Islamic History Between Facts and Expectations

Written by: AS Rosyid

Those wishing to study Islamic History are likely to encounter a significant problem. Muslims view history as a sacred narrative that must be morally flawless. They made it ‘crystallised’: history should contains beautiful stories yet uncriticisable. Academics, however, take a different view; they see history as an unholy subject; quite profane to be criticized.

The purpose of studying history for Muslims is to strengthen their faith, so the characters in history must be perfect and benevolent; they should always choose to act under moral cogitation and naturally disinterested in politics (which by definition is dirty). It is reasonable because Muslims took history as guide to virtue. Meanwhile for academics, human history is talking about people and their socio-political actions, followed by various motives (both the virtuous and the bad ones) and it’s consequences to the society. The Prophet may be exceptional due to his state that is preserved from blameworthiness, but his companions were not. The companios were capable of error, lust, and deception. Although they may have been good people, one should acknowledge that in the realm of politics: “the righteous can be made fighting other righteous”.

Therefore, some Muslims may reject the narrative that Umar kicked in the door of Fatimah’s house during an attack to force her husband, Ali, to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, resulting in her bones being broken. It was, also, unlikely for Fatimah to die in a state of severe disappointment in Abu Bakr, who rejected her claim to inheritance rights of land left to her by the Prophet. For some Muslims, such a personality was not likely to be found in the daughter of the Prophet.

Furthermore, some Muslims also doubt that Mu’awiyah, who had recently converted to Islam, had a lust for power and was willing to engage in high-level political conspiracy, to: (1) exile Abu Dhar al-Ghifari to the desert, resulting in his death, in an attempt to silence his critics of the Umayyah family’s profligacy; (2) overthrow Uthman’s authority in a brutal assassination; (3) force Ali, Aisha, and thousands of their allied companions to fight in the Battle of Jamal; (4) remove Ali from power and pledge to assassinate him; (4) poison Hasan to death in Medina; and (5) allow the massacre of Husayn in Karbala. These actions were deemed impossible because Mu’awiyah had allegedly ‘converted to Islam’.

On the other hand, academics accept historical events as they are. Scholars distinguish between ‘ought’ (dichtung, expectations) and ‘actual’ (wahrheit, facts). The historical truth, according to academics, must not be distorted to fit people’s moral beliefs or ideals. One should not arguing history by expectations (it’s like saying “prophet’s companion ought be like this” or “they cannot be like that”). Sometimes facts contradict beliefs, and Muslims should choose to respect that arisen truth.

However, distinguishing between historical fact and historical expectations is a challenging task. To analyse the hadith as a resource of Islamic history, one should have sufficient knowledge about the Arab society at the time: anthropologically, sociologically, politically, and economically. But even for those who are capable of analysing hadith yet summarized critiques to Prophet’s companions, Muslims will condemn and accuse them as a hypocrite.

I wonder, what is faith when it is a mere sensation built on a celestial but false historical narrative. Is what we consider holy and admirable truly deserves such reverence? This offcourse raises questions about the foundations of our beliefs. []