Islam and the Tyranny of Authenticity: An Inquiry Into Disciplinary Apologetics

by Aaron W. Hughes

Many scholars of Islam are interested in creating a liberal, inclusive, pluralistic, feminist, and modern version of the religion that they believe to be explicit in the pages of the Qur'an, but missed by earlier interpreters. In so doing, they create "good" Islam and, in the process, seek to define what does and does not get to count as authentic. As the purveyors of what they now believe to be veritable Islam, they subsequently claim that rival presentations are bastardizations based either on Orientalism and Islamophobia (if one is a non-Muslim) or misogyny and homophobia (if one is a Muslim that disagrees with them). Instead of engaging in critical scholarship, they engage in a constructive and theological project that they deceive themselves into thinking is both analytical and empirical. This book provides a hard-hitting examination of the spiritual motivations, rhetorical moves, and political implications associated with these apologetical discourses. It argues that what is at stake is relevance, and examines the consequences of engaging in mythopoesis as opposed to scholarship.

Genres: Islam

256 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2015

Reviews

[Lumturi · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book just comes across as him not liking Muslims in Islamic studies. His argument is that Islamic studies scholars are not engaging in critical scholarship (that he approves of) and are engaging in an effort to paint Islam as inherently democratic, egalitarian, feminist, etc.

I would say not everyone is this way in Islamic studies or engages in that. There are conservative Sunni-Salafi types, traditionalists, Nizari Ismailis, leftists, Bohras, and proponents of Twelver Shi’ism. But I doubt he would be okay with these people’s approaches and perspectives either, so he just doesn’t like Muslims in Islamic studies. The only good scholarship is what he approves of, which would seem to inherently exclude Muslims as he talks about critical scholarship on the origins and canonization of the Qur’an and Islam. No Muslim will reject the cardinal beliefs of Islam, so what role should Muslims have in Islamic studies, according to him? And why is he the one who gets to decide this?

I think it’s nice to have different perspectives. No one is obliged to produce only a specific form of scholarship you agree with. They’re not obligated to like your writings. You’re not mandated to read things you don’t like.

There is critical scholarship about the Qur’an, hadith, and Islamic origins. There are people who do that scholarship, and books and papers get published like that all the time. However, Biblical studies is completely different from Quranic studies because no one disagrees the Bible was written over a long period of time with numerous authors with different outlooks.

I know liberal apologetic works get published in other fields, like about how Jesus was a feminist and white conservatives “corrupted” Christianity, so it’s not exclusive to Islamic studies. Also, there are entire faith-based universities putting out faith-based scholarship. In Judaic and Christian studies, it seems that this creates an interesting conflict that he doesn’t talk about where the people most willing to doubt and critique the Bible are also the most liberal. Even at my secular university, a rabbi teaches Judaic studies, and Orthodox Christianity is taught by a Russian Orthodox priest. He’s very critical in the book of Ingrid Mattson for being a community leader and professor. This is just always how religious studies will be.

It’s like he falls over himself to express how much he dislikes this type of scholarship to the point of contradiction. First, two convert scholars not divulging their life stories and why they converted is problematic. Then Gwendolyn Zoharah Simmons being open about why and how she converted and how her race and gender inform scholarship, yes, that is also problematic.

He says traditional Muslims don’t take Western scholars seriously for lacking traditional training, but it’s also an issue for Ingrid Mattson to be a community leader. Would someone who had traditional training not also likely be a community leader? Not to mention that’s not even true. Mohsen Kadivar, Abdulaziz Sachedina, and Khaled Abou el Fadl are traditionally trained.


He objects to things that just seem to be factually accurate, like sentiments early Islam was fairly egalitarian and the Qur’an is relatively egalitarian. To me, I think that’s just factually true. The level of misogyny in the writings of classical scholars is shocking and not present in the Qur’an. Muslim societies indeed became quite misogynistic over time, not in line with the Prophet’s behavior. Even today, think about honor killings, gang rape, sexual harassment, acid attacks, etc. That’s certainly a level of misogyny not even supported by the most conservative formulations of Islam. Yet to him, it seems like all “Islams” are equally valid, and we only need to engage in detached study of them. Islam cannot be whatever Muslims say and do, or it has no meaning. Would polytheistic Islam or pro-pork Islam be as valid as any other form of Islam? Certain readings will be supported by the text, and some will just not.