Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Response to Moosa

Response to Moosa RESPONSES AND REJOINDERS I FIND MUCH TO BE grateful for and much to agree with in Professor Moosa’s advocacy of thinking contrapuntally. I know neither the work of al-Ghazali nor Moosa’s work on him, but this elegant essay makes me eager to read both. Moosa is certainly right that those who have practiced Religious Studies (and its cognomens) in the past have often spoken and written in a flat-footedly totalizing way, attempting to account for what they study while refusing to countenance the possibility that they might themselves be accounted for or put to the question by it. Some still do speak and write like this, though there is now an air of quaintness and preciosity about such talk. Moosa is right, too, that there are other ways to do things. Al-Ghazali can be read, for example, in full awareness that the act of reading him may, and almost certainly will, inform the reader’s future reading and thinking in unpredictable ways; and he can be read, as Moosa apparently does, in admiration and partial imitation of his brico- lage, exile, and habitation of interstitial spaces. All this is good, and when done with wit and delicacy as Moosa does http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the American Academy of Religion Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/response-to-moosa-HcrtTlby4L

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
ISSN
0002-7189
eISSN
1477-4585
DOI
10.1093/jaarel/lfj028
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

RESPONSES AND REJOINDERS I FIND MUCH TO BE grateful for and much to agree with in Professor Moosa’s advocacy of thinking contrapuntally. I know neither the work of al-Ghazali nor Moosa’s work on him, but this elegant essay makes me eager to read both. Moosa is certainly right that those who have practiced Religious Studies (and its cognomens) in the past have often spoken and written in a flat-footedly totalizing way, attempting to account for what they study while refusing to countenance the possibility that they might themselves be accounted for or put to the question by it. Some still do speak and write like this, though there is now an air of quaintness and preciosity about such talk. Moosa is right, too, that there are other ways to do things. Al-Ghazali can be read, for example, in full awareness that the act of reading him may, and almost certainly will, inform the reader’s future reading and thinking in unpredictable ways; and he can be read, as Moosa apparently does, in admiration and partial imitation of his brico- lage, exile, and habitation of interstitial spaces. All this is good, and when done with wit and delicacy as Moosa does

Journal

Journal of the American Academy of ReligionOxford University Press

Published: Mar 28, 2006

There are no references for this article.