Islam and World History

Abstract

The Western Scheme for the Periodization of HistoryAmong the greatest problems met with in historical work generally isthe frequent inability of the historian to liberate himself/herself from hidherown immediate background and environment and to cultivate a sense ofdetachment. Yet such detachment is necessary, for even if it will not leadto true objectivity, it will at least help produce more accurate results.Unfortunately, this detachment is the most difficult to achieve in preciselythose areas of the biggest, most familiar, and hence most importantassumptions. When these are skewed from the beginning, the entire thoughtprocess becomes skewed as well, with the result that all subsequent workis affected.This lack of detachment is outstandingly demonstrated by the ubiquitousWestern loyalty to a Eurocentric categorization and subdivision of world historythat informs virtually all Western historical thought. Dividing all of humanhistory into ancient, medieval, and modern periods revolving around WesternEurope, this schematization is promoted as if it were the final, fair, andobjective system for explaining all of history. It is then applied with thethoroughness one associates with state ideologies. All American students aretaught the tripartite ancient - medieval -modern scheme in high school. Itis also the basis for most history courses at the university level. Professorialappointments depend on it and thus do not encourage their holders to rebelagainst it. Textbook companies resist changing it because books holding tothis scheme are demanded by schools, colleges, and universities. Even theultraconservative American secretary of education, William Bennett, in 1988promoted this Western historical scheme and bemoaned its supposed decline.The Western schematization of world history is, in short, a hallowed traditionwhich it is difficult to ignore and still harder to break away from ...