Thread by @DrJavadTHashmi

It is certainly true that modern Muslims are split on the issue of Ḥadīth. Nineteenth-century Islamic modernists, such as Sir Sayyid & Cherāgh ʿAlī, pioneered Ḥadīth skepticism, with none other than Ignaz Goldizher mentioning them in his Muslim Studies V.II. 1/

https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1387851977774747651

In other words, these Islamic thinkers preceded the doyen of Ḥadīth studies Goldziher. Unfortunately, this precedence & contribution to the scholarly field remains underrecognized by secular scholars today. They do not make it into the canon of Islamic Studies scholars. 2/

Meanwhile, traditionalist scholars championed the cause of Ḥadīth, resulting in a flowering of traditional Ḥadīth studies. On the subcontinent, this meant that even the historically Ḥadīth-wary Ḥanafīs turned to Ḥadīth & a more textual-based approach to religion. 3/

This trend mirrored what some see as a general Salafization of Islamic thought, with all sides moving closer to the methods of Ahl al-Ḥadīth, modernists & madhhab-traditionalists included. But, battle lines were indeed drawn between the Ḥadīth-skeptical & Ḥadīth-centered. 4/

Many average Muslims, for their part, would probably fall somewhere in the middle. In some ways, this may be a balanced approach but it does raise questions about methodology & consistency. Even so, many average Muslims would wish to hold on to Ḥadīth as a source... 5/

even as they chafe at certain particular ḥadīths. Instead of losing faith altogether, it seems easier to take a less than rigid approach to Ḥadīth & agree with the modernists at least from time to time, even as their overall methodology is rejected. 6/

Having agreed with this much, I think the word "desperate" seems a bit condescending & also points to a greater suspicion directed at motives. Although, of course, I have acknowledged that average Muslims may be so motivated, more sophisticated Islamic thinkers... 7/

whether modernist or traditionalist would be more interested in preserving methodology & consistency than winning or losing any one specific battle. Traditionalist scholars do not uphold the early age of ʿĀʾisha because they want to arrive at a certain belief, but rather... 8/

in order to hold true to their methodology, the fear being that giving in even a little bit here would result in a small crack that could result in a massive flood. It might be true that certain thinkers have motivated reasoning, but it is dangerous to impute ulterior motives. 9/

This knife cuts the other way as well, with many Orientalist scholars being accused of the same. This is not only by Muslim actors but also by those on the left, including decolonial thinkers. Not one scholar, for example, has noticed the tendency of Oriental/Western scholars 10/

to readily attribute each & every similarity to a one-sided borrowing, a trend that continues to this day. Yet, suddenly when it is argued that other less than savory elements may also be "borrowed," such as concepts of martyrdom & holy war, then a person can be accused of.. 11/

"apologia," especially if one's name is not Connor or Preston, or one's face is not white enough. Even Muslim scholars who are white & have the white name are placed a notch below, but these of course are above those with brown faces & names. 12/

Had it been a brown-faced Muslim who had written the article by Harry Munt, for example, it would lose at least a little bit of authority, even if it were written exactly the same. This is a reality that Muslim authors well know & a privilege that white, non-Muslim scholars...13/

may not fully appreciate. Of course, this knife cuts both ways as well. At the last IQSA, some white, non-Muslim scholars complained that they are blackballed from some professorial jobs, due to the university actively seeking "indigenous" Muslim faces. 14/

This must be acknowledged, but again, this (ten-sided) knife cuts the other way, with many Muslim scholars being blackballed from other positions. And God forbid if you belong to a minority Islamic sect: you will be put in a box & quickly limited to the subfield lining up... 15/

with your sectarian identity. You are forever the X-guy or the Y-woman. Finally, coming back to the issue of motives, many non-Muslim scholars, some from Jewish & Christian backgrounds, get annoyed when they are accused of biases & prejudices stemming from these backgrounds. 16/

The truth is that we all come from certain backgrounds that inform & position us. Some Orientalists might imagine themselves as occupying a position-from-nowhere, the all-objective "God trick," but, in truth, this does not exist & the claim of such pure objectivity... 17/

obscures power dynamics & privilege. This does not, however, mean that we just devolve into purely situational knowledge, with no attempt made whatsoever to counter & account for subjectivities & biases. This is what the peer-review process is for. 18/

It is quite possible that our varied positioning can actually allow us to see things that someone on the other side may not. I know this from my own research on jihād. It is my having read the Qur'an as a child, over & over, as an integrated "whole," that allowed me to see... 19/

nuance & consistency where my non-Muslim interlocuter hastily jumped to claiming inconsistency & polyvalence, simultaneously insisting on independence from the classical exegetes while in reality reading the Qur'an through their lenses. 20/

On the flip side, a non-Muslim scholar may indeed be able to see something in the text that might be read by Muslims through later theological lenses... & offer a worthy outside-the-box reading that complicates & deepens our thinking. 21/

Even so, however, I think it is too dangerous to rush to judge intentions & motives, at least for colleagues. Ultimately, all we can do is judge the results of a study & shine a light on the methodology used to reach that result. Is it consistent or not? Does it make sense? 22/

We may arrive at our conclusions for different motivating reasons, but we can't know or judge those... We can only judge & compare the results. Here I think of the late great Patricia Crone, whose own findings would stand accused of Western, non-Muslim, Orientalist bias. 23/

Yet, Crone went on to become a great scholar, whose findings go well beyond the accusations that are levied against her early work. On the flip side, near the end of her life, Crone came to realize the value of the approach of modern Islamic thinkers... 24/

ultimately agreeing with their suggestion to read the Qur'an "on its own terms." On the topic that I study, she said that she initially dismissed the modern Islamic view based on what she saw as an apologetic concern. But, she later circled back to this work, & concluded... 25/

that, despite its apologetic concerns, "practically everything [it] said was right." I think we should embrace this approach & just judge each other on our methodology & results, instead of imputing motives & either anti- or pro-Islamic bias. 26/

Finally, I should say that, on this issue of Ḥadīth & early sources in terms of constructing the historical Muḥammad--the topic of the debate that sparked this conversation in the first place--one can do no better than Prof. @shahanSean's "Muḥammad & the Empires of Faith." 27/

I think it is understandable that some academics would be hesitant or even critical of "academic theology," or the idea that we take the critical insights of the academy & engage them with religious thought. Whereas I understand this concern of blurring professional lines... 28/

However, this has long been done by Christian & biblical scholars, as well as by Jewish scholars. Muslims are now entering the field of Islamic studies in droves, & it is inevitable that a field of Islamic academic theology emerges as a result. 29/

The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies rightfully points out that many Christian (& Jewish) scholars, from a confessional background, have indubitably provided useful insights without which Islamic Studies would have been impoverished... 30/

Likewise, then, we can acknowledge that many Muslim scholars, who may also hold certain religious commitments or confessional views, can indeed contribute to the field of Islamic Studies & give insights that will be a boon to the field. 31/

Ultimately, for me at least, I have the same question in mind that a purely secular non-Muslim scholar would have when it comes to Qur'anic Studies & the Prophet. I want to know what he *really* said & our modern critical tools help us to figure that out. 32/

Here the difference that Naṣr Abu Zayd invoked would be helpful, that between meaning on the one hand & significance on the other. Meaning is something that we try to be "objective" about (ED Hirsch), which should be a shared enterprise in Qur'anic Studies. 33/

Whereas *significance* is where the normative, confessional, & constructive work is free to engage in & falls in the realm of the academic theologian's work. But, hopefully, the former drives the latter, less so the latter driving the former. 34/

Ultimately, however, we are all trying to figure out what the Qur'an "really" said (problematic from a post-Gadamerian perspective, for sure) & what the Prophet "really" said or did. This is a shared goal & objective, regardless of if one is a Muslim or not. 35/

@KhalilAndani
@Professor_MSyed
@prof_ahmetkuru
@GabrielSaidR
@shahanSean
@JonathanACBrown
@MuqtedarKhan
@SEltantawi
@JosephLumbard
@kecia_ali