Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Department of History and Iranian Studies, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
The extent and manner in which historians utilize theological rules is an important and challenging issue for researchers. Some historians, with a theological approach, try to deny or justify historical documents and reports, while another group is almost committed to historical reports and prioritizes historical documents when there is a conflict between theology and history. One of the theological rules that some Sunni historians - who usually have a Salafi approach - have denied or justified historical documents in favor of it is the rule of "being a companion". In this article, historians who have studied history almost independently of theology and beliefs are called historians, and historians with a theological approach are called theologian-historians. Taha Hussein and Almaududi represent the first group, and Muhammad Sallabi and Munir Ghadhban represent the second group. The reason for choosing these historians is the impact of their views on researchers and contemporary society. The main research question is:To what extent have historians and theologians-historians used the rule of "being a companion" and what are the consequences of using this rule? The method of this research is escriptive-analytical and comparative. The results obtained are: Historians have not benefited from this rule in their historiography, but theologian-historians, instead of relying on historical evidence, have benefited from this theological rule as a definitive argument and reason and not as a witness and evidence, therefore they have not been able to present an objective, scientific and realistic history.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)