Why I am not Ibn Warraq

Following on from the post on 'revisionist Islam' I want make a quick comment on Ibn Warraq, who work is peddled by many critics of Islam as a constructive or honest engagement with Islamic history and sources. In reality his work is far from that.

Ibn Warraq's method is to merely find whatever appears 'anti-Islam' and has the veneer of academic respectability. It doesn't matter if the criticism he adopts itself has severe limitations, is severely flawed, or that there are counter-arguments. He doesn't appear to be bothered with the fact that he will happily choose critiques where the very core methodologies used are at odds with one another. Consider that, on the one hand he promotes a secularisation of Islam, yet on the hand uses well-known Christian polemicist, for who the only interest in the Qur'an is to validate that which accords with their own texts. Consider that he uses the work of those who engaged with the history, like Joseph Schacht and Ignaz Goldziher; but then starts to waffle on about the importance of John Wansbrough or Andrew Rippin, who essentially reject the history and reconstruct Islam through literary analysis. It is one thing to use such material and make a case for your views, understanding their limitations, and perhaps proposing alternative methods. It is quite another to not to simply ignore these points. This is just plain dishonesty.

Here's a review of one of Ibn Warraq books, The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, that appeared in the Journal of Islamic Studies.