Historical revisionism

Submitted by Mark (United Arab Emirates), Mar 26, 2006 at 10:22

It is common knowledge that history is written by the victors or at least is written in a self serving way to support the culture who writes the history. Particulalry oral history of the type used to verify the story of Mohamed.

As an example just look in any Japanese history testbook today and read about what is said of WW2. A student could graduate from High School and University in Japan and never know about the rape of Nanking. (that was only 70 years ago and was documented in every form of media available at the time.) We know the truth simply because the Japanese were not victors and thus an alternate history has been recorded.

On the basis of observation of the incredibly self-serving nature of almost all muslim debate, it is not only likely in my mind that the 'story' of Mohamed as reported in Islam is somewhat distorted. I think one would have to be incredibly baised to believe anything else. That a more rigorous approach to history is now uncovering the truth is certainly no surprise to me or I am sure any other rational human..

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".