[This article was originally published in Arabic on 9 November 2024.]
Easy access to archives and their contents represents a major challenge for researchers in the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula studies. Generally speaking, the history of this region is not largely a written one; it mainly depends on oral history, particularly in relation to the sheikhdoms that were vital commercial and political centers. The more a researcher becomes interested in the history of the sheikhdoms in the Gulf, the more important oral history becomes a primary source of information. However, when the focus shifts to the inner urban cities of the Arabian Peninsula, the importance of this type of source diminishes.
This difficulty in accessing sources through archives or oral history has become an obstacle to writing history from unofficial perspectives or other perspectives approved by the social forces in Gulf societies. This article is an attempt to demonstrate how uncovering this suppressed history will enable researchers and those interested in the history of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula to address more topics and deeply study society and the evolution of ideas, which will inevitably impact other disciplines addressing these societies. I do not believe that Gulf societies have a historical specificity; rather, it is a methodological problem regarding how to deal with historical sources in this geographic region, especially since academic writings on the Gulf, particularly in Arabic, have not sought to address these difficulties nor simultaneously explain and resolve them.
Najd, for example, was not such a major scholarly center compared to other urban cities such as those of Yemen, Iraq, or Oman. However, historical writing in Najd appeared in the 11th century AH, specifically modern history, not the medieval period. However, the reason for port cities' lack of interest in documenting their history in greater detail remains unclear, although the importance of historical documentation was already perceived by the schools of jurisprudence present in the ports. Many scholars of these schools implicitly documented history in their jurisprudential works, or through books on the history of the Arabian Peninsula.
In Bahrain, for example, history was documented in Persian, as in the writings of Muhammad Ibrahim al-Kazrouni on the Islands of Bahrain in 1837, preceded by a book on the biographies of scholars, the Index of Bahraini Scholars, written in Arabic by Sulayman al-Mahouzi in 1709. In Najd, for example, historical writing began in the early 11th century AH with Ahmad al-Bassam, who adopted the annals method. However, it remains unclear why the history of coastal sheikhdoms such as Bahrain and Kuwait, which emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, was not documented till the 20th century.
Investigating Kuwaiti history, for example, we notice a lack of historical documentation by those living in Kuwait, with no specific reason for this historical gap. Some argue that historical documentation in Kuwait began with Uthman ibn Sanad, although he was not Kuwaiti in the current understanding of today's historians, and he did not write much about Kuwait. In Kuwait, there are legal records and royal documents dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, along with religious manuscripts such as al-Muwatta manuscript on the jurisprudence of Imam Malik; however, Kuwaiti historical writings had not begun till the 20th century with Abdulaziz al-Rasheed's book, The History of Kuwait.
In reality, access to archives, along with the legal, political, and social restrictions imposed by governments on these archives, has made it difficult for researchers to have an access to important historical documents. As a result, many aspects of history disappeared or were concealed. Since the formation of the Gulf states in the Mid-20th century, and although academic and non-academic writings are often based on official narratives, these narratives tend to focus on the core elements of history, such as ruling families, merchant classes, and religious classes, ignoring the histories of marginalized groups, controversial events, and even other religious sects that have shaped the region's history.
concealing these aspects of history has played a fundamental role in shaping the notions of national identity and citizenship. In Kuwait, for example, this obscurity downplayed some social groups that contributed to the development of the country before the discovery of oil, such as migrant workers and the working class. In Bahrain, it obscured the role of the religious and political groups that demanded social and political reforms.
Suppressed History: Theory vs Practice
Suppressed history refers to the intentional concealment or exclusion of certain aspects of history from official or public narratives. This concealment is deliberately carried out by authorities or religious, political, and cultural elites. This concealment primarily aims to control the historical narrative and the current understanding of the past. This is often achieved by political or social authorities who believe that highlighting certain events or addressing the roles of marginalized groups may threaten their legitimacy or distort the national narrative they promote. As Edward Said noted in his discussion of orientalism and colonialism, writing history from the perspective of power requires a kind of negligence to the voices that do not conform to the political and social dominance of elites. In this way, suppression of history becomes a powerful means of shaping collective memory and directing public perception of events in line with the interests of the ruling or influential class.
Methodologically speaking, this process can be explained through two main perspectives:
- The political control over historical archives and documentary sources,
- Selectivity in recording history, which involves the omission or underestimation of the roles that do not conform to the desired narratives.
In this context, archives are perceived as a tool of power; the state or controlling entities restrict access to certain documents or hide them from the public under the pretext of maintaining security or keeping social stability. This approach matches Michel Foucault's hypothesis in The Archaeology of Knowledge, in which he argues that power involves controlling not only people but also the information and knowledge itself. This control prevents researchers from gaining the full truth, leading them to a biased and incomplete perception of history.
Suppressed history is not limited to political events; but extends to social groups that have been marginalized or concealed from historical memory. These groups may include women, religious or ethnic minorities, the poor, or even groups that were in conflict with authority at certain historical junctures. These groups are normally concealed from official narratives, which focus on ruling elites and dominant social classes. Thus, official history not only conceals the roles of marginal groups, but rather reshapes history in order to perpetuate the power and social control of the groups that have been effective in official history. As Edward Said pointed out in his discussion of orientalism and colonialism, colonialism is not only an invasion of land but also an invasion of historical memory, where the past is reshaped to justify present domination.
From an academic perspective, suppression of history is viewed as part of the broader dynamics of national identity formation. Ruling elites reshape history in such a way that gets the public to adopt a unified narrative understanding of the past, one that demonstrates strength and continuity, and minimizes the role of crises or conflicts that might undermine the legitimacy of power. This approach reinforces power and control by directing official historical narratives, as Walter Benjamin noted in his Theses on the Philosophy of History, history is always written from the victors' perspective, and the first casualty of these wars is the truth. Benjamin argues that history is often written by the victors, who tend to conceal or distort the events that might diminish their legitimacy or make them vulnerable to criticism.
Ultimately, it can be said that suppressed history aims to obscure historical facts from the collective awareness and creates significant gaps in societies' historical knowledge. This leads to a distorted view of the past that does not fully depict historical reality. Hence, it is the academics and researchers' responsibility to uncover this suppressed history through attempts to access and reexamine the hidden documents. Historian Howard Zinn, in his book, A People's History of the United States, states that official history's narrative conceals the fact that political and economic elites have exploited their power to shape the past in a way that serves their interests. He considers the attempt to uncover the full truth and reintegrate silenced voices a step towards a systematic correction of historical writing and the achievement of historical justice.
Historian silence, on the other hand, is a situation in which historians avoid writing about certain historical events or issues. This may result from fear of political power; addressing sensitive issues could result in a threat to a historian's life, political targeting, or legal action. In addition, silence can result from cultural or social bias; certain issues are considered inappropriate for research or unacceptable within prevailing social norms.
To differentiate between silent history and suppressed history, silent history excludes events or figures for certain reasons, such as the absence of evidence or the low significance of those events at the time. In this case, the silence results from the limitedness of documentation or non-significance of those events within the broader historical context. This silence is driven by the historian's authority over historical writing. In contrast, suppressed history is deliberately concealed, whether by authorities, official institutions, political regimes, or even social groups. This involves some kind of censorship or deliberate concealment of information in relation to certain events. Systematic publication or investigation of those events is prevented. Suppressed history aims to marginalize or distort historical events that might negatively impact the official narrative of history.
The core difference between silent history and suppressed history lies in the purpose of that silence. While silent history is a natural consequence of a lack of information or interest in certain events, suppression is a result of a deliberate decision to conceal or distort historical evidence to preserve a certain narrative.
The main writings on the history of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula and the emergence of suppressed history
Primary writings, alternatively known as as historical sources, on the history of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula were more daring in chronicling contemporary events. There were restrictions on their political, religious, and cultural writings, which made some of these writings biased, marginalizing a particular social sector, or demonizing their opponents.
After the independence of the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula states, governmental and private institutions emerged and controlled historical knowledge by monopolizing information and documents and limiting access to them to those who write within the general context of the state's official history or in accordance with the social, religious, and political guidelines of private institutions.
Official cultural institutions themselves are sometimes in conflict or have bureaucracies that affect the dissemination of historical knowledge, as discussed by Rosie Bashir in her book, Archive Wars: The Politics of History in Saudi Arabia.
This is the case in Oman, except for a few differences. In the book published in 2024, Oman: The People and the State, Saeed Sultan Al-Hashimi discusses the major challenges facing the cultural sector in Oman as a result of the institutional conflict between several government agencies. This conflict, which began in the 1970s between the Ministry of Information and Culture, the Ministry of National Heritage, and the Omani Manuscripts Collection Authority, under the Royal Court, directly impacted the performance of the cultural sector; many rare documents were lost by these institutions since there wasn't any effective coordination between them.
Al-Hashimi highlighted the problem of institutional instability in the cultural sector decision-making, which wasted financial resources on cultural projects that were either incomplete or ignored without clear accountability mechanisms. This conflict has impacted efforts to preserve Omani heritage, particularly ancient manuscripts owned by jurists and scholars. Due to this administrative chaos, some books have been distorted, especially those contradicting the official narrative of political and religious history.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the scope of inter-institutional conflict expanded as a result of the introduction of Sultan Qaboos University into the cultural arena, adding further challenges to the determination of who can represent the Sultanate in international forums and setting cultural projects priorities. In this context, official history gained greater significance due to the lack of evidence available to researchers, according to Al-Hashimi. This led to the suppression and concealment of parts of Omani history, particularly those related to the Imamate, Dhofar, and certain social topics.
Societal pressure on individuals to follow the official narrative of history may limit the freedom to express individual and collective identities.
Archives in the Arab Gulf states do not allow direct access to the available documents and historical inventory. Researchers of the region's history cannot access these contents because this information is not readily available. These archives should be primarily designed to make their contents readily available to researchers, but this is not the case in most of today's Arab Gulf archives. The mechanism for accessing archives is unclear, and the role of these archives is seen as a monopoly of history for researchers who record and develop the official writing of history. The reason why this bureaucracy in Gulf archives has developed is still unclear. Was it a result of the conflict between political leaders, administrative laxity, lack of awareness of the importance of different perspectives for writing history from, or other reasons?
For example, the Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait was established in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by an Amiri decree issued in 1992. The decree states that the center's purpose is to record the history of Kuwait, preserve documents related to the Iraqi invasion and respond to historical inaccuracies and false claims. The same applies to the publication of the British archives, sponsored by the Qatar National Library and the UAE through the Arabian Gulf Digital Archive. Visitors to this electronic archive will notice that some documents are being concealed. Is it the laws issued by Gulf countries or to the archival source itself? All of these questions may need a deeper examination in order to uncover the real problems behind the suppression of history.
The blame for suppression of history shouldn't be put only on official authorities; historians as well as private institutions that owned archives also played a role. Families themselves might even conceal parts of their archives and obliterate others for social, economic, and political reasons. One of the most prominent examples of suppressed history - one that might be challenged by silent history - is the events of 1938 in Kuwait. When Saif Marzouq Al-Shamlan, the Kuwaiti historian, arrived during this sensitive and important period in Kuwait's history, he ignored it under the pretext of its historical proximity, despite the fact that approximately twenty years had passed since the Majlis events when Al-Shamlan published his book.
In his justification, Al-Shamlan stated that he would discuss the early days of Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber's reign and would not discuss the events of 1938 because of their proximity and because those who participated in the events are still alive and are more entitled to speak about them. The historian's decision silenced history; he could have written about the event simultaneously with the publication of Khaled Suleiman Al-Adasani's book, Half a Year of Parliamentary Rule in Kuwait in 1947. Personal interviews would also have been possible, which would have provided insights into a major event in Kuwaiti history, such as the events of the 1938 parliamentary year. The historian's death made it impossible to know for sure whether ignoring the event was a decision by the historian himself, and consequently be classified as silent history, supposing that the historian may have feared that his book would be banned, especially after the ban of Abdulaziz Al-Rasheed's book published in 1926 and Al-Adasani's book published in 1947. Or, was this history suppressed because the historian let his regulatory authority determine the importance of this historical event and thus decided to conceal its details? These questions require further research.
Mohammed Abdulaziz Al-Otaibi is credited with providing the full minutes of the 1938 Legislative Council meetings, publishing them and making them available to researchers. There are still many documents that could be added to the historical analysis of the events of the 1938 Council, especially after the publication of Abdullah Al-Saqr's book by the Center for Kuwaiti Research and Studies, which did not cover the event in detail, given that Abdullah Al-Saqr was the leader of this political movement. So, we don't know whether any documents were deliberately concealed and not included in the book, or there aren't any other documents beyond the 1938 Council, other than the Kazem Al-Solh document. The aim is not to reproach or blame a party or an archive, but rather an attempt to question out loudly why archives are censored and their contents concealed from researchers.
Suppression of historical information may result from its sensitivity, especially when it involves satire or disparagement. Some argue, from a religious point of view, that there is no need to publish such lines since they incite societal discord. This view is logical, but at a methodological and academic level, concealing information is unjustified unless the life of the researcher or the person written about is in danger. Analyzing the situation in the historical context of the Gulf, we find that most of the omissions are related either to social context or perhaps to political issues that are not intended to be revealed. To the credit of some researchers who do not elaborate on such history, they admit its existence. However, they do not elaborate on it in their investigations of some manuscripts to ensure it is not publicly available. However, they admit the deletions, as Ahmed Al-Bassam and Ibrahim Al-Khalidi did in Abdullah Al-Bassam's book Tuhfat Al-Mushtaq regarding the incident of 1278 AH. Sometimes, lines that contain satire are omitted and replaced by dots. In my opinion, this is not part of history suppression, but rather part of the ethical standards that the historian holds, whether religious or social. They are not to be blamed for that as long as they did not obscure the information; they proved its existence but did not elaborate on it. There is also another observation, which is the interference of some researchers. In many cases, we do not know who is involved in obscuring news from photographs of a circulated manuscript. We do not know the specific reason for the obliteration, but within the context, it becomes clear to the reader that it is related to social issues such as the origins or lineages of some families; something that is not accepted by today's society. This example is prominent in the illustrated collection of Ibrahim bin Issa. I did not see the original manuscript, so I was not able to compare the photograph with the original.
As a critical article, it is necessary to praise a favorable cultural initiative that aimed to bring out the suppressed history from the safes of some Gulf archives. For example, in October 2024, the King Abdulaziz Foundation published the complete works of Ibrahim bin Issa. These volumes will be followed by other ones written by this encyclopedic historain. Another project announced by the King Abdulaziz Foundation is printing the legacy of Khaled Al-Faraj, the Kuwaiti poet and writer, following an agreement with his family. Likewise, the Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait contributes to the expansion and enrichment of writing about the Gulf history through the publication of documentary books by some Kuwaiti families. Some documents and information may still remain deliberately concealed within these publications, but the introduction and publication of many of them is better than keeping them hidden in those archives.
Suppressed history vs official history: problems and obstacles
Suppression of history does not only refer to the concealment of specific past events. It often refers to a deliberate strategy that aims to shape collective memory in a way that serves the political and social interests of elites. This concealment is the only means to maintain official narratives that grant legitimacy to elites and reinforce the insignificance or ineffectiveness of marginalized groups in shaping national identity, for example. Marginalizing the less influential social classes, such as migrant workers or religious minorities, controls a society's understanding of its history, thus imposing narratives that portray elites as the only active agents in societal development. This suppression of other histories reinforces cultural dominance and weakens the potential of diversity in historical narratives, undermining a society's ability to view its history from multiple perspectives.
Official history often suppresses alternative histories by controlling the publications of national archives run by states. Financial and administrative capabilities make it difficult to oppose and challenge official history, as historical evidence, documents, and oral records are often made available only to those who write in favor of elites or who adopt their vision of history. This practice enables ruling elites to control historical sources and deprives independent researchers of access to information that would enable them to reconstruct historical contexts in more depth. It is noteworthy that this article is not concerned with the accuracy or validity of official history, but rather highlighting that the written history in the Gulf is not complete: a deficiency that resulted from the domination over archives and historical sources, which necessarily conceals a large share of history.
Another problem with suppressed history, directly related to official history, is official history's focus on specific classes, professions, and ethnicities which led many members of society to refrain from writing their own history since it does not concord with the officially written narrative. This problem did not exist among the founding generation. For example, in Kuwait, those who witnessed the pre- and post-oil era did not feel embarrassed to discuss their personal history, especially in oral interviews that later became important historical documents. The Safahat min Tarikh al-Kuwait "Pages from Kuwait's History" show clearly explains that professionals spoke in great detail about the nature of their work and the difficulties they faced. An analysis of these interviews reveals that these individuals showed pride in their work when using phrases such as "This is the profession of my grandfather and father" or "I have worked in this profession since I was young." This indicates that these historical actors had no problem narrating the reality they experienced without any embellishment or attempt to conceal the truth.
In this context, terms associated with social identity, such as nakhoda, religious scholar, merchant, tawash, tribal knight and sheikh, pharmacist, and educated person, have become symbols that the current generation is trying to cling to. This clinging is fostered by the official writing of history that has given these categories a high symbolic value, while underestimating other categories and professions. This recognition of certain professions and social classes reinforces the importance of elites while marginalizing less influential groups that have also played a crucial role in the development of Gulf societies.
Another major problem in this context is that suppressed history is not only related to the past, but also to the present and future. By marginalizing certain narratives and concealing historical events, a particular identity is imposed on society, one which matches the interests of the elite, deepening the gap between the documented past and the forgotten past. This creates a gap in the understanding of current and future generations of their history; they are unable to fully perceive the dynamics of social, political, and economic change that their societies have experienced.
Criticism of official history often faces political and social resistance. The Gulf states rely on official history as a tool for fabricating a unified and cohesive national identity, considering any attempt to present alternative narratives or highlight suppressed history a threat to this unity. In this context, attempts to correct history or present alternative narratives are perceived as a threat to the nation or its stability. This creates a complex and problematic context that makes open discussion about history difficult, given the ongoing control over archives and historical sources by the ruling elites.
Culturally, societal pressure on individuals to follow the official narrative of history may undermine the freedom to express individual and collective identities. People belonging to historically marginalized groups may avoid discussing their personal experiences or those of their ancestors, especially if they are inconsistent with the official narrative. Official narratives of history have become highly symbolic, making it difficult for individuals with different or conflicting narratives to express or speak about them publicly without facing ignorance or even criticism. This reinforces the ongoing cultural and historical dominance of elite and weakens society's ability to consider the diversity of its identities and components.
Another problem, namely the national identity and citizenship in Kuwait, stems largely from the dominance of official narratives over the mechanisms of identity formation. These narratives are crucial elements to determine who is a citizen and who deserves full integration in history. In this context, loyalty to traditional elites is considered part of the citizenship structure. Therefore, official history is used to exclude social groups, even if they hold Kuwaiti citizenship, only because they are not included in the official narrative of history. They are then regarded as an undesirable group or groups that have stealthily been granted citizenship. This, unfortunately, contradicts the fundamental provisions of the Kuwaiti constitution and laws, which stipulate equal rights for all Kuwaiti citizens.
Reshaping history to include these marginalized groups means recognizing the diversity of society and paving the way to a more diverse and inclusive concept of citizenship, where individuals are valued according to their contributions to society rather than the extent of their presence in official written history.