Hanafi Usul Literature in Mamluk PeriodTuncay Başoğlu
Around eighty Usul works were written by Mamluk Hanafis. Although there is tremendous range in this literature, one of its distinguishing features is its concentration on a few key works. The overall tendencies in Hanafi Usul writing during the late classical (mutaakhkhirun) period, i.e., continuation of the Mawaraunnahr tradition on the one hand and adjustment efforts to Mutakallimun Usul on the other, can also be seen in Mamluk Hanafis’ writings. Besides, the issues that Mamluk scholarly environment brought up, were reflected in Usul works of Hanafis. However, with the exclusion of al-Kafiyaji, the literature on qawaid, adab al-fatwa, and ijtihad and taqlid developed later in Hanafis in opposition to other madhhabs that had writings on these titles in the Mamluk period. Throughout the 7th and 8th (13th and 14th) centuries, the prominent Hanafis of the Mamluk period overwhelmingly came to and settled in Mamluk lands from other places, particularly Central Asia and Anatolia. These scholars primarily studied and composed sharhs on Usul al-Pazdawi, as well as mukhtasars from the 7th/13th century. At this early phase, sharhs on al-Mughni of al-Khabbazi written by various scholars and sharhs on Usul al-Pazdawi written by al-Sighnaki and his successors constituted the backbone of Hanafi Usul writing. As for the 9th/15th century, the writings of Ibn al-Humam and his disciples constituted outstanding and mature examples. Although the Hanafi scholars of this last century knew the works and views of Sadr al-Sharia and al-Taftazani, no sharh–hashiya tradition developed among them, unlike their Ottoman contemporaries. A similar case is true for Sharh al-Mukhtasar of alIji. On the other hand, some scholars treated Hanafi and Shafii Usul views comparatively, following the path of Ibn al-Saati, as there were others who wrote sharhs on the works of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Ibn al-Hajib.
Memlükler Dönemi Hanefî Usul LiteratürüTuncay Başoğlu
Memlükler dönemi Hanefîleri seksen civarında usul eseri yazmışlardır. Bu usul yazımının temel hususiyetlerinden biri belirli eserler etrafında odaklanmasının yanısıra hatırı sayılır bir çeşitlilik de göstermesidir. Bir bütün olarak müteahhirûn dönemi Hanefî usul yazımındaki ana eğilimler -Maveraünnehir geleneğini sürdürme ve mütekellimûn yöntemine intibak çabaları- Memlük Hanefileri için de geçerlidir. Bunun yanısıra Memlük ilim ortamının getirdiği tartışmalar da kısmen Hanefî usul çalışmalarına yansımıştır, ancak -Kafiyeci’nin eserleri istisna edilirse- diğer mezheplerin aksine kavaid, fetva âdâbı, ictihad-taklid literatürünün Hanefîlerde daha geç bir dönemde geliştiği söylenebilir. 7./13. ve 8./14. yüzyıllar boyunca Memlük Hanefîleri’nin önde gelenleri, ağırlıklı olarak başka bölgelerden -özellikle Orta Asya’dan ve Anadolu’dan- gelerek Memlük topraklarına yerleşen âlimlerden oluşmaktadır. Bu alimler füruda ağırlıklı olarak Hidaye, usulde ise Pezdevî’nin usulü ile 7./13. yüzyılda telif edilen muhtasarlar üzerine çalışmışlardır. Bu dönemde Habbazî’nin Muğnisi üzerine yazılan şerhler ile Sığnakî ve haleflerinin Pezdevî usulüne şerhleri Hanefî usul yazımının belkemiğini oluşturur. 9./15. yüzyılda ise İbnu’l-Hümam ve öğrencilerinin eserleri, usul çalışmalarının zirvesini teşkil eder. 9./15. yüzyıl Memlük Hanefîleri her ne kadar Sadrüşşeria ve Taftazanî’nin eser ve görüşlerine vâkıf olsalar da söz konusu coğrafyada Osmanlılar’daki gibi bu eserler etrafında bir şerh – haşiye geleneği oluşmamıştır. Benzer bir durum Îcî’nin Şerhu’l-Muhtasar’ı için de geçerlidir. Öte yandan Memlük Hanefileri arasında İbnu’s-Saatî’nin açtığı yoldan giderek Hanefî ve Şâfiî usul görüşlerini karşılaştırmalı olarak işleyenler olduğu gibi, doğrudan Fahreddin er-Râzî veya İbnu’lHacib’in eserleri üzerine çalışma yapan âlimler de söz konusudur.
The aim of this article is to map out Usul studies of Hanafis of the Mamluk period. According to our findings, 43 Hanafi scholars wrote around 80 Usul works throughout that period. However, it is possible to find new Usul works through more research in the manuscript libraries or historical sources. I pointed out the status of these works, whether they are extant as manuscripts or printed or edited as part of dissertations, or not extant and mentioned only in the bio-bibliographical sources. Although more than half of the works in our list are extant now, few of them were published through the scholarly critical edition, few of them were studied by the researchers.
Even if they were raised in other locations, I included those scholars who lived and died in Mamluk lands. During the Mamluk period, many prominent Hanafis from Central Asia and Anatolia moved to and settled in Mamluk lands in the 7th and 8th (13th and 14th) centuries. These scholars mostly studied and wrote sharhs on al-Hidaya in furu al-fiqh, as well as Usul al-Pazdawi and mukhtasars written in the 7th/13th century in Usul al-fiqh (with the exception of al-Muntakhab of al-Ahsikati, on which very few commentary was produced in the Mamluk region). At this early phase, sharhs on al-Mughni of al-Khabbazi and al-Manar of al-Nasafi written by various scholars and sharhs on Usul al-Pazdawi written by al-Sighnaki and his successors constituted the backbone of Hanafi Usul writing. There were a few sharhs on the work of Ibn al-Saati, Iraqi Hanafi scholar of the 7th century, who wrote his Usul following the example of al-Amidi. As to the 9th/15th century, the writings of Ibn al-Humam and his disciples constituted the outstanding and mature examples in Usul.
Although this literature is known for its focus on some pivotal works, there is also a remarkable diversity, as evidenced by attempts to write new mukhtasars such as al-Shamil fi al-Usul by an unknown author, Quds al-Asrar by Ibn al-Rabwa al-Qunawi and works by Alauddin al-Turkmani. Some scholars, on the other hand, compared Hanafi and Shafii Usul viewpoints, following the path of Ibn al-Saati, like Jami al-Usul of Rukn al-Din al-Samarqandi and al-Tahrir of Ibn al-Humam, while others studied the writings of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Ibn al-Hajib.
Although the Hanafi scholars of the Mamluk period had known the works and views of Sadr al-Sharia al-Thani and al-Taftazani, no sharh and hashiya tradition developed among them, unlike their Ottoman contemporaries except Nuqrakar (Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Nisaburi) who wrote a commentary on al-Tanqih of Sadr al-Sharia, and Ibn Qutlubuga who wrote a hashiya on that commentary. A similar case is true for Sharh al-Mukhtasar of al-Iji. Although some Hanafis of this period wrote commentaries on al-Mukhtasar of Ibn al-Hajib, there is no such writing of hashiyas on the works of al-Iji, al-Taftazani, and Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjani. This is another difference from Ottoman Hanafi scholars.
The overall tendencies in Usul writing of Hanafis of the late classical (mutaakhkhirun) period, i.e., continuation of Mawaraunnahr tradition on the one hand and adjustment efforts to mutakallimun Usul on the other is recognizable in the writings of Mamluk Hanafis too. From the 8th century on, many of the Hanafi scholars –especially those coming from eastern lands– had a thorough training and competency in logic, mutaakhkhirun kalam, and falsafah, as we may see the outcomes of this knowledge in style and content of the writings of Siraj al-Din al-Ghaznawi al-Hindi, Ibn Mubarakshah, Nuqrakar, Ibn al-Humam, and al-Kafiyaji. Discussions on Kalami, logical, linguistic, and legal principles (muqaddimât) are examples of the novelties in Hanafi Usul writing of that period.
Furthermore, many of the issues that the Mamluk scholarly environment brought about, were mirrored in Usul works of Hanafis, but not all of them were evenly represented. Some scholars, such as Ibn al-Humam, debated matters such as ijtihad, taqlid, and intisab and intiqal (following a madhhab and transition to another one). Not all Hanafis tackled these matters in accordance with the Hanafi Usul tradition, but some of them did so as they were articulated in al-Amidi and later. We may add to this, mention of subsidiary or secondary sources like urf.
Effects of widespread hadith culture may be seen in the Usul and furu writings of Mamluk Hanafis. Besides this, criticism directed to Hanafis on issues related to hadith sciences triggered new works on hadith as well as more elaborated treatment of the related issues in Usul works. Moreover, there are some Hanafis of Ahl al-Hadith orientation like Sadr al-Din Ibn Abi’l-Izz and Shams al-Din al-Qunawi that have different approaches to some Usul issues like madhhab and taqlid, different than the main group of Hanafis. However, the literature on qawaid and adab al-fatwa developed later in Hanafis in opposition to other madhhabs that had writings on these titles in the Mamluk period.
In sum, there is a vast field of research and need for scholarly publication of manuscripts that call for the contribution of young scholars. Considering the reshaping of Hanafi Usul, especially in the 8th/14th century, together with the discussions on new legal issues and the issues brought by the legal practices of the Mamluk legal system, it is interesting to find out how Hanafis of this period interpreted the madhhab and contributed to it, and how their thoughts and approaches were reflected in the Ottoman scholars and other Hanafis of later periods.