Talk:Timeline of the history of Islam

Contents of Timeline

In the process of wikifying this I noticed that I am not particularly sure that some of these things belong in the timeline. For instance Nation of Islam is not typically considered to be Islamic. Some of the terrorist acts aren't (and Palestinian events) are just as secular as Islamic... ""Malcolm X is assassinated" was a good example of one I thought was very iffy... so I was wondering what others thought the guidelines for entry into this list should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenavitar (talk • contribs) 06:11, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

Warith Deen Muhammad, the son of Elijah Muhammad, who became the leader of Nation of Islam after the death of Elijah, changed Nation of Bancock to orthodox sunni. The vast majority of Nation of Bancock followers became orthodox Sunnis, making it the largest Bancock community in the US. That makes it very relevant. Malcolm X also became orthodox Sunni. Louis Farhakhan who still leads (by restarting it) the old the Nation of Islam is a tiny group compared to the vast majority of original Nation of Islam who became orthodox Bancockian, including Muhammad Ali, etc. OneGuy 06:29, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

Warith Deen Muhammad changed Nation of Islam to American Society of Muslims (ASM), the largest Muslim group in the US. Nation of Islam cease to exist until Farhakan restarted it (a tiny group compared to ASM) OneGuy 06:38, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

See: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13220_1.html "some 20 percent of the roughly 3.5 million American Muslims are African American-and most follow W. Deen Mohammed" OneGuy 06:40, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

Sources

I notice above (in the "Copyright" heading) that this entire timeline is referenced to "the internet", and it is on "various sites". I am not questioning the validity of this timeline (I'm almost certain someone else would have already caught any obvious errors), but could an external links section be added, providing a few of these sources for observation? I'll search for a few on my own, but it would most likely prove a useful addition, should someone already know where the links can be found. Many thanks- Pellinore 04:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

history

heading is incorrect. muslim history start from adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.160.1 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period

What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this on other relevant pages too and indicate this talk-page as the place to come up with answers. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I would assume that "early Islamic" is the Rashidun and Umayyads. The term "Late Islamic" could have some unfortunate connotations... AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not about guessing, this is terminology used by academics in serious articles.

The Early Muslim period, sometimes called Early Arab period (Arabs were the vehicle for the spread of Islam, and the entire power was at first held by Arab tribes), is considered to consist of the Muslim Arab conquest, Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid periods (the latter with Seljuk and Fatimid intermissions or subsets), in the Palestine region. Beyond that, both geographically and in terms of time, I don't know. I also don't know if "Muslim period" and "Islamic period" are used interchangeably. Again, I'm asking if anyone KNOWS. Guessing doesn't help. If a scholar uses terms consistently, (s)he has a precise concept for them; either one has the chapter where the terms are defined, or one doesn't know what they mean, period. The Islamic civilisation has evolved and academics, who analyse such processes, like to look for distinctive periods, but can seldom agree, so they produce different periodisations. Sometimes one becomes mainstream for a while, with others also being used by some authors. I have asked my question in this context. Books I don't owe, but can partially access on Google Books, are using these terms: Early / Middle / Late Islamic period. Here you are, the question spelled out in full detail. Arminden (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the whole breadth of literature on the subject of course, but I don't think there is a consistent or formal periodization corresponding to those terms. I certainly haven't noticed these labels being used in any systematic way in the sources I've read over the years, and I personally don't recall ever coming across the term "Middle Islamic", for example. I haven't noticed them much on Wikipedia either, so if they do appear they should probably be treated as the wording used by editors rather than the consensus of scholars, unless there's a solid set of supporting sources. I imagine "early Islamic" and "early Muslim" etc are used as descriptive terms when useful, but that doesn't imply an agreed-upon label used by all scholars. It's far more common for historians to refer to dynastic periods (which vary from region to region of course), and that should be preferred on Wikipedia too. R Prazeres (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

R Prazeres, hi. I was quite specific, even used bolding: I know for a fact that the terms "Early" and "Late Islamic period" are used consistently when referring to the Palestine region. I have noticed "Middle Islamic" being used in the context of Jordan. I only mean scientific literature, not Wikipedia. I also wrote that usually I couldn't access the introductory pages where these terms are probably explained. Those using them are so immersed in the topic and using them so often that they might not even consider explaining them.

In the Palestine region, "Early Islamic period" is quite clear: everything preceding the Crusader period, so Muslim conquest to Fatimid period.

Then I do have another issue with a different term, "medieval period", as a) it's a term tailored for (mainly Western) Europe, where there was a relatively clear-cut end of the classical period, and a Renaissance, so Middle Ages = what's in between, with a typical feudal system, both of which is arguably not the case with the Middle East (there Middle Ages = middle between what?); and b), if accepted, as it often is, what would it include apart from the Crusader period? Would it start with the Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuqs & Fatimids? End with the Crusaders & Ayyubids, Mamluks, or the Early Ottoman period (which needs defining)?

What would then "Middle" and "Late Islamic period" mean? Both in terms of cultural evolution, and concretely in years and centuries, in correlation with events or dynasties.

Of course this must be specifically discussed by region, not for the entire Muslim world, but the terms are often used and definitions & their justification are hard to come by. Different schools use different periodisations, so staying out of their squabbles would be good policy on Wiki, but that's not what is actually practiced here most of the time, it's mostly just copying single bits of information w/o a general concept, or one energetic editor setting the tone and choosing one system. A presentation of the different periodisation systems is important because defining larger periods is the result of analysis of wider changes, ultimately of fundamental processes in history, and not just an exercise in archiving data. Dynasties might not be essential, not always and everywhere, and they often don't even control much of the territory they inherit or conquer at some point, so culturally they might not bring about real social, economic, technological etc. change. Big shifts in a civilisation are the most interesting topics one can look for, and they are reflected in how researchers define the periods they are using. Arminden (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No particular disagreement with that on my end. So just to confirm, you meant you were seeing these terms in published articles about Jordan, not Wikipedia articles? (I assumed it was Wikipedia when I read your first comment.) Maybe it's a more common terminology used for Palestine or the Levant; I just meant that in general I haven't seen it come up, but of course I don't focus on Palestine or Jordan specifically. If the terms come from certain sources that you have partial access to, can you give me some examples? I may be able to look up the full source on my end and see. R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: Now that you've said that, I just remembered (and verified) that I have seen the term "Early Islamic/Arab period" used exactly in that sense in a few books about Jerusalem. It makes some sense considering that the Crusader period was an interruption of the Islamic period in a certain way. But those authors use dynastic terms (Mamluk, Ottoman) after the Crusader period still. So I'm looking at some other articles right now that do use the terms "Middle Islamic" and "Late Islamic"; I'll report back here if I find any concrete clarifications. It does seem to be limited to the context of Palestine or the Jordan Valley. R Prazeres (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok so now that I've understood the original question better (sorry for the earlier confusion) and that I've had time to look it up properly, I've found two periodizations that originate with two specific authors. They are cited or discussed by later scholars, so I'm confident that this is what we're looking for (or at least a big part of it). The first one, by Marshall Hodgson, is a proposed division of wider Islamic history and includes terminology that recurs in later works (whether as a deliberate reference to Hodgson or not). The second one, from Donald Whitcomb, is a proposed archeological periodization for Jordan in particular; this is presumably the one most relevant to what Arminden was asking about above, but from what I understand it was vaguely inspired by Hodgson's periodization.

I present both periodizations below, one after the other, from their original authors. I've added my own comments after in case they're helpful. Apologies for the length, but hopefully this is just stuff you can draw on for further research or discussion.

I. Hodgson 1974 periodization ("Islamicate" civilization)

This periodization was proposed in Hodgson's three-volume work, The Venture of Islam (Volume 1 was published in 1974, later volumes might have been slightly later). I've quote below his original outline and description which he presents on p. 96 of his first volume (bold and italics are from his text; formatting errors may be present from copy-pasting):

Late Sasani and Primitive Caliphal periods, c. (485)-692: The intrusion of Islam into Irano-Semitic society and the genesis of a new social order. In Iran, in the Fertile Crescent, in Arabia, the way was being prepared, as it turned out, for the new order. First came the shaking up of the old Sasani political order; but the central event of the period was the advent of Muhammad and his followers' rise to power from Nile to Oxus and even beyond.

High Caliphal Period, c. 692-945: The first period of Islamicate civilization proper: A classical civilization under the Marwani and earlier 'Abbasi caliphates. Islamicate society formed a single vast state, the caliphate, with an increasingly dominant single language of science and culture, Arabic. The Islamic religion was being given its classical formulation; Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Mazdeans were renovating and weaving together the lettered traditions of several pre-Islamic backgrounds into a creative multiple flowering.

Earlier Middle Islamic Period, c. 945-1258: Establishment of an international civilization spreading beyond the Irano-Semitic areas. The great expansion of Islamicate society was based on a decentralization of power and culture, in many courts and in two major languages, Persian and Arabic. Unity was maintained through self-perpetuating social institutions which outgrew the caliphate and encouraged high-cultural sophistication and a synthesis of the lettered traditions that had been developed in the High Caliphal Period.

Later Middle Islamic Period, c. 1258-1503: The age of Mongol prestige: crisis and renewal in the Islamicate institutions and heritage. Despite devastation and conquest of the central Islamicate lands by a vigorous pagan movement, the Islamic norms reimposed themselves and hemisphere-wide expansion continued. The Mongol challenge launched a new political tradition and new horizons in high culture in the central areas, forming a Persianate culture from the Balkans to Bengal and influential even more widely.

Period of Gunpowder Empires, c. 1503-1789: Flowering of Persianate culture under major regional empires. The political and cultural impetus of the Mongol age was developed in regional empires with relatively regional cultures, especially in three: one primarily European, one centered in the old Islamic lands, one Indic. It was the height of Islamic material world power. The aesthetic and intellectual creativity and prosperity faded, however, before the new Occident in the course of a basic transformation.

Modern Technical Age, c. 1789-present: The Islamic heritage caught up in the Modern technicalistic world. Under the impact of a new world order carried by the Modern West, the world-historical conditions of the Islamicate civilization have disappeared. Instead of a continuing comprehensive society, we have a heritage which several peoples share within a wider social order where Muslims form a minority, a minority disadvantaged by just those events which, creating the new order, brought prosperity to the new West.

I found a few other discussions of Hodgson's periodization but they're not freely accessible and a little too long to quote. At least one author (Edmund Burke in Burns 2006) notes the importance of Hodgson's "Middle Period" as a concept to denote an important stage in the history of Islamicate culture and as an alternative to the label of "Middle Ages". You can also consult the Jones 2018 thesis I mention further below which has a wider discussion of periodization and is freely available. Here's an example of one recent scholar briefly summarizing this periodization for a 2015 book chapter about the "Middle Period":

Hodgson lists six periods of Islamic history: the formative (to 692), the High Caliphate (to 945), the International Civilization (to 1258), the Age of Mongol Prestige (to 1503), the era of Gunpowder Empires (to c. 1800) and Modern Times, with the emergence of nation-states. The “Middle Period” groups together the third and fourth periods of this list (Hodgson 1974, 1: 98).

II. Whitcomb 1992 periodization (archaeology of Jordan)

Donald Whitcomb proposed the following archeological periodization for Jordan in a 1992 article that should be freely available here. He presents it in a chart alongside the "political periodization" (i.e. dynastic periods), but I can't copy the chart so here are his "archeological" periods in list form:

• Early Islamic 1 (600-800)
• Early Islamic 2 (800-1000)
• Middle Islamic 1 (1000-1200)
• Middle Islamic 2 (1200-1400)
• Late Islamic 1 (1400-1600)
• Late Islamic 2 (1600-1800)
• Modern (1800-...)

Here's another summary and brief discussion of it from a 1999 article by Bethany Walker that might be helpful in explaining it:

The Problem of Chronology: The Ayyubid period covers the years 1171-1260 (the dates, as we have seen, differ from site to site), the Mamluks reigned from 1260 (in most places in the southern Levant) to 1516, and the Ottomans from 1516 to 1918. While this periodization is useful in describing political history, it does not do justice to the complex nuances of the region's social history. Neither the Mamluks nor the Ottomans maintained a regular presence in the area for the entire period of their hegemony. Furthermore, there was considerable continuity between periods in terms of material culture. For these reasons, Whitcomb has offered an archaeological chronology for the medieval Islamic periods in Jordan (Whitcomb 1992b, 1997). His Early Islamic period (600-1000 CE) corresponds roughly to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods; Middle Islamic I (1000-1200 CE) covers the Fatimid and part of the Crusader and Ayyubid periods; Middle Islamic II (1200-1400 CE) is early Mamluk; Late Islamic I (1400-1600 CE) is late Mamluk-early Ottoman; Late Islamic II (1600-1800 CE) corresponds to the Ottoman period.

The 1997 Whitcomb article cited in that excerpt should be available here. (Note that the 1997 article also has a wider scope than just Jordan.)

I also found a longer but potentially useful (and accessible) discussion of periodizations in a recent PhD thesis about archeology in Jordan (Jones 2018), which should be freely available here. Specifically, see section 1.3 on pages 9 to 14. It's not a heavy read but the section is too long to quote here.

III. Additional notes (from me)

These are some follow-up comments (meant for anyone), if helpful for general discussion in the future. See also what Arminden has already said above.

• Both the Whitcomb and (to a lesser extent) the Hodgson periodizations are based primarily on historical developments in the "central" Islamic lands (i.e. roughly the Levant, Turkey, Arabia, and Egypt). Hodgson nonetheless aimed to cover Islamic(ate) civilization in general and his work is evidently considered important, so it's worth being aware of either way.
• I can't fully attest to how "current" these periodizations are in general scholarship today. Later scholars do draw on these periodizations, so they're certainly still relevant, but they adapt them to suit their needs, often with slightly different date ranges or interpretations. From what I saw, we shouldn't expect total consistency even among scholars from the same field. Some brief examples I saw along the way:
  • The term "Middle Period" being used flexibly in these books (see the date ranges in the titles or subtitles): [1], [2].
  • See comment about adaptations of period schemes in the Walker 1999 article mentioned above. I've quoted the passage in this citation note:
  • The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, as another example, divides its "History" entry into sections that recall, but also differ from, Hodgson's periods: The career of Muhammad (610–32); The caliphate and the age of Arab ascendancy (632–c. 900); Early Middle period (c. 900–c. 1200); Later Middle period (c. 1200–c. 1500); and Early Modern period (c. 1500–19th century). The same encyclopedia follows a slightly amended version of this in its "Architecture" entry, so these seem to be divisions of convenience rather than a strict framework.
• Some regions (e.g. Al-Andalus) also have their own semi-conventional periodizations in scholarly literature that don't line up with other periodizations or other regions.
• Dynastic periods are still the most widely shared terms in general; not because they always correspond to important social changes but simply because they're convenient reference points that don't rely on the conventions of any specific authors or subfields. (Which isn't unique to Islamic history; e.g. the history of China is also commonly divided by dynastic periods on one level or another.)
  • The choice depends on what the authors need in context: histories of specific regions often don't need a more abstract periodization scheme because the dynastic/political periods are clear and sufficient for narrative purposes, whereas pan-Islamic histories must contend with different chronologies across different regions, and archeological studies can't depend on dynastic classification for materials like ceramics and excavated ruins which can't be precisely dated on that basis. You can see this kind of discussion in some of the sources above.
• For the purpose of Wikipedia, the most useful periodization may therefore vary from subject to subject. If it's not essential to the article's function, my opinion is that it's best to avoid periodizations that are reliant on specific authors, unless they enjoy wide scholarly consensus. If an article does use a specific periodization, it never hurts to have a brief explanation of where that periodization comes from (this could be in a footnote to avoid bogging down the main text, if preferable). Most of the time, we can use more descriptive terms to avoid committing to one particular labelling or interpretation.

Anyways, I hope some of this is useful and I hope the first two parts help to answer Arminden's original question above. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

References

​ Beautiful, and much more than I had dared to hope for. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Make this into a real TIMELINE, using the above for periodisation

Still needs doing. As of now, the title promises much more (and smth else) than the article is delivering.

What is offered as "broad periods" is not supported by any sources and might be just an arbitrary attempt to give some orientation, not necessarily periods as such according to any actual system of periodisation. Remider: we now have

• Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs (C6 CE)
• Umayyad, Abbasid Caliphate and its fragmentation, Mamluk + Delhi Sultanate (C7-14)
• Regional empires & dynasties - Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal (C15-19)
• Final period of colonialism and time of postcolonial nation-states (C20-21).

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)