Sabab or Ḥikma? : The Relationship between  Muḥāḏāt al-Nisāʾ (Adjacency with Women) and the Ištibāh

Ahmet Topal

Makale detayları

Sabab or Ḥikma? : The Relationship between Muḥāḏāt al-Nisāʾ (Adjacency with Women) and the Ištibāh

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Topal

Yayıncı:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.31-43

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301741

pISSN:

2980-0331

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 When man and woman pray adjacent to each other in a congregational prayer under certain conditions, this constitutes the phenomenon referred to in classical manuals of Islamic law as muḥāḏāt adjacency with women. There are various scenarios under which muḥāḏāt can lead either to the invalidation of the prayer of the man or the woman or even worse all the participants. The sababs reasons behind the relevant legal rulings on muḥāḏāt in its various scenarios are outlined in detail in classical manuals of the Ḥanafī school, which will also be presented here briefly. This paper, however, seeks to find out the ḥikma philosophy of law, as opposed to, the sabab, behind invalidation of prayer in congregational regular prayer in cases of muḥāḏāt. In fact, it particularly attempts to answer, for the first time in literature, the question of why the prayer of a man praying adjacent to a woman becomes invalid if they pray in congregation and yet it remains valid if they pray by themselves or in a congregational funeral prayer. What is it with congregational regular prayers that makes the difference? These questions constitute an important gap in the previous literature. To fill this gap, this paper, falling back upon classical manuals of Ḥanafī Fiqh, argues that this seems to have much to do with the legal ruling on ištibāh doubtfulness with regard to the position of the imām in congregational prayers, which requires participants to maintain sight of the imām directly or indirectly, which, as will be illustrated, seems to be hindered when muḥāḏāt occurs, thus causing the invalidation of prayer. Filling this gap becomes urgent and relevant especially when one considers the fact that this gap has been misused in recent scholarship to accuse Ḥanafīs of not relying on the Qurʾān and the Sunna for law-making in Islamic law and instead simply repeating the laws that existed before. It was also maintained by some contemporary scholars, again partly by using this gap in the literature, that uṣūl al-fiqh was used not to derive laws from the sources of Islamic law, the primary ones of which are the Qurʾān and the Sunna, as claimed by classical jurists, but rather to cover up this surreptitious use of existing laws and then making them appear as laws derived from the Qurʾān and the Sunna. By exploring the philosophy of law behind the legal ruling on muḥāḏāt, the present work illustrates that these accusations have no basis. Finally, revealing the relationship between ištibāh and muḥāḏāt al-nisāʾ for the first time also has the cumulative effect of substantiating idea that it is far more objective and feasible to rely on sabab reason or ʿilla ratio legis, whichever applies, as opposed to ḥikma in deriving laws from the sources of Islamic law.

 When man and woman pray adjacent to each other in a congregational prayer under certain conditions, this constitutes the phenomenon referred to in classical manuals of Islamic law as muḥāḏāt adjacency with women. There are various scenarios under which muḥāḏāt can lead either to the invalidation of the prayer of the man or the woman or even worse all the participants. The sababs reasons behind the relevant legal rulings on muḥāḏāt in its various scenarios are outlined in detail in classical manuals of the Ḥanafī school, which will also be presented here briefly. This paper, however, seeks to find out the ḥikma philosophy of law, as opposed to, the sabab, behind invalidation of prayer in congregational regular prayer in cases of muḥāḏāt. In fact, it particularly attempts to answer, for the first time in literature, the question of why the prayer of a man praying adjacent to a woman becomes invalid if they pray in congregation and yet it remains valid if they pray by themselves or in a congregational funeral prayer. What is it with congregational regular prayers that makes the difference? These questions constitute an important gap in the previous literature. To fill this gap, this paper, falling back upon classical manuals of Ḥanafī Fiqh, argues that this seems to have much to do with the legal ruling on ištibāh doubtfulness with regard to the position of the imām in congregational prayers, which requires participants to maintain sight of the imām directly or indirectly, which, as will be illustrated, seems to be hindered when muḥāḏāt occurs, thus causing the invalidation of prayer. Filling this gap becomes urgent and relevant especially when one considers the fact that this gap has been misused in recent scholarship to accuse Ḥanafīs of not relying on the Qurʾān and the Sunna for law-making in Islamic law and instead simply repeating the laws that existed before. It was also maintained by some contemporary scholars, again partly by using this gap in the literature, that uṣūl al-fiqh was used not to derive laws from the sources of Islamic law, the primary ones of which are the Qurʾān and the Sunna, as claimed by classical jurists, but rather to cover up this surreptitious use of existing laws and then making them appear as laws derived from the Qurʾān and the Sunna. By exploring the philosophy of law behind the legal ruling on muḥāḏāt, the present work illustrates that these accusations have no basis. Finally, revealing the relationship between ištibāh and muḥāḏāt al-nisāʾ for the first time also has the cumulative effect of substantiating idea that it is far more objective and feasible to rely on sabab reason or ʿilla ratio legis, whichever applies, as opposed to ḥikma in deriving laws from the sources of Islamic law.

 When man and woman pray adjacent to each other in a congregational prayer under certain conditions, this constitutes the phenomenon referred to in classical manuals of Islamic law as muḥāḏāt adjacency with women. There are various scenarios under which muḥāḏāt can lead either to the invalidation of the prayer of the man or the woman or even worse all the participants. The sababs reasons behind the relevant legal rulings on muḥāḏāt in its various scenarios are outlined in detail in classical manuals of the Ḥanafī school, which will also be presented here briefly. This paper, however, seeks to find out the ḥikma philosophy of law, as opposed to, the sabab, behind invalidation of prayer in congregational regular prayer in cases of muḥāḏāt. In fact, it particularly attempts to answer, for the first time in literature, the question of why the prayer of a man praying adjacent to a woman becomes invalid if they pray in congregation and yet it remains valid if they pray by themselves or in a congregational funeral prayer. What is it with congregational regular prayers that makes the difference? These questions constitute an important gap in the previous literature. To fill this gap, this paper, falling back upon classical manuals of Ḥanafī Fiqh, argues that this seems to have much to do with the legal ruling on ištibāh doubtfulness with regard to the position of the imām in congregational prayers, which requires participants to maintain sight of the imām directly or indirectly, which, as will be illustrated, seems to be hindered when muḥāḏāt occurs, thus causing the invalidation of prayer. Filling this gap becomes urgent and relevant especially when one considers the fact that this gap has been misused in recent scholarship to accuse Ḥanafīs of not relying on the Qurʾān and the Sunna for law-making in Islamic law and instead simply repeating the laws that existed before. It was also maintained by some contemporary scholars, again partly by using this gap in the literature, that uṣūl al-fiqh was used not to derive laws from the sources of Islamic law, the primary ones of which are the Qurʾān and the Sunna, as claimed by classical jurists, but rather to cover up this surreptitious use of existing laws and then making them appear as laws derived from the Qurʾān and the Sunna. By exploring the philosophy of law behind the legal ruling on muḥāḏāt, the present work illustrates that these accusations have no basis. Finally, revealing the relationship between ištibāh and muḥāḏāt al-nisāʾ for the first time also has the cumulative effect of substantiating idea that it is far more objective and feasible to rely on sabab reason or ʿilla ratio legis, whichever applies, as opposed to ḥikma in deriving laws from the sources of Islamic law.

 Belirli şartlar altında, erkek ve kadının cemaatle namazda aynı hizada bulunmaları, İslam hukuku kaynaklarında muḥâzāt-ı nisâʾ kadınla aynı hizada bulunma adı verilen bir duruma sebebiyet verir. Muḥāzātın, erkeğin, kadının, ya da daha da kötüsü, tüm cemaatin namazının bozulmasına sebep olabileceği farklı senaryolar vardır. Makalede de kısaca değinileceği üzere, bu durumlarla ilgili hükümlerin sebepleri Ḥanefî Fıkhının temel klasik kaynaklarında detaylı bir şekilde ortaya konmuştur. Ancak bu makale, cemaatle namaz kılarken muḥâzât durumlarında namazın bozulmasının arkasındaki sebebi değil, hikmeti hukuk felsefesini bulmaya çalışmaktadır. Esasen, ilk defa şu sorulara cevap bulmayı amaçlamaktadır: Kadınla aynı hizada namaz kılan bir erkeğin namazının, cemaatle namaz kılarken bozulmasının ama tek başlarına kılmaları ya da cemaatle cenaze namazı kılmaları halinde bozulmamasının arkasında yatan hikmet nedir? Normal cemaatle namazın hangi özelliği bu farka sebep olmaktadır? Bu sorular, alanda önemli bir boşluğu temsil etmektedir. Bu boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla, Ḥanefî Fıkhının temel klasik kaynaklarına dayanmak suretiyle makale, söz konusu durumun, cemaatle namazlarda imamın bulunduğu pozisyona dair şüphe oluşması iştibâh ile yakından alakalı olduğunu savunmaktadır. İştibâha dair ahkâm, cemaatin imamı direkt ya da endirekt olarak görebilme imkânına sürekli sahip olmayı gerektirmektedir ki bu imkan, muḥâzât durumlarında, makalede gösterileceği üzere, akamete uğrayarak namazın bozulmasına yol açmaktadır. Ḥanefîlerin hüküm koyarken, Kuran ve Sünnete dayanmadıkları; aksine önceden var olan hükümleri tekrar ettiklerine dair son dönemlerde kaleme alınan ilmi çalışmalarda Ḥanefîlere yöneltilen suçlamaların, literatürdeki bu boşluğun kötüye kullanımı neticesinde gerçekleştirilmiş olduğu da dikkate alındığında, bu boşluğun doldurulmasının önemi ve yerindeliği anlaşılacaktır. Yine, bu boşluğu da kullanarak bazı modern yazarlarca, uṣûl-ı fıkhın, İslam hukukunun, klasik hukukçular tarafından ilk iki temel kaynağı olduğu iddia edilen Kuran ve Sünnetten hüküm elde etmek için kullanılmadığı iddia edilmektedir. Aksine, var olan kanunların kullanılıp, bunların sanki Kuran ve Sünnetten çıkarılmış kanunlarmış gibi gösterilmesinin örtbas edilmesi için, usûl-ı fıkhın kullanıldığı iddia edilmiştir. Muḥâzâta dair kanunların arkasında yatan hikmetlerin ne olduğunu araştırmak suretiyle makale, söz konusu suçlamaların hiçbir dayanağının olmadığını da göstermektedir. İştibâh ile muḥâzât-ı nisâʾ arasındaki ilişkiyi ilk defa ortaya çıkarmanın, İslam hukukunun kaynaklarından hüküm çıkarmada, hikmet yerine, sebep ya da illete, hangisi söz konusu ise, dayanmanın mukayese edilemeyecek derecede objektif ve uygulanabilir olduğu fikrini de genel olarak desteklemektedir.

Makale detayları

Sabab or Ḥikma? : The Relationship between Muḥāḏāt al-Nisāʾ (Adjacency with Women) and the Ištibāh

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Topal

Yayıncı:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.31-43

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301741

pISSN:

2980-0331

lamic law

Muḥāḏāt al-Nisāʾ

Ištibāh

Sabab

ʿIlla

Ḥikmaİslam Hukuku

Muhazat-ı Nisa

İştibah

Sebep

İllet

Hikmet

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ahmet Topal

Yayıncı: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.31-43

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2023

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001301741

pISSN: 2980-0331

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Topal

Yayıncı:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Rize İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 25, pp.31-43

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301741

pISSN:

2980-0331