Anis Malik Thoha

The concern for and the debate on “objectivity” in the scientific study of religions led scholars to advocate two major approaches known as “History of Religion” and “Phenomenology of Religion.” Both approaches are claimed to be “descriptive” and “value-free” as they stringently enforce the principle of epochê or distanciation to ensure objectivity. However, there are scholars who argue that objectivity (be it “descriptive” or “value-free”) is ontologically questionable and epistemologically impossible. It is a self defeating concept and a myth. They argue that objectivity is principally and directly concerned with “the object” under investigation regardless of the types of approach used.

Religionswissenschaft (Science of Religion or Comparative Study of Religion) is a new scientific field that is barely a century old. The origin of this field is attributed to Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900) especially to two of his publications: Chips from German Workshop (1867) and Introduction to the Study of Religion (1873). The scientific method in the study of the world’s religions, according to him, should be similar to the one applied in the field of Comparative Philology(1)  of which he was one of the leading experts. Because of his emphasis on “objective” and “scientific” method and also because of his provocative statement that “He who knows one knows none,”(2)  Max Müller has been crowned as “the father of Comparative Study of Religion.” Using the “objectivity” criteria, scholars rejected the works on religions carried out before the modern era, the bulk of which were contributed by Muslim scholars, as inappropriate in any listing of categories in the field of Religionswissenschaft. These studies were not objective and hence not scientific or at least their “scientificity” is debatable. This seems to be one of the reasons for Western researchers to look down upon classical Muslim scholarship.

Western Scholars and Muslim Scholarship

Western scholars dealing with the writings of Muslim classics are of many types. Seymour Cain, for instance, omits Muslims altogether in his study of religion. He traces the history of the study of religion from the ancient Greeks through the Roman thinkers to the Western trends of thinking in modern times, to precisely the second half of 19th century, to the so-called pioneering era of Friedrich Max Müller He clearly states that it was only towards the end of the 19th century that the discipline of the Scientific Study of Religions, in its truly technical sense, was born.3 He implies that in this development the Christian and Islamic civilisation has produced no contribution worth noting in this discipline. Clearly, there is a serious gap and a significant “missing link” in the chronological development and the unfolding of the discipline as sketched by Cain.4 However, there are some Western scholars like Mircea Eliade and Eric J. Sharpe who in their studies made a mention of some classical works by Muslim scholars but conclude that the discipline of Comparative Religion did in fact come into being at the end of the 19th century of CE, thanks to the serious works by a philologist Friedrich Max Müller.5

There are some Western scholars or Orientalists who study, edit and translate the major works of classical Muslims scholars into European languages. For instance, Edward Sachau, a German scholar, has translated Al Athar al Baqiyah an al-Qurun al-Khaliyah an Tahqiq Ma li al-Hind min Maqulah Maqbulah fi al-Aql aw Mardhulah  of Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni (d. 442AH./1050CE.)6 David Thomas edited and translated into English a work of AbË ÔsÉ al-WarrÉq (d. circa 247AH./862CE.);7 Daniel Gimaret, Guy Monnot, and Jean Jolivet translated into French Al-Milal wa al-Nihal of al-Shahrastani (d. 548AH./1153CE.);8 and Thomas F. Michel, S.J. translated into English a work of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH./ 1328CE.) entitled Al-Jawab al-Sahh li-Man Baddala Din al-Masih.9

Finally, there are Western scholars or Orientalists who study the works of classical Muslim scholars in this field. The most well-known among this group is Jacques Waardenburg, a Professor of Comparative Study of Religion at Utrecht University, who was concerned with the issue of “objectivity-subjectivity” in the discipline.10 This is reflected in his Classical Approaches to the Studyof Religion (2 vols.), and Reflections on the Study of Religion.11

Apparently, Waardenburg’s main concern is to “criticise” the works of Muslim scholars, the classical as well as the contemporary, in the light of the dominant Western concepts and methodologies. To Waardenburg, the classical Muslim scholars have failed to understand and represent other religions objectively. What the Muslims saw, according to him, were “images” (subjective understandings) “developed within their own cultural and religious orbit.”12 To him, this is the main problem that has prevented the emergence of the discipline of “objective” and “scientific” study of religions in the Muslim world. This is all the more difficult, according to Waardenburg, because of the adage that “Islam is the final and true religion.”13...click for a full paper in pdf

*Dr. Anis Malik Thoha is Assistant Professor, Department of Usul al-Din and Comparative Religion, Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .