The Importance of First-Hand Information - Essay Example

Topic: The Importance of First-hand Information Introduction History can be explained as a discipline thatgives a description of social organization of a human being, and this is the same as the global civilization. It is concerned with conditions that affect the nature of civilization, for example, sociability, feelings of a group, and the different ways in which one group of people achieves superiority over another. In addition, it deals with past dynasties and royal authorities as well as the different ranks that existed in within them. Most importantly, it discusses the crafts and sciences that human beings are pursuing as part of their efforts and activities, and with all the other social organizations that originated in civilization (Khaldun, 1989). It is necessary to note that history is among those fields that are diverse, and its objectives and goals are clearly distinguished. History can make us understand the situations of the past in different countries because they reflect the character of the nation. In addition, history enables us to be acquainted with the prophets’ biographies as well as policies and the dynasties of rulers in the past (Khaldun, 1989). Therefore, the essence of the paper is to discuss the importance of first-hand information. Moreover, it focuses on Khaldun’s criterion for accepting first-hand information, his arguments, as well as the standards he uses to evaluate historical information. KhaldunsCriterion for Accepting First Hand Information Khaldun argued that there is very little effort undertaken to unearth the truth of the past in history. Mistakes and unsupported assumptions are common elements found in past historical events. Khaldun added that blind trust in tradition is a common trait in a man. He holds the notion that nobody is courageous to stand up against the truth authority, and, therefore, there is a need to fight speculations about the past and deceitful information in history through first-hand information. He opined that it takes time and commitment to look critically at the hidden truth. Furthermore, he acknowledges that it takes knowledge and proper understanding to bring out the truth about the past as well as polishing it so that critical insight can be used. In addition, he noted that first-hand information could provide deep understanding of history and concrete explanation of the genesis and causes of things that currently exist. Moreover, it would provide deep understanding of why and how events occurred (Khaldun, 1989). Historical information requires credible sources and diverse knowledge. It also needs thorough and an excellent mind. However, having these two qualities in your possession can enable a historian to avoid from slipping; making errors and enable, them deliver the truth. In addition, a historian should not trust information that is passed in its original style and has no alteration. Historians need to have concise knowledge and understand the principles that result from custom, the fundamental truth of politics, the civilization nature, or the situations that governs social organization of humans. Furthermore, if a historian does not evaluate old materials through comparing with nearby or even contemporary material, he is always not in a position to avoid slipping, and deviating from telling the truth. Quran commentators, leading transmitters and historians have made many errors in the events and stories they have reported(Khaldun, 1989). Therefore, through what is discussed above, Khaldun justified his acceptance of first-hand information. His Argument Khaldun described historians as people who are bounded by tradition, and they are dull of nature as well as intelligence. They reproduced previous work of historians and followed their reports without proper understanding. However, they do not consider the situational changes as well as customs of countries and races that time passing has brought about. Thus, they reported historical information, for instance, about dynasties as well as stories of past events as styles without substance and blades with no scabbards. The information they are reporting can be considered as full of ignorance because it is unknown what of it is genuine and what is extraneous. In other words, the origin of their information is unknown (Khaldun, 1989). For instance, Khaldun said that Al-masudi and majority of other historians gave reports that Moses had counted the Israelites army while in the desert. However, Al-masudi reported that Moses had those who were in a position to carry arms, especially those who were in their twenties of age and older. After Moses counting the army, the Historian reported that the army turned out to be to be more than 600,000. In this regard, Al-Masudi did not consider whether Syria and Egypt could have had such high number of soldiers. In addition, historians’ works do not give good explanations about the past. For instance, whenever they turn to give a description of a certain dynasty, they reported the historical information in a mechanical manner. They are cautious to preserve the information the way it was passed down to them without considering whether, there is truth behind it, or it is just imagination. However, they always avoid focusing on the genesis of the history, for instance, the dynasty they are reporting. Therefore, the readers such as the students are obliged to look at the beginning of a situation and the organization of the diverse dynasties. Students are subjected to investigations, for instance, why most dynasties had brought a lot of pressures and the reasons they had to succeed one another. They have to research for proper explanations that can convince of the elements that made for contact or mutual separation among various dynasties (Khaldun, 1989). However, Khaldun’s opinion is that historians just accept the historical information in the way they are transmitted, without considering its value. The historians do not look at the information and contextualize the principles that underlie such historical events. Moreover, they do not investigate more deeply with the yardstick of philosophy and the assistance of knowledge, or even with the assistance of historical insights (Khaldun, 1989). A good example is the history of the Tubbas, who was the kings of the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen. Khaldun considered it the way it is transmitted by the Historians seems to be most silly statements reported by historians. The historians reported that from their home situated in the Yemen, the Tubbas had always raided Maghrib Berbers and the Ifriqiyah. It is said that Afriqus, who was one of their early and great kings who had lived during the Moses time and somewhat earlier, raided Ifriqiyah. Afriqus caused a lot of slaughter among the Berbers. Khaldun considered all this information reported by historians as remote from the truth. It is rooted in erroneous and baseless assumptions. Another story reported by the historians that are considered untrue by Khaldun, concerns the reason as to why Ar-Rashids destroyed the Barmecides. The story is about Al-Abbasah who is Ar-Rashids sister and Jafar his client. Ar-Rashid is reported to be more worried on a where to place them during the times that he was drinking wine with them. In addition, Ar-Rashid wanted and was willing have them all in his company. As a result, Ar-Rashid allowed them to marry each other but their marriage was not consummated. Social organization of human beings is something that is very important. Most of the philosophers made expressions by saying that: "Man by the nature is `political, and, therefore, man is not able to do without the social organization, and they apply the word "town.” In other words, it means civilization. The required character of the social organization of human beings or civilization is described by the fact that God had made creations. In addition, God fashioned man in a style that he can survive an only with the assistance of food. God guided a human being to a natural desire for food and provided man with the powers that made him get it. However, the powers of the individual man are not enough for him to get the food. He requires support, and as well, God did not give him as much of what he needs to live (Khaldun, 1989). Khaldun provided an illustration by assuming enough food for a day, for example, can only be obtained by making enough preparation that involves baking, grinding, and kneading. However, every step of the mentioned operations needs tools and utensils that can only be provided with the assistance of many crafts, such carpenters, potters, and blacksmiths. Standards he used to Evaluate Historical Information The standards he applied in order to find out the soundness and truth of historical information, the requirement that need consideration is the conformity. It was useful for him to establish whether it was possible that the facts that are reported could have occurred in the past. However, this was more significant and was prioritized over criticizing personality. In addition, in order to have the right notion about something that ought to be would only be derived from criticizing personality and outside evidence by looking the conformity of the information reported on general situation (Khaldun, 1989). However, in such a case, the normative way of differentiating the truth from false in historical information/ data based on absurdity or possibility, is to investigate the social organization of human thoroughly, and this is the same as civilization. It should differentiate the situations that are attached to the important of civilization and as needed by its nature, the things that might be accidental and cannot be counted. Therefore, if that is done properly, there shall be a normative means of making difference of what is true from false in historical information. This is by means demonstrating the logic without any doubt (Khaldun, 1989). Conclusion In conclusion, deceit, and false information always afflicts historical information. There are many reasons that make this not avoidable, and one of them is partisanship for schools and opinions. As a result, falsehoods is transmitted and as well accepted. From the discussion by Khaldun, the historical information reported are merely historical material that has been repeated and the historian reporting it followed the past historians who had worked on it blindly. There is much negligence on the significance of the change and over the generations in their treatment of the historical materials, and this is due to lack of a person who could make interpretations for them. Therefore, the moment historians hear about a given situations that occur in civilization, they are supposed to be in a position to contextualize what to accept and as well what to declare as spurious. In summary, there should be a sound yardstick to get the truth and correctness of historical information. Reference Khaldun, I. (1989). The Mugaddimah: An Introduction to the History. Princeton University Press. Read More