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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• 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

1. 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.
2. Apak, Adem, İslam Siyaset Geleneğinde Amr b. el-Âs, 2.B., Ankara Okulu Yayınları, Ankara, 2016.
3. Azimli, Mehmet, Dört Halifeyi Farklı Okumak – 4: Hz. Ali, 2.B., Ankara Okulu Yayınları, Ankara, 2015.
4. Belâzürî, Ebü’l-Hasen Ahmed b. Yahya, Ensabü’l-Eşraf, thk. Süheyl Zekkar ve Riyad Zerkelî, Darü’l-Fikr, I-XIII, 1997.
5. Berrâdî, Ebü’l-Fazl Ebü’l-Kasım b. İbrahim, el-Cevâhiru’l-Müntekât fî Itmâmi Mâ Ehalle Bihî Kitâbü’t-Tabakât, Kahire, 1885.
6. İbn A’sem, Ebu Muhammed Ahmed b. A’sem el-Kûfî, Kitabü’l-Fütuh, thk. Ali Şîrî, Darü’l-Edva, I-VIII, Beyrut, 1991.
7. 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.
8. 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.

9. 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.
10. Minkarî, Nasr b. Müzahim, Vak'atü Sıffîn, thk. Abdüsselam Muhammed Harun, Darü’l-Cîl, Beyrut, 1990.
11. Sifil, Ebubekir, İhyâ ve İnşâ, Rıhlekitap, İstanbul, 2014.
12. Makaleler
13. Demircan, Adnan, "Hz. Ali’nin İktidar Yıllarında İslam Toplumunda Siyaset", ANEMON Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, C. I, Sy. 2, 2013.
14. Önkal, Ahmet, “Tahkim Olayı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, İSTEM, Sy.2, Yıl 1, 2003.
15. Yıldız, Harun, “Hâricîlerin Doğuşunda Kurrânın Rolü”, EKEV Akademi Dergisi, C. VIII, Sy. 18, 2004.