Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
BILIMNAME, sa.2, ss.7-29, 2017 (ESCI)
According to Hanafits, the fard (obligation) is proved by solid evidence (al-dalil al-kat'i) that does not include any doubt. Therefore, to deny a judgment which is fard makes a person disbeliever. So, because of praying (al-salah), fasting, pilgrimage and al-zakah are proved by solid evidence, there is no problem in calling them as fard. However, when the writings of furu-i fiqh (the branch of fiqh) are examined, it could be seen that some of the subjects which are not proved by the solid evidence and which are disputed between the ummah are also evaluated as fard by the Hanafits. For example, although the last sitting in the prayer (al-ka'da al-aherah), and to wipe one of the four pieces of head (mashu rub'i al-ra's) are not proved by solid evidence, they are evaluated by the Hanafits as fard. In the following period, some Hanafits have divided the fard into two parts to solve this problem. The first is proved by solid evidence and to deny it makes the person disbeliever. The second is to deny it does not make the person disbeliever. The first is called as an al-fard al-i'tikadi whereas the latter is named as al-fard al-amali. The latter is also known as al-fard al-ijtihadi and al-fard al-zanni. However, considering the definition of fard in the usul al-fiqh, it is a problem that the al-fard al-amali is called fard. Because according to the definition in the usul al-fiqh, to deny the fard requires a lack of faith. Perhaps because of this, some of the subsequent Hanafite scholars have regarded al-fard al-amali a kind of wacib. Because the wacib is proved by an uncertain evidence (al-dalil al-zanni), denying it does not make a person disbeliever. In this respect, there is no problem in placing the concept of al-fard al-amali within the scope of the wacib concept. According to this point, there are two types of wacib: the first is obligatory to do it and if it is not fillfulled, relevant worship becomes invalid (batil). The other is that if it is absence the worship is valid but is deficient. In this case, however, a problem has appeared: Although both are proved by the uncertain evidence, why does it make worship invalid when one of these is absent, or why does it make valid the worship when the other is absent? For this, we first need to briefly talk about the Hanafit's understanding of the concept of fard: According to Hanafits, for something to be fard, it is necessary that whole community of Muslims has agreed on it's being fard. So, some subjects proved by al-habar al-wahid (information of one person) or al-habar al-mashhur (information that became famous) were also seen as al-fard al-i'tikadi by Hanafits, because they have been agreed on by whole community of Muslims. When these examples are examined, it is seen that there is no disagreement among ummah about whether these actions are fard or not. For example, though the second prostrating (al-sacdah) in the prayer is proved by al-habar al-wahid, Hanafits have seen it as fard/rukun. Further, although the message of "Pligrimage is Arafat" has been generally accepted as mashhur, all of the Hanafits have seen the staying at Arafat (wakfah) as fard. Because there is no disagreement on that these actions are fard, agreement (icma) has arisen on these subjects. So, uncertain evidences about these subjects have become certain by ijma (agreement). Hanafits have accepted the actions which are proved by solid evidence or reasoning (istidlal) for them as obligatory actions whose fulfillment is necessary. But if it is disagreed upon whether these actions are fard or not, then Hanafits have kept away from calling this action as al-fard al-i'tikadi. For example, because al-Imam Malik has accepted last sitting in prayer as sunnah, Hanafits accepted it as al-fard al-amali, not fard. For this reason, even if such an action had been taken as fard in Hanafit sources, subsequents Hanafits had clearly stated that this action is al-fard al-amali. For Hanafits, the difference between al-fard al-amali and ordinary wacib such as reading al-Fatiha in prayer is that abandonment of al-fard al-amali prevents validity of prayer. The reason of this is that it is certain and its fulfillment is seen as absolutely necessary according to mujtahid's estimation. Therefore, if an action's evident, though there is a disagreement on it, got power according to mujtahid's estimation and come near the degree of certain evident and for this reason mujtahid sees its fulfillment as necessary and thinks that in the absence of this action worship is invalid, then this action is called as al-fard al-amali. In this respect, it is possible to define al-fard al-amali in this way: It is an action that the fulfillment is seen as necessary and whose abandonment is prohibited by a certain evident or reasoning according to mujtahid's estimation and in whose absence the worship is not valid but whose denying it doesn't entail disbelief." Accordingly, Hanafits regard the concept of fard as "Islamic circle." So, for them worships such as prayer, fasting, zakah and pilgrimage which are accepted by all muslims and take place in al-darurat al-diniyyeh (religious necessities) are fard. In this respect, it is possible to accept that al-fard alamali has been categorized between al-fard al-i'tikadi and wacib by subsequent Hanafits to prevent the accusation of disbelief. It seems more proper to take al-fard al-amali as an intermediate concept and distinct category. Because its definition and judgement is different from fard, it is not proper to call it as fard. It is not proper also to call it as wacib, because almost in all works of furu, wacib is used in the sense of "an action which in the case of its abandonment the prayer is valid."