This article argues that the academic representation of Islamic history as a single timeline, which was established in the nineteenth century and continues to predominate to the present, is a primary issue restricting fruitful readings of Islamic historical materials. Utilizing insights in thinking about history that favor multiple temporalities, I suggest that scholars in Islamic studies can expand the possibilities of their work by paying attention to the diversity of ways in which time is conceptualized within original materials. As illustrations for the rethinking I advocate, I provide readings of the structures and literary affects of three Persian works in different genres, produced circa 1490-1540 ce. I suggest that a foundational reorientation in the field of Islamic historiography has the potential to help us break out of binds identified in the critique of orientalism provided by Edward Said and others and would lead to better ways to approach developments in Muslim societies.

The prophet Muhammad served as a model for those entering into marriage and celibacy is rejected as a human invention, although the Islamic tradition embodies exceptions with Sufism and its more negative attitudes toward the human body. Sufi groups used celibacy as a form of social protest. There is also a relation between forced celibacy and political power during the medieval period. In addition to certain Sufi groups, eunuchs represented another exception to the general negative Islamic attitude toward celibacy.

Abstract:Utilizing treatments of uncertainty regarding history in four major Arabic and Persian works (Ṭabarī, Bīrūnī, Badāʾūnī, and Abū l-Fażl), this article treats Islam as an ever-changing set of arguments rather than a panoply of beliefs and practices. ‘Islamic history’ is internally varied, without necessary universality or internal cohesion. The Islamic case underscores the methodological point that the interrelationship between religion and history is a multichannel and multidirectional affair whose valences differ in treatments of history of Islam versus that of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. Each of these histories has its distinctive history as a subject, with attendant fields of possibility and impossibility. An overarching history of religions must then be a vast, ever-expanding matrix not reducible to generalizations except in thematic treatments conceptualized with self-conscious attention to categories of analysis.

This chapter reflects on the positivistic treatment of medieval ‘histories’ written in Muslim contexts, which often ignore their significance as pieces of rhetoric. This is a product both of an emphasis on philology in training and a wish to make essentialised generalisations about Islam to communicate to policy makers. A corrective is offered here in recognising the Sunni bias of many of the sources for canonical understandings of Islamic history and recognising that Islam is a discursive field and a product of the choices of historians, rather than having an essence that precedes our texts.

No abstract