Hicrî İlk Beş Asırda Hanefî Fıkıh Usûlünde Muârız Haber Nazariyesi
The Theory of Contradictory Narrations in Ḥanafī Legal Theory in The First Five Centuries

Summary/Abstract: The schools of fiqh applied different methods to eliminate contradictions between narrations. In fact, this difference in methodology directly led to fiqh disagreement. Thus, a school explains within the framework of its own procedural system which of the contradictory narratives it uses as evidence, the reason for using this narrative, how they interpret other narrations about the subject or the reason for not using these reports as evidence. This article aims to chronologically examine the theory that the Ḥanafī developed about antithetical narratives based on ‘Īsā ibn Abān, al-Karkhī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Dabūsī, al-Pazdawī and al-Sarakhsī. Moreover, the criticisms and contributions made by the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence are determined. Frequently repeated approach in some research that the Hanafis first used the abrogation (al-naskh) to fulfill the contradiction between the narrations is questioned within the framework of the aforementioned scholars’ viewpointsSummary: The theory of contradictory narratives, developed as part of the narration theory, has an important position in the sense of the school’s approach to the Sunnah. This is because the system that a school of jurisprudence implements to fulfill the contradiction between narrations has an important influence in scholars’ juridical opinion.In some studies carried out today, the system developed by the Ḥanafī to eliminate the contradiction between narratives is presented in two different ways as abrogation (al-naskh), preference (al-tarjīḥ), conciliation (al-cam‘) and not to use as evidence (al-ṭāsāquṭ) or abrogation, conciliation and applying principles (taqrīr al-uṣūl). The common point of the two hierarchies of solution is placing abrogation in first rank. In order to test the accuracy of this information in this research, we studied the system that the Ḥanafi scholars who lived in the first five centuries of the Hijra followed to eliminate the contradiction between the narrations. The development of this theory in the five centuries of the Hijra was examined on the basis of the views of ‘Īsā ibn Abān (d., 221/836), al-Karkhī (d. 340/952), al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981), al-Dabūsī (d. 482/1089) and al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090 [?]). It is an indisputable fact that the construction and development of a theory requires a process. In this context, the present study investigated when and on which principles the theory of contradictory narratives on Ḥanafīan theory of narrative/Sunnah is started to be instituted; who and for what reasons contributed to it during this evolution process and how; and how it is instituted the way of solution hierarchy in theearly period which makes a differentiation in comments between Ḥanafīan later.This theory was enriched by principles that were developed with different perspectives during a long process and its comprehensibility was boosted using new concepts and systematic expression. Ḥanafī legal theorists benefited from the opinions of masters of the jurisprudence school to enrich this theory in terms of principles. This suggests that the theory is a scientific effort aimed at discovering how masters of the jurisprudence school are following a method in the face of contradictory narratives.As far as known, Isā ibn Abān is the first theoretician to have detailed methodological explanations related to contradictory narratives between the Hanafi scholars. This shows that the theory related to contradictory narratives was established at the beginning of the third century of the hegira. 'Isā ibn Abān divides the opposite narratives into hadiths that are compatible with consensus and hadiths that are contrary to consensus on the basis of consensus (ijmā‘). He accepts the hadith in the first group and he evaluates the hadith in the second group as the abrogated (mansūkh) if it is authentic. It must be stated that this solution path which Isā ibn Abān put forth is of high practical value. There is no practical value in fıqh to eliminate the contradiction between the hadith which is compatible with the consensus and the hadith contrary to this consensus by the conciliation method. Moreover, giving an active role to the consensus in the determination of the abrogating (al-nāsikh) and abrogated (al-mansūkh) also prevents easy access to the method of abrogation. ‘Isā ibn Abān divides hadiths that are without consensus about their provisions into two: the appearance (al-wurūd) date is known and unknown. He first applied the conciliation method to fulfill the contradictions between the narrations in both groups. If the problem is not solved by the conciliation method, Isā applies the abrogation (al-naskh) method for narrations whose the appearance (al-wurūd) date is known. The ones that the date is not known can be acceptable in accordance with the originals, and if this is not possible, he says that both narrations cannot be used as evidence.al-Jaṣṣāṣ, who is one of the people who convey mostly al-Karkhī's views on fiqh methodology, does not convey the views of al-Karkhī on contradictory narratives in integrity that we see in the transmission of 'Isā ibn Abān’s theory and its interpretation. It is understood that al-Jaṣṣāṣ benefited from the views of al-Karkhī to improve the system of Isā ibn Abān. This suggests that al-Karkhī basically accepted the system of contradictory narratives established by Isā ibn Abān.al-Jaṣṣāṣ 's most important role in the theory of contradictory narratives is based on the principles laid down by ‘Isā ibn Abān and al-Karkhī.The person who mostly contributed to this theory after al-Karkhī is al-Dabūsī. It is understood from al-Dabūsī’s accounts that he divides the contradiction into two parts, the truth and the apparent. al-Dabūsī stipulated for evaluating a contradiction as a real contradiction. These conditions are, in essence, solutions for the elimination of the contradiction. When it comes to al-Sarakhsī, he dealt with this issue more precisely with concepts such as “evidence” (al-ḥujjah), “judgement” (al-ḥukm), “state” (al-ḥāl), “date is clear in the text” (al-tārīkh nasṣan), “date is not clear in the text” (dalālah al-tārīkh). In the system of al-Sarakhsī, the last option is the abrogation to eliminate the contradiction

• Details
• Contents