The oldest Islamic biography of Muhammad; written in the mid-eighth century; relates that the prophet died at Medina in 632; while earlier and more numerous Jewish; Christian; Samaritan; and even Islamic sources indicate that Muhammad survived to lead the conquest of Palestine; beginning in 634-35. Although this discrepancy has been known for several decades; Stephen J. Shoemaker here writes the first systematic study of the various traditions.Using methods and perspectives borrowed from biblical studies; Shoemaker concludes that these reports of Muhammad's leadership during the Palestinian invasion likely preserve an early Islamic tradition that was later revised to meet the needs of a changing Islamic self-identity. Muhammad and his followers appear to have expected the world to end in the immediate future; perhaps even in their own lifetimes; Shoemaker contends. When the eschatological Hour failed to arrive on schedule and continued to be deferred to an ever more distant point; the meaning of Muhammad's message and the faith that he established needed to be fundamentally rethought by his early followers.The larger purpose of The Death of a Prophet exceeds the mere possibility of adjusting the date of Muhammad's death by a few years; far more important to Shoemaker are questions about the manner in which Islamic origins should be studied. The difference in the early sources affords an important opening through which to explore the nature of primitive Islam more broadly. Arguing for greater methodological unity between the study of Christian and Islamic origins; Shoemaker emphasizes the potential value of non-Islamic sources for reconstructing the history of formative Islam.
#1833835 in Books University of Pennsylvania Press 2006-04-05Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 10.00 x .81 x 7.01l; 2.11 #File Name: 0812219422392 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy H. LappAnother wonderful reference by the great colonial Philadelphia expert; Gary Nash.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. First CityBy Kim BurdickGary Nash has been a controversial historian ever since I was a kid. Good to know some things never change.I have a particular interest in cultural transmission and how people remember the past; so parts of Gary Nash's books please me very much.On the other hand--for anyone who has carefully studied the lives of John Dickinson; Billy Lee; and a few other figures of the Revolutionary era; there are some assumptions made in this book that will make you yell; "NO!!! This is incredibly sloppy scholarship..."For example; Nash emphasizes that John Dickinson had slaves. He fails to mention that John Dickinson was the first Founding father to free his slaves.So; yes and no...good book...bad book..a little of both....I would rather read Sarah Vowell.Kim BurdickStanton; DE20 of 24 people found the following review helpful. Academic History at its Most AnnoyingBy philosophusThis book has been the catalyst for my resolution - even for a history buff like myself - to give up academic history and stick to historical biography. There; at least; as Benjamin Disreali said; you get "life without the theory."Now; there is much to appreciate in this book: as a native Philadelphian greatly interested in the rich history of his city; I learned a great deal about life in 18th and 19th century Philadelphia; especially about the inter-racial; inter-religious and class conflicts that have usually been papered over in older accounts. There are also some great anecdotes peppered through the book. Nevertheless; I found the style and tone annoying for two reasons:(1) The jargon: The author loves to throw around a lot of post-modern/Marxist jargon and cliches about "contesting narratives" and "alternative discourses" and "writing history from the bottom up." Now; again; I have no real ideological quarrel here: I have as dim a view of capitalism; for instance; as the author appears to have; I also think that the history of women; African-Americans and immigrants is not only important but interesting and needs to be told. And there are certainly "contested narratives" of the past depending on your gender; class or race (the "Holy Trinity" of current academic jargon). It is; however; the mechanical and uncreative application of these categories that makes the book - as well as so much other academic history - so mind-numbing to read. Related to his - indeed; the prime thesis of the book -is his very fashionable "meta-history" of Philadelphia; which tries to show how history is "constructed" by "power relations" and not given pure and unadulterated. And this again; to be sure; is true as far as it goes and is an important awareness to cultivate. But; in the end; it seems to substitute for the doing of actual history itself (even the history "from the bottom up" that the author wants so much to do) and becomes a precious little exercise in absortive self-awareness that; in the end; tells us little beyond the trite truism that "the winners write the history books." It's time for history to leave this truism behind and move on.(2) But even more annoying than the jargon is the moral posturing - something all too typical of academic history these days. It's posturing because the author is pretending to make controversy where there is none. Surely; by now; despite the Lynn Cheney's of the world; writing history "from the bottom up" is not going to deny any academic historian today the compfy priveleges of tenure. But; the author - like a tiresome bore at a dinner party who takes every opportunity loudly to remind everyone there how "socially aware" he is - constantly fulminates about how women; blacks; and immigrants were - and are - marginalized by those white bourgeois suffed-shirts who write the history. Again; I too think that this was and is pretty reprehensible; but the author cudgels this point into the reader time and time again; as if he were afraid that; by page 260; the reader hadn't gotten the point yet. Apparently; the author; for all his populist pretenstions; doesn't think that the average reader is intelligent enough to "get it" after; say; page 5.It's too bad: this could've been a good book. The history of the city of Philadelphia demands something better.
