A Brief Note on Wāqidī

A separate note on Wāqidī was not initially required, but unfortunately, European writers have favoured him to such an extent that for the disclosure of true reality, a separate note has become imperative. As mentioned above, the span of Wāqidī’s life is from 130 A.H. to 207 A.H. Undoubtedly, with regards to his time period, Wāqidī is no less secure in position than any other historian. However, this factor alone cannot alter the personal attributes and habits of an individual. The fact of the matter is that despite the breadth of his knowledge, Wāqidī was absolutely unworthy of reliance and trust, and research scholars are unified in the assertion that he is a prevaricator of the truth and a liar. This does not mean that all of his narrations were incorrect and false. Even the greatest of liars do not lie at all times. Rather, the truth is that many statements made by a liar are also truthful and in accordance with the facts. However, on the other hand, there is no doubt that an authoritative conclusion cannot be drawn upon the statements of a habitual liar. It is an undeniable fact that Wāqidī was an exceptional scholar and the scope of his historical knowledge was so vast that perhaps no other historian of his age could contend. It appears as if the breadth of his knowledge was actually the cause of his arrogance. Instead of expressing his ignorance in relation to a certain matter, he would present self-fabricated facts in order to falsely preserve his dignity. As such, a research scholar makes an excellent statement in that, “If Wāqidī is truthful, he is like no other; and conversely, if he is a fabricator, even still he is unparalleled.”1 Regrettably, European scholars are enamoured by the very eloquent speech and extensive knowledge of Wāqidī. Their concern is not if he was truthful or a liar, if his custom was to speak after investigation like a prudent Muḥaddith, or just to speak nonsense. European scholars are only concerned with the fact that whatever Wāqidī asserts, he asserts with detail, and that he illustrates with words, in a manner that the reader feels as if he is present at the scene. If his statement is contradictory to an authentic Ḥadīth or sound narration, they are not bothered, as for them, all narrations are one and the same; and except for their own inadequate intellect, no other testimony is worthy of belief. The people of the West are not at all interested in how Muslim research scholars exhausted the whole of their lives in order to scrutinize and authenticate each and every narration; and to establish a true system of analysis in the science of narration, following a thorough investigation as to the accurate details of the life of every single narrator. It is impossible to halt someone’s pen and tongue; however, we wish to present the opinions and statements relevant to Wāqidī, made by Muslim research scholars, whose honesty and trustworthiness have been accepted by all:

These testimonies are given by Muslim research scholars after a thorough investigation. Most of them were contemporaries of Wāqidī. European writers should consider the true level of the historian they hold so dear to their hearts. We do not claim that every narration related by Wāqidī is incorrect. Indeed, a significant portion of his narrations are perhaps true. However, an individual whose level of honesty and justice is as mentioned above, in the case of a narration where he is the only narrator, or if he differs with other narrators, cannot be accepted as authoritative by any intellectual. وَاللّٰهُ اَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ.

In any case according to our investigation, Muḥammad bin ‘Umar Wāqidī, in spite of being among early historians, is completely unworthy of trust. Moreover, as far as the genuine books of Sīrat are concerned, Ibni Hishām, Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Jarīr Ṭabarī are the only three early historians upon whom the foundation of the Sīrat and biography of the Holy Prophetsa should be laid. This does not imply that every narration presented by these historians is correct and authentic. A claim of this magnitude cannot be made even in favour of the Muḥaddithīn, let alone historians. Instead, the purpose is to indicate that these three historians in particular, are in essence generally reliable, though at times various narrations could prove to be inaccurate due to carelessness or a weak chain of narrators. Yet, they can be considered the true bearers of the Sīrat of the Holy Prophetsa. Nonetheless, for the resolution of various ancillary issues, the historical books in the above mentioned list of contents can also be utilised as supplementary assistance.

1 Tahzībut-Tahzīb, By Imām Al-Ḥāfiẓ Shihāb-ud-Dīn Abul-Faḍl Aḥmad bin ‘Alī bin Ḥajar Al-‘Asqalānī, Volume 5, “Muḥammad bin ‘Umar bin Wāqidul-Wāqidī”, pp. 234-235, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (1993)

2 Mīzānul-I‘itidāl fī Naqdir-Rijāl, By Ḥāfiẓ Shams-ud-Dīn Abū ‘Abdullāh Muḥammad bin Aḥmad Adh-Dhahabī, Volume 3, Ḥarful-Mīm, “Muḥammad bin ‘Umar bin Wāqid Aslamī”, pp. 110-111, Maṭba‘us-Sa‘ādah Miṣr, First Edition (1325 A.H.)

3 Tahzībut-Tahzīb, By Imām Al-Ḥāfiẓ Shihāb-ud-Dīn Abul-Faḍl Aḥmad bin ‘Alī bin Ḥajar Al-‘Asqalānī, Volume 5, “Muḥammad bin ‘Umar Wāqidul-Wāqidī”, pp. 234-235, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (1993)

4 Wafiyyātul-A‘ayān, By Abū ‘Abbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm Al-Ma‘rūf ibni Khalkān, Volume 4, p. 158, Ḥarful-Mīm, “Al-Wāqidī”, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1998)

5 Sharḥul-‘Allāmaiz-Zarqānī ‘alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul-Bāqī Az-Zarqānī, Part 3, p. 162, Qiṣṣatu ‘Ukali wa ‘Urainah, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996)