05-05-2017, 02:57 PM
(05-05-2017, 02:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Not in "my opinion," but traits of scholars as internationally recognized by institutions like universities, think tanks, governments, and international research organizations--sure, I can do that.
That's not an answer to my question. I asked what qualities one must possess for you to acknowledge them as a "serious scholar" Making reference to a vague consensus of other organizations, none specific, is not sufficient.
Quote:Well Noam Chomsky certainly is. Whose list would he not be on?
That's an interesting reply. Please delineate the differences in Noam Chomsky and Chirstopher Hitchens that includes the former and excludes the latter.
Quote:But since we have been talking about Sam Harris and Middle Eastern issues, I am going to stick to that theme. I have already mentioned some in previous posts, like Edward Said and Bernard Lewis and Azizah Y. Al-Hibri.
I've quoted this bit to differentiate it from the copypasta that follows. These are the last of your own words in this post for some time.
Quote:1. In the March 2014 issue of Journal of Contemporary Iraq Studies, Guenther Cristoph published "The land of the two rivers under the black banner: Visual communication of al-Qaida in Iraq," an article which examines modes of visual communication deployed by the Islamic state evolved over the last two decades, and how these embed their contemporary message in traditional Arab Muslim narratives to acquire authority. This is a peer-reviewed journal, and any publication in it has to pass the review of 3-4 area experts. One "trait" of what I am calling scholarship is that it passes such reviews. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/intellect/ijcis/2014/00000008/00000001/art00003;jsessionid=f2n6xf8nq0o6.x-ic-live-02 His primary audience would be Iraq/Islam scholars, but the work would also be of interest to intel professionals of the US and Europe.
2. Another example would be Peter Adamson, currently on the faculty of ancient philosophy at the Ludwig-Maxmilliens Universitaet in Munich. His Al-Kindi (2006) introduces advanced students and scholars to the work of a 9th century Arab scholar who translated many Greek works into Arabic, stimulating a Greek "renaissance" in Arabic philosophy over the next four centuries. https://www.amazon.com/Al-Kindi-Great-Medieval-Thinkers-Adamson/dp/0195181433 To accomplish this work, he must move from ancient Greek to Syrian Arabic and back. In addition, he edits other serious work dedicated to Greek and Arabic philosophy of the Medieval period. His audience is largely other scholars, and his work fills out "gaps" in the contemporary field of ancient philosophy studies--gaps only known to and discussed by other scholars. Scholarship conserves the past and makes it relevant to the present.
3. Not all scholarship is addressed to other scholars. In post #119 and above I mention Azizah Y. Al-Hibri, a legal scholar at the University of Richmond. She is currently editing a series of works on Islamic jurisprudence to help inform the general (Western) public about that subject. She has written the first volume herself. The Islamic Worldview: Islamic Jurisprudence―An American Muslim Perspective https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627222847/?tag=newbooinhis-20 This work is not only to enable Muslims to learn about their own tradition, but also Westerners seeking to understand the grounds and logic of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence--in a way that passes muster with other scholarly experts in this subject area.
What 1-3 above also have is LEARNING. A scholar must know his/her subject matter in depth, including the requisite languages. Of A-Hibri wants to write a book about what she thinks of neuroscience, it might be interesting but I doubt neuroscientists would pay much attention to it.
To cap this off, I want, by way of contrast, to offer an example of something which is manifestly not "scholarly." Bridget Gabriel's Why they Hate is the personal account of an Americanized Lebanese Christian who travels the world denouncing Islam in toto. "History" in her book is just Muslims doing bad things. Always. No history or context necessary.
https://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358385/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494003543&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=bridgett+gabrial The book is not for scholars, but for the ignorant and haters. She created the website ACT, from which Oklahoma representative John Bennett collected the "questions" for his poll of Muslims in Oklahoma back in 2013. http://kfor.com/2017/03/05/oklahoma-lawmaker-receiving-backlash-after-asking-muslim-students-to-fill-out-hateful-questionnaire-before-meeting-with-them/ "Do you beat your wife? Must Muslims rule over Kafir? It says so right here."
This is more copypasta from you without a source link. You do this quite often. It's either to pass the words off as your own or to avoid acknowledging a potentially dodgy source. I've underlined and enlarged a key statement from the copypasta that shows why it is obviously copypasta.
Quote:Now if we bring Sam Harris into the picture, is his work more like 1-3 or more like Gabriel's? I'd say it was more like Gabriel's. He is sharing his personal thoughts on Islam and supporting them with quotations of translated English which, combined with some news media reports, are enough for him to distill the essence of Islam. There is no evidence that he understands Islam or the history of the Middle East beyond what one would find on the Israeli state's websites or Wikislam. He does not understand how texts are read differently through different traditions and in differing historical and cultural contexts. How would Middle East scholars respond to his website? Would they say his musings advance knowledge of Islam or Middle East history? Who is his audience? I think there is considerable overlap with Gabriel's.
This is all opinion, and poorly substantiated or fact based opinion to boot. I'm getting the impression that "serious scholar" for you is someone who agrees with you on this subject. Of course you as much as said exactly that in the post above as I'll directly quote;
(05-03-2017, 03:47 PM)Dill Wrote: A vetted panel of academics sound good, but we are living in the time of Trump (what do "experts" know about anything) and the Islamophobes will have their "experts" too. Not great scholars, perhaps (one thinks of Fox commentators like Sebastian Gorka), but that will become a fight over criteria of expertise.
This is a not so subtle attempt to label anyone who disagrees with you on this subject as both an islamaphobe and, most certainly, not a "serious scholar". In so doing you've both declared the discussion over before it begins and expose the weakness you perceive in your own argument. By condemning everyone on the other side of an issue to the ranks of the unlearned plebeians you attempt to stifle any attempt to have a rational debate or to acknowledge that the other side possesses the expertise to even discuss the subject with you.
Quote:1-3 above are not really suitable for supporting arguments in internet forums. Especially 1 and 2, they presume too much knowledge already. Using them would be "boring." But Harris' work presumes virtually no knowledge of Islam or Middle Eastern history, and lends itself easily to such purposes. He has a Ph.D in neuroscience, right? A smart guy to tell you all about Islam.
Let's stick to the Hitchens disagreement. I'll ask again, what qualifications did Christopher Hitchens lack that prevented you from viewing him as a "serious scholar"?
