Reland insisted the sole authority on Islam must be Muslim sources.

Evidence

Islamic sources were fit to be trusted only where they witnessed against Islam, where they were admissions of the ‘real’ truth; it was only with great reluctance that an author would use them to correct Christian testimony on any point at all. Their approximation to Christian belief, or at least their compatibility with it, was used as a measure; and was thought to be a more reliable criterion in dealing with Islamic sources than any evidence of the authority with which such sources spoke for Muslims. When Islamic testimony did seem likely to serve the purposes of Christian polemic, it was used to correct Christian fables, in order that the two might be combined, and the combination be irresistible. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1387 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Fazlur Rahman (1911–88), a professor at the University of Chicago and author of numerous books on Islam, protested at Western reductionist approaches to his religion, such as ‘the attempt to “explain” Islam’s genesis and even its nature with reference to Jewish, Christian, or other “influences”’. This was an aspect of the West’s cultural arrogance. He also suggested that in order for a statement about a religion to be valid it had to be acceptable to at least some members of that religion, though he did not spell out his reasons for thinking this. — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 599 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Rahman argued outsiders’ claims about Islam must be acceptable to Muslims — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists…, 599; Muslim sources were trusted only as self-incriminating admissions — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1387; Orientalism claims authority to speak for an Islam that cannot speak for itself

Related

• Muslim sources were trusted only as self-incriminating admissions (similarity 0.87)
• Rahman argued outsiders’ claims about Islam must be acceptable to Muslims (similarity 0.86)
• Orientalist categories can contradict what Muslims would say about themselves (similarity 0.81)
• Reland’s 1705 work permanently excluded fable from accepted scholarship on Islam. (similarity 0.80)
• Orientalist scholarship was overwhelmingly dominated by Western scholars into the 1920s (similarity 0.80)
• Western ideological camps all reduce Islam to a scapegoat (similarity 0.80)
• Representations of Islam ignored Muslim self-understanding and resisted factual correction (similarity 0.80)
• Western discourse reduces all Muslim societies to a single malevolent essence (similarity 0.79)
• The Orient cannot represent itself and needs the Western expert to testify. (similarity 0.79)
• Even the most learned, sympathetic Orientalists converged on Islam’s latent inferiority (similarity 0.79)
• Textual Orientalism blames the Quran for every perceived Middle Eastern failing (similarity 0.79)
• Islam as tradition resists both fixed-structure and belief-collection definitions (similarity 0.79)
• Scholarly representation of Islam was dominated by Western outsiders (similarity 0.79)
• Western scholarship on Islam grew from positions of colonial dominance. (similarity 0.79)
• Reland’s 1705 work permanently purged legend from scholarly study of Islam. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Muslim sources were trusted only as self-incriminating admissions #contradicts (0.90) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1387
• Rahman argued outsiders’ claims about Islam must be acceptable to Muslims #corroborates (0.85) — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 599
• Orientalism claims authority to speak for an Islam that cannot speak for itself #contradicts (0.85)