Islamic Origins and Incidental Normativity

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The problem of Islamic origins has received much attention by both popular writers and militants who seek to define Islam on the basis of its past. The academic response to this attention is often dismissive, arguing that the past is contested and so any single-minded construction is reductionist and simplistic. This is certainly true, but it risks ignoring both the power of this polemic and also the new consensus that has emerged among scholars who work on Islamic origins. Most scholars now accept a mid-seventh century date for the basic text (rasm) of the Qur'an; they also agree that the writings of later historians must be subjected to a literary, not literal, reading. Yet material evidence from the first Islamic centuries is still poorly understood. I briefly describe some of this evidence to show how it undermines two forms of what I call incidental normativity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-43
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Religion
Volume84
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Normativity
Historian
Reductionist
Writer
Islam
Material Evidence
Militants
Quran

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Religious studies

Cite this

@article{e08847f6573b49fdba598a05e07f35b6,
title = "Islamic Origins and Incidental Normativity",
abstract = "The problem of Islamic origins has received much attention by both popular writers and militants who seek to define Islam on the basis of its past. The academic response to this attention is often dismissive, arguing that the past is contested and so any single-minded construction is reductionist and simplistic. This is certainly true, but it risks ignoring both the power of this polemic and also the new consensus that has emerged among scholars who work on Islamic origins. Most scholars now accept a mid-seventh century date for the basic text (rasm) of the Qur'an; they also agree that the writings of later historians must be subjected to a literary, not literal, reading. Yet material evidence from the first Islamic centuries is still poorly understood. I briefly describe some of this evidence to show how it undermines two forms of what I call incidental normativity.",
author = "Brockopp, {Jonathan Eugene}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jaarel/lfv094",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "28--43",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Religion",
issn = "0002-7189",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

Islamic Origins and Incidental Normativity. / Brockopp, Jonathan Eugene.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 84, No. 1, 01.03.2016, p. 28-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Islamic Origins and Incidental Normativity

AU - Brockopp, Jonathan Eugene

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - The problem of Islamic origins has received much attention by both popular writers and militants who seek to define Islam on the basis of its past. The academic response to this attention is often dismissive, arguing that the past is contested and so any single-minded construction is reductionist and simplistic. This is certainly true, but it risks ignoring both the power of this polemic and also the new consensus that has emerged among scholars who work on Islamic origins. Most scholars now accept a mid-seventh century date for the basic text (rasm) of the Qur'an; they also agree that the writings of later historians must be subjected to a literary, not literal, reading. Yet material evidence from the first Islamic centuries is still poorly understood. I briefly describe some of this evidence to show how it undermines two forms of what I call incidental normativity.

AB - The problem of Islamic origins has received much attention by both popular writers and militants who seek to define Islam on the basis of its past. The academic response to this attention is often dismissive, arguing that the past is contested and so any single-minded construction is reductionist and simplistic. This is certainly true, but it risks ignoring both the power of this polemic and also the new consensus that has emerged among scholars who work on Islamic origins. Most scholars now accept a mid-seventh century date for the basic text (rasm) of the Qur'an; they also agree that the writings of later historians must be subjected to a literary, not literal, reading. Yet material evidence from the first Islamic centuries is still poorly understood. I briefly describe some of this evidence to show how it undermines two forms of what I call incidental normativity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960171898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960171898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jaarel/lfv094

DO - 10.1093/jaarel/lfv094

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84960171898

VL - 84

SP - 28

EP - 43

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Religion

SN - 0002-7189

IS - 1

ER -