Ya‘Kubî ve Şiîliği Üzerine
On Ya’qubi and His Shiism
Yazar: Özdoğan, Kevser
Dergi: Bilimname, Vol. 2019 No. 39, 2019
Anahtar kelimeler: İslâm Tarihi,Ya’kubî,Şii,Tahiriler

Kaynaklarda Ya’kubî hakkında sınırlı bilgi olmasına rağmen bu bilgiler araştırmacılar tarafından yorumlanmıştır. Bu da bazı yorumların genel kanaat haline gelmesine sebep olmuştur. Bu kanaatlerden Ya’kubî’nin biyografisi, hizmet ettiği devletlerden özellikle Tâhirîlerin Şiî olma ihtimali ve eserleri üzerine yapılan incelemeler sebebiyle Ya’kubî’nin Şiî olup olmadığı iddiaları üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu kanaat ele alınmadan önce Ya’kubî’nin biyografisi, hizmet ettiği devletler ve eserleri hakkındaki bilgiler değerlendirilecektir. Yaptığımız araştırmada Ya’kubî’nin dedesi Vâdıh’ın Şiî olduğunu aktaran rivayet Taberî’de geçmektedir. Fakat bu rivayet meçhul raviler tarafından nakledildiği için herhangi bir delil değeri taşımamaktadır. Tâhirîlerin kurucusunun İran asıllı olduğu ve zaman zaman da yöneticilerinin Şiîlikle itham edildiği bilinmektedir. Tâhirîlerin Şiî olması Ya’kubî’nin de Şiî olma ihtimalini artıracak önemli bir unsurdur. Fakat gerek Tâhirî kurucusunun etnik kökeninin kesin olarak belirlenememesi gerekse Tâhirî yöneticilerinin Şiî yanlısı bir politika izlememiş olması Tâhirîlerin Sünnî bir devlet olduğunu göstermektedir. Ya’kubî’nin hizmet ettiği bir diğer devlet olan Tolunoğullarının ise Sünnî olduğu aşikârdır. Ya’kubî’nin eserlerindeki anlatımlarından hareketle Şiî olduğu iddiası ise araştırmacıların eserlerini sadece Şiî bakış açısıyla okumasından ve Tarih isimli eserini Şiî bir müstensihin istinsah etmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Ya’kubî’nin günümüze ulaşan eserleri tarafsız bir şekilde incelendiğinde onun Şiî olmadığını ortaya koyacak karineler mevcuttur. Bu yüzden Ya’kubî değerlendirilirken Şiî bakış açısından ziyade tarafsız bir bakış açısının tercih edilmesi daha doğru bir yaklaşım olacaktır.

In this article Ya’qubi and three claims that are used to ground Ya’qubi’s being a Shi’ite are addressed. However, some difficulties are faced in researching these claims about Ya’qubi. The first of these is that there is not enough information about Ya’qubi himself. The present information about him has appeared as a result of one-paragraph information and interpretation of the quotations made by the authors contemporary with Ya’qubi in their works by the later researchers. When interpretation is the case, it is not possible to state the absolute accuracy of this information. That’s why, the littleness of the information about Ya’qubi means lacking the most important element in determining his sectarian tendency.  Another difficulty about this subject is that in his surviving works it is seen that Ya’qubi gave more information about Abbasids although he is expected to have given more information about Tahirids and Tulunids as he lived in these two states. It is a great lack that the book he wrote about Tahirids has not reached the present day in terms of determining his view about Tahirids, under whose sway he lived. Additionally, while addressing the claim that Ya’qubi was Shi’ite moving from his works, as examining the narrations about every event in his work would go over the limits of the article, general assessments on his works are dwelt on.The first of the evidence which was effective in accepting that Ya’qubi was Shi’ite is the narration about Ya’qubi’s grandfather Wadih, that in the battle of Fakhkh after the supporters of Ali were beaten, Wadih helped İdris b. Abdullah to flee to Maghrib. This narration gives the information that Wadih was at the same time “an evil Rafidhi”. This report in Taberi comes via Abdullah b. Abdurrahman b. İsa, Muhammed b. Yusuf b. Yakub al-Hashimi and via Abdullah b. Omar as-Selci. As a result of the research we made on these reporters Abdullah b. Abdurrahman b. İsa and Muhammed b. Yusuf b. Yakub el-Hashimi each have one report in Aḫbârü’d-devleti’l-ʿAbbâsiyye verified by Abd al-aziz ad-Duri. However, these reports are far from giving information about reporters. No information was found about Abdullah b. Omar as-Selci. For this reason, the reporters of Taberi narrating that Wadih is Rafidhi are unbeknown as no information about them is found. Thereby it is obvious that a report by unknown reporters has no value of evidence.Secondly, the fact that Tahir b. Huseyn, who is the founder of Tahirids which is one of the states Ya’qubi served for, is descent of Iran and that the administrators of Tahirids were often imputed with being Shi’ites is associated with the possibility for Ya’qubi to have served for a Shi’ite state. That Tahirids are Shi’ites is an important factor that would raise the possibility for Ya’qubi to be a Shi’ite. However, both not being able to accurately determine the ethnic origin of the Tahirid founder, and Tahirid administrators’ not having pursued a pro-Shi’ite policy show that the Tahirid was a Sunni state. It is obvious that Tulunids, another state for which Ya’qubi served, is Sunni. It does not stand to reason to consider Ya’qubi a Shi’ite because administrators of both Tahirids and Tulunids were not Shi’ites, Ya’qubi preferred to serve for two Sunni states by not going to Idrisid dynasty (172/789) founded by Idris b. Abdullah, whom Ya’qubi’s grandfather helped to flee, and because no cases were mentioned about Ya’qubi’s rebellion against the current conditions.Because no absolute information is reached about Ya’qubi’s biography, his community in which he lived and his sectarian tendency, researchers generally applied to his works to prove that he was Shi’ite. To assert that Ya’qubi was Shi’ite moving from his work called Tarih, which is one of the three surviving books of his, generally a superficial analysis method is used that is based on the chapter headings in the work. With reference to the fact that Ya’qubi used the expression “caliphate” for Ali and Hasan, and “eyyam” for others, researchers acknowledged that Ya’qubi made a differentiation between the legitimacy of Ali and Hasan and illegitimacy of other administrators. Also, they considered it an evidence for Ya’qubi being a Shi’ite that he used the heading “Decease (Vefat)” for the death of the Twelve Imams, Imams of Shi’ite. In concern with these claims, by examining the manuscripts of Ya’qubi’s printed Tarih, Elton L. Daniel confirmed that the base of 1883 publication of Ya’qubi’s Tarih by Houtsma and its reprints made in the Arab world depended on the late Cambridge manuscript that was copied in Safawid period under Shi’ite rule, in February-March 1685. In another surviving work by Ya’qubi called Kitâbü’l-Büldân, there is seen an irregularity in the use of prayer sentences, and descriptions “amir al-muminin” and “caliphate”. It is understood from these irregular expressions in Ya’qubi’s work that he considered Umayyad and Abbasid rulers as caliphates as well as the four great caliphates. As the differences in descriptions and prayers may result from the copying process, it may also be thought that the author aimed not to tire readers by using the same expression over and over. In Müşâkeletü’n-nâs li-zamânihim, it is claimed that there are three characteristics that reflect Ya’qubi’s Shi’ite tendency. The fact that he praised Salman al-Farisi’s personality, that he used the expression “alayk as-salam” only with the name Ali b. Ab Talib, and that he gave wider coverage to Abbasid caliphate Me’mun, who was tolerant against Shi’ite view, than other caliphates. William G. Millward states that the first two claims might result from the ornamentations of the copyist while transferring the text, but when they are considered along with the third claim, the possibility for Ya’qubi to be a Shi’ite raises.  However, Millward, does not explain that “Ya’qubi defined Abu Bakr as the most ascetic of Muhammad’s Muslims” is present in the text and how he relates this to Shi’ite. Also, he does not refer to that Ya’qubi used prayer words equally for Abu Bakr, Omar and other sahabas and gives less place to Ali compared with Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman. Therefore, when Ya’qubi’s works are regarded, it is seen that Ya’qubi acted in an even-tempered way about definitions in which he is said to have reflected Shi’ite perspective. Consequently, while evaluating Ya’qubi, it would be a truer approach to prefer an objective perspective rather than a Shi’ite perspective.