Comparison of Molla Hüsrev's Mir'âtü'l-Usûl and Zekiyyüddîn Şa'bân's Usûlü'l-Fiqh in context of religious evidences

In the thesis, two works, as it is one classical and one modern, written in the field of fiqh are compared in terms of style, method, content, and features. One of the works is "Mir'âtü'l-usûl", written by Molla Hüsrev, reflecting the feature and depth of classic fiqh, and the other one is "Usûlu'l-fıkh", by Zekiyyüdîn Şaban, which is one of works that different and modern style as from first half of 20th century. These works are significant works introduced in the educational institutions of their time for a long time and summarized the rich acquis before them. As a result of the research and examination, it is determined that the works have general characteristics of their period and the Mir'âtü'l-usûl was written with the "fuqaha method" based on the views of Hanafi imams and reflects the characteristics of the memzûc method in certain aspects. It is observed that Usûlü'l-fiqh was written in an up-to-date and comprehensible style, without any sectarian concerns, by giving place to the views of all sects and making a choice among them. With the idea of not exceeding the scope of the master's thesis, only the parts of both works related to religious evidence were discussed. As Molla Hüsrev discussed evidence of Sharia in four title as book, sunnah, ijma and qiyas, Zekiyyüddîn Şa'bân discussed evidence of Sharia in eleven title as book, sunnah, ijma, qiyas, mesalh-i mürsele, iqsan, custom,sedd-i zerai, shar'u men kablena, sahabi kavli, and istishap. Although the subjects of both works are in many ways parallel to each other, it is determined that there are differences. It also draws attention that plenty of examples used are became rich and the same examples were used in many subjects.