Person: UĞUR, SEYİT MEHMET
Loading...
Email Address
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
UĞUR
First Name
SEYİT MEHMET
Name
3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Publication Definitiveness of proof of haram and hukm of its denial in the hanafi school(Bursa Ilahlyat Vakfi, 2016-06-01) Ugur, Seyit Mehmet; UĞUR, SEYİT MEHMET; İlahiyat Fakültesi; İslam Hukuku Bölümü; 0000-0002-3158-1050; JCN-7975-2023In Islamic law, knowledge of haram as a judgement (hukm) category is as important as determining the deeds that are haram. Accordingly, work on usul al-fiqh describes the concept of haram from several perspectives. Pursuant to some classical Hanafi work on usul al-fiqh and certain modern usul studies, the common Hanafi view is that proof for prohibition must be definitive to determine what is haram and its denier is subjected to excommunication (takfir). Nevertheless, based on a general approach in classical Hanafi work on usul al-fiqh and the use of the.aram concept in furu' books, it is impossible to accept the foregoing view as the absolute or preferable opinion in the Hanafi school. This study discusses the correctness of this relation for the foregoing approach to the Hanafi school through the following claim: According to common Hanafi view, definitiveness of proof, which signifies prohibition, is not necessary for determining haram; it can be equally determined through speculative proof. Thus, it is impossible to declare someone unbeliever unless he / she denies a haram with definitive proof.Publication A study on the nature of the term A.l and functions of usul in al-jassas's sharhu muhtasar al-tahavi(Hitit Üniversitesi, 2021-01-01) Uğur, Seyit Mehmet; UĞUR, SEYİT MEHMET; İlahiyat Fakültesi; İslam Hukuku Bölümü; 0000-0002-3158-1050; JCN-7975-2023A.l (plural: u.ul) is one of the central terms used in Islamic Law with different meanings and purposes. The first works identifying and compiling the usul accepted as the basis of the provisions of the Hanafi madhhab began to appear in the 4th/10th century. The first work we have on this subject is Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi's Ri.ala fi'l-U.ul, which contains some general principles regarding usul and furu. It is seen that determining the usul is a central issue in the works of Ja..a., who was a student of al-Karkhi. His work al-Fusul fi'lusul is the first book to identify the usul of the Hanafi madhhab in the context of islamic legal methodology. Ja..a. gave great importance to determine the usul of the madhhab in his works on furu, for example, he used the "a.l" effectively and intensively in Shar.u Mu.ta.ar al-Ta.avi.It is important to identify the usul that are influential in a Hanafi madhhab one by one, and it is also important to determine the nature and function of these u.ul. Because obtaining a holistic knowledge about the u.ul, depends on knowing their nature and function. In this study, the nature of term a.l that used in Shar.u Mu.ta.ar al-Ta.avi and the functions of usul are examined. Ja..a. uses the a.l in the sense of sharia evidence, the main evidence (rajih) that is preferred in case of conflict of evidences, maqisun `aleyh, `illa, legal provision, legal maxims of fiqh and usul al-fiqh. Most of the a.l in the meaning of usul al-fiqh's legal maxims are related to conflict and preference between proofs, the conditions of accepting the hadiths and qiyas. Sometimes it is also possible to mean more than one of these meanings of the term a.l at the same time. The term usul which is the plural form of the a.l, is often used in the sense of fiqh rule, and sometimes in the sense of nas and ijma.It is seen that the term u.ul, which means fiqh rule, is used for the basic issues of fiqh and the provisions related to them, which Hanafi jurists or jurists in general are allied with. It is seen that the usul in Ja..a.' mentioned work have different functions. The first of these is to justify the legal provision adopted and to prove that the opposing view is wrong. Sometimes multiple a.l are operated together to justify a judgment. The usul are a criterion for the acceptance of the hadith. Ja..a. presents the contradiction to the a.l as the reason for rejecting the hadiths, on the other hand, he draws attention to the difference between "conformity with the u.ul" and "conformity to the qiyas al-u.ul" in accepting hadiths. Likewise, "witness of the u.ul/" is used when choosing between the hadiths that are in conflict. It is seen that the usul whose testimonies are consulted are the sharia evidences about particular issues or the provisions derived from these evidences rather than general principles.Another purpose of the usul in the aforementioned book is to establish the connection between particular provisions and general principles by pointing out the general principles underlying the particular provisions. In this way, it is revealed that sectarian accumulation is a consistent and holistic structure built on some general principles. Identifying the origins of the disputes among the jurists and also explaining why the provisions of similar issues are different are important functions of the u.ul. The usul are also operated in intra- madhhab preferences and also when determining who an opinion belongs to.Publication Criticisms of Ali Haydar Efendi on majalla al-ahkam al-'Adliyyah(Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, 2021-12-01) Çetinkaya, Ahmet; Uğur, Seyit Mehmet; UĞUR, SEYİT MEHMET; İlahiyat Fakültesi; İslam Hukuku Ana Bilim Dalı; 0000-0002-3158-1050; JCN-7975-2023Majalla al-Ahkam al-'Adliyyah, which is the first example of codification based on Islamic law, has been the subject of criticism from different angles in terms of its preparation and content. The main reasons for criticism are following the casuistic method, being limited to the Hanafi sect, and therefore, the regulations on some issues not meeting the needs of the period, and the lack and excesses that do not comply with the content of the civil law. The commentator of the Majalla, 'Ali Haydar Efendi, also criticized Majalla from different angles. In this study, it was aimed to identify, describe, and classify Ali Haydar Efendi's critics of the Majalla, and -with some exceptions- no evaluation was made about the criticism of the commentator. Ali Haydar Efendi, the author of the most comprehensive and famous commentary of the Majalla, Dureru'l-hukkam, criticized the Majalla both in terms of law technique and content, justified his criticisms, and offered alternative suggestions regarding the issues he criticized. Although Ali Haydar Efendi criticized an item for only one reason, he criticized some items from more than one point of view. In the article, each of the criticisms of Ali Haydar Efendi on the Majalla's items is discussed under a separate heading, and the items criticized from more than one point of view are discussed under a separate heading and exemplified as much as possible. His criticisms of the Majalla in terms of law technique are as follows: The statements of the items are prone to making wrong judgments, not of a general nature, the concepts are not used appropriately, both the concepts and the items are not compatible with each other and with the fiqh books, having some missing, unnecessary or incorrect statements in the items, and the lack of records in the statements. Among the criticisms made in terms of content, first of all, the fact that the provision contained in the article is contrary to the ruling in the fiqh books or the view of the sect should be mentioned. Some of the criticisms in terms of content are related to the preferences made while preparing the Majalla. In this context, it has been the subject of criticism that some of the preferred views are not suitable for the needs of the period or the preferred view in the madhhab, conflicting between preferences from time to time, and not making a choice in some controversial issues. The existence of provisions that do not comply with the requirements of the time, and the asl-far'incompatibility is another reason for criticism. In such criticisms, the suitability of the content of the law with the madhhab books in various aspects has been tried to be revealed, and inappropriate aspects have been criticized. However, 'Ali Haydar Efendi also pointed out that the text of the law should be prepared by making use of the provisions of different madhhabs, since it does not meet the needs of the time, although it is in accordance with the provisions of the madhhab. 'Ali Haydar Efendi also criticized the Majalla in terms of missing some issues or not being regulated sufficiently, and included provisions regarding the qard contract and crimes against animals, which were not dealt with even though they should have been included in the Majalla. However, he never touched upon the subjects of consumption and riba, which were not dealt with in the Majalla, although they should have been.'Ali Haydar Efendi said that there is a deficiency in the items dealing with subjects such as luqata and hacr, since some conditions regarding these issues are not included. 'Ali Haydar Efendi also criticizes the Majalla in terms of the contradiction between the provisions contained in the items; the lack of unity in language, style and terminology among the items; and unnecessary repetitions both between the items and within the items. 'Ali Haydar Efendi, who did not make any criticism about the repetitions due to the fact that the Majalla was prepared with the casuistic method, justified or criticized the other repetitions and offered suggestions to avoid such repetitions. Also, according to him, there are deliberate repetitions in the Majalla. In addition, he also criticized the Majalla from a systematic point of view, such as the incompatibility of the title and content, the arrangement of similar subjects in different chapters/items/paragraphs, or the handling of different subjects in the same chapter/item/paragraph. Another criticism of 'Ali Haydar Efendi about the Majalla is about definitions. He criticizes the definitions made as not being collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive and not being in the definition technique such as the tautology, but also on the grounds that it is not comprehensive, contrary to the method followed in other definitions made in the Majalla, and not being included in the fiqh books.