%0 Journal Article
%T One of The Founders of The Hanafi School Zufar Ibn Hudhayl¡¯s Approach to Isti£¿s¨¡n
%A Adem £¿iftci
%J -
%D 2018
%X From the earliest times when schools of legal thought (madhhab) have started to form, there has been debate whether or not ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n (juristic preference; moving away from the implications of an analogy to an analogy that has a stronger evidence from the Qur£¿¨¡n, Sunnah or ijm¨¡£¿)¡± is a method of ¡°istidl¨¡l (inference)¡±. At the basis of these discussions, the effect of the arbitrariness/subjectivity implied by the term ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡±, which has not yet completed its conceptualization process, is far too much. Therefore, those who adopted ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡± as a method were subjected to serious accusations. Hanaf¨© jurists are at the forefront among those who adopted ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡±. So much so that the ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡± method has become known by the Hanafi School. However, we have come across with two opposing arguments about the approach of Zufar ibn Hudhayl, who is one of the leading representatives of the school, prominent with his analogical reasoning, to ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡±. As a result of our research and investigation, it is seen that neither of the claims is right; in addition to the skill of the Zufar to make analogies, he is in favor of analogical reasoning to the full extent on the issue of having recourse to ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡±; but in cases where analogies are inadequate in producing solutions to the issues or do not give correct outcomes, as a necessity for not to leave the issue without any verdict, he had recourse to ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡±. As a result, it can be said that being bound to the Hanaf¨© method in general terms, Zufar ibn Hudhayl has narrowed the framework for using ¡°isti£¿s¨¡n¡± as a method of ¡°istidl¨¡l¡±; on the issue of having recourse to analogies, on the other hand, he tried to broaden the boundaries as much as possible. Starting from Hijri 2ndcentury which was the beginning of the formation of idolatry, in terms of whether it is the nature and the method of stratification, isti£¿s¨¡n, generally described as ¡°Because of stronger evidence, it would be better to abandon the provision of similar powers to another ruling¡±, has been argued. So much so that two different approaches have emerged in the form of supporters and opponents. The opponents of isti£¿s¨¡n have accused the people who adopted and done sets of fiqh deductions accordingly of judging according to their desires and to establishing a new sharia. However, the effect of the concept of isti£¿s¨¡n, which has not yet completed its conceptualization process, arbitrary/subjective sense of this oppositional approach is too great. Imam Shaf¨© was a strong opponent of isti£¿s¨¡n. However, Shaf¨©, consulted isti£¿s¨¡n to regard the amount of
%K £¿slam Hukuku
%K Hanef£¿ Mezhebi
%K Z¨¹fer b. H¨¹zeyl
%K K£¿yas
%K £¿stihsan
%K £¿stidlal
%U http://dergipark.org.tr/ulum/issue/38422/444076