A Researc On The Mamjūc Method In Writing Of Usūl Al-Fiqh: The Example of Ibn Al-Sāʻātī’s Nihāyat al-Wuṣūl Ilā ʻilm al-Uṣūl

Autor: Seyit Mehmet Uğur
Rok vydání: 2019
Předmět:
Zdroj: Bilimname: Düşünce Platformu, Vol 2019, Iss 38, Pp 689-724 (2019)
ISSN: 1304-1878
DOI: 10.28949/bilimname.611002
Popis: It is accepted that there are three methods in writing of usūl al-fiqh: Fuqahā, mutakallimīn and mamjūc method/tarīqa al-cemʻ. It is claimed that one of the main differences between the methods of fuqahā and mutakallimīn is related to the attitude of writers of usūl al-fiqh towards theological and fiqh issues. Accordingly, in the tarīqa al-mutakallimīn, theological terms and issues are handled a lot, but the issues related to furū al-fiqh are excluded. On the other hand, in the tarīqa al-fuqahā, theological issues are avoided to be dealt, while the furū al-fiqh issues are touched on more frequently. However, it can be said that it is not a difference in an essence but a degree. Because the authors writing the usūl al-fiqh by using the mutakallimīn method also complains about the discussion of the delicate theological issues in usūl al-fiqh books. For example, Abu’l-Huseyn al-Basrī, the author of Kitāb al-Muʻtemed fī usūl al-fiqh which is accepted as one of the four main Works of this method, aspires not to touch on “the delicate theological issues” in his Work as well. In addition, though not as much as in the Works of the mutakallimīn, it is seen that the theological subjects are mentioned in the Works written with the method of fuqahā too. The other difference that is claimed to be between the two methods is about the method and purpose of the determination and justification of principles’ usūl al-fiqh. A number of features related to this difference are mentioned in many studies in the modern period. It can be said that some of the features attributed to these two methods are disputable. The first book of usūl al-fiqh written by mamjūc method (the tarīqah al-cemʻ) is Muzaffer al-dīn Ibn al-Saʻatī's book called Nihayat al-wusul ila ʻilm al-usul. Ibn al-Saʻatī has written his Work on the basis of Usūl al-Pezdevī and Āmidī's al-Ihkām, which are the basic texts of the methods of fuqahā and mutakallimīn. Ibn al-Saʻatī says that he has prepared his book by summarizing al-Ihkām and adorning it with the valuable information available in Usūl al-Pezdevī. After pointing out the outstanding characteristics of both Works, he states that he has brought these two Works together for the reader, introduced the methods and terms of them and he made them suitable for use thanks to his book. In an atmosphere in which there was a dispute between the fiqh madhhabs on many issues about furū and usūl al-fiqh and, the madhhabs have gained stability in the furū and usūl al-fiqh, and an inter-sectarian legal reasoning is not acceptable; the questions such as “why mamjūc method emerges in a theoretical discipline such as usūl al-fiqh”, "What the purpose of this method is", “at what points and how the majc/combination occurs” are awaiting to be replied. One of the most important factors in the emergence of the mamjūc method is the relative deficiency that some Hanafi scholars have about the “plenary principles of usūl” or “rational principles” in the fuqahā method. For example, according to Ibn al-Saʻatī, the characteristic of al-Ihkam is that it includes the plenary principles of usūl, the characteristic of Usūl al-Pezdevī is that it contains the detail issues of furū al-fiqh. When this depiction is read from opposite aspect, it can be claimed Pezdevi's Work is not considered competent in terms of the plenary principles of usūl- at least as much as al-Ihkam- and this situation reveals a necessity of writing a new Work on usūl al-fiqh combining the successful aspects of the both. In fact, one of the main features of the mamjūc method is making the language of logic dominant over Hanafi usūl. It is known that during and before the period of Ibn al-Saʻatī, there were attempts to combine various scientific disciplines or establish close connections and common language between them. It is seen, at the end of the process initiated by Ghazâli, theology (kelam) and philosophy have been combined, philosophical-theology has emerged, logic has become the scientific language of Islamology. In our opinion, in the emergence of mamjūc method in writing usūl al-fiqh, the wish to apply this combination (mezc) process in the other Islamic sciences to usūl al-fiqh writing has been influential. On the other hand, - at least for Ibn al-Saʻatī's book called Nihayat al-wusūl - it does not seem possible to accept that the search for constructing the principles of usūl al-fiqh on the adopted theological (kelamī) principles, seeking the common grounds among the Sunni madhhabs; and the effort of reconciliation and the search for originality have been effective. Since al-Ihkam is largely determinant within the formation of the main chapters and subtitles of Nihayat al-wusūla, for the most part, the combination process is out of question in the subject sequence of the work. However, there are some examples showing that Usūl al-Pezdevī has been also taken into consideration in in this connection. When considered within the contents, it is seen that the process done in Nihâyetu’l-vusul, as the author himself expresses, is to combine the contents of Usulu’l-Pezdevi and el-Ihkâm –by focusing on the latter one more– compendiously. This summation reaches a level distorting meaning in various parts of it. It can be said that al-Ihkam’s being much more determinant in the subject sequence, content and method in Nihayat al-wusūl, has caused the Work to be closer to the mutakallimīn method. Mostly mutakallimīn scholars of usūl al-fiqh’s writing explanations on Nihayat al-wusūl can be commentated as a result or an indicator of it. Al-Ihkam’s being so much determinant in the content of Nihayat al-wusūl and the method used by Ibn al-Saʻatī during examination of the topics prevents the Work from conveying the issues in the Hanafi’s usūl al-fiqh completely and representing Hanafi’s usūl al-fiqh. Nihayat al-wusūl includes partly the characteristics of the fuqaha method in the sections summarized from Usūl al-Pezdevī and the characteristics of mutakallimīn method in the sections summarized from al-Ihkam. However, it is not possible to approve the widespread description in the modern period about mamjūc method that “firstly the intangible principles of usūl al-fiqh were determined from the Shari sources and later these principles were applied to the furūl al-fiqh” is valid for the whole Work. In other words, Ibn al-Saʻatī’s Work is far from combining all the characteristic features of the methods of fukaha and mutakallimīnin in all parts of the book. In fact, it is not realistic to expect all the features claimed to be in the methods fukaha and mutakallimīn to be combined in a single work. In Nihayat al-wusūl, languages and terms of logic are used especially on discussing contradictory documents and making definitions. The Work’s being too much compendious has not enabled “tahkīk method” to be reflected in it. In the definitions in Nihayat al-wusūl, there is an obvious decisiveness of Āmidī and Ibn al-Hajib. Therefore, it may be stated that the method of the mutakallimīn is preferred rather than combining the two methods within defining the terms. In our opinion, the most important reason for this is the fact that the definition technique and the rules of logic are paid more attention as compared with the Hanafi usūl al-fiqh Works written in pre-Ibn al-Saʻatī period. Although Ibn al-Saʻatī does not advert the name, it should be expressed that also Ibn al-Hajib's Mukhtasaral-Muntaha has been effective in the definition of the terms and it has been incorporated into the combining process. On the other hand, it seems that while defining the same term, Ibn al-Saʻatī’s taking the definitions of both scholars and Pezdevī and trying to reflect them in his work has caused some problems with regards to the system and coherency in Nihayat al-wusūl. Ibn al-Saʻatī does not hesitate to convey the issues disputed by the scholars of fukaha and mutakallimīn in his Work. It is clear that he does not aim to make a combination by ignoring or minimizing the contradictive issues. Additionally, he does not strive to reconcile and synthesize between the usūl al-fiqh principles of these two methods or search for another way. He always advocates the views of Hanafi scholars on controversial issues. Analyzing these issues, although he generally summarizes the content of al-Ihkam, he arranges it in a way presenting he supports the opinions of the Hanafis and prefers them.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: