[Threaded]: Someone asked me to summarize the "Islamic studies" debate that happened. There were 4 intertwined debates...
1) Textualism/old-school philology vs. other disciplines like anthro and religious studies (aka 'Do you need to know Arabic?)
2) 'theory' vs. text/old school philology (otherwise known as do you need to know Arabic AND literary theory or is literary theory a Western construct not useful for Arabic bla bla)
3) academia is an overall effective structure for pursuing something maybe called 'truth' with objective-ish standards vs. academia is a power system dominated by certain groups (race, gender) that need to be contested in their control.
4) is 'theory' (ex. postmodernism, deconstructionism) a metaphysically and socially dangerous siren that leads us into chaos and perdition (this is clearly a normative debate).
Feel free to stop reading now cause I'm gonna give my opinions: for 1): it depends! Scholars doing textual studies need to know the relevant languages/tools, and those doing things like ethnography need to know the relevant languages/tools @abusulayman
For 2): 'theory'(ies) are useful tools and should be deployed when helpful but also adjusted for context. Ex. using ideas of canonization to talk about Hadith can be very helpful or organize ideas, see patterns, compare, but just caulking 'Western canon' onto Islamic is clumsy.
For 3): I believe the academy has enough integrity and commitment to objective standards of quality that the pursuit of knowledge and truth can take place within it, but with watchful critique.
For 4): I think 'theory' like postmodernism etc. is useful for revealing the politics & hegemonies of knowledge and culture, but it should not become a belief system in and of itself. We should always be open about our background realities and beliefs, whatever they are.
