The Attitude of Muslim Scholars to New Approaches in Religious Studies

Abstract

Muslim scholars in Islamic studies have often been characterized by western scholars of religion as a "conservative group" (Martin 1985). This charge is brought against them because of their reluctance to adopt the theories and methodologies of the science of religion in their approach to the study of Islam and Muslim societies. I would like to outline three major factors responsible for the "conservatism" of contemporary Muslim scholars in an attempt to contribute to an understanding of their pition. The fitst is concerned with objectives, the second with history, while the third deals with approaches. Objectives: For Muslim scholars, the acquisition and imparting of knowledge has to be purposeful and meaningful. They do not subscribe to the philosophy of pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Any study of Islam or of Muslim society must of necessity be goal oriented. The essential distinction between the approaches of contemporary western scholars of Islam and those of Muslim scholars can be attributed to their respective goals. For western scholars, the purpose of Islamic studies is primarily to increase the understanding of Islam, its people, culture, society, and civilization. For Muslim scholars, the purpose is not only to produce graduates well-versed in various aspects of Muslim history, cultwe, and civilization, but also to equip them to tackle or solve contemporary problems facing Muslim societies (Sardar 1983). It must be expected, therefore, that Muslim scholars will remain reluctant to adopt new approaches as long as they are convinced that they serve no practical purpose. The Historical Factor: This has to do primarily with the historical role of the orientalists. Muslim scholars acknowledge that the early generation of orientalists rendered useful services to Arabic and Islamic scholarship, especially through their critical edition and publication of manuscript texts (Tibawi 1979; Jameelah 1971). However, the scholarly output of orientalism on the whole leaves much to be desired. In the precolonial era, it was characterized by abusive polemics and false representation (Said 1978; Jameelah 197 l), which the subsequent European occupation of Muslim lands aggravated even further. The reason for this misrepresentation was that those who wrote on Islam were scholars of Biblical, theological, or linguistic studies and not of Islam. It was not uncommon for their only contact with Islam to be the result of military or missionary activity or residence in a Muslim region. Most of their writings could be Views and Comments 28 1 described as "speculative," their characteristic features being that Biblical tradition provided the norm for Islam and that western civilization provided the norm for Islamic civilization (Manzoor 1986). This theologically reductionist approach, in which Islam was understood within a western Christian paradigm, lasted until the middle of the eighteenth century (A1 Fiiriiqi 1989). In recent years, not only the authority but even the very institution of orientalism has been challenged by many prominent scholars of Islam, such as A. L. Tibawi, S. H. Alatas, A. Abdel Malek, Tala1 Asad, Abdallah Laroui, and Edward Said (Said 1985). However, while the orientalist approach has by and large been discredited, Muslim scholats remain suspicious about the intentions of contemporary western scholars of Islam. Naturally, this suspicion makes them reluctant to consider new approaches suggested by these scholars. Approaches: Muslim scholars can identify with the religionist approach which developed in the nineteenth century. This approach accepts the existence of the "other" realm, concedes the possibility of interaction with spiritual beings, and describes humanity as religious by nature. However, they have serious problems with the naturalistic approach that developed in the nineteenth century. This view holds that religious phenomena can be studied via nomothetic methods, because the subject matter of religion is the of same type as that of natural science.' Muslim scholars reject this approach, for its focus is on empirical elements in religion, such as buildings, rituals, and texts, and cannot "do justice to the experience of transcendental realities" (Mostert 1980). Science also does not pay attention to personal awareness and intuition (Wiebe 1980). Furthermore, the basic assumptions of science are that every event in natm is determined by prior natural events and that the character of this determinism can be discerned through scientific investigation (Glock and Stark 1966). Science accepts only those "truths" which are logically or empirically determinable. For Islam, intuition, personal awareness, and the transcendent reality are vital.2 Moreover, Islam teaches that human beings are responsible for their own actions3 and that the human personality does not consist only of "natural" or physical elements observable by the senses, but also of a "spiritual" element without which a proper understanding of religious phenomena is not possible ...