İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi

Öz

It is a fact that criticism was made against the Hanafi school since its emergence. Objections were raised to Hanafis on various issues, especially “acting based on personal opinions”, “not knowing hadith”, “not acting with solitary hadiths”, “judging based on juristic preference”, both in the setting of dispute and in scholarly works. In addition to proper objections made in accordance with scholarly methods, those that were not so may also be encountered. Today, the presence of this issue is also noted in the Usul al-fiqh books, which are mostly prepared in the form of textbooks. Aside from how appropriate it is to include such criticisms in such books, it is also a matter of debate that they are often subjective.
One of the books that bear the feature we are talking about is the work “Usul al-fiqh al-Islami” written by Zakiyuddin Shaban. This work was translated into Turkish by Ibrahim Kafi Dönmez, and since 1990, when it was published, it became one of the most followed textbooks in the courses ıf methodology of Islamic jurisprudence taught at faculties of theology. It is seen that some of the criticisms included in the work about some of the methodical views of the Hanafis are not accurate and are not made appropriately. In addition, it is noteworthy that there are a number of subjective assessments against the methodical views of the Hanafis in this book.
The main purpose of the works prepared as textbooks is to teach the basic issues of the related branch of science. Therefore, although different opinions are expressed on controversial issues, the examination of their basis and making a choice between opinions are generally not included. That is why such details are revealed by separate studies, as they require special research and examination. In addition, the criticism of one of the conflicting opinions and the inclusion of subjective evaluations in these criticisms from time to time may be beyond the mentioned main goal. This can cause question marks or even misinformation about the relevant opinions in students’ minds when it comes to a course, such as the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence, which is mostly studied by theology students for the first time. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate these criticisms of Zakiyuddin Shaban to the Hanafis in his book of Usul al-fiqh.
In short, Zakiyuddin Saban criticized the Hanafis in his work especially regarding the following points: Procedural rules of Hanafis are not stable in the formation process and were subject to changes over time, again, while the rules of jurisprudential methodology were being established; there was a concern not to contradict the intra-sectarian views, and these rules were not determined by objective criteria; Hanafis acted contrary to their own rules regarding the evidentiary value of the solitary hadiths; the examples of silent consensus described in Hanafi fiqh do not conform to the understanding of consensus in the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence; it is not reasonable for them to distinguish between fard and wajib; there are sometimes inaccurate examples in Hanafi books of Islamic jurisprudence; and finally, they made improbable interpretations. In this article, these criticisms have been evaluated in the light of prominent Hanafi books of methodology of Islamic jurisprudence and substantial Islamic law.
The main purpose of this article is primarily to reveal the erroneous aspects of the Zakiyyuddin Shaban’s objections against the Hanafi views mentioned in the book by presenting their original form as they were mentioned in the Hanafi sources; in addition, to draw attention to such points that may cause prejudiced information about Hanafi method especially for students in faculties of theology, and to emphasize that it would not be appropriate to include subjective evaluations in textbooks. For this reason, the criticisms of the author that are not considered accurate are handled separately and evaluated in the light of the information in the sources of Hanafi methods.
The study shows that a biased view of the Hanafi school that has existed in minds throughout history is also found in some authors today, and this is reflected in their works. On the other hand, it is believed that some Hanafi views in the field of both methodology of Islamic jurisprudence and substantial Islamic law are not fully understood. It is also seen that some of the views of the Hanafis are evaluated not by their own methodological understanding, but rather by the methodological understanding of the majority. This situation, which is mentioned together with the biased point of view, stands as an obstacle before proper understanding of the methodical views of the Hanafis.