<![CDATA[Ignaz Goldziher was an Orientalist who frequently criticized the Qur’an and the science of exegesis. Ignaz Goldziher applied a historical-critical approach to the study of the Qur’an, viewing it as a historical product shaped by its interactions with social contexts and preceding religious traditions. He argued that the differences in qirā’āt did not stem from the Prophet’s authoritative transmission but arose from the limitations of the Arabic writing system in the early period. This perspective contrasts with Islamic epistemology, which affirms the Qur’an as an authoritative and preserved divine revelation. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of Goldziher’s critique and the responses of Muslim scholars, namely, Ahmad Mustafa al-Marāghī, Mannā’ al-Qaththān, Abdul Halim al-Najjar, and Muhammad Mustafa al-A’zami, on the issues of qirā’āt and the authenticity of the Qur’an. Using a qualitative method with textual analysis of primary and secondary sources, this study identifies epistemological differences between the Orientalist paradigm and the Islamic scholarly tradition. The results show that Goldziher’s critique rests on the assumption that revelation is separate from the text, whereas Muslim scholars regard revelation as a source of knowledge inseparable from the sanad transmission tradition. This epistemological difference has significant methodological implications for understanding the authenticity, integrity, and meaning of the Qur’an.]]>
