Reddit reply in r/AcademicQuran: what do you think about this one — June 8, 2024 · l7outnf | Ali Shukri Amin

>As is apparent now, that's not the case. Of the long reading list you recommended, none of the works you cited deal with the historical-critical method. It's also obvious from the list of problems you gave of the HCM that you do not know what the HCM is. You have, so far, entirely failed to engage with the HCM (or even define it). And when ***I*** tell you the basic principle of the HCM, you write this

>I'm sorry but what I said is essentially true: the basic premise of the HCM is that you delay your conclusion until after the act of investigation has been carried out. It actually is a very simple point, but a transformative approach when it comes to the understanding of what individuals would consider their own sacred history. The fact that you consider such an approach so obvious when it comes to sacred history already reveals the influence of the HCM, and principles of studying the past that originated in modern Western history, on your thinking. Anyways, if you want a description of the HCM that is parsed out in more words and in more detail, including the history behind its emergence, you can read the first few pages of Nicolai Sinai's book *The Quran: A Historical-Critical Introduction*. The same Wiki page you brought up also has a brief section that more thoroughly outlines what it means to read texts "historically" and "critically", also based on his book.

For some reason, my wider historical arguments (that apply to the HCM as it is a historical method) and even some of the specific arguments I made did not register. The only option left for me is to sit down and write an essay critiquing HCM as applied to Qur'anic studies. While I'm willing to start on that, it has to be appreciated that this is not a specialty area of research for me, I would be doing it on my own time outside of my many other obligations, and it's not clear to me exactly what the value would be in doing it.

My goal was to demonstrate that the Western secular academic approach to research, including HCM, has as many baked-in assumptions as the Islamic paradigm and that the claim to neutrality is inaccurate due to many philosophical and historical factors. I feel like I proved that. I don't see exactly WHY it has to be fine-tuned only to apply to HCM, but since scholars in academic Islamic studies consider this their operative methodology perhaps such a tailored approach could provide some benefit.

Before I embark on this, I want to know what medium is most useful? It doesn't seem Reddit comments are going to be the best place to put what will probably be several pages of discussion.