مجلة كلية الشريعة والدراسات الإسلامية (Jun 2020)
Between Dogmatism and Speculation: A Critical Assessment of Qirā'āt Studies
Abstract
Purpose: This paper analyzes the current state of Western research on the variant readings of the Qur’ān and how it differs from traditional Muslim scholarship, through the lens of objectivity and bias. Methodology: Descriptive and analytical. After a brief survey of the major views in the field, I identify three major sources of contention between the two camps: the problem of sources, disagreements concerning the history of the Arabic language, and disputes over the value of the isnād (chain of transmission) as an indicator of historical reliability. I then discuss how to use the concept of “objectivity as responsibility” (as discussed by Heldke and Kellert) to defuse the bias paradox. Findings: Each camp’s premises and goals impact their research, and each camp may perceive the other as biased. I chart out five suggestions for measures that the two camps could adopt to facilitate a more productive and objective way forward. Originality: The article's originality lies in (I) its breadth, including incorporation of recent scholarship, (II) its depth: it pinpoint assumptions and disagreements that underly the rift, (III) analysis of the rift through a philosophical paradigm.
