dear brother, below is an explanation of each sentence in the first post...please forgive my IT skills... “The focus of Tarikh can be either of being or becoming” the study of history into being or becoming simply means that when tarikh is reporting ‘as it was’ then it is history of being which is analogous to rest as opposed to motion; which on the other hand is ‘becoming’…so when history deals with transformation and gradual changes i.e. from one stage to another then it is tarikh of becoming and when it deals with just a state of affair as it was then it is history of being….these divisions of history emanate from our philosophical ideas about ‘asalat al-wujud’……. “but its unqualified definition could be an account of that which occured in the past.” Now, apart from the two prongs of historical investigation , mentioned earlier, antecedently, we need to define what history is in the first place but given the traditional, scientific, philosophical etc claims of the definition of history therefore we only at this stage required a stipulative definition; to which all schools are in agreement at a general level…also ‘unqualified’ because a definition of something in mantiq means that it must have both genus(jins) and differentia(fasl) for it to count as jami/mani definition so we just presented a general idea in its place…. “the big issue is not the report itself but rather an interpretation of that report.” Here the real idea behind the thread is introduced…our concern is not about the authenticity or reliability of a historical document but rather the theory of its interpretation…how and on what basis and what principles, can we claim to interpret the past….. “”we have two diametrically opposed interpretative frameworks, namely, causation and chance..”” now, finally, dear brother, we have reached the point of the whole point of our intended discussion and everything discussed previously was just a process of elimination about any other worry that may have hindered our quest. So we have reached the two theories of interpretation of history, namely, causation and chance…about chance we have already given some genuine examples so we just need to elucidate here about the idea of causation in historical interpretation….the question is ‘does causation govern history?’..if it does then occurrence of every incident should be ‘inevitable’ and this means that some kind of determinism governs history? If this is not the case then there is no universality, which means there are no laws that govern history….either way, whether it is chance or causation, praise or blame cannot be meted out because there is no responsibility…….simply, if there was one question in all our discussion then that question is ‘does history have laws?