The subject “rule”, which is one of the most fundamental issues of the Islamic legal theory (usūl al-fiqh), has been in the center of methodological debates. There is one important term in this regard, which should be studied very carefully: Khiṭāb(speech) of the God. It is because that, especially since the first period of Islam, it has been taken with some significant terms in the field of Kalāmsuch as Husn (pretty; good), Qubh (ugly; evil), and the quality of God’s talk. (...) Yet, adopting this term in the description of the “rule” shows that Fiqh is based on divine inspiration, and it also emphasizes that even though there are some differences in details, wisdom of human being is not ignored when adjudicating. Moreover, it suggests that the validity or methodological accuracy of the “rule” which is adjudicated with ruling case is related to the connection through the term speech or divine inspiration. In this regard, Kalāmdimension of the term and its affect to legal theoretical discussions are very important in terms of historical process of the definition of the “rule” in Islamic law. In this study, I tried to examine whether or not the term “khiṭābof the God” which is used in the definition of the “rule” formed a limitation for consideration of legal evidence in Islamic law and if there is any limitation for the legal evidence regarding being only in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah due to this definition.SummaryThe “hukm (rule, arbritation, judgment, God’s will)”-as the backbone notion in usūl al-fiqhis one of the significant key notions discussed in the legal theory. Specifically, the term “khitabullah” mentioned in the definition of hukmis noteworthy to investigate. Since the early formation period of Islamic law, the term khitabullahhas been embraced along with the theological subjects: “husnand qubuh(the good and evil) and kalām(the attribute of speech to Allah)”. The term “khitabullah” in the definition of hukmemphasizes that indeed the source of fiqhis the revelation (wahy) and also emphasizes that the function of reason (‘aql) is not ignored in the process of adjudication- even if there are some nuances in details.Additionally, it presents that the validity or methodological accuracy of the “rule” which is adjudicated with ruling a case is connected to the term speech (khitāb), or in other words to revelation (wahy).On the whole, in the legal theory, the rule of Sharī‘ah is defined as God’s khitab(the communication of God), which means the demand of God relating to the acts of those who are subject of law or the effect of the khitābon the acts of those persons. Although, in the early formative period various explanations were made about what the rule is, it can be understood that the present definition of hukmbegan to evolve towards the end of the 5thcentury (A. H.). It is clear that al-Ghazālī had an impact on the formation of this definition. It is because al-Ghazālī defined the rule of Sharī‘ahas “the communication from God relating to an act of the person who is the subject of law”. After al-Ghazālī, al-Rādī and al-Baydāwī added to al-Ghazālī’s definition the words “iqtidā and takhyīr” and Ibn Hājib added “wad‘an”. Whereas in the Mutakallimun(theologians) tradition, Ibn Hacib's definition was preferred, Fuqaha(jurists) tradition chose two definitions-resembling each other: “Those coming to exist with the khitāb” and “the effect of God’s khitāb”.Along with al-Ghazālī’s definition, the concept of khitābcarved out a niche for itself in it and became the main element of the definition. It is understood that some discussions in the field of theology, such as husn-qubhand God’s attribute of speech have been effective on the interpretation of the concept of khitāb. The Ash‘arilegal theorists argue that the good and evil are not attributes of the self / the acts, whereas the Maturidi legal theorists argue that the exploration and determination of these attributes is rational and thus, the verdict reached via this rationale is lawful. The Maturidi legal theorists initiated the concept of being subject of law with the concept Sharī‘ah and in the line with this opinion; they defined hukmon the basis of khitāb. On the other hand, the Mutazilites’ claiming the attribute of good and evil are inherent feature of the act, did not define hukmon the basis of the khitābaccording to their theological understanding. The word of khitābassessed with God’s eternal speech (al-kalām al-azalī) has been approached from various aspects: for instance, whether the presence of the addressee is mandatory. The early Asharites scholars (mutaqaddimun), in particular Imam Asharī, did not entitle the eternal speech as khitāb. They consider that the presence of the interlocutor is necessary in the conversion of Kalāminto khitāb. The mutaakhirunAsharites (successors of the early Asharites scholars) did not consider the presence of the interlocutor necessary, thus they viewed the eternal speech as khitāb. The former identification of the hukmwith khitābby the early Ashari legal theorists caused to the problem of whether hukmis adventitious or not. Therefore, this approach was criticised by the Mutazilites. On the other hand, the Maturidi and Mutezilite legal theorists accept that hukmis adventitious; hence they do not consider as a problem naming the eternal speech of God as khitāb.When the historical course is examined, it can be said that one of the important aspects of the development of hukm’s definition is the use of khitāb. Khitābin some cases is used without possessive construction, in other cases it is used with possessive construction with God, or in possessive construction with shar’ or Shāri’. The most important one within these possessive constructions is the notion “khitaballah”. Therefore, it is necessary for khitaballahto be approached from the angle of the legal theory. In comparison to other terms, this notion narrowed the scope of the rule down. In the meanwhile, it raised the question: how the rule deduced via legal evidences can be incorporated in khitāb? As a consequence of this question, some legal theorists, such as Tūfī, proposed another definition by adducing this question.Although it is commonly accepted that the rules deduced via other evidences are within the context of the khitāb, there are also different descriptions about the concept of khitaballah. The rule is not limited to khitaballahin the conception of traditional interpretation accepting the khitābas eternal speech or literal speech (al-kalām al-lafzī). Because either all evidences are within the context of the khitāb,which is the eternal speech or other evidences are within the context of the khitāb,which is the literal speech. Thus, each result coming to exist with the other evidences is part of the Islamic law. But not all of these rules are considered equal to each other. Because each rule which is deduced from indisputable origin (qatii al-thubut) and is deduced from completely explicit sources (qatii al-dalala) are accepted as the word of God or the Prophet. On the other hand, other rules deduced via jurisprudence- in other words by jurist’s own value of judgment is viewed as the virtual rule (al-hukm al-zāhir). Such rules do not express absolute certainty. It is unacceptable for these rules to be described as the word of God or the Prophet. In this way, it is clearly understood that the concept of khitaballahmentioned in the description do not introduce restriction to the evidences ofSharī‘ah.We do not see a contradiction when the indefinite rules of Islamic law included in the context of khitāb. Because ijtihāddoes not aim to produce a new rule, on the contrary it functions in order to find out the already existing rules. The legitimacy of the rule obtained through ijtihādemerges from the way that this rule is deduced from the khitāb,which directly or indirectly represents the divine will. In addition, according to us, this legitimacy is not merely limited to versification and conception of the khitāb, but it also includes the function of the reason in (reasonable of the) khitāb. As a matter of fact, trying to solve unlimited cases with limited texts is difficult- in fact this is impossible. The majority of the legal theorists also share this opinion. Then, there is no obstacle in accepting that each rule obtained by authentic source and methodology can be considered part of Islamic law by implicating the rule in the context of khitāb(which represents the divine will) - although it may contain error and presumption. (shrink)

In the fatwas given today related to whether individual or social life, the area of jawāz either has been very wide or very narrow. Those, who feature the behavior making prohibited things lawful, have nearly defined even necessity within the pragmatism on the basis of need and they keep the area in question very wide. On the other hand, those who confine the evidence of maṣlaḥa to a methodological principle, have nearly disregarded needs in solving individual and social problems. Whereas, (...) in the fiqh, the needs have been categorized as necessary/ḍarūrī, human want/ḥājī and making beautiful/taḥsīnī, and many principles have been constructed for taking stock of them. One of the principles is the lex of “Need/al-Ḥāje, general or particular, is dealt with as to meet necessity/al-Ḍarūra.” When it is determined how this lex has come out since the first period and its conditions in the context of implementation are determined, it will be come out that necessary cannot be reduced to need. In the same way, it will be come out that the maṣlaḥa is not an evidence disconnected with life. So, in the article, we will discuss the concepts of necessary and need. Then, we will show what the conditions to be considered in implementation of this lex are, what its base is in the sharia, how it has come out since the first period, and how it has been used in actual issues of the fiqh as well as in a specific example. Thus, with this study, we purpose to contribute to the solution of the actual issues of the fiqh. -/- SUMMARY The notions of need and necessity (ḍarūra, ḥāje) which are of four notions cited in the lex were individually examined and the differences between them were explained. The notions of general or particular (umūmī, khuṣūṣī), because of their using as adjective of the notion of ḥāje, were explained in the context of it. In the literature, the conception of ḥāje was used in the meaning both for all needs containing ḍarūra and just for needs apart from ḍarūra. A similar situation applies to the conception of ḍarūra. Ḍarūra having two descriptions was used in the meaning of ḥāje at times. This closure in using has caused the idea that both concepts have the same notion. In fact, from this point of view, there are the implications about that the lex is unnecessary. In this study, it is purposed that the mentioned idea and implications are wrong. As a requirement, the differences between the mentioned concepts were also examined under a separate title. -/- As for the notions of umūmī and khuṣūṣī, the scope of umūmī and khuṣūṣī ḥāje were not transparently defined and were just explained through examples in the classical period. In the context of ḥāje, the descriptions about the scope of these notions have been done after the lex took its final shape and became popular in this shape. According to these descriptions, umūmī ḥāje is the needs regarding all community. Khuṣūṣī ḥāje is the needs regarding a certain group in the community. There are interpretations as well about that individual needs must be dealt with in the scope of khuṣūṣī ḥāje. This study has same opinion. Taking into consideration of the historical development of the lex, this situation has been more clearly understood. Taking into consideration of the historical development of the lex, it is seen that the first person to make the lex a current issue is Juweynī (d. 1085). Juweynī mentioned the lex in different shapes. These combine in the point of umūmī ḥāje: “Umūmī ḥāje is dealt with as khuṣūṣī ḍarūra.” Juweynī not mentioning the notion of khuṣūṣī ḥāje in the lex shows that there is the differentiation between umūmī and khuṣūṣī ḥāje in his mind. Juweynī has a clear attitude in umūmī ḥāje while is hesitant in khuṣūṣī ḥāje. Another point which he is clear is that the needs dealt with as ḍarūra is not pure advantage and relaxation and it must have some conditions. Likewise, Gazzalī (d. 1111) and ‘Izz b. ʿAbd al-salām (d. 1262) continued the clear attitude of him. Both asserted some conditions about ḥāje dealt with as ḍarūra. But both did not mention any notation to imply these conditions in the lex. However, Ibn al-Wakīl (d. 1317) seems to want to show all ḥāje not to be dealt with as ḍarūra by adding the notation of in some situation: “Umūmī ḥāje is dealt with as ḍarūra in some situation.” In the historical development, it is seen that the first person to mention the notion of “khuṣūṣī ḥāje” in a lex is Zarkashī (d. 1392). But he mentioned this notion in another lex not in the lex in question. It is claimed that the addition of “khuṣūṣī ḥāje” to the lex was done in time of Ibn al-Wakīl or before and Zarkashī divided the lex in two as umūmī ḥāje and khuṣūṣī ḥāje. But this study proves for the mentioned claims to be unsuitable the historical development. Because, the first person to mention the notions both of umūmī ḥāje and khuṣūṣī ḥāje in one lex is Suyūtī (d. 1505): “Ḥāje, umūmī or khuṣūsī, is dealt with as to meet ḍarūra.” The lex has been fixed and become popular as it is. After this, especially in the recent period, the clear definitions have started to be done regarding what scope the notions of umūmī and khuṣūsī ḥāje in question in the lex is and the conditions about ḥāje have been dwelled on. In this study, the conditions in question have been treated under four items. In this study, this conditions have been analyzed with regard to functionality of the lex. It has been determined that the idea claimed about that ḥāje must not oppose to a special base, in the context of the first conditions especially, will cancel the functionality of the lex. The current use of the lex, because of the study’s boundaries, has been dealt with over a specific example topic. The issue of being a resident has been preferred as an example topic. Though there is an alliance about having a residence as a need, there is a conflict about the buying a residence by bank credit. While some have not allowed this by claiming that credit is against to a special base, some have allowed it on the basis of this lex. According to the second group, when its conditions are met, the buying a residence by credit is permissible. Because, residence is among essential needs. In this study, it is stated that the preferred opinion is this. However, by taking into account the spirit of sharia it is expressed that every need for having a residence cannot be dealt with as necessity. It has been emphasized that instead of accepting everything as a need dictated especially by the consumerism that elevates human desires to an uncontrollable level, identifying a suitable need for our own values is important. This study deals with the lex of “Need, general or particular, is dealt with as to meet necessity” used in the fatwās today. The study determining the historical development and break points of the lex and the conditions argued about it examines daily use of it on the basis of a current example. So the study purposes to prove how the lex must come out in solving of the other problems. The study is of important to determine the break points of the lex in its historical development. Ḥāje must be appropriate to a base in the sharia. Ḥāje must contain a hardship over ordinary hardship. Ḥāje must not be possible to eliminate by a legitimate way. Ḥāje must be realized by conclusive evidence or near it. In this study, this conditions have been analyzed with regard to functionality of the lex. It has been determined that the idea claimed about that ḥāje must not oppose to a special base, in the context of the first conditions especially, will cancel the functionality of the lex. The current use of the lex, because of the study’s boundaries, has been dealt with over a specific example topic. The issue of being a resident has been preferred as an example topic. Though there is an alliance about having a residence as a need, there is a conflict about the buying a residence by bank credit. While some have not allowed this by claiming that credit is against to a special base, some have allowed it on the basis of this lex. According to the second group, when its conditions are met, the buying a residence by credit is permissible. Because, residence is among essential needs. In this study, it is stated that the preferred opinion is this. However, by taking into account the spirit of sharia it is expressed that every need for having a residence cannot be dealt with as necessity. It has been emphasized that instead of accepting everything as a need dictated especially by the consumerism that elevates human desires to an uncontrollable level, identifying a suitable need for our own values is important. (shrink)

The value of knowledge and deeds of the methodology of the reasoning defined such as “due to they have a common effective cause (ʿilla), the provision of principle (aṣl) is given to the branch (farʿ)” has been the subject of debate from the first period. That is, on the one hand there are some who reject the method of analogical reasoning by saying that although the authority of legislation belongs to Shāri’only, this method is to make legislation in the religion (...) and that its value in knowledge is condemned as conjecture by the injunction (naṣṣ). They also put forward some arguments as well. However, on the other hand the majority accepts the method of reasoning as an essential and sharʿī (religious) argument. This study will not compare the opinions of those who reject qiyās and that of those who approve it. By means of religious and rational evidences this study will deal with that the method of analogical reasoning is not a rational effort simply, that the knowledge gained by it is not a conjecture criticised by the injunctions, that it is the highest ranking conjecture based on the proof, and that it is sufficient to practice in the field of law. After a general frame is drawn about qiyās, this article has been limited with the place of qiyās in the hierarchy of evidence and its value concerning knowledge and practice. This article wants to clarify the discussions related to the value of knowledge and deeds of the methodology of the reasoning. (shrink)