The Conduct of the Shāri‘ on the Meanings of Nouns: The Issue of al-Hakā’ik al-Shar‘iyya in the Muslim Theological and Hanafi Legal Theories

Şâriin Lafzın Mânası Üzerinde Tasarrufu: Mütekellim ve Hanefî Usul Geleneklerinde Şer‘î Hakikatler Meselesi

Abstract

The linguistic imaginations of Islamic legal theoreticians are centered on the theory of assignation (wad‘). The term wad‘ refers to assigning a meaning to a noun, or, as more classically called, an expression. The literal meaning of an expression in language refers to the truth (haqīqa) whereas its usage in another meaning, in some sense connected to the original meaning, refers to the figurative/ metaphorical meaning. Theoretical jurisprudential literature has debated whether the literary meaning of an expression changes by the conduct of the Shāri‘ and, if so, whether jurists can use the term al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya (legal truths) as a kind of truth for the nouns that are argued to have acquired different meanings. Some Mu‘tazilī theoreticians argue that the Shāri‘ assigned legal and theological meanings to some nouns by divorcing them from their literal meanings and referring to the nouns transferred to legal meanings as al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya and some of the nouns transferred to theological meanings as religious truths. e Mu‘tazilī theoreticians use the term transference (naql) for describing the process of assigning new meanings to certain nouns in addition to their literal meanings. By employing certain nouns whose meanings the Shārī‘, as they argue, transferred to new theological meanings — such as belief (īmān), sinfulness (fisq) and unbelief (kufr) — they ground the theory of al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn, used for great sinners (murtakib al-kabīra), in order to identify their dubious state of being believers or unbelievers. During the fourth/tenth century, witnessing ongoing ideological debates between the Mu‘tazilī and Ash‘arī theological schools, al-Qādi al-Bāqillānī formulates the Ash‘arī school’s theoretical framework. Considering that the usage of al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya could pave the way for the possibility of religious nouns that include theological meanings, he tries to identify these nouns with their literal meanings. Therefore, he insists the nouns have not been transferred and their literal meanings continue to exist.By the second half of the fith/eleventh century, the Mu‘tazilī school lost its dominance and new challenges to Sunni theology, such as philosophy and esotericism, began to appear. Al-Bāqillānī’s resistance to the arguments of al-haqīqa alshar‘iyya transference evolved into a lighter emphasis among Ash‘arī theologians and theoreticians. Therefore, some Ash‘arī theologians and theoreticians criticized al-Bāqillānī’s rigid attitude and accepted the conduct of the Shāri‘. By the seventh/thirteenth century, almost all Ash‘arī theologians and Hanafi theoreticians adopted the view of legal nouns as a kind of truth. Among them, al-Juwaynī and his student al-Ghazālī state that the conduct of the Shāri‘ on expressions occurs metaphorically and this metaphorical usage gains wide-circulation. A century later, al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), like his predecessors, adopts the metaphorical conduct of the Shāri‘ as well as calls legal nouns among the kinds of truth and accepts the transference to legal meanings. However, unlike the Mu‘tazilī school, he underlines the necessity to have an affinity at the transference between the literal meaning and the new meaning. A half-century later, Ibn al-Hājib (d. 646/1249) does not accept the metaphorical conduct of the Shāri‘ but adopts completely al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya by distinguishing religious and legal truths and calls the conduct of the Shāri‘ on expressions as assignation (wad‘). Several Ash‘arī theologian theoreticians such as Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1370), Jalāl al-Dīn al-Mahallī (d.864/1459) and Hasan b. Muhammad al-‘Attār (d. 1250/1834) follow Ibn al-Hājib on accepting al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya totally.In this article, I examine the Hanafi theoretical literature in three distinct lines by following the cross-references and continuities in ideas among the legal theoreticians. The first is the Hanafi-jurist tradition that follows the classifications and methodology of al-Dabūsī’s Taqwīm al-adilla; the second one is the tradition that combines Hanafi theoretical perspective with theologian methodology; and the third one is Hanafi-Māturīdī theoretical tradition that builds jurisprudential methodology on the basic premises of Māturīdī theological school. Al-Jaŝŝās (d. 370/981), a Hanafi jurist who is known for his close connection to the Mu‘tazilī school, openly accepts that the Shāri‘ assigns new meanings on nouns. Later, some Hanafi jurists such as al-Dabūsī (d. 430/1039), al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090) and al-Pazdawī (d. 482/1089) describe the conduct of the Shāri‘ on nouns only metaphorically and argue, just like in the theological tradition, that metaphorical usages of nouns have more circulation. Sadr al-Sharī‘a (d. 747/1346), a scholar of Hanafi-jurisprudential tradition, calls these nouns as kinds of truth. Maintaining two aspects of explaining the issue, al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285), argues that when one takes into consideration the literal meanings of a noun, its literal meaning corresponds to the truth while its legal meaning becomes the metaphorical meaning; and when one takes into consideration the legal meaning of a noun, its legal meaning corresponds to the truth while its literal meaning becomes the metaphorical meaning. Some Hanafi jurists following the combined tradition (such as Ibn al-Sā‘ātī and Ibn al-Humām) and Māturīdī-Hanafi theoreticians accept the transference of legal meanings as a whole and call the nouns transferred to these meanings al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya.In this article, I will first examine some aspects of the concepts related to al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya in a historical and intellectual context. Then, by a close reading of the classical works of theologians and Hanafi legal scholars, I will try to show how the argument evolved from total denial of al-haqīqa al-shar‘iyya (after al-Bāqillānī) into a gradual acceptance in almost all Sunni traditions (especially starting with al-Juwaynī). My objective is to outlin

Özet

Usulcülerin dil tasavvurlarının merkezinde vaz‘ teorisi yer alır. Vaz‘ terimi dilde bir kelimenin, klasik ifadesiyle lafzın, herhangi bir anlam için tayin edilmesini ifade eder. Dilde ilk tayin edildiği anlamda kullanılan lafız hakikat iken, ilk anlamlataşıdığı bir irtibat (alâka) sebebiyle başka bir anlamda kullanılan lafız mecazdır. Mecazdan farklı olarak, dilde belli anlamlara vazedilen lafızların şeriatı vazedenin tasarrufuyla farklı anlamlara yüklenip yüklenmediği ve farklı anlam kazandığı iddia edilen isimleri bir tür hakikat olarak “şer‘î hakikat” şeklinde ifade etmenin mümkün olup olmadığı usûl-ı fıkıh düşüncesinde tartışmaya konu olmuştur. Mu‘tezile’nin itikadî anlamlar taşıyan dinî isimlerde savunduğu gibi fıkhî anlamlar ihtiva eden şer‘î isimlerde de nakil olduğu ve isimlerin yeni bir hakikat olduğu iddiası, IV. (X.) asırda Eş‘arî-mütekellim usulünün temsilcisi Bâkıllânî (ö. 403/1013) tarafından sert bir şekilde eleştirilmiştir. Bâkıllânî, dinî isimlerde olduğu gibi şer‘î isimlerde de nakil iddiasını bütünüyle reddetmiş ve bu tür isimlerin lugavî hakikat olduğunda ısrar etmiştir. Ancak sonrasında zaman içinde, gerek Eş‘arî-mütekellim usulcüler gerekse Hanefî usulcüler –açıklama tarzları değişse de- isimlerin şâriin tasarrufu ile yeni anlamlar kazandığını kabul etmişlerdir. Çalışmanın temel hedefi, şâriin lafızların anlamları üzerindeki tasarrufuna dair görüşlerin, Bâkıllânî ve sonrasında, mütekellim ve Hanefî usul düşünce tarihinde zaman içinde nasıl değiştiğini fikrî ve tarihî gelişmelerle irtibatlı olarak ortaya koymak ve bu tasarrufa dair açıklamaların nasıl olduğunu incelemektir.

Keywords: Bâkıllânî, hakikat-mecaz, nakil, Mu‘tezile, Ehl-i sünnet, Eş‘arîmütekellim usulü, Hanefî fıkıh usulü