The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The first and foremost thing that was given priority in the Islamic history was the Sīrah of the Prophet  and the subsequent military campaigns (maghazi) that followed. For this, reliance was placed on ahadīth narrated by the Sahabah, Tabi'een and those who came after them concerning the life of the Prophet ; from his birth, his early life, and his Call to Islam to the Jihad and military expeditions against the Mushrikin and his conquests. In short, reports concerning the Prophet  from his birth till his death.

The history of the Prophet's life  was a part of the reported ahadīth. Such ahadīth used to be miscellaneous in the days when the Muhaddith would compile all the reports that reached him and learn them without any order or arrangement. When ahadīth came to be arranged according to chapters, the military campaigns were brought together in separate chapters. These then became separated from the hadīth and specific books were written on them although the muhaddithin continued to include them within their chapters. So, in Bukhari there is the Book of Military Expeditions (kitab al-Maghazi) and in Muslim the Book of Jihad and Military Campaigns (kitab al jihad wa al-siyar).

Though many have written about the Sīrah, the first book that is existent from amongst the early compilers is the kitab al-Maghazi of Ibn Ishaq. Its author, Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yassaar (d.153 A.H.) is considered the most well known of the ones who were associated with the maghazi, to the extent that Shafi'i is reported to have said: ' Whosoever wishes to be an expert in the maghazi, he should depend on Muhammad ibn Ishaq'. After Ibn Ishaq, the second early author is al-Waqidi. Muhammad ibn 'Umar ibn Waqid al-Waqidi (d.209 A.H.) was considered to have an extensive knowledge of the maghazi which approximated to that of Ibn Ishaq. He was very knowledgable in history and hadīth though it is reported about him that in later years he began to get his reports muddled. That is why many muhaddithin have branded him as weak, Bukhari says of him: ' His ahadīth are to be rejected (munkar al-hadīth)'. However they did not impugn the depth of his knowledge concerning the maghazi. Thus, Ahmad ibn Hanbal says about him: 'He is well-informed about the maghazi'. He has compiled a book on maghazi from which Ibn Saa'd quotes in his book al-Tabaqat (The Generations) in his discussion of the Sīrah. Likewise, Tabari also quotes from it. Two of the most famous compilers of the Sīrah are Ibn Hisham (d.218 A.H.) and Muhammad ibn Sa'ad (d.230 A.H.).

To this day Muslims have continued to devote their attention to the Sīrah. The Sīrah is considered one of the most important things to which Muslims should pay careful attention because it contains reports concerning the Messenger  in terms of his actions, sayings, silence and description; like the Qur’ān all of it is legislation. Therefore the Sīrah is one of the constituent elements of legislation and that is why it is considered part of the hadīth (literature). Whatever is proven to be authentic from it concerning the Prophet , in terms of its transmission and meaning, it is considered as a Sharī’ah evidence because it is from the Sunnah, not to speak of the fact that we are commanded by Allah  to emulate the Messenger . Allah  said:

Therefore, devoting ones attention to the Sīrah and its pursuance is a Sharī’ah matter. However, the difference between the method employed in compiling the Sīrah by the ancients and those who came in later periods is that: the method of the ancients in compilation of the Sīrah and history used to depend on the narration of reports. The historians started with the oral transmission; the first generation which witnessed the actions of the Messenger  or heard about it and transmitted it began to transmit it to others, the burden of which was assumed by the generation that came after. And some of them wrote down ahadīth in a miscellaneous manner which can be seen in the books of hadīth even today. Not till the advent of the second century (Hijri) do we find some scholars beginning to compile and put together the biographical reports and put them down in writing according to the method of narration, by mentioning the name of the transmitter and the one who transmitted from him, exactly as it was done in the (transmission) of hadīth. Thus, hadīth scholars and critics are able to know the authentic and acceptable biographical reports from the weak and inadmissible ones due to their knowledge of the transmitters and the chain of transmission. And this is the procedure which is relied upon when quoting from the Sīrah, as long as it is authentic, contrary to the modern authors of the Sīrah who only enumerate events without mentioning their transmitters. That is why their books are not relied upon as a source of Sīrah except when the author verifies at the time of writing that the transmitted reports are indeed from the Sīrah reports and are trustworthy. If he does not then his statement is not quoted but the event which he mentions is traced back to the books of Sīrah which have been transmitted according to the method of narration or to the books of hadīth. This is because reports concerning the Prophet  from the Sunnah are not taken except when they are authentic.

There is another area the historians have attended to, in addition to their approach to the Sīrah and that is the historiography of the Islamic events in relation to wars between some Muslims and wars between the Muslims and other nations and the subsequent conquests and events that followed. A group of historians became well known (for this approach), the foremost amongst them being Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya ibn Sa'id ibn Mikhnaf ibn Salim al-Izdi (d.170A.H.). Some of the most famous books written by him are; The Conquest of al-Sham (futuh As-Sham), Conquest of Iraq (Futuh Al-Iraq), al-Jamal, Siffin and the murder of Hussayn Maqtal Al Hussayn). It is apparent that each book is a commentary on a particular issue. Nothing remains from the books that have been correctly attributed to him except that which Tabari has transmitted in his Tarikh (history). Many muhaddithin have discredited him by saying that he used to narrate from a group of unknown transmitters (majhulin). Among the famous historians is al-Mada'ini. He is 'Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mada'ini (d.225 A.H.), a prolific author. He wrote books concerning reports about the Prophet  and Quraysh. He also wrote books about reports concerning women and about the Khulafa. Tha'lab al-Nahawi described him thus: 'Whosoever wishes to know the reports concerning the Days of Ignorance he should consult the books of Abu 'Ubayda, and whosoever wishes to know about the reports concerning Islam let him consult the books of al-Mada'ini'. Also, the muhaddithin have not questioned his probity. Yahya ibn Ma'in, one of the most famous rijal critics says he is trustworthy (thiqa).

The writing of history began much in a similar way as the Sīrah, with oral reports; the first generation which witnessed and participated in the events began to transmit (the reports to the next), the burden of which was assumed by the following generation until the events came to be written down. Historians proceeded in Islamic history exactly as they did with the Sīrah in terms of the narration of reports. Thus, you will find in the old books of history such as Tabari for example that an event is reported on the authority of such and such a person, sometimes from varying lines of transmission because their method of writing history was by narration only.

There is another approach which emerged amongst Muslims since the earliest times and that is the historiography of other nations such as the Persians and Romans and the historiography of other religions like the Jews and Christians. However, this form of history writing was less accurate in (comparison) to the Sīrah and the history of Islamic events and this is because historians used to rely on transmitters from the people of other nations. This section of history came to be filled with legends due to the remoteness of the period of the transmitters (from the events) and due to the inaccuracy in transmission and because every nation tended to inflate its reports.

In short, Muslims did not have a criterion for (judging) history, whether the Islamic history or the history of other people, even though they employed the correct method in writing history; that is the narration of a report from the one who witnessed it or narration of a book on the authority of the one who narrated the report from the one who witnessed it. However in writing the history of other nations they relied on weak reports and so it became filled with stories and legends. And in the history of Islam they did not carefully scrutinise the transmitters in the Sīrah and hadīth but restricted themselves to reports about the Khulafa and Walis and did not give attention to reports about the society and conditions of people.

This is why Islamic history does not present a complete picture of the society or state. This can only be obtained from the Sīrah after it has been checked and from the hadīth works in which reports concerning the Companions and Successors have been narrated. In fact, Islamic history is in need of a re-examination of the events founds in the books of history by scrutinising the transmitters who narrated them and their lines of transmission and by scrutinising and judging the same events in the light of (known) facts and accounts. However, what took place after the time of the Companions is of no importance. As for what originated from the Companions; that is the subject of study, because the ijma' of the Companions is a Sharī’ah evidence and because there are many newly adopted rules (ahkām) for the ever-emerging new (problems) of life, problems which were solved by the Companions and must be understood from a legislative perspective. Thus, the history of the Companions is one of the constituent elements of legislation. Indeed, many issues relating to Jihad, treatment of non-Muslims (Ahl al-Dhimma), Kharaj, 'Ushr, knowledge of whether a land is 'Ushri or Kharaji i.e, whether it was conquered by way of a treaty or force and issues relating to asylum (al-Aman), armistice (hudna) and rules pertaining to booty, fai' and provisions for the army...etc, all of these are incidents and rules which were applied in the state. They must be understood in order to take as Sharī’ah evidence that which the Companions agreed upon and to consider that which a Companion adopted alone as a Sharī’ah rule of one of the mujtahidin and as well to become acquainted with the actions of the Companions, especially the Rightly Guided Caliphs, in terms of their handling and management of ruling, administration and policy. This is because they are the best of those to whom Allah  has granted the mentality of ruling and they understood best how to apply the rules in the state, on the citizens (of the state), be it the Muslims or dhimmis. For this reason we are obliged to know the history of the Islamic State during the period of the Companions (though) there is no harm in gaining knowledge of its authentic history after that (period). Muslims have (at their disposal) sources for reports about the Companions other than the history books ; books such as the al-Amwal (The Treasury) of Abu 'Ubayd, the Muwatta of Malik and books of hadīth which narrate Sahih (correct) and hasan (good) reports.

As for the history of other than the Companions there is no harm in knowing it simply as reports and information, but not to emulate them or to take lessons from what was mentioned in them. Yes, the Qur’ān does relate the history of some of the (previous) Prophets and people for the sake of exhortation with regards to belief, to obey Allah  and to clarify the fate of those who disobey Him  but not so that we can take their reports and actions as a method according to which we should proceed. It is a common mistake that many people make when they assume that history is of utmost importance for the revival of nations and that knowledge of the past throws light on the present and opens the way to the future. This is fanciful and insane. It is an analogy of the perceptible reality by the imperceptible unknown and an analogy of the definite and indisputable (reality) which we observe, by the speculative (reality) which we are informed of, which may be right or wrong, true or false.

In fact, it is not possible to take history as a basis for revival not even as a basis for a study. Only the reality which we wish to treat is made the object of study because it is perceptible and tangible and so it is studied until it is understood, then a solution is given for it, either from the Sharī’ah if it relates to the Sharī’ah rules or from the requirements of that reality pertaining to the solution if it is from the means and styles. It is of little benefit for a Muslim to involve himself with reports about Bismarck or even Harun al-Rashid rather he should preoccupy himself with the Islamic Sharī’ah as (a body of) thoughts and rules and also with the real and practical life from the viewpoint of elevating the situation of Islam and Muslims and taking every opportunity to propagate Islam and carry its call to the world. And since we must study reports about people, let us study the present societies in order to treat them, or study about other nations so as to determine our position with regards to them, as we are in a state of constant struggle in the path of propagating Islam and carrying its call to those nations.