Towards an interdisciplinary Islamic studies By Justin Parrott The study of Islam in academic universities is trending toward greater interdisciplinary integration and, indeed, must do so in order to fully encapsulate and accurately portray the myriad of complexities assoĐiated ǁith the siŶgulaƌ teƌŵ Islaŵ. TodaLJ, Islamic studies in the West is mostly covered under the rubric of religious studies or history of religion, utilizing similar methodologies to the study of Christianity and other religions. 1 Yet, this is only one approach, albeit the major approach, to investigating the phenomenon of Islam. Islamic legal studies has been incorporated into the law schools of major American universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Emory. Islamic art is taught within the art program of the University of Chicago, and architecture within the Aga Khan Program at MIT. 2 Other academic programs produce specialists in some aspect of Islam, often from the perspectives of sociology, anthropology, history, politics, or international relations. 3 A common issue in the field is the pƌoďleŵatiĐ use of the uŵďƌella teƌŵs Islaŵ aŶd IslaŵiĐ. The incredible diversity of lived ethnic Muslim societies and traditions, questions of authenticity and subjectivity, and universalities versus particulars, among others, contribute to the weakness of the term as a coherent analytical category. 4 The classification of Islam in this sense, observers have noted, is sometimes treated differently than the study of Christianity and other Western cultures, as if Islam was an inherently different subject matter. 5 The difficulty of Islam as a term has led a number of scholars to question the unity and immutability of Islamic traditions, 6 to speak of Islaŵs iŶ the pluƌal, 7 or to express the teƌŵs innate subjectivity by asking the question: Whose Islam? 8 The limitations and blind spots of Islamic studies, as well as foundational methods, originated in the Orientalist tradition of the 19 th century. These early scholars, such as Ignác Goldziher and their predecessors like Joseph Schacht, translated texts and developed narratives about Islamic civilization that would serve as seminal works for their time period. Their scholarship was famously criticized by Edward Said as a tool of oppression, imposing hegemonic categories, classifications, and self-serving analysis in the interests of colonial powers. 9 Others ƌespoŶded ďLJ defeŶdiŶg the tƌaditioŶs legaĐLJ, its intentions and achievements. 10 1 Brannon M. Wheeler, Teaching Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) p. i-ix. 2 See for example Harvard (http://ilsp.law.harvard.edu/), Emory (http://cslr.law.emory.edu/research/islamic-legal- studies/), Chicago (https://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/islamic-art), MIT (http://web.mit.edu/akpia/www/). 3 See for example Charles Kurzman at UNC Chapel Hill writing on Islam from a sociological perspective, or Fawaz A. Gerges at the London School of Economics writing from an international political perspective. 4 Shahab Ahmed, What Is Islam? : The Importance of Being Islamic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), p. 5-10. 5 Jamal J. Elias, Key Themes for the Study of Islam (Oxford: Oneworld, 2010), p. 2. 6 W. Montgomery Watt, What is Islam?, (New York: Praeger, 1968), p. 152. 7 Omid Safi, Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender and Pluralism (Oxford: Oneworld, 2003), p. 142,268. 8 Edǁaƌd “aid, Whose Islaŵ?, The New York Times, 29 January 1979, accessed online 22 Jan. 2016. 9 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979). 10 BeƌŶaƌd Leǁis, The QuestioŶ of OƌieŶtalisŵ, The New York Review of Books. 24 June 1982, accessed online 22 Jan. 2016; Robert Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents (Woodstock, New York: Overlook Press, 2006).