This is an interesting piece in Arab News, based on an interview that originally appeared in the Arabic daily Al-Madinah. In it, a Saudi historian/archeologist warns of the dangers of bending history to serve immediate political needs and desires. He points out that archeology in the Kingdom has to face unreasonable pressures from those afraid of what history might say. Researchers would avoid doing work in certain areas because of fear from social conservatives. Rewriting history to one’s perceived advantage is of course not a solely-Saudi event. History is full of examples and those efforts continue today, whether it be in the late Howard Zinn’s attempts at history or the ‘Hindutva’ efforts to make the Aryans the be-all and end-all of Indian history.
It’s good that there are Saudis aware of the threats and telling other Saudis as well. Hiding from history is not productive as it leaves one with false premises. That is rarely a good path to follow.
People want to rewrite Arab history to serve vested interests: Al-Zuwailaei
JEDDAH: Those who wish to rewrite the history of Arabia are motivated by their ideologies and do so to promote partisan views, said Saudi historian and archaeologist professor Ahmad Al-Zuwailaei.
“Some people want to rewrite our history to serve the interests of a particular ideology as happened in the 1960s and the 1970s when the leftist ideology gained prominence in the Arab world,” Al-Zuwailaei told Al-Madinah newspaper.
“These people consider the Prophet (peace be upon him) a revolutionary fighting the aristocracy of the Quraish and consider his companions as socialist leaders. They apply Marxist ideology to our history to suit their interests. This is in fact a mockery of history,” said Al-Zuwailaei, who won the 2008-2009 Prince Salman Prize for Historical Studies on the Arabian Peninsula.
Born in Al-Hubail, Qunfuda, in 1942, Al-Zuwailaei studied in the UK and the Kingdom, and has authored over 50 books. He has also taught at universities across the Kingdom, undertaken numerous archaeological excavations and served in various positions related to archaeological studies and tourism.
Al-Zuwailaei said there was a system of reporting of events during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions, and that with the help of accredited tools of studying history researchers can determine the veracity of reports from that period.
He added that historians should not approve or reject historical evidence due to personal interests.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:16:2010 - 16:36
archeologists shouldn’t be worried as evidence can stay in the ground until the fall of the saudi state.
however, modern historians should be worried because “saudi” history from the people’s account hasn’t been written down and is therefore very volatile. very few are alive today when abdulaziz came to power. oral narrations tell of his crimes and greed.
of course, that is in contrast to the official account which is recorded permanently. but there remain some british and american accounts of their dealing with abdulaziz in some books available today.
February:16:2010 - 16:43
Funny enough…rewriting history in the form of fabricating hadith in order to gain rights or to force others (women) to lose theirs is nothing new to Saudis (previously just Arab I guess). Interesting note…you will rarely find Arabs that engage in anthropology…or palientology…simply because digging up bones of distant relatives that resemble apes doesnt suit their “sprang from Adam and then Eve from him) belief…also…dinosaurs really mess with their sense of historical fact. My own personal observations on that.
February:16:2010 - 18:36
As with most generalizations, that’s not entirely true: There are exceptions. I have met Saudi paleontologists–some of the women. Too, this piece in yesterday’s Saudi Gazette suggests at least some Saudis are interested, curious, and/or not conflicted: Thousands flock to dinosaur exhibition. The exhibit was co-sponsored by the British Museum and a Japanese animatronics company, so the Saudis aren’t getting a ‘special’ version.
February:16:2010 - 18:42
Too, the Saudis (nor any nation, now) can’t control what others write. They can only ban books whose narrative doesn’t thrill them. If narratives grow too separate, then eventually the weaker one has to collapse.
The “people’s account” of events is not necessarily the historical gold standard, either… new research is showing that eye witness accounts of events is startlingly far from accurate. They inject their own prejudices, beliefs, and fears into their accounts. In legal circles, there’s heated debate about whether and how eye witness reports can be devalued or even forbidden in the courtroom.
February:16:2010 - 20:25
I did say it was “my own personal view”…and going to view something because its new and unique is not quite the same as believing what your seeing.
February:16:2010 - 21:10
John:
It is unfair to put the “Aryan” construction of the caste system on Hinduvta. It was a theory that originated in Britain in the mid-nineteenth Century thanks to scholars like Max Mueller. I am not particularly fond of the Hinduvta-RSS cabal, but the theory did not originate with them and from my experience, only a very tiny minority of that group still hang on to it.
February:16:2010 - 21:20
I wasn’t referring to caste at all! Rather, I was noting the efforts by the BJP and cohorts to rewrite the history of India in a way that made it seem as though nothing good ever happened in India except as the result of the Aryan invasion. They took Max Mueller and blew up what he said way out of proportion.
February:16:2010 - 21:20
I wasn’t criticizing you, only noting that there are exceptions.
February:17:2010 - 00:27
I wasn’t referring to caste at all! Rather, I was noting the efforts by the BJP and cohorts to rewrite the history of India in a way that made it seem as though nothing good ever happened in India except as the result of the Aryan invasion.
Well, if you are talking about the Aryan invasion, it is inextricably linked to the caste system. What I am saying is that historians on BJP AND non-BJP side have made a dog’s breakfast out of that concept. Fringe elements on both the left and right have interpreted Indian history to their interests and left average history readers like me wondering as to the origins of their outlandish theories. What I am saying is that it is not fair to ascribe misinterpretation to one political group.
February:17:2010 - 07:34
Agreed. That’s why I didn’t make India as the sole example, also citing Howard Zinn, the American. I could as well have cited Mussolini and Hitler as far more noxious examples.
February:17:2010 - 08:00
All history is written, ie created, and re-written and created, extremists just do it more extremely. Mao, his BFF Lin Biao?
Our PM is re-writing ours to be a fighting nation, after Pearson led it to be a nation of international peace-keepers, Trudeau a multi-culturalist and federalist, current one big on Anglo and making Alberta the centre of the universe, Quebec separatists think the maudits anglais are still the Lord Durham vintage and that the francophones are still pure laine.
Mussolini, the granddaughter, has a verrrry different view of Italy than many others, and had the law changed so her sons/children could carry on the Mussolini name. And her aunt Sophia Loren is rather silent on it all.
February:17:2010 - 09:24
Is Harper ‘rewriting history’ or seeking to change its direction?
February:18:2010 - 02:58
@4
let it be recorded. let historians judge.