Islam and World History Towards a New Periodization

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 ...