Hisham Djait, the stylized Tunisian historian, who is skeptical about everything except the historical document, which also does not escape his endless questioning.
Hisham Djait, undoubtedly a distinguished historian, belongs to the generation of many questions and the sedition of modern methods. And building other postulates, by which a new era is established that carries something different to the reality of the nation, and whether they view that nation as a religious nation as Djait did or it is not as in the writings of others, the approach is similar, even if the results differ.
It is the generation of Taha Hussein and his companions, who studied in France and the universities of the West, and left, and today one of the last of them, Hisham Djeit, who left us for the world of certainty at the beginning of this month, as if the years 2020 and 2021 with their list of deaths, had concluded an afternoon, and opened a new era.
Rather, the historian Djait goes further, and does not hesitate to claim that the Qur’an has been added to it, as his methods did not extend to examining the language and the internal purposes of the text and its external interactions, especially since in the history of the Muhammadan call in Mecca he destroyed documents and texts in favor of an old text also, narrated from Urwa Ibn al-Zubayr wrote it, so he sufficed with it and the Noble Qur’an, and only according to the narration of Urwa bin al-Zubayr.
Let me give an example of a possible response to the hypothesis of adding a verse, as Djait claims to add a verse (and their command is a consultation between them) that is not tolerated by the context of the Meccan call, but let us put another hypothesis against that, which is that the period in which Jait himself states that Surat Al-Shura was revealed is that period In which the Companions migrated to Abyssinia, it was as if the verse was a guide for them to the mechanism of collective action in the absence of his person, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, so why not be so? Why did Djait’s approach not include these assumptions and purposes?
And while he acknowledges that the nation is founded on a sacred book and meta-history (meta-history), he does not take into account what is beyond history, with its values, ideas, and mysticism, with the possibility of historical examination of documents and evidence related to that, and all of this is possible if the historian’s approach expands to it..or He wanted to expand it.
To set an example on a historian who allowed a percentage of the acceptance of the unseen in his analysis, Hussein Munis, in his book The History of Quraysh, went on strike about mentioning miracles, paranormal customs, and the beginnings of revelation to the beloved, peace and blessings be upon him. To lift the siege, he accepted it, considering that the religious historical accepts and tolerates such narratives.
Djait is gone, and with his departure, and the departure of his generation, a whole era has passed, paving the way for a new era with new visions. I hope that our generation and what follows it will be able to make a qualitative leap in it, combining the strict approach, the diversity of entrances and the payment of the destination.