Amir Maziar's essay 'The Sira of Zaryab and the History of Shahidi'

The Sira of Zaryab and the History of Shahidi

Amir Maziar

Among the fruitful discussions sparked by the issue of “religion and power” is the attention paid to the sira-writing of the Prophet and the history of early Islam. Unfortunately, our Islamic studies, both in its traditional form and in modernist currents, has not paid serious attention to the history of early Islam, despite this issue being of central importance for any contemporary thinking about Islam or rethinking it. Among the telling signs of this lack of serious attention to historiography is the occasional invocation, in these debates, of the two books “Sira-ye Rasul Allah” (The Life of the Messenger of God) by Abbas Zaryab Khoei and “Tarikh-e Tahlili-ye Islam” (An Analytical History of Islam) by Seyyed Jafar Shahidi as authoritative (and modern!) historical research. [1]

Zaryab and Shahidi were undoubtedly among the cultural prides of our society in the last century; but it seems that in our society, “veneration” and “critique” have been placed in opposition to one another. Although true veneration of thinkers and their works must take place through a serious, and of course scholarly and fair, assessment of and engagement with each of their works, a lack of critical attention to a thought means either that the thought contains no matter worthy of reflection, or that the scholarly community lacks the capacity to critique and evaluate it. The result of uncritical veneration is also the idolization of individuals and works, which impedes serious thought and research. [2]

1_ An Analytical History of Islam

I will first pause on the book “Tarikh-e Tahlili-ye Islam” (An Analytical History of Islam) by Seyyed Jafar Shahidi.** This book, particularly in the section on the emergence of Islam and the life of the Prophet, which is my focus here, is a concise report from the traditional sources of sira-writing which, despite some of the author's doubts about their reliability, has in practice been compiled based on a general trust in these sources.

Nowhere in this book does Shahidi provide a precise explanation of his working method; he does not conduct any specific validation regarding his sources and texts; and he does not even provide specific citations for many of his materials. In his work, Shahidi, except for one linguistic case on page 3!, makes no direct reference to any book or research conducted in modern Islamic studies concerning early Islam; although, particularly in the opening sections of the book and in the historical and geographical information related to Arabia, he has benefited, directly or indirectly, from Western research.

Shahidi, who is inclined to critique the views of Orientalists, merely speaks at times in a vague and general manner of the Orientalists' opinion on an event and offers a brief, allusive criticism (for example on pages 67, 80, 87, and 94), but does not enter into a serious discussion and dialogue with them and their claims and documentation, especially considering the abundance of these studies and their diversity, and the fact that this type of study at least claims to employ new methods of historiography, and we have apparently been engaged in teaching and disseminating these methods in our university system for several decades, and Shahidi and his book also belonged to this same university and university system.

In this book, there is no serious reference or allusion to non-Islamic texts and documents written in the period of early Islam or close to it, nor is any attention paid to archaeological documents and evidence or other new methods of historical criticism, even though, almost shortly before the writing of this book, Wansbrough's views on the necessity of skepticism towards early Islamic sources on the one hand, and the need to refer to available non-Islamic sources on the other, had sparked a serious discussion in Islamic studies circles and on the subject of early Islamic historiography.

اما استاد فاضل و دانشمند ما نیازی به گفت‌وگوی جدی با این ادعاها، و اتخاذ رویکردی انتقادی به منابع قدیم نمی‌بیند، و کم‌وبیش به همان شیوه‌های سنتی به تاریخ نگاری مشغول است. کتاب شهیدی گزارشی است مؤمنانه و معاصر از منابع قدیم. یعنی مورخ آنچه را داستان و افسانه و خرافه تشخیص داده یا آنچه را منافی مذاق عقلانی، اخلاقی، و دینی معاصر دانسته حذف ‌کرده‌ است؛ یا در میان روایت‌های متعارض و بدیلِ یک ماجرا آنچه را با این مذاق سازگارتر بوده (عموماً بدون ذکر روایات بدیل و نقد تاریخی آن‌ها) ترجیح داده‌ است‌. البته شهیدی در موارد بسیار معدودی که عدد آنها حتی به تعداد انگشتان یک دست هم نمی‌رسد (صفحه‌های ۴۰، ۴۶، و ۹۴) در متن کتاب به نقد روایات منابع سنتی پرداخته است که البته بسیار مجمل و گذرا هستند.

«یگانه» مورد نقدِ مفصل‌ترِ اخبار تاریخی، ماجرای مشهور کشتار یهودیان بنی‌قُرَیظه است (صفحه‌ی ۹۴ تا ۹۶) که اتفاقاً خود گواه ضعف مبنای تاریخ‌نگارانه این اثر است. شهیدی در اینجا برای رد اخبار منابع قدیم مبنی بر کشتار دسته جمعی همه‌ی مردان این قبیله و جای دادن آنها در گورهای دسته جمعی (که برای خواننده‌ی معاصر بهت‌آور است) نخست به برخی تعارضات درباره‌ی شکل این کشتارِ جمعی در نقل‌های این واقعه اشاره می‌کند. البته سخن شهیدی درباره‌ی تعارض این منابع صحیح نیست، بلکه آن‌ها تقریباً با هم هم‌نوا هستند و در خود مغازیِ واقدی نیز، برخلاف ادعای شهیدی، روایت‌های متفاوت و متعارضی در این‌باره نیامده است. اگر هم اقوال متعارضی درباره نحوه‌ی کشتار دسته‌جمعی آن‌ها وجود داشت پدیده‌ی نامعمولی در این منابع نبود تا موجب مخدوش‌شدنِ وقوع این ماجرای خاص و برجای ماندن باقی وقایع باشد.

شهیدی سپس به نقدی اساسی‌تر می‌پردازد و این گزارش‌ها را حاصل بازگشت دعواهای قبیله‌ای میان اوس و خزرج! و مهاجرین و انصار از یک‌سو، و دست‌کاری تاریخ صدر اسلام در دوره بنی‌امیه از سوی دیگر می‌داند. غافل از اینکه نقد اخیر می‌تواند اعتبار کلی متون سیره را از میان بردارد: اگر واقعه‌ای که تقریبا در همه‌ی متون اصلی سیره‌ی پیامبر آن هم با طول و تفصیل و جزییات عجیب آمده می‌تواند چندین دهه بعد به دلیل قبیله‌گرایی جعل‌شده باشد اطمینان کلی ما به این منابع از میان می‌رود. شهیدی به همین دلیل پس از این نقد می‌گوید که در گزارش اتفاقات این دوران "تنها به نقل راویان نباید بسنده کرد، بلکه هر روایت را باید با دیگر شاهدها و قرینه‌های خارجی مقابله نمود." (ص ۹۶)

اما این شواهد و قرائن خارجی چه هستند؟ و ایشان در سراسر تاریخ خود این مقابله را کجا و چگونه انجام داده‌اند؟ و با چنین امکان گشوده و گسترده‌ای برای تحریف واقعیات، آنگاه اعتبار باقی اخبار مندرج در این کتاب بر چه پایه‌ای استوار است؟ و ایشان چگونه بر دیگر اخبار این منابع اعتمادکلی کرده‌اند و تاریخ خود را نگاشته‌اند؟

مثلاً در همین موضوع قبایل یهودی، چرا فقط اعتبار این کشتارِ جمعی محل تردید است؟ چرا در روایات این منابع درباره‌ی علت تقابل مسلمانان و یهودیان بنی‌قریظه شک نکنیم؟ فراتر از این، چرا در ماجرای اخراج تدریجی همه‌ی قبایل یهودِ مدینه پس از تثبیت قدرت مسلمانان، روایات این منابع را معتبر بدانیم؟ و باز هم فراتر از این، چرا روایات آن‌ها را درباره علل و نوع مواجهه‌ی پیامبر و مسلمانان با دیگر گروه‌های معارض بپذیریم؟

خیلی طبیعی است که عضو یک جامعه‌ی دینی و ایمانی رفتار جامعه و پیشوایان خود را معقول و موجه یا همسو با اهداف و آرمان‌های خود و حامیانش نشان‌ دهد، و مشکلات و ناهنجاری‌ها را در طرف مقابل ببیند. قطعاً در هر جا که ذکر اشخاص و اقوام و نزاع‌ها مطرح است، یعنی کل تاریخ!، بحث این منافع و اغراض گوناگونِ آشکار یا پنهان بر ما می‌تواند مطرح شود. خصوصاً درباره‌ی شخصیت خود پیامبر که می‌باید «رسول خدا» و «اسوه» قلمداد می‌شد و اعمال و رفتار او مشروعیت‌بخش محسوب می‌شدند چنین احتمالاتی کاملاً در کاراند؛ و چرا گمان نکنیم که این متون تصویری از پیامبر «ساخته‌اند»؟

In the majority of these accounts, we cannot expect impartiality or a precise recording of events. In this respect, of course, these sources, like all other historical sources, serve as primary documents; that is, they all require a critical eye and historical evaluation, but with this important caveat: we apparently know that all of these limited sources have been extensively distorted! Shahidi's book, however, takes a largely uncritical approach to the sources and is written from a moderate, faith-based, Shi'i perspective, and only in a very few rare instances does it introduce these considerations, while at the same time speaking of a general doubt!

On the whole, Shahidi's book, which was apparently written primarily for general students and their brief, general acquaintance with the history of Islam, does not contain precise, documented research and suffers from a methodological contradiction; for this reason, it has not held a distinct place in the academic literature of Islamic history, nor has it been a source of reference or citation. It is strange that some of our contemporary Islamologists refer to such works and their content using those same biographical evaluation methods, saying that so-and-so, who is a historian and trustworthy, said such-and-such in such-and-such a book!

2. The Sira of the Messenger of God

Abbas Zaryab Khoei was one of the prominent scholars and historians of our time, and was well acquainted with historical thought and modern historiographical methods. He was proficient in several languages and had a direct knowledge of ancient sources and new scholarly works on the history of Iran and Islam. Zaryab published the book Sira-ye Rasul Allah (The Sira of the Messenger of God), which narrates the life of the Prophet up to the migration to Medina, in the solar year 1370 (1991/1992), though he had apparently written it several years earlier (p. 8). Attention to the date of writing is important, among other reasons, because it tells us that this work belongs to the late period of his life, a time when, unfortunately, he had been expelled from the university, and naturally, the research vigor of earlier years had faded, and he also lacked many of his former resources.

In a relatively short but important introduction to this book, Zaryab explains his approach and method in writing religious history and introduces and evaluates the sources of the Sira in a general way. An important feature of Zaryab's work is that, unlike the majority of modern Sira texts, it does not hold a negative and antagonistic view toward the works of Orientalists and Western historians, and he has also utilized these sources in the body of his work. In the introduction, however, Zaryab warns that in the study of religious history, one must not fall into the pitfall of historicism and must not reduce religion entirely to a natural and historical phenomenon (pp. 10-11), a tendency he believes exists in the texts of modern Western writers. Although Zaryab's discussion on this matter is general, he himself emphasizes that in this book he works as a historian and probes the material, historical, and natural aspects of events (p. 13).

Zaryab bases his historical writing on the primary and original texts while also taking note of new research. The names of Nöldeke (p. 88), Goldziher and Caetani (p. 154), and Lammens (p. 56) appear in the text. But one name is more prominent: Montgomery Watt. Watt, one of the most famous Western historians of the life of the Prophet, authored two renowned books titled Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956), and the book Muhammad at Mecca covers precisely the same time period as Zaryab's book.

اما نسبت این دو کتاب بیش از این‌ها است. با نگاهی ساده به فهرست دو کتاب مشخص می‌شود که کتاب زریاب در شکل و ساختار و ترتیبِ بیانِ مطالب از کتاب وات تبعیت کرده‌ است، خصوصاً که کتاب وات بر خلاف کتاب‌های معمول سیره، نظمی سرراست و سال‌شمارانه ندارد، و بحث‌هایی موضوعی را هم دنبال می‌کند. این تبعیت، محدود به شکل و ساختار نیست. محتوای کتاب زریاب در نسبتی مشخص با مطالب کتاب وات قرار دارد و زریاب مطالب جزئی و کلی بسیاری را از کتاب وات اقتباس کرده‌ است؛ مانند بسیاری از بحث‌های مقدماتی درباره‌ی وضع سیاسی و اجتماعی و دینی اعراب (صص ۱۹-۸۴ که البته اضافات محقّقانه‌ی بسیاری از جانب زریاب دارد)، شیوه‌ی بحث از سوانح زندگی پیامبر قبل از بعثت (صص ۸۸-۸۹)، نوع تحلیل مسأله‌ی تَحَنُّث (صص ۱۰۴-۱۰۶)، نقد نقش ابوبکر در اسلام‌آوردنِ صحابه‌ی مشهور (صص ۱۱۵-۱۱۶)، تقسیم اسلام‌آورندگان اولیه به سه دسته و توصیف آن‌ها بر این اساس (صص ۱۱۷-۱۱۹)، تحلیل انگیزه‌های قریش در مخالفت با پیامبر (صص ۱۴۵-۱۴۶)، بحث اَحابیش (صص ۵۶-۵۷)، مبنا قراردادن روایت عُروه بن زُبیر برای روایتِ برخی ماجراهای حساس دوره‌ی مکه که بخش مهمی از کتاب زریاب را شکل می‌دهد (صص ۱۵۱ به بعد)، و حتی خروج‌های تفسیری برای توضیح ماهیت وحی یا پیام قرآن.

زریاب معمولاً تصریحی به منبع خود ندارد و عموماً تنها هنگامی که می‌خواهد سخن وات را نقد کند نام وی را آشکار می‌کند که مفصل‌ترین نمونه‌ی آن بحث‌ مربوط به هجرت مسلمانان به حبشه است (صص ۱۵۳-۱۵۹). البته زریاب به هیچ‌وجه راویِ صرف نیست؛ او تفسیرهایی از آنِ خود دارد و با دانش دقیق و عمیق خود از متون و منابع قدیم بعضی اطلاعات مهم را، خصوصاً درباره‌ی اشخاص و زندگی اعراب، بر مطالب می‌افزاید. برای نمونه، در توصیف مخالفان پیامبر در مکه، وات بحثی تحت این عنوان می‌گشاید، اما ذیل آن گزارش مختصری درباره افراد می‌آورد. زریاب تقریباً در همان موضع از کتاب و با همان ترتیب این بحث را می‌آورد و به شکلی مفصل‌تر این مخالفان را ذکر می‌کند.

در کل کتاب زریاب را می‌توان تحریری عالمانه و «گاه» نقّادانه از «محمد در مکه» نوشته‌ی وات دانست. تحریری که دانشمندی درجه‌یک و متن‌شناس آن را سامان داده‌ است. اما از همینجا و در مقایسه‌ی شیوه‌ی تحریر این دو کتاب می‌توان به نقص‌هایی روشی در کار زریاب پی‌برد.

نخست باید گفت که کتاب وات تقریباً چهار دهه پیش از کتاب زریاب منتشر شده‌است (کتاب وات در ۱۹۵۳ میلادی، و کتاب زریاب در ۱۹۹۱ میلادی). در این چهار دهه متون و تحقیقات زیادی در باب سیره، و از جمله در نقد مباحث یا روش وات منتشر شده بودند. زریاب به این تحولات تقریباً بی‌توجه است و ارجاعات او به پژوهش‌های مربوط به صدر اسلام محدود به خود کتاب وات و منابع او، و گُلدزیهِر و نولدِکِه است که پیش از کتاب وات منتشر شده‌ بودند. اتفاقاً استفاده‌ی زریاب از این منابع برای تاریخ او پرثمر و تا حد زیادی همدلانه است. اما این استفاده محدود است، گویی زریاب در همان سالِ انتشارِ کتابِ وات متوقف مانده بود.

گرچه کتاب وات به لحاظ روشِ تاریخی مطابق با معیارهای معمول در تاریخ‌نگاری نیمه‌ی نخست سده‌ی بیستم میلادی است، اما این معیارها را به شکلی منضبط و سازگار به کار می‌برد؛ هرچند در کار وات از شیوه‌های پیچیده‌تر نقد متون که در دهه‌های بعد بیشتر به کار گرفته شدند خبری نیست. اما کار زریاب، خصوصاً در اضافاتش بر کتاب وات، همین حد از روش‌مندی و سنجش‌گری تاریخی را هم نشان نمی‌دهد. وات هشیار است که همواره بین «روایتِ سنّتیِ» منابع، و نقد و تحلیل آن‌ها و آنچه به گمان او بر اساس این منابع قابل تأیید است، فاصله بگذارد؛ و بدین طریق با اینکه در مجموع این اسناد اولیه را مهم و اساسی می‌داند اما نسبت نقادانه‌ی خود را با متون اولیه حفظ می‌کند. وات حتی در برخی مواضع که متون قدیم را قابل سنجش تاریخی نمی‌دانسته است اصل متن را برای آگاهی از باور مسلمانان به صورت نقل‌قول‌های مستقیمِ گاه طولانی آورده‌ است. اما در تحریر زریاب این فاصله به چشم نمی‌خورد.

Although Zaryab is a meticulous researcher of ancient texts, reporting their diverse contents well and with elegance, he generally does not maintain a historian's critical distance from those reports. This leads to a kind of duality in the text: at times the author adopts a critical, distanced view of the texts [such as the story of the Prophet's birth, or the interesting discussion of the calendar which is not in Watt's book, or the story of the Gharānīq], and at other times he fully accepts certain pieces of information that clearly belong to the rhetorical aspect of the ancient sources and even constructs arguments based on them [such as what is narrated of Bilāl at his marriage proposal gathering (p. 123), or the story of ʿUmar's conversion to Islam and his encounter with his sister and brother-in-law and its details (pp. 172–173), or the slogan Abū Sufyān is reported to have chanted during the conquest of Mecca in the discussion of Abū Sufyān's religion (p. 71), and matters of this kind].

This duality reveals itself clearly in two completely conflicting and contradictory positions in two parts of the text. In one place, Zaryab states that the Year of the Elephant cannot "coincide" with the year of the Prophet's birth, i.e., around 570 CE, and such a thing "seems unlikely" (because according to new historical research, this event occurred several decades earlier, although Zaryab does not reference this research); yet on the other hand, in explaining the incident of the Abābīl, he points out that since this event, according to "most narrations," occurred in the year of the Prophet's birth (570 CE) and at the time of the revelation of the relevant verses, there were "certainly people in Mecca" who "remembered the event of the Elephant," therefore the supernatural account of this verse could not have been false, and a rational explanation for it must be sought (in Zaryab's interpretation, a type of skin disease could be its cause (pp. 49–50)).

Another difference between the works of Watt and Zaryab is the manner in which they utilize Quranic verses, which is a matter of serious attention in both works. Watt consistently approaches the verses with a relative chronology and employs the Quranic verses as one document alongside other documents, but Zaryab's approach to the Quran is, to some extent, ahistorical. An example of this ahistorical engagement with the Quran, in which other aspects of Zaryab's historiographical method are also evident, is his critique of the Gharānīq (Satanic Verses) incident. While Watt almost accepts the relative validity of this story, Zaryab is critical of it.

Zaryab's main reason for rejecting this incident is the "internal contradiction of the narration" by historians. Zaryab cites two reasons for the contradiction of this narration. First, considering the content of the subsequent verses of Sūrat al-Najm, to which the fabricated verses are claimed to have belonged, we realize that such an event could not have occurred because the subsequent verses state that "the Prophet does not speak from [his own] desire" and the like. It is clear that this critique is an ahistorical one, a hermeneutical and theological critique, and it contains a specific conception of the order of the revelation of the verses. The existence of such a verse after the relevant verses cannot refute its historical occurrence (it might even make its occurrence more probable), and historically we do not know exactly when and how this verse was revealed and how it was joined to the other verses of this surah. Moreover, with a different interpretation of the verses and a different theological stance toward the Prophet, the problem of incompatibility could also be resolved.

Zaryab's second reason is that in some transmissions of this event, it is said that after the Gharānīq affair, verse 52 of Sūrat al-Ḥajj ("And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he wished [or recited], Satan threw into his wish [or recitation]...") was revealed to console the Prophet, whereas this surah and verse are Medinan, not Meccan, and the address and content of the verse are about something else. This critique is also not a historical one. Apart from the discussion of the dating of verses and its issues, we know how ancient historians used verses to justify their narrations, and this belonged to the rhetorical logic of their work; and whether the revelation of this verse corresponds to that affair or not does not invalidate the occurrence of this event, because the revelation of this verse itself does not belong to the text and core of that affair.

Thus, while Zaryab claims to have distanced himself from a theological critique of this event, his approach to it is entirely ahistorical and theological. Such a tendency is also evident in other parts of the book. For example, on pages 100–101 in explaining the Prophet's religious beliefs before his prophethood, or on page 105 in explaining the Prophet's revelatory experiences. However, as noted, these interpretive digressions parallel Watt's discussions.

At the same time, Zaryab emphasizes that due to the widespread transmission of this story (i.e., "Gharaniq" or the "Satanic Verses") in reliable sources, it cannot be considered without an origin or root, but in explaining its origin, he offers a most peculiar explanation. Zaryab essentially accepts the core events of this story (i.e., the utterance of these phrases by the Prophet, the synchronized prostration of the Prophet and the polytheists, the gentler approach of the polytheists toward the believers after the incident, the arrival of this news and rumors to the emigrants in Abyssinia, and their return to Mecca for this very reason); but he says that according to what we know from sources like al-Kalbi's "Kitab al-Asnam," the verses in question had previously been heard by the Prophet from the polytheists themselves during the circumambulation of the Kaaba, and when the Prophet, in reciting Surah al-Najm, reaches the point where it says, 'Have you seen anything from Lat and Manat in comparison to what the Messenger saw of the great divine signs?... to mock and satirize the Quraysh, he repeats the phrases they recite during the circumambulation, [but] not as if they are from the Quran, but as a means of belittling, mocking, and insulting their words' (p. 165). Zaryab then explains that this event became ambiguous to the polytheists, and subsequently rumors were fabricated in Mecca and beyond, and this rumor reached Abyssinia, causing the Muslims to return to Mecca!

But truly, how can one believe that the Prophet uttered a phrase with the intent of mockery and insult, and that this mockery and insult caused such a great matter to be ambiguous to everyone, and that the Prophet himself and the believers did not even strive to negate it for their own followers?! To the extent that the emigrants of Abyssinia mistakenly returned to Mecca months later and were once again subjected to harassment and persecution?! Could the Prophet, who had a living presence in the community and continuous communication with the believers and emigrants, not have dispelled the ambiguity?! And then this very confusion, between jest and earnest, remained in this same form for many centuries for the principal historians of early Islam! Such an account has no historical basis.

My position is not whether the story of the Satanic Verses is true or not, but rather that in Zaryab's approach, there are inconsistencies and a failure to apply a historical perspective correctly and rigorously. There were other ways to critique the Gharaniq story, such as a typology of the narrative forms in historical texts, or attention to the prevalent fictionalizing tendency of these texts to fabricate occasions of revelation for verses, or the exaggerations made in them to depict the polytheistic and idolatrous beliefs and behaviors of the Meccans, and the like. Even some modern historians (such as Hawting) have shown that the content of sources like al-Kalbi's "Kitab al-Asnam" is post-Quranic and not pre-Quranic. That is, their material was fabricated to elaborate upon Quranic allusions and based on them, not that they are truly a report of data that existed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Of course, adopting such an approach requires a more critical stance toward primary sources, which Zaryab has no serious inclination to take.

Let me be brief. The book "Sirah Rasul Allah" by Abbas Zaryab Khoei is a scholarly rewriting of Montgomery Watt's "Muhammad at Mecca," without the method and critical-historical approach, even at the level Watt employs, being applied in a coherent manner within it. Certainly, Zaryab's mastery of ancient texts, his sidelong glance at new research—which is, of course, outdated and insufficient—and his modeling of his work on Watt's book give Zaryab's work superiority [compared to other Persian-language sirah writings of its time] and make it distinguished; but it in no way meets the needs and expectations of the critical reader and researcher.

.

---

.

(References are to the book Tarikh-e Tahlili-ye Islam, published by Markaz-e Nashr-e Daneshgahi in its new editions from 1385 [2006/2007], and Sirah Rasul Allah, published by Soroush, 1376 [1997/1998].)

[1] For example, see Kadivar, The Challenge of Islam and Power (Session Three), p. 9, and Ahmad Sadri, Prophetic Psychoanalysis and the Balloon-like Hypothesis of History, footnote 46.

[2] Two critiques of these two books, with the following details, have been previously published: Abdolrahim Qanavat, A Review and Critique of the Book Analytical History of Islam, Tarikh-Pazhuhan, 1385 [2006].

Maryam Azizian, Zeynab Omidian, The Relationship between the Sacred and the Historical in Contemporary Sirah Writing, Research Journal of Islamic History, Year 7, No. 28, 1396 [2017].

---

.