Daisy #650–When critiquing a link or reference one should examine the context and content in their entirety: what the commentator was purporting to do ie provide more starting places for scholarship in this area, ones of high quality, not only by Muslims; be sure of one’s facts not float a generalization that hopefully holds, eg. in this instance most of the contributors have Anglo names but may still be Muslims, and the editor may well have added Said as his Islamic name but we don’t know that nor do we know that these are all non-Muslims; challenge the commentators actual assertions not distorted ones, ie I never said that there was equal textual critique of the Quran as of the Bible, only that it is happening currently, has happened in the past (according to the scholars in the field) and that I see it as a good sign. Muslims and the Quran have received more intense interest including academic since 9/11. A colleague/friend who is head of the Religious Studies Dept of a major North American university fought long and hard to get the first professor of Islam they ever had, and yes the prof is Muslim, and critical of Islam.

Of course this book is recently published it is part of a current series, and it will be duly critiqued, as I imagine it has been already in reviews. Thank you for agreeing that 2007 is not “out of date” as you remarked on the previous set of references I supplied.

Didn’t you bother looking at the other 9 books in the series? Didn’t you want to cherry pick them for evidence to support your contention, which we all understood but some of us disagree with in part or whole?

Is it too inconvenient that the editor of the one on textual criticism of the Quran–the book most closely related to your position–is a Muslim, or at least a person who prefers to be photographed in hijab?
Here is her professional profile (impressive) with her pic (lovely):
http://www.ptr.bham.ac.uk/staff/elawa.shtml

Doesn’t it give you a hint that no one cares what the religious backgrounds of these scholars are, to the point that they are not indicated? What is indicated is important to their credibility as scholars, ie degrees, academic affiliations, publications.

Did any of us doubt you would reintroduce Indic and Hindu studies into this discussion between Oby and I about the Quran and secondarily the Quran and the Bible?

Did any of us doubt you would invoke John again? Or Oby (though she seems to occupy a middle ground)? Both can surely speak for themselves, can you?

Would it be too difficult to thank me for the reference (just a point of etiquette, not required); or, MORE importantly, refrain from broad generalizing conclusions not supported by your “evidence”; or, as might be normal in such a critique of a reference, to provide others in support of your counterarguments?

Sandy #652–thank you for your support of references and links as part of responsible commenting. Like those of many religions, Muslims may have little knowledge of their religion besides what they learned in cultural and familial context. I guess if they were interested they would start closer to home than Karen Armstrong. I agree that she is stronger on other topics.

I like her earlier stuff better. It was meatier. The History of God, and The Battle for God (which covers Islamic extremism as I recall) I also like her biography on the Prophet. Her later stuff seems more geared as pop “how to understand” manuals in the post 9-11 world

As for the rest, I see this thread somewhat differently. It winded it’s way from here to there- and I always appreciate it when people support their opinions with references.

However, please note that all the scholars writing there are non-Muslims. The Muslim scholars so far have not produced this kind of critique of Quran. This was precisely my point.

Besides, this book has been recently published. We have to wait to see what kind of response it evokes from the Muslim scholars – whether they really grant its acceptability.

In fact, on p. 88 of this book, it is expressed mentioned that students who come from a Christian and Judaic background into Islamic studies are surprised that an equal critique of Quran does not exist in the Islamic studies.

I would add that students who study the Indian religions would also feel the same if they go for Islamic studies, because all the texts of Indian religions have been critically examined without much problem from the Indian society or the academicians of India – the latter in fact have contributed to this kind of critical analysis.

P. 141 of this book again reiterates the difficulty in critically examining the Quran because Islam rejects this kind of exercise.

While floating an internet link or any other reference one should examine first the context and the nature of the material being provided. It doesn’t serve any purpose to just float links to show that one is giving references.

This book only proves further what Oby, John and I have been saying.

It speaks volumes of character which I will always admire. That is true confidence and character.

Daisy #645–any evidence for any of those opinions? The references I gave in #551-556 state the contrary. There are lines drawn everywhere, and in academia more often by academic politics than outside ones (though they interact to some degree but far less than in other endeavours given the nature of academia. I haven’t read any discrediting of anyone’s scholarship based on faith in any academic journal, or heard it at any conference in public or private conversation. See the references below in my comment to Oby if you are interested in what is being done.

Oby # 646–You are welcome, and glad to hear about the developing thesis! In fact the references I gave in 551-556 way up there, on the Quran point you towards some discussions, academics, conferences, and appropriate academic journals. The ones in #554 and #555 specifically address Quranic and Biblical scholarship, and the 2 major streams within Quranic/or Islamic studies, the conservative (especially post the Iranian Revolution in 1979) and the progressive ie the ones challenging the orthodoxies. Both currents have always existed, as they do in most academic endeavours–remember the Ancients vs the Moderns debate of the European 17th century, one to which Jonathan Swift of Gulliver’s Travels fame contributed greatly.

Here are 3 more references that I found interesting (for MY budding thesis LOL ) and which show the diversity of accepted academic views within scholarship on Islam and the Quran:

The Qur’an in its Historical Context

The Routledge Book Series on Studies in the Qur’an a series of 10 books so far of major interest to you I’m sure (they sure are to me)

The latest is The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext–definitely up your thesis alley!

The Doha Debates are great and the past ones can be viewed online. Don’t hesitate to read the one on my post–and read the full transcript/ watch the whole video if you wish (they are linked)–and comment. So far we have one Christian woman voting for Muslim women to marry only Muslim men, and one Muslim woman voting for Muslim women to marry whom they choose. Both are thoughtful and knowledgeable. We need a tie breaker! Or don’t commit to a position if you prefer, as you can just share whatever thoughts you have on the post or the topic.

I have been to the liberating flying fig camp as well. Too bad we haven’t met there. I find this mentality of labelling that you speak of destructive to Islam and Muslims. It creates people who will choose very extreme stances at some point. Either they may come to totally renounce a faith because of the lack of tolerance for critical thinking or scholarly research or they may just blow themselves up (blow themselves up literally and blow themselves up metaporically either way is nauseating).

In the in between, I would say there are those who are numbed with fear. Thus, they choose to have no outwardly expressed opinion; yet, they are internally rife with conflicted reasoning which is unhealthy for the psyche. The whole ideal of HAVING TO label someone comes from both sides. You will find strange people who mislabel themselves to get their points across to support their own twisted one way view and mislead people because they are of such and such label or of no label twisted sisters. HAH.

John’s golden words were and I will always remember this, “Focus on the topic and not the person”. I highly suspect how this thread got turned into Indian subliguil (sp.) relations. It is because any serious critique or analysis is perceived as a threat. People will turn the issue around saying, “Well even in so and so you do so and so.” Who cares this is NOT about so and so and so and so. Of course one can bring in parallels but when it gets to the extreme point when one does not like where the conversation is going or they are losing ground or feel like they are being cornered into reasoning, they will take a topic or discussion into a whole other region. That is evidence of disregard for looking at a topic with a serious objective. It is evidence of what oby said looking to find evidence in support of a concluded foundation. I have no qualms about discussing all regions but when it comes so blatangly obvious who turns the topic in one direction and flies with it then comes back to criticize the very thing they created. Well twisted sisters. “We’re not going take it.ANYMOREEEE.”