نشریه تاریخ اسلام در آینه پژوهش
سال دوازدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 38، بهار و تابستان 1394)

Based on the two different applications of the word ’’history’’, philosophy of history underlies two different sciences. One of them is “philosophy of history” which deals with the philosophical-logical knowledge of history and historiography. The other deals with the theoretical philosophy of history which investigates the historical phenomena and events, and seeks to discover the philosophical and ontological rules governing the historical development process of man’s life and studies such issues like meaningfulness, evolution and lawfulness of the mentioned course.Using a philosophical-Qur’anic approach and making a comparative study, this paper considers the views of two current eminent thinkers in the Islamic world, Allamah Shahid Morteza Motahari and Ayatollah Allamah Misbah, about the basic issues about the theoretical philosophy of history and investigates the views of the two philosophers and Qur’anologist thinkers about the reality and identity of society and history and the question of their being original or arbitrary. It also discusses the lawfulness of society and history, the adoption of similar sociological rules by all societies, human freedom and its relationship with social and historical rules, evolution in society and history and the possibility or impossibility of predicting the future of history, and sometimes criticizes these views.

One of the main issues of history in the theoretical philosophy of history is ‘’ the direction of history movement’’. Most philosophers of history consider that history movement is attainment of perfection, and present such things like complexity of social relations, scientific progress, development of technology and industry, improvement of the physical condition of human communities as the criteria of evaluation of history, which govern the rapid development of the material dimensions of human life over time. Professor Motahari put forward a new view about evolution of history and offers a special explanation and a standard which is different from that of philosophers of history, known as ‘’natural or human evolution of history’’. This paper, first touches on very claim, principles and dimensions of Motahari’s view, and then sheds light on the ambiguities in Motahari’s view and ways of resolving them. The idea that the view of ‘’natural or human evolution of history’’ has scientific validity as a speculative hypothesis worth more reading and examination of reality has been provide, but, as a theory theoretically, it has no scientific validity.

Foreign itineraries were often written by political officials and missionaries whose main concern was pursuing their special interests, political-religious thoughts, and purposes and those of their countries. This is reflected in their reports about the social conditions of the Islamic community in the previous centuries, particularly Iranian community. English orientalists are among those who embarked on writing such itineraries. Partiality, fanaticism and conveying the impression that the English have control over the Islamic world are the distinctive features of their works.This research seeks to answer the question as to what picture English orientalists present in their itineraries of the Islamic community, particularly Iran in Qajar period. In addition to proving the mentioned view about foreign itineraries, the research findings show that, these orientalists do not have true understanding of the religious and Islamic-Iranian community, and the colonial- exploitative vision of the English caused them to present in their itineraries a kind of report in which they regard the culture of our country and community in the mentioned era with contempt and in different aspects and this, in fact, is contrary to historical realities. These itineraries are insulting to Islamic communities which are introduced as being decologue, archaic, superstitious, ignorant, extremist, double spatial, untruthful, using flattery, and in brief, woebegone and regressive in morality, rites and religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the partial-superficial look as well as, the generalization about the vileness in Iranian communities call into question their impartiality and fairness. Unlike the Europeans, who notice the beauties and attractiveness of Islam world, English orientalists propogate according to a one-sided view in this regard and refuse to mention the positive aspects of the life and culture in Iran.

Abu Mikhnif’s narrative that tribe of Bani Asd who resided in Ghazeriyeh buried Imam Hussein and his companions (AS) one day after their martyrdom is narrated by authentic Shia and Sunni's historical sources and by the subsequent sources. With the passage of time, this narrative underwent some changes. The eleventh century was a turning point in these changes and the beginning of development of a theological approach, and change in the narrative of Imam’s burial from a historical event into a doctrinal principle; a principle which is rooted in some Shiite traditions and regards the burial rites of every Imam is not performed except by the Imam who succeeds him. In the thirteenth century, the outer layer of the theological approach took form and soon spread to replace the previous approaches. Resting on the narrative of the arrival of Imam Sajjad (AS) in Karbala to perform the burial rites of his father, the new approach has such a great effect on the works about Ashura that most of these works have accepted it up to the present time and it has prevailed and resisted against the previous approach. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this paper explains the historical development of the different accounts and views about the burial rites of Karbala's martyrs and sheds light on how the narrative of the burial of Imam Hussein has changed from a historical event into an interreligious theological principle to become a news story. Based on Shia and Sunni sources, the paper answers three questions as to when, where and by whom the martyrs were buried and explains the origin of the new approach.

Since early Islam, the prevailing attitude of the Muslim Ummah towards the prophet Muhammad (AS) was threatened by some agents. Holding the belief that the prophet has a unique role in guiding and maintaining the unity of the Muslim Ummah, the Commander of the Faithful Ali (AS) constantly struggled to define the central role of the Prophet. His efforts were manifested in different ways including "promoting public knowledge of the Prophet", "strengthening the bonds between people and the Prophet”, '' citing the Prophet’s words and actions " and "preserving the sanctity of those related to the Prophet." He regarded the Prophet’s mission as deliverance and his way clear and firm, and called Muslims to follow his example. The agents that threaten the central role of the Prophet in Islamic society had two important consequences: the spread of innovations and the development of wrong understanding about the Prophet. Conversely, the efforts of Imam Ali and other Imams (AS) contributed to revitalizing some of the traditions of the Prophet (AS), and most importantly, reviving the name of the Prophet and establishing his pre-eminent position in the Muslim community.

The writers of the Companions’ biographies have structural differences in the compilation of their books, which led to divide them into two schools: ‘hadith’ and 'biography'. They also differ in the way they deal with content and text, i.e. in the kind of works which they wrote about the Companions. In this way, the "content-based" school has come to existence. An inquiry into the books on the Companions’ biographies shows that in this regard active schools which are concerned with content are generally divided into: 'historical' and "theological". These two schools have brought clear differences in the Companions’ biographies concerned with the content especially in writing the biographies of those Companions who have always been criticized for their political and ideological stances. In the "historical" school, apart from his being a jurist, a scholar of Hadith and a theologian, the biographer expounds the content according to the historians’ school, that is, while introducing the Companions, he points to some news that may not please some people. In the "theological" school, however, this kind of news is censored, criticized, and often either rejected or justified. This paper gives an account of the two schools and underlines the differences between them.