The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 305 Review Article The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought A . Muhammad Ma Suf Akbar S. Ahmed, Toward Islamic Anthropology: Definition, Dogma, and Directions, Islamization of Knowledge series (2) New Era Publications/In- ternational Institute of Islamic Thought 1976, 77 pp. Talal Asad, The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam, Center for contemporary Arab studies, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 1986, 22 pp. I. The Malaise and its Remedy Both of these scholarly publications may be seen as statements of the need for Islamic anthropology. They contain expressions of the discontent of Muslin anthropologists with the state of the art of contemporary anthropological studies. Many Muslim anthropologists and other social scientists share in the feelings evident in these essays and well stated in the late Dr. Ali Shari'ati's Civiliza- tion and modernization: When I feel my own religion, literature, emotion, needs and pains through my awn culture, I feel my own self, the very social and historical A. Muhammad Ma'Nf, Ph.D., teaches in the department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, Cheyney, PA 19319. 306 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 self (not the individual self), the source from which this culture has originated. . . .But certain artificial lictors, probably of a dubious M~UR, creep into a society which has well defined social conditions or social relations, developed through a specific historical framework, and ac- quaint it with pains, sufferings, emotions and sentiments which have an alien spirit and are a product of a different past, a difkrent training and society. . . .Then when I wish to feel my own real self, I find myself conceiving another society’s culture instead of my own and bemoan- ing troubles not mine at all. I groan about cynicism not pertinent to cultural, philosophical and social realities of my society. I then find myself harboring aspirations, ideals and anguishes legitimately belong- ing to social, economic , and political conditions of societies other than mine.< Nonetheless, I treat these desires, ideals, and anguish as if they were my own.. . .Another culture has alienated me. (From Engllsh translation published by Houston, TX: Free Islamic Literatures, The comprehensive analysis of this general malaise afflicting the world- wide Muslim ullynah and its contemporary leadership as well as the framework for the rescue of the Muslim intelligentsia from the pitfalls of religious isola- tion and fanaticism, cultural and emotional alienation, self-contempt, and loss of self-esteem is most forcefully stated in the work and academic leadership of the late Dr. Ismai‘il Al mmq1 and his colleagues, students, and associates. Dr. W q ? s thought pointed out that the academic labor of the Muslim scholar and hidher participation in the rituals of scholarly productivity, debate, and discussion bereft of Islamic soul and spirit is like the native American ritual of couvade. Like the husband in couvade who lay in his bed and pretended to experience the pains of childbirth while it was in fact the wife who was going through the pains of giving birth, too many Muslim scholars have been only pretending to be productive. The remedy that has been proposed in the “Islamization of Knowledge” initiative (as stated in, International Institute of Islamic Thought (JJIT), Islamization of knowledge: General principles and workplan, Herndon, VA. (1987) requires as an initial step the mastery of a significant Wstern discipline. The authors of both books under review have satisfied that requirement ad- mirably in that they are both British trained and highly recognized in their fields of anthropdqgcal specialization. “The remedy also seeks resolution of the problem of lack of illumination in materialist social sciences by resort to classical Islamic thought methodology. Dr. Ahmed as well as Dr. Asad recognize that new thought and fresh perspec- tives are sorely needed in anthropology even when considered in its own terms, i.e, without particular concern with Islam. Dr. Asad has p d i d e d some fresh air to the ongoing debates on the sociology and anthropology of Islam I ~ c . ‘79: pp. 7-8.) A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 307 (conceptually a different variety of subject matter from Islamic anthropology) in outlining a notion of “discursive tradition” (pp. 14-77). This concept may prove helpful in revitalizing Islamic anthropology and is discussed below. However, neither publication deals explicitly with questions pertaining to Islamic thought, methodology or its history. In fact Dr. Ahmed laments the fate of the “Muslim intellectual” as wandering ”between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born.” (p. 61). I trust that the dead world he means is not the world of the knowledge of the Islamic scholars of the past. @fay Allah’s blessing be always upon them). To assume that they and their knowledge is dead is only an assumption. For Allah states in the Qur’an that many whom people assume to be dead are not in fact dead. This verse in the Qur’an is usually interpreted as referring to those who sacrificed their lives in battles for Islam. Is it not also applicable to those who spent their lives ‘developing the rational thought basis for the survival of Islam in the centuries that have passed since the era of our Pro- phet Muhammad (SAAS)? The logical basis and orientation of the ”Islamization of Knowledge” pro- gt-dmaresummanzed * in Dr. Famqi’s Forewd to T m r d I s M c Anthmplogy. The ideas presented in that Foreword as ingredients to a remedy for the malaise of the Muslim mmah and its intellectual leadership need to be commented on here as background. A . Discipline The formulation of the principles of Islamization of Knowledge took place within the context and format of modem university style education and schol- arly exchange. The status quo notions of disciplinary distinctions among the scholars who took part in the exchanges was maintained. Following from that initial definition, Dr. Ahmed‘s book tries to look at anthropology as a discipline in itself, as well as at Islam and other abstractions that he is concerned with. The book is thus not problem-oriented except in the sense that there is a massive problem of the need for Islamic anthropology. However, when I look at what has transpired since statements began to be made concerning “disciplines” within Islamic social sciences in activities of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and in the formalization of the Islamization Work-Plan, it seems necessary to re-examine the concept of “discipline” itself. One of the reasons for this is the Eastern association of the concept of discipline and discipleship with the sacred art of learning and teaching within the environment of beliefs associated with spiritual con- trol of the teaching/learning process. Such an association applicable to the idea of learning Islamic social sciences is completely inappropriate when us- ed in conjunction with the contempomy definition and derivation of the term. 308 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 Another reason is that many, if not all, of the sciences of human behavior are constantly crossing each other’s boundaries. The boundaries of separate- ly defined kcial sciences, like those of ethnic groups, have shown themselves to be very fluid. Anthropologists, in particular, are keenly aware of the multifaceted en- cyclopedic nature of their field of study. Dr. Ahmed has done proper justice to this aspect of the discipline @p. 19-25) although like most British social anthropologists he prefers to ignore the vital link of the study of human be- ings to the natural sciences, well preserved in most schools of thought within American anthropology. In practice, as understood in contemporary academic settings, “disciplines” of various social sciences are idealistic abstractions. In concrete terms what we have are “programs” in anthropology, sociology, geography and so forth. These programs have specific ties to the history, faculty backgrounds, and other aspects of the environments in which they have developed. Anthropology at Harvard is not the same thing as it is at UCLA, LSE, or at Cheyney. As such, in the statement “Islamization of anthropology”, the subject or object of Islamization is rather vague and obscure. Disciplines of anthropology and other social sciences have developed in the social, economic, ideological, and professional environments of various nation-states. The thought structures characteristic of the profession of an- thropology are tied to various local, economic, and other interests of the in- stitutions that have fostered their development. The universalistic practice of Islamic social science, however, is at once for all nations and states and educa- tional institutions and by the same token for no specific nation, state, or univer- sity. As an exhibit of such a social science Dr. Ahmed’s book tends to be too vague and general in too many places. Perhaps in recognition of that Dr. Faruqi in his Foreword has included travellers and explorers, scientists and generals, colonial administrators, missionaries, mission physicians, Western social scientists, folklorists, historians of art and literature, linguists, ethnomusicologists, and their caricatures - the new breed of Western-trained Muslim scholars all in a pile to be called “anthropologists”. Dr. Ahmed‘s book is a beginning toward answering the question of how a specialized Islamic anthropological discipline may emerge from the study of endeavors so disparate. B. Islam and knowledge. The assertion contained in the Foreword that “Islam regards all knowledge as critical, i.e. as universal, necessary, and rational” will come as somewhat of a surprise to most readers of English. In much of English language thought, the association of religion is with the lack of knowledge and its associated evils such as superstition, mysticism, magic, and irrational fears. The con- temporary association of Islam as a religion is with all those things and worse A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 309 such as terrorism, despotism and other political irrationalities. Dr. Al-Faruqi, from the perspective of an enlightened vision of Islam, rejected such irregular associations in all his works, and demanded an analysis of the unity of an- thropological and Islamic knowledge. C. Islam as guidance and vision for anthropologists. In A l - m q i ’ s words: The positive direction in which a redressed anthropology may be directed must derive from the vision of Islam. This vision is deter- mined by the unity and transcendence of God, reason, life-and world affirmation, universalism, urnmatism, and ethical service as the raison d‘etre of humanity. . . . Anthropology. . .should learn anew the simple but primordial truths of all knowledge that are equally the first truths of Islam, namely, the truth is one, just as God is one, and as humankind is one. (pp. 8-9). The consonance of Dr. Ahmed‘s views with such a vision for Islamic an- thropology is debatable. The recommendations he has made for Islamic An- thropology (pp. 65-66), are chiefly oriented toward the production of text- books and other pedagogic material rather than toward the engagement in the exercises of bringing anthropological thought, from its roots, within the focus of the Islamic vision of man and God and their mutual relationship. While Dr. Faruqi’s fondness was for the latter pursuit his direction during the later years of his life was to encourage scholars of the calibre of Dr. Ahmed to begin the former task. In considering tasks such as rewriting anthropology text-books in a medium suitable for colleges and universities in Muslim lands, it is necessary to keep in mind the different levels at which Islamization of anthropological thought may occur and their logical sequence. Thus one may conceptualize a level ‘A”, an epistomological level of pure thought and reason in which the idea of “humankind” as conceptualized within modern Western anthropology is washed, and redressed and brought within the meaning of the concept of Tawhid. Such rethinking is apparently part of the, albeit, private and unpub- lished, social thinking of many Muslim social scientists. But, as far as I know, it is only in the work of Dr. Ismai’l Al-Faruqi that any reasoning for even elementary concepts in social science as perceived from a Tawhid perspec- tive can be said to exist in published form. That foundation that he has laid, the way he has opened for Islamic social scientists, needs to be embellished and strengthened for each subway of the social sciences. Anthropology, also arising from a number of “oneness” hypotheses, such as one human species, psychic unity of mankind, common denominators of all cultures, unilinear 310 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 evolutionism, and so forth seems fertile ground to till and sow the idea of Tawhid, i.e. to develop the epistomology of Qur‘an-based sciences. For such development we have to await the further works of scholars like Akbar Ahmed and Talal Asad. At another, practical level, Level “B”, necessarily involving the inclusion of funding agencies, colleagues, universities etc. are the tasks of engaging in research and the teaching and sharing of new knowledge brought about as a consequence of level “A”. Insofar as the activities at level (B) have to take place within the control of established scientific and educational establishments, some kind of self- assessment of the need for Islamic anthropology, and resources that could be made available for its development by Muslim educational institutions would seem necessary. Thus, for instance, we may all laud Dr. Ahmed‘s interest in producing “one major standard anthropological text book” to be translated and used for B.A. level education in all Muslim colleges. However, the in- telligent way to go about engaging in such production is to go to the undergraduate faculty in those universities and request them to review their undergraduate general education curriculum and educate them in the value of incorporating Islamic anthropology into it, and in the processes by which such incorporation may be accomplished. Producing text-books is only one segment of that process. The retraining of existing faculty in anthropology departments would be another crucial segment. Dr. Ahmed himself in one of his early works has lamented the Pakistani government’s typical lack of attention to servicing even the basic educational needs of the population. Political power structures in Muslim lands, except for a few exceptions, have generally demonstmted their unwdhgness to educate their subjects, particularly, in the social, philosophical, and political sciences. The development of Islamic social scientific thought in that kind of political milieu-where the rulers are afraid of their citizens and the free thought of their uhma - can only take place at the risk of the lives and careers of the scholars who engage in such an endeavor. This has been well demonstrated in the experience and sacrifice of so many Imams in the history of Islamic thought, as well as in the “brain-drain” of the contemporary Muslim intelleli- gentsia to Western societies, which nevertheless accept, and welcome indepen- dent thought and provide support and avenues for its expression. 11. Comparative Study of Islam. Dr. Ahmed has also recommended that “a simple, lucid sociological ac- count of the life of the Prophet (SAAS) be prepared by a Muslim.” His reasoning for this deserves comment. He assumes that hagiography is inadequate for A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 311 the rendition of the siruh while sociology is adequate and necessary. “For our purposes what is needed is sociology not hagiography” (p. 65). What is the basis for this reasoning? Even in English, Carlyle’s biographical apprecia- tion has g e n e d y been received better by the Muslim public than social science based approaches. Within sociology and a n h p o l o g y it is only after the 196Os, in the work of ethnomethodologists and related schools of thought, that the usefulness of utilizing life-story materials in understanding history and other social phenomena has begun to be appreciated. It would be well worth it to get into the substance of that school of thought, not even noted by Dr. Ahmed, prior to taking a position on the mutual relevance and relationships between hagiography and sociology or history. The siruh of Rasullulluh (@AS) as rendered in an Islamic hagiographical style by Ibn Hisham (now available in an English translation by Alfred Guillame) and in the numerous other ac- cepted early compilations has been adequate for Muslims for the develop- ment of their piety as well as knowledge for many centuries. Any subsequent work has to build on that foundation and not negate or ignore it. Sociology has its many uses, but has proved methodologically insufficient to grasp Islam even in its most superficial forms. The lamenting of the inade- quacies of the so-called comparative study of Islam by Western social scien- tists is a constant theme in both publications being reviewed (See Ahmed: pp. 50-65; & Asad: pp. 1-14, which includes a brief but cogent reply to an earlier contribution to this focus of study by the late Dr. Abdul-hamid El- B i n ) and significantly in Dr. Fa-uqi’s Foreword. Perhaps understandably, the Western social science tradition of scholarship about Islam has been unable to approach the meaning of Islamic behavior at any level beyond that of the essentially bloodstained metaphors of kinship, tribe, caste, race, nation, and empire. The Islamization of Knowledge program seeks to remedy the methodological weaknesses of disciplines arising from the tradition of Western social sciences so that they will become useful in the understanding of Islam. To attempt to sociologize the simh before Islamizing the methodology of that discipline may prove to be worse than putting the horse behind the cart. In Pakistan the brief but important contribution of Dr. Basahart Ali toward Islamizing sociological thought preQates the more systematic internationally based attempt coming from IIIT. Dr. Ahmed seems unaware of his own coun- tryman’s work, as he is unaware of other works on Islamizing anthropology published prior to his attempt. As such an important recommendation should be for the setting up of lines of proper communication amongst scholars who are working in this field so that there will be adequate bibliographic dissemination. It is obvious that Dr. Ahmed, like many other present day Muslim in- tellectuals, is perturbed by views such as those of Montgomery Watt ’and even embarassed by blasphemies such as those of Crook and Croney that he has 312 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 cited. There are worse caricatures of the name and fame of our Prophet (SAAS) coming out of the Indian press. But these would be disturbing to us only if we ourselves had not read and believed the original versions of the story of our Prophet as told in Ibn Hisham for instance. I don’t believe we can put ourselves in the position of cleaning up after the mess that some of these so- called scholars are making for themselves. In fact, as far as Western literatures are concerned Montgomery Watt is a considerable improvement over Dante and Milton. Further, anthropological analyses of the times and environment of the Pro- phet ($&$) , as in the work of Eric Wolf and Barbara Aswad which Dr. Ahmed seems to summarily dismiss, contain certain kinds of information on the material circumstances surrounding the earthly existence of the Prophet, con- ceptualized within the framewwork of anthropological-ecological notions, which many traditional siruh scholars either did not see or ignored. These modern ecological notions may be usefully compared with Ibn Khaldun’s analysis of the peculiarities and uniqueness of the physical environment of the Hejaz. It would behoove the Muslim anthropologist to attempt to explain the conceptual basis of such analyses to hidher fellow Islamic scholar schooled in the traditional d r u s u h tradition. Such exchange may prove to be an an- tidote to the excesses of tuqlid and traditionalism of the d r u s u h system of education. Insufficient attention to material conditions and circumstances and excessive attention to supra-material conditions is a problem that envelops present day Muslim life and world-view. What we can and should learn from Western civilization emanates from its material advancements and achievements. What is necessary, therefore, is not to re-write a new fangled, sociologiz- ed or anthropologized siruh but to make certain that students of Islamic social sciences learn to think critically, and to master the basic sources of Islamic knowledge such as the siruh as part of their general education and as a prere- quisite for pursuing studies in Islamic social science. For such purposes modern English language works such as the translation of Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal’s interpretation and the more recent excellent original work of Dr. Seyyid Abubuckr Sirajuddin (Martin Lings) are adequate and need not be dismissed lightly as Dr. Ahmed does. It would behoove anthropologists who are attempting to Islamize their disciplines to also first master the sources in usul al-din and usul ul-jqh. In the final analysis the understanding of the life and times of our Prophet ($&I$) is as much a spiritual exercise as it is an intell- one. Understanding the spirituality of Muhammad requires spiritual effort: devotion, prayer and worship. It is the spirituality of the Prophet ($&I$) as a worshipper, as one who communed directly with the Almighty Allah ( X W T ) , and became the vehi- cle for the transmission of the commandments of Allah to all human beings A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 313 after him until the Day of Judgement that envelops his earthly role as Messenger, just as the heavens envelop the earth. Unfortunately, many scholars, Muslim as well as non-Muslim, make the mistake of using what they have come to know of his temporal role as amir a1 muininin, as judge, commander and statesman, to mask his spiritual rank and position as the Final Prophet, the hudah of all prophets, and as the one who asked for and received the blessing of Islam for his ummah directly from Allah (SWT.). That mistake of not understanding the differences among the levels of significance between the spiritual and eternal on the one hand and the historical and socio-political on the other, leads to a short-sighted view. In my opinion it is not reasonable to expect non-Muslims or non-practicing Muslims to learn to appreciate the Prophet of Islam in the total earthly and heavenly senses. But miracles are always possible! 111. Defining Islamic Anthropology. Dr. Ahmed‘s book is presented as “speculatory” and “incomplete” (p.13). From such a position of hesitancy, the author provides a definition of Islamic anthropology which is rather awkward in formulation (cf. for instance p.17 with p.56). The formulation is in two parts: The first part defines and traces the history of the development of British social anthropology. The brief over- view (pp. 13-28) is in summary fashion and should have included references to at least some of the available, more exhaustive, studies of the subject. In the second part, a “loose” definition of Islamic anthropology is provided as follows: the study of Muslim groups by scholars committed to the universalistic principles of Islam - humanity, knowledge, tolerance - relating micro village tribal studies. . .to. . . historical and ideological frames of Islam (P. 56). 4 To me, the implication of his approach that British and “Islamic” an- thropology are essentially, conceptually, and substantively different and discon- nected pieces is illogical and contrary to the principle of the unity of knowledge. Both British and Pakistani-British-Islamic anthropology (as presented by Dr. Ahmed) are parts of human thought, the history of which follows the rules of the development of human aql provided to humans by their Creator. The method and style of the worship of the One God by Muslims is significantly different from the methods and styles of worship accepted by the British p m u r - sors to Dr. Ahmed‘s anthropological thought. If patterns and procedures of worship - ibadah is to be a criterion in the definition of anthropology, then the way in which Islamic a n h p o l o g y promotes, explains, elaborates, evaluates or otherwise takes a position in regard to the patterns and processes of worship 314 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 of God needs to be explicated. If that is done it would imply a significant separation of Islamic from other anthropologies. In one sense Dr. Ahmed has tried to do this by quoting Ali Shariati (p.61): Religion is. . .a road or a path leading from clay to God and convey- ing man from vileness, stagnation and ignorance, from the lowly life of clay and satanic character, towards exaltation, motion, vision, the life of the spirit and divine character. If it succeeds in doing so, then it is religion in truth. But if it does not, then either you have chosen the wrong path, or you are making wrong use of the right path. Is it Dr. Ahmed‘s position that anthropology can assist in “illuminating the right path? If so, how? There is an important question here, and it remains unanswered in the manner in which he has projected Islamic anthropology. The thinking about the subject of religion in the book is rather confusing. Earlier in the book (pp. 41-44) Dr. Ahmed has discussed “Beliefs, Magic, and Religion”, without any reference or use of Sharati’s or any other Islamic thinker’s views on religion or on paths right or wrong. Can Islamic an- thropology illuminate and improve on the age-old, worn-out concepts derived from Durkheim, Freud, and Evans-Pritchard that he has uncritically adopted and seems to hold onto? In this regard, should we not look deeper into the relationship of the religions of these authors - sometimes overtly Christian as with Evans-Pritchard, sometimes Judaic, Marxist, humanist or in some other variety - to their theories of what were to them, religions other than their own? The= may be much to gain from formulating a method of academic interaction with not only Western anthropological theorists of religion, but also with the Western humanist and other theological students of religion. It is in the latter disciplines that the methods by which modem Judeo-Catholic- Christian rationality, and educated, rational religious opinion developed, are most clearly articulated. The little from the genius of an Isma’il or Lamya Al-Faruqi that came to be known to most Muslims, regarding Islamic rationali- ty, and its methodology, was, in the wider context, of their (the Faruqis’) in- teraction with representatives of Western theological and other humanist disciplines. It is also the common experience of many Muslim graduate and undergraduate students in American anthropology departments who have worked with professors whose respect for Christianity and devotion to the rational, and unfettered analysis of Truth in human religiosity as a whole is as deep as it is personal. Talal Asad, whose preoccupation in recent years has been issues in the history and anthropology of medieval Christianity may well be on the right track. A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 315 IV. Participant Observation in Cultural/Social Anthropological Research Dr. Ahmed‘s idea of the observation of human behavior, the principal an- thropological research tool, as presented in this book is archaic and inade- quate, to say the least. This is surprising since he has a broad reputation for having done much field-work. Contrasting participant - observation (or field- work, pp. 28-31 & passim) with experimental methods is pointless. One can observe experimental social situations, as well as natural ones. The methodologically significant issues are controlled vs. uncontrolled observa- tions, and the problems in the delineation of variables for control. In social science the delineation of variables is almost always, and by necessity, only an appmximation. In experiments done in the laboratory, usually in the physical and biological sciences, the variables are more exactly defined. In both in- stances, however, human observation of the interaction of the variables is the key to the next steps: inference, deduction, conclusion and so forth. During the last twenty years or so advances in “field-work” methodology have been primarily directed by the need to critically evaluate the percepts and concepts that guide the field-worker‘s observations. In assuming a contentious posi- tion toward Professor Frederick Barth, who has made some significant con- tributions in this regard, Dr. Ahmed seems to have ignored this entire line of recent development in the sciences of the observation of human behavior. Some relevant aspects in these developments should be noted here, so that other Muslim anthropologists also do not throw away the baby with the bath- water. Perhaps more than anythmg else, the anthropological research experience points to the value of information regarding human behavior that comes from inferences made from the direct observation of actual walking, talking, worlang, dating, bathug, d m q , praying, sleeping, singing, dancing, fighting, teachmg, learning and other forms of human activities. It is the experiences of engag- ing in such observation that makes the anthropologist a specific kind of social scientist. That experience is something to think about for most other kinds of specialists, including our traditional ulumuh, who seem to arrive at in- ferences and assumptions regarding human behavior almost entirely from what they read in books. Reading human behavior requires training and experience in a script so totally different in structure from any in which books are writ- ten. As Dr. h e d has also noted, there is a strong scholarly foundation for this method of study in the history of Islamic thought such as in the works of Al-Biruni and the well-known Muslim world-traveller authors. However, the methodologies for the critical evaluation of what people say, as developed by the muhadithun, for instance, is also part of this tradition. Present-day developments in the sciences dealing with the collection of information from direct observation, interviewing, opinion-pollug, surveying, and so hrth should 316 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 become an important point of focus in any future development of rational Islamic social thought. Additionally, observation as a data-gathering technique is not restricted to lonely anthropologists sitting in tribal s u r r o u n m in Borneo or the Amazon as Dr. b e d seems to imply. It is now widely practised in the United States, for instance, in educational and industrial settings for the gathering of infor- mation relevan{ to the evaluation of programs and productivity. It is becom- ing increasingly common to require training in techniques of human behavior observation for workers in government, medical, industrial, and other agen- cies servicing multicultural clientele. It is also relevant to note that field-work research is physically and emo- tionally more taxing on the individual than library research. Several books on how to do field-work have appeared recently in the market, none of which Dr. Ahmed makes reference to. Ideally, however, field-observation and analysis of resulting data cannot be learnt from books. It is most profitably learnt in .practice within the conditions of apprenticeship with somebody who has already gone through its trials and tribulations. One of the chief gaps in the com- munication between anthropologists and Islamic Studies specialists as well as with the orientalist type of scholars is precisely due to the differences that accrue from field-work training. The former would tend to treat the latter as somewhat of a book-worm. The latter tend to treat the former’s enterprise as attempts to bring knowledge soiled by street dirt into the “clean” environ- ment of their academies. Given the importance of field-work training for ex- cellence in anthropology as well as several other human sciences, it is in- cumbent upon Islamic anthropologists to develop systematic procedures of field-work training, focused on its value for Islamic social science, that would bridge the gap between the two cultures of scholarship. V. Islam as Discursive Tradition. In the conclusion to his analysis of recent anthropological approaches to the study of Islam, Dr. Tala1 Asad concluded: The most urgent theoretical need for an anthropology of Islam is a matter. . .of formulating the right concepts (p. 14). He proposes such a concept, named “discursive tradition”. In his view, Islam is to be analysed as a tradition (or traditions) founded on the basis of the Qur‘an and Hadith, and subsequently communicated through a series of methods. I will attempt to re-state his thesis in a briefer version using his own words: A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 317 A tradition consists essentially of discourses that seek to instruct prac- titioners regarding the correct form and practice of a given practice that, precisely because it is established, has a history.. . .An Islamic discursive tradition is simply a tradition of Muslim discourse that ad- dresses itself to conceptions of the Islamic past and future, with reference to a particular Islamic practice in the present. . . . A practice is Islamic because it is authorized by the discursive traditions of Islam, and is so taught to Muslims. . . (pp. 14-15). Dr. Asad sees the value of this approach primarily in regard to the furthering of anthropological analyses and knowledge. It may also be usefully seen as a focus for the development of Islamic thought on crucial questions of con- temporary practice and behavior by Muslims themselves and by Islamic anthropologists. In order to do that, however, we need to first formulate a further ques- tions that Dr. Asad does not seek to answer in his publication. Why does an anthropologist learn one’s own or other peoples’ traditions? part of the answer to that question may lie in what he points out in regard to the “interest” of anthropologists in Islam: That, in spite of pretensions to the contrary, there is no guarantee of political or moral innocence in the attitude of the conven- tional anthropologist student of Islam (p. 17). Another significant aspect of the answer may be derived from a basic Islamic premise: that the human search for knowledge, including an- thropological knowledge, like all human activities, has purpose, and all pur- poses have to be categorized within a framework of relationships to the fun- damental purpose in the creation of humankind, namely the worship of God. Viewed from this perspecae the basis of the traditions of practice that Dr. Asad seeks to learn about, need not be something separate sui generis from the basis of the thought, rationality, and analytic categories that one employs to learn, study, evaluate, compare, and analyze those traditions. The appropriate route to discaver the place of “argument” and “reason”. (p. 16) in the develop- ment of Islamic traditions is via the authority for them in the same Qur’an and Hudith which we accept as the basis of the traditions, as well as via the socio-behavioral positions from which statements of the “argument” or “reason” are made. The “traditions” that Dr. Asad mentions seem to be the same as, or ap- proximations of, the “paths” that Dr. Ahmed, following Shariati, wishes to learn. For analytical purposes such paths and traditions may be conceptualized: (a) as observeable in human interaction at the level of behavior; (b) at the level o f j q h (i.e. the understanding of Islam appropriate for a (c) as having evolved historically as a pattern of community behavior; and (d) as requiring a fresh Islamic anthropological analysis. specific time and place), 318 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987 Such new perspectives will be subject to verification and validation ac- cording to the norms of the Muslim public as well as of social and behavioral sciences. By so re-defining the analysis and including the need for Islamic valida- tion, I mean to take the idea away from the possibilities of likely pitfalls that, in the past, have beset the type of approach that Dr. Asad has proposed. In the 1950s, at Harvard and other US anthropology departments a movement was initiated for the study of the Great Religions as the comparative, em- pirical analysis of their Sacred Traditions with their little versions “on the ground”. Von Grunebaum’s initiatives in the cultural anthropological study of Islam (as of a host of others whose analytic bent has been summarized by Asad, @. 6), arose out of this movement. In my opinion, the movement fell short of its promise because of an inability to face the reality of the sacred beliefs of people in their traditions which surpassed the anthropologist’s scep- ticism. Although arrived at from a different place, Dr. Asad’s approach as presented in the publication under review seems rooted in a similar, limited meaning space. To uproot it from there and replant it in the wide-open mean- ing space of Tawhid would seem to hold a different promise and open up fur- ther possibilities. Dr. Asad also needs to clarify his meaning of the concept of ”unlettered Muslims”, as for instance in: . . .I refer here primarily not to the programmatic discourses of “Modernist” and “fundamentalist” Islamic movements, but to the established practices of unlettered Muslims (p. 15). The emphasis on such a category smacks of a kind of anthropological romanticism of a bygone era. “Unletterdness” could be a sacred category in an Islamic normative framework, in that the Prophet Muhammad ($A$) was an unlettered person. What should be attempted is the understanding of the tremendous paradox of the fact that that unlettered person brought to this world a Book, which in its revelation began with the command to “read!” and again to read in the name of the Lord who taught man “by the pen”! He brought a religion which like no other religion of its scope and significance appeals to human rationality, and thinking and reasoning ability. There is however, a different kind of illiteracy that should be a primary variable in any analysis of contemporary Islamic traditions. It is the lack, among too many Muslims, of even a reading knowledge of their din. There are literally millions of Muslims in the world, who when asked, would claim to be Shafii, Hanafi, Maliki, or of another d h b , but who have never seen even the color of a page in a book which marked the origin of the thought foundation of their d h b - t r a d i t i o n . During the centuries that have elaps- ed, especially during and after periods of alien political domination, they have A. Muhammad Ma’ruf The Rescuing of Muslim Anthropological Thought 319 made so many changes in their practices, and have somehow rationalized, but not reasoned out, the changes they have made, nor have they expressed their reasoning in a manner appropriate to the canons of thought by which their d h u b was originally formulated. It is not unreasonable to assume that this condition is an important part of the many noticeable irrationalities of Muslim life in our times. The arguments that one occasionally hears in deknse of either side in the Iran-Iraq war as having a basis in Shib & Sunni theologies is a case in point. In the more general issue that I am referring to here, is a core problem for the Muslim anthropologist, i.e., to challenge the doctrinnak insensitivities, and other irrationalities and impurities which always creep into religious behavior in its interaction with the processes of wordly life and times. Facing up to such a challenge, and not limiting Islamic anthropology to the challenging of “places like Oxford, Harvard or UCLA” (Akbar: 67 quoting Edward Said), would require not only skills in anthropological behavior analysis, but also a sound foundation in the sources of knowledge for Islamic behavior. Unless Muslim anthropologists seek and find that Islamic knowledge and utilize it appropriately in their studies, their work will only add to the burdens, confu- sion, and doubts that have been successfully sown into the hearts and minds of Muslims by orientalist fabrications and partial truths, and by the uncritical acceptance of such “research” as authoritative by the educated, but intellec- tually and emotionally dependent, “third-world” Muslim public. VI. the Rescue of Muslim Anthropological Thought. The theme of the Andalusian tale of Huyy f i n Yaqzan, glorified in several English language adaptations as the Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, since the 18th century, seems appropriate as a description of the present state of the art of Muslim anthropological thought. In the original version of that tale, a shining but aloof and alone state of human intelligence, having reached brilliant heights of spirituality seeks, and after much trial and tribulations finds, a needed rescuer in the normal processes of Islamic ibuduh and ap- preciation of community. The Islamization work-plan referred to at the begin- ning of this essay, is best seen as a plan, which has among its aims, the rescue of Western trained Muslim anthropologists from the traps that beset their ter- ritories, regardless of how high they may have climbed on its cliffs. In this review, as in my previous papers on the Islamization of anthropology, I have attempted to emphasize the commonality of the objectives of the rescue ship, and of those Muslim social scientists who are working their way out of the lonely islands of thought that they have developed from their positions within secular, Westernized social thought. The points of origin are different. But the destination is one and the same for all. 320 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2, 1981 In the widest sense, the Islamization work-plan is a beckoning from that same source, a call to perform one’s duty from that same Being, which has time and again sought to establish the good and forbid the evil among nations and communities, including communities of scholars. As is evident in these publications, and in developments world-wide, the potential for the Islamiza- tion of anthropology looms larger and larger every time one examines it. It is also very evident that the potential will not become an ability, or develop ihto an achievement, unless priorities and procedures are constantly placed under careful scrutiny. L75 not g o d .znou& foc 4 ~ 5 &.=want. 7