Author： Martin Richard C.
Publisher： Brill
ISSN： 1570-0682
Source： Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol.24, Iss.4-5, 2012-01, pp. : 371-388
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
Abstract Aaron Hughes offers a challenging critique of contemporary Islamic Studies scholarship, particularly among members of the Study of Islam Section (SIS) of the American Academy of Religion (AAR). A call for a more rigorous scholarship based on historical and textual criticism is issued as `provocation' to the group. In my reply, I suggest that his essay is indeed a provocation, although not always helpfully or accurately, despite an attempt to end on a non-polemical, constructive note in the last couple of pages, where there is not enough substance on which to build a useful dialogue. Hughes argues that contemporary Islamicists have tended to become defensive of Islam in the face of growing Islamophobia in the public sphere. This essay in reply accepts some of Hughes's critique, disagrees with some of the substance of it, including the pugnacious tone, and suggests ways to improve the chances of a meaningful dialogue
Related content
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 16, Iss. 4, 2004-01 ,pp. :
Access to resources
Recommend
Wittgenstein and the Criticism of Religion A Case Study
Studia Theologica, Vol. 62, Iss. 2, 2008-01 ,pp. :
By Kelsay John
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 24, Iss. 4-5, 2012-01 ,pp. :
Shifting Boundaries: the Study of Islam in the Humanities
THE MUSLIM WORLD, Vol. 106, Iss. 4, 2016-10 ,pp. :