G. Wiegers

Review SymposiumTowards a global view? The study of religion between birth and maturity

The volume discussed here is a first ambitious attempt to describe and analyse the academic study of religions and to reflect on the consequences of the fact that, as a result of among other things dramatically increased possibilities of communication and travel, it has spread throughout the globe (p. 2). The book is organised in a different way to studies that can be seen as its immediate predecessors, such as New Approaches to the Study of Religions (Antes et al., 2004), which already concluded that the academic study of religions was a ‘global endeavour’ (vol. II, p. 457) yet did not attempt to describe and analyse it on the scale of the present study. That study included a mixture of contributions dedicated to method and theory, current and emerging research themes and regional approaches. The underlying theoretical issue in the present study is different. Alles endeavours both to give a global ‘view’ of the study of religions, and to contribute to the coming into being of a global ‘vision’ (p. 3). By this he means that the study ‘maps, in a preliminary fashion, work that is being done around the world’ (ibid). In his Introduction (pp. 1–13), Alles tells us that he asked contributors to deal with the following: 1. The prehistory of the study of religions, 2. the emergence of the study of religions, 3. the development of the study of religions (major ideas; key thinkers and texts; institutionalisation; interregional divisions and interregional connections; relations with other fields of study), and 4. emerging issues. What the author intends by ‘relations with other fields of study’ remains unclear. More generally, there is no clarification of the rationale behind the aforesaid list. Moreover, the importance of the list is undermined because Alles hastens to add that ‘each was also given the latitude to modify the outline or abandon it altogether if that seemed desirable’ (p. 8). Indeed, some of the contributors followed a completely different approach, as we see below. Alles also attempts to demarcate ‘religious studies’. Although it is the name given to the field in the title, the first page does not begin with this term. The very first words read: ‘The study of religions is a global enterprise’ (p. 2; my emphasis). The same holds true for other passages in the introduction, and for many other contributions. This is in itself not surprising for those engaged in the field, since we know there is no consensus in the terminology used. But why the preference of the editor for the term ‘religious studies’ – even when he himself does not use it consistently? The reasons appear mainly pragmatic. On p. 7 he explains that it is clearer to speak about ‘religious studies in Japan’ than about ‘the study of religions in Japan’ because of the ambiguity of the latter expression. A disadvantage, however, is that religious studies is less clearly demarcated from theological approaches. Alles solves this problem by defining religious studies as a ‘synonym for a nontheological study of religions’ (p. 7). According to Alles, the aim of the study of religions is knowledge about religions while the aim of theology is to formulate religious truth. Believers often claim that their propositions are forms of knowledge. But Alles argues that ‘we lack the means to demonstrate most religious claims in a manner consistent with criteria that we ordinarily use for knowledge’ (p. 5). He holds that the distinction between an insider and outsider perspective does not constitute a good distinction between theology/religious studies. I agree. Insider and outsider perspectives are scholarly perspectives of the student of religious studies (see Platvoet, 1982; Wiegers, 2005). According to Alles, therefore, the most decisive demarcation between religious studies and theology is that ‘they [the scholars] take the most rigorous, critical stance on what counts as knowledge that human beings are capable of taking’ (p. 3). But theologians can also engage in religious studies. How do we deal with that? Alles tells us that ‘what they [theologians] make of their religious convictions after that is their own business’’ (p. 6; my emphasis). But can we really say that it is the believer’s personal business how he uses this knowledge after having been active as a student of religious studies? Of course we cannot prevent anything, but is not the use and function of our scholarly production something that should concern religious studies scholars as well? I believe it is, at minimum in classroom discussions with students on the possible uses of our scholarly knowledge. In the Introduction Alles explains that he is an advocate of neutrality, but not through ‘methodological agnosticism’ (n. 10, p. 11). Methodological agnosticism, he tells us, could not help a scholar if the Qur’anic last judgment were to occur: ‘it would make little sense for scholars of religions to invoke a principled methodological agnosticism . as justification for refusing to take this event into account’ (n. 10, p. 11; my italics). The author seems to suggest that methodological agnosticism cannot function as an a priori principle. I agree. Methodological agnosticism refers to the pragmatic attitude of a scholar towards the non-empirical and hence non-falsifiable nature of certain religious claims. However, whether a particular claim is empirically falsifiable or not can only be determined after the fact.

Towards a global view? The study of religion between birth and maturity

The volume discussed here is a first ambitious attempt to describe and analyse the academic study of religions and to reflect on the consequences of the fact that, as a result of among other things dramatically increased possibilities of communication and travel, it has spread throughout the globe (p. 2). The book is organised in a different way to studies that can be seen as its immediate predecessors, such as New Approaches to the Study of Religions (Antes et al., 2004), which already concluded that the academic study of religions was a ‘global endeavour’ (vol. II, p. 457) yet did not attempt to describe and analyse it on the scale of the present study. That study included a mixture of contributions dedicated to method and theory, current and emerging research themes and regional approaches. The underlying theoretical issue in the present study is different. Alles endeavours both to give a global ‘view’ of the study of religions, and to contribute to the coming into being of a global ‘vision’ (p. 3). By this he means that the study ‘maps, in a preliminary fashion, work that is being done around the world’ (ibid). In his Introduction (pp. 1–13), Alles tells us that he asked contributors to deal with the following: 1. The prehistory of the study of religions, 2. the emergence of the study of religions, 3. the development of the study of religions (major ideas; key thinkers and texts; institutionalisation; interregional divisions and interregional connections; relations with other fields of study), and 4. emerging issues. What the author intends by ‘relations with other fields of study’ remains unclear. More generally, there is no clarification of the rationale behind the aforesaid list. Moreover, the importance of the list is undermined because Alles hastens to add that ‘each was also given the latitude to modify the outline or abandon it altogether if that seemed desirable’ (p. 8). Indeed, some of the contributors followed a completely different approach, as we see below. Alles also attempts to demarcate ‘religious studies’. Although it is the name given to the field in the title, the first page does not begin with this term. The very first words read: ‘The study of religions is a global enterprise’ (p. 2; my emphasis). The same holds true for other passages in the introduction, and for many other contributions. This is in itself not surprising for those engaged in the field, since we know there is no consensus in the terminology used. But why the preference of the editor for the term ‘religious studies’ – even when he himself does not use it consistently? The reasons appear mainly pragmatic. On p. 7 he explains that it is clearer to speak about ‘religious studies in Japan’ than about ‘the study of religions in Japan’ because of the ambiguity of the latter expression. A disadvantage, however, is that religious studies is less clearly demarcated from theological approaches. Alles solves this problem by defining religious studies as a ‘synonym for a nontheological study of religions’ (p. 7). According to Alles, the aim of the study of religions is knowledge about religions while the aim of theology is to formulate religious truth. Believers often claim that their propositions are forms of knowledge. But Alles argues that ‘we lack the means to demonstrate most religious claims in a manner consistent with criteria that we ordinarily use for knowledge’ (p. 5). He holds that the distinction between an insider and outsider perspective does not constitute a good distinction between theology/religious studies. I agree. Insider and outsider perspectives are scholarly perspectives of the student of religious studies (see Platvoet, 1982; Wiegers, 2005). According to Alles, therefore, the most decisive demarcation between religious studies and theology is that ‘they [the scholars] take the most rigorous, critical stance on what counts as knowledge that human beings are capable of taking’ (p. 3). But theologians can also engage in religious studies. How do we deal with that? Alles tells us that ‘what they [theologians] make of their religious convictions after that is their own business’’ (p. 6; my emphasis). But can we really say that it is the believer’s personal business how he uses this knowledge after having been active as a student of religious studies? Of course we cannot prevent anything, but is not the use and function of our scholarly production something that should concern religious studies scholars as well? I believe it is, at minimum in classroom discussions with students on the possible uses of our scholarly knowledge. In the Introduction Alles explains that he is an advocate of neutrality, but not through ‘methodological agnosticism’ (n. 10, p. 11). Methodological agnosticism, he tells us, could not help a scholar if the Qur’anic last judgment were to occur: ‘it would make little sense for scholars of religions to invoke a principled methodological agnosticism . as justification for refusing to take this event into account’ (n. 10, p. 11; my italics). The author seems to suggest that methodological agnosticism cannot function as an a priori principle. I agree. Methodological agnosticism refers to the pragmatic attitude of a scholar towards the non-empirical and hence non-falsifiable nature of certain religious claims. However, whether a particular claim is empirically falsifiable or not can only be determined after the fact.

Muslim physicians and palliative care: attitudes towards the use of palliative sedation

BackgroundMuslim norms concerning palliative sedation can differ from secular and non-Muslim perceptions. Muslim physicians working in a Western environment are expected to administer palliative sedation when medically indicated. Therefore, they can experience tension between religious and medical norms.ObjectiveTo gain insight into the professional experiences of Muslim physicians with palliative sedation in terms of religious and professional norms.DesignInterpretative phenomenological study using semi-structured interviews to take a closer look at the experiences of Muslim physicians with palliative sedation. Data were recorded, transcribed and analysed by means of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA).ParticipantsTen Muslim physicians, working in the Netherlands, with professional experience of palliative sedation.ResultsTwo main themes were identified: professional self-concept and attitudes towards death and dying. Participants emphasized their professional responsibility when making treatment decisions, even when these contravened the prevalent views of Islamic scholars. Almost all of them expressed the moral obligation to fight their patients’ pain in the final stage of life. Absence of acceleration of death was considered a prerequisite for using palliative sedation by most participants.ConclusionsAlthough the application of palliative sedation caused friction with their personal religious conceptions on a good death, participants followed a comfort-oriented care approach corresponding to professional medical standards. All of them adopted efficient strategies for handling of palliative sedation morally and professionally. The results of this research can contribute to and provide a basis for the emergence of new, applied Islamic ethics regarding palliative sedation.

Interreligious Encounters in Polemics between Christians, Jews, and Muslims in Iberia and Beyond

This book discusses the “long fifteenth century” in Iberian history, between the 1391 pogroms and the forced conversions of Aragonese Muslims in 1526, a period characterized by persecutions, conversions and social violence, on the one hand, and cultural exchange, on the other. It was a historical moment of unstable religious ideas and identities, before the rigid turn taken by Spanish Catholicism by the middle of the sixteenth century; a period in which the physical and symbolic borders separating the three religions were transformed and redefined but still remained extraordinarily porous. The collection argues that the aggressive tone of many polemical texts has until now blinded historiography to the interconnected nature of social and cultural intimacy, above all in dialogue and cultural transfer in later medieval Iberia.

Cooperation in Turbulent Times: Strategies of Jews and Muslims in Amsterdam

ABSTRACT Relations between Jews and Muslims in Amsterdam grew tense after the conflicts between Gaza and Israel in 2014, the violent attacks on Jewish targets in Brussels (2014), Paris (2015) and Copenhagen (2015) and local incidents of online, verbal and sometimes physical discrimination. Nevertheless, these factors also inspired Jews and Muslims to launch cooperation projects and strengthen the bonds already existing between them. Cooperation in turbulent times is not always easy. The data collected for this research show how Jews and Muslims in cooperation projects use to strategies to solve some of the problems confronting them. The three most widely used strategies that were found are ‘searching for similarities’, ‘decategorizing’ and ‘avoidance’. These strategies do not emerge in a vacuum, however, but at a certain moment in time, in specific fields. Therefore, this article, will describe the usage of the three strategies and explain the interaction between strategies and their contexts.

Polemical Transfers : Iberian Muslim Polemics and Their Impact in Northern Europe in the Seventeenth Century

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Translations of the Qurʾān in Medieval and Early Modern Iberia

El Coran de Toledo. Edicion y estudio del manuscrito 235 de la Biblioteca de Castilla-la Mancha. Gijon: Ediciones Trea, 2011. 605 pp. ISBN 978-8497045759 Ulisse Cecini Alcoranus Latinus. Eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Koranubersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toledo. Berlin: LIT, 2012. 246 pp. ISBN 978-3643116703

Op weg naar Armageddon? [Bespreking van: B. de Graaff (2012) Op weg naar Armageddon: de evolutie van fanatisme]

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Bibliography Harald Motzki

This volume provides new insights into the transmission of the textual sources of Islam and combines this with the dynamics of these scriptures by paying close attention to how believers interpret and apply them.