İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi

Öz

The system of citation in academic research has been an important pillar in the transmission of culture and civilization through history. Regardless of the segment to which it aims to appeal, footnote citation is a very serious issue in the case of transferring information from different sources other than the author's own opinions in the information obtained as a result of the research. At this point, researchers should pay attention to footnote citations in order not to interfere with their own opinions and the information they transmit. During footnote citation, sometimes the footnote given in the cited work is repeated again without being checked and incorrect information is mentioned. Sometimes, if the cited source is a collection or translation, the information in the work cannot be verified. In addition to this, in single-copy works, since the accuracy of the information cannot be determined, it is observed that the information in the edition is included exactly as if it were the phrases of the original author.
In this article, an aim has been made to draw attention to the above-mentioned issues through the work titled Alphabetic Dictionary of Islamic Law and Fiqh Terminology, which was published by Eser Neşriyat and which is attributed to Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır. The Gülle edition has been cited as a source in many books and articles to date. Looking at the story of the work, it is seen that the work titled Dictionary of Islamic Law, which was left as a manuscript by Elmalılı and was understood to be unfinished, was prepared for publication by Sıtkı Gülle and published in five volumes in 1996 by Eser Neşriyat under the title of Alphabetical Dictionary of Islamic Law and Fiqh Terminology. The names of Sıtkı Gülle in volumes 1,3,4 and 5 and Av. Ayhan Yalçın in volume 2 are written as the publishers. Examining the unfinished work of the Elmalılı, it is noteworthy that the work published by Eser Neşriyat has five volumes reaching about 2500 pages, while it was predicted that Elmalılı's unfinished work would not even exceed one volume. At this point, it is understood that the published work exceeds Elmalılı's original Dictionary of Islamic Law, contains many additions, and was published as a completely new edition.
Analyzing the work, it is not clear which terms belong to Elmalılı and which terms belong to the publishers. In addition, the fact that the name of the Elmalılı is mentioned on the cover of the work gives the researchers the misconception that the work belongs entirely to Elmalılı.
In the article, first of all, Elmalılı's unfinished work, Dictionary of Islamic Law, is introduced, then the work published by Eser Neşriyat, Alphabetical Dictionary of Islamic Law and Fiqh Terminology is analyzed, and finally, the reasons reflecting the problem of the attributing the statements in the work to the Elmalılı are presented. In many places in the article, texts from the original copy of Elmalılı's Dictionary of Islamic Law are included and the differences between the two works are pointed out.
As a result, the work titled Alphabetical Dictionary of Islamic Law and Fiqh Terminology, which was prepared for publication by Eser Neşriyat, should be completely revised again and the information belonging to Elmalılı and the information taken from the places he pointed out in his work should be clearly stated. If certain determined terms will be written by the publishers, this should also be clearly stated.