The Perspectives of Medieval Kurdish Historians on the Umayyad Caliphs: Selected Case Studies of Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari and Ibn Khallikan

Abstract

This research aims to examine and analyze the views and perspectives of two prominent medieval Kurdish historians, Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari and Ibn Khallikan, particularly concerning their stances and approaches toward the history of the Umayyad state and its caliphs.

The study is divided into two main sections. The first section is dedicated to Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari and an analysis of the texts from his book, Al-Akhbar al-Tiwal. The research concludes that, despite allegations of Shi'ism leveled against him by some sources, al-Dinawari maintained a degree of neutrality in narrating sensitive events—such as the killing of Husayn ibn Ali and the conflicts between the Umayyads and the Alids. He transmitted these events as historical occurrences rather than through a lens of sectarian emotion; he even avoided narrating the details of certain events, such as the atrocities committed by the army of Yazid ibn Mu'awiya in Medina. However, his narratives display an inclination toward the Abbasids; he highlighted the corruption and oppression of Umayyad governors in Khurasan, which has been interpreted as a form of justification and legitimization for the Abbasid Revolution.

The second section focuses on Ibn Khallikan and his famous book, Wafayat al-A'yan. The study reveals that due to the biographical nature of his work, Ibn Khallikan paid less attention to the details of the political history of the caliphs, largely overlooking them unless necessary to clarify the biography of another figure. Unlike al-Dinawari, Ibn Khallikan’s view of the Umayyads was more lenient. He showed respect for caliphs such as Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, even using the honorific phrase "(may Allah be pleased with him)" when referring to him. Nevertheless, this religious and personal sentiment did not prevent him from recording the tyranny of certain caliphs, such as Walid ibn Yazid, or the killing of Marwan II. Overall, the research highlights the differences in methodology and intellectual orientation between the two historians in their narration of events during the Umayyad Caliphate.