Is it true that the history of Islam is the only history which has not been changed or altered by its believers?

Answer 1

FALSE.

The history of Islam sorely contradicts this assertion. While the Islamic Holy Books were less susceptible to corruption (because of the shorter delay between revelation and transcription), Islamic History was not. One of the clearest ways to note the disagreement between Muslims on early history is to evaluate the process where isnads were judged to be sahih, hassan, or da'if. Some authors, like Bukhari and Al-Muslim had their traditions well-known and established. Other authors were considered unreliable. For example, Al-Waqidi wrote both about Mohammed's military campaigns and made a hadith collection, long before Bukhari and Al-Muslim. While his historical recountings of the ghazawat and the major battles (like Badr, etc.) are considered very accurate, most Islamic scholars criticized his hadith choices since he selected his hadiths prior to Al-Madani establishing the rule of sahih, hassan, and da'if (20 years after Al-Waqidi's passing). Ibn Hanbal and Shafi'i both called Al-Waqidi a liar due to their disagreement with his hadiths even though both of them referred often to his battle-information. Of course, between Sunnis and Shiites there is an even wider gulf between the accepted Hadith, especially as concerns the events in Ghajar. The difference between the Sunni and Shiite understandings and Hadith used to describe the events in Ghajar was one of the main causes of the early wars and disagreements between them. According to the Shiites, it was here that Mohammed selected Ali as his successor, probably his most important act in life aside from his relationship with God. According to Sunnis, Mohammed praised Ali, but did not give him any appointments. This is a huge distinction.

If we move the clock forward and look at Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun, we see Muslims being the first people to discuss the idea of historiography which is the idea that history study of the methodology and development of history. Ibn Rushd strongly criticized those who accepted history as taught and for failing to question prior events. Ibn Khaldun postulated that different people in different times should be evaluated according to the conditions in which they lived as opposed to a heightened morality or ethos of today. Both were critical of the past that was told to them. Ibn Khaldun, in particular, became a celebrated historian and historiographer in modern Europe and his critical view of history became the basis for the modern discipline of historiography, which is now taught in almost all Western Universities. In short, criticizing, reviewing, and changing history is not only part of Islamic culture, but was an outgrowth of Islamic culture and not an import from elsewhere.