Replies

I thought the article was pretty good. Its perspective is sort of interesting though, I don't think most scholars who work in this field in the US and Europe would consider Schacht's (died in 1950's), Goldziher's (from 19th c.) or Wansbrough's (work from 1970's) ideas particularly "new." Scholars working out of Princeton (the author lists Cook and Crone), I'm sure have not been called radical for years. Really the only signicant group that I can think of that would consider them that radical are Fundamentalist Islamic countries...sort of makes one wonder who the NYT target audience is.

I'm defending my thesis next week and parts of it are based on a number of the works listed below. My thesis is called "The Odyssey of Theodicy in Islamic Theology," and one of its primarly conclusions I make is that Islam is a system of thought that is "two faced" (I know this term sounds pejorative, but it is a straight translation from a 13th c. Muslim theologian describing a defense he was using for an earlier theologian). It has allowed two opposite theologies to co-exist because the Muslim theologians couldn't decide from the Qur'an which was scriptural (i.e. which was right). The same could be said about modern day Islam's approach to the elements of radical Islam represented by bin Laden and others: It is a two faced response, one which condemns him on one hand and on the other glorifies him. Both "faces" drawing from the same "legitimate" Qur'anic textual and tradition sources. Often the same person can be viewed, in the same discussion, to be defending/holding to both "faces" because he sees both as legitimate.

If one holds to the definiton provided by the article, then my thesis is a "new" and "radical" view...but I doubt it will make much of a splash...which might be a good thing right now :). I'm a radical!