Islam and World History

Abstract

The Western Scheme for the Periodization of History Among the greatest problems met with in historical work generally is the frequent inability of the historian to liberate himself/herself from hidher own immediate background and environment and to cultivate a sense of detachment. Yet such detachment is necessary, for even if it will not lead to true objectivity, it will at least help produce more accurate results. Unfortunately, this detachment is the most difficult to achieve in precisely those areas of the biggest, most familiar, and hence most important assumptions. When these are skewed from the beginning, the entire thought process becomes skewed as well, with the result that all subsequent work is affected. This lack of detachment is outstandingly demonstrated by the ubiquitous Western loyalty to a Eurocentric categorization and subdivision of world history that informs virtually all Western historical thought. Dividing all of human history into ancient, medieval, and modern periods revolving around Western Europe, this schematization is promoted as if it were the final, fair, and objective system for explaining all of history. It is then applied with the thoroughness one associates with state ideologies. All American students are taught the tripartite ancient - medieval -modern scheme in high school. It is also the basis for most history courses at the university level. Professorial appointments depend on it and thus do not encourage their holders to rebel against it. Textbook companies resist changing it because books holding to this scheme are demanded by schools, colleges, and universities. Even the ultraconservative American secretary of education, William Bennett, in 1988 promoted this Western historical scheme and bemoaned its supposed decline. The Western schematization of world history is, in short, a hallowed tradition which it is difficult to ignore and still harder to break away from ...