Insular academic language on Islam enables public charlatans

Evidence

I have read Ibn Warraq first and foremost as an act of penance for my academic share in having contributed to a secluded scholarly language and discourse about Islam that has made that entire body of scholarship irrelevant to the public domain—leaving the space open for charlatans like Ibn Warraq to spread their venom. — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 524

Categorization

• SEED: A confessional essay angle: the scholar’s self-critique that his own guild’s seclusion handed the public stage to polemicists.

Related

• Muslim intellectual critique long predates and exceeds Islamophobic polemic. (similarity 0.83)
• Scholarly discourse about Islam can facilitate media dehumanization of Muslims (similarity 0.83)
• Islamophobic polemicists work from paid translation rather than primary sources. (similarity 0.82)
• Ibn Warraq marketed himself as the first secular Muslim doubter of Islam (similarity 0.82)
• Ibn Warraq condemns apostasy in Islam while unable to read its primary sources. (similarity 0.81)
• Muslims have long practiced self-criticism within their own languages under their own names (similarity 0.80)
• Ibn Warraq argues Arabic fluency is unnecessary for valid critique of Islam. (similarity 0.80)
• Anti-Islamic polemic often rests on secondhand citation of texts authors cannot read. (similarity 0.79)
• Islamic studies remains exempt from scholarly norms applied to other fields (similarity 0.79)
• Ibn Warraq’s recommended sources are dominated by religious and nationalist extremists. (similarity 0.79)
• A critic of the Quran can publish on it without knowing Arabic (similarity 0.79)
• Islamic doctrine has always been internally contested and reinterpreted (similarity 0.78)
• Islamophobic claims serve to positively define their speakers rather than describe Muslims (similarity 0.78)
• Islamic studies’ marginality lets media spread racist caricatures unchecked (similarity 0.78)