İbn Haldûn'un Siyer Anlatımı - el-İber Özelinde -

Abstract

Mukaddime’sinde ifade ettiği görüşleri ile İslâm tarihçiliğinde bir çığır açtığı genel kabul gören İbn Haldûn bu eserinde tenkit, yorum, kaynak kullanımı gibi ameliyeleri tarihçiliğin olmazsa olmazları olarak nitelendirmiş ve verdiği örneklerle de tarihçilere bu açılardan çeşitli eleştiriler getirmiştir. Bir müellifin, önem verdiği usûlü telif ettiği eserlerde hayat geçirmesinin gerekliliği müsellemdir. Bununla birlikte gerek ülkemizde gerekse yurtdışında yapılan İbn Haldûn çalışmaları büyük çoğunlukla Mukaddime üzerinde yoğunlaşmakta, el-Iber’in muhtevası ve burada takip edilen usûl ise çok arka planda kalmaktadır. Bu çalışmamızda İbn Haldûn’un, tarih usûlüne dair görüşlerini tarihçiliğine yansıtıp yansıtmadığını, bu alandaki ünlü eseri el-Iber’deki Siyer bölümünü esas alarak incelemeye çalışacağız.

Keywords

• İbn Haldûn,el-İber,Mukaddime,Tarih,Siyer,Tarih Yazıcılığı

Ibn Khaldun’s Sırah Narration: A Focus on Al-Iber

Abstract

Experts working in various fields of social sciences define Ibn Khaldun as a sociologist, economist, and jurist. However, a feature that has been highlighted is that of historian.

Here are his two important studies: Muqaddimah and Kitab al Ibar. The fact that Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah is a historiographical and historical philosophical work, as well as the fact that Kitab al Ibar has got a historical feature, emphasize that Ibn Khaldun is a historian. Ibn Khaldun revealed the basics of history with a very advanced understanding compared to his time in Muqaddimah. He shared his views on historiography under the titles of separate titles. He criticized some historians who had lived before him, due to their lack of methods. In fact, Muqaddima is the theoretical and Kitab al Ibar is the application example of the historiography of Ibn Khaldun. It is very important to observe how much he practices the principles he has set out in his history book. The purpose of this work is to see whether Ibn Khaldun who, according to his own time has put forth the most advanced levels of historiography, applies them in his own written book.

The author does not have a separate Sirah book. That is why we have to evaluate Ibn Khaldun’s narration and writing of Sirah in his historiography. Moreover, when we look at the issues of Kitab al Ibar that deal with the Jahiliyyah and the Four Caliphs periods, we can see that these issues are handled very briefly and that the style in the Sirah section is also used there. This shows that Ibn Khaldun’s writing of Sirah is part of his historiography. We will especially make comparisons in the investigation we are going to carry out. Our method is based on comparing Ibn Khaldunʼs method in the Sirah section, the use of resources, criticism, interpretation, and section content and comparing them with the historiography written in Muqaddimah.

Ibn Khaldun preferred a very brief method of expression. For this reason, in his work he did not mention many subjects that are important for the Sirah. Events that are disconnected from each other are flowing in succession. He has not explicitly stated what sources he used. He used narrations but he did not mention where he got them. He mentioned sources he used in few narrations. These sources are names that he uses when he states that he is trusting such people as Ibn Ishaq, Vaqidi, Bukhari, Tabari. Sometimes he did not tell the story and sent the reader directly to the source. Although there are not many numbers, various expressions show that the author criticizes and prefers the news he reads according to the methods he adopts. However, the number of stories that are clearly criticized is two. According to Ibn Khaldun, the fact that a report is included in trustworthy sources is sufficient to verify its correctness. The author has interpreted various forms in the Sirah section of Kitab al Ibar, but their number is small. When we look at the issues handled by Ibn Khaldun in the Siyer section, it is generally observed that the processes of Islam’s notification, political issues, wars and delegations are predominantly involved. We can see that the Prophetʼs private life and the steps taken for the construction of the new society in Medina are not emphasized.

The point about which Ibn Khaldun criticized some of the historians in the Muqadaddimah is that they should have handled issues succinctly and should not have included details. However, it can be seen that the al Iberʼs sections assigned to Siyer also carry these features, that many traditions are not included, and that a significant portion is referred to by a few sentences. He has chosen from among the general Sirah topics the topics discussed in this section. However, the principles on which this choice is based are unclear. Ibn Khaldun has often not mentioned the sources he uses. We observe that the author does not reveal the reasons for preferring the narratives in the news he conveyed. In Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun lay emphasis on the critique of the news and stated that he saw it as the essence of history. Ibn Khaldun commented on the Siyer section, but by considering the basics of the historiography he published in Muqaddimah, we see that his interpretations are rather limited. Ibn Khaldun commented on the Sirah section, but when it is considered the essence of the historiography he had put forth in Mukaddime, we can see that his interpretations are rather limited. These characteristics of the Sirah indicate that he did not obey the point that historians criticized in Muqaddimah.

Keywords

• Ibn Khaldun,Al-Ibar,Muqaddimah,History,Sirah,Historiography

References

1. Aristoteles. Poetika. Çeviren S. Fırat. İstanbul: Can Yayınları, 2013.
2. Arslan, Ahmet. İbn Haldun. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1987.
3. Belâzûrî, Ebu’l-Abbâs Ahmed b. Yahyâ b. Câbir. Ensâbü’l-Eşrâf, I-VIII. Tahkik Muhammed Muhammed Tâmir, Beyrut: Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 2011.
4. Brockelmann, Carl. History of Islamic Peoples. New York: G. T. Putnams Son’s, 1960.
5. Câbirî, Muhammed Âbid. “Niçin İbn Haldûn.” Çeviren Harun Yılmaz, Dîvan İlmî Araştırmalar 21, (2006): 9-16.
6. Çaksu, Ali. “Ibn Khaldun and Hegel on Causality in History: Aristotelian Legacy Reconsidered.” Asian Journal of Social Science 35, (2007): 46-83.
7. Demircan, Adnan. Tarih ve Tarihçi. İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 2016.
8. Fîrûz, Osman Sâlih. “Menhecu’l-Kitâbeti’t-Tarihiyyeti’inde İbn Haldûn.” Âdâb 24, (2006): 39-73.

9. Günaltay, Şemseddin. İslam Tarihinin Kaynakları ‒Tarih ve Müverrihler‒. İstanbul: Endülüs Yayınları, 1991.
10. Hassan Ümit. “İbn Haldun Mukaddime'si Metninin Yaygınlık Kazanması Üzerine Notlar.” Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 28, no. 3, (2014): 111-126.
11. Hernawan, Wawan. “Ibn Khaldun Thought: A review of al-Muqaddimah Book.” Jurnal Ushuluddin 25, no. 2 (2015): 173-184.
12. İbn Haldûn, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed. (808/1406), et-Ta’rif bi-İbn Haldûn ve Rihletuhu Garben ve Şarken. Beyrut: Dâru’l-Kitâbi’l-Lübnânî, 1979.
13. İbn Haldûn, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed. Târîhu İbn Haldûn, Kitâbu’l-İber ve Dîvânu’l-Mübtede ve’l-Haber fî Eyyami’l-Arab ve’l-Acem ve’l-Berber ve men Âsârahum min Zevi’s-Sultâni’l-Ekber, I-VIII. Dâru’l-Beyrut: Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 2003.
14. İbn Haldûn, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed (808/1406). Mukaddime, I-II. Çeviren Süleyman Uludağ. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2007.
15. İrğat, Muhammet. “Tarihin Yeniden İnşâsı: İbn Haldun’un Tarihe Eleştirel, Bilimsel ve Felsefî Yaklaşımı.” Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 42, (2016): 481-491.
16. Karaca, Çağlar. İbn Haldun’un Mukaddime’sinde Toplumun Yasalarını Keşfeden Bir Düşünce Etkinliği Olarak Tarih. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2011.
17. Léon-Halkin, E. Tarih Tenkidinin Unsurları. Çeviren Bahaeddin Yediyıldız. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2000.
18. Öz, Şaban. İlk Siyer Kaynakları ve Müellifleri. İstanbul: İSAR Vakfı Yayınları, 2008.
19. Rosenthal, Franz. “İbn Haldûn biyografisine Yeniden Bakış.” Çeviren Ali Benli, Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 44, (2013): 339-360.
20. Sâlime Mahmûd Muhammed. Menheciyyetü İbn Haldûn fî Tedvîni’s-Sîreti’n-Nebeviyyeti ve Tefsîriha. Beyrut: Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1971.
21. Sarıtaş, Kamil. “İbn Haldun’da Bilgi Felsefesi.” Turkish Studies 9, (2014), 733-750.
22. Sofuoğlu, Cemal. “Gadir-i Hum Meselesi.” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 26, (1983), 461-470.
23. Şulul, Kasım. “İbn Haldun’un (1332-1406) Tarih Görüşü.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, (2002): 147-177.
24. Topçuoğlu, Abdullah. “İbn Haldun Üzerine Bir Biyografi Çalışması.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Edebiyat Dergisi 2, (1983): 199-241.
25. Uludağ, Süleyman. İbn Haldûn. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1993.
26. Uludağ, Süleyman. “İbn Haldûn.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi 19, (1998): 538-543.
27. Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, ve Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoğlu. İbn Haldun. İstanbul: Kanaat Yayınları, 1940.
28. Vâkıdî, Muhammed b. Ömer. Kitâbu’l-Meğâzî I-III. Tahkik Marsden Jones. Beyrut: Müessesetü’l-E’lemi li’l-Metbûât, 1979.
29. Yıldırım, Yavuz. “İbn Haldun’un Tarih Metodolojisi.” Geçmişten Geleceğe İbn Haldun: Vefatını‎n 600. Yılında İbn Haldun’u Yeniden Okumak. İSAM, (2016): 341-352.