Author
ÜNÜGÜR TEKİN, Peyman
Publication Place
Hits University -
Hits University
Subject
Hittite Journal of Theology, 2022-12, Vol.21 (2), p.1127-1160
Type
Book
Language
ara,eng
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Leitir Library
Library Asset ID
ISSN: 2757-6949, EISSN: 2757-6949, DOI: 10.14395/hid.1162640
Record ID
cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_e591dc83776c4ac8944d5f104200712d
Library Location
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals (WRLC)
Notes
The allocation of the whole of the Qur'an through the unified news is an issue that is discussed under a separate heading in almost all the methodological works and is the subject of disputes between sects. While some sects/schools do not allow this due to the speculative character of the khabar-i wahid, the majority, who consider the act of khabar-i wahid in the category of necessity, consider this necessary. While different views on the distribution of the whole of the Qur'an through Haber-i Vâhid are discussed in the methodological books written by Sunnis and in contemporary studies on the subject, it has been determined that the views of scholars belonging to the Imamiyya Shia are not included - except for exceptions. This situation prevents the issue from being presented in a holistic manner. In the context of contributing to the elimination of this deficiency, in this study, Imamiyya Shiite approach to the subject is discussed specifically in Usulism. In the Usul works written by authors belonging to the Imamiyya, both Sunni and Shiite views on the subject are included, but a detailed analysis of the different views within Usulism and the factors that reveal them is not made. Therefore, while the subject was discussed specifically in Usulism, it was aimed to identify the different views of Shiite Usulis regarding the allocation of the whole of the Qur'an, to present them in detail, and to determine when, where and with what motives these views emerged. There were paradigm changes from time to time in the approach of Usulism, which emerged in the 4th century Hijri, to procedural issues. As a result of this, it was determined that three different views emerged on the issue of khabar-i vâhidle allocation and the subject was examined around these views. The three opinions in question are; It is in the form of absolutely opposing the allocation, allowing the allocation and accepting the allocation in the context of general knowledge. The first of these belongs to the Baghdad usulis, who were extremely close to the Ahl al-Ray line and lived under the rule of the Shiite Buwayhid. The second view is that of the Usûlî scholars (Hille School) who were active in Hille during the Ilkhanid period, after a period of stagnation of two centuries. The last view belongs to the late usulis, who, after a period of approximately two centuries in which the akhbari approach dominated Imami thought, became dominant in Shiite thought again, but took on a conciliatory character under the influence of the akhbari approach. These views are discussed through the period in which they emerged and the works of the most influential scholars of the school. The scholar from the Baghdad School who is against Tahsîs, whose views have been examined in detail, is Ebû Ca'fer et-Tûsî (d. 460/1067). Apart from et-Tûsî, references are also made to the other two great scholars of the school, Ebû Abdullah (Sheikh) el-Müfîd (d. 413/1022) and Ebû'l-Kâsım (Şerîf) el-Murtazâ (d. 436/1044). Among those who permitted allocation, the first scholar to discuss it in detail under one title in his methodological works was İbnü'l-Mutahhar el-Hillî (d. 726/1325). While the second view is discussed within the framework of his procedural works, the influence of the Ahl al-Hadith/Shafi'i line, among the factors that revealed this view, is emphasized and Ibn al-Mutahhar's approach is presented comparatively with that of al-Midi, the leading Sunni scholar of the period. The last view emerges in parallel with the dominance of a general opinion regarding the authenticity of most hadith narrations in procedural thought. In this context, the approach of Murtazâ al-Ansari (d. 1281/1864) as the usûlî scholar who played the most role in increasing the information value of the narrations in the hadith works to the level of ilm-i ijmâl, was centered and the reflections of the acceptance of ilm-i ijmâl on the issue of allocation were tried to be determined. Three different views that emerged within Usûlîism The Baghdad School's view of allocation coincides with that of those who are absolutely opposed to allocation, among those mentioned in the Sunni classical fiqh works. However, their identities are not clearly stated in the procedural works. In the study, it was emphasized that the Sunni usulists meant Baghdad usulis with these views, and the fact that they did not make any reference to them was associated with political and sectarian attitudes. In addition, it is thought that the Baghdad Usûlîs' adoption of this view was influenced by the fact that they evaluated the action in the category of permissibility, not necessity, with the news of unity. The emergence of the second view, which allows allocation, has been evaluated as one of the indicators of the paradigm change in Imami thought from the line of ahl al-ray to the line of ahl al-hadith. Accordingly, since the Hille School, the usulis, who have come very close to the understanding of procedure in the line of ahl-i hadith, have adopted the view of the necessity of action through the unity of knowledge, and as a result, the way for the allocation of the Quran has been opened with it. The ahbari approach, which disrupted the procedural thought for about two centuries, was brought to the fore as the main factor in shaping the third view, which considers the allocation of the Qur'an through khabar al-wahid into the category of obligatory rather than permissible. The authority of khabar al-wāhid in specifying (takhṣīṣ ) the general meaning (‘umūm) of Qur'anic verses has been a common subject addressed in almost every uṣūl book and a controversial issue among Islamic schools. While some madhabs/schools do not accept the authority of such reports due to their probable character, most of the scholars, who regard acting in accordance with them as obligatory, approve of their authority. Even though various views on takhṣīṣ of ‘umūm al-Qur’an have been included in the uṣūl books of Sunnī scholars as well as in the contemporary works, the views of Imāmī scholars have been ignored with a few exceptions. This creates an obstacle to a comprehensive analysis of the issue. As an attempt to overcome that obstacle, the present study examines the Shi‘i Imāmī approach to the issue with a particular focus on the views of the uṣūlī school. On the other side, the uṣūls written by Imāmī scholars refer both to Shi‘ī and Sunnī views in analyzing the issue, yet they provide neither a detailed analysis of the different opinions among uṣūlī tradition nor the factors as the causes of these differences. So the present study gives a thorough analysis of the views of Shi‘ī uṣūlī scholars on takhṣīṣ of ‘umūm al-Qur’an through khabar al-wāhid as well as investigates when, where, and under which circumstances these views were formed.After its emergence in the 4th hijrī century, there have occasionally been paradigm shifts concerning the Uṣūlīyya's approach to the uṣūl subjects. In this article, it is claimed that three different views emerged in the uṣūlī thought concerning takhṣīṣ with khabar al-wāhid as a result of these paradigm shifts. There are three main uṣūlī views on the issue, namely, rejecting specification through khabar al-wāhid altogether, approving it in the context of jawāz or approving it in the context of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī and wujūb. The first view belongs to Baghdad uṣūlī scholars who lived under the Shi‘ī Buwayhī Dynasty and whose views bear considerable similarities to those of ahl al-ra'y. The second view is endorsed by uṣūlī scholars centered around Hilla, who became active during the Ilkhanid period after two hundred years of stagnation. The third view belongs to late period uṣūlī scholars who became dominant again in Shi‘a tradition after approximately two centuries of akhbārī predominance in Imāmī thought. This study addresses the views in question by a reference to the works of the prominent scholars of the respective formation periods. The representative of the first view, whose views are analyzed in detail in this article, is Abû Ja‘far al-Tūsī (d. 460/1067). The article also refers to the views of two other prominent scholars, namely, Abu ‘Abdallah al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) and Abu al-Qāsım al-Murtadha (d. 436/1044). The uṣūlī scholar who approved the use of khabar al-wāhid in takhṣīṣ by being the first scholar in his tradition to elaborate on the issue in his works under an independent title was Ibn al-Mutahhar al-Hillī (d. 726/1325). So, the second view is discussed mainly considering his works as well as in relation to the impact of ahl al-hadith school as a factor in the formation of this view, and Ibn al-Mutahhar's approach along with that of a prominent Sunnī scholar of that period, viz., al-Āmidī, are comparatively presented. The third view emerged in parallel with the emergence of a general conviction on the reliability of most of the Hadith reports. Accordingly, the approach of the uṣūlī scholar Murtadha al-Ansārī (d. 1281/1864) in virtue of being the most influential uṣūlī scholar in raising the epistemic value of the hadith reports from zannī to the degree of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī and the implications of the endorsement of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī regarding takhṣīṣ are investigated.The views of the Baghdad school on takhṣīṣ appear to overlap with those of the scholars who are mentioned in classical uṣūl al-fıqh works as strictly rejecting takhṣīṣ. However, the identity of these scholars is not clearly stated in these works. In this article, it is argued that the reason for the lack of any explicit reference to the Baghdad uṣūlī scholars might be due to the political and denominational rivalry. I also argue that Baghdad uṣūlī scholars are rejecting this kind of takhṣīṣ because of their approach to khabar in which acting with khabar al-wāhid is considered in the category of jawāz not wujūb. The emergence of the second view (approving takhṣīṣ in the context of jawāz) is considered in the present study as a result of a paradigm shift in Imāmī tradition from ahl al-ra'y thought to ahl al-hadith thought. Along with that paradigm shift as of Hilla school, uṣūlī scholars accept acting with khabar al-wāhid in the category of wujūb, and eventually, it opens the way for takhṣīṣ with khabar al-wāhid.
Detaylı Başlık
İmâmiyye Şîası'nda Umûmu’l-Kur’an’ın Haber-i Vâhidle Tahsîsi -Usûlîlik Özelinde
