M
MartinJordan
Guest
Looking forward to see what you were able to compile.
Re : The Constantine era , I’m keen to know what Islamic academics have taught. Have any info on that mamlukman?
MJ
- Status
Re : The Constantine era , I’m keen to know what Islamic academics have taught. Have any info on that mamlukman?
MJ
M
mamlukman
Guest
OK, I’m here to report back from my excursion into the American Historical Society forum. My question was: Are there any Muslim historians who are specialists in pre-Islamic history, other than those who specialize in the ancient history of their own countries?
I have to say I got beat up pretty badly just for asking the question. It’s not politically correct, you see. And the AHA ended up closing the thread because the tone was deteriorating rapidly. So much for objective scholarship, the search for truth, and all that nonsense.
After a week, no one could come up with any names at all. I think this in itself is an answer.
Some people mentioned that Muslims study the pre-Islamic period in Arabia, but the fact that Muslims who study the early Islamic period and the origins of Islam spend some time on the pre-Islamic background does not show that they are interested in the pre-Islamic period for its own sake, it merely confirms that they are interested in this period only insofar as it relates to Islam. Similarly, someone who studies the social, religious, and political conditions of early 1st c. Palestine to better understand the rise of Christianity would not generally be seen as studying “Roman history.”
Others mentioned Arab historians who were writing in the 10th and 11th centuries. But even in these cases the only examples they could find were 1) universal histories that devoted a few pages to the non-Muslim world 2) travel narratives (remember “The Thirteenth Warrior” with Antonio Bandares? It’s based on Ibn Fadlan’s travels up the Volga) and 3) biographical dictionaries that have an odd non-Muslim mentioned here and there. Again, this isn’t what I’m looking for–first, it’s 1,000+ years ago, and second none of the authors specialized in a non-Muslim area. In other words, no Arab historian in the 11th century wrote a history of Germany, or the Vikings. Now mind you, at that time Europeans weren’t too interested in the rest of the world either. So I’m not “blaming” Muslim historians of that period, I’m simply saying that the professors who brought up examples from this period either didn’t understand the question or used bad examples.
I attempted to have a look at the Cairo University faculty list, but in practice it was not very helpful, and it certainly wasn’t easy: it lists 7,117 “scholars” who apparently range from any graduate student on up. I slogged through 960 entries and found one woman specializing in Greek philosophy and one in Latin literature. No one in history. 2 out of 960 = 0.2%. And I can’t tell by the names alone what religion these women are (Christian or Muslim); and of course Greek philosophy and Latin literature are not history. The American U. in Cairo doesn’t seem to list faculty on its web site, but when I taught there all courses in non-Islamic history were taught by visiting professors from Europe and the US. I suspect AUB (Beirut) is the same, but I don’t know.
Someone in this thread talked about elementary school students studying world history. But this is not what I mean, nor what the original poster meant: the question is, would a Muslim have an interest in specializing in the history of a period or country that had nothing to do with Islam? So far I don’t have any examples…
One professor in California said I sounded like Fox News and wrote that “We don’t question why a non-Muslim would study Muslim history, so why should we question why a Muslim would study non-Muslim history?” This is just pure nonsense. Anyone who has read Edward Said’s “Orientalism” knows that it is an attack on the motives of all Western scholars of the Middle East. Said attributes all sorts of motives to Western scholars: missionary activity, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc. The one motive he does not attribute to Western scholars is simple academic curiosity about another culture. Unfortunately, Said’s views have now become the conventional wisdom, despite refutations by people like Robert Irwin. In light of this, it’s simply wrong to assert that “we don’t question why a non-Muslim would study Muslim history.” “We” do. Constantly. And it’s virtually unchallenged, certainly among the general public.
Let’s use another example, just for fun. Let’s say I had some theory that Japan is an ethnically-closed formerly imperialistic society, and I wondered how many Japanese historians specialized in non-Japanese history: in other words, do Japanese have an active interest in history outside of Japan? In fact, I don’t need to ask that question because there are lots of Japanese scholars studying all sorts of history. In my own specialty (Egypt 1259-1517), there is a whole school of Japanese scholars who study this period, know Arabic, and write extensively about it. I even know some of them. Their motives are simply academic curiosity.
I have to say I got beat up pretty badly just for asking the question. It’s not politically correct, you see. And the AHA ended up closing the thread because the tone was deteriorating rapidly. So much for objective scholarship, the search for truth, and all that nonsense.
After a week, no one could come up with any names at all. I think this in itself is an answer.
Some people mentioned that Muslims study the pre-Islamic period in Arabia, but the fact that Muslims who study the early Islamic period and the origins of Islam spend some time on the pre-Islamic background does not show that they are interested in the pre-Islamic period for its own sake, it merely confirms that they are interested in this period only insofar as it relates to Islam. Similarly, someone who studies the social, religious, and political conditions of early 1st c. Palestine to better understand the rise of Christianity would not generally be seen as studying “Roman history.”
Others mentioned Arab historians who were writing in the 10th and 11th centuries. But even in these cases the only examples they could find were 1) universal histories that devoted a few pages to the non-Muslim world 2) travel narratives (remember “The Thirteenth Warrior” with Antonio Bandares? It’s based on Ibn Fadlan’s travels up the Volga) and 3) biographical dictionaries that have an odd non-Muslim mentioned here and there. Again, this isn’t what I’m looking for–first, it’s 1,000+ years ago, and second none of the authors specialized in a non-Muslim area. In other words, no Arab historian in the 11th century wrote a history of Germany, or the Vikings. Now mind you, at that time Europeans weren’t too interested in the rest of the world either. So I’m not “blaming” Muslim historians of that period, I’m simply saying that the professors who brought up examples from this period either didn’t understand the question or used bad examples.
I attempted to have a look at the Cairo University faculty list, but in practice it was not very helpful, and it certainly wasn’t easy: it lists 7,117 “scholars” who apparently range from any graduate student on up. I slogged through 960 entries and found one woman specializing in Greek philosophy and one in Latin literature. No one in history. 2 out of 960 = 0.2%. And I can’t tell by the names alone what religion these women are (Christian or Muslim); and of course Greek philosophy and Latin literature are not history. The American U. in Cairo doesn’t seem to list faculty on its web site, but when I taught there all courses in non-Islamic history were taught by visiting professors from Europe and the US. I suspect AUB (Beirut) is the same, but I don’t know.
Someone in this thread talked about elementary school students studying world history. But this is not what I mean, nor what the original poster meant: the question is, would a Muslim have an interest in specializing in the history of a period or country that had nothing to do with Islam? So far I don’t have any examples…
One professor in California said I sounded like Fox News and wrote that “We don’t question why a non-Muslim would study Muslim history, so why should we question why a Muslim would study non-Muslim history?” This is just pure nonsense. Anyone who has read Edward Said’s “Orientalism” knows that it is an attack on the motives of all Western scholars of the Middle East. Said attributes all sorts of motives to Western scholars: missionary activity, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc. The one motive he does not attribute to Western scholars is simple academic curiosity about another culture. Unfortunately, Said’s views have now become the conventional wisdom, despite refutations by people like Robert Irwin. In light of this, it’s simply wrong to assert that “we don’t question why a non-Muslim would study Muslim history.” “We” do. Constantly. And it’s virtually unchallenged, certainly among the general public.
Let’s use another example, just for fun. Let’s say I had some theory that Japan is an ethnically-closed formerly imperialistic society, and I wondered how many Japanese historians specialized in non-Japanese history: in other words, do Japanese have an active interest in history outside of Japan? In fact, I don’t need to ask that question because there are lots of Japanese scholars studying all sorts of history. In my own specialty (Egypt 1259-1517), there is a whole school of Japanese scholars who study this period, know Arabic, and write extensively about it. I even know some of them. Their motives are simply academic curiosity.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Hi Martin
Being the typical PITA hair-splitter that I am, I need to ask what you mean by the question. It is not clear to me
What do you mean by:
Muslim historians
Do you mean (1) historians who happened to be Muslims. Then, I think there are plenty of excellent professors of history who teaches academically in our conventional Western critical manner. Ref post by mamlukman
Or do you mean (2) Muslims schooled in Islamic thought only who refers to the word ‘history’ in their teaching but do not apply our conventional understanding of history (in the tradition of Herodotus and Josephus) and so are not considered by our Western academicians as historians. They would, on the other hand, of course see our history academicians as ignorant non-believers.
teach
Do you mean (1) teach in our Western conventional sense of a critical evaluation of facts evidenced by documents or artifacts, arriving at a conclusion after considering wider context from other historical, social and scientific (including, for example, historical geological records) understanding? Then, yes there are plenty. See above
Or do you mean (2) transmitting a truth, as has been transmitted to them, that is based on an understanding of their religion, centred on the inerrant supremacy of the literal reading of their scriptures, through which all historical evidence will be edited and/or interpreted. Western academicians would not considered that as teaching nor their conclusions as logical but that wold be a moot point as Western academicians would not considered them as historians in the first place. They would consider our history academicians as … (see above)
Roman history
Do you mean (1) what Western history understand as the Roman Empire and their claimed successors (maybe even the Holy Roman Empire)? ref post by porthos
Or do you mean (2) history of the Christian church? Based on the Quran reference to the Christian Church as ‘the Romans’?
If your question is (1) all the way, then yes there are plenty. All the posts posted so far seems to understand your question in this manner. Having said that, at least some of these historians would be constrained by the forces described in (2), especially if they teach in universities in Muslim-majority countries. So while the methodology may be familiar, certain conclusions seem to be out of bounds if they conflict with Islamic orthodoxy.
But seeing the history of your posts, you probably mean (2). You want to debate on the history of the Church with some (in our eyes) uneducated guy who have only read an Arabic Quran and commentaries of a certain slant?
Best of luck. I doubt if you will find such a person on this forum. They have their own echo chamber on the internet. And it is really no point talking to them unless you just want to poke fun at their lack of logic (our understanding of logic). They just amaze me that the way human ingenuity can stretch every piece of evidence (which to us is crystal clear) to suit their world view (cue Bible fundamentalists’ teaching that dinosaurs going extinct as result of the Flood - just that with these people, it is even more ingenious).
Being the typical PITA hair-splitter that I am, I need to ask what you mean by the question. It is not clear to me
What do you mean by:
Muslim historians
Do you mean (1) historians who happened to be Muslims. Then, I think there are plenty of excellent professors of history who teaches academically in our conventional Western critical manner. Ref post by mamlukman
Or do you mean (2) Muslims schooled in Islamic thought only who refers to the word ‘history’ in their teaching but do not apply our conventional understanding of history (in the tradition of Herodotus and Josephus) and so are not considered by our Western academicians as historians. They would, on the other hand, of course see our history academicians as ignorant non-believers.
teach
Do you mean (1) teach in our Western conventional sense of a critical evaluation of facts evidenced by documents or artifacts, arriving at a conclusion after considering wider context from other historical, social and scientific (including, for example, historical geological records) understanding? Then, yes there are plenty. See above
Or do you mean (2) transmitting a truth, as has been transmitted to them, that is based on an understanding of their religion, centred on the inerrant supremacy of the literal reading of their scriptures, through which all historical evidence will be edited and/or interpreted. Western academicians would not considered that as teaching nor their conclusions as logical but that wold be a moot point as Western academicians would not considered them as historians in the first place. They would consider our history academicians as … (see above)
Roman history
Do you mean (1) what Western history understand as the Roman Empire and their claimed successors (maybe even the Holy Roman Empire)? ref post by porthos
Or do you mean (2) history of the Christian church? Based on the Quran reference to the Christian Church as ‘the Romans’?
If your question is (1) all the way, then yes there are plenty. All the posts posted so far seems to understand your question in this manner. Having said that, at least some of these historians would be constrained by the forces described in (2), especially if they teach in universities in Muslim-majority countries. So while the methodology may be familiar, certain conclusions seem to be out of bounds if they conflict with Islamic orthodoxy.
But seeing the history of your posts, you probably mean (2). You want to debate on the history of the Church with some (in our eyes) uneducated guy who have only read an Arabic Quran and commentaries of a certain slant?
Best of luck. I doubt if you will find such a person on this forum. They have their own echo chamber on the internet. And it is really no point talking to them unless you just want to poke fun at their lack of logic (our understanding of logic). They just amaze me that the way human ingenuity can stretch every piece of evidence (which to us is crystal clear) to suit their world view (cue Bible fundamentalists’ teaching that dinosaurs going extinct as result of the Flood - just that with these people, it is even more ingenious).
D
DebChris
Guest
Exactly. Islam is a religion. There are many Muslims living and learning in Western universities. Middle Eastern or Arab countries generally consider Islam as the state religion. The amount of press and educational censorship varies by country.Hi Martin
Being the typical PITA hair-splitter that I am, I need to ask what you mean by the question. It is not clear to me
What do you mean by:
Muslim historians
Do you mean (1) historians who happened to be Muslims. Then, I think there are plenty of excellent professors of history who teaches academically in our conventional Western critical manner. Ref post by mamlukman
Or do you mean (2) Muslims schooled in Islamic thought only who refers to the word ‘history’ in their teaching but do not apply our conventional understanding of history (in the tradition of Herodotus and Josephus) and so are not considered by our Western academicians as historians. They would, on the other hand, of course see our history academicians as ignorant non-believers.
teach
Do you mean (1) teach in our Western conventional sense of a critical evaluation of facts evidenced by documents or artifacts, arriving at a conclusion after considering wider context from other historical, social and scientific (including, for example, historical geological records) understanding? Then, yes there are plenty. See above
Or do you mean (2) transmitting a truth, as has been transmitted to them, that is based on an understanding of their religion, centred on the inerrant supremacy of the literal reading of their scriptures, through which all historical evidence will be edited and/or interpreted. Western academicians would not considered that as teaching nor their conclusions as logical but that wold be a moot point as Western academicians would not considered them as historians in the first place. They would consider our history academicians as … (see above)
Roman history
Do you mean (1) what Western history understand as the Roman Empire and their claimed successors (maybe even the Holy Roman Empire)? ref post by porthos
Or do you mean (2) history of the Christian church? Based on the Quran reference to the Christian Church as ‘the Romans’?
If your question is (1) all the way, then yes there are plenty. All the posts posted so far seems to understand your question in this manner. Having said that, at least some of these historians would be constrained by the forces described in (2), especially if they teach in universities in Muslim-majority countries. So while the methodology may be familiar, certain conclusions seem to be out of bounds if they conflict with Islamic orthodoxy.
But seeing the history of your posts, you probably mean (2). You want to debate on the history of the Church with some (in our eyes) uneducated guy who have only read an Arabic Quran and commentaries of a certain slant?
Best of luck. I doubt if you will find such a person on this forum. They have their own echo chamber on the internet. And it is really no point talking to them unless you just want to poke fun at their lack of logic (our understanding of logic). They just amaze me that the way human ingenuity can stretch every piece of evidence (which to us is crystal clear) to suit their world view (cue Bible fundamentalists’ teaching that dinosaurs going extinct as result of the Flood - just that with these people, it is even more ingenious).
Students from these countries do leave and study in Western countries. It’s not as if they are not exposed to Western thought. New York Tech and Carnegie Mellon have their own Middle Eastern campuses.
This thread seemed as if it was trying from the beginning to bait and re-enforce the stereotype that somehow Arabs and believers in Islam are not critical thinkers. How much do we as Westerners know about Islam or the Arab peninsula? I was a member of an expat group while living overseas, and this whole question was turned back on me. One parent was looking for a school for his child. He rejected the American curriculum because of its lack of a world view. How much do Americans know about the Middle East or any other region than North America?
J
jimkhong
Guest
Haha. I am reminded of a story in the 80’s where American college students were asked to point out on a globe where they lived. Professors were puzzled when students pointed out South or Central America until they realised that these students were from the Deep South and prairie states.
Sometimes, Muslim parents reject American curicula for the same but mirror reasons. They may want more of the stories of the Islamic Golden Age or social/scientific progress during the early/Middle Ages caliphates. Or stories about Arab/Muslim victimhood under European colonialism, etc. Not saying this was the case with this particular parents of course.
D
DebChris
Guest
Arab social studies was mandated by the state and taught in Arabic regardless of curriculum selected. 4th and 5th grade students had to take a citizenship test every year.Haha. I am reminded of a story in the 80’s where American college students were asked to point out on a globe where they lived. Professors were puzzled when students pointed out South or Central America until they realised that these students were from the Deep South and prairie states.
Sometimes, Muslim parents reject American curicula for the same but mirror reasons. They may want more of the stories of the Islamic Golden Age or social/scientific progress during the early/Middle Ages caliphates. Or stories about Arab/Muslim victimhood under European colonialism, etc. Not saying this was the case with this particular parents of course.
Islamic religion was also required for all Muslim students.
Non-Arabic students were exempt. These two classes are in addition to the core subjects taught in English (Language Arts, Social Studies, Math, Science, Specials).
D
Durnford
Guest
I very much doubt it
M
mamlukman
Guest
I won’t speak for the original poster, but yes, I mean #1: historians who happen to be Muslims who are studying non-Islamic history. If there are plenty, please post some names with their research interests. I haven’t been able to come up with any at all.
DebChris: As far as I’m concerned, all this has nothing to do with critical thinking, nor does it have anything to do with what anyone studied in grade school. Nor it is about Middle Eastern students studying abroad (unless they’re studying the history of non-Muslim countries!). None of that addresses the question.
Let me flip it for a second: Yes, American ignorance of the Middle East is abysmal. They can’t even pronounce Iraq and Iran correctly. But that’s not the point: the point is that–at least as of 10 years ago–there are about 5,000 Americans at any given moment studying Arabic in universities around the US, and thousands more in Europe. There are probably some doing it for religious or family reasons, but I would guess that 90%+ do it out of simple interest in the region. (You can’t flip this back and talk about the millions of Arabs studying English–in that case English is just a means to and end: medicine, science, engineering…) If you go to the membership section of the Middle East Studies Association web site mesana.org/mymesa/directory.php of course you will find a lot of Arabic, Iranian, or Turkish names. But you will also find an awful lot of European names–these are people who have no religious or ethnic connection to the Middle East whatsoever, and yet they are intellectually curious about the area, curious enough to spend their careers studying it. So where’s the mirror image of this? That’s the question.
D
DebChris
Guest
English has become the international language. If I am understanding what you are saying, are those in the Middle East studying English? The answer is of course yes. Much of the workforce is imported not only from Europe, but especially from Asia, most notably the Indian subcontinent and the Philippines. There needs to be a common language of communication and that language is not Arabic, but English. Like India, many of the Middle Eastern countries were once British protectorates.
Studies begun at the elementary and secondary level, including history and literature continue into university studies.
How many Americans study Arabic in elementary school? Studies in the Middle East grow up bilingual, with at least Arabic and English as their two major languages. They may also know Hindi or Tagalog depending on the language of the nanny taking care of them at home. Since students are already fluent in English, you will not find them signing up for classes in English in the same way that you will find American students who want to learn Arabic because they are already fluent. They are also required by law to learn French beginning in Middle school.
Just as British and American secondary curriculum would require Western civilization history courses as part of graduation requirements, most Western university systems still have the same requirements, so of course any student coming to America or Europe would continue to pursue those studies. Interest in any subject is planted at the elementary school level.
I probably see more interest in British parliamentary proceedings than what is happening in American politics.
As also mentioned, different countries have varying levels of censorship laws that will dampen how deeply a person will discuss historical or political issues within that particular country. While in America or Europe the person will be freer to study historical developments without governmental scrutiny.
M
mamlukman
Guest
We’re talking past each other. The fact that Muslim Arabs (we’ll use them as the example) study English isn’t the point here–they learn English to study math, science, engineering, and medicine, and to communicate in the business world–or watch TV, movies, etc. The question on this thread is how many study pre-Islamic history as a career interest, outside of the Islamic or native country context.
To put it another way, can we find Moroccans studying Mesopotamia, Iraqis studying Roman North Africa, Egyptians studying ancient China, Syrians studying ancient India, etc.–as a career: history professors, archaeologists, philologists, etc. Whether they study English so they can become engineers might be a good question, but that’s not the issue.
The point I tried to make (apparently unsuccessfully!) about 5,000 students of Arabic in the US is that these students (with a few exceptions for religious and family reasons) are studying the language because of their interest in another culture–they’re not studying Arabic to become doctors, engineers, or scientists. They’re studying Arabic to become history professors, foreign service officers, spies, whatever–some will pursue it further than others, but my point was that there are a large number (probably 1,000+ is a good guess) whose professional careers revolve around the Middle East. The question is, is there a mirror image of that?
D
DebChris
Guest
The only thing that I know is that history was generally my students’ favorite subject. I do expect students will continue to study those subjects in which they find an interest. Admittedly at the 4th grade and 5th grade level the course moved rather quickly and there was only time for an overview, an introduction to the subject. They would come back to World History again in grades 7 and again during their Sophomore years in HS.
A 4th grader in the US would be studying about his/her state, while a 5th grader would be studying about the US as a whole. Obviously accommodations had to be made for an international student body. Language arts was still focused on American historical events. They followed the same basic core curriculum as American students.
Fourth graders had to first develop the concept of history. They moved from prehistoric development of hunter gatherers into learning about Mesopotamia. They also learned about the Aztecs and South American and African cultures. All of this is definitely before Islam. They learned about Alexander and the development of the caste system of India as part of Hinduism. They learned about Confucius, Zoroastrianism and Taoism.
Grade 5 was a continuation of what had started in Grade 4. In Grade 4, students had learned about how the Greeks influenced Roman civilization and the development of Christianity. Grade 5 almost immediately opens with the Reformation. They learn about the Vikings and the settlement of Russia. They’re also learning about how Europe is sending out explorers to develop trade routes to Asia, the silk road and explore territory in the New World. They learn about the Age of Reason and the Industrial Revolution. They learn about the slave trade. They know about Montezuma.
In other words, Grade 4 focused on Ancient History which would end with the Middle Ages. Grade 5 starts with the Middle Ages and continues to 20th century. I taught both grades.
Anything to do with Islam and the Arab world is covered in Arab Social Studies.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Hey neighbour!Hi Martin
Being the typical PITA hair-splitter that I am, I need to ask what you mean by the question. It is not clear to me
What do you mean by:
Muslim historians
Do you mean (1) historians who happened to be Muslims. Then, I think there are plenty of excellent professors of history who teaches academically in our conventional Western critical manner. Ref post by mamlukman
Or do you mean (2) Muslims schooled in Islamic thought only who refers to the word ‘history’ in their teaching but do not apply our conventional understanding of history (in the tradition of Herodotus and Josephus) and so are not considered by our Western academicians as historians. They would, on the other hand, of course see our history academicians as ignorant non-believers.
teach
Do you mean (1) teach in our Western conventional sense of a critical evaluation of facts evidenced by documents or artifacts, arriving at a conclusion after considering wider context from other historical, social and scientific (including, for example, historical geological records) understanding? Then, yes there are plenty. See above
Or do you mean (2) transmitting a truth, as has been transmitted to them, that is based on an understanding of their religion, centred on the inerrant supremacy of the literal reading of their scriptures, through which all historical evidence will be edited and/or interpreted. Western academicians would not considered that as teaching nor their conclusions as logical but that wold be a moot point as Western academicians would not considered them as historians in the first place. They would consider our history academicians as … (see above)
Roman history
Do you mean (1) what Western history understand as the Roman Empire and their claimed successors (maybe even the Holy Roman Empire)? ref post by porthos
Or do you mean (2) history of the Christian church? Based on the Quran reference to the Christian Church as ‘the Romans’?
If your question is (1) all the way, then yes there are plenty. All the posts posted so far seems to understand your question in this manner. Having said that, at least some of these historians would be constrained by the forces described in (2), especially if they teach in universities in Muslim-majority countries. So while the methodology may be familiar, certain conclusions seem to be out of bounds if they conflict with Islamic orthodoxy.
But seeing the history of your posts, you probably mean (2). You want to debate on the history of the Church with some (in our eyes) uneducated guy who have only read an Arabic Quran and commentaries of a certain slant?
Best of luck. I doubt if you will find such a person on this forum. They have their own echo chamber on the internet. And it is really no point talking to them unless you just want to poke fun at their lack of logic (our understanding of logic). They just amaze me that the way human ingenuity can stretch every piece of evidence (which to us is crystal clear) to suit their world view (cue Bible fundamentalists’ teaching that dinosaurs going extinct as result of the Flood - just that with these people, it is even more ingenious).
My q is mostly pertaining to Muslim (believer) and who happened to be an academic/lecturer professor in an University rather than an anonymous Muslim poster.
Basic question in my mind to them would be to ask how much does the Qur’an and in extension the Hadiths etc base its writings of the events of their prophet “Isa”
I ask this not to debate but to explain how they know about Isa (who they claim is the Christian Jesus ) without clarifying the History of Israel which was occupied by the Romans and since Christians are “people of the book” as well as Jews.
Just a simple run down of my curiosity. Hence starting this thread.
MJ
J
jimkhong
Guest
In my country (which is only 60% Muslim), history is a compulsory subject in schools and a mandatory pass is required for a school leaving certificate. The thick books used largely centre on national history and Islamic civilisation. They are of course tailored to fit a particular political narrative. Very much unlike the world history that I studied in school.
In universitites here, history is taught is the usual academic manner that many would be familiar in the West. I believe that in many Muslim-majority countries, this would be the case. (Sorry mamlukman to be non-American centric in an American-hosted website
).The problem is not whether the Muslim history professors are there, but that they are largely muzzled, by political, academic-administrative and social pressures. It is difficult for a Muslim professor to public present a history which (for instance) talks of pre-Islamic (particularly Christian) influences on Islamic culture today. Anything contrary to the preferred narrative of Islamic greatness would be anathema to the general Muslim public and the religious authorities. And this is no matter how much the Muslim professor understand the Western-received history themselves - self-censorship is the honorable thing here.
So, many Muslims are fed myths and stories with little basis in historical evidence. Which is what contributes to the strain in Muslim societies all over the world - the evident lack of progress & prosperity in Muslim societies in social, economic (other then oil wealth) and political fields are at odds with the myths of the Islamic golden age. The conclusion is therefore that Islamic greatness has been stolen from Muslims by the crusading Christians.
In my country, and I presume in many other Muslim majority countries, academicians and other intellectuals are beginning to speak out but they have little influence outside the English-educated and Western-exposed middle class and none whatsoever among the uneducated (from Western point of view) clerics and the vast majority of the umat with the only-Islam-is-great world view. It may be a first step by Western-exposed Muslim intellectuals towards an Islamic Enlightenment that will take a good few centuries. Ironic isn’t it - considering that the European Enlightenment grew out of the Renaissance, which was sparked off by material brought back from the Islamic schools.
- Status