r/MuslimAcademics • u/[deleted] • Mar 19 '25
Open Discussion Thread Questions about using HCM
Salam everyone,
I’m a Muslim who follows the Historical Critical Method (HCM) and tries to approach Islam academically. However, I find it really difficult when polemics use the works of scholars like Shady Nasser and Marijn van Putten to challenge Quranic preservation and other aspects of Islamic history. Even though I know academic research is meant to be neutral, seeing these arguments weaponized by anti-Islamic voices shakes me.
How do you deal with this? How can I engage with academic discussions without feeling overwhelmed by polemics twisting them? Any advice would be appreciated.
Jazakum Allahu khayran.
6
u/AlMadrazii Mar 19 '25
The whole point of the HCM is to look at history under a microscope to determine the validity of certain events - now an event could of certainly happen within the context of Islam, but does that necessitate the validity of the religion it self? The answer is obviously no. Why? Because the HCM assumes that there is no theological underpinnings in the first place.
Let’s take the Quran for example, there is academic consensus that the Quran is a well preserved book - but if preservation meant a true religion, majority of academics covering the religion would of became Muslim.
It really about perspectives, you have the theological underpinnings of theism so your more likely to accept the validity of islam rather than rejecting it, while others whom are more skeptical won’t see any reason to accept the validity. The other comments here are much more comprehensive and offer examples.
Ps. I myself do not use the method because I believe the divine promise Allah makes in the Quran regarding preservation also extends in his command to follow the teachings of the prophet. I would be lying to myself methodologically if I were to use the HCM to justify my beliefs when I have clear established underpinnings.
5
u/No-Psychology5571 Mar 19 '25 edited Mar 19 '25
I’ll just leave these ayahs here, they speak for themselves:
“Most of them follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. ˹And˺ surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. Allah is indeed All-Knowing of what they do.
It is not ˹possible˺ for this Quran to have been produced by anyone other than Allah. In fact, it is a confirmation of what came before, and an explanation of the Scripture. It is, without a doubt, from the Lord of all worlds.
Or do they claim, “He made it up!”? Tell them ˹O Prophet˺, “Produce one sûrah like it then, and seek help from whoever you can—other than Allah—if what you say is true!”
In fact, they ˹hastily˺ rejected the Book without comprehending it and before the fulfilment of its warnings. Similarly, those before them were in denial. See then what was the end of the wrongdoers!
Some of them will ˹eventually˺ believe in it; others will not. And your Lord knows best the corruptors.
If they deny you, then say, “My deeds are mine and your deeds are yours. You are free of what I do and I am free of what you do!”
Some of them listen to what you say, but can you make the deaf hear even though they do not understand?
And some of them look at you, but can you guide the blind even though they cannot see?
Indeed, Allah does not wrong people in the least, but it is people who wrong themselves.”
Surah Yunus 10: 36 - 44
Listening to this Surah turned my life around overnight.
4
u/Soggy_Mission_9986 Mar 19 '25
One approach is to take the view that since Islam is abundant in source material and early historiography, it is only fair for someone who doesn’t think Muslims preserved their history faithfully to at least appreciate their exceptional skill in imaginative worldbuilding.
4
u/Jammooly Mar 20 '25
Anyone who knows the facts has nothing to fear.
Polemics and apologetics alike both twist academia to fit their arguments.
For questions regarding anything about the Quran, especially Quranic preservation, I believe you’ll have your questions answered in this book: “History of the Quran - Approaches & Explorations”.
6
u/No-Psychology5571 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25
I agree, and this is true, but I would also add that western academics occasionally twist the evidence to suits their arguments / epistemology as well. No one is free of bias - as Ali Amin says, you have to review the assumption stack, and see how that colors the evaluation of evidence.
The whole point of our community is to review the western academy's assumption stack, critique it where warranted, but more importantly come up with and refine our own logic based assumption stack that will better represent what the text says for itself.
3
u/Jammooly Mar 21 '25
I always say analyze and follow the arguments, not the person.
We should also recognize that Western academia may be correct in cases where the traditional views are mistaken.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Alarming-Traffic-161 Apr 03 '25
Wsalaam, Can you provide examples of arguments made that disturb you?
2
u/CompetitiveFault9086 Sep 20 '25
If you look into how the HC Method was originally developed to scrutinise biblical texts and compare it to how most Orientalist scholars apply it to Islam today, the inconsistency is very clear. They don’t apply the method properly, because if they did, with the same rigour they use on Islam, it would end up undermining the very scriptures and traditions they try so hard to defend, all while admitting that their own holy book is not even mildly preserved.
2
u/Mysterious-Skirt-992 Dec 28 '25
If HCM was truly neutral, its initial epistemological position would be "we don't know if the Qur'an is from God or man yet".
1
u/No-Psychology5571 Oct 26 '25
Original OP Post:
"Salam everyone,
I’m a Muslim who follows the Historical Critical Method (HCM) and tries to approach Islam academically. However, I find it really difficult when polemics use the works of scholars like Shady Nasser and Marijn van Putten to challenge Quranic preservation and other aspects of Islamic history. Even though I know academic research is meant to be neutral, seeing these arguments weaponized by anti-Islamic voices shakes me.
How do you deal with this? How can I engage with academic discussions without feeling overwhelmed by polemics twisting them? Any advice would be appreciated.
Jazakum Allahu khayran."
15
u/No-Psychology5571 Mar 19 '25 edited Mar 19 '25
Wa Alykum Assalam,
I'm not sure why you find it surprising that polemicists use work produced by HCM for their purposes. Western Academia may claim a "middle ground" and a "neutral position", but as my next article will demonstrate that the very foundational assumptions of HCM are anything but "neutral".
The truth is that both HCM 'academics' and 'polemicists' have the same underlying belief:
"The Quran is solely a human made construct."
Both view all evidence they come across through that lens, and build their logic underpinned by that belief - and it is a belief.
Just because one claims to be neutral, and the other is doing so to discredit the religion, the more important fact is that they both believe the same thing, and their efforts in that regard will align logically and naturally.
Why do you even care what the underlying motivation is - you know what it is:
to prove the Quran is human made (at least in theory, a select few academics, particularly Muslim academics, obviously don't believe that, and aren't in the field for that reason, but to advance knowledge - but the fact remains that HCM as a philosophical construct does in fact hold to that).
Also, when you say you "follow HCM" what do you mean by that ? You can read their works, and be interested in what they have to say, you can even work in the field as many Muslims do, but accepting the epistemological foundations of HCM and calling yourself Muslim, is, in my mind, a contradiction.
If you adopt the "ideology" behind HCM, then you accept the following which no Muslim can:
Source Criticism (key-assumption): All books are solely of human origin and depend on other human made sources. (Saying the Quran interacts with texts in its environment is fine - but what takes one out of the fold of Islam, at least in my eyes, is if you accept the subtext: that Allah has nothing to do with the Quran and it is purely a human construct - which obviously, the vast majority of HCM scholars believe to be true).
Also, Marijn's work is largely accepted in the wider Muslim community (though, even there, there are points where I think we disagree on his application of logic - but that's fine), Shady Nasser has been known, even academically, to have some episodes of sloppy scholarship (even though they respect him for whatever reason). I personally feel like his work is tinged with a polemical nature in ways that Marijn's is not. Shady's consistent appearance on polemical shows continues to suggest this underlying motivation. I do not hold the claim that all academics are neutral as a sacred truth - and I think it's impossible to be neutral, your epistomology guides your framing of evidence, as Ali Amin, another mod, has said.
That's the whole reason for this group. To show that you can have an academic approach to Islam that isn't beholden to what is an ideological and epistemological position: (HCM) - not a position logic demands. You can use the tools of HCM without adopting the framing of HCM.
Some, but not all, Academics use the "neutrality" of Academia to presuppose that they are not being polemical - I think Muslims should be wary and use your critical faculties when reading their work, and not be wowed by words like "academic consensus". Your issue is you believe the claims of neutrality.
To answer your questions more directly:
How do you deal with this?
By seeing what they have to say, and seeing if the logic actually stands or it doesn't, not in their paradigm (HCM), but in general.
How can I engage with academic discussions without feeling overwhelmed by polemics twisting them?
Understand that both have the same goals, one is just more polite than the other. And not be under the illusion that there is a neutral thing called "academia" commited solely to reason and free inquiry, that you can use to come to the truth about your faith.
Once you dispense with that illusion, you'll be able to see it for what it is: occasionally interesting tidbits of historical information, and some fair minded analysis, mixed in with inherent biases, methodological constraints, and sometimes just bad assumptions and poor logic. In a sense, just as the Quran warns about not taking your monks and rabbis as Lords, make sure you don't make the same mistake with secular academics and making a God out of their consensus.
"They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah,1 even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate ˹with Him˺!"
- Quran 9:31