The Historical Methodology: Must everything be Sahih?
- Anonymous
- Oct 12
- 12 min read
« Full Series: Karbala: Between Secrets & Lights »
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
When examining historical works and narratives, it is common to find that many reports are not authentic in terms of their chains of transmission. Yet, scholars have traditionally accepted these accounts without requiring a single rigorously authentic chain. In recent times, however, many individuals have neglected this important principle, applying the strict standards of Hadith authentication to historical sources.
To ensure an accurate and balanced historical analysis in our Karbala series, we will first outline our methodological framework in accordance with the standards recognized by both Sunni and Shia scholars.
History is not treated like Hadith
When it comes to evaluation of historical reports, it is not subjected to the same kind of evaluation that hadith reports are. For this reason, Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Talkhis Al-Istighatha, Vol. 1, pg. 76:
Imam Ahmad said: "There are three fields of knowledge that have no asl: the Maghazi (history of battles), the Malahim (epic battles), and Tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis). In another wording: they have no chains of transmission (asanid)."
This means that most of the material in these fields is generally transmitted as mursal or disconnected. If something is widely known among experts in the field and comes through multiple channels, it is considered reliable by scholars, unlike other matters.
Thus, when it comes to historical reports surrounding Karbala, our main aim isn’t just to show connected authentic chains to discover what occurred, but to go back to the experts in the field and see what they agreed upon, even if it said without chains.
Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly mentions that this applies to famous narrators like al-Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq and others who are experts in their fields in his Sarim al-Maslul, pg. 143:
And such reports are commonly circulated among figures like al-Zuhrī, Ibn ʿUqbah, Ibn Isḥāq, al-Wāqidī, al-Umawī, and others. Most often, they are mursal reports; however, when a mursal narration is transmitted through multiple independent routes, especially from those who are deeply concerned with the matter and pursue it, it takes the standing of a musnad. In fact, some accounts that are widespread among the scholars of maghāzī and widely transmitted are stronger than a solitary isnād.
For this reason, we set out to refer back to the historians who have written on this subject to illustrate what is reliable and not, instead relying solely on chains of transmissions to which anyone would know is an ineffective way to study history.
As for the non-adherents of Ibn Taymiyyah, they should know that many Asha’ira scholars have likewise expressed the same statements such as al-Nawawi in his Al-Majmu'a Vol. 5, pg. 63:
And we have narrated in the book of al-Zubayr b. Bakkār, in al-Bayhaqī’s Sunan, and other works, that he (Ibrāhīm, the son of the Prophet ﷺ) died on Tuesday, the tenth of the month of Rabīʿ al-Awwal, in the tenth year after the Hijra.
Although its chain of transmission is weak, it is permissible to rely upon it in such matters, since no legal ruling is established upon it. We have already stated in various places that the people of knowledge agree upon acting upon weak reports in matters other than rulings and the fundamentals of creed.
Moreover, it has been transmitted by mass transmission (mutawātir) that al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī was killed on the day of ʿĀshūrāʾ. And al-Bayhaqī and others have mentioned, on the authority of Abū Qabīl and others, that the sun was eclipsed on the day al-Ḥusayn was killed.”
Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi, the famous Ash’ari Shafi’i, likewise stated in his introduction of his biography book of the Prophet, Al-Fi’at al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, pg. 29:
وَإِنْ إِسْنَادُهُ لَمْ يُعْتَبَرْ ذَكَرْتُ مَا قَدْ صَحَّ مِنْهُ وَاسْتُطِرْ
And its chain of transmission is not considered; I mentioned what has been verified from it and elaborated it.
Thus, the necessity of a single reliable chain for historical matters does not become necessary when investigating what had happened in the books of history so long that we find corroboration to the statements, even if they’re all mursal. This is clear to anyone who studies history, and hence the scholars have put down these principles, rejecting them is a clear sign of insincerity to know what actually occurred in Karbala.
The Iraqi professor of Islamic History & Hadith, Akram Dhiya’ al-Umari, summarises this point for us in his Sunnat al-Nabawiyyah al-Sahihah, pg. 27:
There is no doubt that requiring full hadith-level authenticity for every historical report we wish to accept is abusive, because applying such stringent conditions would be insufficient to cover the various periods of Islamic history, creating gaps in our historical record. By comparison, histories worldwide often rely on single reports or anonymous historians, and they too are full of gaps. Therefore, for later periods, it suffices to verify the integrity and precision of the historian and accept what they record, using the principles of hadith criticism only to weigh conflicting reports among historians.
Al-Shaykh Sa’id al-Kamalli explains this same point in this video below. (Check 0:47-1:02)
This same methodology has been employed by Shi’a scholars who have made the same points such as Ayatullah Reyshahri in Sahih Maqtal Sayyid al-Shuhada, pg. 17:
It should be noted that historical research is not subject to the strictness that jurisprudential research undergoes. Instead, the researcher tries to verify the soundness and weakness of the text and, to uncover the truth, must rely on various corroborating evidence. Thus, the main criterion for collecting texts and selecting the authentic among them, after attributing them to reliable sources is “textual criticism.”
A more in-depth answer was given by Grand Ayatullah Sa’eed al-Hakeem (RH) in Risalah Abawiyyah, pg. 41 - 42, where he says:
History is not supposed to rely on certainties or on legal proofs (as used in deriving rulings), otherwise it would cease to be history. Rather, the best that can be expected is that it relies on what inspires confidence and reassurance.
Is Abi Mikhnaf a liar?
Lut b. Yahya (d. 157 H) was a famous Shi’i Islamic historian, famously known as Abi Mikhnaf. He is a very important narrator when it comes to Karbala, and so we will depend upon his narrations in many areas throughout the chapters. However, Sunnis weaken him in Hadith, but what they often ignore is his speciality in history that has been attested to by many scholars.
Al-Dhahabi says in Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. 5 pg. 195:
أبو مخنف وليس بثقة لكنه له اعتناء بالأخبار
“Abu Mikhnaf is not thiqah, but he is a specialist in history.”
Al-Safadi, who is al-Dhahabi’s student, likewise states in al-Wafi bil Wafyat Vol. 24, pg. 305 - 306:
وقالوا أبومخنف بأمر العراق وفتوحها وأخبارها يزيد على غيره
And they said: Abū Mikhnaf, in matters of Iraq, its conquests, and its reports, surpasses all others.
Ibn Kathir likewise refers to Abi Mikhnaf as a specialist in history in his Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Vol. 10 pg. 646:
ذكر ابن جرير عن أبي مخنف لوط بن يحيى وهو أحد أئمة هذا الشأن
Ibn Jarir mentioned Abu Mikhnaf Lut b. Yahya, who is one of the leading authorities (Imams) in this field (history).
For this reason, when Ibn Kathir wanted to relay the “authentic” Maqtal of Imam al-Husayn (AS), he relied on the narrations of Abi Mikhnaf in Al-Bidayah Wal-Nihaya, Vol. 11 pg. 521:
وهذه صفة مقتله مأخوذة من كلام أئمة هذا الشأن لا كما يزعمه أهل التشيع من الكذب
And this account pertaining to (al-Hussain’s) murder has been derived from the concerned Imams, not the false view of Shias.
He then continues to cite narrations from Abi Mikhnaf, demonstrating his acceptance of his reports.
Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani gave preference to Abi Mikhnaf’s statements at one place while discussing the date of birth of our Holy Prophet (SAW) in Fath al-Bari Vol. 7, pg. 736:
فالمعتمد ما قال أبو مخنف وكأن سبب غلط غيره أنهم قالوا مات في ثاني شهر ربيع الأول فتغيرت فصارت ثاني عشر واستمر الوهم بذلك
Thus, what is to be relied upon is what Abū Mikhnaf stated. It seems that the reason for the mistake of others is that they said he died on the second of the month of Rabīʿ al-Awwal, but it was altered to “the twelfth,” and the error continued thereafter.
The reliance on Abi Mikhnaf’s date illustrates Ibn Hajar’s trust in his competence and speciality when it comes to historical matters. Thus, we evidenced that Abu Mikhnaf might have been criticized for his work in the field of Hadith, but on the contrary, he is deemed an authority in the field of history.
As for evidence of him being a liar in history, then the burden of proof is on our opponents to bring it. There is not a single lie that can be proven to have been uttered by Abi Mikhnaf (RA).
For this reason, even the orientalist researcher of early Islamic history and biblical studies, Julius Wellhausen (d. 1918) concluded in his Arab Kingdom And Its Fall, pg. 11:
Yet in this (i.e. despite being Shi’a), there is not much of a bias noticeable (in Abu Mikhnaf), at least not so much as positively to falsify facts. Only on occasion does he seem to hush up what does not suit him to state, such as that 'Aqil at Siffin fought against his brother Alî.
As for the excuse that he was a Shi’a and therefore cannot be taken from, this excuse holds no weight, as Sunnis accept all of Sahih al-Bukhari, and there are many narrators within it who were Shi’a, such as: ‘UbaydAllah b. Musa al-’Absi (d. 213), ‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajini (d. 250), and Abd al-Malik b. A’yan al-Kufi (brother of Zurara).
Is al-Baladhuri reliable?
Ahmad b. Yahya b. Jabir al-Baladhuri (d. 279 AH) was a prominent 9th-century Muslim historian and genealogist. His works on history are vital and he provides one of the main sources for the history of the Islamic conquests. He also is one of the main primary sources for the Maqtal of Imam al-Husayn (AS), and for this reason he will often be cited.
In recent times, Sunnis have attempted to weaken him by declaring him as weak, a view which was not seen in the earlier periods. Al-Sharif al-Murtada, for instance, notes that Baladhuri was a well-known reliable narrator for the Sunnis in his time.
However, because of their realisation that Baladhuri did not censor reports about the conflicts between the Sahaba, and he most often cited reports from reliable historians, such as Musa b. ‘Uqba, Ibn Sa’ad, Abu al-Mada’ini and others, they insisted on weakening him by declaring him as maj’hul.
This dishonesty is evident when one refers back to their own scholars, who clearly praised and relied upon him in their works.
For example, al-Dhahabi records in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, Vol. 13, pg. 162:
البلاذري: العلامة، الأديب، المصنف، أبو بكر، أحمد بن يحيى بن جابر البغدادي البلاذري، الكاتب، صاحب " التاريخ الكبير ". وكان كاتبا بليغا، شاعرا محسنا، وسوس بأخرة لأنه شرب البلاذر للحفظ. توفي بعد السبعين ومئتين، رحمه الله.
Al-Baladhuri, the Allama, literati, and author, Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baghdadi al-Baladhuri, was the writer of Al-Tarikh al-Kabir. He was an eloquent writer, accomplished poet, and meticulous scholar, renowned for his memory aided by baladhur. He passed away after the year 270 AH, may God have mercy on him.
Al-Dhahabi’s student, al-Safadi, similarly says in al-Wafi bil Wafiyat, Vol. 8, pg. 156:
وكان أحمد بن يحيى بن جابر عالما فاضلا شاعرا راوية نسابة متقنا
And Ahmad b. Yahya b. Jabir was a learned and virtuous scholar, a poet, a transmitter of hadith, and a meticulous genealogist.
Ibn Kathir and Ibn ‘Askair record him as an expert of history in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Vol. 14, pg. 646:
البلاذري المؤرخ واسمه أحمد بن يحيى بن جابر بن داود أبو الحسن ويقال أبو جعفر ويقال أبو بكر البغدادي البلاذري صاحب التاريخ المنسوب إليه، سمع هشام بن عمار وأبا عبيد القاسم بن سلام، وأبا الربيع الزهراني وجماعة، وعنه يحيى بن النديم وأحمد بن عمار وأبو يوسف يعقوب بن نعيم بن قرقارة الأزدي. قال ابن عساكر: كان أديبا ظهرت له كتب جياد، ومدح المأمون بمدائح، وجالس المتوكل، وتوفي أيام المعتمد، وحصل له هوس ووسواس في آخر عمره،
Al-Baladhuri, the historian, was named Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir ibn Dawud, known as Abu al-Hasan, and also called Abu Ja’far or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Baladhuri, author of the history book.
He studied under Hisham ibn Ammar, Abu Ubaid al-Qasim ibn Salam, Abu al-Rabi’ al-Zahrani, and others. Among his students were Yahya ibn al-Nadim, Ahmad ibn Ammar, and Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Na’im ibn Qarqara al-Azdi.
Ibn Asakir said he was a man of letters, authored notable books, praised al-Ma’mun in his poetry, and visited al-Mutawakkil. In his later years, he suffered from obsession and anxiety.
Al-Zirkali likewise affirms his expertise in al-A’lam, Vol. 1, pg. 267:
أحمد بن يحيى بن جابر بن داود البلاذري: مؤرخ، جغرافي، نسابة، له شعر. من أهل بغداد.
Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir ibn Dawud al-Baladhuri was a historian, geographer, and genealogist, and also a poet. He was from Baghdad.
The student of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi al-Maqdasi al-Salihi states that al-Baladhuri’s history book was famous and thus often used in Tabaqat ‘Ulama al-Hadith Vol. 3, pg. 87:
الكبير، فهو أحمد بن يحيى، الأخبَاري، الحافظ، صاحب التاريخ المشهور
Al-Kabir, Ahmad b. Yahya, the historian, the hadith memorizer, and the author of the well-known history.
As referenced earlier, Akram Dhiy’a al-Umari likewise states in Aṣr al-Khilāfah al-Rāshidah pg 15:
Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Jābir grew up in Baghdad in a family with members who practiced the craft of writing. Al-Balādhurī inherited this craft from them and traveled across Islamic regions in pursuit of knowledge. He became one of the translators of Persian works, translating the book ‘Ahd Ardashīr and composing it in poetic form.
Al-Balādhurī is regarded as one of the most prominent Muslim historians after al-Ṭabarī, owing to the breadth of information he documented and the historical periods he covered. However, his book Ansāb al-Ashrāf stands out for its better selection of narrations, purer chains of transmission, and closer agreement with the accounts of reliable and truthful narrators compared to al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh.
It is undoubtedly clear that Baladhuri is seen by all scholars as an expert in history, and his books are important to be relied upon for Islamic history. The Sunni scholars also all relied on him for reports and acted upon them. This includes many famous one such as:
Ibn Hajar relied on him a lot in Fathul al-Bari. He also relies on him in other books such as in Talkhis al-Habir Vol. 4, pg. 223, H. # 2298 and in al-Isaba Fi Taymiz al-Sahaba Vol. 1, pg. 343.
Ibn al-Athir relied on him in his Usd al-Ghaba Vol. 5, pg. 393.
Ibn Khalikan relied on him in his Wafiyat al-A’yan Vol. 6, pg. 372.
Is al-Waqidi truthful?
Muhammad b. ‘Umar al-Waqidi (d. 208) was an early historian and biographer of the prophet Muhammad (SAW). His works and contributions to Islamic history is undeniable, as he provides a lot of sources for dates and details of events. Al-Waqidi had a book on the Maqtal of Imam al-Husayn (AS), and although it has not survived, excerpts of it have through different sources. For this reason, he will be mentioned in parts through-out this book.
Although early scholars weakened him and tended to heavily criticise him, later scholars leaned to endorse him since his reports were necessary for the field of history.
For this reason he was amongst those whom Ibn Taymiyyah regarded as their reports in historical matters as acceptable, and his students likewise followed up by that opinion.
This includes Ibn Kathir who states in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Vol. 4, pg. 579 - 580:
والواقدي عنده زيادات حسنة، وتاريخ محرر غالباً فإنه من أئمة هذا الشأن الكبار، وهو صدوق في نفسه مكثار
Al-Wāqidī has valuable additional narrations, and his history is generally well-edited, for he is among the great authorities in this field. He is truthful in himself, though excessively prolific.
Al-Dhahabi likewise states this in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, Vol. 7, pg. 142:
فهو صادق اللسان كبير القدر
He is truthful of speech and of great stature.
The major Ash’ari Hadith scholar, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, likewise affirms this in Talkhis al-Habir, Vol. 7, pg. 57:
مقبول في المغازي عند أصحابنا والله أعلم
He is acceptable in the narrations of the battles according to our companions and Allah knows the best.
The strongest proof for his truthfulness in historical matters comes from his student Ibn Sa’ad, who is regarded as one the most reliable islamic historians per al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad, Vol. 3, pg. 267:
قلت: ومحمد بن سعد عندنا من أهل العدالة ، وحديثه يدل على صدقه ، فإنه يتحرى في كثير من رواياته
I say: Muḥammad b. Saʿd, in our view, is among the people of integrity, and his hadith indicates his truthfulness, for he exercises caution in many of his narrations.
Ibn Sa’ad frequently narrates from al-Waqidi in his books and has explicitly praised al-Waqidi which shows his belief in his integrity as a narrator. This can be read in Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 5, pg. 493:
محمد بن عمر بن واقد ويكنى أبا عبدالله الواقدي… وكان عالما بالمغازي والسيرة والفتوح واختلاف الناس في الحديث والأحكام واجتماعهم على ما اجتمعوا عليه
Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī… He was knowledgeable in battles, the Prophet’s biography, conquests, the differences among scholars regarding hadith and rulings, and the matters upon which they were united.
This testifies to his expertise in history and permissibility to refer back to him.
We have therefore established the methodology of history and the reliability of the mentioned historians. We shall analyse the authenticity of a report by its corroboration and confirmation by the experts of history. These were the rules set out by Sunni scholars themselves.
« Full Series: Karbala: Between Secrets & Lights »