Reinterpreting Islamic Historiography
( Harun al-Rashid and the Narrative of the Abbasid Caliphate)
by Tayeb al-Hibri
Cambridge University Press 1999
PP.236, price (not mentioned)

There are two methods that are applied by a historian to construct and give fresh approaches to history. Firstly, he fills the gaps of historical narratives whenever new facts are discovered and new information is available. Secondly, he interprets and re-interprets history on the basis of new knowledge of social sciences which provides him insight to understand the process of history. In this context, we find that Islamic history is continuously interpreted and re-interpreted as a result either of new facts or new tools of research and investigation. The period that has been mostly researched by the historians is the Abbasid Caliphate. The reason is that first of all enough material is available, and, secondly, the literature depicts it as a period of glory and splendour. Historically, it is an important period because after the Abbasid Revolution integration was taken place of all races, cultures and languages that contributed to the development of high culture. That is why it appeals the historians to focus on this period. Among the modern historians the trend setting work is of M.A.Shaban’s ‘The Abbasid Revolution’ (1970). It is complemented by H.Kennedy’s book ‘The Early Abbasid Caliphate: A political History’ (1981). In this connection, Tayeb al-Hibri’s book “ Reinterpreting Islamic History, is a valuable addition to the Abbasid historiography.

Al-Hibri’s approach to investigate and study the early Abbasid caliphs is based on contemporary narratives. Historical texts have hidden meaning. That is why different historians discover different meaning. Writing on the methodology of reading the historical texts he writes: “It seems that there is no need for the chronicle to interject his opinion; indeed, doing so would have undermined the aesthetic basis of the literary construct. The message of the text lay in the very encoded structure of symbolism, allusion, innuendo, symmetry, and intertextuality that governed the make-up of historical text…for every era and every personality, there exists a layer of secret history meant to challenge the mind of the reader and/or listener.”

Harun is one of the Abbasid caliphs whose personality is very fascinating and charming.’Alf laila wa laila’ or  ‘Thousand and One Night makes him a romantic figure far from historical personality which has been lost beneath the layers of embellishment, tendentiousness and hagiography. In such a case the task of historians becomes very difficult to separate fiction from facts and to demystify the myth. al-Hibri points out that the image of Harun as a charismatic leader, patron of scholars, and pious and devoted Muslim emerged after his death when the civil war between Amin and Mamun and the political anarchy which followed his death made his reign as an ideal and golden age in which there was peace and prosperity, happiness and tranquility. However, the real Harun was a pragmatic politician who had good relations with the Ulama in order to use them for his political ends. He allowed them to criticize and reprimand him. They delivered sermons exhorting him without any fear to follow the right path. The narratives point out that in such gatherings he openly wept on the impermanence of life and in the end awarded the ulama for their role to guide him.

Al-Hibri points out that though the Iranians became a part of the Muslim community and the Iranian bureaucracy shared political power but in spite of it their position remained precarious. They were persecuted on the charges of secretly following Muzdak and Mani’s teachings. This happened in the case of the Barmaki family. The family suffered persecution and subsequently lost all political power.  Al-Hibri then comes to a crucial part of the Abbasid history. The civil war between Amin and Mamun.As Amin was defeated in the conflict; the historians do not portray him sympathetically. Comparing with Mamun, Amin is depicted as inefficient in politics, addicted to wine drinking, incompetent and inefficient to deal state affairs. Mamun’s personality is of a practical man, enlightened, well versed in administration and war. (In this context, one can compare the characters of Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb) Some historians describe in detail the tragic death of Amin. When his executioners came he defended himself with a pillow but ultimately overpowerd and slaughtered brutally (Again the analogy of Dara is relevant who was also killed helplessly by the order of his brother).

Comparing Harun and Mamun, al-Hibri observes that both Caliphs have quite different images in the orthodox circles. Mamun, who patronized art and literature, established the Dar al-Hikmah (house of wisdom) and promoted religious toleration and rationalism by supporting Mu’tazilah (a group of rational thinkers). is condemned by the traditional ulama. As he did not patronize them and listen to their exhortations like Harun, they opposed him and declared him heretic and usurper as he did not succeed to the caliphate by hereditary right but occupied it by killing legal ruler. His support of Khurasanians was also a danger to the ulama because the province remained a centre of rebellions against Baghdad. Mamun responded to the charges and projected himself as the true heir to the Abbasid Revolution who saved people from the corrupt government of Amin.To show himself as the champion of Islam he assumed the title of ‘Imam al-Huda (guide to righteousness). Further, to pacify the religious sentiments he enforced the traditional religious penalties and prohibition of wine dinking. (Even today the rulers of the Muslim countries adopt the same policy whenever they are in trouble to win over people in the name of religion) However, in 833 when he dies suddenly, it was interpreted as the divine punishment.

Al-Hibri also points out the racial and ethnic prejudice that prevailed between the Iranians and Turks before their conversion to Islam continued even after their conversion. The Iranians regarded their Sasanid Empire as the champion of discipline, order that worked for the welfare of people, while the Turks were regarded uncultured, couth and responsible for anarchy, disorder and disintegration. These prejudices were further strengthened when the Turkish slaves of the Abbasid Caliphs acquired power on the decline of the dynasty and assumed the role of kingmakers.

To observe the process of decline is always painful. After al-Mutawakil, the Abbasid were on the path of decadence However, the caliphate remained in existence in spite of its loss of political power and finally came to end when the last caliph was killed by the Mongols in 1258.The Abbasid Caliphate slowly died but the institutions and traditions which were set up by the dynasty continued even after its demise. They flourished in the regional and provincial kingdoms as al-Hibri points out:” The institution of the caliphate itself was to survive for another four centuries…Their names continued to be mentioned in Friday prayers in various corners of the Islamic world and they remained a living symbol of historical changes that the Muslim communities remembered from its first centuries.”

Al-Hibri’s book is a valuable addition to the Islamic historiography. It is fascinating to read it and unfold the mysterious and hidden past of Islam.