This chapter discusses the most famous hypothesis about the development of property law: that Western social evolution was determined by a passage “from slavery to feudalism,” from the ownership of humans in the slave economies of Antiquity to the ownership of land in the feudal economies of the Middle Ages. That hypothesis was embraced by Marx, Weber, Bloch, and many others, but has been rejected today, because it rested on claims about economic history that have been proven dubious. The chapter argues that there was truth in the classical hypothesis, but that it should be reinterpreted as an account of transformation in the legal imagination. The chapter investigates the origins of the classic theories, and makes the case that the classic thinkers erred by mistaking the imaginative orientations in the legal sources for the economic realities.

The chapter examines the methodological conundrums of producing knowledge about past traditions through present-day realities, a dilemma we navigate using the “progressive-regressive” method, a term first articulated by Marc Bloch. But beyond the study of the past, the study of the non-Western world poses particular challenges, which we explicate using Joan Cocks’ concept of neo-cosmopolitanism. The Islamic world, while culturally and historically distinct, has always operated within global circuits of economic and political exchange and has shared social imaginaries with the universal civilization of a given time. Where necessary we transcend the limits of three epistemic postures: Enlightenment liberalism, Orientalism, and postmodernism. We examine the status of “science” in the Abbasid world in relation to Ghazālī’s distinction between profane natural knowledge and sacred signs (āyat). Political fragmentation and economic change overlapped with Islam’s encounter with foreign scientific traditions. Ghazālī intervened to differentiate ẓāhir (the apparent) and baṭin (the hidden) as reconcilable components of knowledge, rendering these encounters theoretically coherent.

The deliberate targeting of Japanese civilians in the firebombing of sixty cities and in the use of the atomic bomb to break morale and compel unconditional surrender raised serious moral issues. But should historians read today’s values back to the Asia Pacific War? There is a longstanding debate among historians over whether it is their place to pass judgment or whether they should maintain a detached and objective position in their work. In this chapter, we see how carpet bombing, targeting of civilians, and finally Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so horrific that it became difficult to maintain moral neutrality. Instead, the main lines of debate and controversy centered on the issue of what standards should be applied. We explore the varieties of moral judgments reached by historians and the norms that should govern the issue.