Twitter | Search | |
This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on 15 December 2020. Please switch to a supported browser or device. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.
Olav Elgvin
What I'm reading now: This article has profoundly changed how I view Muslim history. Made me realize that some of the things I've said to my students has been completely wrong.
Reply Retweet Like More
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
So much of what we "experts" on Islam say and think rests on shaky ground, it seems to me, based on a superficial knowledge of the culture and history we purport to know.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
Apology: Cultures. There is no one "Muslim culture" of course.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
Take this issue, for example, the relationship between the Islamic ulama and the worldly authorities: Almost every textbook I know claim that the Islamic sharia wasn't codified, and functioned independent of the state in pre-modern times.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
This kind of thinking, for example, informs sweeping claims about the relationship between islam and development such as in the recent "Rulers, Religion, and Riches: Why the West got rich and the Middle East did not" by J. Rubin.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
The problem is only that this view doesn't hold, in light of more recent proper historical scrutiny: Islamic rulers were often instrumental in shaping religion to their liking.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
Rapoport does an excellent job of showing this in the article I linked. As does Shahab Ahmed in "What is Islam?". And M. Alam in "The languages of political Islam".
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
The traditional view among Western scholars of Islam - that the Islamic sharia was the sole domain of the theologians - seems more and more questionable. But this is what I have always assumed to be correct, without investigating it properly in any original sources.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @olavelg
It's a cliché, but in my case it's true: The more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know. Ok, academic rant over.
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @sp00x
Ikke helt urimelig tolkning det. Har denne boka i bestilling nå, omhandler mange lsike tema:
Reply Retweet Like
Bjørn Rasmussen 11 Jan 18
Replying to @sp00x @olavelg
Jeg er mer opptatt av hva slags tilknings trender som lever i dag. Og da er det ingen uenighet om at Koranen er Guds ord, ord for ord. Derfor den store motstanden mot Sataniske Vers. Tariq Ramadan snakker fremdeles nedsettende om Salman Rushdie
Reply Retweet Like
Olav Elgvin 11 Jan 18
Replying to @BjoornRa @sp00x
Ja, men det er et viktig men der: Det er stor uenighet om hvordan disse gudsordene skal tolkes, og hvilken rolle fornuften utenfor åpenbaringen skal ha
Reply Retweet Like