Dört mezhepte fukahanın bilgi yönünden tasnifi

The discipline of the hierarchy of the jurists in Islamic Jurisprudence Literature, in its development took two routes: Hierarchy of the Jurists in regards to their biographies and personal behaviour. This would make mention of their lineage, life spans and dates of their deaths and commendations of by other notables. This thesis will only briefly touch on this type of literature and in summary because it is extraneous to the scope of the subject. The discipline of the hierarchy of the jurists in accordance to their degree of scholarship, which aims at uncovering the assumptions of the methods of deduction and their compilations according to their ranks in jurisprudence. The thesis revolves around the second type and what's founded upon it explaining the, tabaqat, hierarchy of the jurists of the four schools of thought: Hanafites, Malikites, Shafiites and Hanbalites; considering their ranks in knowledge and their occupations as jurists. It also briefly touches upon the surrounding discourses. It is aimed to alleviate the mental fragmentation and intellectual chaos surrounding their ranks and their functions. In the light of all this it aims to reach a sound identification of the most important criticisms and refutations. To fulfil this aim it incorporates the classifications of the tabaqat of the four schools of thought by presenting the pre-eminent classification in the Hanafi school, that of Ibn Kamal Pasha, along with mention of its criticisms, concluding with alternative divisions to the Hanafi school of thought. Then it moves onto an explanatory breakdown of the jurists' functions and roles they occupied. e.g. Unrestricted, independent ijtihad, Unrestricted, but dependent to associated ijtihad, Ijtihad within the school of thought, Ijtihad on (solitary) issues, Standardized school methodology for analogy, Assessing for the stronger view between two equally strong interpretations, Distinguishing Distinction, Unqualified blind following. The way this is accomplished is by looking at all the approaches of gathering classifications of the tabaqat of the jurists from a variety of sources, using both modern and old references. It delved into the depth of their sayings and views in light of their ranks within the hierarchies, their juristic occupations whilst carefully scrutinising and editing them, placing clear boundaries for their levels. Thus, it extracted the core occupations of the jurists through corroborative deduction attention to finder details as best as possible. While studying the terminology of the ranks of the juristic hierarchy and occupations, it clarifies that the range of classification revolve around: The classification of Ibn Kamal and the classification of Ibn Salah. All other classifications find their sources in these two to a large extent. The jurisprudential occupations mentioned in sources and references, although might be many in number except that they go back to what is mentioned in Chapter 2 on the specific juristic functions and their differences are no more than semantic. While researching the topic it became clear to the researcher the root of some of the differences that occurred between jurists in hierarchy and function. For example, their differing in describing the ormukharrijeen (extractors) and the murajjiheen (evaluators) as being either people of ijtihad or of taqlid and their difference in this revolves around determining whether the threshold of ijtihad was breached or not and similar is the situation in their differing over the judgement of a mujtahid who does taqlid of another mujtahid. The reason for their disagreement over this matter stems from two narratives from the earlier scholars, and each camp chose what the other did not. Similarly, is their disagreement over the degree of authority and hierarchy of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad bin Al-Hasan and Zifr bin Al-Huzail and their likes in knowledge. The source of this disagreement rises from the difference in understanding "Al-Usul" that is found among the qualities mentioned in some ranks of the tabaqat. Discovering these reasons and root causes is worthy of being considered as some of the most important accomplishments of this thesis. The difference revolved around the ruling on the divisibility of ijtihad or its indivisibility. Like the circumstances in their differing on the rules around taqlid of one mujtahid to another because two opinions have been cited from previous imams so each group chooses what the other did not choose. From that respect also is their differering in the ranks of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad b. Al-Hasan, Zafar b. Al-Huzail and their likes in knowledge. The cause of that ikhtilaf is their differing on their assumptions around "usul" found in the descriptions rendered for some of the levels of the tabaqat. Taking a look at the causes and motives and analysing them does merit consideration as one of the best achievements of this thesis.