Running head The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on Islam 1.docx

Running head: The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on
Islam 1
The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on Islam 35
Keep in mind as you read the following: as soon as you have
read it and thought about it, we should meet to talk about your
plans for revising. I think you have almost everything you need
here for an excellent capstone project, but it needs more
structure. That's what I have talked about below. Only after
the structure is revised will I also work on some places where
the English is awkward or the quotations don't exactly fit….
My biggest concern is the connection (or lack thereof) between
the part of the paper that talks about scholars and the part that
talks about anti-Muslim polemicists with no real claim to
scholarly credentials. These two things seem very different to
me. So the first thing I want to know is, What do you think
connects them? How would you explain that connection to
someone who is just beginning to study negative stereotypes of
Muslims?
I can think of two ways that the paper might hold together
better and the argument might be more coherent. First, instead
of going from discussion of 19th-century scholarship to modern
non-scholarly polemic, you could find and analyze some late
20th- or early 21st-century scholarship that shows the
continuing influence of the 19th-century biases. For example,
there are exchanges between Said and Bernard Lewis that are
very interesting: see
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1982/08/12/orientalism-an-
exchange/
Also interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/06/14/lost-in-
translation-3
I'm sure you could find much more material along these lines—

scholars who are still essentializing Islam and Muslims in ways
that reveal the continuing influence of the 19th-century
scholarship.
Alternatively, you could re-structure the paper and make a
rather different argument. Is it possible to think of western
anti-Islamic discourse as having three (broad!) phases?
1. Early/medieval/into early modern period. People don't know
much about Islam or Muslims. They are infidel, and often
dangerous infidel at that, but they are not necessarily worse
than other kinds of enemies. As you say, there is a kind of
confidence in the Christian world about the self-evident nature
of their faith. There are not, in short, "religions", but rather one
legitimate faith and then a lot of different kinds of pagans and
Jews. (This could be a very brief introduction.)
2. The formation of the field of "Religious Studies" or
"Comparative Religion." Claims about Islam are biased, and
the bias is more pernicious because it is cloaked as "science".
European scholars are still absolutely convinced of their own
superiority, which they take for granted in their so-called
"science." But they also don't feel particularly threatened by
Muslims or Islam, and therefore don't get really nasty. Except
for Saraswati, who IS in this period. But Saraswati is not in the
West, is he? What experience does he write from? India is a
very interesting and sometimes very tense world for Hindus and
Muslims during the British Raj.
3. The last 50 (??) years or so. Post World War II maybe?
What combination of circumstances leads to the kind of hatred
and demonization that you find to some extent in Spencer and
even more so in Saraswati and Sultan? In my own research, I
have found that the kind of demonizing that Saraswati and
Sultan do occurs only when the "other" actually poses a
particular kind of threat. Not only is the "other" among us, but
some of us accept that. Some of us may even admire some
features of the "other". Some of us may be arguing that the
"other" is not so different or strange after all. People like
Sultan write not in a pretense of science and not out of their

own confidence in their cultural superiority, but in fear of the
infiltration and assimilation of the "other." They write to
convince the rest of "us"—those they recognize as part of their
own group—that the "other" is disgusting, completely alien,
polluted. "We" should have no contact with "them." If
anything about them seems good, it's fake. They're doing it just
to fool some of us, to draw us in, to seduce us to their demonic
cult. And so on.
Would it work to structure the paper around an argument that
when European Christians believed without question in the
superiority of their own culture, that superiority was necessarily
reflected in their scholarship. The influence of 19th-century
ideas based on this confidence continues today. But in fact it is
increasingly discredited as a scholarly position: see Said,
Orientalism and LOTS of other stuff. On the other hand, a more
popular and vicious kind of anti-Islamic rhetoric has come into
being as increasing numbers of Muslims have moved to western
countries….
I know that this second option takes you rather far from your
original conception, so I want to stress that you should do what
YOU want to do in restructuring the project. I'm a little
worried that option #2 is the paper I would write, rather than
the one you wants to write. Anyway, once you've read through
these comment a couple of times, let's talk.
The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on Islam

The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on Islam
This paper outlines features of 19th-century scholarship that led
to the development of stereotypes about Islam that persist
today. To illustrate these features and demonstrate the
continuing effects of these 19th century prejudices, the paper
will also briefly touch upon how these stereotypes are applied
in the present. Western Christian contempt for Islam and
discrimination against Muslims dates back to the
seventh century, so why is this essay specifically concentrating
on the nineteenth century? The 19th century saw the
development of "Religious Studies." Before this development,
Christians said hateful things about Islam and Muslims, but they
spoke only to other Christians who already shared their beliefs.
Although Religious Studies were established as "scientific"
discipline that claimed to be unbiased, in fact it was very biased
by its assumptions—namely, that Christianity is the best
religion. Yet because those biases were hidden, and the field
claimed to be a kind of science, the negative things said about
Islam were no longer just something Christians said to one
another. They were universal claims about how things were if
looked at properly. As a result, one could say that these
discriminating and critical remarks against “other” religions
began to have more severe and deep-rooted consequences. The
scholars this paper will mention are mainly scholars that were
either intentionally or unintentionally, meaning they were

heedless of the fact that they were caught up in the ‘normative’
cycle of, promoting and elevating Christianity’s stance, which
consequently, led to and provoked the deprecation of “other”
religions. In this incident, the focus will be on the
disparagement of Islam. Finally, it might be pivotal to mention
that the analyses mentioned are in reference to the Western
world, mainly Europe and the United States.
I became interested in the history of western ideas about Islam
because of the attitudes that surround us today. Polls regularly
show that Americans and Europeans have negative impressions
of Islam and Muslims. For example, YouGov conducted a
survey of 1000 adults in the U.S.A. between March 6th and 9th,
2015. The participants were asked if they had a favorable or
unfavorable opinion of the Islamic religion and the results
showed that more than half of Americans, fifty-five percent to
be exact, had an unfavorable opinion of
Islam[endnoteRef:1]. The Pew Research Center had similar
results when it asked 3,000 US respondents to rate members of
religious groups using a ‘feeling thermometer’ that ranged from
0 to 100. 100 indicated the most positive rating while 0
indicated the most negative possible rating. In the year 2014,
Muslims received the score of 40, which can be interpreted to
mean that 60 percent had negative views and 40 percent had
positive views[endnoteRef:2]. YouGov also teamed up with
Islamic Relief this year to get an understanding of Islam’s
impression in the United Kingdom, and what they found were
no different from Islam’s impression in the US. UK citizens
were asked what came to their mind when they heard the term
Islam and most responded with words like “terror”, “terrorism”
or “terrorists[endnoteRef:3].” These are only three examples of
the many surveys that have the same results. After seeing these
results I could not refrain from asking why, when, and how did
this negative opinions develop? Some people would say they
come from the behavior of Muslims, but I believe that is wrong.
Others would say it comes from the unfamiliarity; too few
people actually know any Muslims. Therefore, there must be

more to the story for other religions that have followers who
commit acts of terrorism, the question is why is Islam the only
religion that gets associated with terrorism? Not to mention,
terrorism has no religion. Sometimes to understand the present
you have to look into past, and in the situation this could be the
best option. [1:
End Notes
"Poll Results: Islam." YouGov: What the World Thinks.
Accessed December 2, 2015.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/03/09/poll-results-islam/.
] [2: "How Americans Feel About Religious Groups." Pew
Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. July 16,
2014. Accessed December 3, 2015.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-
about-religious-
groups/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_camp
aign=Feed: pewresearch/all (PewResearch.org | All Feeds).
] [3: Accessed December 2, 2015.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/q2ibnn2wzp/
tabs_HP_islam_20150309.pdf.
]
It may be a bold but not false to say that Islam has always been
a major target of animosity. Of course, there is constant
competition between all religions, which result in hateful
behaviors towards one another, but Islam is probably the one
with the most hits now. Where there is a loser there is always a
winner, and that winner most of the time now is
Christianity. When one examines the history of religions, he can
see the intense and continuous power struggle between all
religious traditions, but mainly between Christianity and all
other religions. Most, in fact, all religious traditions
probably have the ambition to be the one and only absolute
religion, but when one looks into history of some Christian
groups these desires are more prevalent, or it could also be that

the instances of them acting in respect to these desires
were recorded more in history. I believe this conquest for
Christian superiority is a major factor influencing the
stereotypical views on Islam now. In this paper, I will not focus
on forceful and bloody methods of obtaining superiority because
these sorts of actions can be found in almost all
religions. Instead, as mentioned before, I will focus on distinct
acts and ideas engineered by some Christian scholars that
enhanced the role of Christianity, and show how upraising
Christianity usually meant degrading others’ beliefs. In this
case, the focus will be on the demotion of Islam and Muslims.
Before secular ideas and religious pluralism were the dominant
ideologies in the West, western Christians could simply rest on
their assumption that being Christian was the only way to be. Of
course, Christianity was superior to everything else.
Nevertheless, today Christians cannot just rest on those
assumptions and that kind of confidence. They are forced into a
world that acts as if all religions were created equal, but this
view may not be enough to tone down desire for superiority.
Because of these shifts in proclaiming supremacy, new methods
emerged to dominate over the other in an ambiguous manner,
and these ‘modern’ methods of the nineteenth
century influenced the discrimination of Islam today.
Charles A. Goodrich brings upon the first idea I want to refer
too, in order to present Christian scholars’ agenda of
prioritizing Christianity, during the 19th century. Goodrich was
a reverend, as well as an American author and a Congregational
minister. The reason why I chose to start with Goodrich is
because I consider him transition figure, representing the shift
from the earlier Christian assumptions and direct declarations of
prominence to a kind of quasi-scientific assertion of Christian
superiority. He claimed, “ Idolatry, or religious deviance, where
ever and whenever it occurs, is a result of the inherent
propensity of humankind[endnoteRef:4].” This statement causes
Non-Christian religions to be seen as Satan’s empire. Goodrich
furthers his argument by saying, in every nation and every

period of time humans have the fundamental desire to stray
from the right path and become idolaters; the author describes
this as indication of the doctrine of original sin, which thereby
affirms the absolute truth of the Bible. It is only God’s grace
that can save humans from this continuous act of losing sight of
religious truth, and according to Goodrich, God’s grace is only
prevalent in Christianity. This claim blatantly establishes
Christianity above all religions, and portrays it as the savior of
all. Islam, on the other hand, a Non-Christian religion, is placed
in the same category as pagans, and is abstained from finding
the right path without the guidance of Christianity. This view
encouraged pessimistic notions of Islam, and can be seen as one
of the initial steps leading to modern day position of Muslims.
Later on this belief against other religions remodeled into
another theory. [4: Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of
World Religions, Or, How European Universalism Was
Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005, 53-57.
]
There was a shift from the idea of Satan’s empire to the form
of incomplete truths. Non-Christians were now seen as
representations of many incomplete religions, and their lacking
virtues were considered testimonies for the necessity of the real
thing, or Christianity. This change of thought brought along the
belief that it was inevitable for these religious traditions to face
a breakdown somewhere along the road. These faiths, including
Islam, were believed to be yearning for Christianity’s coming in
order to complete them. As one can see, Non-Christian beliefs
were precisely emphasized to be in contrast with
Christianity. This discrimination is extremely obvious in James
Freeman Clarke’s[endnoteRef:5] distinction between the terms
“catholic” and “ethnic”. This pair of terms “signify the
difference between the intrinsically universal religion
(Christianity) and the intrinsically limited, race specific
religions (all the rest).” Clarke’s aim, in this argument, similar

to many other Christian scholars of his time, was to establish
and prove Christianity to be the only religion that had the
unifying power and universal appeal, and, consequently, was the
only one that deserved to obtain the title of Absolute belief. In
relation to these ideas, Islam not only began to lose its
significance it also began to acquire prejudices, like being an
insufficient religion. It was scholars like Clarke, and their
studies, that prompted the academic discipline of comparative
theology. [5: Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World
Religions, Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in
the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2005, 77.
]
The significance and the ramifications of this new methodology
cannot be stressed enough. Max Muller is recognized to be the
establisher of comparative theology, and through this discourse,
he sought to “articulate a non-confessional, scientific, global,
and systematic account of the undeniable diversity of religious
history that presented itself to the western
mind[endnoteRef:6].” However, even though Muller had pure
intentions behind this discipline, of course some scholars
misused this method to fulfill their agendas. In fact, even before
the official formation of this field of study there were hints
about its mistreatment. When John Freeman Clarke was
advocating the study of different religious systems of the world
in his writings, he displayed in the form of a series of ‘findings’
what the reader should anticipate with this method of
examination[endnoteRef:7]: [6: Ivan Strenski, Thinking about
Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. 2006, 67.
] [7: Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions,
Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language
of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, 78-
79.
]

“6.) Comparative theology will show that, while most of the
religions of the world are ethnic, or the religion of races,
Christianity is Catholic or adapted to become the Religion of all
Races.
7.) Cross-cultural comparison would be employed to raise
questions about the core beliefs of so-called ‘orthodox’
Christians—the uniqueness of Christianity, and especially of the
bible itself.
8.) Comparative Theology will probably show that Ethnic
Religions are arrested, or degenerate, and will come to an End,
while the Catholic Religion is capable of a progressive
Development.”
The comparative theology that Muller constructed was very
different from Clarke’s assumptions, but his predictions were
not completely neglected because many religious scholars
adapted Clarke’s conjectures over Muller’s phenomenon. For
the scholars the most important and enlightening consequence
of this, ‘fair survey’ was that it testified to the truth of and
universality of Christianity, alone among all others. Let us
consider some ways the comparative theology was used by these
scholars.
Some comparativists of the nineteenth century attempted to
constitute the idea that all non-Christian religions are
somehow “older religions.” This allowed the sole authority to
be placed upon Christianity because the coming of Christianity
mandatorily situated all other beliefs in the
category of primitive traditions. The reason why these faiths
still existed was either because of their lack of knowledge about
the Gospel truth, or because of their stubborn attitudes towards
Christianity, and unwillingness to welcome its truth. George
Matheson was one of the authors who promoted this idea in his
book, The Distinctive Message of the Old Religions. He wrote
that Non-Christian religions have their origin in a much remoter
past, and while they are long passed away, Christianity is still

alive and green[endnoteRef:8]. These ideas are developed
specifically in relation to religious beliefs dating prior to
Christianity, but Islam is accepted to have originated after
Christianity, so how are these theories relevant to Muslims? The
fact that these authors attempted to consider the case of Islam
only after receiving strong backlash is in itself an answer,
which highlights the harsh reality of Muslims and their
insignificance in the eyes of these Western scholars. Some
scholars do not even attempt to explain this problem and choose
to completely leave out Islam, as if it had never existed. In
respect to this deliberate avoidance, Islam can be considered to
be in a lower status than Heathen beliefs because those
traditions are at least taken into consideration. Actually, in the
early periods, Judaism and Islam were regarded to be worse
than other religions because even though they were aware of the
truth they were deliberately performing an act of rejection,
which was more despicable then plain ignorance. As for the
scholars who gracefully undertook the conflict of Islam, they
only rephrased the famous argument about Islam that was
repeated countlessly during the nineteenth century. James
Cameron Lees quotes this argument clearly in his
book Mahommedanism when he writes, “Christianity is a living
spiritual religion, adapting itself to all forms of human life, and
thought, and action. In Mahommedanism there is no
regenerative power; it is “of the letter, which killeth,”—
unelastic, sterile, barren[endnoteRef:9].” According to Cameron
and to the other scholars who shared the same opinion as
Cameron, this ‘”newer” religion was as good as dead at the time
of its origin. In contrast to this belief, Christianity was accepted
as the only alive religion. These arguments portray how
comparative theology was very crucial and effective for Islam
and its image. [8: Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World
Religions, Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in
the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2005, 91.

of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, 83.
]
In the nineteenth century, there was another branch of
scholarship that aided Christian conquest for authority in bid
for the study of philology also known as the study of language.
Tomoka Masuzawa does an amazing job in outlining the huge
impact of language on religion in her book, The Invention of
Religions. She demonstrates how comprehension of language
shaped the impressions of religions in the public sphere,
especially in the world of academia. For the purpose of this
paper, I will only focus on the impression that Islam earned
because of this study. First, it was philological scholarship that
generated a new type of distinction among peoples and nations
in terms of language groups; the most immediately critical in
this context was the distinction between Indo-European (or
Aryan) and Semitic language groups. The reason as to why
Christians gave such great focus on the study of languages is
correlated with their search for disassociating themselves from
their Hebraic past. In the above discussion, we mentioned
several studies that severely degraded Heathen religions, as well
as Judaism and Islam. Even though this was mainly done for the
benefit of Christianity, these claims also posed a problem
because Christianity was generally viewed as being on the same
platform as Judaism and Islam, under the name Abrahamic
religions. Respectively, scholars’ acts of downgrading Islam
and Judaism would also end up causing harm and damage to
Christianity. This unfortunate correlation, which could
jeopardize the strived stance of Christians, demanded
Christianity to separate itself from its ‘sibling’ religions.
When William Jones discovered the close affinity between the
languages of ancient Persia and ancient India with the classical
languages of Europe, some Christian scholars were overjoyed
because this was a tremendous opportunity and solution for
getting rid of their Hebraic tag. Jones was a serious Orientalist

in India, who extensively studied the Sanskrit language. He
found beauty in it, and claimed it was more perfect than Greek,
and more copious than Latin. He led the way of studying
Sanskrit, philology and Indian literature. He also studied the
classical literature of India, religious, legal, and literary. This
also led the way for Europeans to study their own past and
future. Jones began to promote the wonderful structure of
Sanskrit, and advocated the idea that Greek and Latin shared a
common source with this language group, but this common
source may not exist now. This was crucial because for many in
the nineteenth century “an affinity between languages entailed
an affinity, proximity, and probable kinship between the people
who spoke them[endnoteRef:10].” There in fact was a shift in
what language came to represent. European scholars took their
studies a little further and began to search for a common
ancestor relating them to India and Persia, and this is when the
word “Aryan” first came to be adopted by Europeans. In the
first half of the nineteenth century, the word “Aryan” was used
to express a group of languages that were considered a family of
sorts. Simultaneously, when the Indo-Aryan language group was
found, a parallel of Semitic language groups was also found,
which included language groups like Hebrew, Arabic, and
Aramaic. This development immediately excluded Jews and
Muslims from the Aryan, “whiteness” identity. Shortly after
though, the word Aryan went from referring to a certain
collection of languages, and slowly was tied to national identity
of Europeans. Equivalently, the Semitic category did not just
merely remain as a denotation for linguistic grouping. It also
soon came to be recognized in racial and ethnic terms. In
respect to these findings, one can conclude that the initial
segregation between languages generated and fueled race,
ethnic, and religious discriminations. [10: William Jones, The
Works of Sir William Jones. London: Printed for J. Stockdale
and J. Walker, 1807,27.
]

I think it can be very beneficial to mention Wilhelm von
Humboldt and his views on language because his ideas help
clear up and illustrate the stereotypical consequences that were
cultivated on Islam and Muslims, as a result of study of
languages. Humboldt was a man with many labels. He was a
Prussian minister, diplomat, farsighted educational reformer, as
well as a classical scholar, but he is recognized most for his
label as a student of world languages. His main intention was to
carry out an extensive study of comparative philology, which he
believed went far beyond language and race. His comparative
study of languages had a spiritual mission.
“The division of mankind into peoples and races, and the
diversity of their languages and dialects, are indeed directly
linked with each other, but are also connected with, and
dependent upon, a third and higher phenomenon, the growth of
man’s mental powers into ever new and often more elevated
forms…This revelation of man’s mental powers, diverse in its
degree and nature, over the course of millennia and throughout
the world, is the highest aim of all spiritual endeavor, the
ultimate idea which world history must strive to bring forth
clearly for itself[endnoteRef:11].” [11: Wilhelm Von Humboldt
and Peter Heath, On Language: The Diversity of Human
Language-structure and Its Influence on the Mental
Development of Mankind. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire:
Cambridge University Press, 1988,63.
]
Humboldt sincerely believed there was a direct connection
between the study of languages and the world historical destiny
of a nation and ultimately of the human race. Humboldt himself
states, “ The comparative study of languages…loses all higher
interest if it does not cleave to the point at which language is
connected with the shaping of the nation’s mental
power[endnoteRef:12].” According to his views, differences in
language resembled difference among races and people, and

through these differences, one can distinguish and measure the
status of a nation or group. Language is also associated with
intellectual ability, intellectual capacity, and regarded as an
expression of a nation’s intrinsic potential and intelligence. In a
way, language became a defining factor of the hierarchical order
among nations, people, ethnicity, and religions. This idea
becomes a very decisive factor in establishing Islam’s role in
society and the world. [12: Wilhelm Von Humboldt and Peter
Heath, On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-
structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of
Mankind. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University
Press, 1988,63-64.
]
Humboldt asserts three distinct language groups, the Sanskrit
family, the Semitic family, and the Chinese family. He
establishes the first group, the Sanskritic family, which
Christian language is associated with, as the most perfect
language group. “This high estimation of the Sanskrit family,
and the concomitant denigration of non-Indo-European
languages lead to a self-congratulation of modern
Europe[endnoteRef:13].” According to Humboldt, not science or
advancement is the exclusive factors in determining the ranking
of people. For him language is the sole decisive element. This
argument places Islam in a very difficult and low-ranking spot.
Humboldt’s own words would clarify the reason for this more
efficiently. He says: [13: Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of
World Religions, Or, How European Universalism Was
Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005, 162.
]
“In the history of nations, the question may well have been
raised as to what would have happened in the world if Carthage
(a Semitic nation) had defeated Rome and conquered the
European West. One might equally well ask what the present

state of our culture would be if the Arabs (a Semitic race) had
remained, as they were for a time, the sole possessors of
scientific knowledge, and had spread throughout the Western
world. A les favorable outcome seems to me, in both cases,
beyond doubt. It is to the same causes, which produced the
world-dominance of Rome, namely the Roman spirit and
character rather than to external and more accidental
circumstances, that we owe the powerful influence of this
world-dominion upon our civil institutions, laws, language, and
culture. Through the turn toward this culture, and through inner
kinship, we became genuinely receptive to the Greek mind and
language, where the Arabs only adhered, for the most part, to
the scientific results of Greek inquiry. Even on the basis of the
same antique heritage, they would not have been capable of
erecting the edifice of science and art which we may justly
boast today[endnoteRef:14].” [14: Wilhelm Von Humboldt and
Peter Heath, On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-
structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of
Mankind. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University
Press, 1988,192.
]
At this point, one might ask how the perception of a religion
can be constructed by reference to its language. In addition, the
language that assists the cultivation of religion is another
concern. The truth lies in the very nature of the respective
languages; such nature is revealed in the language’s
grammatical structure. According to Humboldt and his theory of
language, the Semitic languages character and spirit are rigid,
fixed, and inimical to growth, development, and becoming an
accomplished culture. In comparison, the Sanskritic family is
the exact opposite, and carries the characteristics that are
absent, and can never be obtained by the Semitic language
family because its grammatical form is different. Sanskrit
language results from inflection, and what this means is that

there is a root word that evolves outward which brings about its
syntactical capacities out of its own fundamental existence. In
other words, the development occurs from within allowing the
roots, or protowords, to prosper into linguistic units that are
able to form syntax. This syntactic ability is extremely
momentous for our argument because it is this qualification of
Sanskrit language that placed Indo-European religions
especially Christianity, at a higher level than other religions.
Humboldt puts forward the argument that since the development
of inflection is an inherent self-progression of the root, its
blooming is free and productive, but it remains true to its
origin. Now that the development process is believed to follow
its own roots this grammatical form becomes acknowledged as
rational. This is probably what influenced Humboldt to asset
inflection as the most authentic and perfect language formation.
Since inflection is recognized as the impeccable configuration,
this means there are other linguistic forms that are seen as
inadequate and insufficient. Referring to the grammatical
formations of these languages is important because as
mentioned earlier, language becomes associated with
intellectual ability of races, ethnicities, and religions.
The alternative language group, which did not have the inner
developmental characteristics of inflection, was referred to as
agglutination. This latter method of language formation derived
from the Latin word agglutinate, which literally meant to glue
together. As the Latin definition explains, in agglutination root
words are elaborated to form a synthetic language. What this
means is that, there is a particular root word and additional
exterior components or particles manually are attached to this
proto-word, but this is done in a particular order, which allows
the words to have a certain syntax. This type of grammatical
form is associated with the Chinese language, and is perceived
to be in the opposite spectrum of Sanskrit family language.
Then where does the Semitic language stand? As reported by
Humboldt, the Semitic language family is positioned between
the two opposite poles, which represents all other language

groups outside of Chinese and Sanskrit, and is labeled delimited
inflection. I think the name Humboldt coined the Semitic
languages grammatical formation is very meaningful, and
believe it pertains deeper message. Similar to the situation when
Jews and Muslims were considered to be in greater sin, in
contrast to the pagans, because they were believed to
consciously and voluntarily reject the truth administered by
Christianity, the delimited inflection formation was also
regarded in a lesser state than agglutination, even though it was
more akin to inflection. Naming the grammatical form
‘delimited’ inflection instead of giving it a distinct label like
agglutination, in my opinion, is a very smart move because it
relays the message that Semitics can never have their own
entity, and that they and everything associated with them like
people, races, and religions, will always be considered inferior
to “inflection.” It also delivers the notice that without any
affiliation with inflection related matters the delimited
inflection associates will never have any significance, or
deserve any attention.
August Wilhelm Schlegel, a German essayist who is considered
one of the founding fathers of the German Romantic Movement,
had an outstanding knowledge of foreign languages, which
made him a decisive figure in the early development of
comparative language and modern linguistics. He is the one that
inaugurated the domain of Sanskrit studies in Germany, which
is why I want to touch up on some of his theories and remarks
about the language groups, and use those ideas to support my
claims that were made in the previous paragraph. Schlegel says,
“The Chinese presents remarkable instance of a language almost
without inflection, every necessary modification being
expressed by the separate monosyllabic words, each having an
independent signification. The extraordinary monosyllabic
form, and perfect simplicity of tis construction, makes the
consideration of it important as facilitating the comprehension
of other religions[endnoteRef:15].” [15: Tomoko Masuzawa,
The Invention of World Religions, Or, How European

Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, 164-165.
]
Before going any further, I just want to bring into attention the
adjectives that were used while mentioning the agglutination
language group: remarkable, extraordinary, and perfect. Even
though, Tomoko Masuzawa conveys her uncertainty about the
Semitic language family’s stance during the 19th century, I
think this report of Schlegel clearly demonstrates its standpoint
and proves my opinion about delimited inflection being seen as
the bottom formation below inflection, as well as agglutination.
This position might cause confusion because on the surface one
might expect the mixed and compromised grammatical
formation of the Semitic languages to rank higher than the
agglutination languages in the scale of linguistics excellence,
maybe even higher than the inflection languages. However, this
was not the case because these positive factors were not the
ones that received attention. What kept being repeated was the
so-called rigidity and stunted growth of the Semitic languages,
which implied that these languages were in fact constrained and
were not able to develop in direction, inflection, or
agglutination, and as a result, they were inherently unable to
evolve or refine. It is very clear that these European scholars
concentrated solely on administering a distinction between
languages with full inflection and those with limited inflection,
rather then focusing on the relative value between inflection and
agglutination.
To return to our main argument, the notable point in all these
arguments, and point of views regarding language study is 19th
century Christian scholars strive for superiority. Moreover, this
drive for superiority “seems to lead not so much to a disdain for
the peoples speaking agglutination language but instead to a
peculiarly pointed and dismissive judgment against the Semites,
and against the Arabs in particular[endnoteRef:16].” For the

people of the nineteenth century, and most likely to people in
the centuries to come, the rigid impression of Semitic language
structure directly corresponded with the Semites intellectual
inflexibility and their ‘limited’ mental capacity. According to
people with these perceptions, Semitic people did not have
competency to generate original ideas on their own because they
did not possess the internal power of creativity apparent in
Sanskritic people. Moreover, the ideas they ‘borrowed’ could
never flourish or advance because in the end whatever fell in
the hands of the Semites was bound to deteriorate. All of these
suppositions gained validity with the division of language,
which actually inferred the division of races, based on terms of
differences in intellectual, mental, and spiritual qualities rather
than in bodily features. Today’s scholars and the general
community would not accept this sort of direct correlation
between the nature of syntax and the cultural character of a
population or their religious inclinations as a reasonable and
rational judgment. However, regardless of what we might think
about such theories today, it apparently became suitable, even
inevitable to represent the religion of Semites, especially Islam,
in the shadow of an overpowering predisposition that asserted
their fundamental inflexibility, which emanated from, and was
evidently reflected, in their language. For that reason, despite
how impressive and grand worldwide spread it achieved, Islam
was constantly overlooked because most deemed it to be
essentially rigid, perpetually intolerant and restrictive,
extremely idealist, with an innate habit toward fanaticism. [16:
Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or, How
European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of
Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, 166.
]
Certainly, it was this perception of Islam that significantly
altered the image of Muslims, whom just couple centuries
before were regarded as the most advanced and elite group of
people. Part of the reason for this is also linked to the fact that

all Muslims were generalized and perceived to be Arabs or
Semitic language speakers, when in reality majority of the
Muslim population was made up of non-Arab affiliates.
Unfortunately, this dilemma continues to be prevalent in our
own time, but in more severe and strident conditions because
the quintessential Semite resonates disturbingly with the figure
of Muslim extremists that turn into Arab terrorists. All the
subjects that have been mentioned call attention to the negative
connotations the Semites, whom were recast as prototypically
Arab Muslims, have obtained throughout the developing
religious discourse. As a result, in the course of nineteenth
century, Islam obtained a new aloneness because the rule of
Islam, and Muslims in general, were now moderated and
influenced to be viewed unsympathetically as stunted, rigid, and
narrow. They were also perceived as the most eccentric of the
“old” religions, which provided more reason for them to be
recognized as irrational and anomalous. “If such fire-and-
brimstone holy outrage was the defining characteristic of
Semitic religion, it would seem highly unlikely that this
hypercritical force, with an altogether negative, unpromising
prospect for a career in constructive history, should have come
to play an essential role, perhaps the greatest part ever, on the
world historical stage.[endnoteRef:17]” [17: Tomoko
Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or, How
European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of
Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, 176.
]
In order to portray the lasting effects of the nineteenth century
developments, I want to briefly compare sections of writings of
two scholars: Abraham Kuenen, who wrote his book in the
nineteenth century, and Robert Spencer, who is an active writer
in our current period. Kuenen was a Dutch Protestant theologian
and a critic, whose writings mainly dealt with tracing the roots
of Christianity back to the Hebrew prophets with the intention
of getting rid of criticisms that were downgrading Christianity’s

position. How can one go about glorifying Christianity without
denouncing Islam? Kuenen was in fact one of these scholars,
maybe a little bit unique because his writings also “rescued” the
status of Jews and Buddhists. However, in contradiction to these
religious traditions, Islam represented an instance of
deterioration and reversion from the beginning. The first section
of his book, National Religion and Universal Religion, Kuenen
deals only with Islam and tries to answer questions like, is
Islam a universal religion. In fact, Kuenen’s main argument
against Islam was about its consideration for being a universal
religion. During this period, the concept of world religions had
emerged and there was constant debate about which religions
were qualified for this title. One of the central principles of
criteria was a religions extension span, and even though Islam
had an undeniably vast expansion, Kuenen asserted that this was
not evidence for its intrinsic universalism. It only signified its
hypocrisy, its violence, and the danger it continued to pose to
the rest of the world.
He also expressed Muhammedans as perpetrators of “fanaticism,
constantly fired by colonists of Arabia and by pilgrims
returning from Mekka, infectious too, like all fanaticism, which
by its very nature, might lay hold of the masses of the
population, and certainly makes them very dangerous subjects.
But this infectiousness of the political idea of Islam is not proof
of its spiritual supremacy[endnoteRef:18].” The unfavorable
reality of Islam, endangering and infecting the whole world, is
once again ascribed to the intolerance of its founder and to the
Arab line, for, in Kuenen’s opinion, “the Arabic nation was not
the cradle but the boundary wall of Islam[endnoteRef:19].” In
summary, for Kuenen Islam is a religion of fear, not of love. It
is regarded to be one of the so-called universalistic religions
because of its authoritative spread to mostly inferior
civilizations. However, in the eyes of Kuenen this universalistic
view on Islam is false; Islam only has the ability to be national
religion. Abraham Kuenen’s book once again demonstrates and
confirms Islam’s perception as the perfect example of

fanaticism, intolerance, and confined strictness during the
nineteenth century. “It may be added that, despite better, far
more extensive scholarship on Islam available today, little had
changed about this image[endnoteRef:20].” [18: Abraham
Kuenen, National Religions and Universal Religions Lectures
Delivered at Oxford and in London, in April and May, 1882,.
London: Edinburgh, Williams and Norgate, 1882,33.
] [19: Abraham Kuenen, National Religions and Universal
Religions Lectures Delivered at Oxford and in London, in April
and May, 1882,. London: Edinburgh, Williams and Norgate,
1882,55.
of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, 197.
]
Robert Spencer and his books are a perfect example of these
persisting stereotypical perceptions of Islam. Even though, he
denies having an ulterior motive in his studies, I do not agree
with this statement because he has a similar anti-Islamic tone
like Kuenen, and most of the nineteenth century scholars.
Almost in every section of his books, one can see reminisces of
the prejudices about Islam that were intellectualized in
nineteenth century, like Islam being an intolerant, narrow, and
lacking religion. However, he mainly emphasizes the idea of
Islam being a violent religion. The titles of his books are
enough evidence of this priority: Not Peace But a Sword: The
Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam, Stealth Jihad:
How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or
Bombs, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens
America and the West, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is
and Islam is not. The list goes on. One can estimate the material
dealt in these books, which have such Islamophobic titles. Due
to the advancements of academia, Spencer refrains from making
general accusations of all Muslims, but what he covertly
generalizes like most scholars in the nineteenth century, is the

idea that all Muslims are Arabs. Similarly, to Kuenen, he also
severely attacks and denounces Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and
portrays him as one the major factors for Islam’s fierce and
rigid presence. He accuses Islamic scholars of ignoring
Qur’anic versus and hadith’s that deal with waging religious
warfare, but he himself performs a similar mistake, and only
focuses on the small portion of versus and sayings that involve
violence and ignores the big portion that advocate peace and
justice. One of the famous hadiths of the Prophet that he
includes in majority of his books is, “Fight in the name of Allah
and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in
Allah. Make a holy war…If they refuse to pay the tax, seek
Allah’s help, and fight them[endnoteRef:21].” Unlike the anti-
Islamic scholars of the past, Spencer refers quite a lot to the
religious texts of Muslims, but I would label his references as
reductionist because he neglects to mention the contexts of the
quotes he chooses, which opens the way for misinterpretations,
which I think is his aim. [21: Robert Spencer, Religion of
Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Washington, DC:
Regnery Pub., 2007, 159.
]
I perceive his immense number of books as an extension and
more detailed explanation of the agendas of previous scholars.
For instance, Abraham Kuenen briefly mentions his opinion of
Islam being a religion of fear rather than love. Robert Spencer
takes this modest implication and elaborates it in almost all his
books. He dedicates one whole book to support this supposition;
Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam is not. After
supporting his argument with evidence that he clearly nit-picks,
he comes to a similar conclusion as Kuenen, “Christianity is a
religion of peace, and it is a religion without jihadist movement.
Islam is a religion of the sword and there are, by even the most
conservative estimates, more than one hundred million active
jihadist seeking to impose sharia not only in the Islamic world,
but in Europe and ultimately in the United

States[endnoteRef:22].” As this quote hints, a theme that was
not active in the nineteenth century was imposing fear in people
against the “other,” in this case against Islam. Whether it is a
new theme or a former theme, they are all used for the same
purpose and that is to authorize Christian superiority. Even
though, the methods used differ this ambition continues to exist
and, most likely, is what still affects stereotypical outlooks on
Islam. For example, when Spencer graciously attempts to prove
his objectivity by tackling violent Christians that were involved
in the Crusades, he delicately protects the superiority of
Christianity by putting the blame on Muslims. First, he excuses
the brutality of the Crusades by mentioning that it was
“equivalent to contemporary Islamic jihad
violence[endnoteRef:23]” and later blames the Muslims for the
violent actions of the Christians. “In fact, the Crusades were a
late and small-scale responseto Islamic jihad conquests that
began 450 years before the First Crusade and overwhelmed what
had been up to the time of conquests over half of
Christendom[endnoteRef:24].” It is extremely apparent that
even though two centuries have passed, the negative and
damaging effects of the nineteenth century scholarship
continues to live on. [22: Robert Spencer, Religion of Peace?:
Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Washington, DC: Regnery
Pub., 2007, 209.
] [23: Robert Spencer, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is
and Islam Isn't. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2007, 88.
] [24: Robert Spencer, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity
Is and Islam Isn't. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2007,99.
25 Sarasvati, Swami Dayananda. Light of Truth, Or, An English
Translation of the Satyarth Prakasha. Bharadwaja, 1927.
26 Sultan, Wafa. A God who Hates: The Courageous Woman
who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils
of Islam. Macmillan, 2011.

Bibliography
Cavanaugh, William T. The Myth of Religious Violence:
Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009.
"How Americans Feel About Religious Groups." Pew Research
Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. July 16, 2014.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-
about-religious-
groups/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_camp
aign=Feed: pewresearch/all (PewResearch.org | All Feeds).
“How Anti-Muslim are Americans? Data Points to Extent of
Islamophobia.”
The Guardian, December 8, 2015. Accessed December 9, 2015.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/08/muslims-us-
islam-islamophobia-data-polls
Humboldt, Wilhelm Von, and Peter Heath. On Language: The
Diversity of Human Language-structure and Its Influence on the
Mental Development of Mankind. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.
"Islamic State Threatens Jihad Attacks in Washington and in
Other European Countries." Jihad Watch. Accessed November
17, 2015. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/islamic-state-
threatens-jihad-attacks-in-washington-and-in-other-european-
countries.
"Jihad Watch." Jihad Watch. Accessed November 8, 2015.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert.

Jones, William. The Works of Sir William Jones. London:
Printed for J. Stockdale and J. Walker, 1807.
King, Richard. Orientalism and Religion Postcolonial Theory,
India and 'the Mystic East' London: Routledge, 1999.
Kuenen, A. National Religions and Universal Religions
Lectures Delivered at Oxford and in London, in April and May,
1882,. London: Edinburgh, Williams and Norgate, 1882.
Masuzawa, Tomoko. The Invention of World Religions, Or,
How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of
Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
"NY Times: “Non-Muslim Extremists” More Lethal than
Jihadis." Jihad Watch. Accessed December 6, 2015.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/ny-times-non-muslim-
extremists-more-lethal-than-jihadis.
"New “Study Quran” Aims to Convince You That the Muslim
Holy Book Doesn’t Really Mean What It Says." Jihad Watch.
Accessed November 28, 2015.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/new-study-quran-aims-to-
convince-you-that-the-muslim-holy-book-doesnt-really-mean-
what-it-says.
"Poll Results: Islam." YouGov: What the World Thinks.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/03/09/poll-results-islam/.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/q2ibnn2wzp/
tabs_HP_islam_20150309.pdf.

https://geog.sdsu.edu/Research/Projects/IPC/publication/Muslim
_Population_US.pdf.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/docume
nt/3kri630dkh/Results-for-Islamic-Relief-Islam-in-the-UK-
150618.pdf.
Sarasvati, Swami Dayananda. Light of Truth, Or, An English
Translation of the Satyarth Prakasha. Bharadwaja, 1927.
Spencer, Robert. Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about
the World's Fastest Growing Faith. San Francisco: Encounter
Books, 2002.
Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and
Islam Isn't. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2007.
Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and
Islam Isn't. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub. 2007.
Spencer, Robert. The Truth About Muhammed. Washington
D.C: Regenery Pub, 2006.
Strenski, Ivan. Thinking about Religion: An Historical
Introduction to Theories of Religion. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Pub., 2006.
Sultan, Wafa. A God who Hates: The Courageous Woman who
Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of
Islam. Macmillan, 2011.
"Video: Robert Spencer on Hannity: The SB Jihad Attack and
Jihad Denial." Jihad Watch. Accessed December 5, 2015.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/video-robert-spencer-on-
hannity-the-sb-jihad-attack-and-jihad-denial#comments.

]
Two more authors whose books contain Islamophobic
accusations are Danayand Saraswati and Wafa Sultan. In the
nineteenth century, Dayanand Saraswati in his book entitled
Satyarth Prakash (The Light of Truth), published in 1875 has
Islamophobic accusations within its context. Dayanand
Saraswati described the concept of Islam as highly offensive
while also doubting if there is any connection between Islam
and God. In the fourteenth chapter of the book, there is the
criticism of Quran based on the teachings of Quran itself. He
broadly attacked the Quran terming it unsuitable due to its
teachings that according to him are misleading.
Saraswati questioned the Mohammedan’ claim that God is
merciful by stating that He approved that man should cause
great suffering to others. He indicated that it was clear that
Mohammedans usually began evil deeds in the name of God.
Moreover, Saraswati claimed that the Muslims are intolerant
towards Non-Muslims. If the God of the Quran had been
merciful, the Mohammedans could not have slaughtered men of
other faiths. Saraswati continued to question the credibility of
Quran by indicating that the Allah actions were more devilish
than godly. The book through its author questions Muslims’
religion by doubting if the Allah is in all places why Muslims
only face Mecca. Lack of the understanding towards the Muslim
beliefs causes the author to question their religion. Questioning
the faith of the Muslims is one way the author facilitate the
Islam phobic accusations.
In the same book, the author goes on and accuses Muslims of
being idol worshippers. Saraswati accuses the Muslims of
slaying non-Muslims and other animals on the basis that it is on
Allah’s path. He continued to say that the Muslims should just
accept their slaying of others is just for selfish gains. Since the
author is a Hindu, he accuses the Muslims of copying the act of

fasting from Hinduism. The author indicates that Muslims lose
their political supremacy for the cause of Allah in their fight.
He suggested that if Quran had no such teachings, the
Mohammedans would not adopt their cruel ways towards the
non-Mohammedans. Besides, he said that the Muslim religion
teaches cruelty towards non-Muslims. According to him, this
cruelty shows that Quran is not the Word of God and God is not
described as the true God in the Quran.
Saraswati accuses the Muslims of being embodiments of bigotry
and ignorance. He continued by adding that it appeared that the
heart of Mohammed is not pure and the Quran was made to cater
for his selfish interests. In addition to his attacks, the Saraswati
described Muhammad as an imposter by saying that he
pretended to have received a revelation and messages from God.
In his word, the author accuses Muhammad of resorting to this
device as a way of defeating his opponents while increasing his
reputation. In addition, Muhammad had baits for the ignorant
such as men and women who he uses for his selfish gains. All
these are Islamophobic accusations in this book.
Saraswati accuses the Muslims of delaying the administration of
justice where he indicates that there are many incidents of lack
of justice. However, the author failed to show with evidence
where justice was not administered according and thus his
claims remain mere accusations. Another thing from the author
is that he believed that believers of the Quran are illiterate. This
a baseless accusation because many Muslims who are literate as
opposed to what Saraswati read the Quran said.
According to Saraswati, the Quran disturbs the peace of the
world as it fosters discord25. This cannot be true as it teaches
peace and harmony among all people. The author condemns the
act of forbidding the drinking of alcohol on earth while in
paradise there are streams of wine flow. The author attacks the
Muslims’ beliefs without having facts and understanding of the
Islamic religion.
In the next book Wafa Sultan is an author of a book entitled A
God Who Hates published in 2009 that criticizes the Muslims on

many counts of things 26. She starts by suggesting that the
Muslims would condemn her to death when they read her book.
She continues by saying that Muslims may not read the book,
but the title alone is enough for them to condemn her as that is
how things are with them. Her accusations continue when she
says that Muslims are more interested in disagreements than
rapprochement trying to cause fear in others who disagree. This
is a mere accusation as it is not true with all Muslims and
maybe what she refers is only a minority group.
In the second chapter, she addresses the women of Islam where
she gives her story of how she changed due to her appetite for
reading almost every book that came to her site. This according
to Wafa Sultan helped her see the oppression that Muslims
causes the women because they are not allowed to make a
decision about their life. The situation is very different from
what the author has in her book on the fate of Islamic women.
In the fourth chapter, Wafa Sultan while in U.S. says that
Muslims’ motive is to cause harm to others. She gives an
example of an Islamic friend she met in U.S. who was not
willing to take care of environment just because it is not her
country. Her friend said Americans were intentionally spreading
AIDS in Islamic countries and thus she hates them. Wafa Sultan
weary of listening to her friend silences her in defense of
Americans. The author blames the philosophy of her friend to
the Islamic religion as a motivating factor in causing harm to
others. She goes on saying that Muslims talk raiding, dress
raiding, eat raiding, and drive their vehicles like Raiders. In this
case, by giving an example of her friend, she unfairly
generalizes the idea of one person to that of all Muslims.
To try to strengthen her accusations, she says that Muslim
preachers preach using shouts and gestures that demonstrate the
art of raiding. Back to her days in her homeland in Syria, she
says that there was noise pollution caused by loudspeakers in
the mosques that were too close to their houses. In addition to
what she refers to the noise from the mosques, she says that she
was struggling to cope with, as it was irritating to her ears. She

confirms that she was happy having parted company with what
she refers as the culture of shouting and raiding. What her
believe is that no two Muslims can talk without their
conservation changing into confrontation within minutes
especially when they disagree. She also says that Muslims have
trouble understanding someone’s point of view when you talk in
a low calm voice as we think we have lost the argument. Here,
the author goes beyond the limits by leveling such an
accusation.
In chapter five, Wafa Sultan says due to fear, of course, men
mistreat women. She goes on explaining according to her how
men lack respect for women even for those she refers as literate
believe women are dirty. To her when Islamic man treats a
woman with respect, he is considered weak and this according
to Wafa Sultan is the situation that frustrated her so much.
Women being exploited in the workforce were not her main
concern as compared to the sexual abuse they suffered. She
compares her life in Syria to that in U.S. and says that people
are more respectful. In general, Muslims are known for the
respect they have and such claims just confirms the
Islamophobic accusations.
In chapter eight, Wafa Sultan accuses Islam of not attaching
any value to the childhood stating that a child is a property of
his father and can do whatever he wants. She continues to lay
her accusations by saying that a Muslim child has no rights.
Furthermore, says that Muslim education is mainly focused on
convincing the child of the need for blind obedience to the
parents. She criticizes the marriages in the Muslim societies. In
refuting the author’s claims, Muslim children are not taught on
many vital issues that help in shaping their lives.
In chapter nine, Wafa Sultan describes Islam as a Sealed Flask
that in itself shows the extent of the lack of respect she has to
the Muslims. She says that Islam has denied its followers’
fundamental freedom of expression. She continues to say that
Muslim society lives in slavery, as the culture has been
cultivated with violence at all levels. She attacks the Koran

describing it as being unable to distinguish between force and
power concepts saying the Muslims believe in force
representing violence instead of power that represent peace.
In the tenth chapter of this book, Wafa Sultan describes Islam
as a closed market as it rejects the laws of supply and demand
and the principle of excellence. Wafa Sultan says that the
terrorist attacks shocked her but did not surprise her because
Muslims according to her are capable of such damages. The fact
that the Al Qaeda carried the attacks does not mean that all
Muslims support terrorism. Many Muslims promote peace
among all people.
In this paper, I tried to outline some components in history,
specifically factors that occurred during the 19th century, which
led to the establishment of contemporary stereotypes about
Islam. Earlier Christians could just assume their own
superiority, but modern secularism implies that all religions are
created equal. This change in society generated different
responses in the 1900s, one being the arguments of people such
as Goodrich, who stated Christianity, may be one religion
among many, but it is the only good one. Another response,
which was even better for the western superiority complex, was
the invention of "Religious Studies,” and the precise way in
which that invention maintained the superiority of Christianity
in a scientific guise. The establishment of comparative theology
and the study of philology were other factors that were biased
by a desire to prove the superiority of Europeans and/or
Christians. All of these responses came out of Western context
and was therefore alien to rest of the world. This resulted in the
stereotyping of Semitic languages and Semitic peoples,
including Muslims. This was a great change in perception
because just a couple centuries before Islamic culture was
recognized as advanced, civilized, and modern. To portray the
lasting effects of the nineteenth century developments, the two
scholars Abraham Kuenen and Dayanand Saraswati had similar
biased perceptions of Islam within their texts; it is rigid,
outdated, intolerant, and violent. The same is with the other two

authors Robert Spencer and Wafa Sultan who represent this
century.
In conclusion, I do believe there are more adequate results that
can be obtained about the effects of 19th century studies on not
just Islam, but all religions. In this paper, I have suggested one
possible way of reading this material, and have opened an
interesting topic of discussion. Through this research I was
partly able to answer a very intriguing question of mine
concerning negative perceptions on Islam. Now I am left with
an even harder question, and that is how should 21st century
scholarship go about to annihilate these bias views within the
academic field?

Running head The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on Islam 1.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from toltonkendal

More from toltonkendal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head The Effects of 19th Century Scholarship on Islam 1.docx