In about year 610, an Arab merchant had an experience that would ultimately change the history of the world. This is how I started my essay which I had written during the last week of the first term at Oxford. As you could probably guess I am speaking of Prophet Mohammad here.
Apparently every single part of my first sentence can be much scrutinised and easily doubted in historiography. Was it really the year 610? Was Mohammad an Arab? Was he a merchant? Was it all really happening in Mecca? Where is Mecca? and most importantly -- did Muhammad really exist?
The list of questions is endless and one can really go on with these debates for a very very long period of time. I enjoy looking and studying all these methods and exploring the research tools and ways of looking at history in general, but what strikes me as the most extraordinary thing is the division of scholars.
One group, that is called revisionists, say that they reject the Islamic traditional accounts as they cannot be trusted and the others, traditionalists, say that the revisionists are wrong and that the Islamic historical accounts are all true and cannot be doubted.
These debates have been going on for a long time, and one thing has become obvious to me: At the heart of these divided camps lies a big fear of committing the deadly sin of irrationality on the side of the former and the deadly sin of infidelity on the side of the latter, none of which can be considered serious in historiography.
But is there a third way?
There seem to be many intelligent historians who understand these problems and try to do as much as possible in order to provide us with the most accurate information as possible. However, the number of those who blindly reject these attempts and try to do everything to create confusion is growing.
But I think we, the new generation of historians who are interested in understanding more about Islam and Prophet Mohammad must understand that apparently, intelligence is not enough, we must bring passion in. It is only with intelligence AND passion that we can maybe find the third way that everyone is looking for.
Apparently every single part of my first sentence can be much scrutinised and easily doubted in historiography. Was it really the year 610? Was Mohammad an Arab? Was he a merchant? Was it all really happening in Mecca? Where is Mecca? and most importantly -- did Muhammad really exist?
The list of questions is endless and one can really go on with these debates for a very very long period of time. I enjoy looking and studying all these methods and exploring the research tools and ways of looking at history in general, but what strikes me as the most extraordinary thing is the division of scholars.
One group, that is called revisionists, say that they reject the Islamic traditional accounts as they cannot be trusted and the others, traditionalists, say that the revisionists are wrong and that the Islamic historical accounts are all true and cannot be doubted.
These debates have been going on for a long time, and one thing has become obvious to me: At the heart of these divided camps lies a big fear of committing the deadly sin of irrationality on the side of the former and the deadly sin of infidelity on the side of the latter, none of which can be considered serious in historiography.
But is there a third way?
There seem to be many intelligent historians who understand these problems and try to do as much as possible in order to provide us with the most accurate information as possible. However, the number of those who blindly reject these attempts and try to do everything to create confusion is growing.
