In the last quarter of the 19 th century and the first quarter of the 20th century, many books and treatises dealing with talfīq were written, and many fatwās were issued in parallel. Although the majority of the scholars were against talfīq between the 17-18th centuries, this strong opposition was broken in the last quarter of the 19 th century, and some of the scholars living in this period argued that talfīq was permissible. On the other hand, there are also jurists who opposed to talfīq. One of the main references of the jurists who do not accept talfīq on this subject is the views of scholars who are against talfīq in previous centuries. In this half-century period, one of the main reasons for the discussions about talfīq is whether or not one can benefit from it in the codification of Islamic Law. Indeed, the issue of copyright was brought to the agenda during the preparation process, and amendment of Majalla, and this issue was discussed in the draft laws prepared on family law. Especially some prominent scholars of the period, such as Elmalılı Hamdi Efendi, stated that new laws could be made by making talfıq by staying within the tradition of fiqh instead of taking laws from the West. Likewise, in a document criticising Majalla, it was emphasized that talfıq should be used. These discussions about talfīq took place in Istanbul as well as in other important centres of the Islamic world, such as Damascus and Cairo. The city this article will focus on is Cairo. Because in Cairo, the works related to talfīq were given fatwās, and the leading jurists of the period examined this issue from different angles. Inbābī, who was the sheikh of Azhar, touches on the subject of talfīq in his treatise, which he wrote on a question asked about imitation (taqlīd), and opposed it. Similarly, one of his students, Halīcī in the second part of her work, in which he examines the provision of tattooing, examines in depth the issues such as talfīq and its related issues of school boundary-crossing (intiqāl) and pragmatic eclecticism (tatabbu’ al-rukhas) Halīcī is against talfīq like his teacher Inbābī. He jus- tificated his point of view by mentioning the views expressed against talfīq between the 16-18th centuries. In particular, he emphasized that the majority of schools are against talfīq. He empha- sizes that Haytamī stated that talfīq is invalid with consensus (ijmā) and that he does not respect the viewpoints of scholars who express an opinion thattalfīq is permissible on this issue. Another student of Inbābī, Husaynī, wrote a treatise on imitation, and in this treatise, he dealt with talfīq and its related issues. Husaynī, unlike his teacher Inbābī, has a positive view of talfīq. Husaynī states in his treatise that he will deal with the issue of talfīq from a procedural point of view and does not agree with the claims that talfīq is invalid by consensus. He gives the views of the Emir Sultan about the permission of that talfıq as a reference. Likewise, Muhammad Bahīt, who was among the students of Inbābī and who was the sheikh of Azhar, gives a fatwā regarding the permissibility of talfīq. According to him, as long as it is not contrary to consensus ( ijmā), it is permissible to act according to the decree obtained by talfiq. He mentions the views of scholars such as Tarsūsī, Amīr Bādshāh who have a positive view of talfīq. Apart from İnbābi's students, there are many jurists such as Rashīd Redā, Muhammad Mahdī, Shafshāwanī who make evaluations about talfīq. Rashīd Redā deals with the issue of talfīq in his fatwās and the treatise he wrote about imitation and defended the permissibility of talfīq. Like- wise, Shafshāwanī who Mālikī jurist, gave a positive fatwā to the talfīq and justified his fatwā with necessity. Hanafī jurist Muhammad Mahdī, who was the sheikh of Azhar, wrote a treatise on talfīq. He also mentions the subject of talfīq in one of her fatwās. He states in his fatwā that talfīq is invalid. In this study, the copyright debates that took place in Cairo between the last quarter of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century will be discussed. The main purpose of the article is to examine the fact that although there was a very strong opposition to talfīq between the 17th and 18th centuries, this opposition was broken and the main reason behind it.
19. yüzyılın son çeyreği ile 20. yüzyılın ilk çeyreğinde telfik meselesini ele alan birçok kitap ile risale kaleme alınmış ve pek çok fetva verilmiştir. 17-18. yüzyılları arasında ulemanın çoğun-luğu telfike karşı olmasına rağmen bu kuvvetli muhalefet 19. yüzyılın son çeyreğinde kırılmış, bu dönemde yaşayan âlimlerin bir kısmı telfikin caiz olduğunu savunmuşlardır. Buna karşın telfike karşı çıkan fakihler de vardır. Telfiki kabul etmeyen fakihlerin bu konudaki temel referanslarından birisi önceki asırlardaki telfik karşıtı âlimlerin görüşleridir. Bu yarım asırlık dö-nemde telfik tartışmalarının temel sebeplerinden birisi fıkhın kanunlaştırılmasında telfikten yararlanıp yararlanılamayacağıdır. Nitekim Mecelle’nin hazırlanış süreci ve tadilinde telfik konusu gündeme geldiği gibi aile hukukuna dair hazırlanan kanun taslaklarında da bu konu tartışılmıştır. Özellikle Elmalılı Hamdi gibi bazı âlimler Batıdan kanunlar alınması yerine fıkıh geleneği içerisine kalarak telfik yapılması suretiyle yeni kanunların yapılabileceğini ifade etmiştir. Telfikle ilgili bu tartışmalar İstanbul’da yapıldığı gibi Şam ve Kahire gibi İslam dün-yasının diğer önemli merkezlerinde de cereyan etmiştir. Bu çalışmamızda 19. yüzyılın son çeyreği ile 20 yüzyılın ilk çeyreği arasında Kahire’de cereyan eden telfik tartışmaları ele alına-caktır. Zira Kahire’de telfikle ilgili eserler telif edildiği gibi fetvalar verilmiş ve dönemin önde gelen fakihleri bu konuyu farklı açılardan irdelemişlerdir. Makalenin temel amacı 17-18. yüzyılları arasında telfike karşı çok güçlü bir muhalefet olmasına rağmen bu muhalefetin kırılmasının ardındaki temel sebebi irdelemektir.