Research Article


DOI :10.26650/iutd.762514   IUP :10.26650/iutd.762514    Full Text (PDF)

“İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı

Murat Öztürk

Birçok araştırmacı İslâm tarihinde denizcilik faaliyetlerinin ilk defa Hz. Osmân b. Affân (23-35/644-656) devrinde başladığını kabul eder. Halbuki İslâm tarihi kaynaklarında Hz. Ömer b. el-Hattâb döneminde kendisine bilgi verilmeden gerçekleştirilen bazı deniz çıkarmaları ve fetihleri zikredildiği gibi bizzat onun emriyle yapılan denizcilik faaliyetlerinden de bahsedilmektedir. Hz. Ömer’in, halefinin aksine denizcilik faaliyetleri hususunda takındığı ihtiyatlı tavır bu çalışmanın temel problematiğidir. Araştırmada onun halifeliği devrinde Basra Körfezi, Hint Okyanusu ve Kızıldeniz’de yürütülen denizcilik faaliyetleri, Bilâdü’ş-Şâm’daki [Suriye] sahil şehirlerini muhafaza etmek için alınan yoğun tedbirler, istişare esasına dayalı olarak kararlar almasıyla bilinen Hz. Ömer’in deniz ve denizciliğe karşı tutumunu etkileyen âmiller ana kaynakların verdiği bilgiler ışığında kronolojik bir şekilde ele alınacak ve değerlendirmeye tâbi tutulacaktır.

DOI :10.26650/iutd.762514   IUP :10.26650/iutd.762514    Full Text (PDF)

“Caution or Fear?” ʻUmar’s (13-23/634-644) Approach to the Sea and Seafaring

Murat Öztürk

Many researchers agree that seafaring in Islamic history first began in the reign of ʻUthmān b. ʻAffān (23-35/644-656). However, Islamic sources mention some landing activities and conquests in the reign of ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb without his permission, as well as certain navigation activities under his command. ‘Umar’s caution towards maritime activities unlike his successor is the main problematic of this study. In this research, the maritime activities carried out in the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea, as well as intense precautions to save coastal cities in Bilād al-Shām [Syria] and arguments for the attitude that ‘Umar who is known for making decisions based on consultation exhibited towards sea and seafaring will be discussed and evaluated in chronological order in the light of the information provided by primary sources from ‘Umar’s caliphate.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Although it is generally accepted that Muslim maritime activities first began in the period of ʻUthmān b. ʻAffān (23-35/644-656), Islamic historical sources mention some maritime landings and conquests carried out during the period/reign of ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (13- 23/634-644) without his knowledge, as well as maritime activities carried out at his behest. In this study, the maritime activities carried out in the period of Caliph ‘Umar will be examined, the position and attitude of the caliph in the face of the developments, his perspectives on the sea and maritime affairs, and the measures taken to protect Muslims in the case of possible attacks will be discussed in the light of the information provided by the sources.

Before Islam, Arabs were engaged in some maritime activities. As a matter of fact, the use of sea and sea characteristics in the poems written by the poets of the age of Djāhiliyya confirms this situation. As efforts to spread and consolidate Islam in the Arabian Peninsula continued during the reign of Prophet Muḥammad (610-632) with the birth of Islam, activities at sea could not be carried out continuously and regularly by Muslims during the aforementioned years. In Abu Bākr’s short caliphate time (11-13/632-634), Muslims made remarkable progress towards Iraq and Syria. However, it is possible to say that their activities were not very effective in the seas during the reign of the first caliph after Prophet Muhammad since coastal countries such as Bilād al-Shām [Syria] and Egypt were not conquered.

In the history of Islam, it is understood from the information provided by the sources that the attempts with the aim of jihad in maritime affairs began in the time of Caliph ‘Umar. The main reason for this was that Muslims had gradually dominated the regions of Bilād al-Shām, Iran, Iraq and Egypt due to the jihadist activities carried out during ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s time.

It is worth noting that the capture of Bilād al-Shām and Egypt by the Islamic armies led to the birth of a new maritime age in the Mediterranean. As a matter of fact, the Battle of Yarmūk, which took place in 15 (636), would allow the Muslims to conquer the coastal cities, meaning the Muslims would be neighboring the Byzantine Empire, which was the only dominant power in the seas in this period in the east of the Mediterranean. Although ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb did not allow sea expeditions in the Mediterranean, with some of his practices in coastal cities, he seems to have laid the groundwork for the operations that his successor would carry out.

The first statesman who understood that their dominance in Syria and Egypt was under threat if Byzantium’s superiority at the sea continued and realized that the struggle against Byzantium could not be carried out without the support of the navy during the reign of Caliph ‘Umar was Muʿāwiya (d. 60/680). In general, in addition to the currently available information about the maritime activities carried out in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and 

Red Sea during ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s era, it is seen that Muʿāwiya, who wanted to carry out maritime activities in the Mediterranean from the coastal parts of Bilād al-Shām, had an insistent request. In this regard, it was natural for Caliph ‘Umar to consult with the governor of Egypt, which is on the Mediterranean coast, to get an idea. However, it seems unlikely that the caliph did not predict that Byzantium was the supreme power in this sea, and his answer to Muʿāwiya was actually about knowing the truth. Another reason for Muʿāwiya’s rejection of his request, on the other hand, was related to the number and value of Muslims.

It should be noted ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s reluctance to allow his commanders or governors to make sea journeys was not due to religious requirements. The sunna of the prophet, for example, his actions, rhetoric, and the Ḳurʾān did not prohibit Muslims from traveling in the sea. The Ḳurʾān encourages Muslims to explores the seas and take advantage of the rich resources there. In the same way, the hadiths recommend that Muslims should organize sea travel, go to Makka (Mecca) for Hadj, use sea resources, and develop overseas trade.

‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb made every effort to preserve the coastal cities in the captured areas when Iran was conquered. In fact, based on the information provided by Islamic historical sources, it seems possible that Muslims actually started maritime activities during the period of Caliph ‘Umar. The main reason for ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s reaction to the naval operations carried out in this geography without his permission and the hesitation of Muslims to explore the seas are the likely fatal consequences. The answer to Muʿāwiya is that Caliph ‘Umar was sensitive to the value of human life and even the number of Muslim soldiers, anticipating or knowing what power he was facing. Because of the Byzantine naval force, ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ordered Muʿāwiya to strengthen the garrisons in the coastal areas and keep the cities under control, even if he did not allow them to make expeditions in the Mediterranean. Although he had hesitated to go to sea, he took various initiatives/steps to protect the coastal cities.

It is necessary to emphasize the following: the foundation of maritime activities in the Mediterranean in a de facto manner during ʻUthmān b. ʻAffān’s era was laid during the period of his predecessor. As a matter of fact, during ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s time, naval operations in the Red Sea, Uman, Persian Gulf and India were relatively concentrated, while during ʻUthmān b. ʻAffān’s caliphate, it is necessary to state that naval expeditions were concentrated in the Mediterranean. The attitude of Caliph ‘Umar, who did not allow the sea expeditions that a commander/admiral like Muʿāwiya wanted to conduct in the Mediterranean and restricted maritime activities during his own caliphate, stemmed from the risk of harm to the Muslims under his rule. In addition, the caliph, who was aware of the small number of Muslims and the more deadly consequences of sea expeditions compared to land wars, must have preferred a cautious attitude in order not to allow mass deaths. The main reason why ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb behaved less tolerantly regarding the sea was the experience of Byzantines and Persians in maritime affairs.

In this article, the maritime activities carried out in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, and Red Sea during the caliphate of ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, the intensive measures taken to protect the coastal cities in Bilād al-Shām, the factors affecting the attitude of the caliph, known for making decisions on the basis of consultation, towards the sea and maritime affairs were handled and evaluated chronologically in the light of the information provided by the main sources.


PDF View

References

  • Ashtor, E., “Makāyil”, EI2, VI, 117-122. google scholar
  • Bekrî, Kitâbü’l-Mesâlik ve’l-Memâlik, nşr. A. P. V. Leeuwen-A. Ferre, I, Tunus 1992. google scholar
  • ________, Muʿcemü me’staʿcem min esmâʾi’l-bilâd ve’l-mevâzıʿ (mevâkıʿ), Mustafa es-Sekka, Kahire 1945- 1951, I-IV. google scholar
  • Belâzürî, Fütûhu’l-Büldân, Türkçe trc. Mustafa Fayda, Fütûhu’l-Büldân-Ülkelerin Fetihleri, İstanbul 2013. google scholar
  • ________, Ensâbü’l-Eşrâf, nşr. Süheyl Zekkâr-Riyâd Zirikli, Beyrut 1996, X-XI. google scholar
  • Bowen, R. L. B., “Maritime Superstitions of the Arabs”, American Neptune 15, 1955, s. 5-48. google scholar
  • Christides, V., “The Coastal Towns of Bilād al-Shām at the Time of the Rāshidūn (632-661). Defence and Trade”, Epeteris tou Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon 13-16 (1984-1987), Atina 1988, s. 49-62. google scholar
  • Conrad, L. I., “Islam and the Sea: Paradigms and Problematics”, Al-Qantara XXIII/1, Madrid 2002, s. 123-154. google scholar
  • Ebü’l-Fidâ, Takvîmü’l-büldân, nşr. Par M. Reianud-M. G. D. Slane, Beyrut t. y. google scholar
  • Ebü’l-Kāsım ibn Abdülhakem, Fütûhu Mısr ve’l-Mağrib, nşr. Abdülmüʻnim Âmir, Kahire t.y. google scholar
  • Fahmy, ʻA., M., Muslim Naval Organisation in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Seventh to the Tenth Century A. D., London 1980 . google scholar
  • ________, “The Muslim Navy during the Days of the Early Caliphate”, The Islamic Review XV/III, London 1952, s. 24-25. google scholar
  • Fayda, M., “İbn Aʻsem el-Kûfî”, DİA, XIX, 325-326. google scholar
  • ________, “Yermük”, DİA, XL, 485-486. google scholar
  • el-Hamevî, Yâkût, Mu‛cemü’l-büldân, nşr. Heyet, Beyrut 1977, IV. google scholar
  • Hamîdullah, M., İslâm’da Devlet İdaresi, Türkçe trc. Hamdi Aktaş, İstanbul 1998. google scholar
  • Hourani, G. F., Arab Seafaring, Princeton 1995, s. 106. google scholar
  • İbn Aʻsem el-Kûfî, Kitâbü’l-Fütûh, nşr. ʻAli Şîrî, Beyrut 1411, I. google scholar
  • İbn Ebû Hayseme, et-Târîhu’l-Kebîr, nşr. Salâhaddîn Fethî Hilâl, Kahire 2006. google scholar
  • İbn Kesîr, el-Bidâye ve’n-nihâye, Türkçe trc. Mehmet Keskin, İstanbul 1994, VII. google scholar
  • İbn Haldûn, Mukaddime, Türkçe trc. Süleyman Uludağ, İstanbul 2005, I. google scholar
  • İbn Saʻd, et-Tabakātü’l-Kübrâ, Beyrut t. y., III-IV. google scholar
  • İbnü’l-Esîr, İslâm Tarihi İbnü’l-Esîr el-Kâmil fi’t-târih Tercümesi, II, Türkçe trc. Beşir Eryarsoy, İstanbul 1986, III, Türkçe trc. Ahmet Ağırakça, İstanbul 1986. google scholar
  • Kalkaşendî, Subhu’l-a‘şâ fî Sınâ‘ati’l-inşâ, Kahire 1910-1920, III. google scholar
  • Kelpetin, M., İbn Asem el-Kûfîʼnin Kitâbüʼl-Fütûhunda Hz. Ebû Bekir Dönemi, İstanbul 2010. google scholar
  • ________, Hulefâ-yi Râşîdîn Dönemi Tarihi Seyf b. Ömer ve Tarihçiliği, İstanbul 2012. google scholar
  • ________, İslâm Öncesi Güney ve Kuzey Arabistan, İstanbul 2016 google scholar
  • ________, “Hz. Ebû Bekir Döneminde Irak Fetihleri”, EKEV Akademi Dergisi-Sosyal Bilimler, 14/43 (Bahar 2010), s. 267-288. google scholar
  • ________, “Hz. Ebû Bekir Dönemi Fetihleri”, Hazreti Ebu Bekir, Sivas 2019, s. 147-158. google scholar
  • Khalilieh, H. S., Islamic Maritime Law-An Introduction, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1998. google scholar
  • Kindermann, H.-C. E. Bosworth, “Safīna”, EI2, VIII, 808-811. google scholar
  • Lewis, Archibald Rose, “Byzantine and Moslem Shipping in the Mediterranean, 500-1250”, The American Neptune 47, 1987, s. 157-167. google scholar
  • Mâhir, S., el-Bahriyye fî Mısri’l-İslâmiyye ve âsâruhe’l-bâkıye, Cidde 1979. google scholar
  • Makrîzî, el-Mevâʿiz ve’l-iʿtibâr bi-(fî) zikri’l-hıtat ve’l-âsâr, nşr. Eymen Fuâd Seyyid, London 2002-2004, III. google scholar
  • Mes’ûdî, Mürûcü’z-zeheb ve Me’âdinü’l-cevher, nşr. Saîd Muhammed el-Hâm, Beyrut 1997, II. google scholar
  • Nadvī, S. S., The Arab Navigation, İngilizce trc. Syed Ṣabāḥuddīn ‛Abdur Raḥmān, Lahore 1966. google scholar
  • el-Omerî, A. M., “İşkâliyyetü’l-bahriyyeti’l-islâmiyye fi ahdi’l-halife Umar b. el-Hattâb “Kera’a fî’rRivâyât””, Mecelletü it tihâdi’l-camiati’ l-Arabiiye – el-Ürdün, III/1 (2006), s. 137-157. google scholar
  • Özaydın, A., “Câr”, DİA, VII, 157-158. google scholar
  • ________, “Tartûs”, DİA, XL, 116-118. google scholar
  • Özcan, A., “Sind”, DİA, XXXVII, 244-247. google scholar
  • Öztürk, M., Fâtımîler’in Deniz Gücü ve Akdeniz Hâkimiyeti, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 2012. google scholar
  • ________, “Hz. Osmân Dönemi (23-35/644-656) Denizcilik Faaliyetleri ve Bahrî Seferler”, Hazreti Osman, Sivas 2020, s. 113-140. google scholar
  • ________ - İsmail Koçuk, “Zâtü’s-Savârî Deniz Muharebesi (34/654-655)”, Tarihe Yön Veren Savaşlar, ed. Osman Gazi Özgüdenli, [Basım aşamasında]. google scholar
  • Süyûtî, Hüsnü’l-Muhâdâra fî Târîhi Mısr ve’l-Kahire, nşr. Muhammed Ebü’l-Fazl, Kahire 1967, I. google scholar
  • Taberî, Târîhu’l-Ümem ve’l-Mülûk, nşr. Muhammed Ebû’l-Fazl İbrahim, Kahire t. y., III-IV. google scholar
  • Yaʻkūbî, Târîhu’l-Yaʻkūbî, nşr. Muhammed Sâdık Bahrülulum, Necef 1964, II. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Öztürk, M. (2020). “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı. Turkish Journal of History, 0(72), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514


AMA

Öztürk M. “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı. Turkish Journal of History. 2020;0(72):21-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514


ABNT

Öztürk, M. “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı. Turkish Journal of History, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 72, p. 21-43, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Öztürk, Murat,. 2020. ““İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 72: 21-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514


Chicago: Humanities Style

Öztürk, Murat,. “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 72 (Mar. 2025): 21-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514


Harvard: Australian Style

Öztürk, M 2020, '“İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı', Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 72, pp. 21-43, viewed 14 Mar. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Öztürk, M. (2020) ‘“İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı’, Turkish Journal of History, 0(72), pp. 21-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514 (14 Mar. 2025).


MLA

Öztürk, Murat,. “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı.” Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 72, 2020, pp. 21-43. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514


Vancouver

Öztürk M. “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı. Turkish Journal of History [Internet]. 14 Mar. 2025 [cited 14 Mar. 2025];0(72):21-43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514 doi: 10.26650/iutd.762514


ISNAD

Öztürk, Murat. “İhtiyat mı? Korku mu?” Hz. Ömer’in (13-23/634-644) Deniz ve Denizciliğe Bakışı”. Turkish Journal of History 0/72 (Mar. 2025): 21-43. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.762514



TIMELINE


Submitted01.07.2020
Accepted13.11.2020
Published Online31.12.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.