This study undertakes a methodological critique and analytical examination of “Parable and Politics in Early Islamic History: The Rashidun Caliphs” by Tayeb El-Hibri. Its primary aim is to investigate how literary and parabolic concepts are employed in the analysis of historical reports from the formative centuries of Islam, and to diagnose the limitations of the author’s approach in engaging with classical sources. Drawing on hermeneutical and literary analysis, El-Hibri argues that many historical accounts concerning the Rashidun caliphs are not neutral records of events but narrative constructions shaped by the political and religious discourses of the Abbasid caliphate. The findings of the present study indicate that, while El-Hibri offers an innovative and multidimensional reading of the sources, he remains ambiguous in demarcating the boundary between “historical event” and “narrative construction”. Moreover, his strong emphasis on allegedly derivative patterns drawn from Judeo-Christian traditions at times results in a form of historical reductionism. The article ultimately underscores that research on early Islamic history requires a careful balance between literary critique of narratives and the assessment of the historical reliability of sources.
Introduction
Tayeb El-Hibri, a professor at the University of Massachusetts and a prominent scholar of Islamic historiography, seeks in his works to challenge conventional understandings of Muslim historical sources. The book examined in this article focuses on a period that occupies a distinctive place in Muslim collective memory as an era of perfection followed by decline, marked by conquests and internal conflicts. El-Hibri’s central question concerns the ways in which tales and epic narratives came to articulate political principles and how religious beliefs reshaped the narration of events. He posits the existence of a “narrative body scheme” upon which the history of the early caliphs was constructed, a scheme rooted in the Abbasid caliphate’s need for political legitimation in the third Islamic century. The authors of the present article argue that, despite its analytical appeal, this approach suffers from methodological disarray insofar as it overlooks historical complexity and lacks clear criteria for textual criticism.
Materials and Methods
 This study employs critical textual analysis and comparative examination of historical reports. Its theoretical framework is grounded in a distinction between “narrative” and “event.” Here, narrative is not understood as a denial of historical reality, but rather as a mode of presenting history that does not necessarily determine the content of the past itself. By categorizing prevailing approaches to the study of Islamic history traditional, isnād-based criticism, interpretive, and revisionist—the authors situate El-Hibri’s methodology within hermeneutical and literary approaches. For a more precise evaluation, the content of the book is divided into two principal categories: “reports presented without critique” and “reports accompanied by critique,” and the author’s criteria in each category are closely examined.
Discussion and Findings
 Analysis of El-Hibri’s method reveals three major characteristics in his treatment of historical narratives:

Retrospective (Backward) Reading of History

El-Hibri maintains that early historians wrote history retrospectively, from end to beginning. For example, he interprets reports concerning the sanctification of ʿUthmān during the Prophet’s lifetime as retrospective attempts to justify his later caliphal policies. While such a perspective appears plausible in cases such as political prophecies surrounding ʿUthmān’s assassination, El-Hibri’s analysis of Abū Bakr’s “nine regrets” is marked by haste. In this instance, he attributes the personal reflections of a dying individual to complex narrative structures without sufficient evidence.

Derivative Narratives and Judeo-Christian Patterns

One of the most contentious aspects of El-Hibri’s method is his claim of borrowing from earlier narrative traditions. He interprets the division of ʿUthmān’s caliphate into six “good” years and six “bad” years as parallel to the story of Joseph and the seven years of abundance followed by famine. The critique advanced here is that similarity does not necessarily entail derivation; many events recur cyclically in history, and El-Hibri does not provide clear methodological criteria to substantiate claims of narrative borrowing.

Parabolic and Metaphorical Elements

In his analysis of episodes such as the encounter between Hormuzān and ʿUmar or the death of Yazdegerd III, El-Hibri seeks to uncover latent meanings. He interprets Hormuzān’s request for water as a “request for political life,” and the millstone associated with Yazdegerd as a symbol of both subsistence and the decline of power. While these aesthetic interpretations are creative, they blur the boundary between history and storytelling, leaving the reader uncertain about the factual occurrence of the events themselves.
The findings indicate that, despite his critique of radical revisionists, El-Hibri at times approaches their positions in practice. His limited engagement with isnād analysis and with the sectarian affiliations of transmitters constitutes another methodological shortcoming, one that risks reducing historical inquiry to literary interpretation.
 
Conclusion
 
 Although Parable and Politics represents a significant step forward in identifying the “grand narratives” that shaped the minds of Muslim historians, it suffers from a lack of methodological coherence. El-Hibri remains suspended between literary studies, scriptural interpretation, and critical historiography, without establishing consistent criteria for accepting or rejecting historical reports. Nevertheless, his multidimensional perspective and creative efforts to trace the cultural roots of narratives remain valuable for scholars in the field. This study suggests that future research should, while benefiting from literary insights, adopt precise criteria for identifying narrative borrowing and strive to maintain a balance between discourse analysis and historical verification, so as to avoid reducing history to parable alone.