The Present Writing the Past: How Biographies and Narratives Reframed the Abbasid Caliphate
The Present Writing the Past: How Biographies and Narratives Reframed the Abbasid Caliphate
I was listening to an episode of the History of Byzantium podcast (specifically Episode 57 – Why did the Arabs win? Part 2: In the Shadow of the Sword) and there was an interesting discussion about the early biographical narratives of Islamic history. Tom Holland, as many of us probably know, is a rather controversial figure. He isn’t a scholar, his works are mainly in the realm of pop-history, and many of his claims do veer into territories of Orientalism and just bad history. However, I think there is some merit to questioning the authenticity of certain biographical depictions of early Islamic history.
The history of sira.
In fact, both academics and religious scholars have commented on the questionable authenticity of sira, or rather, biographies of the Prophet Muhammad. For instance, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University argued that “sira is regarded as generally less reliable and cannot be used as the main source upon which to base one’s understanding of the application of Islamic belief and practice.”1 Professor Wim Raven makes similar arguments, noting in particular that many of these biographies were constructed well after the time of Muhammad and his companions.
That said, it is important to recognize that we do have fragments of Islamic texts and from the earliest days of the religion. There were the works of Urwah ibn Zubayr and Wahb ibn Munabbih dated to sometime in the first century “after the Hijrah” (AH). Such figures lived during the times of the early Caliphs and so had access to direct contacts with the Prophet and his companions. Urwah ibn Zubayr had lived from the reign of Uthman (r. 644–656 CE) to the Umayyad Caliph al-Walid I (r. 705-715 CE), and Professor Raven Wim asserts that Urwah had corresponded with al-Walid and ‘Abd al-Malik to ensure the authenticity of his own work. Beyond these figures, we have early textual fragments and stone etchings of the Quran that provide authenticity to these early biographies.2 The Birmingham Quran manuscript dates back to between 568 CE and 645 CE, which puts it squarely around the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime.3
The issue with these fragments is that they’re simply that: fragments. Even the works of Urwah ibn Zubayr and other early scholars are mostly lost to us. One of the most important works is the biography written by Ibn Ishaq. Born in 704 CE, Ibn Ishaq was a renowned scholar who dedicated his life to collect oral recollections of the Prophet Muhammad and his actions. Known as the Sirat Rasul Allah, many later biographies will cite Ibn Ishaq’s work, and so his influence is evidently clear. However, we have no surviving records of Ibn Ishaq’s historical biography.
Instead, the works of Ibn Ishaq and many other early Islamic biographies have been preserved in second hand form as references in later biographies, mainly the al-Sirat al-Nabawiyyah of Ibn Hisham and the Tarikh al-Tabari of al-Tabari. Both authors make these references readily apparent. For instance, throughout Ibn Hisham’s al-Sirat, we can see the phrase “Ibn Ishaq said” before a claim is made.4 Meanwhile, in al-Tabari’s Tarikh, we can see the following citation:
“Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Ibn Ishaq, and Hisham b. Muhammad-his father; and al-Harith-Muhammad b. Sa'd-Muhammad b. 'Umar: Some of them narrate a version which overlaps that of others and some of them add to the versions of others.”5
It cannot be overstated how significant the sirat of Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari have been to the wider discourse of Islamic history. These two individuals are consistently cited and given reverence. Ali ibn al-Athir, a 12th century historian, lauded al-Tabari, claiming that “Abu Ja`far is more reliable than transmitting history and [his] interpretation indicates evidence of abundant knowledge and achievement.” Even present secondary sources agree with such praise. Oxford University Press’s “Oxford Biographies” asserts that “perhaps no other scholarly figure of the 9th and 10th centuries CE has the widespread reputation enjoyed by al-Tabari.”6
The Abbasids and al-Tabari.
This however is an important point. Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari were scholars using what effectively were secondary sources and compiling them centuries after the histories they were talking about. Ibn Hisham was writing sometime in the late 700s CE and died in 833 CE. Al-Tabari is reported to having lived from 839 CE to 923 CE. Both individuals were removed from the era they were writing about by over two centuries. There are incredibly important implications to this historiographical understanding and as such, some skepticism is necessary when looking at the claims made by these two authors, as well as any other later biographers.
This isn’t to say that the biographical works of Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari are wrong. As we’ve mentioned above, there are corroborating textual pieces of evidence that back many of the events these scholars describe. However, I personally feel that more can be gleamed and appreciated from these texts when we assess them in their proper historical contexts.
In the time in which these scholars were operating in, the Abbasid Caliphate had only just emerged as a political entity. In the wake of the Abbasid Revolution in 750 CE, much of the region was in flux. Professor Albert Hourani, in his seminal work A History of the Arab Peoples, explains that the main problem of the Abbasids was “how to turn the limited power derived from an uneasy coalition of separate interests into something more stable and powerful.”7 These involved new building projects and governmental centralization efforts, such as the development of Kufa.
Another aspect seems to come from more scholarly pursuits. We know that the Abbasids played an instrumental role in ushering in the Islamic Golden Age. They constructed key institutions like the House of Wisdom and gave patronage to many scholars, such as Ibn al-Haytham and Abu Nuwas. It’s not exactly clear the extent to which al-Tabari worked with the Abbasid Caliphs, but it is known that he had some dealings with key court officials like the vizier Ubayd Allah ibn Yahya. Furthermore, al-Tabari had intimate knowledge of the Abbasid court, documenting many accounts and events in Volume 30 of his Tarikh al-Tabari.
It is therefore possible to conceive Abbasid influences in the biographical works of Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. Abbasid Caliphs in this era could see the benefits of such scholarship that legitimized their reign, and for such scholars, the privileges of patronage were immense. While this may be speculative, it isn’t impossible for al-Tabari to have been given Abbasid funding. We know little about Ibn Hisham’s relationship to the Abbasids, but al-Tabari provides us with several examples. When describing the Caliph al-Mansur’s visit to the construction site of Baghdad, al-Tabari gives a rather positive view of the Caliph, saying:
So he laid it out and assigned monies for [Baghdad’s] construction, and laid the first brick with his own hand, saying ‘In the name of God and praise to Him. The earth is God’s… Build and God bless you!’”8
The prophesy of Hashim and ‘Abd Shams.
It is possible, then, for al-Tabari’s biography to have some influence by Abbasid patrons. Rather than an authoritative biography of early Islamic history, several passages seem to indicate a more present-minded agenda. I want to illustrate this point by looking directly into the Tarikh al-Tabari and pulling out a particular passage. In Volume 6, al-Tabari dissects the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad, going back in time through each patrilineal ancestor. When we get to Hashim ibn Abd’ Manaf, the Prophet’s great-grandfather, al-Tabari presents us an interesting story:
It is said that Hashim and 'Abd Shams were twins and that one was born before the other with one of his fingers stuck to his twin's forehead; when his finger was separated blood flowed; people regarded this as an omen and said, "There will be blood between them."
A little later, al-Tabari recounts the following:
Umayyah b. 'Abd Shams b. 'Abd Manaf [nephew of Hashim], who was a man of wealth, was envious of Hashim and unwillingly attempted to emulate him; but he could not do it, and some of the men of Quraysh gloated over his discomfiture. He was angry and maligned Hashim, and challenged him to a contest before an arbiter as to which of them was nobler (manafarah). Hashim did not wish to accept this because of his age and standing, but the Quraysh would not allow him to refuse, and they finally irritated him so much that he said, "I accept this challenge, on condition that the loser slaughters fifty black-eyed camels in the valley of Mecca and leaves Mecca for ten years." Umayyah accepted this, and they chose a Khuza'i soothsayer to judge between them. The soothsayer awarded the victory to Hashim, who took the camels, slaughtered them, and fed those present (at the event). Umayyah then left for Syria and stayed there for ten years. This was the first occasion on which enmity broke out between the families of Hashim and Umayyah.9
This is a curious story to describe and one that has very deep implications when one considers the Abbasid context. It should first be noted that the Abbasid Caliphate claimed ancestry from al-Abbas, the grandson of Hashim ibn Abd’ al-Manaf, and as such, the Abbasids were part of the tribe of Hashim (the Hashemites). Furthermore, it needs to be reminded that during the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad’s main opponents during his days in Medina were the Umayyad branch of the wider Quraysh tribe. Umayyad leaders like Abu Sufyan led the main anti-Muhammad contingent in Mecca and played prominent roles in events like the Battle of Uhud.10
The fact that al-Tabari coats the struggle between the Hashemites and Umayyads with a prophetic framing long before even those events is incredibly fascinating. When we remind ourselves of the fact that the Abbasids were members of the Hashemites, then its possible to extrapolate a larger and more present-facing meaning. In this light, the prophetic description almost serves to justify the Abbasid Revolution. One could read this passage as if the Umayyads collapsing was ordained by God and fate, and that conflict between these two tribal branches was a given.
Furthermore, the description of Umayyah as “a man of wealth,” as someone that was “envious,” and had been “angry and maligned" seems almost like a metaphoric jab at the Umayyad dynasty as a whole. The fact that this particular passage ends with Hashim winning in the challenge against Umayyah seems to be a case of the present writing the past. The Abbasids had been victorious over the Ummayads, and al-Tabari seems to be asserting that this had been true since even before the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The rather present-facing nature of this passage is even more telling by al-Tabari’s point that “Umayyah then left for Syria.” Starting with the Umayyad Caliph Mu’awiyyah, the Umayyads were in fact based in Syrian cities like Damascus, and a large justification for the Abbasid Revolution had been the Umayyad focus on its Syrian holdings over other areas of the Caliphate, namely Khorasan/Central Asia.
If we view al-Tabari’s biography with this Abbasid context in mind, we can see a subtle attempt at propagandizing Islamic biography in order to legitimize the Abbasid reign. We can see a prophesy by God, thereby giving the Abbasids the religious authority to overthrow the Umayyads. Furthermore, we see negative descriptions of Umayyah as subtle reminders of the many faults displayed by various Umayyad Caliphs. The historian (and Orientalist) Bernard Lewis explains that for many individuals in the Caliphate, the Umayyads “were usurpers and, if not tyrannical, were worldly and irreligious in their purposes and methods… The Arab historiographical tradition [is] in general hostile to the Umayyads.”11 Contemporary scholars of the time, like Al-Masudi, decried several Umayyad Caliphs. He viewed Abd’ al-Malik “as a tyrant and blood-thirsty” and viewed Walid II as “an infidel.”12
The present often rewrites the past.
When we take a step back, we can see just how much subtext this single passage can reveal to us if we frame it in the correct historical context. Whether intentional or not, whether directly funded by the Abbasids or not, whether made to curry favor with government officials or not, it is clear that al-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Tabari is coated within the historical context of an Abbasid Caliphate seeking to assert its reign. Modern religious scholars seem to agree with this point. The Iranian Ayatollah Ja'far Sobhani asserts that the story about Hashim and Umayyah “[brings] to light the fact as to how the enmity between the two families originated, [and] also explains the reasons for the influence which Bani Umayyah enjoyed in Syria, and [how] it becomes known that their old relations with the Syrians prepared ground for their rule in that area.”13 It is the present influencing the past.
This discussion has prompted an even broader point. It is important to understand that any primary source we encounter can have degrees to which it is considered primary. Works like Herodotus’s The Histories or Anna Komnene’s The Alexiad all are representations of their contemporary present writing to a further past. They are both primary and secondary, telling us important facets about how various individuals viewed history relative to their own present. Implicit biases and contextual beliefs underline many of these historical works.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t important historical facts that we can gleam from these sources. In fact, that’s far from the point. They can explain a number of things for a number of different eras. However, it is important to take a critical eye when examining these seemingly authoritative sources to address a few key questions. What was the context in which this source was written? Who wrote the source? For whom was the source written for? What was the purpose of this document? These are important questions that one must examine when assessing any and all sources, whether they be historical documents to random blogs online.
Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, Incitement: Anwar al-Awlaki’s Western Jihad (London: Harvard University Press, 2020), pg. 86.
Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), pg. 33.
Ibid.
Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (New York: Scribner, 2000), pg. 65.
Mas’udi, ‘Ali b. Husain. Muruj al-Dhahab, ed. Qasim Wahb, (Damascus, Manshurat, wizarat al-Thaqafa, 1988), pg. 210. Retrieved from: Yousef Bennaji, “Echoes of the Fall of the Umayyads in Traditional and Modern Sources: A Case Study of the Final Eight Years of the Umayyad Empire with Some Reference to Gramsci’s Theory of Cultural Hegemony,” University of Exeter.
Ja’far Sobhani, The Message, Chapter 4: Ancestors of the Prophet, al-Islam.