e-Makalat Mezhep Araştırmaları Dergisi

Öz

Language and style occupy a very important place in
inter-sectarian relations as well as interreligious relations. One of the most
important variables in which inter-sectarian relations based on language and
style take root and become permanent is the refutation texts. The refutation
texts, which have existed as the basis of the way in which the sects see and
read each other since the early periods of Islamic thought, deserve analysis
and criticism in many ways. Perhaps the most prominent characteristics of
refutation texts, which should be analyzed the most, are non-comprehensible,
exclusionary and marginalizing language in these texts. When we look at the
history of refutation texts, it is seen that Shiite-Sunni refutation texts are
the most important works in which exclusionary and marginalizing language is
used most. The Shiite refutation of Minhaj
al-Sunna by the Hanbalite scholar Ibn Taymiyya has a distinctive position
in terms of language and style. This text, because of its distinctive and
marginalizing language, has influenced both Shiite-Sunni relations and has
survived as a reference source even today. For this reason, in our paper, the discriminatory
language and style preferred by Ibn Taymiyya in his refutation of Shi'ism
called Minhaj al-Sunna will be
analyzed in terms of text criticism, sectarian belonging and inter-sectarian
relations.

Summary

Different topics of discussion,
concepts, individuals, artifacts, thought systems and sects have taken place in
the history of Islamic thought. The legacy of Islamic intellectual thought,
which owes its dynamism to freedom of thought to a great extent, has not been
able to maintain its timeliness and richness with the same vitality in every
period. One of the most important reasons of this situation can be said that
the sects themselves as institutionalized structures. In fact, sects, which
appear as the institutionalized state of the common mind of a community which
is clamped around certain principles, are subject to an ontological change in a
sense after the formation process. Especially in the institutionalization
process, differences have been seen as wealth in terms of sects, and even sects
have emerged by being fed from the differences and freedom of thought itself.
However, after completing the institutionalization process, sects have become
static structures by forming their own doctrines and defining their main fields
of action. From this moment on, every different point of view and interpretation
has been perceived and condemned almost as a sectarian opposition. This is not
only a matter of self-perceptions of the sects, but also the main points of
departure of the relations and perceptions with the other sects. Thus, the
doctrines of sects, which gained a systematic structure and appearance with the
institutionalization of their ideas, were mostly seen as the truth itself, and
the other perception was arranged and depicted through this concept of truth.
As a result of this situation, the marginalization and pushing out of the
circle of truth has become extremely easy.

It can be said that one of the most
important instruments of the conceptions of truth discourse where sects are
putting themselves at the center and othering them is refutation texts. This is
because the texts of refutation appear as texts where both the truth-centered
self-image is shaped and the other perception is sharply expressed. These
works, which are among the most senior texts in the history of Islamic thought,
have taken their place in history as a collection of discourses in which the
other perception of the sects are embodied and poured into certain patterns. It
is possible to come across such works in the literature activities of almost
all sects which existed on the basis of politics and creed. Regardless of the
name and the system of thought, all the political-religious Islamic sects have
created refutation texts with different names, purposes, contents and reasons.
It should be noted that the relationship forms developed by some sects in terms
of the activity of refutation texts have certain characteristics of their own
and some sects are more visible in this process. In the early periods of the
history of Islamic thought, numerous refutation texts were created between the
Ahl al-Hadith mentality and Mutezila. In the following periods, it is known
that numerous refutation texts were created as a result of the interlocutory
relationship experienced between Mutezila and Shia over different variables.
Since the last period of the formation of Islamic thought h. the 4th and 5th
centuries, it is seen that the works of refutation have become the product of
the tension-filled struggle between Shi'a and Ahl al-Sunnah. Since then, many
political and socio-cultural factors have made it necessary for these two
structures to be fully aware of each other and to be truly aware of each
other's existence. One of the most important products produced by this
obligatory contact state is the refutation texts written between the Shia and
the Ahl al-Sunnah in different periods but with similar contents and reasons.

One of the most important components
of the Ahl al-Sunnah, which is formed by the combination of multiple structures
and not a sect in the classical style, is the Ahl al-Hadith mentality and the
school of Hanbalite fiqh where this mindset is articulated. The Ahl
al-Hadith-Hanbalite tradition stands at a different point under the roof of the
Ahl al-Sunnah due to its unique characteristic structure. Thus, this
tradition's rigid discourse of truth, its adoption of othering rather than
understanding of the other, and the imagination of bid’at determined the lanes
of the forms of relations it established with other sects. All these issues are
the main determinants of this tradition both in shaping the discourse of
refutation and in the formation of the content of refutation works. Since Ahmad
ibn Hanbal, one of the most influential figures and founding figure of
Hanbalite tradition, works with refutation content have been written and this
issue is extremely important. Ahmad ibn Hanbal not only wrote a text of
refutation but also laid the foundation of refutation works which will become
the indispensable texts of this tradition in the subsequent process. At the
same time, he played a role in determining both the sphere of action and the
framework of meaning of the discourse of refutation that gave its color to this
tradition.

Ibn Taymiyya is one of the most
important names that came up when the trace of refutation discourse and refutation
works which Ahmed ibn Hanbal laid the foundations of his theoretical framework.
Because Ibn Taymiyya, with his work Minhaj al-Sunnah, has gained a prominent
place in this tradition and has often made a name for himself. This text,
written as a refutation of Ibn Mutahhar al-Hillî's Minhaj al-Karâme, who is one
of the most important representatives of the Shiite tradition, played a very
important political and religious role in history. Moreover, Minhaj al-Sunnah
still continues this activity in present days. This refutation is well deserved
to be analyzed on the basis of variables such as current and historical
functions, resources, content, domain and specific gravity. One of the most
important issues to be mentioned about Minhaj al-Sunnah is the subject of
language and style. This work, which deserves to be described as one of the
most important works of the tradition of Ahl al-Sunnah, is subject to a shift
of axis in the sense of language and style and becomes a text that should be
dealt with in a completely different plane. Because the language and style
created in this work for Shiites and Shiite thought pushed the limits of the
discourse of refutation to the end and even in some places it took on a content
that would exceed these limits.

When Ibn Taymiyya's refutation of
Shiism, Minhaj al-Sunnah, is analyzed in terms of language and style, the first
thing we encounter are concepts that are carefully selected and used with
specific meanings at the same time. The concept of Rafida, which is used by Ibn
Taymiyya instead of Shia, is one of the best examples of the use of this
selective concept. Ibn Taymiyya, who is aware of the negative meanings that the
concept of Rafida has taken from tradition and wants to use this semantic
framework actively in the critique of Shiism, preferred the concept of Rafida
instead of Shia or Imamiyya. While using the concept of Rafiza, he sometimes
contradicts the historical fact by forcing the limits of meaning of this
concept. Another issue that poses a problem in terms of language and style in
Minhaj al-Sunnah is that Shia, especially Imamiyya Shia, is depicted as a
structure that has adopted the views of Mutezila, which was largely erased from
the stage of history at that time and even identified with Mutezila. Thus, Ibn
Taymiyya's view of Shia as Rafizism and portraying it as a structure
intertwined with the Mutezilian thought system both pushed him out of current
and historical reality to a great extent and carried him to a problematic point
in terms of language and style. Ibn Taymiyya's defense of the Ahl al-Sunnah,
the criticism that pushed the limits of criticism and the socio-political
conditions of the period were the main determinants in the emergence of such a
landscape.