The Dynamics of the Evolution of Argumentum a Contrario (Mafkhūm al-Mukhālafa) Method into Disjunctive Conditional Syllogism (Al-Sabr  wa'l-Taqsim)

Mahmud Muhammed Özdemir

Makale detayları

The Dynamics of the Evolution of Argumentum a Contrario (Mafkhūm al-Mukhālafa) Method into Disjunctive Conditional Syllogism (Al-Sabr wa'l-Taqsim)

Yazarlar:

Mahmud Muhammed Özdemir

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 50, pp.495-516

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001333757

pISSN:

2146-9806

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The undeniable merit and central role of Islamic legal methodology in accurately understanding the Quran and Sunnah, and in deriving rulings from these sources in line with the will of the Divine Legislator, Almighty Allah, is a well-established fact among the Islamic sciences. This field serves as the foundational framework that guides Islamic jurists in their interpretation and application of religious texts, ensuring that their rulings align with the overarching objectives of Sharia. Due to this irrefutable position within the Islamic sciences, scholars have devoted considerable attention to this discipline. They have developed various schools and methods within this field and have experienced significant differences of opinion regarding the principles and rules established by these schools. These methodological differences often reflect deeper philosophical and theological perspectives that influence how jurists perceive the sources of law and their application. These disagreements have, in turn, influenced the rulings derived from the sources. Islamic legal theorists have placed great emphasis on the meanings of words because the lawgivers intent first revealed through language. Consequently, the subject of linguistic indications has occupied a significant place in the foundational works of this science. Detailed discussions have been devoted to topics such as the methods by which words indicate legal rulings, the classification of these indications, their varieties, and examples. These discussions are critical because they directly impact the interpretation of the texts, influencing how jurists derive legal rulings that are meant to be applied in various contexts. Disputes have also arisen in some of these areas. Among the issues related to linguistic indications, the method known as argumentum a contrario has been particularly prominent. The debates surrounding this method have not only necessitated its methodological foundation but have also led to substantial disagreements within Islamic legal methodology and law itself.

 The undeniable merit and central role of Islamic legal methodology in accurately understanding the Quran and Sunnah, and in deriving rulings from these sources in line with the will of the Divine Legislator, Almighty Allah, is a well-established fact among the Islamic sciences. This field serves as the foundational framework that guides Islamic jurists in their interpretation and application of religious texts, ensuring that their rulings align with the overarching objectives of Sharia. Due to this irrefutable position within the Islamic sciences, scholars have devoted considerable attention to this discipline. They have developed various schools and methods within this field and have experienced significant differences of opinion regarding the principles and rules established by these schools. These methodological differences often reflect deeper philosophical and theological perspectives that influence how jurists perceive the sources of law and their application. These disagreements have, in turn, influenced the rulings derived from the sources. Islamic legal theorists have placed great emphasis on the meanings of words because the lawgivers intent first revealed through language. Consequently, the subject of linguistic indications has occupied a significant place in the foundational works of this science. Detailed discussions have been devoted to topics such as the methods by which words indicate legal rulings, the classification of these indications, their varieties, and examples. These discussions are critical because they directly impact the interpretation of the texts, influencing how jurists derive legal rulings that are meant to be applied in various contexts. Disputes have also arisen in some of these areas. Among the issues related to linguistic indications, the method known as argumentum a contrario has been particularly prominent. The debates surrounding this method have not only necessitated its methodological foundation but have also led to substantial disagreements within Islamic legal methodology and law itself.

 The undeniable merit and central role of Islamic legal methodology in accurately understanding the Quran and Sunnah, and in deriving rulings from these sources in line with the will of the Divine Legislator, Almighty Allah, is a well-established fact among the Islamic sciences. This field serves as the foundational framework that guides Islamic jurists in their interpretation and application of religious texts, ensuring that their rulings align with the overarching objectives of Sharia. Due to this irrefutable position within the Islamic sciences, scholars have devoted considerable attention to this discipline. They have developed various schools and methods within this field and have experienced significant differences of opinion regarding the principles and rules established by these schools. These methodological differences often reflect deeper philosophical and theological perspectives that influence how jurists perceive the sources of law and their application. These disagreements have, in turn, influenced the rulings derived from the sources. Islamic legal theorists have placed great emphasis on the meanings of words because the lawgivers intent first revealed through language. Consequently, the subject of linguistic indications has occupied a significant place in the foundational works of this science. Detailed discussions have been devoted to topics such as the methods by which words indicate legal rulings, the classification of these indications, their varieties, and examples. These discussions are critical because they directly impact the interpretation of the texts, influencing how jurists derive legal rulings that are meant to be applied in various contexts. Disputes have also arisen in some of these areas. Among the issues related to linguistic indications, the method known as argumentum a contrario has been particularly prominent. The debates surrounding this method have not only necessitated its methodological foundation but have also led to substantial disagreements within Islamic legal methodology and law itself.

 Bu makalede, İslam hukukunda kaynaklardan hüküm çıkarma yöntemi olarak kullanılan ve epistemolojik değeri üzerine ciddi tartışmalara yol açan, aynı zamanda birçok fıkhî ihtilafın kaynağı olan mefhum-i muhalefet yönteminin, İslam hukukçuları arasındaki görüş ayrılıkları doğrultusunda zaman içinde geçirdiği evrim incelenmektedir. Bu bağlamda mefhum-i muhalefet yöntemine yönelik tutarsızlık eleştirilerinin akabinde yöntemin ıslahı için getirilen şartların mefhum-i muhalefet yöntemini bir ayrık şartlı kıyasa çevirdiği iddia edilmektedir. Mefhum-i muhalefet, metinde belirtilen bir ifadenin zıddından hüküm çıkarma yöntemiyken ayrık şartlı kıyas, bir hükmün belirli şartlar altında geçerliliğini analiz etmek için kullanılan bir yöntem ve bir mantık terimidir. İslam hukukçuları Arapça olarak bu yöntemi sebr ve taksim şeklinde ifade etmişlerdir. Makalede bu iki kavram kısa bir şekilde tanıtıldıktan sonra İslam hukukçularının mefhum-i muhalefet yönteminin epistemolojik değerine yönelik yaklaşımları, yönteme yöneltilen eleştiriler ve bu eleştirilere bir aksülamel olarak getirilen çözümler, klasik İslam hukuk usulü eserlerinde, karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenerek mefhum-i muhalefet yönteminin nasıl bir ayrık şartlı kıyas formuna dönüştüğü gözler önüne serilmek istenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, mefhum-i muhalefet yönteminin, lafzın bir delaleti ve bağımsız bir yöntem olarak sunulmasına karşın, bu yöntemin savunucuları tarafından lafzın bir delaleti olmaktan çıkarıldığı ve bağımsız bir yöntem olma vasfını kaybettirildiği iddia edilmektedir. Böylece, farklı ekollerin etkileşimlerinin hüküm çıkarma araçlarına katkıları incelenmekte ve İslam hukukunda analitik düşünme ile hüküm çıkarma süreçlerine dair derinlemesine bir bakış açısı sunulması amaçlanmaktadır.

Makale detayları

The Dynamics of the Evolution of Argumentum a Contrario (Mafkhūm al-Mukhālafa) Method into Disjunctive Conditional Syllogism (Al-Sabr wa'l-Taqsim)

Yazarlar:

Mahmud Muhammed Özdemir

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 50, pp.495-516

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001333757

pISSN:

2146-9806

Islamic Legal Methodology

Argumentum a Contrario

Disjunctive Conditional Syllogism

al- Sabr waİslam Hukuk Usulü

Mefhum-i Muhalefet

Ayrık Şartlı Kıyas

a contrario

sebr ve taksim

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Mahmud Muhammed Özdemir

Yayıncı: Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 50, pp.495-516

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001333757

pISSN: 2146-9806

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Mahmud Muhammed Özdemir

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 50, pp.495-516

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001333757

pISSN:

2146-9806