Good Scholarship/Bad Scholarship: Consequences of the Heuristic of Intersectional Islamic Studies
In her article, "Islamic Legal Studies: A Critical Historiography," published in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law, Ayesha Chaudhry criticizes the field of Islamic law, and Islamic studies more broadly, for promoting two hegemonic methodologies: White Supremacist Islamic Studies and Patri...
| Published in: | Journal of the American Academy of Religion |
|---|---|
| Subtitles: | DISCUSSING THE DISCIPLINE |
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
[2020]
|
| In: |
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Chaudhry, Ayesha S.
/ Islam
/ Racism
/ Intersectionality
/ Islamic law
/ Patriarchalism
/ Science ethics
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Study of religion BJ Islam NCJ Ethics of science |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | In her article, "Islamic Legal Studies: A Critical Historiography," published in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law, Ayesha Chaudhry criticizes the field of Islamic law, and Islamic studies more broadly, for promoting two hegemonic methodologies: White Supremacist Islamic Studies and Patriarchal Islamic Studies. She argues that these modes of scholarship perpetuate patriarchy, decenter Muslim narratives, privilege precolonial texts, and create barriers to entry into academia. Her resolution is a new form of Islamic studies—Intersectional Islamic Studies—which seeks to recenter Muslim narratives, is committed to social justice, and exposes the problematic power structures within academic inquiry. Chaudhry argues that scholarship produced using the first two methods is "bad scholarship," whereas scholarship produced using the third method is "good scholarship." In this article, I problematize the dichotomy between "good" and "bad" scholarship and argue that Chaudhry's methodology is restrictive, hegemonic, and detrimental to meaningful scholarly engagement. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4585 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American Academy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfz101 |