İSLÂM HUKUKUNDA ŞART NAZARİYESİNE FARKLI YAKLAŞIM: İBN HAZM (Ö. 456/1064) VE İBN TEYMİYYE (Ö. 728/1328) ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2020, Volume: 56 Issue: 3, 981 - 998, 15.09.2020

Abdulbasıt Saltekin

Abstract

İslâm mali muamelat hukukunun imkânlarının araştırılması, alanda çalışma yapan araştırmacılar açısından önem taşımaktadır. Akit nazariyesi üzerine birçok çalışma yapılmış olmasına karşılık akdin mahiyetini, yapısını belirleyen; taraflara hak ve sorumluluklar yükleyen şart nazariyesi üzerine yeterince çalışma yapılmadığı, konunun önemine binaen şart nazariyesi üzerine farklı çalışmaların yapılması gerektiği kanaatindeyiz.

İslâm mali muamelat hukukunda şart nazariyesinin anlaşılmasında iki farklı bakış açısının hakim olduğu görülmektedir. Bu konuda iki karşıt çizgiyi temsil eden İbn Hazm ve İbn Teymiyye’nin konuya yaklaşımlarının ortaya konması bu noktada önem arz etmektedir. İbn Hazm’ın temsil ettiği çizgiye göre asıl olan, geçerli olduğuna dair şer‘î delil bulunmayan hiçbir şart meşru kabul edilmez. Karşıt çizginin temsilcisi olan İbn Teymiyye’ye göre ise yasaklayıcı hüküm bulunmadığı müddetçe akitte zikredilen her türlü şart geçerli sayılmaktadır. Çalışmamızda öncelikle bu iki uç arasına yerleştirebileceğimiz diğer mezheplerin şart nazariyesini genel hatlarıyla ortaya koyduktan sonra İbn Hazm ve İbn Teymiyye’ye ait yaklaşımları detaylarıyla inceleyeceğiz.

Keywords

Şart nazariyesi, Sahîh şart, Fâsit şart, İbn Hazm, İbn Teymiyye

A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE THEORY OF CONDITION IN ISLAMIC LAW: THE CASE OF IBN HAZM (D. 456/1064) AND IBN TAYMIYYAH (D. 728/1328)

Abstract

Various attitudes could be encountered in commercial contracts regarding the condition theory. The parties of the contract were not able to build the contract in absolute conditions due to the approaches of the sects in general. The principle of legality has a structure that limits the willpower in conditions in the legal systems of today. 

Looking at the general approaches of the rooted sects on the condition, we see that they evaluated the conditions in two types as authentic and corrupt. In terms of authentic conditions, all conditions required for the execution of the contract are accepted by all sects. We cannot argue that there is a considerable difference regarding the definition of “the required” based on the given examples.

The conditions called the mulayim/maslahat, which are the ones that ensure the execution of the requirements in a contract, are also listed among the valid conditions. Looking at the conditions complying with the execution of the contract, it is seen that the sects have different approaches towards these conditions despite the presence of certain common aspects. This gives all of the parties the opportunity to determine the conditions of the contract.

In particular, the Hanafi regarded the conditions adopted by the people occupied in the social trade tradition as legitimate contracts on the grounds that they do not cause any disputes. According to the Hanafi, other conditions that are considered to be legitimate by the shari’a were also accepted as valid conditions.

The Hanbali sect, further extended the customary conditions adopted by the Hanafi by accepting the conditions specified by the parties of the contract as legitimate as long as they did not cause conflict.

In terms of corrupt conditions, the conditions that are against the requirements of a contract are not accepted by any of the sects. Such conditions are considered invalid. The conditions that prevent the emergence of the results required by the contract are not taken into account.

The conditions that are against the execution of the contract are also listed among the invalid conditions. According to the Shafii sect, all conditions that do not comply with the requirements and execution of the contract are invalid conditions. According to the Hanafi sect, customs are required for the conditions other than the requirements and execution of the contract. In case the conditions that are set outside of the requirements and execution of the contract are not customary, they are deemed invalid. According to the Hanbali, the conditions that are not specified between the parties and could lead to conflicts are considered invalid. The conditions that would cause uncertainty in the price paid by the buyer are listed among the invalid conditions by the Maliki. 

According to the general approach of the three sects and the weak opinion conveyed from the Hanbali, such conditions are not only considered invalid but they also cause the contract to become invalid. According to the common opinion of the Hanbali sect, in cases where the conditions are invalid, the contract is also considered invalid.

This approach of the sects could be considered as a moderate attitude. Apart from all of these statements, we can mention the attitude of Ibn Hazm, who limited the conditions, even making them a few in number. According to Ibn Hazm, the conditions that could be set are limited to the seven issues determined by the shari’a. All other conditions would be invalid make the contract as invalid.

On the other hand, the attitude of Ibn Taymiyyah provides a space for the conditions to a certain extent. He accepts valid all conditions that are not in contradiction with the contract, and do not have any evidence of prohibition by the shari’a. It is necessary to mention that, unlike the other sects, Ibn Taymiyyah did not consider the contradiction to the requirements as the conditions that invalidate the requirements of a contract. He considered the subject from a slightly narrower perspective. According to him, contradiction to the requirements could be considered in cases that make the contract null and void. 

We believe that the approach of Ibn Taymiyyah is more accurate. This is not an opinion reached by only considering the social and commercial affairs. There is no doubt that they have also been effective. In addition, we can say that the strength and consistency of the evidences, on which he based his theory, led us to such a conclusion.

Keywords

Theory of Condition,, Authentic conditio, Corrupt condition, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah.

References

• Buhûtî, Mansûr b. Yûnus b. Salâhiddîn. Keşşâfü’l-kınâʿ ʿan (metn) i’l-İknâʿ. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 2009.
• Desûkî, Şemsüddîn Ebû Abdillâh Muhammed b. Ahmed b. Arafe. Hâşiye ʿale’ş-şerhi’l-kebîr. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 2011.
• Haddâd, Radıyyüddîn Ebû Bekr b. Alî b. Muhammed. el-Cevheretü’n- neyyire. Kahire: Matbaa’tu’l-Hayriyye, 1322.
• Hattâb, Muhammed b. Muhammed. Mevâhibü’l-celîl fî şerhi Muhtasarı Halîl. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Fikr, ts.
• İbn Âbidîn, Muhammed Emîn b. Ömer b. Abdilazîz el-Hüseynî. Reddu’l-muhtâr ‘alâ Durri’l-Muhtâr. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 1994.
• İbn Hazm, Ebû Muhammed Alî b. Ahmed b. Saîd b. Hazm el-Endelüsî el-Kurtubî. el-Muḥallâ. Mısır: İdâretu’t-Taabâati’l-Munîriyye, 1350.
• İbn Kudâme, Ebû Muhammed Muvaffakuddîn Abdullāh b. Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Cemmâîlî el-Makdisî. el-Kâfî fî fıkhi’l-İmâmi’l-mübeccel Ahmed b. Hanbel. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 1994.
• İbn Kudâme, Ebû Muhammed Muvaffakuddîn Abdullāh b. Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Cemmâîlî el-Makdisî. el-Muğnî. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l- İlmiyye, 2009.
• İbn Manzûr Muhammed b. Mukrim Mısrî. Lisânu’l-Arab. Beyrût: Dâru Sâdır, ts.
• İbn Müflih, Ebû İshâk Burhânüddîn İbrâhîm b. Muhammed b. Abdillâh er-Râmînî ed-Dımaşki. el-Mübdiʿ fî şerhi’l-Mukniʿ. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l- İlmiyye, 1997.
• İbn Nuceym, Zeynüddîn b. İbrâhîm b. Muhammed el-Mısrî. el-Bahrü’rrâ ʾik. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 2013.
• İbn Rüşd, Ebü’l-Velîd Muhammed b. Ahmed b. Ahmed el-Kurtubî el-Endelüsî. el-Beyân ve’t-tahsîl. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Garbi’l-İslâmî, 1988.
• İbn Teymiyye, Ebü’l-Abbâs Takıyyüddîn Ahmed b. Abdilhalîm b. Mecdiddîn Abdisselâm el-Harrânî. el-Ḳavâʿidü’n-nûrâniyye. Cidde: Dâru İbn’l Cevzî 1422.
• İmrâni, Ebü’l-Hüseyin İbn Ebü’l-Hayr Yahya b. Ebü’l-Hayr b. Sâlim b. Es’ad El-Yemâni. el-Beyan fi mezhebi’l-İmâm eş-Şâfiî’i. Cidde: Dâru’l- Minhac, 2000.
• Mâverdî, Ebü’l-Hasen Alî b. Muhammed b. Habîb el-Basrî. el-Hâvi’l- kebîr. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 1999.
• Merğinânî, Burhânüddîn Mahmûd b. Ahmed b. Abdilazîz el-Buhârî. el-Muhitü`l-burhani fî`l-fıkhi`n-Nu`mani : fıkhu`l-İmâm Ebi Hanife. Beyrut: Daru’l-Kuyubi’l-İlmiyye, 2004.
• Merğinânî, Ebü’l-Hasen Burhânüddîn Alî b. Ebî Bekr b. Abdilcelîl el-Fergānî. el-Hidâye fî şerhi’l-Bidâyeti’l-mübtedi’. Beyrût: Dâru İhyai’- Turasi’l-Arabi, ts.
• Muhammed İlîş, Ebû Abdillâh Muhammed b. Ahmed el-Mısrî. Minehu’l- celîl ʿalâ Muhtaṣari’ş-Şeyh Ḫalîl. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Fikr, ts.
• Nevevî, Ebû Zekeriyyâ Yahyâ b. Şeref b. Mürî. Ravdatu’-tâlibîn. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 2006.
• Şa’bân, Zekiyüddin. İslâm Hukuk İlminin Esasları (Usûlü’l-Fıkıh). Trc: İbrahim Kafi Dönmez. Ankara: TDV Yay., 2016.
• Sâvî, Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Mâlikî el-Halvetî. Bulğatü’s-sâlik li-Akrebi’l- mesâlik. Beyrût: Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, 1995.
• Zebîdî, Muhammed b. Muhammed b. Abdurrezzâk Hüseynî. Tâcü’l- ʿarûs min cevâhiri’l-Ḳāmûs. Kuveyt: Dâru’l-Hidâye, ts.
• Zeylaî, Ebû Muhammed Fahruddîn Osmân b. Alî b. Mihcen b. Yûnus es-Sûfî el-Bâriî. Tebyînu’l-hakâik şerhu Kenzi’d-dekâik. Kâhire: Matbaa’tu’l- Kübrâ’l-Emiriyye, 1313.