A study on the nature of the term A.l and functions of usul in al-jassas's sharhu muhtasar al-tahavi

Abstract

A.l (plural: u.ul) is one of the central terms used in Islamic Law with different meanings and purposes. The first works identifying and compiling the usul accepted as the basis of the provisions of the Hanafi madhhab began to appear in the 4th/10th century. The first work we have on this subject is Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi's Ri.ala fi'l-U.ul, which contains some general principles regarding usul and furu. It is seen that determining the usul is a central issue in the works of Ja..a., who was a student of al-Karkhi. His work al-Fusul fi'lusul is the first book to identify the usul of the Hanafi madhhab in the context of islamic legal methodology. Ja..a. gave great importance to determine the usul of the madhhab in his works on furu, for example, he used the "a.l" effectively and intensively in Shar.u Mu.ta.ar al-Ta.avi.It is important to identify the usul that are influential in a Hanafi madhhab one by one, and it is also important to determine the nature and function of these u.ul. Because obtaining a holistic knowledge about the u.ul, depends on knowing their nature and function. In this study, the nature of term a.l that used in Shar.u Mu.ta.ar al-Ta.avi and the functions of usul are examined. Ja..a. uses the a.l in the sense of sharia evidence, the main evidence (rajih) that is preferred in case of conflict of evidences, maqisun `aleyh, `illa, legal provision, legal maxims of fiqh and usul al-fiqh. Most of the a.l in the meaning of usul al-fiqh's legal maxims are related to conflict and preference between proofs, the conditions of accepting the hadiths and qiyas. Sometimes it is also possible to mean more than one of these meanings of the term a.l at the same time. The term usul which is the plural form of the a.l, is often used in the sense of fiqh rule, and sometimes in the sense of nas and ijma.It is seen that the term u.ul, which means fiqh rule, is used for the basic issues of fiqh and the provisions related to them, which Hanafi jurists or jurists in general are allied with. It is seen that the usul in Ja..a.' mentioned work have different functions. The first of these is to justify the legal provision adopted and to prove that the opposing view is wrong. Sometimes multiple a.l are operated together to justify a judgment. The usul are a criterion for the acceptance of the hadith. Ja..a. presents the contradiction to the a.l as the reason for rejecting the hadiths, on the other hand, he draws attention to the difference between "conformity with the u.ul" and "conformity to the qiyas al-u.ul" in accepting hadiths. Likewise, "witness of the u.ul/" is used when choosing between the hadiths that are in conflict. It is seen that the usul whose testimonies are consulted are the sharia evidences about particular issues or the provisions derived from these evidences rather than general principles.Another purpose of the usul in the aforementioned book is to establish the connection between particular provisions and general principles by pointing out the general principles underlying the particular provisions. In this way, it is revealed that sectarian accumulation is a consistent and holistic structure built on some general principles. Identifying the origins of the disputes among the jurists and also explaining why the provisions of similar issues are different are important functions of the u.ul. The usul are also operated in intra- madhhab preferences and also when determining who an opinion belongs to.