Biases Or Pitfalls Of Western Intellectuals Or Academics
“Just things like that a person could keep in mind to avoid going into the same pitfalls while reading western scholars and still gaining whatever of merit they have said” To address this question, the first thing is to distinguish between theology and academic work. Both operate in different frameworks and follow different methodologies. Theology is rooted in belief system (usually based on tradition) and aims to interpret and defend that tradition. Academic work is rooted in critical inquiry and analyzes evidence (without commitment to any particular belief). We should be careful in comparing findings from both fields, because they are apples and oranges. For correctly re-framing the problem of alleged biases, we need to consider the following key points: 1. Academic Work derives its findings from available evidence. Researchers and scholars usually employ “historical critical method” in religious studies to critically evaluate and test the so-called established facts and patterns. Nothing is conclusively ‘established’ and settled in academia. Historical facts are always subject to review and can be revised with the surfacing of any new evidence, such as a manuscript or epigraphic finding. 2. Academia allows for continuous debate and revision, theology becomes static with time (once a critical threshold of followers accept it as given) and is often fixated on the works of earlier generations, or leaders and teachers of sect. For instance, Ghamidi sahab’s work for most part derives from his teacher’s work, and his teacher’s work is derived from his teacher… and the chain usually continues. That is how new sects are created in religions. Academic Work on the other hand is analytical in nature, and doesn’t subscribe to a certain belief. 2. Academic Work is peer-reviewed by fellow academicians, and their findings are published in specialized journals for peers to evaluate and critique. If any academic work consists of clear biases, it will be panned by fellow academicians and its findings will lose strength, sooner or later. Biases usually do not survive for long in academia. Academicians who come with an agenda or demonstrate clear biases either would usually not be able to publish in the peer-reviewed journals. If they did somehow, they would lose credibility, sooner or later, and would not be taken seriously by their peers. “such as 1. Many western intellectuals refusal to accept oral traditions or Established History” Instead of questioning the intention of such intellectuals, the inquiry should be directed to the strength of their arguments (or lack thereof) and underlying evidence. If their argumentation is flawed or weak, the peers would be more than eager to rebut them and kill their findings, and this keeps happening all the time in academia. “Established History” is not a scientific term in academia, and no scholar is obligated to take your or Ghamidi sahab’s version of history as “established”. There is not a single renowned academician in West who takes the oral tradition of Islam seriously. Does it mean, every single one of them is biased, or perhaps alternartively, there is something wrong with the oral tradition? You might want to see Dr. Joshua Little’s 21 objections on Oral Tradition based on his research, to see how academic reasoning and methodology works: https://theiqra.org/21-strong-points-problems-on-hadith-by-dr-joshua-little/