The Effect of Denominational Concern on Transfer and Interpretation of History Specific to the Tahkim Case

Yıl 2019, , 318 - 345, 31.12.2019

Yusuf Sansarkan

https://doi.org/10.20486/imad.430574

Cited By: 2

Öz

Since the test and survey method are not used
in history field, the news that has reached today are the ways of learning the
truth. Being expressed that news by the people causes truths to remain hidden
most of the time. One other result the expression mentioned is that feelings
mix in the historical data. One of the reasons for breaking loose from
objectivity is being narrator belong to a sect (denomination). Sect belonging
causes individual to understand, comment, transfer the event and facts via the
perspective of the sect. Tahkim Case that is the common point of three big
sects who completed their formation in the next period is one of the cases need
to be researched in terms of the effect of the sect. The Shi’a sect is one of
the parties because of Ali who was the leader of the parties in the matter of
arbitration. Havâric constituted the first sect by departing from Ali as the
result of this case. Followers of Sunnah that is the sect of the rest of the
majority is the last party of the case mentioned. Following items are the
reasons of the importance of Tahkim Case; Ali took the lead for one of the
parties; being constituted one of the sides of the first great war among the
Muslims by the case; causing to emerge a big sect. To light up the dark points
of Tahkim Case is the fountainhead of this research. The goal of this study is
to evaluate the differences between stories by comparing. Accordingly, the
guidance in those stories stemming from the sect effect will be revealed. All
in all, it is observed that the denominational perspective have the effect on
history transmission. These observations have been detailed by specific samples
in keeping with the chronological order of the matter of arbitration.

Summary

As a
branch of science, history has to objectively put forward events, which were
occurred in the past. However, because of people who are the designers and
creators of the history fail to abandon their emotional point of view,
historical transfers have often been subjective. One of the reasons for this
subjectivity is that the historian feels belonging to a sect. The sense of
belonging to a sect may lead the person making historical transfer to explain
the events by changing them in such a way that they do not harm his sect.  

One of the
events in which subjectivity is dominant is “the case of Tahkim”. The basis of
the Tahkim, which has been the subject of debate until now, is that the
caliphate of Ali was not accepted by all groups and there were some revolts
against him. As a result of this opposition, the battle of Siffin took place
even if it was flash in the pan due to the Tahkim.

After
Tahkim, some narratives could have manipulated to keep Ali away from failure.
For example, it was narrated that Ali never accepted the call for Tahkim, but
he was misunderstood because he remained silent as a result of the rise of
voices among the commanders of the Iraqi army. As a matter of fact, while Ali,
as the fourth caliph of the Islamic state, was trying to control Muawiyah, a
governor who was dismissed, as a result of this case he became equal with
Muawiyah and the Islamic state met two-headed administration from this moment
on. From this moment, the war stopped and peace talks began. Even though the
two leaders were equally accepted, it can be understood from the letters of Ali
that he despised Muawiyah and did not accept him as a rival.

Muawiyah
was the governor of Damascus before this war. Since the Islamic state was ruled
from Medina before Ali moved the State Center to Kufa, Muawiyah had no chance
of becoming a caliph. In fact, Muawiyah did not have any claim for leadership.
Although the purpose of the Tahkim was not to determine the caliphate, the
Muaviye, which was promoted as one of the two equal leaders in public opinion
with Ali became a strong candidate for caliphate after the decision of the
Tahkim.  This changed status of Muawiyah
and Ali. This was also indication of the defeat for Ali. Moreover, all sources
agreed that the Damascus army was about to be defeated when the saifis were
hanged on the spears. Considering these situations, it can be concluded that
Ali and Iraqis gave up their victory and handed their achievements to the
shamans with their own hands.

The Shia
and Sunni sources that tried to impose such a heavy responsibility on the other
side put the whole of the blame on the Kharijites. Then Kharijites saw Ali as
responsible for this blame. As the result of the bloody war and the confrontation
of the same tribes, the extreme desire for the end of the war among people were
ignored by some of the sources mentioned above. Ali or Kharijites were seen as
responsible of the war. However, leaders of some tribes feared that there would
be no more soldiers to protect the borders of the country if the war continued
and demanded the war stopped immediately. In fact, many sources recorded that
70,000 people died in the Battle of Siffin. In this case, it is usual for some
leaders to be concerned about the death of many Muslims, as well as the
discomfort they suffered from the murder of their brothers.

The
biggest reason for Ali to remain silent or to unwillingly accept the idea of
Tahkim is that he does not consider anyone more worthy of the caliphate than
himself. When the call for Tahkim is made, Ali said for Muawiyah and his army:
“These are not the people of the Qur'an, they are cheating.” Ali considers
himself completely right and foresees that he will be the winner of a fair
Tahkim. In fact, in his warning to the arbitrators during the writing of the
arbitration, he said that the whole Qur'an was in his favor and he expressed
that if they decided with justice he would be the winner. In addition to these,
it was not decided where and what topics the arbitrators were going to discuss.
It must have prevented Ali from worrying about the loss of the caliphate. It
should be mentioned at this point that until that time the caliphate was not
opened to discussion and Muawiyah was not a candidate for caliph.

In the
Tahkim, while Shia and Kharijites took a stand, Sunni which comprised the
majority was peacemaker in some cases. However, the first narrations were
written by writers who were inclined to Shiism caused Sunni sources to look
through the Shia window. In this context, Shia and Sunni, who have adopted a
similar approach supported Ali for Tahkim and they attributed the failure to
trick of Amr b. As.

Kharijites
who do not accept the responsibility of the failure of the Tahkim wanted to
purify themselves and put the blame on Ali. They even inculcated him for
accepting Tahkim. On the other hand, Some Sunni writers, who argued that the
cheating of Amr b. As was a scribble for the companions, ignored the historical
narratives or interpreted them differently.

The
followers of Sunnah who are the biggest sect tries to cover the guilty by
putting blame on Kharijites. It must be result of their reconciler aspect.
Thus, the members of the sects who maintain their existence will not discuss
due to a historical event.

Based on all these, it can be said that historians and
intellectuals might produce, change and ignore some data in accordance with the
benefit of the sect they belong to. Besides, it should be emphasized that it is
important to analyze the data according to the sectarian effect in the
historical studies in terms of reaching healthy historical information.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tahkim Case, Sectarian impact, Siffin War, Amr b. al-Âs, Abu Musa al-Ash’arî

HAKEM OLAYI ÖZELİNDE MEZHEBÎ KAYGININ TARİH AKTARIM VE YORUMUNA ETKİSİ

Öz

Tarih alanında
deney ve gözlem metodu kullanılmadığından, geçmişin gerçekliklerine ulaşmanın
yolu bugüne ulaşan haberlerdir. Bu haberlerin insanlar tarafından aktarılması, tarihî
verilere duyguların karışmasına ve çoğu zaman gerçeklerin saklı kalmasına neden
olmaktadır. İnsanların, aktarımlarında nesnellikten kopmasının nedenlerinden
biri de râvilerin bir mezhebe mensup olmasıdır. Mezhep aidiyeti, kişinin olay
ve olguları mezhebinin bakış açısıyla anlamasına, yorumlamasına ve aktarmasına
neden olmaktadır. Sonraki süreçte teşekküllerini tamamlayacak üç büyük mezhebin
doğrudan taraf olduğu Hakem Olayı, mezhep etkisinin araştırılması gereken
olaylardan biridir. Tahkim meselesindeki taraflardan birinin lideri olan Hz.
Ali’den dolayı Şia, bu olay sonucunda Hz. Ali’den ayrılarak ilk mezhebi
oluşturan Havâric ve geri kalan çoğunluğun mezhebi olan Ehl-i sünnet,
zikredilen olayda taraf olan mezheplerdir. Büyük bir mezhebin ortaya çıkmasına
neden olması, Hz. Ali’nin taraflardan birine liderlik etmesi ve Müslümanlar
arasındaki ilk büyük savaşın bir parçasını teşkil etmesi nedeniyle son derece
önemli olan Hakem Olayı’nın karanlık noktalarının aydınlatılması, bu çalışmanın
çıkış noktasını oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, olaya dair rivayetlerin
karşılaştırılarak aralarındaki farkların değerlendirilmesi, böylece mezhep
etkisinin bu rivayetlerde ne tür yönlendirmelere neden olduğunun ortaya
çıkarılmasıdır. Sonuçta mezhebî bakışın tarih aktarımında etkili olduğu
gözlemlenmiş, tahkim meselesinin kronolojik sırasına uygun olarak bazı
örneklerle bu gözlemler detaylandırılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hakem Olayı, Mezhep Etkisi, Sıffîn, Amr b. Âs, Ebu Musa el-Eş’arî

Kaynakça

• Ahmed b. Hanbel, Ebu Abdillah Ahmed b. Muhammed b. Hanbel eş-Şeybânî el-Mervezî, Müsnedü’l-İmam Ahmed b. Hanbel, thk. Şuayb el-Arnavut, Müessesetü’r-Risale, I-L, Beyrut, 1998.
• Apak, Adem, İslam Siyaset Geleneğinde Amr b. el-Âs, 2.B., Ankara Okulu Yayınları, Ankara, 2016.
• Azimli, Mehmet, Dört Halifeyi Farklı Okumak – 4: Hz. Ali, 2.B., Ankara Okulu Yayınları, Ankara, 2015.
• Belâzürî, Ebü’l-Hasen Ahmed b. Yahya, Ensabü’l-Eşraf, thk. Süheyl Zekkar ve Riyad Zerkelî, Darü’l-Fikr, I-XIII, 1997.
• Berrâdî, Ebü’l-Fazl Ebü’l-Kasım b. İbrahim, el-Cevâhiru’l-Müntekât fî Itmâmi Mâ Ehalle Bihî Kitâbü’t-Tabakât, Kahire, 1885.
• İbn A’sem, Ebu Muhammed Ahmed b. A’sem el-Kûfî, Kitabü’l-Fütuh, thk. Ali Şîrî, Darü’l-Edva, I-VIII, Beyrut, 1991.
• İbnü’l-Arabî, Ebu Bekr Muhammed b. Abdillah b. Muhammed el-Meâfirî, el-Avâsım mine’l-Kavâsım, thk. Mahmud Mehdi İstanbulî ve Muhibbuddîn El-Hatîb, 6.B, Mektebetü’s-Sünne, Kahire, 1412.
• İbnü’l-Esîr, Ebü’l-Hasen İzzüddîn Ali el-Cezerî, el-Kâmil fi’t-Tarih, thk. Ebü’l-Fida Abdullah El-Kadî, Darü’l-Kütübü’l-İlmiyye, I-XI, Beyrut, 1987.
• Mes’udî, Ebü’l-Hasen Ali b. Hüseyin b. Ali, Mürûcü’z-Zeheb, thk. Muhammed Muhyiddin Abdülhamid, 5.B., Darü’l-Fikr, I-II, Beyrut, 1973.
• Minkarî, Nasr b. Müzahim, Vak'atü Sıffîn, thk. Abdüsselam Muhammed Harun, Darü’l-Cîl, Beyrut, 1990.
• Sifil, Ebubekir, İhyâ ve İnşâ, Rıhlekitap, İstanbul, 2014.
• Makaleler
• Demircan, Adnan, "Hz. Ali’nin İktidar Yıllarında İslam Toplumunda Siyaset", ANEMON Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, C. I, Sy. 2, 2013.
• Önkal, Ahmet, “Tahkim Olayı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, İSTEM, Sy.2, Yıl 1, 2003.
• Yıldız, Harun, “Hâricîlerin Doğuşunda Kurrânın Rolü”, EKEV Akademi Dergisi, C. VIII, Sy. 18, 2004.