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

Year 2017, Issue: 37, 123 - 145, 15.12.2017

Feyza Betül Köse

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

• Aristoteles. Poetika. Çeviren S. Fırat. İstanbul: Can Yayınları, 2013.
• Arslan, Ahmet. İbn Haldun. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1987.
• 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.
• Brockelmann, Carl. History of Islamic Peoples. New York: G. T. Putnams Son’s, 1960.
• Câbirî, Muhammed Âbid. “Niçin İbn Haldûn.” Çeviren Harun Yılmaz, Dîvan İlmî Araştırmalar 21, (2006): 9-16.
• Çaksu, Ali. “Ibn Khaldun and Hegel on Causality in History: Aristotelian Legacy Reconsidered.” Asian Journal of Social Science 35, (2007): 46-83.
• Demircan, Adnan. Tarih ve Tarihçi. İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 2016.
• Fîrûz, Osman Sâlih. “Menhecu’l-Kitâbeti’t-Tarihiyyeti’inde İbn Haldûn.” Âdâb 24, (2006): 39-73.
• Günaltay, Şemseddin. İslam Tarihinin Kaynakları ‒Tarih ve Müverrihler‒. İstanbul: Endülüs Yayınları, 1991.
• Hassan Ümit. “İbn Haldun Mukaddime'si Metninin Yaygınlık Kazanması Üzerine Notlar.” Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 28, no. 3, (2014): 111-126.
• Hernawan, Wawan. “Ibn Khaldun Thought: A review of al-Muqaddimah Book.” Jurnal Ushuluddin 25, no. 2 (2015): 173-184.
• 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.
• 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.
• İbn Haldûn, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed (808/1406). Mukaddime, I-II. Çeviren Süleyman Uludağ. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2007.
• İrğat, Muhammet. “Tarihin Yeniden İnşâsı: İbn Haldun’un Tarihe Eleştirel, Bilimsel ve Felsefî Yaklaşımı.” Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 42, (2016): 481-491.
• Karaca, Çağlar. İbn Haldun’un Mukaddime’sinde Toplumun Yasalarını Keşfeden Bir Düşünce Etkinliği Olarak Tarih. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2011.
• Léon-Halkin, E. Tarih Tenkidinin Unsurları. Çeviren Bahaeddin Yediyıldız. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2000.
• Öz, Şaban. İlk Siyer Kaynakları ve Müellifleri. İstanbul: İSAR Vakfı Yayınları, 2008.
• Rosenthal, Franz. “İbn Haldûn biyografisine Yeniden Bakış.” Çeviren Ali Benli, Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 44, (2013): 339-360.
• Sâlime Mahmûd Muhammed. Menheciyyetü İbn Haldûn fî Tedvîni’s-Sîreti’n-Nebeviyyeti ve Tefsîriha. Beyrut: Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1971.
• Sarıtaş, Kamil. “İbn Haldun’da Bilgi Felsefesi.” Turkish Studies 9, (2014), 733-750.
• Sofuoğlu, Cemal. “Gadir-i Hum Meselesi.” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 26, (1983), 461-470.
• Şulul, Kasım. “İbn Haldun’un (1332-1406) Tarih Görüşü.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, (2002): 147-177.
• Topçuoğlu, Abdullah. “İbn Haldun Üzerine Bir Biyografi Çalışması.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Edebiyat Dergisi 2, (1983): 199-241.
• Uludağ, Süleyman. İbn Haldûn. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1993.
• Uludağ, Süleyman. “İbn Haldûn.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi 19, (1998): 538-543.
• Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, ve Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoğlu. İbn Haldun. İstanbul: Kanaat Yayınları, 1940.
• Vâkıdî, Muhammed b. Ömer. Kitâbu’l-Meğâzî I-III. Tahkik Marsden Jones. Beyrut: Müessesetü’l-E’lemi li’l-Metbûât, 1979.
• Yıldırım, Yavuz. “İbn Haldun’un Tarih Metodolojisi.” Geçmişten Geleceğe İbn Haldun: Vefatını‎n 600. Yılında İbn Haldun’u Yeniden Okumak. İSAM, (2016): 341-352.