The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scientific and Political Freedom in Islam: A Critical Reading of the Modernist-Apologetic School
Abstract
The modernist-apologetic approach to the relation between revelation and science and politics has been a central part of Arab discourses on the future of Muslim societies for over a century. This approach introduced historical and theological narratives and interpretative mechanisms that contextualize reason and freedom in Islamic terms to argue that, unlike with Christianity, it is possible for Muslim societies to be technologically and politically advanced without forfeiting revelation as an all-encompassing, legally-binding guide. ‘Scientific and Political Freedom in Islam’ critically examines the coherence and consistency of modernist-apologetic scholars. This is done through a discussion of their general theorizing on reason and freedom, which is then followed by discussions of their commentaries on specific scientific and political issues in light of their general theorizing. Regarding the former, the focus is Darwin’s theory of evolution, while the universality of the "Biblical flood," the heliocentric model, the Big Bang model and Freudianism are also discussed. Regarding the latter, the focus is Islam’s desired structure of government and concept of participatory politics, while individual freedoms are also discussed. The book argues that the modernist-apologetic approach has great potential to be a force for liberalization, but also possesses inherent limitations that render its theory on the relation between revelation and freedom self-contradictory. Introducing a significant body of new information on the reasons for the failure of secularism and democracy and the attitudes towards Darwinism in the Arab world, this book is a valuable resource for students and scholars of Islamic Studies, comparative religion, democracy studies and evolution studies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many Muslim thinkers have been criticized for having apologetic approaches.
“Many Muslim thinkers have been criticized for having apologetic approaches (Shavit 2017;Hughes 2015;Daneshgar 2020, pp. 15-65).”
From Wasatiyya Discourse in Shi’i Islam: Ayatollah Montazeri and Human Rights Jurisprudence (2022) · cites this paper as Shavit 2017
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wasatiyya Discourse in Shi’i Islam: Ayatollah Montazeri and Human Rights Jurisprudence
Ghobadzadeh, N. (2022) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel13020126 · Cited by 18
“Many Muslim thinkers have been criticized for having apologetic approaches (Shavit 2017; Hughes 2015; Daneshgar 2020, pp. 15–65).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Shavit, U.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Shavit, Uriya
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-02-24
- OpenAlex
- W4233010195
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Islamic Studies and History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Qur’anic Interpretation Studies
- Keywords
- Islamic modernism, reason and revelation, science and religion, religion and politics, Darwinism, biblical flood, heliocentrism, Big Bang, Freudianism, Islamic political thought, participatory politics, individual liberty, secularism, democracy, Arab world
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