Islam Creator of the Modern Age Historiography

Islam Creator of the Modern Age Historiography

1992 8-9 August-September 16-23 Islam Creator of the Modern Age Historiography (2943) The starting point in Toynbee’s philosophy of history was his contention that the proper unit of historical study must be a civilization, rather than the traditional unit, the nation state.

Both these concepts, however, come to the same thing. That is, that history should not be subordinated only to certain individuals, but should rather be taken as the sum of all the activities of all groups of human beings. This approach, however, has come into existence only during the last few Centuries. If we apply the term ‘man-story’ to the history, or historiography of today, we have to use the term ‘king-story’ to describe history before the modern era. It is only in modern times that history has come to mean the study of the, academic, economic, social, political and cultural affairs of a given period. Ancient history amounted to a belittling of humanity in general; the common man was not worth mentioning. The only man worth mentioning was the one whose head was adorned by a crown.

This mentality of treating history as ‘king-story’ was so confirmed that achievements relating to non-kings were not considered worthy of mention, however much they were marked by greatness. The most striking examples of these lacunae pertain to the great Prophets of the world. It is perhaps the strongest aspect of the story of man that it has omitted those very elements which should, in the writing of history, have been given top priority, namely, the lives of those pious men known as the prophets, and all events relating to them. The recorded history of humanity has elaborate descriptions of the kings. It records every single detail about them from the palaces they occupied to the generals they commanded. But the achievements of the Prophets are completely passed over.

People would find it very strange if a history of the freedom struggle of India did not mention the role of Gandhiji, or if a history of the USSR made no mention of Lenin. But a far stranger phenomenon is a recorded history of humanity which is totally bereft of all mention of those pious souls, the prophets. The final Prophet, that is, the Prophet of Islam, stands out as the sole exception. The reason is that he succeeded in changing those very factors in history which had been responsible for such tragic happenings in the past.

The serious gaps which occurred in historical writings in the past resulted from the ancient historians’ belief that only the king and events relating to the king were worthy of being recorded. Nothing else was of any importance to them.

The real events relating to non-kings were regarded as undeserving of any mention, while even legendary tales and concocted stories about the kings were preserved in writing as if they were great realities. Take, for instance, the building of Alexandria, the renowned coastal city named after its founder, Alexander the Great. Many strange stories are associated with the foundation of this city. One of them concerns sea genies who were said to have put obstacles in the path of building the city when the work was first started. Alexander, so the story goes, decided to see for himself what the genies were about. He gave orders for a large box of wood and glass to be made, and when it was ready, he had himself lowered in it to the bottom of the sea. There he drew pictures of the genies and then back on land, he had metal statues cast to look exactly like the drawings. These statues were then laid under the foundations of Alexandria. When the sea genies came there, and saw that genies like themselves had been killed and buried in the foundation, they became frightened and ran away. The fact that’ this tale gained currency shows the credulous state in which the whole world lived before the advent of Islam.

In known human history the Arab Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), is the only historian to have changed the pattern of historiography. It was he who raised historiography from the level of mere king-story to the level of genuine man-story. ‘Kingology’ was changed into sociology. The truth is that the science known today as sociology is the gift of Ibn Khaldun. He himself claimed that he was the founder of sociology, and there is no reason to dispute his claim.

It was indeed Ibn Khaldun who gave to Europe the modern science of history. And it was Islam which bestowed this gift upon Ibn Khaldun. The Islamic revolution produced Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Khaldun produced the modern science of history.

This change brought about in the concept of history by Ibn Khaldun has been described thus by the 20th century English historian, Arnold Toynbee: ‘A philosophy of history which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created in any time or place.’

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 9/148)

In much the same way, Robert Flint acknowledged his greatness: ‘As a theorist on history he had no equal in any age or country until Vico appeared, more than three hundred years later; Plato, Aristotle and Augustine were not his peers’. (9/148)

Professor Philip K. Hitti writes:

The fame of Ibn-Khaldun rests on his Muqaddimah (Introduction to his book on history). In it he presented for the first time a theory of historical development which takes due cognizance of the physical facts of climate and geography as well as of the moral and spiritual forces at work. As one who endeavoured to formulate laws of national progress and decay, Ibn-Khaldun may be considered the discoverer-as he himself claimed – of the true scope and nature of history, or at least the real founder of the science of sociology. No Arab writer, indeed no European, had even taken a view of history at once so comprehensive and philosophic. By the consensus of critical opinion Ibn-Khaldun was the greatest historical philosopher Islam produced and one of the greatest of all time.

In Book I of the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun sketches a general sociology, in Books II and III, a sociology of politics; in Book IV a sociology of urban life; in Book V, a sociology of economics; and in Book VI, a sociology of knowledge. The work is studied with brilliant observations on historiography, economics, politics, and education. It is held together by his central concept of asabiyah, or social cohesion. Thus he laid the foundation of a science of history which is not based just on the description of kings, but which is, in a vaster sense, based on the economics, politics, education, religion, ethics, and culture of the whole nation.

Historians have generally acknowledged that the science of history had remained undeveloped before the emergence of Ibn Khaldun, and that he was the first person to develop the philosophy of history. The Encyclopedia Britannica says, ‘He developed one of the world’s most significant philosophies of history. (Vol. 9, p. 147)

The question arises as to how it became possible for Ibn Khaldun to discover something which had remained undiscovered for centuries. The answer is that other historians were born before the Islamic revolution, while Ibn Khaldun was born after it. Ibn Khaldun was, in actual fact, a product of the Islamic revolution.

One belief which hampered the development of the Science or art of history was what is known in religious terminology as polytheism. The, whole period prior to Islam was one of divine kingship. Some kings set themselves up as gods without feeling any need to philosophize their claims; while others claimed to be either the personification or representative of God in order that the public might accept without questioning, their rights to absolute sovereignty. Even in the states of kings who made no claim to their power being derived from God, the same condition prevailed. That is, whether the kings claimed divinity or not, people everywhere associated divinity with kings. This was because whenever they came upon anything out of the ordinary, they took it to be a god, or a manifestation of a god. This mentality naturally was not discouraged by the kings. ‘The king has often stood as mediator between his people and their god, or as the god’s representative.’

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1984 V /816)

This state of affairs, which prevailed throughout the world, was radically altered by Islam. On the basis of monotheism, Islam brought about a revolution which eliminated the difference between king and commoner. All human beings, the offspring of Adam and Eve, were held to be equal. It was, uniquely, this great revolution of equality that paved the way for an Ibn Khaldun to lay the foundation of modern history in which the central position was held not by ‘royal figures’ but by humanity itself.

Towards the end of the Prophet Muhammad’s life, Maria Qibtiya bore him a beautiful and vivacious son in Medina. The Prophet named him Ibrahim, after the Prophet Abraham. Ibrahim was just one and a half years old when, in the tenth year of Hijrah (January 632 AD), he died. It so happened that the death of Ibrahim coincided with a solar eclipse. From ancient times, one of the many superstitious notions in which people believed was that the solar and lunar eclipses were caused by the death of some king or other important personage they were to show, they thought, that the heavens mourned the death of the exalted in station. At that time the Prophet of Islam was king of Arabia. For this reason, certain of the Medinans began attributing the eclipse to the death of the Prophet’s son. As soon as the Prophet heard of this, he refuted it. There are several accounts of this incident in the books of hadith. One of these was recorded as follows:

‘One day the Prophet came in great haste to the mosque. At that time the sun was in eclipse. The Prophet began to say his prayers and, by the time he had finished, the eclipse was over. Then, addressing the congregation, he said that people imagined that the sun and moon went into eclipse at the death of some important person, but that this was not true. The eclipses of the sun and moon were not due to the death of any human being. Both the sun and the moon were just two of God’s creations, with which He did as He willed. He told them that when they saw an eclipse, they should pray to God.

The ancient rulers, on the contrary, encouraged such superstitious notions so that people would continue to regard them as superior beings. In known history, the Prophet of Islam was the first ruler who refuted such superstitious beliefs, showing them to be baseless. In this way, he led mankind along the path of enlightenment, eliminating the differences between men on an intellectual plane. He held as baseless all those suppositions and superstitions which had been responsible for creating and perpetuating to slave-master mentality.

When the whole of Arabia came under the domination of Islam, the Prophet made a farewell Hajj pilgrimage in his last days, along with 125,000 companions. During this pilgrimage he delivered his historic sermon on the plains of Arafat which is known as ‘Khutba Hajjatul Wida,’ the sermon of the farewell pilgrimage.

This sermon was a declaration of human rights: ‘Hear, O people. All human beings are born of a man and a woman. All the apparent differences are only for the sake of introduction and identification. The most worthy before God is the one who is the most God-fearing. No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab and vice versa. No black has any superiority over a white and vice versa. Taqwa (piety) is the only thing which will determine one’s superiority over others.’ To this the Prophet added, ‘All things of the period of ignorance before Islam have been trampled down by my steps.’ For the first time in ancient history, all sorts of inequality and discrimination were practically eliminated.

Only then did a new civilization come into being in which all human beings were equal. Speaking of the successors of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar, Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘Though they were masters of a vast empire, they lived the life of paupers.’

This revolution was so powerful that even at a later period, when the rot had set in in the institutions of the government, and the Caliphs had been replaced by ‘emperors’, the pressure of the Islamic civilization was so great that none of these ‘emperors’ could live in the style of the ancient monarchs. In Islamic history there are many such instances. The following incident, which took place during the reign of Sultan Abdur Rahman Assani, the powerful ruler of Muslim Spain, is an apt illustration.

Sultan Abdur Rahman II (176-238 AD), a powerful ruler of Spain, built a palace, called al-Zahra, to the east of Cordova, which was of such immensity that the word palace was not adequate to describe it. This magnificent residence came to be known as al-Madinah al-Zahirah (the brilliant town). But, in spite of being so powerful and living in such magnificence, the Sultan did not regard himself as being above the law.

It happened once that he missed one fast in the month of Ramazan without having any valid excuse which would be acceptable in terms of the Shariah. He thereupon assembled the Ulama (religious scholars) of Cordova, and told them of his lapse. He asked them to pronounce a religious verdict which would enable him to atone for it.

AI-Maqqari writes that one of the religious scholars present was the Imam Yahya, who promptly gave his religious verdict that the king would have to observe 60 continuous fasts in expiation. On leaving the palace he was asked by one of the Ulama why he had insisted on such a severe form of expiation when the Shariat also provided for the feeding of 60 poor people in atonement for one missed fast. Why had he not instructed the king to feed 60 poor people instead of fasting himself?

Angered by this question, Imam Yahya replied, ‘For a king to feed 60 poor people is no punishment.’ As we learn from the annals of Andalusian history, Sultan Abdur Rahman II did accept the fatwa (verdict) of Imam Yahya, and did observe 60 continuous fasts. He showed no reaction whatsoever. He did not even dismiss Imam Yahya from his office. (Muslim Rulers, p. 415, with reference to Nafh Al Tib Part I, Page 362-368).

This can be explained in terms of the impact of the Islamic revolution, which had put an end to the difference between a subject and a ruler. It had created such an atmosphere of human equality, that no one could regard himself as being superior to others. Not even a king dared to set himself apart from the commoners or to flout the law.

Before the Islamic revolution it was an accepted fact that the King was superior to a common man. For instance, the Roman emperor, Heraclius, a contemporary of the Prophet of Islam, in spite of being a Christian, ‘had married his niece, Martina, thus offending the religious scruples of many of his subjects, who viewed his second marriage as incestuous.’ (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1984, 8/782).

It was known to the people that this marriage was illegal, yet there was no public outcry. This was because Heraclius was a King and, therefore, above any judgement by human standards. As a King, he had the right to do as he pleased.

In ancient times, this extraordinary concept of the greatness of kings was so firmly implanted, as a matter of superstitious belief that ordinary citizens began to consider their monarchs to be innately superior creatures. The observance of special rites and rituals by kings was aimed at reinforcing this way of thinking. The kings had thus, in their respective empires, achieved a temporal greatness Which was on a parallel with God’s prerogative in the vastness of His universe. It was but natural that historiography came under the influence of this concept of the ‘divine right of kings’ so that, in practice, it became a chronicle of the lives of royal families with scant reference to the common man.

With the onset of the Islamic revolution in Arabia and neighbouring countries, objects of nature like the sun and moon were dislodged from their divine pedestals. In like manner, kings were removed from the seat of extraordinary greatness. Now a king was just a human being like any other.

The influence of the Islamic revolution which ultimately reached Asia, Africa and many European countries, paved the way for a new atmosphere on a universal scale. With this new way of thinking, the old king-centred mentality gave way to a man-centred ethos., Prominent expression has been given to a new approach to historiography in the writings of Abdur Rahman Ibn Khaldun, who in the foreword to his Kitab al-Ibar, propounded his theory of how history should be written. This foreword, or Muqaddimah, is considered so important that it has been published many times in several languages.

The most eminent of Mamluk historians was al-Maqrizi, a disciple of Ibn Khaldun. It was through him in the 15th century that Ibn Khaldun’s theories were introduced into Egypt. Later, other Muslim countries came under their influence.

Between 1860 and 1870 a complete rendering of the Muqaddimah was published in French, thus introducing his historical theories into Europe. These thoughts took root in the soil of Europe and gained great popularity. Vico and other western historians developed this art, finally giving rise to the modern form of historiography.