The Takhṣīṣ of ‘Umūm al-Qur’an with Khabar al-Wāhid According to Imāmīs -A Particular Focus on Uṣūlī School-

Ünügür Tekin, PEYMAN

doi:10.14395/hid.1162640

The Takhṣīṣ of ‘Umūm al-Qur’an with Khabar al-Wāhid According to Imāmīs -A Particular Focus on Uṣūlī School-

Ünügür Tekin P.

HITIT THEOLOGY JOURNAL, vol.21, no.2, pp.1127-1160, 2022 (ESCI, Scopus, TRDizin)

Publication Type: Article / Article
Volume: 21 Issue: 2
Publication Date: 2022
Doi Number: 10.14395/hid.1162640
Journal Name: HITIT THEOLOGY JOURNAL
Journal Indexes: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
Page Numbers: pp.1127-1160
Keywords: Hadith, Im?miyya, Us?liyya, Takhsis, Quran, Khabar al-W?hid
Open Archive Collection: AVESIS Open Access Collection
Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Affiliated: Yes

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 of Baghdad uṣūlī school, namely, Abû ‘Abdallah al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) ve Abu al-Qāsım el-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 el-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 (d. 631/1233), 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 rejectingtakhṣīṣ. 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. Finally, the significance of the akhbārī approach, which disrupted uṣūlī thought for two hundred years, is highlighted in terms of being the main factor in the formation of the third view. In this respect, I assume that after the decline of Akhbarism, the conciliatory attitude of the uṣūlī scholars to the akhbārī approach might have caused them to approve takhṣīṣ of ‘umūm al-Quran with khabar al-wāhid in the context of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī and wujūb.

Kur’an’ın umûmunun haber-i vâhidle tahsîsi, hemen bütün usul eserlerinde ayrı bir başlık altında ele alınan ve mezhepler arası ihtilaflara konu olan bir meseledir. Haber-i vâhidin zannî karakterinden dolayı bazı mezhep/ekoller buna cevaz vermezken, haber-i vâhidle ameli vücûb kategorisinde değerlendiren çoğunluk bunu gerekli görür. Haber-i vâhidle Kur’an’ın umûmunun tahsîsine dair farklı görüşler Sünnîlerce telif edilen usul kitaplarında ve konuya dair çağdaş çalışmalarda ele alınırken İmâmiyye Şîası’na mensup âlimlerin görüşlerine -istisnalar dışında- yer verilmediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum, konunun bütüncül bir şekilde ortaya konmasını engellemektedir. Söz konusu eksikliğin giderilmesine katkı sunma bağlamında bu çalışmada, İmâmiyye Şîası’nın konuya dair yaklaşımı Usûlîlik özelinde ele alınmaktadır. İmâmiyye’ye mensup müelliflerce yazılan usul eserlerindeyse konu hakkındaki hem Sünnî hem Şiî görüşlere yer verilmekle beraber, Usûlîlik içerisindeki farklı görüşlerin ve bunları ortaya çıkaran faktörlerin ayrıntılı bir analizi yapılmaz. Dolayısıyla konu Usûlîlik özelinde ele alınırken haber-i vâhidle Kur’an’ın umûmunun tahsîsine dair Şiî usûlîlere ait farklı görüşlerin tespiti, ayrıntılı bir sunumunun yapılması ve söz konusu görüşlerin ne zaman, nerede, hangi saiklerle ortaya çıktığının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Hicri 4. asırda ortaya çıkan Usûlîliğin usul konularına yaklaşımında zaman zaman paradigma değişiklikleri yaşanmıştır. Bunun bir sonucu olarak haber-i vâhidle tahsîs konusunda da üç farklı görüşün ortaya çıktığı tespit edilmiş ve konu bu görüşler etrafında incelenmiştir. Mevzubahis üç görüş; tahsîse mutlak şekilde karşı çıkma, tahsîse cevaz verme ve tahsîsi ilm-i icmâlî bağlamında kabul etme şeklindedir. Bunlardan birincisi ehl-i rey çizgisine son derece yakın olan ve Şiî Büveyhî hâkimiyetinde yaşayan Bağdat usûlîlerine aittir. İkinci görüş, iki asırlık bir duraklama döneminden sonra İlhanlılar döneminde Hille merkezli faaliyet gösteren usûlî âlimlerininkidir (Hille Ekolü). Son görüşse İmâmî düşüncede ahbârî yaklaşımın hâkim olduğu yaklaşık iki asırlık bir sürecin ardından yeniden Şiî düşüncede baskın hale gelen ancak ahbârî yaklaşımın etkisiyle uzlaşmacı bir karaktere bürünen son dönem usûlîlerine aittir. Söz konusu görüşler, ortaya çıktıkları dönem ve ekolün en etkili âlimlerinin çalışmaları üzerinden ele alınmıştır. Tahsîs karşıtı Bağdat Ekolü’nden görüşleri ayrıntılı şekilde incelenen âlim Ebû Ca‘fer et-Tûsî’dir (ö. 460/1067). et-Tûsî dışında ekolün diğer iki büyük alimi Ebû Abdullah (Şeyh) el-Müfîd (ö. 413/1022) ve Ebû’l-Kâsım (Şerîf) el-Murtazâ’ya (ö. 436/1044) da yeri geldikçe atıflar yapılmıştır. Tahsîse cevaz verenlerden bunu usul eserlerindebir başlık altında, ayrıntılı bir şekilde ele alan ilk âlim İbnü’l-Mutahhar el-Hillî’dir (ö. 726/1325). İkinci görüş onun usul eserleri çerçevesinde ele alınırken, bu görüşü ortaya çıkaran amiller arasında bilhassa ehl-i hadis/Şâfiî çizgisinin etkisi üzerinde durulmuş ve İbnü’l-Mutahhar’ın yaklaşımı, dönemin önde gelen Sünnî âlimi el- Âmidî’ninkiyle (d. 631/1233) karşılaştırmalı olarak sunulmuştur. Son görüş, usûlî düşüncede hadis rivayetlerinin çoğunun sıhhatine dair genel bir kanaatin hâkim olmasıyla paralel şekilde ortaya çıkar. Bu bağlamda hadis eserlerindeki rivayetlerin bilgi değerinin ilm-i icmâlî derecesine çıkarılmasında en fazla rol oynayan usûlî âlim olarak Murtazâ el-Ensârî’nin (ö. 1281/1864) yaklaşımı merkeze alınmış, ilm-i icmâlî kabulünün tahsîs konusundaki yansımaları tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Usûlîlik içerisinde ortaya çıkan üç farklı görüşten Bağdat Ekolü’nün tahsîs görüşü, Sünnî klasik fıkıh usulü eserlerinde zikredilenlerden, tahsîse mutlak şekilde karşı çıkanlarınkiyle örtüşür. Ancak usul eserlerinde bunların kimliği açıkça belirtilmemiştir. Çalışmada Sünnî usulcülerin bu görüş sahipleriyle Bağdat usûlîlerini kastettikleri ihtimali üzerinde durulmuş ve onlara herhangi bir atıfta bulunmamış olmaları siyasi ve mezhebî tutumla ilişkilendirilmiştir. Ayrıca Bağdat usûlîlerinin bu görüşü benimsemesinde haber-i vâhidle ameli, vücûb değil cevaz kategorisinde değerlendirmelerinin etkili olduğu düşünülmektedir. Tahsîse cevaz veren ikinci görüşün ortaya çıkışı, İmâmî düşüncedeki ehl-i rey çizgisinden ehl-i hadis çizgisine doğru gerçekleşen paradigma değişikliğinin göstergelerinden biri olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Buna göre Hille Ekolünden itibaren ehl-i hadis çizgisindeki usul anlayışına son derece yaklaşan usûlîler, haber-i vâhidle amelin vücûbu görüşünü benimsemiş ve bunun sonucu olarak da onunla Kur’an’ın tahsîsinin yolu açılmıştır. Haber-i vâhidle Kur’an’ın tahsîsini cevaz değil vücûb kategorisine alan üçüncü görüşün şekillenmesindeki temel faktör olarak da usûlî düşünceyi iki asır kadar sekteye uğratan ahbârî yaklaşım ön plana çıkarılmıştır. Buna göre Ahbârîlik sonrası uzlaşmacı bir karaktere bürünen usûlî anlayışta, muteber kaynaklarda yer alan haberlerin bilgi değerinin zannîden ilm-i icmâlî seviyesine yükseltilmesi, haber-i vâhidle Kur’an’ın tahsîsinin de caiz değil vacip olduğu görüşünün önünü açmış olmalıdır.