Legitimacy of Islamic history

[Bosanac]

So I've been seeing this discussed on several other forums around the internet and haven't heard any response on the matter from fellow muslims, and unfortunately my own knowledge on the matter is greatly lacking.

Basically certain people called into question what we know about pre islamic Arabia and early islamic history. They claim that most of the info we have comes from muslim records and they deem that to be problematic due to potential bias.

I feel that there is merit in that train of thought. What's the best way to approach this matter?

[aaj]

You have no other history accounts, it is they who are being bias against Muslims recording the history. We can very well say the same thing. Most of the western history has come from Christians and there is potential bias in there.

[crimsontide06]

There could be bias with any group of people who pass down history.

Islamic history says Muslims were peaceful, promoted good...etc

Other "historians" depict Muslims as savage killers...etc.

It all depends on point of view too, the children/descendants of the enemies of Muhammad(peace be upon him) see them as everything bad that was said about Muslims..etc. Then those stories are sent to the next generation and so on.


Point of view is the biggest issue around the world when it comes to looking at issues in history as well as now.

A hero to one group of people, may be a savage dictator to another group.

[Bosanac]

Thanks for the replies so far.

To narrow down the topic a bit, one issue that is discussed is the claim that before Islam the Arabs would kill female newborns as a general practice and that Islam put a stop to it. Some are claiming that there is no proof of this being a major issue pre Islam other than the word of Muslims. Is this a fair criticism?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[anatolian]

Same thing applies to all times and regions. History is a myterious subject. It is a science in fact. Open to different contributions. But for the above topic, it is mentioned in Quran too 81:8. And when the female infant buried alive is asked 9. For what sin she was killed, So we Muslims believe it.

Yes fair bc we have our evidence. We have our records. If they have theirs, let them bring their evidence :)

[crimsontide06]

I understand what you are saying now. That Muslim historians may have exaggerated a pre-Islamic issue, to try and show that "Islam fixed it!". I am curious too to what others think.

Thanks for the replies so far.

To narrow down the topic a bit, one issue that is discussed is the claim that before Islam the Arabs would kill female newborns as a general practice and that Islam put a stop to it. Some are claiming that there is no proof of this being a major issue pre Islam other than the word of Muslims. Is this a fair criticism?

[Scimitar]

I feel that there is merit in that train of thought. What's the best way to approach this matter?

With a little logical foundation. if I want to learn how to bake bread - I go to the baker. If I want to learn how to fix cars, I go to a mechanic. If I want to learn about the Native Americans before the Portugese turned up, I go to Native American people's. The Portugese cannot tell me what Native American life was like before the Portugese invaded - because they were not there.

So...

...If I want to learn about Pre-Islamic Arabia, I go to the Arabs.

Scimi

[Bosanac]

But is it not a fair concern that there would be some bias in records? In a sort of "history is written by the victors" way?

Take the character of the prophet pbuh as an example. We believe him to have been of excellent moral standing and no less than the greatest human being. We have in our records that even his enemies agreed that he was a good man. But again, that's only from Islamic documentation (as far as I'm aware).

Why should they trust that our accounts of history are accurate and reliable?

[Scimitar]

But is it not a fair concern that there would be some bias in records? In a sort of "history is written by the victors" way?

Take the character of the prophet pbuh as an example. We believe him to have been of excellent moral standing and no less than the greatest human being. We have in our records that even his enemies agreed that he was a good man. But again, that's only from Islamic documentation (as far as I'm aware).

Why should they trust that our accounts of history are accurate and reliable?

What exactly are you referring to?

No historians disagree that Pre-Islamic Arabia was worshipping idols. NO historian disagrees that Muhammad pbuh unified Arabia under the banner of Islam and it became prosperous. What are the historians you claim have issues with the Arab account of pre-Islamic Arabia, actually all twisted about?

Scimi

[Bosanac]

I haven't come across any historian disputing anything. Merely just random forum goers with anti islamic sentiments mentioning how we have little actual known information regarding pre islamic Arabia and generally little knowledge from outside sources on early islam.

I suppose that actually does answer my question, which was also mentioned earlier by Anatolian. If they're skeptical about something, what is their basis? Do they have an historian or an authoritative individual that is disputing something? If not then they shouldn't really have a problem.

[Muezzin]

So I've been seeing this discussed on several other forums around the internet and haven't heard any response on the matter from fellow muslims, and unfortunately my own knowledge on the matter is greatly lacking.

Basically certain people called into question what we know about pre islamic Arabia and early islamic history. They claim that most of the info we have comes from muslim records and they deem that to be problematic due to potential bias.

I feel that there is merit in that train of thought. What's the best way to approach this matter?

Given that the rough time period you mentioned was before any great trans-continental diaspora from Arabia, where else do they expect to get records of pre-Islamic Arabia and 'early' Islamic history if not from Arab Muslim sources?

Unless they have conflicting evidence, no conflict exists. Otherwise, in accusing the only sources of this particular part of history of bias, is the accuser not exposing their own bias?