Bayn al-Fitnatayn: Problems in the Periodization of Early Islamic History

Abstract

ONE of Nabia Abbott's most significant contributions has been her treatment of early Arabic-Islamic historiography in the first volume of her Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri. As one of the first to argue against Schacht's position that denied the authenticity of most of the traditional Arabic historical materials relating to the first century of Islam, she used her knowledge of Arabic palaeography and literature to show that both extremes of scepticism and credulity of the early Arabic sources should be avoided. As the hypercriticism of Schacht and of some other orientalists has declined in respectability in recent years, her work has been rediscovered and has exercised a greater influence on a younger generation of scholars who have been willing to take the traditional materials more seriously, who have applied more sophisticated critical methods to them, and who have recognized the existence and importance of contemporary, first century, Arabic documents. Thus, it seems appropriate to deal with an historiographical issue here, in this case with some of the problems raised by the periodization of early Islamic history. The standard division of early Islamic history into Rishidiln, Umawi, and CAbb~si periods is essentially a dynastic approach to history which is based on assumptions about the causative impact of the personality and policies of rulers on those features which are considered to be typical of each period. Such an approach has tended to be justified (if at all) by appeals to the absolute authority of the ruler, and by the assumption that his policies were effective. It produces a form of history that is written in terms of the personal qualities of individual rulers, of the degree of a ruler's responsibility for events, of how Arab they were, or whether or not they were sincere Muslims. Everything from administrative appointments to economic prosperity or disaster tends to be explained in terms of the personality of the ruler and everything else is explained in terms of reactions to a ruler's policies, approval or disapproval, support or opposition, i.e., history is reduced to the personality of the ruler. This is especially true of the way early Islamic history is usually treated. The standard interpretation was internally self-generated. It grew out of the early conflicts in the Islamic community and was based on the judgments of Muslims who were contemporary with these events who justified their own actions in terms of the moral qualities of their rulers. This kind of interpretation seems to have originated among the Khawdrij, the ZubayrTs, and the pre-revolutionary propaganda of the cAbb~sis. It was preserved in the SunnT Islamic historical tradition that divided early Islamic