| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Abstract This study examined Sayf ibn Umar's account of the conquest of Ādharbāyjān. Sayf ibn Umar al-Tamimi, a prominent narrator in futūḥ literature, provides a detailed narrative of this event. However, his accounts present several issues, including unclear dates, weak transmission, bias, and contradictions. This research evaluated the reliability of Sayf ibn Umar's account by comparing it with early Islamic sources. The findings revealed significant discrepancies between Sayf's version and other narratives. His account altered the timeline, renamed key leaders, and portrayed the army differently, reflecting his personal perspective. Additionally, his version appeared influenced by specific ethnic and sectarian beliefs. In contrast, alternative narratives tended to emphasize negotiation and gradual progress, making them easier to follow. These accounts drew on a wider range of sources and appeared more credible, providing a more solid foundation for research. This study ultimately sought to illuminate the complexities surrounding Sayf ibn Umar's account of the conquest of Ādharbāyjān. Keywords: Ādharbāyjān, Sayf ibn ʿUmar, Ḥudhayfah, Tribal Solidarity (ʿAṣabiyyah). Introduction Sayf ibn ʿUmar al-Tamīmī plays a pivotal role in the history of early Islamic futūḥ. Many accounts of the conquest of Ādharbāyjān originate from him; however, scholars have raised concerns about the reliability of his narratives. These concerns stem from weak transmission chains, internal inconsistencies, and exaggerations, as well as biases linked to specific tribes and caliphates. Such issues highlight the need for a careful examination of Sayf’s accounts, which significantly influence our understanding of this conquest. This study viewed Sayf’s narratives as reflections of more than just historical events; they embodied power structures, collective memory, and ideological beliefs. The analysis was organized into three parts: Structural: Evaluating the flow, consistency, and logic of the narrative Epistemological: Assessing credibility through independent evidence, diverse sources, and document integrity Ideological: Examining themes related to values, tribes, and caliphates present in the narratives This research also explored Muslim motivations during the conquest of Ādharbāyjān, linking them to Sayf’s narrative style. He emphasized themes of obedience to the caliph, religious jihad, and caliphal authority. These elements revealed political, theological, and identity motives that shaped the values in the narratives and impacted their credibility. By employing a comparative-analytical approach, this study contrasted Sayf’s accounts with other Islamic sources. This method evaluated their structure, document quality, and thematic elements, aiming to clarify the conquest and reassess Sayf ibn ʿUmar’s role in Islamic futūḥ literature. The central research question was: How did Sayf ibn ʿUmar’s narratives about the conquest of Ādharbāyjān differ from other Islamic sources? This encompassed an examination of narrative structure, document credibility, and epistemic focus. What criteria could we use to evaluate their reliability in reconstructing this historical event? Materials & Methods This study employed a comparative method to examine Sayf ibn ʿUmar al-Tamīmī's accounts of the conquest of Ādharbāyjān. His narratives were analyzed in relation to other Islamic sources, such as al-Balādhurī, al-Ṭabarī, and Ibn Aʿtham. These accounts not only documented historical events, but also revealed underlying power dynamics, shared memories, and belief systems. The research framework included typological classification, historical discourse analysis, and source evaluation. The criteria for evaluation encompassed several factors: Multiple transmission chains Continuity of isnād Support from independent evidence Thematic coherence Structural analysis focused on narrative logic, internal consistency, and chronological order, while ideological analysis delved into themes of identity, tribal ʿaṣabiyyah, and caliphate concepts present in Sayf's historical texts. The researcher assessed Sayf’s narratives to uncover his knowledge, beliefs, and identity. The theoretical framework was grounded in historical discourse analysis, which examined how ideas and political systems shaped narratives. This approach aimed to construct a clear and robust account of the conquest of Ādharbāyjān while critically evaluating the reliability of Sayf’s accounts. The study served as a valuable model for analyzing historical narratives within Islamic historiography, considering various layers, such as meaning, structure, and ideological content. This facilitated a deeper critique of our understanding of history. A review of existing studies, both Iranian and international, revealed a significant gap: there was insufficient systematic comparison or critique of Sayf's narratives. Scholars, such as Ghanji, Zaryāb, Īmānpūr, Safarī, Montazer Alghaem, Saeedyan, Shīrīnzabān Āzar, Shālbāf, Yārī, Qobādī, Kennedy, and Kaegi, had focused on describing and interpreting themes but often lacked a robust methodological framework. This study addressed that gap by combining source criticism, ideological analysis, and discourse analysis to assess the validity of Sayf’s accounts. By adopting an identity-centered approach, it established a clearer model for evaluating historical narratives related to early Islamic conquests. Research Findings This study compared accounts of Sayf ibn ʿUmar al-Tamīmī and the conquest of Ādharbāyjān from various Islamic sources. The storytellers differed significantly in their presentation of these narratives with variations in credibility and perspective. Sayf's accounts often lacked clarity, struggling with structure, timing, and content, rendering them unsuitable for academic study. They exhibited weak transmission links with key figures either absent or exaggerated and frequently conflicted with the established historical facts. In contrast, sources, such as al-Balādhurī, Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ, and Ibn Saʿd, relied on robust isnāds, providing a clearer view of the history and politics surrounding the Medinan caliphate and its conquests. This study examined conquest narratives using typological and discourse-source methods, going beyond mere historical facts. The trustworthiness of these accounts depended on three main factors: documentation, sources of knowledge, and contextual relevance. This approach illuminated the positions of narrators, power dynamics, and evolution of historical memory. The strength of this study lied in its integration of source-critical and semantic analyses, which effectively evaluated historical narratives related to the conquest of Ādharbāyjān. This methodology offered a rigorous framework for critiquing akhbār-based texts and distinguished this research from other studies in the field. Discussion of Results & Conclusion This analysis of Islamic accounts of the conquest of Ādharbāyjān, particularly those attributed to Sayf ibn ʿUmar, contrasted with narratives by Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ, al-Balādhurī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Ibn Ḥajar, and others. These accounts indicated that the conquest involved multiple battles and was a complex process unfolding in several phases. Sayf’s narratives often presented conflicting reports on various themes, necessitating a critical analysis. His version tended to highlight certain figures while omitting others, resulting in a fragmented and biased perspective. In contrast, other sources constructed a cohesive narrative by effectively linking time, place, and themes, while also emphasizing the roles of key commanders. The conquest could be divided into three distinct phases: the initial negotiation with Ardabīl led by Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, the emergence of Muslim administrators, and the ongoing local resistance until full establishment of the expansion. This process illustrated that growth stemmed from careful interactions with local structures guided by the Medinan caliphate. Reliable sources, such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Balādhurī, and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, depended on trustworthy transmitters and strong isnāds, presenting a nuanced and credible historical account. In contrast, Sayf’s focus on figures like al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah combined with his silence on others, such as Ḥudhayfah, Zayd ibn Wahb, and Bakīr, reflected a narrative shaped by cultural and ideological affiliations that sought to reinforce official power narratives. This study highlighted how stories of negotiation, gradual settlements, and local connections provided essential insights into the conquest of Ādharbāyjān. Relying on Sayf's reports for academic research was ill-advised due to their lack of proper documentation, timeline inaccuracies, and inherent biases. This research underscored the value of utilizing diverse Islamic sources to enhance our understanding of early Islamic history, offering a robust framework for assessing historical methodologies in Islamic studies. |