Examining and explaining the narrative tradition of Ashura based on the thought of Paul Ricoeur

Abstract

Surely, the event of Ashura of Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein (peace be upon him) is the most magnificent and inspiring phenomenon in the history of Islam. As it has acquired the largest number of rituals and voluminous historiographies in the Islamic world. This greatness and extent has caused the analysis of this event as a living and progressive phenomenon to be a difficult and challenging task. It seems that although the contemporary Ashura studies have helped to expand the theoretical discussions of this field; But due to the dominance of ijtihad method on the research approaches of this field, it has not been able to establish a strong link with the social body of Ashura rituals. This gap makes it necessary to open new theoretical horizons in examining and explaining the process of formation and continuation of the Ashura phenomenon.

Among the contemporary philosophers of the world, the thought of French Paul Ricoeur has always been the focus of researchers in the fields of hermeneutics, narratology and epistemology of history. Explaining concepts such as collective memory, narrative tradition and historical narration in his thought can have innovative achievements and open the way in the study of Ashura as a living narrative tradition for Ashura researchers. This treatise tries to introduce the epistemological explanation of history from Ricoeur's point of view as an alternative to conventional historical research approaches.

Also, after explaining these ideas, it tries to test it against the Ashura event and show that with this view, great events like Ashura can be explored not as a past event, but as a dynamic phenomenon with all its scope and dimensions. gave And he found new answers to many complex questions.

Key words: history, Ashura, narrative tradition, Ijtihad method, Paul Ricoeur, collective memory, historical narrative.

Objectives

The main concern of this treatise is to open a new horizon for those who research in the field of historical narratives and especially the Ashura narrative. The content of this chapter is organized in three parts. In the first part, about the way and method of Muslim researchers in dealing with human sciences, the dominant and dominant approach on the mind and pen of Muslim scholars is introduced in every aspect. In the second part, looking at Islamic historiography, the comprehensive method of historical criticism of Muslims will be introduced, and then, in the third part, a report on the process of Ashura research by Muslim scholars and judgment about Muqatil and Ashura narratives that have emerged over the ages will be presented. At the end of the chapter, the necessity of opening new horizons and new approaches to investigate the narrative of Ashura will be discussed.

Although the incident of Ashura in the year 61 Hijri is considered one of the most profound and influential events in the history of Islam, and in addition to its prominent presence in historical societies, numerous independent historiographies have been devoted to it under the title of "fighter", but the historical investigation of this incident by Ashura scholars and Muslim scholars is based on their general approach to history. is  Therefore, as a point of departure, we have to answer the question of what Muslim scholars think of history and what is their method when investigating historical events? Of course, presenting this discussion does not mean examining the philosophy of history among Muslim thinkers. What, this discussion is out of the scope of this treatise. In fact, the purpose of this treatise is a phenomenological investigation of the formation of knowledge called history and the historical narratives under it; Not to discuss the formation process of historical events and the causes and factors of the evolution of human societies in different eras and to predict the direction and end of great civilizations. What is history? Among thinkers and historians such as Masoudi and Ibn Khaldoun, in the contemporary era, the late martyr Motahari (may Allah be pleased with him) as a Muslim scholar has had the most discussion and investigation about this. In this chapter, we will talk about Khaldoni's approach and its dominance over the approaches after him; But now to provide a simple definition and division, we use the thought of this noble martyr. It is said that the present treatise will refer more to the approach of Allameh Motahari for the critical examination of the method governing Islamic scientific societies in historical research. It introduces three meanings of this word, which are briefly quoted. In the first definition, history means the science of past events and situations and the conditions of the past, the biographies and biographies that have been written and are written among all nations. The science of history in this sense is firstly partial; That is, knowledge is about a series of personal and individual affairs, not about generalities and a series of rules and regulations.The science of history in this sense is first of all partial; That is, science is about a series of personal and individual affairs, not about generalities and a series of rules and regulations. Fourth, it belongs to the past, not to the present. Shahid Motahari (RA) calls this type of history "narrative history". In the second definition, the science of history means the science of the rules and traditions governing past lives, which is obtained from the study and investigation of past events. Therefore, the content and issues of "narrative history" are considered to be the basics of this science. In this sense, the historian seeks to discover the nature of events and their cause and effect relationships in order to achieve general rules and regulations for generalizing similar events in the past and present. This type of history, which Shahid called scientific history, belongs to the past like the first type, and science is about being, not becoming; However, contrary to the narrative history, science is general, not partial, and it is intellectual-narrative, not pure narration.  The third definition refers to the philosophy of history. That is, the knowledge of the changes and developments of societies from one stage to another and the laws that govern it. This science is the science of becoming and it is rational [1]. Regardless of whether all Muslim scholars agree with this division or not, this approximation to the mind is enough for us to say that the purpose of this treatise is to explain some research approaches in history in the first sense and by its nature, the second definition. On this basis, first, the dominant Islamic approach to explore this type of history is introduced and critically examined. Then, in the next chapters, the narratological approach to history from the point of view of the contemporary philosopher, Paul Ricoeur, will be introduced and identified. In all this path, the central incident for the case of research is the narrative of Ashura, and we try to identify the narrative tradition of Ashura after fourteen centuries with Ricoeur's historical perspective. 

First part: Ijtihadi method

Muslim scholars and especially Shiite scholars use a method in their religious explorations that has obvious differences with the methods known in Western scientific societies. This method, which has been accompanied by changes throughout the ages and has branches and divisions, is identified with the general title of "Ijtihadi method". The claim of this article is that Muslim scientists have extended this research method and approach to other branches of humanities. For example, in their historical studies, because they were faced with the history of Islam, they used the same method of ijtihad. Of course, for this method in each field of knowledge, there is a specific task that fits the conditions and characteristics of that field, which is caused by the functions and effects of research in each field. With this explanation, ijtihad in the knowledge of jurisprudence and principles to reach a Shariah ruling in the branches of rulings has differences with ijtihad in Islamic theology or historical research. However, they also have common principles, foundations, and tools.

For ijtihad, many definitions have been given regarding different Islamic schools of thought, specifically Shiite and Sunni, and also according to the differences in the details of the method. But they have defined religious ijtihad in a comprehensive definition that includes different fields of knowledge as follows:

Religious ijtihad, so to speak, consists of scientific effort based on reliable sources, through the tools and elements necessary for understanding, exploring and extracting the absolute teachings of religion in such a way that it has validity (authenticity or simply justification and excuse).[2]

There are some points in this definition. Among other things, the mujtahid must be sure of the validity of the source before referring to it. Source credibility has two meanings. One principle is the permissibility of referring to the source to extract or discover that this meaning is either directly confirmed by the Shariah or obtained through reason, such as saying whether the news is a single proof or not. The second meaning of the validity of the source is that after prescribing the reference of the researcher to a source, whether the contents of the source reached the researcher according to the fact or not. For example, after accepting the Qur'an as a source, has the present-day Qur'an remained immune from distortion and tampering, or have its verses and contents been changed and increased or decreased by a number of people, so it cannot be considered a reliable source for a mujtahid. Or, for example, is the message narrated by the late Sadouq in my book La Yahzara Al-Faqih correct or not? The first example is the topic that can be discussed in the Qur'anic sciences and the science of principles, and the second example is the topic of the science of men and hadith studies. The remarkable thing about studying the credibility of the source in the second form is that it is experience-oriented. That is, to ensure the validity of the historical narratives that reach today's researchers, there is nothing but historical reports that are the statements and hearings of people about the narrators.