Studying Islam in Two Academic Worlds on PhD Level

My experience with research up to PhD level in both Western and Islamic academic systems has made me realize the strengths and challenges of each. What I personally propose is a dual approach that blends the best of both worlds.

The Strength of Islamic Universities: Depth, Texts, and Foundations

One of the greatest strengths of Islamic universities is depth of engagement with the texts. In fields like fiqh, uṣūl al-fiqh, ḥadīth, and tafsīr, you don’t just read excerpts or summaries. You read books, often cover to cover. You sit with the text. You struggle with it. You internalize it. You build a strong foundation before you’re ever asked to do research.

Memorization plays an important role here. In the Western tradition, memorization could be viewed as unintellectual or even backward. But in reality, memorization has a clear function. Someone who has memorized the Qurʾān, or large portions of it, is simply in a better position to engage internally with it than someone who hasn’t. He has developed the mental tools for instantly recalling verses.

To be honest, there is something odd about writing academic papers on the Qurʾān while not even knowing how to recite it properly or barely knowing the text itself. That kind of distance from the source material would be unthinkable in traditional Islamic settings.

The traditional Islamic model prioritizes foundation first, research later. You are trained to know the canon, the arguments, the terminology, and the internal logic of the disciplines before you’re encouraged to produce originality.

Western Academia: Research, Tools, and Perspective

Western academia works very differently. You are often pushed into research almost immediately. Instead of reading entire classical works, you might read selected chapters, modern studies, and journal articles. Engagement with original texts often comes late, or only when it serves a specific research question.

This can feel shallow if you come from a traditional background. And in many cases, it is. But Western academia has strengths that Islamic institutions often lack, and we should be honest about that too. One major advantage is technology. Digital humanities, text-mining tools, searchable databases, and advanced manuscript technologies are way ahead. In manuscript studies, for example, Western departments use imaging techniques and specialized lighting to uncover erased text, marginal notes, and layers invisible to the naked eye.

Another strength is the sheer range of theories and methods. Hermeneutics, historiography, discourse analysis, sociology of knowledge, and reception theory can genuinely expand how we understand texts, depending on how they are used.

Western academia also deserves real credit for comparative Semitic studies. Work in Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and related languages has uncovered important historical insights that help contextualize Islamic history and the background for Qurʾānic language. This tradition has produced findings that are genuinely valuable and should not be dismissed.

The Pitfalls: When Theory Replaces Common Sense

That said, theory can also go badly wrong. Some hermeneutical approaches have produced conclusions that are, frankly, very illogical, such as claims that Islam never intended to establish law, or that the Qurʾān was never meant to guide practice. With the wrong method, you can interpret almost anything into anything.

When theory is detached from deep textual knowledge, linguistic competence, and intellectual humility, it stops illuminating and starts distorting. So the problem isn’t theory itself, it’s how it’s used.

The Way Forward: Don’t Choose, Combine

If there’s one thing my journey has taught me, it’s this: We shouldn’t choose between these traditions on research level. We should combine them. Take the depth, discipline, and textual mastery of the Islamic learning tradition. Then add the theoretical tools, comparative methods, and technological resources developed in Western academia.

When done right, this combination doesn’t weaken Islamic studies, it strengthens it. It allows us to engage our sources deeply, critically, and responsibly, without losing either rigor or relevance. That, at least, is what I’m trying to do, and what I believe the future of high-impact Islamic scholarship will look like.