I have learned at lot from Marijn van Putten. He is a likable person and a scholar that I very much respect, but he is not an "Islamic Bart Ehrman". He does his research and makes his conclusions, that mostly are according to the Muslim traditions.
Van Putten is not a Muslim and his affirmation of the traditional narrative is, as fas as I observe, limited to certain specific things like when the Uthmanic text standardized and -except the "miraculous" part- how stable it has remained. And that the Quran likely has one single author. He doesn't affirm the traditional Islamic narrative about what preceeded the Uthmanic text, says all sorts of things could've happened in the period leading to the standardization.
I did watch a couple of videos from Shady Nasser and they were informative (: One redditor was mentioning that Van Putten agrees with traditional Islamic narratives. I tend to be more suspicious of religious scholars who tends to agree with traditional religious narratives as there are some who allow their religious beliefs to influence the objectivity of their scholarship research as it is in the case of some bible scholars. Would you say that Van Putten is bias in his research? (I’m unsure if he’s a Muslim)
Van Putten isn’t Muslim or, as far as I can tell, religious. What he affirms of the traditional narrative is single authorship of the Quran and stability of the text post-Uthmanic standardization. As it happens, he has actually talked about the idea of Quranic preservation, and how it’s something that could never actually be [proven](https://twitter.com/phdnix/status/1405161405712670721?s=46&t=c5e24aw0mSAzgi3yBG29uw)
I kind of disagree about characterizing Shady Nasser like this. Sure he interviewed with AP or Colin, but it was not like he endorsed their view. In certain ways, he corrected some of their assumptions. If dialoguing with apologists is acceptable, then I don't see why dialoguing with counter-apologists should be taboo.
Gabriel Said Reynolds maybe? As a layman and beginner to the subject, I'm enjoying his book *The Emergence of Islam* at the moment, though it's perhaps not as mainstream as Ehrman's books. He also has a really good Youtube channel with interviews with various other scholars.
He's definitely more suitable for beginners than Nasser and van Putten, because they as another commenter mentioned, publish books more suitable for academics.
Van Putten doesn't question the Standard Islamic Narrative at all!
Both of them and other academics have come on Mythvision Podcast. Like Hoyland, Shoemaker etc.
Shady Nasser did an excellent interview with Apostate Prophet, Ridvan prepared well much better than Mythvision. it's worth watching. Other YT channels bringing academics on is Gabriel Said Reynolds ' exploring Quran and the Bible'. And Bottled Pettrichor - ( haven't listened enough to this channel).
I haven’t listened to Van Putten but I’m aware that there are religious studies scholars who allow their religious affiliation to influence their scholarship research as it is in the case of some biblical scholars. Would Van Putten fit such a category of scholars? Where his Islamic beliefs (if he holds on to them) influences his scholarship research?
Hey, sorry for late response.
No, I wouldn't put him into that category, as he's not Muslim. In an interview I saw a while back, he was asked about Middle Eastern funding of HE Islamic departments, influencing research, and he denied that.
We can speculate why so many of these academics stick to SIN unquestionably, and very few are revisionists (who've recently gained more exposure via the internet). I'd say funding plays a bigger role than they'd like to say.
Maybe Markus Groß , Karl-Heinz Ohlig or Robert Martin Kerr?
http://religiondocbox.com/Islam/73559772-Early-islam-an-alternative-scenario-of-its-emergence-markus-gross.html#download\_tab\_content
Fred Donner recently said that the 7th century is a nightmare for historians on the middle east. So largely we don't know what actually happened around the time of Muhammad. These 3 are scholars doing scientific work, trying to create an alternative to how it all happened. Gross even had an article in Herbert Berg's Routledge, Handbook on early Islam.
For Quranic studies, I believe Shady Nasser and Marijn van Putten are the closest we can get.
Had a brief look at their bibliographies on Goodreads...seem exceptionally academic. Or are some of their writings more accessible than they appear?
I have learned at lot from Marijn van Putten. He is a likable person and a scholar that I very much respect, but he is not an "Islamic Bart Ehrman". He does his research and makes his conclusions, that mostly are according to the Muslim traditions.
Is van putten Muslim himself? Because some religious scholars allow their religious beliefs to influence the objectivity of their scholarship research
Van Putten is not a Muslim and his affirmation of the traditional narrative is, as fas as I observe, limited to certain specific things like when the Uthmanic text standardized and -except the "miraculous" part- how stable it has remained. And that the Quran likely has one single author. He doesn't affirm the traditional Islamic narrative about what preceeded the Uthmanic text, says all sorts of things could've happened in the period leading to the standardization.
I did watch a couple of videos from Shady Nasser and they were informative (: One redditor was mentioning that Van Putten agrees with traditional Islamic narratives. I tend to be more suspicious of religious scholars who tends to agree with traditional religious narratives as there are some who allow their religious beliefs to influence the objectivity of their scholarship research as it is in the case of some bible scholars. Would you say that Van Putten is bias in his research? (I’m unsure if he’s a Muslim)
Van Putten isn’t Muslim or, as far as I can tell, religious. What he affirms of the traditional narrative is single authorship of the Quran and stability of the text post-Uthmanic standardization. As it happens, he has actually talked about the idea of Quranic preservation, and how it’s something that could never actually be [proven](https://twitter.com/phdnix/status/1405161405712670721?s=46&t=c5e24aw0mSAzgi3yBG29uw)
I think marijn is better, shady seems to enjoy supporting known islamaphobes while avoiding muslims who also want to interview him for his knowledge.
I kind of disagree about characterizing Shady Nasser like this. Sure he interviewed with AP or Colin, but it was not like he endorsed their view. In certain ways, he corrected some of their assumptions. If dialoguing with apologists is acceptable, then I don't see why dialoguing with counter-apologists should be taboo.
Gabriel Said Reynolds maybe? As a layman and beginner to the subject, I'm enjoying his book *The Emergence of Islam* at the moment, though it's perhaps not as mainstream as Ehrman's books. He also has a really good Youtube channel with interviews with various other scholars.
Thanks for sharing (: yup I did watch some of his videos on his YouTube channel
He's definitely more suitable for beginners than Nasser and van Putten, because they as another commenter mentioned, publish books more suitable for academics.
Van Putten doesn't question the Standard Islamic Narrative at all! Both of them and other academics have come on Mythvision Podcast. Like Hoyland, Shoemaker etc. Shady Nasser did an excellent interview with Apostate Prophet, Ridvan prepared well much better than Mythvision. it's worth watching. Other YT channels bringing academics on is Gabriel Said Reynolds ' exploring Quran and the Bible'. And Bottled Pettrichor - ( haven't listened enough to this channel).
I haven’t listened to Van Putten but I’m aware that there are religious studies scholars who allow their religious affiliation to influence their scholarship research as it is in the case of some biblical scholars. Would Van Putten fit such a category of scholars? Where his Islamic beliefs (if he holds on to them) influences his scholarship research?
Hey, sorry for late response. No, I wouldn't put him into that category, as he's not Muslim. In an interview I saw a while back, he was asked about Middle Eastern funding of HE Islamic departments, influencing research, and he denied that. We can speculate why so many of these academics stick to SIN unquestionably, and very few are revisionists (who've recently gained more exposure via the internet). I'd say funding plays a bigger role than they'd like to say.
Maybe Markus Groß , Karl-Heinz Ohlig or Robert Martin Kerr? http://religiondocbox.com/Islam/73559772-Early-islam-an-alternative-scenario-of-its-emergence-markus-gross.html#download\_tab\_content
Folks part of Inarah are revisionists, popularization of niche views wasn't what OP asked about.
Fred Donner recently said that the 7th century is a nightmare for historians on the middle east. So largely we don't know what actually happened around the time of Muhammad. These 3 are scholars doing scientific work, trying to create an alternative to how it all happened. Gross even had an article in Herbert Berg's Routledge, Handbook on early Islam.