"Islamic " and the "Anthropology of " Author(s): Richard Tapper Source: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3, Anthropological Analysis and Islamic Texts (Jul., 1995), pp. 185-193 Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3318074 . Accessed: 25/09/2013 13:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "ISLAMIC ANTHROPOLOGY"AND THE "ANTHROPOLOGYOF ISLAM"

RICHARD TAPPER School of Orientaland African Studies, London

This article reviewsvarious proposals for an "Islamicanthropology" and their relation to the "anthropologyof Islam." Islamic anthropologyapproaches social and cultural phe- nomenaon the basis of Islamic values/principlesand with analytical techniquesderived from Islamic texts and traditions.This approachhas beendisparaged on variousgrounds such as the academicunacceptability of a value-basedstudy of values.All , however,as has increasinglybeen appreciatedin recentdecades, are to some extent value- based and prisonersof their own assumptionsand definitionsof relevanceand significance. This is most explicitly true of other "ideological"anthropologies such as marxist,femi- nist, or applied anthropologies.If this is the case, in what ways does an "Islamicanthro- pology" (whetherof Muslim or of other societies and cultures)differ from other "anthro- pologies of Islam" (that is, studies of Muslim societies and cultures,or more specifically of Islamic traditions,beliefs and practices)?[Islam, ideology, critique,text, tradition]

Anthropologyand the Islamic Middle East methodsdrawn in someway from Islam.What the competingversions of Islamicanthropology share is The anthropologyof Islam,as a sub-fieldof the an- a basis in Islamic texts-they are, in other words, thropologyof religion, is some decades old. I un- Islamicapproaches to the study of anthropological derstandit to be the applicationof the methodsof texts, rather than anthropologicalapproaches to cultural/socialanthropology to the study of Islam the study of Islamic texts.3 as a worldreligion and associatedsets of social in- Previous writings on Islamic anthropology stitutions.There has been a variety of approaches have been proposalsand mutualcriticism by Mus- and a numberof reviews of them (notably Asad lims; there has been little critical commentfrom 1986; Eickelman1981, 1982, 1989; el-Zein 1977), non-Muslimanthropologists, who have mostly ei- and I do not intend to add anotherreview here. I ther chosen to ignore Islamicanthropology or wel- shall concentraterather on one particularkind of comed it ratherpatronizingly, without serious dis- approachthat has recentlycome into prominence: cussion, as a promising new development.4It so-called Islamic anthropology. shouldbe said that most of the proposalshave not There are several contendingvarieties of Is- apparentlybeen addressedto anthropologistsor lamic anthropology,set out in at least four books other academicsin the first place, but ratherto a and numerousarticles published during the 1980s.1 wider, non-academic,and primarilyMuslim audi- I shall concentrateon four works:the bookby Ilyas ence. Nonetheless,I would argue that it is impor- Ba-Yunusand Farid Ahmad, which, despite its ti- tant for Islamic anthropologyto be seriouslydis- tle Islamic sociology, is in essence a proposalfor cussed by anthropologistsand that somethingcan Islamicanthropology; the two main publicationson be learnedfrom such discussionwhether or not it is the theme by Akbar Ahmed (TowardIslamic an- found to be of positivevalue to the developmentof thropologyand DiscoveringIslam); and the book anthropologicalideas generally. by Merryl Wyn Davies (Knowingone another). Proponentsdiffer as to whetherIslamic anthropol- The Problem ogy shouldconfine its attentionto Muslimsocieties or should have a universal(-ist)scope; in other It is easy to sympathizewith AkbarAhmed's cri de words, Islamic anthropologyis not necessarilyin- coeur: tendedas the anthropologicalstudy of Islam, anal- ogous to economic or political anthropology,any The Muslim intellectualconfronting the world today is more than marxistor feminist means sometimesmoved to despair.He is ill-equippedto face it, anthropology his diminishes him in his own He the of vulnerability eyes. anthropology marxismor feminism."Rather wandersbetween two worlds,one dead, the other power- it means, broadly,doing anthropologyinspired by less to be born. His woundsare largely self-inflicted.At 185

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 186 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

the root of his intellectualmalaise lies his incapacityto the peoples studied have insisted on doing their cometo termswith Islam in the twentiethcentury (1986: own their own 61). anthropology,defining approaches, and studyingand criticizingthe culturesand theo- ries of the West. These sentimentsare (pre-)echoedin numer- ous Muslimpublications-and indeedare common- In his bookletfor the InternationalInstitute of place in Third World intellectual writings. The Islamic Thought(1986), Ahmed'scritique is con- sub-text is articulatedthoughtfully and at some fined largelyto unsupportedstatements about "the length by Wyn Davies and others.Given the rela- notoriousethnocentricity of Westernanthropology" tion between knowledge and power (knowledge and to the invidiouspolemical trick of comparing bringspower, and powerdefines knowledge), domi- the ideals of one society (the Muslim world)with nated groups come to resent being studied and the evils of another(AIDS, drugs,and crimein the "known" by others. Third World intellectuals, West). His prescriptionseems to be: if only they emergingfrom a historyof Westerneconomic, po- wouldbecome Muslim, all these problemswould go litical, cultural, and academic dominance, have away. But are there no social problemsin Islamic come to rejectthese dominationsand the way they societies?" are linked in "Orientalist"discourses and defini- Ba-Yunusand Ahmad, writingfor the Cam- tions of knowledge.For Muslims,Islam and Mus- bridge (UK)-basedIslamic Academy, offer a more lim identity,long damagedor threatenedby West- sustainedcriticism of what they see as the three ern and materialistvalues, must be reassertedat all majorapproaches in Westernsocial theory,finding levels, including that of knowledge. The issue them divergentand in need of reconciliation,and raisedby Islamicanthropology (as by othercritical all flawedby their commitmentto positivism,ob- anthropologies)is the relationbetween anthropol- jectivity, and scientific detachment. Structural- ogy and its subjects(traditionally, the West study- functionalismignores conflict and producesethno- ing the rest; the orientalistgaze): objectification centric modernization-Westernizationtheory. and explanation(science) or empathyand under- Marxian and conflict-basedapproaches overstress standing (humanity).More precisely,Islamic an- economicprocesses and largerstructures. Symbolic thropologyposes the question:can Islam (and the interactionismand "self-theory"focus vainly on cultureand societyof Muslims)be studiedand un- the unpredictableindividual. Sociology is suppos- derstoodby non-Muslims?In other words,what is edly universal, but the sociology of the Third the nature and possibilityof an anthropologyof Worlddoes not take accountof Third Worldper- Islam? ceptionsand social realities,for example,those of Muslims;its ethnocentrismtypically underrates the A Critique of Western Knowledge, Social Science, role of religiousexperience. Further, sociology is Anthropology commonlytoo theoreticaland pretendsto be value- free; rather,it shouldbe practicaland appliedand The proponentsof Islamicanthropology offer a cri- acknowledgethe necessityof values. tique of Western (social) theory, to accompany Wyn Davies conductsa ratherbroader review their Islamistcritique of Westernsociety, culture, of Western scientificthought in general and an- and values.Western social theory,anthropology in- thropologyin particular,emphasizing how anthro- cluded, is ethnocentricand tainted by its imperial pology lacks unity (except as regardsits basis in historyand connections.Anthropology is the child Western civilization) and rigor. She invokes of Westerncolonialism; its subject-matter,assump- Thomas Kuhn's and Michel Foucault'scontribu- tions, questions,and methodsare dictatedby impe- tions to the understandingof how knowledgeis pro- rial interests;and its practitionerscome fromimpe- duced. Western paradigms of knowledge have rial backgroundsand biases (throughstructures of shifted, but on a background of con- funding, jobs, publication,readership) or Third- tinuity-Fernand Braudel'slongue duree. The non- World (Western-oriented/supported)elites. The Europeansstudied by anthropologistshave had no traditionalsubjects of Western anthropologyare say in how anthropologicaldiscourse has developed the primitives.In the post-colonialera, as the num- and how it has constructedreality. Westerndis- ber of unstudiedprimitives has diminished,anthro- courseis secularand sees religionas a humancrea- pology has entered crisis and terminal decline. tion; this Westernview, and the originalChristian Since Third Worldcountries gained independence, view of Islam, means the West cannotunderstand

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "ISLAMICANTHROPOLOGY" 187

Muslim civilization.Typical reactionsby Muslim nents of Islamicanthropology. she divert from the crea- apologists, says, energies Nor are they free from the contradictionsof tion of a Muslim The centraltradi- proper agenda. those who both berate Orientalistsfor homogeniz- tion of is fieldwork: anthropology participant-obser- ing "the Orient"(as against "the West") without vation of the fundamental primitive (a concept). recognizingcultural and otherdifferences, and then The of the conventionalcriticism of the link point accusethose such as ,who do recog- with colonialismwas failure to ob- anthropology's nize and study differences,of dividingin order to serve and criticize the colonial center;and despite rule. Such native critics, moreover,usually come its new awareness of all these epistemological from an educatedelite, whose authorityto speak modern still fails to com- problems, anthropology for or about all their co-nationalsor co-religionists ment on Western and interna- effectively society is as debatableas that of any outsider.Some Ori- tional relations. entalists are justifiably accused of "exoticizing" The elementsin this of Western major critique their subjects, over-emphasizingthe cultural dis- theory are entirelyconventional." A responsemust tance between a ChristianWest and a Muslim that there is, or was, some truth begin by admitting East; yet modern Muslim radicals such as Wyn in but are that character- everypoint; they failings Davies appearto be doing just the same in their ize few studies of Islam and Mus- anthropological desire to claim the study of the Muslimworld for lim societies over the last couple of decadesor so. Muslimsalone.8 The critics (as with other critical anthropologies) As have and too often resort to misrepresentationand selectiv- many pointed out, European Middle Eastern cultures have commonroots and ity, the depictionof outdatedstereotypes, and the erectionof straw men. This is not the place for a orientationsand have developedin dialogue with point by point rebuttal, but it is worth marking each other. Even if modernWestern world views some centralissues, particularlythose which affect were molded by renaissance/enlightenment/colo- the plausibilityof the proposalsfor an Islamican- nial heritages,they are still very firmlygrounded in thropologyto be discussedbelow. the traditionsof Greco-Romanphilosophy and Se- Thus, Ahmed uses Beattie's 1964 Other cul- mitic-monotheisticreligions that they share with tures as a sourcebook for currentWestern anthro- the IslamicMiddle East. Differencesare variations pology,7while Wyn Davies, even if her versionis on a theme. More liberal Muslim apologistspoint more consideredand up-to-date,can still refer to to the role of medievalIslam in preservingand de- RaymondFirth's 1951 Elements of social organi- veloping this heritage during the EuropeanDark zation as a standardtext. Small wonderthen that Ages, and to the importantcontributions of earlier they presentsuch caricaturesof a discipline"in cri- Muslim scientists,ethnographers, and social theo- sis and decline,"in which the only anthropologists rists. Mutualmisunderstandings between the Mus- are Westerners;in which anthropologistsstudy lim worldand the West throughthe centurieshave only non-Westernsocieties or only primitivesocie- arisenin contextsof politicalcompetition, from the ties; in which anthropologyis necessarilyethnocen- Crusadesto the spread of Europeancommercial tric, using Westerncategories and assumptionsto and politicaldominance in the nineteenthcentury. studycultures to which they do not apply;in which Despitediverging paradigm shifts in Europeanand anthropologyis functionalist,arid scientism,con- Muslim thought, there are still basic continuities cerned only with objective analysis and explana- and possibilitiesof dialogue and mutual under- tion, and opposedto both subjectivismand applica- standing.Indeed, I would ventureto suggest that tion; and in which this atheist functionalismputs the Muslimworld as such, which inevitablyshares religionon the same level of analysisas economics, many of its traditionswith the West, cannot pro- politics, and kinship. In fact, in the last two de- duce a truly radicalcritique of it. This would ap- cades anthropologyhas thankfullymoved beyond pear to be evident if we contrast both traditions reactingto such tired criticismsand has established with more distant Indian,Chinese, or Japanese,or new conventionsof ethnographicreflexivity and radicallydifferent Native American,Australian, or theoreticalself-awareness. This is not so say such Africantraditions, where any elementsof common conventionsare unassailablein their turn,but there heritage with the West are comparativelyrecent is no apparentawareness of them amongthe propo- and shallow-rooted.

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 188 ANTHROPOLOGICALQUARTERLY

DefiningIslamic Anthropology Islamicsociology would be comparativeand critical, i.e., it mustaccept, as a preoccupation,the task of comparing humansocieties--Muslim as well as non-Muslim-with Evenif a distinctiveradical critique of Westernso- [the ideal]and discoveringthe degreesof departureof ciety and social science is not to be expected-and thesesocieties from this model(p. xiii). certainly has not yet appeared-from Islamic The ideal of Islamic social structuremust quarters,Muslims from Middle Easterncountries picture be with Islam as or are amongthe non-Westernersbest able to respond constructed, ideology,culture, of a of deliberateobedience to with alternatives to Western representationsof way life, process God's the alternativeto de- their cultures.Their economicand politicalpower laws, only capitalist and one that is be- is now often such that they can at least set the mocracy socialism, midway but not a mixture.Islamic then termsof what is to be studiedand by whom.Their tween, ethnography examines actual the reference is dilemmais: whose terms, with what questions?If variations; point the ideal Islamicmiddle of customs to anthropology,then shouldit be throughcategories path relating and derived from Western training and literature,or family marriage(contract, choice, sex, polyg- from Muslim or other indigenous sources? Or yny, gender, tribes), economy (property,wealth, should anthropologybe rejected altogether as a market, inheritance,gambling, interest, poor tax, and Westernproduct? nationalization), polity (state, authority,jus- tice, and so- One important Muslim response since the consultation).Capitalism, democracy, 1960s has been the to Islamize the social cialismas socialsystems and associatedsocial theo- attempt ries failed because had no mechanismof sciences, that is, to they includinganthropology, appro- commitmentin Islam is ensured them for Islam, that Muslimso- commitment; by priate by insisting and .The overall is of cieties can only be studiedby Islamicanthropology prayer fasting picture or thoseconversant with Islamictextual sources. an openlyideological Islamic sociology; theory and by Muslim and also There are commonthemes to the severaldif- comparison(of present societies, of/with present Westernsocieties, ideologies,and ferent versionsof Islamic anthropology:for exam- sociologies)refer to an ideal Islamic society, and ple, the proposalto constructthe ideal society,and practiceconcerns how to achieveit. social theory,from a particularreading of Koran/ For AkbarAhmed, Islamicanthropology is sunna values and principles;the affirmationof the eternalvalidity of this Islam;and the presentation thestudy of Muslimgroups by scholarscommitted to the of Islam as the middle way between Westernex- universalisticprinciples of Islam-humanity,knowledge, tremes. But there are radicallydifferent and con- tolerance-relatingmicro village tribal studies in particu- the versions. lar to the largerhistorical and ideological frames of Is- flictingassumptions among lam.Islam is hereunderstood not as butsociol- Ba-Yunusand Ahmad Islamicsociol- theology propose ogy. The definitionthus does not precludenon-Muslims ogy as an activist Islamicprogram for sociologists: (Ahmed 1986: 56).

seekingthe principlesof humannature, human behaviour Wyn Davies' proposalsare, to me, the most andhuman organization [it] mustnot be allowedto be- articulate,sustained and radical. For her, Islamic comean endin itself.It hasto be appliedfor the sakeof is the promotionof Islamwithin individuals, around them anthropology in theirsocieties, and between and societies among (1985: in 35-36). the studyof mankind societyfrom the premisesand accordingto the conceptualorientations of Islam.... [It is] a socialscience, concerned with studying mankind The approachmust be based on Koranicassump- in its socialcommunal relations in the diversityof social tions: that God created nature;that Man is made and culturalsettings that exist aroundthe worldtoday andhave existed in the Thefocus of its attentionis of with free-will,the to learn,and past. opposites, ability humanaction, its diversityof formand institutionaliza- superiorityto the rest of nature; that society is tion;it seeksto understandthe principlesthat order, or- based on the family, divine laws, an institutedau- ganize and give it meaning(1988: 82, 113). thority,and economicactivity; and that historyis a dialecticalprocess of conflictand consensusresult- The Westernanthropology of Islam is ahistorical: ing in the Prophet.It also shouldbe a comprehen- it sees Islam as an abstractedideal and ignoreslit- sive sociological approach which will encompass erarytraditions and spiritualhierarchy; but one ob- and reconcilethe extremesof other contemporary ject of Islamic anthropologyis to producealterna- approaches.Further, tive categories and concepts and then enter a

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "ISLAMIC ANTHROPOLOGY" 189 dialoguewith Westernanthropology. What are the Islamic anthropology'sconcepts of man and of relevant Islamic concepts,their history, and their communitywith their entailmentsmake it "a dis- context? Tawhid(unity) is central,and dichotomy tinct and different discourse of knowledgefrom alien. Drawing from the Sunna (hadith, fiqh, western anthropology"(p. 142). Distinct also are shariah), Wyn Davies proposes ulema (the its boundarieswith other disciplines;unlike West- learned)and ummah (community,society) as cen- ern anthropology,Islamic anthropology is basic so- tral elements. Man is nafs (living entity), with fi- cial science. trah (natural, God-given disposition), khilafah Wyn Davies commentson earlier proponents (statusof vice-regentship),and din (religionas way of Islamicanthropology. Nadia Abu-Zahrais com- of life). God created human diversity, with two mendedfor bringingthe interpretationof the Ko- referents:shariah (laws) and minhaj (way of life). ran to the interpretationof Muslims'actual behav- The shariahdefines parameters within which many ior. Akbar Ahmed is castigatedfor includingNur ways of life are possible.The Islamicframe is uni- Yalman'sstudy of Sri Lanka under the rubricof versal; Europeanethnography failed to come to Islamic anthropology. is praised for termswith diversityfrom the start, and createdthe criticizingthe conceptualpremises of Westernan- notionof "primitive."The Islamicperspective can- thropologyand their applicationto Islam, and for not start with despisingother ways. There is no notingthe differentfocuses of knowledge:Islam on roomfor "otherness,"nor for eitherrelativist or ra- the moral person,the West on the natureof soci- tionalistextremes, but it calls for a distinctivesyn- ety. Othersmerely provide an addendumto West- thesis betweenthem. Conceptsand values to form ern anthropology,as a responseto colonialism,but the basis of Islamic anthropologymust be worked accept the basic Westernapproach as universal;or out carefullyin orderto avoidsubmission to the in- promotethe indigenoussocial scientist with his/her tellectualpremises of Westernscholarship: special access and insights(Soraya Altorki, Akbar Ahmed). Even the more radical have only partial Unlesswe areclear about the contextin whichthe cate- approaches;Ali Shariati,for example,uses familar goriesof Islamicanthropology and social analysis are to in a new way. Wyn Davies herself be and a discussionof the terminology operated investigated, catego- starts with a new set of to avoid confusion, riesthemselves will have little significance and there will terms, be plentyof spacefor mental inertia and force of habitto and to deny the presumeduniversality of dominant regardwhat is offeredas merelya gloss uponconven- Westernterms and their usage. But the new terms tionalWestern anthropology. It is notjust the categories shouldnot be gearedonly to Muslimsand Muslim but the entire of aboutthem and way thinking manipu- society,like thoseof Ba-Yunusand Ahmad.For Is- latingthem that mustbe Islamic(p. 128). lamic anthropology,she proposesborrowing 'sterm al-'umran,with complexhis- The first is ummah:communities at 'ilm concept torical and geographicalresonances which she ex- all levels. Everyummah has a din (religionas way amines in detail. of life). The purposeof investigationis to ascertain the functionof community Problemswith Islamic Anthropology as a systemthat facilitatesthe harmoniousembodiment of moralvalues as a constructiveenvironment for right In there is little to to in the meth- action,or hindersor deformsthe purposiveintent of my view, object moralvalues within a wayof life and thereforeimpairs ods of researchproposed for Islamicanthropology; the abilityor opportunityfor rightaction (p. 129). they replicatetraditional anthropological practice. The maindifficulties for an anthropologicalreading Next come shariah, minhaj, and institutionaliza- of the Islamic anthropologyprogram have to do tion-all these are the foundationof ethnography with its acknowledgedideological commitment, in Islamic anthropology.Wyn Davies outlines the and, in the case of Wyn Davies, her proposedter- practiceof an Islamicethnographer in the field:to minology;and the questionwhy, if the programhas seek to identifythe shariahand minhaj,and then a in fact nothingsubstantively new to offer, the pro- varietyof values;then to ask practicalquestions re- ponentsfeel it necessaryto indulgein this particu- lating to developmentand responseto crisis. Par- lar exerciseof appropriationand relabeling. ticipant observationand other methods will be Thus Ba-Yunus and Ahmad's program for used, along with dialoguewith the subjects,study ethnographic research is an entirely conven- of their history,and classificationand comparison. tional-indeed outdated-investigationof the top-

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 190 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY ics of kinshipand family, economics,and politics. anthropologyshould be conductedonly in Arabic, It seems, however, that religion and , the and avoid not only all Westernterms but all ways fourth topic of the old structural-functionalist of relatingthem in syntax and semantics. quartet,are not to receivethe same attention:reli- Despiteclaims for the distinctivenessof an Is- gion (Islam or other) is equatedwith the systemas lamic anthropology,the methodsWyn Daviespro- a whole,or at least the rules and ideals that define poses,though more contemporary than thoseof Ba- it. One has to add that the Koranicassumptions on Yunus and Ahmad, are strictly conventionalto whichtheir Islamicsociology is to be basedparallel modern anthropology:use of participantobserva- closely those of Christiancreationism. tion, dialogue,text, statistics,indigenous language, As for Ahmed's Islamic anthropology,while etc. Islamicanthropology is a holistic(that is, func- the teachingsand ideals he outlinesas relevantto tionalist)study of all levels, includinginternational the study of society are admirable,though highly relationsand boundaries(that is, ethnicity).Disci- generalized,when he comesto specificprescriptions plinary boundarieswith sociologyand historyare for a new view of Muslimsocieties, he offersa tax- to be torn down,but significantlythere is no men- onomy whose debt to Islamic ideals is far from tion of anthropology'srelations with psychology clear, plus a set of "models"whose inadequaciesI and philosophy.The reader is subjectedto long have demonstratedelsewhere.9 In his objectionsto passagesof preachingon the superiorityof the Is- Westernwritings on Islam he lays himselfopen to lamic approach,which to a non-Muslimanthropol- criticism in his own terms. In effect, the Islamic ogist appearsas a closed and circularsystem; and anthropologyhe proposesconstitutes another "Ori- there is no mentionof problematicareas such as entalism";the only differencefrom the originalis gender or Koranic punishments.The concept of that his ideologicalcommitment is madeexplicit. It ideal type is acknowledgedas a basic principle, is significantthat in his view some of the best Is- with the problem that comparisonof empirical lamic anthropologyis producedby Western non- cases with the ideal is to be based in ideology.Is- Muslims (Gellner, Geertz, Gaborieau) and one lamic anthropologyslips froma concernwith varia- Japanese (Nakamura);those Muslims he praises tion withinthe shariah,to allowanceand tolerance for their Islamic anthropologyinclude the modern for all ways, but in effect we are offered Islamic Yalman as well as the medievalal-Biruni and Ibn ethnocentrismdisguised as universalistrelativism. Khaldun,'obut as Wyn Davies pointsout, the for- The empiricalstudy of values is even vitiated by mer'sIslamic background (if any) is not evidentin predeterminingthe categories of analysis to be his work,while the latter two hardlyconstitute an- used, rather than attemptingto understandsub- thropologistsin the conventionalsense acceptedby jects in their own terms. In her book Wyn Davies Ahmed. adduces no cases where these approachesand Wyn Davies herself is to be congratulatedfor methodshave been tested in practice. recognizingthe epistemologicalproblems with an- Thus thereseem to be threebroad approaches, thropologyand its heritage,and for attemptingto thoughproponents do not necessarilystick to one of make her own assumptionsexplicit. Her own pro- them. In the first, Westernanthropology is to be posals are disappointing, however, consisting adopted,but underthe guidanceof Muslimideals; largely of a new terminologyof Koranic/Islamic who, though, is to decide what those ideals are? Arabic terms which simply translatestandard En- The second is associatedwith Muslim apologists glish social science analyticalcategories. The guid- who point out that Islam too has producedanthro- ing conceptsand assumptionslisted, for example, pologistsand that the roots of the best Western tauhid, the unity of God extendedto the unity of conceptsand ideals are to be found in the Koran mankind(surely a basic assumptionof all anthro- and the Sunna. The third approachis radical:Is- pology), are ideals and eternalvalues. The central lamic anthropologyshould reject Westernanthro- analytical concepts ummah, din, shariah, minhaj pology and start afresh with a distinctiveIslamic translatedirectly into community,culture, norms, approach;the Sunna is the basis for a distinct set customs; the new concept of "consonance"is of (purified)values, ideals, and analyticalconcepts. hardlyclarified or elaborated.The conceptsof "so- In all versionsIslamic anthropology sets up an ciety" or "relationship,"for whichthere are plenti- ideal and comparessocieties with it. But there is ful Arabic(Koranic?) translations, are oddly omit- disagreementon whetherIslamic anthropology can ted. Following her own logic, in fact, Islamic be the studyof Islamicsocieties only or of all socie-

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "ISLAMIC ANTHROPOLOGY" 191 ties. For some, Islamic anthropologyis explicitlya on non-Muslimanthropological studies of Islamic way of analysingpermissible Islamic forms of soci- societies. ety and culture, and of comparing non-Islamic Islamic anthropologyis no more easily dis- forms with them. missed than any other "-ism";it should be taken A prime argumentof Islamic anthropologyis seriously because it addresses a wide audience, that, because of its basis in Islam, it is logically, avows its ideologicalbase, and invites critical dis- theoretically,and morally superior to other ap- cussion. At the same time the motivationsof its proaches.Sometimes it seems to be no morethan a proponentsshould be questioned.As noted above, slogan;or at best a vade mecumfor anthropologists the authors are primarilyaddressing a Muslim who happen to be Muslim, to guide their values non-academicaudience, presumablyeven less fa- and choices in practicaland ethical decisions,for miliar with recent developmentsin anthropology than seem to be themselves. would example,in the issues such as ethnocentrismversus they They ap- to be interestedin theirown culturalrelativism, the applicationof anthropology pear mainly furthering as withinthe worldof Is- in practice and development,and the various di- positions, anthropologists, lamic and not in their lemmasto be faced duringfield research.Being ad- intellectuals, promoting ap- of the for Islam within the dressed to Muslims, can Islamic anthropologybe propriation discipline world of It has to be said if seriouslydiscussed by those not committedto it? It anthropologists. that, did the their would would be too easy to dismiss Islamic anthropology they attempt latter, arguments no can no moreclaim universal- as incapableof a seriouscontribution to the field of carry weight.They for a non-believerthan can other anthropologyand not worth study except as a dis- ity any explicitly or "-ism." tinct indigenousperception." However, it is diffi- ideologicalanthropology Islamicintellectuals with different and cult for non-Muslimsto commentexcept to pointto origins flaws and similaritieswith what it is supposedto backgrounds(Pakistani, Turkish, Iranian, Arab, have different and replace. British) produced anthropologies different Islamic What of version of emphasized concepts. Any ideological anthropology non-intellectualMuslims-is their Islam and their clearly plays on the ambiguitybetween the notions approachto the analysisof society less valid as an of anthropologyas a view, whetherpersonal or ide- anthropology?Wyn Davies' Koranic prescription ological,of humannature, and values, and society, for Islamic one another," as a comparativeand theoreticalacademic disci- anthropology--"know seeing fieldworkas a dialogueand exchangeof un- pline whose practitionersattempt to detach them- derstandings-is to be preferred to other ap- selves from or reflect upon personalor ideological proachesin whichthe tyrannyof a GreatTradition biases. In many ways Islam (as religion,theology, approachpredominates. sociology,theodicy, philosophy) is an anthropology; The challengeof Islamicanthropology to non- it can appealonly to those who acceptits basic ten- Muslim anthropologistsis essentiallya continuing ets. Is the notion of Islamic anthropologythus a warningto keep under review basic conceptsand tautologyor a contradictionin terms? assumptionsand any tendenciesto -ism or ideol- The for an Islamic proposals anthropology ogy; but it does also raise the perennialquestion of whichwe have outlinedhave the virtueof ex- being whether a critical anthropology,that can stand in their values and commitments. plicit ideological outside all these -isms, is possible. Anthropologieswhich claim to be non-ideological are constantly subject, internally and exter- nally-at least in the currentpostmodernist atmo- The Anthropology of Islam: A Personal View sphere-to debateover basic assumptions.Any ide- ological anthropology,by contrast, tends to be Some of the most incisivecritiques of Westernan- dogmaticand allowslittle debate,except internally; thropologicalwritings on Islam, the best and most it can neither ask the most interestingquestions persuasivereflections and suggestions,have come asked by other anthropologies,nor can it itself ask from scholarsoriginating in the Muslimworld but any interestingnew questions-it can only provide trainedin the West, such as Abdul Hamidel-Zein answers.At present these answersfall short of a (1977) and Talal Asad (1986). Whether or not thorough, unequivocally Islamic anthropological they are Muslim,they have not intrudedtheir be- study of either Muslim or non-Muslim society liefs into theiranthropology, any morethan did Ev- whichcan be demonstratedas a significantadvance ans-Pritchardor the other"Oxford Catholics." The

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 192 ANTHROPOLOGICALQUARTERLY anthropologicalstudy of religionis not theology.It may not have the skills or indeedthe inclinationto is not necessarilyagainst either theology or reli- bring to the surfacewhat is taken for granted);by gion. But good anthropologydoes have subversive a compatriot(one who may be separatedfrom the potential;it asks awkwardquestions about the po- subjects by language, culture, class, and associa- litical and economicinterests and the personalcon- tions, but who may be reluctantto acknowledge nectionsof powerfulideologues at all levels of soci- this distance);or by a completeoutsider (one who ety; it also asks how ideologiesare constructedand may haveto start fromscratch in languageand the how language and other systems of symbols are rest, and take much longer,but who at least brings manipulated.The best anthropologicalstudies of a fresh eye and "strangervalue" to the field). Islam, by Muslims as well as non-Muslims,have The anthropologyof Islam studies how Mus- resisted the tyrannyof those (whetherOrientalist lims (individuals,groups, societies, nations) pre- outsiders,or center-basedulama) who proposea sent/constructthemselves as Muslims (as a major scripturalist(Great Tradition) approach to the cul- constituentof their identity),for example,through ture and religionof the periphery;they aim to un- markersof variouskinds: diet (proscriptionof pork derstandhow life (Islam) is lived and perceivedby and alcohol), myth and genealogy(holy descent), ordinaryMuslims, and to appreciatelocal customs reverence for the prophet (mevluds in Turkey), and cultures(systems of symbolsand their mean- conflict (Shi'a/Sunni), and discursivetraditions."1 ings) as worthyof study and recognitionin their Some of these markersare clearly textual, though social contexts,rather than as "pre-Islamicsurviv- all of them could be seen as texts in a broadsense, als" or as error and deviation from a scriptural and hence matterfor discussionwithin the context (Great Tradition)norm. of anthropologicalapproaches to the study of Is- The anthropologyof Islam involvestranslating lamic texts. This observationclearly also re-in- and humanizingordinary believers' cultures, as troducesthe problemof what is the "Islam"that well as analyzingthe productionand use of Islamic anthropologistsstudy, on which there has been a "texts."The elementsof the Great Tradition(for- continuingdebate. Is it a unity or a diversity?Is it mal duties and beliefs, texts, and the officialsand what professingMuslims say and do? Is it a Ko- otherswho producethem) have also been subjectto ran-basedset of ideals, identifiedby theologiansor study in their social and culturalcontexts, allowing by sociologists-that is, a Great Tradition?Is the the relevanceof political manipulations,economic anthropologyof Islam the study of Muslim socie- constraints,and tribal/kinship/ethnicallegiances ties; or of Islam as a religion(texts, practice,be- and rivalries.All these matterscan be investigated liefs, history)?These may be hackneyedproblems, only by extendedand intensiveparticipant observa- but they certainlyhave not yet been resolved,and I tion;and it is debatablewhether they are best stud- would maintain that considerationof the recent ied by an insider (one who is from the community writingson Islamicanthropology throws some fresh studied, who shares its culture and religion, but light on them.1"

NOTES AcknowledgmentsThis is a revisedversion of a paperdelivered 1987; Momin 1989; see also some chaptersin Shariati 1979. at the Middle East Studies AssociationAnnual Meetings in 'See Shirley Ardener'sdistinction between "feministan- Washington,November 1991, and at a public lecture for the thropology"and the "anthropologyof women"(1985). Centreof Near and Middle EasternStudies, School of Oriental 3To avoid confusion,Islamic anthropologyshould perhaps and AfricanStudies, Londonin December;a later versionwas be called "Islamist" anthropology,by analogy with, for in- presentedto a panel at the AmericanAnthropological Associa- stance, marxistanthropology, and with the contemporaryusage tion meetings in Washingtonin November 1993. It has bene- of "Islamist"for politicaland intellectualmovements inspired fited from commentsreceived on those and other occasions,es- by Islam. A relatedissue, which will not be dealt with here, is pecially from Dale Eickelman,the panel discussantat MESA, whetheranthropologists studying Muslim societies must be ca- from readingsby Ziba Mir-Hosseiniand Ali Tayfun Atay, and pable of readingand understandingthe Arabic texts on which from two anonymousreaders for AnthropologicalQuarterly. Islam is based. Those who insist on this necessity are some- Faults and misconceptionsremain mine. I am grateful to times guilty of a commonArab and Arabistpresumption that Daniel Martin Varisco and Greg Starrett for inviting me to Islam(ic) = Arab(ic). Its opponentsalso point to the irrele- participatein the MESA and AAA panels respectively,and to vance of studyingArabic texts for the study of that still large SOAS for giving me time and financialsupport for my visits to majorityof Muslimswho cannot reador understandthose texts Washington. themselves. 'The booksare Ba-Yunusand Ahmad 1985;Ahmed 1986, 4See for example Hart 1988; Young 1988; and favourable 1988a; Wyn Davies 1988. Articles include Mauroof 1981; reviews cited by Ahmed 1988b. Exceptions include Maruf Elkholy 1984; Ahmed 1984; Wyn Davies 1985; Maruf 1986, 1987; Sulani 1988; Eickelman1990.

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "ISLAMICANTHROPOLOGY" 193

"See R. Tapper 1988;and the exchangeof letterswith Ah- Professorsof LondonUniversity and publishedby Cam- med in Man 24: 682-684 (1989). In his forewordto the booklet bridge UniversityPress) Islamic scholarswould do well the late Presidentof the Institute, Ismail al-Faruqi, outdoes to preparea reply. If not, their silencewill be takenas an Ahmed in his misrepresentationof "Westernanthropology." In incapacity to prepare a suitable answer (Ahmed 1986: his later book (1988a) Ahmed does recognize that all is not 51). well with Islamdomeither. 'See Asad 1986. One virtue of Ahmed's "theoryof his- 6See Hymes 1972; Asad 1973; Diamond 1974; Said 1978. tory" (in DiscoveringIslam) is his suggestionalways to look at "Otherwise,his representationof Western anthropology the "other"which each leader/group/movementfaces (and in consistsof droppingsome arbitrarilychosen names in a manner terms of which it defines and redefinesitself): the Ottomans which indicateshe has either not read their worksor not under- and Christian Europe, Shi'i Safavids and their Sunni rivals, stood them; see reviews by Maruf 1987; R. Tapper 1988; Pakistan and India, though he refrains from proceedingwith Momin 1989. Islam and ; and the others; modern Is- 8Forcomments on the critiqueof ,see, for ex- lamic fundamentalistsand the West, nineteenth-centuryna- ample, Eickelman1989: Chapter2; 153, 374, 392-395. tionalistsversus the imperialists.See also R. Tapper 1984 and 9Reviewsin Asian Affairs 12: 328-330 (1981); Man 20: N. Tapperand R. Tapper 1987. 562-563 (1985). For comments on these reviews, see Street 131 wrotethis article with the hope of engagingproponents 1991. of Islamic anthropologyin the debate which they professedto "oSeealso Mauroof 1981. desire.Some of the responsesI have had to an earlierversion of "As Ahmed observedof Crone and Cook's Hagarism, the article have unfortunatelyconfirmed my fears that it would For Muslimsit is easy to dismiss the book as nonsense.I be both misreadand misrepresented,and that seriousacademic disagree. With its academic pretension (written by debate might not be possible.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, A.S. 1984. Al-Biruni:The first .Royal AnthropologicalInstitute Newsletter:60: 9-10. . 1986. TowardIslamic anthropology:Definition, dogma and directions.Ann Arbor MI: New Era. SI 988a. DiscoveringIslam: Making sense of Muslim history and society. London:Routledge. _ 1988b. Responseto Sulani (1988) with reply by Sulani. Muslim WorldBook Review9(1): 64-66. Ardener,S. 1985. The social anthropologyof women and feministanthropology. Anthropology Today 1(5): 24-26. Asad, T., ed. 1973. Anthropologyand the colonial encounter.London: Ithaca. . 1986. The idea of an anthropologyof Islam. WashingtonDC: GeorgetownUniversity Center for ContemporaryArab Studies. Ba-Yunus,I. and F. Ahmad. 1985. Islamic sociology: An introduction.London: Hodder and Stoughton. Davies, M.W. 1985. Towardsan Islamic alternativeto Westernanthropology. Inquiry (June): 45-51. . 1988. Knowingone another:Shaping Islamic anthropology.London: Mansell. Diamond,S. 1974. In search of the primitive. New BrunswickNJ: Transaction. Eickelman,D.F. 1981. A search for the anthropologyof Islam:Abdul Hamidel-Zein. InternationalJournal of Middle East Studies 13: 361-365. . 1982. The study of Islam in local contexts. Contributionsto Asian Studies 17: 1-16. _ 1989. The Middle East, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. _ 1990. Review of Davies (1988). American Anthropologist 92: 240-241. Elkholy,A.B. 1984. Towardsan Islamic anthropology.Muslim EducationQuarterly 1: 2. Hart, D.M. 1988. Review of Ahmed (1986). Bulletin of Middle East Studies Association 15: 1-2. Hymes, D., ed. 1972. Reinventinganthropology. New York: Vintage. Maruf, A.M. 1986. Towardsan Islamiccritique of anthropologicalevolutionism. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 3(1): 89-107. . 1987. The rescuingof Muslim anthropologicalthought (review of Ahmed 1986 and Asad 1986). AmericanJournal of Islamic Social Sciences 4(2): 305-320. Mauroof,S.M. 1981. Elementsfor an Islamic anthropology.In Social and natural sciences: The Islamic perspective,ed. I.R. Al- Faruqiand A.M. Nasseef. London:Hodder and Stoughton. Momin, A.R. 1989. Islamizationof anthropologicalknowledge. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 6(1): 143-153. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism.New York: Pantheon. Shariati, A. 1979. On the sociology of Islam, ed. H. Algar. BerkeleyCA: Mizan. Street, B. 1990. Orientalistdiscourses in the anthropologyof Iran, Afghanistanand Pakistan.In Localizingstrategies: Regional traditionsin ethnographicwriting, ed. R. Fardon.Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Sulani, A.L. 1988. Review of Ahmed (1988). Muslim WorldBook Review 8(4): 12-15. Tapper,N. and R. Tapper. 1987. The birth of the Prophet:Ritual and gender in TurkishIslam. Man 22: 69-92. Tapper, R. 1984. Holier than thou: Islam in three tribal societies. In Islam in tribal societies, ed. A.S. Ahmed and D.M. Hart. London:Routledge. . 1988. Review of Ahmed (1986). Man 23: 567-568. Young, W.C. 1988. Review of Ahmed (1986). AmericanJournal of Islamic Social Sciences 5(2): 289-291. el-Zein, A.H. 1977. Beyond ideologyand theology:The search for the anthropologyof Islam. Annual Reviewof Anthropology6: 227-254.

This content downloaded from 193.140.201.95 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:36:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions