Are There Any Historical Truths

If we were to examine the literature of the various Islamic sects’ creeds, we would find that they make certain historical assertions. For example, some of them stipulate that the arriving of Abu Bakr to the Caliphate (the succession of prophet Mohammed) was legitimate. Others state that the prophet Mohammed had explicitly designated his son-in-law and cousin Ali bin Abi Talib for Imamah (the spiritual and political leadership of Muslims), etc.
These historical perceptions play two roles in these sects. First, they are presented as ultimate facts which can not be subjected to debate or criticism. Second, they are considered  essential signs that distinguish one sect from another. As a result of these roles, and also because  their differences are deep to the limit of antagonism, those perceptions have always been a stumbling block that hinders any attempt at dialogue between the sects.
Although each sect adopts a historical vision which contrasts with, or at least differs from, those of other sects, all of them share the same notion of history. All of them postulate that the perception they adopt about the past is precisely identical to what happened at that time. Since the definition of truth that these sects adopt is a correspondence to the facts, followers of these sects obviously justify the rejection of any attempt to discuss or criticize these perceptions. Therefore, it follows that a given sect would naturally consider the perceptions of other sects false simply because they are different, and, by definition, divergent from the truth. This postulation, which states that our perception of the past aligns perfectly with the past itself, leads to the conclusion that our historical knowledge will end when we reach such alignment, such truth. Thus, any further attempt to add or modify would be an attempt to distort.
This postulation sees history as “what really happened,” while in actuality, history is “what remains for us from the past.” And these remnants are mute. In order to know about the period that is hidden inside them we have to interrogate them first. To interrogate them we have to use some methods that are created by humans. In other words, methods that can never be complete or perfect. By extension, this also means that they can never produce any “truths.”
We cannot know exactly what happened in the past. We can, however, try our best to increase our knowledge about it. This increasing of knowledge is only possible through two ways: discovering new remnants or developing new methods that can extract more information from the existing remnants. Our knowledge about Pharynges and Ashore had been very shallow before we discovered their remnants and were able to interrogate them. Following this interrogation, our knowledge of them has increased and is still expanding.
With this view of history, the probability to integrate a sect’s historical aspects, criticize and bypass them becomes possible. With it also, history will exit from the creeds books to become a human knowledge where no place for ultimate truth can be found on it.

تعليق واحد على Are There Any Historical Truths

  1. UNKNOWN قال:

    But can we reach to historical truth by logical analysis? If we believe in all the prophets till Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, why not examine their books and analyze their philosophy of replacements? based on profound reading and analysis I can say with confidence that the first offence occurred in the history when Cain killed Abel because Cain knew that Adam would recommend Abel that replace him! After the incident Adam recommended his younger son Seth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth
    And always history repeats the same story with Moses and Aaron , Jacob and Joseph, Zacharias and Yahya and Jesus and Simon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_ (brother_of_Jesus) and Mohammed and Ali.
    In his final days Muhammed PBUH wanted to write them something but someone convinced the audiences Muhammed was only jabbered ,Contradictly the Prophet Mohammad peace be upon him recommends belivers to assign a leader during travel even if they are only two. persons but he left the nation without a leader!!!
    But did Sunnah or Shia followed the methodology of Muhammed PBUH in replacement? the answer is NO, Sunnah denied it from day one and Shia history showed their violation of this methodology.

أضف تعليقاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *