı şehâdet nisabı, şahitliğin geçerli sayılabilmesi noktasında şahitte aranan vasıflar, şahitlerin soruşturulması tezkiye ve tadil, yalancı şahitliğin hükmü, şahitlikten dönme vb. konular hem genel içerikli fıkıh kitaplarında hem de yargı hukukuna hasredilmiş eserlerde ayrıntılı olarak ele alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda fıkıh külliyatında üzerinde durulan bir diğer konu da nakl-i şehâdettir. Fıkıh kitaplarında genellikle eş-şehâde aleş-şehâde şahitlik üzerine şahitlik başlığı altında incelenen kavramı ifade etmek için bazen şehâdetun-nakl tabiri de kullanılmaktadır. Türkçe literatürde dolaylı veya naklen şahitlik olarak da isimlendirilen nakl-i şehâdet kavramı Belirli mazeretler sebebiyle kendisi mahkemede hazır bulunamayan birinin şahitliğinin, dolaylı ikincil şahitler vasıtasıyla mahkemeye ulaştırılması şeklinde tanımlanabilir. Sözü edilen özürleri ölüm, hastalık, uzaklık, kayıp ya da hapiste bulunma ve güvenlik endişesi şeklinde sıralamak mümkündür. Davaya konu meseleyi gözüyle gören kişiye asıl şahit; onun bu şahitliğini yine onun izin ve isteğiyle dava hakimi önünde beyan eden kimseye ise fer ikincil - dolaylı şahit denilmektedir. Nakl-i şehâdet uygulaması, bilindiği kadarıyla İslam hukukuna has bir delil ve ispat yöntemidir. Nakil işleminin, davanın asıl şahidi mahkemede hazır bulunmadığı ve meseleye dair şahitliğini bizzat eda etmediği için kıyasen caiz olmaması icap etmektedir. Fakat sağladığı kolaylıklar yoluyla insanların hukuki - adli sorunlarının çözümüne katkı sunduğu ve böylece adalet idesinin gerçekleştirilmesine hizmet ettiği gerekçesiyle fukahâ tarafından caiz görülmüştür. Farklı görüşler bulunmakla birlikte had ve kısas dışında kalan davalarda, belirli şartlar dahilinde gerçekleşen dolaylı şahitliğin geçerli ve kesin bir ispat vasıtası olarak kazâî yargısal sonuç doğuracağı hususunda alimler ittifak halindedir. Öte yandan klasik dönem Osmanlı hukuk ve adliye düzeninin en önemli parçası olan kadıların sıklıkla bu yönteme başvurduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Zira 15. ve 16. yy.a ait kadı sicillerinde nakl-i şehâdete atıfta bulunan pek çok dava kaydı yer almaktadır.

Makale detayları

Indirect Testimony in The Islamic and Ottoman Law: Naql al-Shahada

Yazarlar:

Fırat Orğun

Yayıncı:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.61-74

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301734

pISSN:

2980-0331

al-Fiqh

Ottoman law

al-bayyina

testimony (al-shahada)

testifier

transfer of testimony (naql al-shahada)Fıkıh

Osmanlı hukuku

beyyine

şahitlik

şahit

nakl-i şehâdet

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Fırat Orğun

Yayıncı: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.61-74

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001301734

pISSN: 2980-0331

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Fırat Orğun

Yayıncı:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.61-74

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301734

pISSN:

2980-0331