In this article, I will delve into the work of Joseph Lombard, who advocates for “decolonizing” Quranic studies. My analysis will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of his argument and explore broader questions about what decolonization means for religious scholarship.
By Dr. Tim Orr
Decolonization has become a powerful buzzword in academic and social circles, often sparking spirited debates about justice, identity, and the pursuit of true intellectual freedom. When applied to religious studies, especially within Islamic contexts, it can elicit even stronger responses, with proponents and critics wrestling over its implications for scholarship and faith. In this article, I will delve into the work of Joseph Lombard, who advocates for “decolonizing” Quranic studies. My analysis will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of his argument and explore broader questions about what decolonization means for religious scholarship. This discussion is particularly important because it touches on balancing respect for traditional epistemologies with the need for critical, evidence-based inquiry.
Despite its noble-sounding goals, decolonization often morphs into an ideological weapon wielded to silence genuine academic debate. While ostensibly about empowering marginalized voices, it frequently becomes a shield against scrutiny. In Islamic studies, decolonization has been co-opted by scholars who demand deference to Islamic epistemologies simply because they are “indigenous,” disregarding whether these methods hold up under rigorous academic standards. This approach creates an intellectual bubble where the demand for cultural sensitivity overrides the pursuit of truth. It risks turning Islamic scholarship into a protected category, insulated from the critical inquiry that defines real scholarship. By attempting to immunize traditional Islamic thought from critique, decolonization ironically perpetuates a form of neo-colonialism—one that replaces intellectual rigor with ideological conformity.
My experience with decolonization before presenting my paper at the University of Tehran was a prime example of how this ideology can often prioritize political correctness over intellectual honesty. I was required to read how decolonization supposedly “empowers” Muslim women, but what I found instead was an ideology that often masks the ongoing oppression within Islamic societies. Decolonization rhetoric focuses heavily on the legacy of Western imperialism, conveniently ignoring how Islamic traditions themselves have contributed to the marginalization of women. Rather than addressing the structural patriarchy embedded in Islamic jurisprudence, the decolonization narrative shifts all blame to the West, as if dismantling Euro-American influence alone could liberate Muslim women. It’s a shallow approach that glosses over the need for genuine reform within Islamic thought. By framing Western criticism as inherently oppressive, decolonization perpetuates the same intellectual captivity it claims to oppose, allowing misogynistic practices to hide behind cultural relativism. This does not empower women—it reinforces their subjugation by discouraging real scrutiny and reform within Islamic communities.
Considering these critical observations, I approached Joseph Lombard’s lecture on Decolonizing Quranic Studies. In his talk, Lombard attempted to advance the idea of “decolonization” within the Quranic studies, presenting it as a necessary step to reclaim Islamic scholarship from what he described as Western intellectual hegemony, which means the dominance of Western ideas, theories, philosophies, and frameworks. His argument, however, raises significant issues not only in its execution but also in its fundamental assumptions about what decolonization means and how it should be applied to Islamic thought. By framing his approach as a defense against Western critical scholarship's “corrosive” effects, Lombard inadvertently perpetuates a form of intellectual dependency on the structures he aims to dismantle. His lecture serves as a case study of how decolonization, when applied uncritically, can shift from being a tool of empowerment to one of isolation.
The central flaw in Lombard’s argument lies in his misunderstanding of what “decolonization” actually means. Decolonization is about dismantling systems of power and knowledge production that marginalize or erase indigenous voices. However, Lombard does not advocate for including diverse voices; rather, he seeks to insulate Islamic scholarship from the scrutiny that defines a rigorous academic discipline. True decolonization would involve bringing Islamic scholars into the global conversation as equals, where their work would be subject to the same critical standards applied to any other intellectual tradition. But Lombard’s framework demands a kind of intellectual exceptionalism for Islam, where its methodologies and traditions are treated as beyond critique, inherently valid simply because they come from a particular cultural or religious context.
This intellectual exceptionalism is, in fact, a form of epistemic isolationism that undermines the very idea of scholarship. If Islamic methodologies cannot be critically examined, how can they claim to contribute meaningfully to the broader academic community? Lombard’s vision of Quranic studies, where Muslim epistemologies are treated as sovereign and immune from external critique, does not promote intellectual growth; it creates a bubble, a closed system where ideas can stagnate without the fresh air of academic scrutiny. This is the antithesis of what academia should be—a space where ideas, texts, and interpretations are challenged, tested, refined, or discarded based on merit.
Lombard’s critique of scholars like Wansbrough, Luxenberg, and others engaging in “epistemic violence” is a rhetorical sleight. These scholars are not enacting violence but engaging in the critical, evidence-based process of challenging existing narratives. It is precisely because they question the wisdom received by Islamic tradition that they are valuable. By its nature, scholarship must be contrary—it must be willing to question, deconstruct, and even dismantle long-held beliefs if the evidence demands it. Lombard’s attempt to portray these scholars as part of a neocolonial enterprise reflects a profound discomfort with intellectual challenge rather than a genuine critique of colonialism.
Moreover, Lombard’s notion of “epistemic violence” is especially problematic when he invokes it in the context of Quranic studies. He suggests that when Western scholars critique or offer alternative readings of the Quran, they are committing a form of violence against Muslim intellectual traditions. But this conflates legitimate academic inquiry with actual colonial violence. Colonialism involved the brutal suppression of peoples and cultures through military, economic, and political domination. Critiquing a religious text or proposing new interpretations is not violence—it is the lifeblood of scholarly engagement. By equating critique with violence, Lombard seeks to shut down any form of inquiry that challenges Islamic tradition, which is an anti-intellectual position disguised as a call for decolonization.
Lombard’s lecture on decolonizing Quranic studies is a thinly veiled attempt to protect Islamic epistemologies from critical scrutiny by appealing to postcolonial rhetoric. His argument is intellectually incoherent because it seeks to preserve tradition at the expense of inquiry and conflates critique with colonialism. Far from advancing a meaningful decolonization of knowledge, Lombard’s approach would stifle intellectual freedom, creating an insular, self-referential field of study that resists engagement with the broader academic world. True decolonization would involve inviting Islamic scholars into the global conversation as equals, subjecting their methodologies to the same rigorous critique as any other, and recognizing that no Islamic, Western, or otherwise tradition holds a monopoly on truth.
Lombard, J. (2018, May 21). Decolonizing Quranic studies [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZWGdP_hfs&t=14s
Tim Orr is a scholar, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, the University of Tehran, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.