It is now known to everyone that the overwhelming majority of scholarly works produced by the theology (ilahiyat) community take the form of doing the historiography of Islamic sciences; in fact, this situation has even become a matter of complaint and regret by some qualified academicians themselves who are engaged in the said historiography. Well then, is intellectual historiography something absolutely blameworthy (mazmum)? Of course not. All sciences are valuable. Every science has a void it fills and an important duty it fulfills. The science of history is also such a science. The history of sciences is the same. Doing the historiography of kalam (theology) is a valuable craft. Similarly, doing the historiography of fiqh (jurisprudence), tafsir (exegesis), logic, and other sciences are among valuable pursuits and beneficial sciences. Indeed, the value and importance of history and historical disciplines have increased manifold in the contemporary paradigm. Today, no discipline is regarded as an isolated collection of issues independently of the historical phases it has gone through from its birth to the present and the insights it has gained in these phases; an expert who is to speak about the contemporary issues of a discipline is expected to be acquainted at a certain level with the historical development of that discipline and the world of meaning and value it carries to the present within its own tradition. Because the contemporary paradigm considers that today’s language, context, concern, anxiety, and content are shaped to a very large extent under the influence of the accumulation in history. For this reason, knowing the history of a science stands in a vital position for understanding the present of that science and making lasting impacts on its future. Yes, this is the case; however, when we return to the reality of Islamic sciences, we also need to look at the other side of the coin.

The science of kalam is the science of kalam; it is not the science of the history of the science of kalam. Doing kalam is one thing, doing the historiography of kalam is another. Fiqh is fiqh; it is not the history and sociology of fiqh. Likewise, fiqh is not “fiqh studies” or, in other words, “Islamic law studies.” The primary objective is kalam, not the historiography of kalam. Even if the history of kalam is important (muhim), it is not the most important (ahamm); what is most important is kalam itself. Even though doing the historiography of Islamic sciences under the name of intellectual historiography is an important activity, it can never reach the value and necessity of what is most important, and engaging with the important while the most important is waiting will not absolve a person of responsibility. Preferring the means over the end unfortunately stems from an ignorance or a prioritization of worldly interests. What scholars historically condemned as “qil wa qal” (he said, she said / idle talk) is almost seen today as the primary job under the name of “intellectual history” (intellectual history), and it receives encouragement and demand at a level that causes the primary objective to be missed and neglected. One of the most fundamental aspects obscuring this problem is that the activities formerly called qil wa qal have now become a profession under the title of “intellectual history” and that these qil wa qals can be transformed into academic commodities that bring various worldly benefits. However, neither its becoming a sophisticated profession nor its bringing prestige and worldly goods changes the fact that, in the final analysis, intellectual historiography is “contemporary qil wa qal literature.” One of the sources of the problem is that truly investigating (tahqiq) the sciences themselves and fulfilling their purposes of existence within today’s context requires long and arduous work, whereas the craft of historiography can yield its worldly fruits even within a few years. Thoughts and studies that emerged as a natural result of the scholars’ journeys of understanding, living, and keeping Islam alive have become materials for interesting fictions and glamorous scenarios in the hands of intellectual historians specialized in various techniques. Depending on the quality of the scenario and material, these historians, acting some as scrap dealers and some as antique dealers, consume the capital of their lives in the dark corridors of manuscript libraries and the secluded corners of intellectual traditions in pursuit of an undiscovered treatise, a gloss (hashiya) that has not seen the light of day, or an unprocessed idea. However, whatever the case may be, for those whose manner of engaging with Islamic sciences does not go beyond producing contemporary qil wa qal literature, this situation does not save them from a share of the responsibility of the communal obligation (fard al-kifaya) aimed at fulfilling the existential purposes of these sciences, nor from the threat of the majestic verse, (وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا) “And do not exchange My signs for a small price.”