The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Wl. 5, No. 2, 1988 289 

Book Review 

Toward Islamic Anthropology 

by Akbar S. Ahmed, International Institute of Lhinic Thought, 
H e d o n ,  Virginia, 1986, pp. m. 

In his short book, Tavard LFIamic Anduopdog, Alrbar Ahmed addresses 
two scholarly communities: anthropologists, whose train@ is based, as he 
says, on the study of classic sociologid \IvoTfiF by Wstern Europeans, and 
educated Muslim readers whose view of society is based on their study of 
the @fan and classic mrks in Wamic jurisp?pdenoe and philosophy. Being 
a member of both communities himself, professor khnaecf is sensitive to the 
issues that they face. He makes a sincere plea for dialogue between these 
two communities and puts firward some intr@ing recommendations for 
resolving the disputes tbao divide them, 

Ahmed begins with a discrmsskm d “the science Ofm&mplogy.’’ This 

to a n h o j d o g y  for h e  readas 
epistemalqpd position, that afithropology is “a h n c h  a€ empirical, 

E) is bath send& a& in b-rnmy 
- sicience” (p- W) w w  

. hrmt,Ahmed-W“If 

Bkmi E!A’HM$ A.Cl is indeatan t.” (p. 56) 
midism of bath earlier M d i m  schdmlup andi Ahmed‘s 

tm belime that “the ethqpphx, like the 
cast! d w b t  in a nihilistk way am %e reality 

aaepahktm Muslim Wk idso a d-& miffimatimdthe scientific 



2110 ‘The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 5, No. 2, 1988 

aMtus of mthopdogy, one that runs counter to some of the recent fashions 
d fads in the discipline. 

Ahmed’s 6Vefview of anthropology @p. 13-50) is a useful introduction 
that ~ M W S  hewily on the perspectives of British structural-functional 
afithpologfB& such as John Beattie and Raymond Firth. It is clearly written 
a i d  provideB gmki summary for non-specialists of some of the many trends 
in the? field. Like my summary, however, it neglects some major figures and 
m n t  developmnts. It is hardly accurate to claim that “contemporary 
anthropoki@ hs produced no major recent work” @. 31) and so d i s m i s s  
kjou~-~I&~, Jack W y ,  L&i-Strauss and S a h l i n ~ . ~  Ahmed is correct, however, 
il.1 decl&bg that the discipline is in a state of crisis @. 31). He quite properly 
poiiib out that &t? cause of this crisis is the inadequacy of the approaches 
that kumpean dnd American anthropologists established during the first half 
of this ct!&.~i-j’. These approaches proved unable to account for socio-cultural 
chaiqge @. 491, ~ f i  encrusted with the intellectual vestiges of colonialism, 
@. 25-28) and wee flawed by ethnocentric and Orientalist biases which led 
to disbfkd ariW6pological descriptions of non-European societies (p. 53-55). 

Prdbskor A b e d  also addresses the more specific question of how 
anthiopbgists have studied Muslim societies. He cites numerous examples 
of biased writ@, in which anthropologists refuse to credit their Muslim 
subjects \ivith any interest in justice, peace or orderly social life. The most 
eprehensible fllQstrations are taken from Crone and Cook’s Hugurism and 
Jeffrey’s Pmgs lri d Well, both of which are written in a very belligerent 
tone md which deserve Ahmed‘s sharp criticism. (pp. 51-55) Generally 
Atitk.lepl’s shaip skiticism. @p. 51-55) Generally Ahmed succeeds in making 
a s w l e  pint: when an anthropologist describes his informants (Muslim 
or hot) in a Way that they would find extremely offensive, there is something 
kroN with the d&cription. Some important truth or insight has been missed. 

ibes the etiquette of the Baluch as “hollow” and says that 
their “bthlate lib” is full of “deceit” and “suspicion” (in Ahmed, p. 54), 
he has clearly Med to understand the human dilemmas with which the Baluch 
must d d l .  Uii& great stress most human beings may resort to deceptions 
of taridus kinds, which, of course, leads to suspicion; but they also struggle 
to sustairi the l&ef ideals of community, hospitality and brotherhood when 
the coiiditiohs bf tlieir life make this at all possible. By recording only their 
f&il&es b r e a l k  their ideals, Barth denigrates this struggle and provides 
a one-sided a d  distorted view of Baluch life. This negative attitude contrasts 

, (Cambridge: Cambridge University 
vage Mind, (CambridF: Cabridge 
Mind, (Chicago: Univenity of Chicago 
ew Yo&) Aldine publishiog C o w ,  



The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 291. 

with some of the more tolerant views which my own 
held. They said, al-ji‘ k$r, “Starvation is a N 
meant that hunger will 
him to steal or cheat. 
who commits them in such circumstances should be 

In accord with the insights into human psycho1 
such as the preceding one provide, Ahmed proposes 
anthropology. By this he means “the study of Muslim 
and non-Muslim] scholars committed to the universalistic 
humanity, knowledge, tole 
to the larger historical and ideological 
out that most of the negative myths about Muslim societies 
of women” and the supposed “tyranny, anarchy, and d 
politics.” (p. 5 8 )  Scholars concerned w 
to provide new, more obje 
Ahmed suggests that field workers co 
“tribes,” but on a larger unit of political 
At this level the local representatives of Islamic 
institutions and educational systems can be bette 
also presents a list of projects which he feels 
anthropology for Muslims and would 
Muslim societies by anthropologists. One of the most 
that “the ethnographic and anthropological content from the writings of the 
great Muslim writers b] . . . extracted and compiled in a discrete set of 
volumes.” (p. 67) 

Its only flaws are some minor mistakes in copy editing: 
sentences (ex. p. 39, paragraph 3) and some incorrect 
Wolf 1951 not Wold; p. 71, J. Beattie not H. Beattie). 
heartily recommend it to both anthropologist and to 
learn more about the discipline. 

All in all, this is a valuable book, well-argued and att,mctiv