قراءة نقدية لموقف التحليل الحداثي من روايات الفتنة الكبرى (35-40 هـ)‎

Abstract EN

Many modern researchers have refused most of the narrations about the history of the biggest sedition (Al-Fitna Al-Kobra) (35-40H.).

This rejection originates from their intellectual formation.

This rejection of these narrations also necessitated defaming most of the sedition's narrators such as Abo Mekhnef (died in 157 H.), AlWaqidi (died in 207 H.) as well as the senior historians who collected these narrations such as Ibn Qutaiba (died in 286 H.), Al-Balathri (died in 279 H.) and even implicitly or explicitly Al-Tabari (died in 310 H.).

Many traditional researchers have established this rejection despite the differences in motives and reasons.

The traditional analysis of Al-Fitna history stemmed from the assumption that these narrations were an attempt to defame Islamic history, which is connected with the formative bases of Islam according to the sectarian vision.

By contrast, the modern\ intellectual analysis originated from a contrary basis in an attempt to negate the narrations that show the truth of the historical transformation after Al-Fitna Al-Kobra (35-40 H).

This historical transformation involved the end of the orthodox caliphate which was related to the prophecy history.

This is due to the fact that modern analysis sees the Umayyad period or some of its components as a state of breaking off from the fundamental religious status towards the reality of the tribe and profit and its natural, historical development.