354 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991 Seminars, Conferences, Addresses American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies 111 Tolentine Hall, Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085 Dhu al Qa'dah 3-4, 14JJJMay J'J..18, 1991 The eighth annual meeting of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies was held at Villanova University on May 17-18, 1991. The meeting featured a number of important sessions, ranging in theme from the Islamization of Knowledge to women and the Gulf war. The session on the Islamization of Knowledge was chaired by Charles Butterworth of the University of Maryland, and included the following: 1) Mona Abul-Fadl of the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, VA, who spoke on "The Islamization of Knowledge Interpreted: A Muslim Intellectual Response to Modernity"; 2) Tamara Sann of St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY, who addressed the theme of"Islamic Historicism in Context"; and 3) Theodore P. Wright, Jr., of SUNY, Albany, NY, who discussed "The Islamization of Knowledge in Pakistan." Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi' of Hartford Seminary in Hartford, CT, was the discussant. Abul-Fadl started the session by discussing some of the salient features of the Islamization of Knowledge- its history, major themes, and its relationship to modernity. She observed that there is no inherent contradiction between the Enlightenment and Modernity project and the Islamization of Knowledge plan. In a sense, the lslamization of Knowledge is essentially philosophical in nature and, as such, it can sum the substantial achievements of Islamic civilization as well as the contributions of the Western world. Moreover, she stre sed the need for developing a sound methodology that accounts for the intellectual achievements of humanity. As such, the Islamization of Knowledge The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991 355 is not a mere translation of ideas from one language to another, but a high- quality work based on the commitment and engagement of those individuals who understand both East and West. Sonn, on the other hand, elaborated on what she perceived as a distinction between Islamic historicism and the Islamization of Knowledge. She argued that the Islamization of Knowledge project should be seen as part of the general Islamic revival in the twentieth century, with the basic features of traditionalism, religiosity, and social activism. She went on to say that the proponents of the Islamization of Knowledge believed that knowledge devoid of religion is “self-contradictory and unconnected to eternal truths.” Though historicism as a comprehensive system of thought is basically Western, Sonn maintained that it has deep Islamic roots. Islamic historicism calls for “a critical assessment of the intellectual legacy of Islam with a view to: 1) understanding how it happened to assume the form in which we have inherited it; 2) distinguislng in the process between essential Islamic principles and their particular formualtion as a result of specific needs; and 3) determining how best to apply the essential principles of Islam in the contemporary context.” Of the Muslim historicists in the modem period, SOM picks Muhammad Arkoun, Abdallah Laroui, Maammad Abid a1 Jgbiri, and the late Fazlur Rahman. Muslim historicists believe that the Islamizers of knowledge need a critical perspective-a missing feature in the project of Islamization. Wright discussed the need for a comparative political analysis carried out by both Western political scientists and Muslim social scientists. His basic thesis is that one has “to undertake a critique of the concepts and value assumptions of the existing literature in the academic field of comparative politics in the hopes of revealing the built-in European (Judaeo-Christian or secular-humanist) biases. Among the unconscious biases of Western comparative politics are: 1) secularism; 2) materialism; 3) analysis which distinguishes subcategories but often fails to integrate them in a holistic manner; 4) unilinear development according to a European historical model; 5) liberal individualism which values freedom and democracy over order and community; 6) quantification instead of qualitative criteria; 7) egalitarianism; 8) empiricism; and 9) pragmatism. On the basis of the above approach, Wright suggests the creation of an empirical framework of analysis which takes into account the following areas of investigation which, to his mind, have been the distinguishing marks of the Muslim world in the modern era: 1) a preponderance of military over civilian rule; 2) a non-Western (nondemocratic) mode of succession to rulership; 3) the lack of separation between state and religion; 4) the gender- differentiated reality of Muslim societies; 5) official and state-enforced puritanism; 6) the Muslim practice of class equality; 7) tmnsnational loyalties; 356 The American Journal of I Jamie Social Sciences Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991 8) high birth rates; and 9) the primacy of the Arabic language in Islam and its social meaning. In his short response to the above discussions, Abu-Rabi' noted that the Islamization of Knowledge, just like any other discipline in the social sciences and humanities, is in search of foundations. The movement towards rediscovering foundations, roots, or primary motivations is noticeable in the fields of modem Christian theology, especially in the various works of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, and American literary criticism, especially in Edward Said's Beginnings: Intention and Method. Likewise, Muslim thinkers and intellectuals in recent decades have been preoccupied with Islamic essentials as a means of giving validity to their present conditions. The thought of Mul)amrnad al Bahiy, Mul)ammad 'Imarah, Malik Bennabi, )\llama Mawdiidi, Sayyid Qu\b, and Mul;tamrnad al Ghazal! is no exception to that. Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi' Hartford Seminary Hartford, Connecticut