Self-Censorship in Muslim History

Many students of Islamic history begin with the assumption that if an event or a statement has not been reported in the earliest sources of Muslim history or hadith like as-Sirah an-Nabawiyya of Ibn Hishām or Sahíh of al-Bukhāri, it must be a later fabrication and therefore not credible. They tend to ignore the biases and limitations that are imposed on the writer by the ruling powers as well as by self-inclination. Biases are not only relevant in fabrication of mythical persons, events and statements, they are equally relevant in ignoring and silently bypassing certain historical figures and stories.

This paper intends to examine the way Muslim historians have dealt with the first open call to Islam known as Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira.

2. The First Open Call to Islam

Islam began when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) became forty years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islam, the Prophet was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when Almighty Allāh revealed the verse "And warn thy nearest relations." (26:214)

When this verse was revealed, the Prophet organized a feast that is known in history as "Summoning the Family - Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira". The Prophet invited around forty men from the Banu Hāshim and asked 'Ali bin Abi Tālib to make arrangements for the dinner. After having served his guests with food and drinks, when the Prophet wanted to speak to them about Islam, Abu Lahab forestalled him and said, "Your host has long since bewitched you." All the guests dispersed before the Prophet could present his message to them.

The Prophet then invited them the next day. After the feast, he spoke to them, saying:

O Sons of 'Abdu 'l-Muttalib! By Allāh, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have

brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the next, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhhí), my successor (wasiyyí) and my caliph (khalifatí) among you?

This was the first time that the Prophet openly and publicly called the relations to accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of Allāh; he also uses the words "akhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí- my brother, my successor, my caliph" for the person who will aid him in this mission. No one answered him; they all held back except the youngest of them - 'Ali bin Abí Tālib. He stood up and said, "I will be your helper, O Prophet of God."

The Prophet put his hand on the back of 'Ali's neck and said:

"Inna hadhā akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma'ū lahu wa atí'ū - Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey."[15]

[15] Most Muslim historians and commentators of the Qur'ān have quoted this event. See the following Sunni sources: at-Tabari, at-Ta'ríkh, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1980 offset of the 1789 edition) p. 171-173; Ibn al-Athír, al-Kāmil, vol. 5 (Beirut, 1965) p. 62-63; Abu 'l-Fidā', al-Mukhtasar fi Ta'ríkhi 'l-Bashar, vol. 1 (Beirut, n.d.) p. 116-117; al-Khāzin, at-Tafsír, vol. 4 (Cairo, 1955) p. 127; al-Baghawi, at-Tafsír (Ma'ālimu 't-Tanzíl), vol. 6 (Riyadh: Dar Tayyiba, 1993) p. 131; al-Bayhaqi, Dalā'ilu 'n-Nubuwwa, vol. 1 (Cairo, 1969) p. 428-430; as-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthûr, vol. 5 (Beirut, n.d.) p. 97; and Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanzu 'l-'Ummāl, vol. 15 (Hyderabad, 1968) pp. 100, 113, 115. For further references, see 'Abdu 'l-Husayn al-

This was a very explicit statement because the audience understood the appointment of 'Ali very clearly. Some of them, including Abu Lahab, even joked with Abu Tālib that your nephew, Muhammad, has ordered you to listen to your son and obey him! At the least, this shows that the appointment of 'Ali bin Abí Tālib was clear and explicit, not just implied.

3.            Why Doesn't Ibn Hishām Mention this Da'wat?

One of the questions raised in relation to this issue is why 'Abdu 'l-Malik Ibn Hishām (d. 213 AH) does not mention this event in his as-Sirah an-Nabawiyya - The Biography of the Prophet? After all, he is the earliest of all historians.

What is known as the Sirah of Ibn Hishām is actually the summary of the book of Muhammad Ibn Ishāq (born in 85 AH in Medina and died in 151 AH in Baghdad). The unabriged version of Ibn Ishāq's history book does not exist anymore. So the question has to be reformulated: "Did Ibn Ishāq mention the Summoning of the Family event?"

Aminí, al-Ghadír, vol. 2 (Beirut, 1967) pp. 278-289. In English see, Rizvi, S. Saeed Akhtar, Imamate: the Vicegerency of the Prophet (Tehran: WOFIS, 1985) pp. 57-60. For an elaborate discussion on the isnād and meaning of the Prophet's hadíth in this event, and also the variations in the early Sunni and Shi'a sources, see Dr. Sayyid Tālib Husayn ar-Rifā'í, Yawmu 'd-Dār (Beirut: Dar al-Azwā', 1986).

The political considerations that influenced Ibn Hishām in deleting certain events and maintaining others is clear from his own statement. While listing the items that he has omitted, Ibn Hishām writes, "...things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people...all these things I have omitted."[16] Editors of the 1955 Egyptian edition of the Sirah write that Ibn Ishāq had quoted events that would not have pleased the 'Abbāsids "like the participation of al-'Abbās with the infidels in the battle of Badr and his capture by the Muslims-the narration that Ibn Hishām later on omitted out of the fear of the 'Abbāsids."[17]

Praises of Imam 'Ali bin Abi Tālib, especially the traditon of dār, were among the items that Ibn Hishām has deleted in summarizing the Sirah of Ibn Ishāq. "The tradition of dār" is about the Summoning of the Family event mentioned above.

The fact that Ibn Ishāq had mentioned the Summoning of the Family can be seen through those who have narrated events from Ibn Ishāq by sources other than Ibn Hishām. For example, at-Tabari (d. 310 AH) narrates the same event through Ibn Ishāq. Shaykh Abu Ja'far at-Tūsi (d. 460 AH) also narrates

[16] Ibn Hishām, as-Sírah an-Nabawiyya, vol. 1 (Cairo: Mustafa al-Halabi & Sons, 1955) p. 11-12; also see its English translation by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Lahore: Oxford University Press, 1955) p. 691. See also the introduction by Dr. Asghari Mahdawi to the 6th century Persian translation by Rafí'u 'd-Dín Hamadāni of the Sirah entitled as Sirat-e Rasûlu 'l-lāh (Tehran, Bunyad-e Farhang-e Iran, 1360 [solar] AH) p. nûn.

[17] Ibn Hishām, as-Sirah, vol. 1, p. 10.

the same event through two different chains of narrators: one of those two is on the authority of Ibn Ishāq through at-Tabari.[18]

This clearly shows that what has come to be recognized as the earliest and the most authentic historical account is not free from bias in ignoring certain events and in narrating others.

[18] Abu Ja'far at-Tusi, Kitābu 'l-āmāli, vol. 2 (Najaf: Maktabatu 'l-Haydari, 1964) p. 194-196.

Ibn Ishāq himself has been accused of having Shí'ite leanings. If true, this could be one of the considerations that prompted Ibn Hishām to omit the items that he thought supported the Shí'ite cause. However, al-Khatíb al-Baghdādi in Ta'ríkh Baghdād and Ibn Sayyidi 'n-Nās in 'Uyūnu 'l-Athar, both Sunni historians, have defended Ibn Ishāq against all kinds of accusations including that of having Shí'ite leanings.[19]