CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Study and Philosophy of ReligionIslamic Thought and Society StudiesIslamic Studies and History

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond the Confessional/Non-Confessional Divide—The Case of German Islamic Theological Studies

Open access
Engelhardt, Jan Felix·2021·Religions
DOI 10.3390/rel12020070
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article focuses on the cross-disciplinary collaboration of Islamic theological studies, Islamic Studies, and integrative perspectives of professors in Islamic Theology in Germany. Based on extensive interviews with German Muslim professors in theological centers, Engelhardt argues that in Germany, where the Ministry of Education and Research established several centers for Islamic Theology, the theological scholarly community is too small to cover all areas of Islamic knowledge and therefore integrates knowledge from Islamic Studies into their research and teaching to a great extent. As a result, Islamic Studies constitutes the most important neighboring discipline to German Islamic Theology. In this article, he explores the question of how exactly German Islamic Theology negotiates this relation with Islamic Studies. The article will show how the debate between Islamic Theology and Islamic Studies—as articulated by professors from both disciplines—relates to the ongoing question of what constitutes or is understood as ‘apt knowledge’ by current ‘academic knowledge production’ and authority formation about ‘the Islamic’.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rel12020070

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Engelhardt, 2016, Wer verweist auf wen?, Was Zitationen über den Fachdiskurs der Islamisch-Theologischen Studien verraten. Frankfurter Zeitschrift für Islamisch-Theologische Studien, 3, 185
  2. Heine, 2010, Aus dem Schatten heraus, Islamwissenschaften im Wandel. Herder Korrespondenz Spezial, 64, 137
  3. Frodeman, Robert (2010). A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Engelhardt, J. F.
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
Engelhardt, Jan Felix
Venue
Religions
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-01-21
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
70
ISSN
2077-1444 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/rel12020070
OpenAlex
W3125687349
Cited by
12
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
9.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Religions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Islamic Studies and History
Keywords
Islamic theology, Islamic studies, academic knowledge production, interdisciplinarity, German universities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review