Thread by @Tweetistorian

This thread will focus on my research on how we can improve the way we do tafsīr studies. As exegesis (tafsīr) functions both as a science of the Qurʾān itself and as a science of the Islamic sciences, it has been technically “all over the place” within Islamic studies.

~aym

The earliest Orientalist works on tafsīr, like Goldziher’s work from over a century ago, did not take the post-classical era seriously as representing an ‘authentic’ Islam. To be real it must come from the first centuries of Islam (7-9th c. CE).

~aym

This Orientalist focus on ‘originalism’ mirrored the focus within 19-20th c. Biblical, Christian & religious studies, but it also mirrored the mindset of 19-20th c. reformist Muslims. And they essentially started to influence one another, both dismissing post-classical Islam.~aym

One important myth of Orientalist & Muslim Reformist ‘originalism’ is that early Islam (‘real Islam’) was purely scriptural, all of its ‘rationalist’ developments were seen as alien imports (Greek, Syriac, Persian). It took a century for Islamic studies to shake this myth.

~aym

This includes the way Orientalist and Muslim Reformist doing tafsīr studies viewed ‘rationalist’ exegesis versus ‘traditionalist’ exegesis. See for example Pieter Coppens article on the reformist scholar al-Qasimi (d.1914):

academia.edu/42384464/Break…

~aym

The last 20 years has been a revolution in tafsīr studies, becoming a more mature discipline instead of its earlier status as sub-discipline of Qurʾānic studies. This development is mainly due to the increase of edited publications of tafsīr works: academia.edu/26017706/Rerea…

~aym

Together with the increasing easier access to manuscripts and the rise of digital humanities, it provides a perfect storm for comparative analysis. Instead of thinking in ‘originalism’ vs ‘alien developments’, we now see that each historical period has its own focus.

~aym

And that Muslim scholars throughout the ages applied a critical perspective on the development of the Islamic sciences. The myth of the blind dogmatic medieval scholar is off the table. Dogmatic and critical approaches can be found in any period.

~aym

Meaning: Muslim scholars throughout the ages mainly knew what they were doing when it came to their scholarship. They tried to be academic professionals like we try to be today.

~aym

So Islamic studies in general, and thereby also tafsīr studies, is taking a more nuanced approach. We are reassessing the old approaches, categories and typologies, and how we do comparative analysis.

~aym

This can be see for example with works such works as Ahmed’s ‘What is Islam?’, Bauer’s ‘Ambiguity in Islam’, and @a_el_shamsy’s analysis of the effect of the printing press on the Islamic sciences:


~aym

It is within these last two decades of revitalization and refocusing of Islamic studies in which my own academic training and focus was formed, and wherein I started to develop my own niche approach as Mohammed Ghaly @IBioethics told me to do during my undergrad years.

~aym

My first publication focused on the question if reformist approaches to the Qurʾān, with their modern emphasis on naturalism and rejection of premodern metaphysics (‘supernaturalism’), had no precedent in premodern tafsīr. Is it really modern?

brill.com/view/journals/…

~aym

This experience made me start focusing on tafsīr as an extension of theology which culminated in my analysis of sacred time and the concept of revelation as a metaphysical event where theological and exegetical sources enhanced each other:

brill.com/view/book/edco…

~aym

And now I’m working on several projects which revolve around the question in what way we can improve our use of tafsīr works in that they really say something about either the tafsīr tradition and/or the Islamic intellectual tradition. Which I will discuss in a new thread.

~aym

@threader_app unroll