Usulcülere Göre Emir-İrade İlişkisi
According To The Juridists Command-Will Relation
Yazar: Demirboğa, Selman
Dergi: Bilimname No. 49, 2022
Anahtar kelimeler: Islamic Law,Fiqh Method,Command,Will,Demand ; İslam Hukuku,Fıkıh Usulü,Emir,İrade,Talep

Fıkıh usulü eserlerinde emir konusuyla ilgili tartışılan meselelerden biri de emrin iradeyi gerektirip gerektirmediği meselesidir. Emrin, emir olması için irade vasfının gerekli olup olmadığı, bu meselenin temelini oluşturmaktadır. Söz konusu tartışma, talebin mahiyeti ve Allah'ın  irade etmediği bir şeyi emretmesinin caiz olup olmamasından kaynaklanır. Bununla birlikte kelâm-ı nefsî ile ilgili görüş farklılığının da teorik anlamda bu tartışmayla ilgili olduğu görülmektedir. Konuyla ilgili usul literatüründe temelde iki görüşten söz etmek mümkündür. Mu’tezilî ve Şiî usulcülerin benimsediği birinci yaklaşıma göre emir iradeyi gerektirir. Bu görüşe göre emir, ancak emredilen şeyin emreden tarafından irade edilmesiyle söz konusu olur. Dolayısıyla emirde mutlaka iradenin bulunması gerekir. Bu görüş sahiplerinin emirde bulunmasını şart koştukları irade, emredilen şeyin yapılmasını gerektiren iradedir. Mu’tezilî usulcülerin emirde iradeyi şart koşmasının altında yatan temel sebeplerden birinin savundukları adalet ilkesiyle bağlantılı olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Zira onlara göre Allah adaleti gereği irade etmediği bir şeyi emretmez. Cumhûrun benimsediği ikinci görüşe göre ise emir iradeyi gerektirmez. Buna göre emirde, emredilen şeyin irade edilmiş olması şart değildir. Dolayısıyla irade edilen bir şeyin emredilmesi caiz olduğu gibi irade edilmeyen bir şeyin emredilmesi de caizdir. Bu nedenle emrin emir olması için talep dışında irade gibi ek bir sıfata ihtiyaç yoktur.Bu makalenin amacı usul eserleri bağlamında emrin iradeyi gerektirip gerektirmediğiyle ilgili tartışmanın mahiyetini ortaya koymak ve tarafların görüşlerini temellendirmek için tutunduğu gerekçeleri açıklamaktır. Bu yönüyle söz konusu problemin açığa kavuşturulması hedeflenmektedir.

One of the issues discussed about the command in the works of fiqh is undoubtedly the issue of whether the command requires will or not. Whether the qualification of will is necessary for an command to be an command is the basis of this issue. It is possible to say that the discussion in question stems from the nature of the demand and whether it is permissible for Allah to command something that he does not will. For all that, it can be said that the difference of opinion about the kalam-ı nafsî has an effect on this discussion in the theoretical sense. It is possible to talk about two main views in the law literature on the subject. According to the first approach adopted by Mu'tazili and Shiite juridists, the command requires will. According to the juridists, who hold this view, an command comes into question only by the will of what is commendered. Therefore, there must be a will in the command. The will that these opinion holders require to be in command is the will that requires doing what is commendered. It is possible to say that one of the main reasons underlying the Mu'tazili juridists stipulating the will in the command is related to the judicial principle they advocate. For, according to them, Allah does not command anything that he does not will, in accordance with His justice.The main justification that the jurisprists, who stipulate the will in the command, hold on to justify their views is as follows: In command to distinguish the command from the word of a itself who has forgotten the threat and command, there must be a distinctive adjective in addition to the meaning of demand. Because the demand alone is not enough to express the command. If we assume that the request alone is sufficient, then the threat and the forgetting person's saying "do" using the command pattern would also fall within the scope of the command. Because they are also in demand. For this reason, in command to distinguish between the command and the others, the condition of will, which is related to the person who commanding (amir), is sought. In other words, in command for an command to be an command, besides the demand, the person command must will what he commandered. It is possible to say that this is the main reason that the jurisprists, who are of the opinion that the will is a must in the command, hold on to this issue in their jurisprudence works.According to the second approach adopted by Hanafis, Malikis, Shafiis and Hanbali juridists, the command does not require will. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the commanded thing to be willed. Therefore, just as it is permissible to command something that is willed, it is also permissible to command something that is not willed. For this reason, there is no need for an additional adjective such as will other than demand for an command to be an command. Because, according to those who hold this view, the fact that an command is an command stems from a characteristic of the itself, and this qualification is not associated with an illness. For example, the fact that science is science is not because of a reason (talil) but because of itself. In the same way, this is the case with the emir, and the fact that the command is an command is not due to a reason (talil) but due to its itself.The jurisprists, who are of the opinion that the command does not require the will, clung to some evidence to justify this view. One of these reason is as follows: It is fixed by consensus (ıcma) that disbelievers are commanded to believe. However, Allah has not willed the disbelievers to believe, even though he commandered them to believe. If Allah had willed the disbelievers to believe, then their belief would have come true. The fact that faith has not been fulfilled indicates that the command and the will are different things. For example, according to Ibn Berhan, one of the leading juridists of Shafiis, this is the main reason for the problem of whether the command requires the will or not. As a matter of fact, some prominent theologians such as Razi and Âmidî stated that this evidence is the strongest reason.The aim of this article is to determine the nature of the debate about whether the command requires the will in the context of jurisprudence works and to explain the reasons that the parties hold on to base their views. In this respect, it is aimed to clarify the problem in question.