EL-EMSEL FÎ TEFSÎRİ KİTÂBİLLÂHİ’L-MÜNEZZEL ADLI ŞÎA TEFSİRİNDE HZ. ÖMER ALGISI

Şia'nın günümüzde yaşayan önemli dinî otoritelerinden Nasır Mekârim eş-Şirâzî'nin el-Emsel fi Tefsîri Kitâbillâhi'l-Münezzel adlı tefsiri, Şîa'nın görüşlerini yansıtan önemli kaynaklardan biridir. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu tefsir üzerinden Şia'nın Hz. Ömer algısının tespit edilmesi, ardından da bunun gerçeği yansıtıp yansıtmadığının ortaya konması amaçlanmıştır. Şirazî'nin tefsirinden elde edilen veriler, Şia'nın Hz. Ömer algısının Sünnî kaynaklarda anlatılandan çok farklı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmada bu tespiti destekleyen onlarca örnekten sadece birkaç tanesi arz edilmiştir. Bunlar; Hz. Ömer'in Resûlullah'a (s.a.v.) muhalefeti, halifenin tayini için oluşturduğu altı kişilik şûra meclisinin şûra kriterlerine uymadığı, bilgisinin yetersizliği, Huneyn savaşında savaş meydanından kaçtığı, yaptığı bir önerinin vahiy ile reddedildiği ve çirkin bir davranışla itham edildiği konularıdır. Bu çalışmada Mekârim Şirâzî'nin tefsiri çerçevesinde Şia'nın Hz. Ömer algısını oluşturan bu meseleler üzerinde durulmuş, delilleri arz edilip tahlil edilmiş ve şu neticelere ulaşılmıştır: Mekârim Şirâzî, bazen senedi bulunmayan ve güvenilir hiçbir kaynakta yer almayan rivayetlere dayanmaktadır. Bazen gerçeği yansıtmayan iddialar ileri sürerek yanlış nakillerde bulunmaktadır. Zaman zaman aynı metin içerisinde Hz. Ömer'in aleyhine yorumlanabileceğini düşündüğü kısma yer verirken, lehine yorumlanabileceğini düşündüğü kısmı görmezden gelmektedir. Kimi zaman da sahih rivayetler arasına anlamı farklı bir yöne çekecek ifadeler yerleştirerek bir bilim adamının asla teşebbüs etmeyeceği yöntemlerle Hz. Ömer hakkında olumsuz bir algı oluşturdumaya çalışmaktadır

THE PERCEPTION OF UMAR (RA) IN THE SHI’I TAFSIR TITLED AL-AMTHAL FÎ TAFSIRI KITÂB ALLAH AL-MUNAZZAL

The tafsir entitled al-Amthal fî Tafsiri Kitâb Allah al-Munazzal by Nasir Makârim al-Shîrâzî, one of the contemporary important Shi'i authorities is one of the significant sources, providing the views of Shi’a. This study aims to determine the Shi’a's perception of Umar (ra), the second caliph, in context of this tafsir and to reveal whether it reflects the truth or not. The data, obtained from al-Shîrâzî’s tafsir shows that Shi’a's perception of Umar (ra) is very different from that described in the Sunni sources. Only a few of the examples which support this evaluation are presented in this study. These topics are his opposition to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), his not complying with the shûrâ criteria when he established shûrâ council for the appointment of the caliph after him, his inadequate knowledge, his escape from the battlefield during Hunain war, the rejection of a suggestion of Umar (ra) by revelation and an unpleasant accusation about him. This study focuses on these issues that constitute the Shi’a's perception of Umar (ra) in the frame of al-Shîrâzî’s tafsir and supplies and analyzes the evidences and reaches the conclusion that Makârim alShîrâzî occasionally refers some narratives which are not mentioned in any reliable sources and certain false narratives by arguing non-truthful claims. On occasion, he mentions some part of a particular narrative which he thinks it can be interpreted against Umar but ignores the other part which can be interpreted in support of him in the same text. At times, he endeavors to create a negative perception of Umar nonacademically by placing some expressions between sound narrations due to change the meaning into a different direction The tafsir entitled al-Amthal fî Tafsiri Kitâb Allah al-Munazzal, which is composed of twenty volumes and written by Nasir Makârim alShîrâzî, of the contemporary Shi'i authorities and of the important religious leaders, living in Iran is one of the sources, providing the views of Shi’a. al-Shîrâzî, according to his own expression, completed his tafsir by taking advantage of the most important Shi'i and Sunni tafsirs, and by participation of ten scholars, whose names he mentioned one by one. This study aims to determine the Shi’a's perception of Umar (ra), the second caliph, in context of this tafsir and to reveal whether it reflects the truth or not. The data, obtained from al-Shîrâzî’s tafsir describes that Shi’a's perception of Umar (ra) is very different from that described in the Sunni sources. In our work, dozens of examples that support this evaluation was reached. Since examining all of these examples requires more extensive works, this study deals only some of the issues that constitute the Shi’a's perception of Umar (ra) in the frame of al-Shîrâzî’s tafsir. When these issues are presented, the evidence they are based on is mentioned, and then these evidences are analyzed to reveal whether they can be considered as a hujjah (certain evidence) for the purpose they mean. The order of presentation of these issues is not according to Qur'anic order but with respect to the size of the crime attributed to him. Accordingly, the issues are listed as follows: 1. His opposition to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). al-Shîrâzî deals with two issues in the exegesis of the first verses of Surah Hujûrât which begin with the verse of "O you who believe! Put not yourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger ..." The former is the claim that when Messenger of Allah (pbuh) headed to Khaybar and wanted to appoint a certain person to Medina as a wâlî (governor) instead of himself but Umar (ra) opposed him by suggesting another person, and the latter is the claim that when the Prophet (pbuh) was patient before a few days of his death he requested pen and ink but Umar (ra) opposed him by preventing that. 2. His not complying with the shûrâ criteria when he established shûrâ council for the appointment of the caliph after him. On some reasons, al-Shîrâzî claims in the interpretation of 159th verse of the Surah Âl ‘Imrân which is about shûrâ (counseling) that the council of Umar (ra) with six councilmen is not suitable for the shûrâ criteria at all. 3. His inadequate knowledge. al-Shîrâzî claims a) in the interpretation of the 19th verse of the Surah Qâf referring a narrative that Umar (ra) adjudicated ignorantly and b) in the interpretation of the first verse of the Surah Insân, referring a narrative, attributed to him that he objected to the issue of creation and c) in the interpretation of the 30th verse of the Surah ‘Abasa that his knowledge of the Qur'an was inadequate. 4. His escape from the battlefield during Hunain war. al-Shîrâzî claims in the interpretation of the 25th verse of the Surah Tawbah that mashhur narratives clearly states that the first three caliphs were of the those who escaped. 5. Rejection of a suggestion made by Umar by revelation. al-Shîrâzî argues in the interpretation of the 52-53th verses of the Surah An’âm that Umar's (ra) suggestion was rejected by revelation. 6. An unpleasant accusation about Umar (ra). al-Shîrâzî in the interpretation of the 12th verse of the Surah Mumtahinah gives an expression, implying that prostitution took place between Umar and Hind during the period of the jahiliyyah in the narrative of Hind’s allegiance. In the context of al-Shîrâzî's tafsir, this study focuses on these issues among the larger number of issues, creating the Shi’a’s perception of Umar (ra) supplies and analyzes the evidences and reaches the following conclusions: 1. It is understood that al-Shîrâzî endeavors to create a negative perception of Umar (ra) by referring some narratives which are without sanad and unavailable in reliable sources. For example, the narrative about occasion of revelation which al-Shîrâzî bases his claim of Umar’s opposition to the Prophet (pbuh) in the “appointment of the governor” and the narrative, referring his claim of "ignorant adjudication" and the narrative, referring his claim of "his objection to the issue of creation" are of the narratives which he does not mention their sanads and we could not reach them during this study. 2. It is understood that al-Shîrâzî endeavors to create a negative perception of Umar by making some claims, not reflecting the truth. Some examples of them are al-Shîrâzî’s claims that a) a group of Sunni scholars and exegetes insistently interpret the verse of shûrâ as the shûrâ council with six councilmen, created by Umar b. Khattab and that b) this council was not suitable for the shûrâ criteria at all and that c) in this council, there were set strict and ruthless conditions even death threat for the objectors and opponents. 3. It is understood that al-Shîrâzî endeavors to create a negative perception of Umar (ra) by some misquotations. For instance, he refers his claim about Hunain war to al-Manâr tafsir but this tafsir provides the narratives, indicating that Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) were of those remained at war place with the Prophet (pbuh). 4. It is seen that al-Shîrâzî mentions the part of a particular narrative which can be interpreted against Umar (ra) but ignores the other part which can be interpreted in support of him. For example, he acts in this manner when he refers to Ikrimah’s narrative, mentioned in the issue of rejection of Umar’s suggestion by revelation. 5. It is seen that al-Shîrâzî, occasionally, includes immaterial claims, insulting Umar (ra) at least by placing an unfounded sentence among the sound narratives. To give an example, in the narrative of Hind’s allegiance, he adds an unfounded sentence, implying an unpleasant accusation as a part of narrative but it does not. In conclusion, in the framework of his tafsir, al-Shîrâzî endeavors to create a negative perception of Umar (ra) by a) referring some narratives without sanad, and to attribute a negative meaning to sound narrative, b) making some claims, not reflecting the truth, c) misquoting on occasion, d) mentioning some part of a particular narrative which can be interpreted against Umar (ra) but ignoring the other part which can be interpreted in support of him and e) placing unfounded expression among sound narratives.

PDF

___

Âlûsî, Şihâbuddîn Mahmûd, Rûhu’l-Meânî, thk. Ali Abdulbârî Atiyye, 1. Baskı, Dâru’l-Kütübi’lİlmiyye, Beyrut, 1415.
Amirî, Ahmed b. Abdulkerîm el-Ğazzî, el-Ceddu’l-Hasîs fi Beyâni ma Leyse bi Hadîs, thk. Bekr
Abdullah Ebû Zeyd, 1. Baskı, Dâru’r-Râye, Riyad, 1412. Bağavî, Ebû Muhammed Huseyn, Meâlimu’t-Tenzîl fi Tefsîri’l-Kur’ân, thk. Muhammed b. Abdullah en-Nemr ve diğerleri, 4. Baskı, Dâru’t-Taybe, byy., bty.
Buhârî, Ebû Abdillâh Muhammed b. İsmâîl, el-Câmiu’s-Sahîhu’l-Müsned min Hadîsi Rasûlillâhi Sallâllahu Aleyhi Vesellem ve Sünenihi ve Eyyâmih, thk. Muhammed Züheyr b. Nâsır enNâsır, 1. Baskı, Dâru’t-Tavki’n-Necât, byy., bty.
Bursevî, İsmail Hakkı, Rûhu’l-Beyân, Dâru’l-Fikr, Beyrut, bty.
Cessâs, Ebûbekir er-Râzî, el- Ahkâmu’l-Kur’an, thk. Muhammed Sâdık el-Kamhâvî, Dâru İhyâi’tTurâsi’l Arabî, byy., 1405.
Dimeşkiyye, Muhammed Said, Ehâdisu Yehteccu Biha’ş-Şîa, Mevkiu’l-Furkan, www.frqan.com /http://www.saaid.net
Ebu’s-Suûd b. Muhammed, İrşâdu’l-Akli’s-Selîm ilâ Mezâye’l-Kitâbi’l-Kerîm, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l Arabî, Beyrut, bty.
Fayda, Mustafa, “Ömer” DİA, 2007, XXXIV, 44-45.
İbn Âşûr, Muhammed Tâhir, et-Tahrîru ve’t-Tenvîr, Dâru’t-Tunisiyye, Tunus, 1984.
İbn Atiyye, el-Muharreru’l-Vecîz fi Tefsîri’I-Kitâbi’l-Azîz, thk. Abdusselâm Abduşşâfî, Dâru’lKutubi’l-İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1422.
İbn Cerîr, Ebû Ca’fer Muhammed et-Taberî, Camiü’l-Beyân an Te’vîli Âyi’l-Kur’ân, thk. Abdullâh b. Abdilmuhsin et-Türki bi’t-Teâvuni Mea’l-Merkezi’l-Buhûsi ve’d-Dirâsâti’l-Arabiyye ve’l-İslâmiyye, Hecr, Yemâme, bty.
İbn Ebî Hâtim, Abdurrahmân, Tefsirü’l-Kur’ani’l-Âzîm, thk., Es’ad Muhammed et-Tayyib, 1. Baskı, Mektebetu Nezâr Mustafâ el-Bâz, Mekke-Riyâd, bty.
İbn Hacer, Ahmed b. Ali el-Askalânî, Fethü’l-Bârî Şerhu Sahîhi’l-Buhârî, thk., Muhibbudîn elHatîb, Dâru’l-Ma’rife, Beyrut, 1379.
İbn Hişâm, Abdulmelik İbn Hişâm, es-Sîretu’n-Nebeviyye, thk. Mustafa Sakkâ ve diğerleri, 2. Baskı, Şirketu Mustafa el-Halebî, 1955.
İbn Kesîr, Ebu’l-Fidâ İsmâîl, Tefsîrü’l-Kur’âni’l-Azîm, thk., Mustafâ es-Seyyid Muhammed ve diğerleri, Müessesetu Kurtuba ve Mektebetu Evlâdi’ş-Şeyh li’t-Turâs, Cîze, bty.
İbnu’l-Arabî, Ebûbekir en-Nassu’l-Kamil li Kitâbi’l-Avâsım Mine’l-Kavâsım, thk. Ammâr Tâlibî, Mektebetu Dâri’t-Turâs, Mısır, bty.
İbnu’l-Cevzî, Cemâluddin Abdurrahmân, Zâdu’l-Mesîr fî İlmi’t-Tefsîr, thk. Abdurrezzâk el-Mehdî, 1. Baskı, Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-Arabî, byy. 1422.
Kastalânî, Ahmed b. Muhammed. İrşâdu’s-Sarî li Şerhi Sahihi’l-Buhârî, 7. Baskı, el-Matbaatu’lKubra’l-Emîrîyye, Mısır, 1323.
Kurtûbî, Ebû Abdullâh Muhammed b. Ahmed, el-Câmi’ li Ahkâmi’l-Kur’ân, thk. Berdunî, Ahmed ve İbrahim Atfayiş, 2. Baskı, Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-Mısriyye, Kahire,1964.
Mekârim Şirâzî, Nasır, el-Emsel fi Tefsîri Kitabillahi’l-Münezzel, Medresetu’l-İmâm Ali b. Ebî Tâlib, 1. Baskı, Kum, 1421.
Munâvî, Muhammed b. Zeynulabidîn, Feydu’l-Kadîr Şerhu Cami’s-Sağîr, 1. Baskı, Mektebetu’tTicariyetu’l-Kubrâ, Mısır, 1356.
Müzeynî, Hâlid b. Süleymân, el-Muharrer fî Esbâbi Nuzûli’l-Kur’ân min Hilâli’l-Kutubi’t-Tis’a, 1. Baskı, Dâru İbni’l-Cevzî, Demmâm, 2006.
Nesefî, Ebu’l-Berekât Abdullâh, Medâriku’t-Tenzil ve Hekâiku’t-Te’vîl, thk. Yusuf Ali Bedyevî, 1. Baskı, Dâru İbn Kesîr, Dımeşk-Beyrût, 2005.
Nevevî, Ebû Yahya b. Şeref, Şerhu Sahihi Müslim, 2. Baskı, Dâru İhyai’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî, Beyrut, bty.
Parlak, Nizamettin, “Hz. Ömer’in Şûrasındaki Halife Adayları” istem , 10 (2012), Sayı: 20, s. 75-79.
Râzî, Ebû Abdullâh Muhammed Fahruddîn, Mefâtîhu’l-Gayb, 3. Baskı, Dâru İhyâi’t-Turâsi’l-Arabî, Beyrût, 1420.
Rızâ, Muhammed Reşîd, Tefsîru’l-Kur’ani’l-Hekîm (Tefsîru’l-Menâr), Heyetu’l-Mısrıyyetu’lAmme li’l-Kutub, byy. 1990.
Safedî, Selâhuddîn Halîl b. Abdullah, el-Vâfî bi’l-Vefeyât, thk. Ahmed Arnaût ve Turkî Mustafa, Dâru İhyâu’t-Turâsil Arabî, Beyrut, 2000.
Suyûtî, Celâluddîn, ed-Dürrü’l-Mensûr fi’t-Tefsîri bi’l-Me’sûr, thk., Abdullâh Abdulmuhsin etTürkî, 1. Baskı, Merkezü Hecr li’l-Buhûsi ve’d-Dirâsâti’l-Arabiyye ve’l-İslamiyye, Kahire, 2003.
------- Lubâbu’n-Nukû’l Fi Esbâbi’n-Nüzûl, 1. Baskı, Müessesetü’l-Kütübi’s-Sekâfiyye, 2002, Beyrut.
Tabersî, Fadl b. Hasan, Mecmeu’l-Beyân fi Tefsîri’l-Kur’an, 1. Baskı, Dâru’l-Ulûm, Beyrut, 2005.
Üzüm, İlyas, “Mezhep”, DİA, 2004, XXIX, 529.
Vâhidî, Ebu’l-Hasan Ali b. Ahmed en-Nisabûrî, Esbâbu’n-Nuzûl, thk. Kemâl Besyûnî Zağlûl, 1.
Baskı, Dâru’l-Kutubi’l-İlmiyye, Beyrut, 1991.