周期化和未来ḥ: 理解穆ḥammad对非穆斯林征服的领导

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY Arabica Pub Date : 2022-06-29 DOI:10.1163/15700585-12341633
Mehdy Shaddel
{"title":"周期化和未来ḥ: 理解穆ḥammad对非穆斯林征服的领导","authors":"Mehdy Shaddel","doi":"10.1163/15700585-12341633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe past few decades have witnessed a proliferation of theories on the origins of Islam which have called into question long-held scholarly axioms. One such axiom is the traditional date of 632 CE for the death of the prophet Muḥammad, which some scholars have now sought to redate to after the beginning of the Muslim conquests on the basis of the evidence of non-Muslim sources. The present contribution aims to demonstrate that the prima facie disharmony between these sources and Muslim accounts of Muḥammad’s life and the conquests is a product of the reading imposed on both sets of data, which primarily has to do with the fact that, more often than not, modern scholarship unsuspectingly operates within the rigid framework of the classical periodisation of early Islamic history. Therefore, a revision of either the traditional date of Muḥammad’s death or the starting date of the conquests based on this evidence is uncalled for.","PeriodicalId":8163,"journal":{"name":"Arabica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Periodisation and the futūḥ: Making Sense of Muḥammad’s Leadership of the Conquests in Non-Muslim Sources\",\"authors\":\"Mehdy Shaddel\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700585-12341633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe past few decades have witnessed a proliferation of theories on the origins of Islam which have called into question long-held scholarly axioms. One such axiom is the traditional date of 632 CE for the death of the prophet Muḥammad, which some scholars have now sought to redate to after the beginning of the Muslim conquests on the basis of the evidence of non-Muslim sources. The present contribution aims to demonstrate that the prima facie disharmony between these sources and Muslim accounts of Muḥammad’s life and the conquests is a product of the reading imposed on both sets of data, which primarily has to do with the fact that, more often than not, modern scholarship unsuspectingly operates within the rigid framework of the classical periodisation of early Islamic history. Therefore, a revision of either the traditional date of Muḥammad’s death or the starting date of the conquests based on this evidence is uncalled for.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arabica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arabica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341633\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arabica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341633","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的几十年里,关于伊斯兰教起源的理论激增,这些理论对长期以来的学术公理提出了质疑。其中一条公理是传统的公元632年先知穆去世的日期ḥ在穆斯林征服开始后,一些学者现在试图根据非穆斯林来源的证据对其进行编辑。目前的贡献旨在证明这些来源与穆斯林对穆的描述之间表面上的不和谐ḥammad的生活和征服是对这两组数据的解读的产物,这主要与这样一个事实有关,即现代学术往往毫无疑问地在早期伊斯兰历史的经典时期的僵化框架内运作。因此,对穆的传统日期进行修订ḥ阿玛德的死亡或基于这一证据的征服开始日期是不必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Periodisation and the futūḥ: Making Sense of Muḥammad’s Leadership of the Conquests in Non-Muslim Sources
The past few decades have witnessed a proliferation of theories on the origins of Islam which have called into question long-held scholarly axioms. One such axiom is the traditional date of 632 CE for the death of the prophet Muḥammad, which some scholars have now sought to redate to after the beginning of the Muslim conquests on the basis of the evidence of non-Muslim sources. The present contribution aims to demonstrate that the prima facie disharmony between these sources and Muslim accounts of Muḥammad’s life and the conquests is a product of the reading imposed on both sets of data, which primarily has to do with the fact that, more often than not, modern scholarship unsuspectingly operates within the rigid framework of the classical periodisation of early Islamic history. Therefore, a revision of either the traditional date of Muḥammad’s death or the starting date of the conquests based on this evidence is uncalled for.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Arabica
Arabica Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
50.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Du neutre, ici en français mais également là(-bas) en arabe The Earliest Manuscripts of Kairouan (9th-11th Centuries): New Approaches for a More Accurate Dating A Subtle Subversion: From Arabo-Centrism to Universalism in the 5th/11th Century Šāfiʿī School’s Considerations of Lineage for Marriage Suitability (Kafāʾa) A Note on Klb yārh in al-Bīrūnī’s Autobibliography Interpréter le Coran versus défendre le muṣḥaf : l’exemple du verset 2, 184c
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1