A New Method of Legal Reasoning in the Ḥanafī School: Intra Madhhab Talfīq
Burak ErginLegal reasoning in the Ḥanafī School happened using various methods such as qiyas [analogy], istihsan [consideration of juristic preference], and takhrīj [deduction]. Another method is intra-madhhab talfıq [amalgamation]. Intramadhhab talfīq involves the creation of a new view by combining the views of two scholars within the same madhhab who’d expressed opposing views to one another. As stated in the relevant literature, intra-madhhab talfīq was used by the chief qadi of Damascus Tarsūsī in the 14th century as a method of legal reasoning. Qāsim b. Qatlūbaghā, who lived a century after Tarsūsī, criticized some muftis who proclaimed fatwās using talfīq as a method of legal reasoning, stating talfīq to be an invalid legal method. As for the 16th century, Shelebī and Ibn Nujaym used talfīq similar to Tarsūsī to solve certain issues related to endowments. By the 17th century, two jurists of the period, Shurunbulālī and Ibn Bīrī, touched upon this issue deeply in the treatises they wrote on the subject of moving from one madhab to another and talfīq. Both scholars objected to talfīq, stated this method to be unusable for solving fiqh issues. Another Ḥanafī scholar, Ibn ‘Ābidīn, tried to distinguish between intra-madhhab and inter-madhab. Therefore, this study examines the historical course of the debates on whether or not intra-madhhab talfiq is a usable method of jurisprudence with respect to the Ḥanafī School as well as its status during the Ottoman era.
Hanefi Mezhebinde Yeni Bir İstidlal Yöntemi: Mezheb İçi Telfik
Burak ErginHanefi mezhebi içerisinde fıkhî istidlal; kıyas, istihsân tahriç gibi yöntemler kullanılarak gerçekleşmektedir. Bu yöntemlerden biri de mezheb içi telfiktir. Mezheb içi telfik aynı mezheb içerisinde birbirine muhalif görüş beyan eden iki âlimin görüşünün birleştirilmesiyle her iki âlimin de söylemediği üçüncü yeni bir görüş ihdas edilmesi anlamına gelir. İlgili literatürde ifade edildiği üzere mezheb içi telfik, 8./14. yy.’dan itibaren fıkhi bir istidlal yöntemi olarak Şam baş kadılığı yapan Tarsûsî tarafından kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Ondan bir asır sonra Kasım b. Kutluboğa, mezheb içi telfiki kullanmak suretiyle fetva veren bazı müftüleri eleştirmiş ve bunun geçerli bir yöntem olamayacağını ifade etmiştir. 10./16. yy.’a gelindiğinde İbn Nüceym ve İbnü’ş-Şelebî mezheb içi telfiki kullanmak suretiyle vakıfla ilgili bazı fıkhî problemleri çözüme kavuşturmuştur. 11./17. yy.’a gelindiğine dönemin iki fakihi Şürünbülâlî ve Pîrîzâde mezhepler arası intikal ve telfik konusuyla ilgili telif ettikleri risalelerinde bu meseleye derinlemesine ele almışlardır. Her iki âlim de bu yöntemi eleştirmişler ve bunun fıkhi meselelerin çözümünde kullanılamayacağını ifade etmişlerdir. Mezheb içi telfikle ilgili tartışmaları göz önünde bulunduran İbn Âbidîn, mezheb içi telfiki, mezhepler arası telfikten ayırmaya çalışmıştır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma Hanefi mezhebine göre mezheb içi telfikin fıkhî bir istidlal yöntemi olup olamayacağı üzerine yapılan tartışmaların tarihî seyrini ve Osmanlılar dönemindeki durumunu kronolojik açıdan incelemeyi hedeflemektedir.
Legal reasoning in the Ḥanafī School occurred using various methods such as qiyas [analogy], istihsan [considerations of juristic preference], and takhrīj [deduction]. Another method was intra-madhhab talfiq [amalgamation], which involved the creation of a new view by combining the views of two scholars within the same madhhab who’d expressed opposing views to one another. As stated in the relevant literature, intra-madhhab talfīq was used by Tarsūsī, the chief qadi of Damascus in the 14th century, as a method of legal reasoning. Tarsūsī used the intra-madhhab talfīq method in his fatwas to solve an issue related to endowment. Qāsim b. Qatlūbaghā, who lived a century after Tarsūsī, criticized some muftis who’d proclaimed fatwas using talfīq as a method of legal reasoning, stating talfīq to be an invalid legal method. As for the 16th century, Shelebī and Ibn Nujaym used talfīq similar to Tarsūsī to solve certain issues related to endowments. After pointing out the different approaches between Tarsūsī and Qatlūbaghā regarding talfīq, Shelebī used Tarsūsī’s views on talfīq as a reference and proclaimed a fatwā related to endowment. Shelebī also stated that his fatwā is applicable in courts. Likewise, Ibn Nujaym expressed the view that endowments could be sold for money by using the intra-madhhab talfīq method. To justify this view, Ibn Nujaym cited some of Ibn al-Humām’s statements on the subject. Also in the 16th century and parallel to the Cairo area, intra-madhhab talfīq was used as a method for resolving fiqh issues in the geography of Anatolia and Rumelia. Shaykh al-Islām Ebu’s-su‘ud Efendi and Birgivī discussed intra-madhhab talfīq in the context of the problem of cash waqfs. Shaykh al-Islām Ebu’s-su‘ud Efendi used the intra-madhhab talfīq method by combining the views of Zufer and Imāmeyn, and this fatwa was approved by the sultan and became binding over Ottoman judges. This shayk explained the theoretical aspect and justification of this fatwa in his treatise on cash waqfs. Although Ebu’ssu‘ud stated that to not be talfīq because the judge’s decision on the disputed issue would make it an agreed-upon issue, his fatwā on this case was understood as talfīq in the later literature. Birgivī criticized Ebu’s-Su’ud’s justification by using the talfīq method in his treatise on cash waqfs. By the 17th century, the two jurists of the period, Shurunbulālī and Ibn Bīrī, touched upon this issue deeply in the treatises they wrote on the subject of moving from one madhab to another and talfīq. Both scholars objected to talfīq, stated this method to be unusable for solving fiqh issues. These two scholars brought up many arguments, especially from Ḥanafī fatwā works, to show the invalidity of intra-madhhab talfīq. In particular, one of the most important arguments they used involved the ijma [consensus] regarding the invalidity of talfīq. Moreover, both scholars criticized Tarsūsī’s fatwā and arguments regarding intra-madhhab talfīq. Another Ḥanafī scholar Ibn ‘Ābidīn tried to distinguish between intra-madhhab and inter-madhab talfiq. He stated intra-madhhab talfīq to not be talfīq, but rather that the views expressed within the Ḥanafī madhhab had been attributed to Abū Hanīfa. According to Ibn ‘Ābidīn, intra-madhhab talfīq is not a problem with regard to fiqh, despite talfiq occurring among other madhhabs. Therefore, this study examines the historical course of the debates on whether or not intra-madhhab talfiq is a usable method of jurisprudence according to the Ḥanafī School as well as its status during the Ottoman era. This study will comparatively examine classical texts and chronologically discuss the place intra-madhhab talfiq has had in the history of fiqh. The main claim of the article and the conclusion it has arrived at is that intra-madhhab talfiq had been used as a method of legal reasoning for resolving fiqh issues in the Ḥanafī madhhab since the 8th century AH/14th century AD and that literature full of serious debate has emerged around this theme over time.
