Osmanlı’da usûl-i fıkıh geleneği üzerine izlenimler
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2021
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İbn Haldun Üniversitesi Yayınları
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Osmanlı’da usûl-i fıkıh geleneği, İslâm düşüncesinin klasik sonrası dönemine tekabül eder. Bu dönemde Hanefî kimlikle öne çıkan Osmanlı ilim çevresinin temel kaynakları şüphesiz Hanefî-fukahâ geleneği idi. Pezdevî’nin (öl. 482/1089) Us??l’ü Osmanlı usûlcüleri için klasik dönemi temsil eden eser olurken, klasik sonrası dönemsden Ebü’l-Berekât en-Nesefî’nin (öl. 710/1330) Men?r metni ile İbn Melek (öl. 821/1418’den sonra) şerhi, Abdülaziz el-Buhârî’nin (öl. 730/1330) Pezdevî’nin Us??l’üne yazdığı (öl. 730/1330) Keşfü’l-esr?r şerhi, Sadrüşşerîa’nın (öl. 747/1346) Ten???’i ve Tav?i? şerhi Osmanlı usûlcülerinin temel kaynakları olmuş-tur. Bu eserlerden özellikle Tav?i? ile Teftâzânî’nin (öl. 792/1390) yazdığı Telvi? hâşiyesi Osmanlı usûl geleneğini önemli ölçüde belirlemiştir. Tav?i? ve Telvi?’in Osmanlı ilim çevresinde nispeten fazla ilgi görmesinin sebebi klasik birikimi felsefe-mantık dili üzerinden ifade etmiş olmasıdır. Osmanlı’da usûl mesaisinin diğer önemli kaynağı ise mütekellim usûl gele-neğidir. Bu geleneğin klasik sonrası dönem otoritelerinden İbnü’l-Hâcib’in (öl. 646/1249) Muht?asar’ı, Adudüddîn el-Îcî’nin (öl. 756/1355) yazdığı şerh ile Cürcânî’nin (öl. 816/1413) söz konusu şerhe yazdığı hâşiye Osmanlı ilim geleneği için en önde gelen kaynaklar olmuştur. Cürcânî’nin bu hâşiyesi ile Teftâzânî’nin Telvîh?’i Osmanlı’da en çok hâşiyeye konu olan iki usûl eseridir ve bu eserler farklı yüzyıllarda Osmanlı medreselerinin müfre-datında yer almıştır. Osmanlı usûl geleneğinde kaleme alınan metinlere gelince, Molla Fenârî’nin (öl. 834/1431) Füs?lü’l-Bed?i‘i ile Kirmastî’nin (öl. 900/1494) Zübdetü’l-vüs?l’ünün konu tertibi ve içerdiği pek çok konu ile İbnü’l-Hâcib’in eserine yaklaştığı görülür. Molla Hüsrev’in (öl. 885/1480) Mir’?t’ı ile Ebû Saîd Hadimî’nin (öl. 1176/1762) Mec?mi‘u’l-h?ak?ik’i ise Hanefî-fukahâ geleneğine daha sadık bir görüntü çizer. Bununla birlikte her iki çizgide de felsefe-mantık dili hâkimdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, usûl-i fıkıh alanındaki ilmî mesaiden hareketle, üretilen metinlerin “memzûc” geleneğin devamı olup olmadığı, usûlde hâşiye yazımının ne anlama geldiği ve Osmanlı usûl düşünce-sinin orijinal olup olmadığı hakkında bazı sorgulamalar yapmaktır.
Ottoman era corresponds to the post-classical period of Islamic thought. In this era, the main sources of the Ottoman intellectual environment known by their Hanaf? identity were inherently the Hanaf?-jurists tradition of legal theory (tar?qah al-fuqah?). While Pazdaw?’s (d. 482/1089) Us??l was the representative work of the classical period for Ottoman theo-reticians, their primary post-classical sources included Eb?’l-Barak?t al-Na-saf?’s (d. 710/1330) Man?r and Ibn Malak’s commentary on it; Abd al-‘Az?z Bukh?r?’s (d. 730/1330) commentary, Kasf al-Asr?r, on Us?l; and Sadr al-shar?a’s (d. 747/1346) Tanq?h and its commentary, Tawdh?h. These works, especially Tawdh?h and its super commentary Talw?h ?by Taft?z?n? (d. 792/1390), had a significant impact on Ottoman tradition of legal theory. The reason that these two works attracted more attention in the Ottoman intellectual environment is that they employed a philosophical-logical language in their discussion of the classical scholarly heritage. Another important source of legal theory works in Ottoman Empire was the theologian tradition of legal theory (tar?qah al-mutakallim?n). Mukhtasar of Ibn al-H?jib (d. 646/1249), one of the post-classical authorities of this tradition, the commentary by Adud al-D?n al-?j? (d. 756/1355) on Mukhtasar and the super commentary written by Jurj?n? (d. 816/1413) on this commentary ranked among the main sources for Ottoman scholars. Hashiyah of Jurj?n? and Talw?h ?were two works in the field of Islamic legal theory on which the most glosses were written during the Ottoman period, and both were taught within the curriculum of Ottoman madrasas for centuries. As for the texts written in the Ottoman tradition of legal theory, it is seen that Molla Fen?r?’s (d. 834/1431) Fu??l al-bad?i‘ and Kirmast?’s (d. 900/1494) Zubdah al-Vu??l resemble to the theologian tradition of legal theory, particularly to Ibn al-H?jib’s work, in terms of their general structure and some of their content. On the other hand, Molla Khusraw’s (d. 885/1480) Mir’?t and Ab? Sa?d H?dim?’s (d. 1176/1762) Maj?mi‘ al-h?aq?iq appear more loyal to Hanaf? tradition. However, the philosophical-logical language is predominant in both streams. This study aims to inquire whether the texts written by Ottoman scholars can be characterized as “belonging to the eclectic (mamz?j) tradition”. It also tries to shed light on the question what it meant to write a gloss in the field of legal theory as well as to figure out whether or not the Ottoman heritage of legal theory made an original contribution to the Islamic legal theory.
Ottoman era corresponds to the post-classical period of Islamic thought. In this era, the main sources of the Ottoman intellectual environment known by their Hanaf? identity were inherently the Hanaf?-jurists tradition of legal theory (tar?qah al-fuqah?). While Pazdaw?’s (d. 482/1089) Us??l was the representative work of the classical period for Ottoman theo-reticians, their primary post-classical sources included Eb?’l-Barak?t al-Na-saf?’s (d. 710/1330) Man?r and Ibn Malak’s commentary on it; Abd al-‘Az?z Bukh?r?’s (d. 730/1330) commentary, Kasf al-Asr?r, on Us?l; and Sadr al-shar?a’s (d. 747/1346) Tanq?h and its commentary, Tawdh?h. These works, especially Tawdh?h and its super commentary Talw?h ?by Taft?z?n? (d. 792/1390), had a significant impact on Ottoman tradition of legal theory. The reason that these two works attracted more attention in the Ottoman intellectual environment is that they employed a philosophical-logical language in their discussion of the classical scholarly heritage. Another important source of legal theory works in Ottoman Empire was the theologian tradition of legal theory (tar?qah al-mutakallim?n). Mukhtasar of Ibn al-H?jib (d. 646/1249), one of the post-classical authorities of this tradition, the commentary by Adud al-D?n al-?j? (d. 756/1355) on Mukhtasar and the super commentary written by Jurj?n? (d. 816/1413) on this commentary ranked among the main sources for Ottoman scholars. Hashiyah of Jurj?n? and Talw?h ?were two works in the field of Islamic legal theory on which the most glosses were written during the Ottoman period, and both were taught within the curriculum of Ottoman madrasas for centuries. As for the texts written in the Ottoman tradition of legal theory, it is seen that Molla Fen?r?’s (d. 834/1431) Fu??l al-bad?i‘ and Kirmast?’s (d. 900/1494) Zubdah al-Vu??l resemble to the theologian tradition of legal theory, particularly to Ibn al-H?jib’s work, in terms of their general structure and some of their content. On the other hand, Molla Khusraw’s (d. 885/1480) Mir’?t and Ab? Sa?d H?dim?’s (d. 1176/1762) Maj?mi‘ al-h?aq?iq appear more loyal to Hanaf? tradition. However, the philosophical-logical language is predominant in both streams. This study aims to inquire whether the texts written by Ottoman scholars can be characterized as “belonging to the eclectic (mamz?j) tradition”. It also tries to shed light on the question what it meant to write a gloss in the field of legal theory as well as to figure out whether or not the Ottoman heritage of legal theory made an original contribution to the Islamic legal theory.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Osmanlı Düşüncesi, Hanefî-Fukahâ Usûl Geleneği, Klasik Sonrası Dönem, Şerh, Hâşiye, Ottoman Thought, Hanaf?-Jurists Tradition of Legal Theory, Post Classical Period, Commentary, Super-Commentary
Kaynak
İslâm’da Medeniyet Bilimleri Tarihi (1. Cilt)
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
Çelik. İ. R. (2021). Osmanlı’da usûl-i fıkıh geleneği üzerine izlenimler. R. Şentürk, A. Süruri, R. T. Kalyoncu, M. Sürün ve E. Morgül (Ed.). İslâm’da Medeniyet Bilimleri Tarihi (1. Cilt) içinde (227 - 258. ss.). İstanbul: İbn Haldun Üniversitesi Yayınları.
