Author
PEŞE, Ahmet Muhammet
Publication Place
University of Afyon Kocatepe -
University of Afyon Kocatepe
Subject
Bank notes, Currency question, Islamic law, Legal tender, Paper money
Type
kitap
Language
ara,eng
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Leitir Library
Library Asset ID
ISSN: 2757-8399, EISSN: 2757-8399, DOI: 10.52637/kiid.987891
Record ID
cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_b6302df6db3c4d019fa61ca9e2e491a0
Library Location
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Notes
Today, there is a difference of opinion on whether inflation should be taken into account when paying fiat debts. Those who defend the view that inflation should be taken into account often cite Imam Abu Yusuf's view that fels debts should be paid based on the dirham value. According to them, today's nominal currencies are the same as fels. Those who oppose taking inflation into account are of the opinion that fiat currencies cannot be included within the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's opinion. The debate largely stems from uncertainty as to whether present-day fiat currencies fall within the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view. Therefore, in order to contribute to the discussion, it is of great importance to determine what the cause and scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's opinion is. The main goal of this research is to determine the cause of Imam Abu Yusuf's view and to clearly reveal the scope of his view. In order to achieve the goal, first of all, the opinions put forward in the classical fiqh literature regarding the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view were examined separately. In the light of these opinions, it has been tried to reach a conclusion about what the reason and scope of the provision is and finally whether today's fiat currencies can be included in the scope. Various views were put forward in the classical period about the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view in terms of the cause and subject of the debt. According to the dominant opinion in the Hanafi sect, the scope of the debt in terms of its cause is limited to sales contracts and qard. Contrary to the findings of some contemporary researchers, debts caused by extortion and extinguishment are not included in the scope. According to some Hanafi scholars such as Ebussuûd el-Mısri, the scope of the debt in terms of its subject is limited to felt debts. Ibn Abidin, on the other hand, is of the opinion that in addition to the fels, magshush coins with a high contribution rate are also included in the scope. In this respect, the approach of some contemporary researchers, especially Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen, that cashier and keyli property debts are included in the scope is not accurate. Those who consider fiat currencies to be the same as fels in terms of inflation think that the reason why Imam Abu Yusuf, unlike other currencies, takes the dirham value into consideration, especially in fels debts, is because fels were not created as money. However, the feature of not being created as money is not appropriate for the decision that inflation should be taken into account, nor is it a feature that affects the decision. As a matter of fact, if it had an effect on the ruling, the same ruling should have been valid, for example, in the wheat debt given as qard or in the debts of fels whose reason was usurpation. The reason why inflation is taken into account in Fels debts and the payment is made based on the dirham value is due to the fact that Fels are coins that supplement the fraction of dirhams, which was the main currency at that time. In other words, the reason why inflation is taken into account in fels debts and the payment is made based on the dirham value is that fels are auxiliary currencies traded in dirham value. The use of fes as an auxiliary currency that supplements the fraction of dirhams makes it possible to determine that they are traded at their dirham value. On the other hand, according to Imam Ebû Yûsuf, the fact that the fels debts were paid based on the dirham value, not the dinar or any other commodity value, clearly shows that the fels were traded on the dirham value at that time. Since this determined reason is a characteristic that is suitable for the ruling and affects the ruling, it can be explained why the payment for fels debts is made based on the dirham value, not dinars or any other property value, and the reason why the same provision is not valid for wheat debts given as qard or fels debts whose reason is usurpation becomes clear. In addition, the fact that Imam Abu Yusuf's opinion is not mentioned in many Hanafi fiqh works can be explained by the fact that fels became the main currency from time to time. It is not appropriate for those who defend the view that inflation should be taken into account in fiat currency debts, which are used as the primary currency today, to cite Imam Abu Yusuf's view specific to fels. Today, there is a disagreement as to whether inflation should be taken into account while paying fiat money debts or not. Those who defend the view that inflation should be taken into account while paying fiat money debts, mostly refer to Imam Abu Yusuf's view that full debts should be paid with its dirham value. According to these scholars, contemporary fiat moneys are the same as fulus in the past. Those who oppose the consideration of inflation are of the opinion that fiat money cannot be included in the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view. The disagreement to a large extend stems from the uncertainty as to whether contemporary fiat moneys fall within the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view. Therefore, in order to contribute to the discussion, it is of great importance to determine the cause and scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view. The main aim of this research is to determine the cause of Imam Abu Yusuf's view and to clearly reveal the scope of his view. In order to achieve the goal, first of all, the views put forward in the classical fiqh literature regarding the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view in terms of the reason and subject of the debt were examined separately. In the light of these views, it has been tried to reach a conclusion about what the cause and scope of the provision is and finally whether today's nominal money can be included in the scope. Various opinions have been put forward in the classical period about the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf's view in terms of the reason and subject of the debt. The scope of the debt in terms of the reason is limited to the contract of sale and qard (loan), according to the prevailing opinion in the Hanafi school. Contrary to the findings of some contemporary researchers, debts caused by usurpation are not included in the scope. The scope of the debt in terms of the subject, according to some Hanafi scholars such as Abu al-Suud al-Misri, is limited to full debts. Ibn Abidin is of the opinion that in addition to the fulus, the billon that has a high copper rate is included in the scope. For this reason, it is not appropriate for some contemporary researchers especially Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen to include goods sold by weight measure or capacity measure (vazni and kayli) in the scope. Those who consider fiat coins to be the same as fulus in terms of inflation think that the dirham value is taken into account by Imam Abu Yusuf, especially in fulus debts, because the fulus were not created as money. However, the feature of not being created as money is not appropriate for the provision that inflation should be taken into account, and it is not a feature that affects the provision. If it had an effect on the provision, it should have been valid for wheat debts or used fulus. In our opinion, the fact that inflation is taken into account in full debts and the payment is made with its dirham value is due to the fact that fulus are coins that complete the fraction of dirhams, which was the main currency of that period. In other words, the reason why inflation is taken into account in fulus debts and the payment is made with its dirham value is that the fulus are secondary coins traded with its dirham value. The use of fulus as secondary coins that completes the fraction of dirhams makes it possible to determine that they are traded with dirham value. In addition, the fact that the dirham value, not the dinar or other property value, was taken while paying the fulus debts according to Imam Abu Yusuf, clearly shows that the fulus were traded with dirham value at that time. Since this qualification is suitable for and affecting the provision, it can be explained why the payment in fulus debts is made with its dirham value rather than the dinar or other property values and it turns out that the reason why the same provision is not valid for wheat debts or used fulus. In addition, the fact that the opinion of Imam Abu Yusuf is not mentioned in many Hanafi fiqh books can be explained by the fact that fulus have become the main currency from time to time. As a result, it is not appropriate for those who support the view that inflation should be taken into account in fiat money debts, to cite Imam Abu Yusuf's specific view about fulus.
Detaylı Başlık
Hanefî Hukuk Düşüncesinde Enflasyonun Borca Etkisi
