The Semantic Transformation of the Concepts of Muhkam and Mutash?bih in the Hanaf? School of Jurisprudence From The al-Us?l to The al-Fur?: An Examination in the Context of Dab?s?’s Influence and Contribution

Dab?s?, one of the prominent Hanaf? legal scholars, became a cornerstone of Hanaf? legal thought due to the innovations he introduced to the science of Islamic jurisprudence. He restructured many topics—such as the classification of wording, rulings, the theory of expression, and analogy—from both formal and substantive perspectives, and he semantically refined numerous concepts in the methodology of fiqh. The topic of muhkam and mutash?bih is one of the issues where the aforementioned change and development are clearly seen. This study examines Dab?s?’s influence on the semantic transformation of the concepts of muhkam and mutash?bih throughout history, as well as their reflections in jurisprudential discourse. Numerous scientific studies have been conducted on both the subject of muhkam and mutash?bih and Dab?s?’s methodology. However, studies on muhkam and mutash?bih have generally focused on descriptive attributes and their interpretation, neglecting the subject's position in fiqh methodology and its impact on jurisprudential rulings. Moreover, ambiguous expressions have mostly been examined from a theological perspective, even in studies on jurisprudential methodology. Yet, these two concepts have been actively used throughout Islamic history, particularly by Hanaf? jurists, in deriving jurisprudential rulings. In studies addressing Dab?s?’s methodological understanding, the topic of muhkam and mutash?bih is usually summarised in just a few sentences. As far as we can ascertain, the innovations Dab?s? introduced in this context—his influence on later jurists and the practical implications of the theoretical semantic transformation—have not yet been the focus of any scholarly research. Consequently, this study is the first to concretely demonstrate Dab?s?’s interpretation of muhkam and mutash?bih and its impact on Hanaf? jurists and Hanaf? us?l thought. Furthermore, the study compares Dab?s?’s theory of muhkam and mutash?bih with the approach of earlier Hanaf? us?l scholars, thereby identifying the semantic cycle of these two concepts in Hanaf? us?l al-fiqh literature. More importantly, this study is the first to reveal how muhkam and mutash?bih are distinct in the interpretation of jurisprudential issues and in the process of issuing fatwas. Whether the interpretation of mutash?bih texts is permissible, and according to what and how they should be interpreted, is generally outside the scope of this study, as there have been numerous studies on this subject. The issue of understanding mutash?bih texts is briefly addressed only in the context of their relationship with muhkam texts, demonstrating Dab?s?’s influence. Because, in parallel with the narrowing and broadening of the scope of mutash?bih, although the practical outcome remains unchanged, in theory, the opinions of jurists regarding whether the meanings of mutash?bih can be known or not have varied. In the study, the approaches of al-Tah?w?, al-Karkh?, and al-Jass?s have been included as they represent the pre-Dab?s? period, and their views on this subject can be clearly identified. al-Tah?w?, al-Karkh?, and al-Jass?s, using a common language, divided all texts into two basic categories, regardless of whether they were theological or jurisprudential: muhkam and mutash?bih. They considered texts with multiple possible meanings from which jurisprudential rulings could be derived, as well as concise and common expressions, as mutash?bih within the general classification. According to these jurists, muhkam and mutash?bih constitute a specific and independent classification of expressions within themselves. Thus, muhkam encompasses expressions that have no other possible meaning and whose meaning is directly understood, while mutash?bih encompasses expressions that have multiple possible meanings and whose meaning can only be understood through evidence or al-bay?n. Dab?s?, however, narrowed the meanings of the concepts of muhkam and mutash?bih, definitively removing the concise and common from the scope of mutash?bih. Thus, with Dab?s?, mutash?bih took on a lexical form used in the methodology of jurisprudential solely to express verses with theological content. Although Dab?s?’s original approach was accepted by the vast majority of jurists who came after him, there were also those who opposed it, both within his own school of thought and from other schools. Based on existing sources, it has been determined that these debates continued for at least three hundred years. The interesting aspect is that some Hanaf? jurists who adopted Dab?s?’s view on muhkam and mutash?bih found it difficult to apply this in fur?, and while following Dab?s? in us?l, they used the two terms mentioned above in the same way as al-Tah?w?, al-Karkh?, and al-Jass?s when deriving jurisprudential rulings. More importantly, certain Hanaf? jurists—such as al-Tah?w?, al-Karkh?, and al-Jass?s—used the term not in the sense of mutash?bih (“ambiguous”), but rather as mu?tamal (“probable”), thereby introducing a new concept previously unknown in Hanaf? methodology. © 2025, Hitit University. All rights reserved.