Islamic history between idealism and realism

Tareq al-Suwaidan devoted an episode of Al-Wasatiyya to "Islamic history between idealism and realism". ⁶ Opening it, he said history is neither time nor a chain of successive events but the movement of people in time and place, made by human beings with their convictions and abilities; since human beings are imperfect by nature, this shows as imperfection in history. ^{7 8} He held that written history, even what great scholars wrote, contains what is authentic and sound alongside intrusions that do not fit the truth, and that we study history to build a future that learns from its mistakes and corrects them. ^{8 9} He said he wanted to acknowledge the mistakes of past politicians, soldiers and even some scholars, while taking pride in the great achievements and the civilisation, and asked: is all our history spotless, as some portray it, or all dark apart from early Islam, as others claim? ^{10 6} The subject touches the entry the science of history.

The presenter asked whether most periods of Islamic history were conflict and greed: 22% agreed and 78% disagreed, and he said he had expected a different result. ^{11 1} These are the votes of that episode's studio audience. A young woman in the audience saw a balance between conflict and peace, and a young man held that had it been all conflict no great Islamic civilisation would have arisen, and that the fault lies with the writers of history, who passed on the conflicts and left out much of the civilisation. ^{12 13 14}

The presenter introduced Mahmud al-Sayyid al-Dughaym as a fellow of the Centre of Islamic Studies at the University of London, a doctor from the University of Salford in legal theory and history, and a member of the Union of Arab Historians, and said he had heard from him before the show that he considers history a creed and Islamic history ideal. ^{15 16} Al-Dughaym explained that Islamic history is what concerns Islam and Muslims, that a Muslim historian is one committed to Islam, and that one who follows whims he does not count among Muslim historians. ^{17 18 19} Asked whether he places all non-Sunni groups among "the people of whims", he said yes, naming the Shu'ubis among others. ^{19 20} He said the first to begin this luminous history was the Prophet ﷺ Muhammad and those who followed his path. ²¹

When the presenter distinguished history from the writing of history, al-Dughaym held that writing embodies the reality of history, and that the method of al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil used to assess hadith transmitters can be applied to historians. ^{21 22 23} As an example of false reports he named al-Aghani of Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, which he said orientalists treat as a main source though to him it is full of lies; when the presenter objected that it is a book of literature, not history, al-Dughaym answered that literature is one of history's vessels. ^{23 24} He acknowledged that books of exegesis and history contain Isra'iliyyat, flagged by Ibn Kathir and others, that the historian's task is to examine reports from every angle and compare them, and that what contradicts the Sunni position is set aside. ^{25 26 27} He said sound Islamic history is sacred to him because it is religious history and an embodiment of the message, and that he is ready to defend it in every field. ^{28 29 30}

Abdallah al-Khabbas replied that Islamic history cannot be ideal or rise to the level of creed, since creed is taken from the Qur'an and Sunna alone, while history was written by men, some of whom had partisan or sectarian leanings and wrote about their opponents with distortion. ^{31 32} He asked al-Dughaym about al-Hajjaj; al-Dughaym prayed for mercy on him, and al-Khabbas objected that al-Hajjaj killed Sa'id ibn Jubayr and bombarded Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and crucified him by the Ka'ba. ^{32 33} Al-Dughaym said he had not called the killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr right, only pointed to a merit of al-Hajjaj, the conquest of Sind and the Punjab, recounting that he sent the army without consulting the caliph when he heard that Muslim women had been captured on the pilgrim road and had called on him for help. ^{34 35} This is his account.

The presenter asked whether the great historians were swayed by their doctrinal and political leanings and were not neutral: 62% said yes and 38% that they wrote neutrally, a result he said surprised him. ^{36 37 2}

Dr Nama held that the great scholars wrote history in an unprecedented way, narrating events with chains of transmission as in hadith; citing the maxim "whoever gives a chain has referred you", she said the historian passes on the report with its chain, even from a liar, and leaves the reader the tools to judge, which she called "the height of fairness". ^{38 39 40 41} She said al-Tabari, on the killing of al-Husayn ibn Ali (may God be pleased with him), gave both the reports that support the Shi'a and those against them. ⁴¹ The presenter said that when he read these reports he was influenced even by the false ones, because the historian did not tell him they were false but said "Abu Mikhnaf said". ⁴² He contrasted Imam Ahmad, who he said selected his Musnad, more than thirty thousand hadiths, from seven hundred thousand, with al-Tabari, who did not select and did not call his book "the sound history". ^{43 44} These are his figures.

Salah al-Din al-Jourchi, a Tunisian researcher and journalist, held that a historian, even a praying Muslim, is a human being living in a period riven by conflicts and interests who cannot fully step outside it, and so selects reports according to his influences, relations and ties. ^{45 46} He said the historian tries to come as close to objectivity as he can, and does not merely pass on reports but discusses them, links them to events and interprets them. ^{47 48} He described Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jama'a as "a political party" with its own outlook and position, which is his view, and said that for this reason the writing of history cannot be given a sacred character. ⁴⁹ He recalled reading Sayyid Qutb's Milestones in the early days of the Islamic movement, called its chapter "a unique Qur'anic generation" "brilliant but booby-trapped", and held that the Companions' generation excelled in many things but was a human generation, and that stripping it of its human and historical frame leads to errors in activism, politics and culture. ^{50 51 52}

The presenter introduced Bassam as a former minister, member of parliament and university professor of sharia. Bassam said calling history a creed is unacceptable by any measure, and distinguished "Islamic history", meaning the stories of the prophets in the Qur'an, what is related of the Prophet and his campaigns, and what is in the hadith, from "the history of Muslims" after that, which is neither creed nor sacred. ^{53 54 55} He held that in studying history no one should be judged to paradise or hell, only the act assessed, and that he rejects turning a blind eye to history's mistakes and hiding them from the young, since history is studied for its lessons. ^{55 56 57 58}

The presenter asked him about the method reported from Imam Ahmad and others of refraining from the disputes among the Companions: is that not a method of looking away, meant to avoid speaking wrongly of the Companions? ^{58 59} Bassam answered that this differs from studying an event and checking whether it is sound, said Islamic history has not been verified as Imam Ahmad's Musnad was, and noted that al-Albani used to say "tala'a al-badru 'alayna" is not established. ⁶⁰ He said he does not accept the approach of those who curse the figures of history, and gave as an example of human error even among the Rightly Guided Caliphs that Umar ibn al-Khattab refused to build a fleet, fearing for the Muslims because he did not know the sea, while Uthman ibn Affan, who knew travel, built it. ^{61 62 63} This is his account.

Al-Dughaym refused to count Umar's position as a mistake and objected to what he called boldness against the Companions by readers of the orientalists. ^{63 64} He held that the campaign against Harun al-Rashid, who raided one year and made the pilgrimage the next, arose, as he put it, because he ended the Barmakids and humbled Nikephoros, emperor of the Byzantines, so that the Shu'ubis, the Byzantines and their followers turned on him; he noted that Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Malik lived in his time. ^{65 66} He mentioned a shrine to Abu Lu'lu'a, the killer of Umar ibn al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him), visited today; the presenter confirmed it exists and said it was not the episode's subject. ^{67 68} Al-Dughaym clarified that he had not said history is like faith in the Qur'an and Sunna, but that a committed historian who reports every account is neutral, and that he holds sacred what is sound, not mistakes or false reports. ^{68 69 70 71}

Dr Nama said that if Muslims failed to verify history, its writers are not to blame, and that the parts of history found in the hadith collections are the ones that have been verified. ^{72 73} The presenter said the books contain reports from "a man I met at the mosque door" whose identity is unknown, that we have the right to doubt such reports and pause over them until history is verified as hadith was, and to say a writer may have been swayed by political, doctrinal or sectarian leanings, something done by the people of whims and by some Sunnis too; Nama held that the last point can only be said after verification. ^{74 75 76 77}

The presenter said some reports can be judged by reason without verification, citing the biographical report that a certain worshipper prayed a thousand rak'as each night: if the night in northern Iraq is at most ten hours, that is a hundred rak'as an hour, a rak'a and a half a minute, and he said: "this is a marathon, not worship". ^{78 79 80 81} He said the books are full of exaggerations and implausible numbers, while affirming his respect for the great scholars. ⁷⁹

Muhammad Ijmi'an held that history was written after events had happened, and that applying the standard of hadith criticism would drop many reports from al-Tabari's history, first among them the reports of the ridda that he narrated from Sayf ibn Umar and that all later writers took from him, since hadith critics do not accept Sayf's reports. ^{81 82 83 84} He noted that al-Tabari says in his preface that he passed the reports on as they reached him, and that al-Baladhuri, who lived under about seven Abbasid caliphs, in his reading supported the authorities, left out many events and did not give the opposition's view. ^{85 86 87}

Al-Jourchi said we look in history for two things: the truth, and the laws that governed events and their development; hence the importance of Ibn Khaldun, who laid down in his Muqaddima theoretical principles of historical development that let him criticise reports and reassemble events, something still lacking today. ^{88 89 90} He held that our history, though a history of civilisation, is also a history of continuous revolts between central power and its opponents at home and on the frontiers. ^{90 91}

The presenter said he had written a complete history of Palestine and of al-Andalus, and had finished a not-yet-published book on the whole history of Islam. ⁹¹ He said a reader of our history books comes away with a political and military history full of conflict, strife and conspiracies, though Muslims built a civilisation, led humanity and taught Europe how to leave its dark ages, and asked why civilisational history was not written at the same length and in the same sequence. ^{92 93 94} He said he tried in his book to write political and military history together with the history of civilisation, which scholars appeared, when, and what they added, giving among his examples that Muslims brought lemons to Europe, taught Europeans that tomatoes are not poisonous, and from al-Andalus taught them to bathe, alongside astronomy, medicine, engineering and algebra. ^{94 95 96} These are his examples.

Bassam said the orientalists slipped poison into history, trying to belittle the great and magnify the small; the presenter explained to the audience that they are non-Muslim researchers, mostly European, who wrote with precision and a method that looks scientific, some of it carrying attacks on Islamic history. ^{96 97} Bassam said Abdallah Laroui wrote in his book on the Arabs and historical thought that the Muslims went out in search of food and drink, noted that al-Siba'i wrote "Min Rawa'i' Hadaratina" on endowments and more, and asked those orientalists who say Islam spread by the sword how it reached Indonesia and Africa. ^{98 99 100} He said a reader of al-Suyuti's History of the Caliphs finds that most caliphs were assassinated, cited Muhammad Qutb on caliphs who spent public money without account, in contrast to Abu Bakr, who was given only what he had earned from his work, and urged the young not to fear criticising history with sound intent: what was good and established we take pride in, and of what was negative we say he erred. ^{100 101 102}

The presenter said some Arab Christian writers wrote novels on Islamic history, such as Jurji Zaydan, whom he read at fifteen before studying sharia and was influenced by, and that a reader of his novel on the conquest of Egypt comes away thinking the Muslims conquered Egypt because Amr ibn al-As (may God be pleased with him) loved a woman; he said history is not taken from romantic novels. ^{103 104 105} He noted that major orientalists wrote detailed histories that became references for Arab writers such as al-Aqqad. ¹⁰⁵

The presenter asked whether orientalists wrote Islamic history with a more scientific method than Muslim historians: 45% said yes and 55% no, and he said he had expected most people to be against them. ^{106 107 3} He said he had read their books and lived in the West, and saw no comparison in method: the orientalist mentions nothing without stating where he took it from and how he analysed it, "while our people go by emotions and feelings". ^{3 108}

Dr Nama disagreed: the chain of transmission in historical reports is a distinction the West acknowledged before the East did, and the orientalists' method is scientific on the surface but not underneath; she cited what Goldziher wrote about al-Zuhri and the Dome of the Rock, what some wrote about Abu Hurayra, and their selection of reports and sources that serve their purpose. ^{108 109 110 111}

Al-Dughaym said most of us have not read what our historians wrote, citing that al-Tabari's History relates under the year 27 AH that Uthman ordered the conquest of al-Andalus and an army entered it without settling, and that the conquest of Sind began under Uthman before al-Hajjaj. ^{112 113 114} He said German orientalists edited al-Tabari's history in the nineteenth century and later Arabic printings reproduced their text, as with Ibn al-Athir's al-Kamil, that he does not trust a text edited by a non-Muslim, and that this is a failing of Muslims. ^{114 115 116 117} He said the book al-Imama wa-l-Siyasa is falsely attributed to Ibn Qutayba, in his view. ^{117 118} He recounted comparing manuscripts of the "Ta'wilat al-Qur'an" attributed to Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi in the Ragip Pasha and Süleymaniye libraries in Istanbul and finding it identical, letter for letter, to the work of Abd al-Razzaq al-Kashani, so that in his view its attribution to Ibn Arabi has stained his reputation for centuries. ^{118 119 120} This is his account and has not been checked here.

Al-Dughaym said the last seven years of al-Suyuti's life fell in the reign of Qansuh al-Ghawri, who, he said, leaned to Shi'ism and allied with Shah Isma'il the Safavid against Sultan Selim I, so that Shi'i hadiths entered what al-Suyuti wrote in that period, citing al-Durr al-Manthur on al-Baqara 223; this is his claim and has not been verified here. ^{121 122} He said half of Islamic history is Ottoman, that whoever writes Ottoman history from Safavid, English, Russian or French sources writes "with a spiteful spirit", and advised anyone who does not know Ottoman Turkish to stay away from that history. ^{123 124}

Abdallah al-Khabbas, a professor of modern literature, said there is a difference between the akhbari, the compiler of reports, and the historian: the historian has a view of what he reports, while the compiler passes reports on without intervening, which is not neutrality. ^{125 126} He challenged the measure of sectarian belonging with the example of al-Mutanabbi and his ties to the courts of Sayf al-Dawla and Kafur al-Ikhshidi, asking what heroism, sanctity or idealism lies down that road. ^{126 127}

Al-Jourchi summed up the discussion in five points: Islamic history needs critical reviews, so it is not sacred; no report is excluded but each is verified, however much we disagree with its narrators; history is a science and science means methods, so modern methods should serve in rewriting it; what is needed is a civilisational history of the community, not a history of ruling families; and religious faith must be distinguished from historical argument, so that the writing of history is not given an ideological cast. ^{128 129 130} The presenter said these were the points he had meant to make. ¹³⁰

The presenter said the episode's aim was not to confuse the young but to let them know that the history in the books is not pure: it carries whims and political and sectarian loyalties, and literature and love poetry sometimes entered it and distorted the image of some caliphs such as Harun al-Rashid, so history should not be taken from literary books such as al-Aghani. ^{4 131} He held that history must be rewritten by verifying the chains of transmission, that orientalists wrote with a scientific method that is not neutral, and that he has seen hardly any book, by orientalists or others, written neutrally. ^{131 132 133} He said great effort went into purifying creed and verifying hadith, and much into verifying the Prophet's biography, but little into verifying history and recasting it for the community, and he placed this task on scholars and historians. ^{133 134}

He compared the movement of history to the stock market, with rises and falls but a general trend that can be upward: whoever takes only the low points says our history is black, and whoever takes only the high points says it is spotless. ^{5 135} He said Muslims spent about a thousand years rising, with black spots in it, and about four hundred years declining, with white spots in it, that what they gave humanity no other nation has given, and he urged the young to take pride in their history. ^{135 136}

The historical statements on this page are the speakers' accounts and views as they gave them in the episode, and have not been verified here. The vote results are the opinions of that episode's studio audience, not representative surveys.