A Comparative Study on the Methodology of Legal Interpretation in Islamic Law and the Turkish Legal System

Hidayet Zertürk

Makale detayları

A Comparative Study on the Methodology of Legal Interpretation in Islamic Law and the Turkish Legal System

Yazarlar:

Hidayet Zertürk

Yayıncı:

Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 45, pp.337-360

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352477

pISSN:

1304-4524

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 As legal norms are essentially text-based and grounded in language, they sometimes appear clear and comprehensible, while at other times they contain ambiguous or opaque expressions. This is due to the fact that the linguistic expressions and their semantic indications employed by the legislator are not always of equal clarity. In such cases, when the text is presumed to be obscure, contradictory, or incomplete, it becomes necessary for the judge or other authoritative legal actors to engage in interpretation. However, the degree to which such interpretation is accurate or valid can only be assessed within the framework of certain established principles. This crucial issue thus necessitates the identification of a methodology of interpretation. The present study aims to investigate the existence of interpretive methodologies in both positive i.e., contemporary law and Islamic law, along with the fundamental sources and elements upon which they are based, and to carry out a comparative analysis thereof. Since the act of interpretation in both legal traditions stems from the necessity of understanding the legal text, interpretation has at times remained confined to the literal meaning, while in other instances it has transcended the textual boundariessometimes even evolving into interpretations that diverge from the legislators original intent. Hence, any study of interpretive methodology must necessarily entail an objective inquiry into the foundational sources upon which both legal systems rest. In this study, sources on interpretation in positive lawincluding books, scholarly articles, conference proceedings, and relevant statutory provisionshave been examined. From the perspective of Islamic law, the study has drawn upon works on uṣūl al-fiqh that establish the rules governing textual interpretation, as well as texts pertaining to maqāṣid al-sharīʿa, maṣlaḥa, and general juridical maxims qawāʿid kulliyya, alongside contemporary scholarly contributions on these subjects. A qualitative and comparative research methodology has been adopted. Accordingly, terms and concepts that have emerged in the context of interpretation within positive law and developed over time have been compared, in terms of both meaning and application, with their equivalents in the Islamic legal tradition. The findings reveal that both Islamic law and positive law fundamentally employ textual verbal interpretation; however, when necessary, they also resort to broader semantic implications, logical extensions, mafhum mukhālafah argumentum e contrario, the underlying intent of the legislator, and considerations pertaining to the legitimate and reasonable fulfillment of legal obligations imposed upon the legal subjects. Therefore, both legal systems make use of purposive, sociological, and historical modes of interpretation in ways that do not negate the semantic weight of the text or its indicatory function. When it is taken into account that the methodology of interpretation in Islamic law is rooted in the science of uṣūl al-fiqh, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that it exhibits a more advanced level of conceptual maturity and jurisprudential refinement than positive law, in terms of temporal continuity, practical application, and doctrinal development. It is also worth emphasizing that both legal traditions impose constraints on the interpretive subject to protect them from subjective arbitrariness, thereby ensuring legal security and safeguarding the rights of legal subjects addressed by the law.

 As legal norms are essentially text-based and grounded in language, they sometimes appear clear and comprehensible, while at other times they contain ambiguous or opaque expressions. This is due to the fact that the linguistic expressions and their semantic indications employed by the legislator are not always of equal clarity. In such cases, when the text is presumed to be obscure, contradictory, or incomplete, it becomes necessary for the judge or other authoritative legal actors to engage in interpretation. However, the degree to which such interpretation is accurate or valid can only be assessed within the framework of certain established principles. This crucial issue thus necessitates the identification of a methodology of interpretation. The present study aims to investigate the existence of interpretive methodologies in both positive i.e., contemporary law and Islamic law, along with the fundamental sources and elements upon which they are based, and to carry out a comparative analysis thereof. Since the act of interpretation in both legal traditions stems from the necessity of understanding the legal text, interpretation has at times remained confined to the literal meaning, while in other instances it has transcended the textual boundariessometimes even evolving into interpretations that diverge from the legislators original intent. Hence, any study of interpretive methodology must necessarily entail an objective inquiry into the foundational sources upon which both legal systems rest. In this study, sources on interpretation in positive lawincluding books, scholarly articles, conference proceedings, and relevant statutory provisionshave been examined. From the perspective of Islamic law, the study has drawn upon works on uṣūl al-fiqh that establish the rules governing textual interpretation, as well as texts pertaining to maqāṣid al-sharīʿa, maṣlaḥa, and general juridical maxims qawāʿid kulliyya, alongside contemporary scholarly contributions on these subjects. A qualitative and comparative research methodology has been adopted. Accordingly, terms and concepts that have emerged in the context of interpretation within positive law and developed over time have been compared, in terms of both meaning and application, with their equivalents in the Islamic legal tradition. The findings reveal that both Islamic law and positive law fundamentally employ textual verbal interpretation; however, when necessary, they also resort to broader semantic implications, logical extensions, mafhum mukhālafah argumentum e contrario, the underlying intent of the legislator, and considerations pertaining to the legitimate and reasonable fulfillment of legal obligations imposed upon the legal subjects. Therefore, both legal systems make use of purposive, sociological, and historical modes of interpretation in ways that do not negate the semantic weight of the text or its indicatory function. When it is taken into account that the methodology of interpretation in Islamic law is rooted in the science of uṣūl al-fiqh, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that it exhibits a more advanced level of conceptual maturity and jurisprudential refinement than positive law, in terms of temporal continuity, practical application, and doctrinal development. It is also worth emphasizing that both legal traditions impose constraints on the interpretive subject to protect them from subjective arbitrariness, thereby ensuring legal security and safeguarding the rights of legal subjects addressed by the law.

 As legal norms are essentially text-based and grounded in language, they sometimes appear clear and comprehensible, while at other times they contain ambiguous or opaque expressions. This is due to the fact that the linguistic expressions and their semantic indications employed by the legislator are not always of equal clarity. In such cases, when the text is presumed to be obscure, contradictory, or incomplete, it becomes necessary for the judge or other authoritative legal actors to engage in interpretation. However, the degree to which such interpretation is accurate or valid can only be assessed within the framework of certain established principles. This crucial issue thus necessitates the identification of a methodology of interpretation. The present study aims to investigate the existence of interpretive methodologies in both positive i.e., contemporary law and Islamic law, along with the fundamental sources and elements upon which they are based, and to carry out a comparative analysis thereof. Since the act of interpretation in both legal traditions stems from the necessity of understanding the legal text, interpretation has at times remained confined to the literal meaning, while in other instances it has transcended the textual boundariessometimes even evolving into interpretations that diverge from the legislators original intent. Hence, any study of interpretive methodology must necessarily entail an objective inquiry into the foundational sources upon which both legal systems rest. In this study, sources on interpretation in positive lawincluding books, scholarly articles, conference proceedings, and relevant statutory provisionshave been examined. From the perspective of Islamic law, the study has drawn upon works on uṣūl al-fiqh that establish the rules governing textual interpretation, as well as texts pertaining to maqāṣid al-sharīʿa, maṣlaḥa, and general juridical maxims qawāʿid kulliyya, alongside contemporary scholarly contributions on these subjects. A qualitative and comparative research methodology has been adopted. Accordingly, terms and concepts that have emerged in the context of interpretation within positive law and developed over time have been compared, in terms of both meaning and application, with their equivalents in the Islamic legal tradition. The findings reveal that both Islamic law and positive law fundamentally employ textual verbal interpretation; however, when necessary, they also resort to broader semantic implications, logical extensions, mafhum mukhālafah argumentum e contrario, the underlying intent of the legislator, and considerations pertaining to the legitimate and reasonable fulfillment of legal obligations imposed upon the legal subjects. Therefore, both legal systems make use of purposive, sociological, and historical modes of interpretation in ways that do not negate the semantic weight of the text or its indicatory function. When it is taken into account that the methodology of interpretation in Islamic law is rooted in the science of uṣūl al-fiqh, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that it exhibits a more advanced level of conceptual maturity and jurisprudential refinement than positive law, in terms of temporal continuity, practical application, and doctrinal development. It is also worth emphasizing that both legal traditions impose constraints on the interpretive subject to protect them from subjective arbitrariness, thereby ensuring legal security and safeguarding the rights of legal subjects addressed by the law.

 Hukuk normları dil unsuruna dayalı bir metin olması hasebiyle bazen açık ve anlaşılır olduğu halde bazen de kapalı ve muğlak ifadeler ihtiva edebilir. Zira kanun koyucunun kullandığı lafız ve delaletleri aynı derecede bulunmaz. Böyle bir durumda kapalı, çelişkili ya da eksik olduğu varsayılan metnin hâkim ya da o konumda olan kişiler tarafından yorumlanması gerekir. Ancak metnin anlaşılmasında icra edilen yorumun ne derece doğru ya da geçerli olduğu bazı esaslar dahilinde tespit edilebilir. İşte bu önemli olgu, yorumla ilgili bir metodolojinin tespitiyle mümkündür. Amacımız hem meri hukukta hem de İslam hukukunda yorumla ilgili bir metodolojinin varlığını ve bunun dayandığı temel kaynak ve unsurları araştırıp bunlar arasında bazı mukayeselerde bulunmaktır. Yorum olgusu her iki hukukta da bir metnin anlaşılmasından kaynaklandığı için bazen lafızlarla sınırlı kalmış bazen de lafızların dışına taşmış hatta kanun koyucunun iradesine aykırı bir kısım anlamlara evrilebilmiştir. Onun için yorum metodolojisi ile ilgili böyle bir çalışma her iki hukukun dayandığı temel kaynakları objektif olarak araştırmayı beraberinde getirmektedir. Çalışmada meri hukukla ilgili olarak yorum konusunda yazılan kitap, makale ve tebliğlerle bazı ilgili kanun maddeleri esas alındı. İslam hukuku açısından da yorumun ana maddesini oluşturan lafzi usul kuralları, usul kitaplarından ve makasidüş-şeria ve maslahat ile külli kuralları ihtiva eden eserler ve bu meyandaki çalışmalar esas alındı. Metot olarak nitel ve karşılaştırmalı araştırma yöntemleri takip edildi. Buna göre meri hukukta yorum eksenli olarak oluşan ve zaman içerisinde gelişen terim ve kavramlar İslam Hukuk literatüründeki benzeri kavramlarla anlam ve uygulama açısından karşılaştırıldı. Çalışmanın neticesinde İslam Hukukuyla meri hukukun temelde sözel yorumu kullandığı, ancak gerektiği durumlarda lafızların geniş delaletlerine, mantıki yönlerine mefhumu muhaliflerine ve kanun koyucunun iradesini yansıtan amacına aynı zamanda kanun maddesinin mükellefe yönelttiği sorumluluğun meşru ve makul bir seviyede eda ve icrasına önem verdiği anlaşılmaktadır. Dolayısıyla her iki hukuk amaçsal, sosyolojik ve tarihi yorumlama biçimlerini de lafız ve delaletlerini anlam açısından geçersiz kılmayacak şekilde kullanmış olmaktadır. İslam hukukundaki yorum metodolojisinin fıkıh usulüne dayanması hesaba katıldığında bunun zaman, uygulama ve tekâmül açısından meri hukuktan çok ileri seviyede olduğunu söylemek pek abartılı sayılmamalıdır. Burada şunun altını da çizmekte yarar vardır. Her iki hukuk da yorum yetkisini kendisine tevdi ettiği özneyi, subjektif davranışlardan korumak için onu bazı kurallara uymakla sorumlu tutmakta ve bu yolla aynı zamanda kanunla muhatap olan mükelleflerin hukukunu da teminat altına almış olmaktadır.

Makale detayları

A Comparative Study on the Methodology of Legal Interpretation in Islamic Law and the Turkish Legal System

Yazarlar:

Hidayet Zertürk

Yayıncı:

Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 45, pp.337-360

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352477

pISSN:

1304-4524

Islamic Law

Positive Law

Legal Interpretation

Ijtihād

Comparative Lawİslam Hukuku

Mer’i Hukuk

Yorum İçtihat

Mukayese

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Hidayet Zertürk

Yayıncı: Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 45, pp.337-360

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001352477

pISSN: 1304-4524

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Hidayet Zertürk

Yayıncı:

Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 45, pp.337-360

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352477

pISSN:

1304-4524