Annual Reviews

The Study of Islamic Culture and Politics: An Overview and Assessment
Author(s): Mansoor Moaddel

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 359-386
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069246 .
Accessed: 23/04/2013 12:38
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].
.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 188.25.155.28 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:38:44 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:359-86
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140928
Copyright ?
2002
by
Annual Reviews. All
rights
reserved
THE STUDY OF ISLAMIC CULTURE AND
POLITICS: An Overview and Assessment
Mansoor Moaddel
Department of Sociology, Anthropology,
and
Criminology
Eastern
Michigan University,
Ypsilanti, Michigan
48197; e-mail:
[email protected]
Key
Words world
religion, modernity, secularization, fundamentalism,
rentier state
* Abstract
Among
the four
major
world cultural
traditions-Confucianism,
Hinduism, Islam,
and
Christianity-Islam appears
to have the most
pervasive
role in
contemporary politics.
The vast and varied
spectrum
of the
scholarly
works that have
addressed this distinctive
phenomenon
started with a tradition that
presumed
a conflict
between Islam and
political modernity,
while
noting
the
centrality
and
universality
of
the faith for Muslims. This
conception
runs
contrary
to the admission of the
reality
of secular
politics
in historical Islam. If there
is,
on the
contrary,
a
congruity
be-
tween Islam and
modernity,
one still needs to
provide
an account of the
speecificity
of
Muslim
politics. Addressing
this
issue,
another tradition stressed that because of its
very
survival into the modem
era,
the
great
Islamic tradition can
play
a
significant
role
in
political
modernization and nation
building.
While this
argument may
be true in
the cases of the historical
experiences
of a number of Islamic countries in the
early
twentieth
century,
it is not consistent with the
overly
transnational and other
worldly
objectives
of radical Islamism of late. A third tradition
opted
for the
analysis
of the
macro social
processes
in order to account for the rise of
political
Islam,
while a fourth
focused on the micro
processes
of the
objectification
of
religion
and the
fragmentation
of
religious authority
to
explain
Muslim
politics.
These
explanations,
however,
would
be
incomplete
without a serious assessment of the role of the rentier
economy
in the
rise of Muslim
exceptionalism. Following
a critical assessment of the extant
literature,
this
essay
makes several
suggestions
for future research.
INTRODUCTION
Despite
limited interests in Islam and the
dynamics
of Muslim societies
among
American
sociologists,
the theoretical and historical debates in Islamic studies
have
revolved,
on a
higher
level of
abstraction,
around some of the same funda-
mental issues that concern
sociologists:
the status of rational
analysis
in
Quranic
exegesis,
the Islamic
conception
of
sovereignty
and the nature of the state in
Islamic
countries,
law and
order,
crime and
punishment,
the status of
women,
and
war and
peace.
In the same manner that
sociologists
are interested in
advancing
scientific
knowledge
of the
relationship
between
religion
and
society
in
general,
0360-0572/02/0811-0359$14.00 359
360 MOADDEL
practitioners
in the area of Islamic studies are
preoccupied
with
uncovering
the
way
Islam and its broader social context are related. Given these
parallel
concerns,
theoretical
development
in
sociology
can contribute to the
explanation
of Muslim
societies,
while
empirical
research in the area of Islamic studies is
certainly
one
way
of
assessing
the
adequacy
of
sociological
theories.
Yet
sociologists
remained aloof from the benefit of Islamic studies for the
development
of their
discipline.
Until the
upsurge
of interests in the social scientific
studies of Islam in recent
decades,
serious
sociological analysis
of Islam remained
confined to the seminal works of Weber on
religion.
Likewise,
practitioners
in
Islamic studies were detached from theoretical
developments
in
sociology. Change
in this area was
shaped by
several
disparate paradigms
and historical concerns.
The first
may
be traced to the
debate,
around the turn of the nineteenth
century,
between the romantics and the rationalists on the Western colonial
problem
of how
to tackle the culture of
indigenous peoples.
This was followed
by
the rise of the
discipline
of Islamic
studies,
which focused on the detailed
translation,
description,
and
analysis
of Islamic
text,
Islamic
history,
and the
languages
of diverse Islamic
nations.
Owing
to the efforts of the
Islamicists,
a third and
distinctly
Muslim
perspective
was introduced to the Western academic
community.
This was based
upon attempts
of Muslim scholars to address the
disjunction
between Islamic
law and the
practical experience
of their
societies;
this effort culminated in Ibn
Khaldun's
path-breaking historiography. Finally,
the
past
several decades have
seen an
upsurge
of interest in the social scientific studies of Islamic countries.
These studies revolved around the
constituting
features of Muslim
politics
and the
social
origins
of Islamic fundamentalism.
Significant
in these
perspectives
are issues linked to the
relationship
between
Islamic culture and
politics
and the
specificity
of the
political
institutions in
Islamic countries. What is the
relationship
between
religion
and
politics
in Islamic
countries? What are the connections between Islam and oriental
despotism?
How
are Islam and liberal
democracy
related? Are there conflicts between rational rule-
making
and
religious teaching?
In what
way
does Islam inform
politics
and
shape
political
action? What are the determinants of Islamic fundamentalism? In
critically
assessing
how diverse
perspectives
answer some or all these
questions,
this review
essay
addresses several interrelated issues:
(a)
Islam and
political modernity-the
degree
to which Islam and the rational
rule-making
are
compatible
and an ac-
count of the
relationship
between Islam and
politics; (b)
the
specificity
of Muslim
politics-the relationship
between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism and the con-
nection between social
processes
and
religious
movements; (c)
rentierism versus
Islamism-an alternative
explanation
of the
specificity
of Muslim
politics.
This
article also makes
suggestions
for future research.
ISLAM AND POLITICAL MODERNITY
The answer to the
question
of Islam's relation to
modernity depends
also on what
constitutes the
defining
feature of
modernity
itself. The
legacy
of the nineteenth-
century conception
of moder life that
shaped
much of Islamicists' views in the
ISLAMIC CULTURE AND POLITICS 361
twentieth
century presumed
a conflict between Islam and rational
rule-making.
This
conception, however,
cannot be reconciled with the historical
developments
in the Islamic
political theory,
most
notably
with Ibn Khaldun's
historiography.
The
latter,
while
accepting
the
reality
of secular
politics, signified
as
early
as the
fourteenth
century
that within Islamic cultural tradition the
principle
of rational
analysis
can be
applied
to resolve the
problem
of
political
order.
The Romantic School of William
Jones
Versus the Rationalism of James
Mill
By
the late seventeenth
century,
the three
empires-the Ottomans,
the
Safavids,
and the
Mughals-that
sheltered almost the entire Islamic world were on a course
of decline while at the same time
they
were
experiencing
massive
challenges
from
Europe.
This decline and
European
intrusion were most
pronounced
in
Mughal
India where the state faced forms of crisis
variously
labeled
by
historians as the
Jagirdari
crisis
(Chandra 1982,
Habib
1963)
or a
political
crisis
(Richards 1990),
and multifaceted crises
reflecting
commercialization, group formations,
and
poli-
tical
change (Baylay 1988). Rapid disintegration
of the
Mughal Empire
in the
early
eighteenth century provided
an
ample opportunity
for the East India
Company
to
begin
its
phase
of
rapid imperial expansion; by
the turn of the nineteenth
century
the
country
had become the
Company
state. From the nineteenth
century
on,
other
major
Islamic countries also came under
European
colonial rule-Dutch
dominated
Indonesia,
British
Egypt,
French
Algeria
and later
Syria,
and French
and
Spanish
Morocco.
Naturally,
with
conquest
came the
question
of how to rule
a
people
whose culture was
quite
different from that of the
European.
In Great
Britain,
this
question generated
heated debates
among
the
proponents
of two schools of
thought.
The romantics led
by people
like William Jones and
colleagues argued
that the East should be
judged by
its own standards and studied
for its own sake, not to serve
any
Western
propagandistic purpose (Forbes 1951,
p. 22).
For
Jones,
Asia was "the nurse of
sciences,
the inventress of
delightful
and useful
arts,
the scene of
glorious actions,
fertile in the
production
of human
genius..." (cited
in Lincoln
1999, pp. 82-83).
As for
India,
he believed that a
historical narrative could be recovered from its
legendary
and
mythological
mate-
rial
(Majeed
1990,
p.
209,
David
1996).
His most
important project
was a
digest
of the Hindu and Islamic laws
compiled by
the learned of the native
lawyers
to
form a basis for
legal
decision
(Jones 1970,
p. 794).
The downfall of the roman-
tics before the
onslaught
of the rationalists and the
evangelicals (see
The Calcutta
Review
1845, 1852, 1855;
Sprenger
1851,
Watson
1908,
Watson
1898,
Richter
1908, 1910,
Forster
1829) early
in the nineteenth
century brought
to a standstill a
promising
intellectual
project.
One
may appreciate
the
significance
of Jones's
approach
in its
glaring
contrast
with the uniformitarianism of the rationalist school of James Mill. Mill subscribed
to an
evolutionary
view of human
civilization,
whose criteria he drew from "con-
jectural" history,
the Benthamite
principles
of
utility,
and the intellectual
heritage
of the
Enlightenment.
Millar
(1781)
was
quoted
as the
authority
for the test of
362 MOADDEL
civilization
provided by
the status of women. "The condition of the
women,"
said Mill
(1848, p. 309),
"is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the
manners of nations.
Among
the rude
people,
the women are
generally degraded;
among
civilized
people they
are exalted." The utilitarian
principles
of exactness
and
completeness,
laissez-faire
economics,
the Newtonian
conception
of natural
law,
deistic
religion,
the idea of
progress
as the
organizing principle
of a universal
history-all
were used to
judge
Indian
society.
For
Mill,
the
organizing principle
of
history
was the scale of nations.
Conjecturing
the
place
of Indians on the scale
being
low,
he condemned
"every single aspect
of their
way
of life as
barbarous,
not
only
their
science,
but their
philosophy,
their art and their manners"
(Forbes
1951,
p. 29).
This
perspective provided
the intellectual
justification
for the
Westernizing
policies
of colonial
administrators,l
and
impacted
the
development
of modem
ideologies
in the Islamic world
(Hourani 1983,
Moaddel
2001a,b).
In the twen-
tieth
century,
its secularist
premise
had the
greatest impact
on historical
thinking
about Islam and modem
politics.
For
example,
in his
analysis
of cultural
change
in
Egypt
in the second
quarter
of the twentieth
century,
Safran
(1961) presumed
Islam's
incompatibility
with liberal
politics.
For
him,
the commitment of
Egyptian
cultural elite to rationalism was
necessary
for the success of the
country's
liberal
experiment (1919-1939).
When these intellectuals abandoned this
principle
in
favor of the Islamic
subject,
a crisis of orientation ensued. While Safran
generated
interesting
debates on the causes of
Egypt's
cultural turn in the late 1930s (Smith
1973, 1983,
Gershoni & Jankowski
1995,
Gershoni
1999),
none of the commen-
tators
questioned
the central
assumption regarding
the
incongruity
of Islam and
rationalism or entertained the idea that the rise of radical Islamism in this
period,
far from
being
a reflection of
Egyptians'
Islamic
identity,
was
produced
in reac-
tion to the
overly
secularist outlook of the
country's
intellectual leaders
(Moaddel
2002).
The Islamicists'
Perspective
There is an
affinity
between the
proponents
of the
rationalist-Westernizing
model of
political modernity
and the Islamicists. If the former used the
European experience
as the scale of a universal
history
to
judge
the
political experience
of historical
'Convinced of the
incompatibility
of Islam and modem life, Hunter
(1871, p. 136)
claimed
that "no
young man,
whether Hindu or
Muhammadan,
passes through
our
Anglo-Indian
schools without
learning
to disbelieve the faith of his fathers. The luxuriant
religions
of
Asia shriveled into
dry
sticks when
brought
into contact with the
icy
realities of Western
Science."
Likewise,
Cromer was convinced that the educated
Egyptians
remained Muslims
no
more; they
were "demoslemised Moslems and invertebrate
Europeans" (Cromer 1908,
p. 228).
And "in
passing through
the
European
educational
mill,
the
young Egyptian
Moslem
loses his
Islamism, or, at all
events,
he loses the best
part
of it"
(p.
230,
see also Milner 1892,
p. 5).
A similar
point
of view
underpinned
the French assimilationist
policies
in
Algeria
(see Ruedy 1992).
Islam,
the Islamicists
attempted
to uncover certain features in Islamic tradition
that in their view hindered the
development
of a modem
political
order. Never-
theless,
despite
the secularist bias
they
share with the
rationalist-Westernizers,
the
Islamicists' have made
important
contributions
by offering explicit propositions
regarding
the Islamic
origins
of the
political institutions, authoritarianism,
the fail-
ure of democratic
polity,
public
political orientations,
and
political
extremism in
Islamic countries.2
ISLAM AND POLITICS: CONSERVATISM VERSUS REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVISM The
Islamicists
widely argued
that the Islamic theories of
government strongly
tilted
toward conservatism and abstention from
revolutionary
action. This is so because
the
political language
of Islam contains no
precept
to rebel
against
a bad
gov-
ernment. Instead classical Islam teaches the
duty
to resist an
impious
ruler. This
doctrine, however,
is
inadequate
because,
in the first
place,
it is unclear "how the
lawfulness or sinfulness of a command was to be
tested;
in the second
place
no le-
gal procedure
or
apparatus
was ever devised or set
up
for
enforcing
the law
against
the ruler"
(Lewis 1972,
p. 33). Further,
the circumstances
prevailing
in Islamic
countries-such as the threat of tribal conflicts and
chaos-prompted
the theorists
to stress the need for the ruler's effective
power
to maintain order and to
justify
obedience to him. This
appreciation
of order in turn
helped
to
strengthen
tradition-
alism in all
aspects
of
life-religion, politics,
literature,
and
thought.
As a
result,
political thought
received less attention than
dogmatic theory (Lambton 1963,
pp. 95-96;
von Grunebaum
1954,
pp. 343-44).
The shift in the
conception
of the
ruler from
being
a
patriarch (i.e.,
the
shepherd analogy)
in classical
theory
to that
of an autocrat in the medieval
Islam,
paralleled
a shift in the basis of
government
from
right religion
to
justice. "Kingship,"
said Nizam
al-Mulk,
the
all-powerful
vizier of the Abbasid
caliph,
"remains with the unbeliever but not with
injustice"
(cited
in Lambton
1963,
p. 104).
How then does one account for the rise of Islamic
revolutionary
movements in
the second
part
of the twentieth
century?
For Lewis
(1993c, pp. 133-54),
these
movements were rooted in the universal belief in the
unity
of church and state
and that Islam formed the central element in Muslim
identity.
Lewis then went on
to state that various Islamic movements in the modem
period
from
pan-Islamism
of Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz in the
1870s,
the rise of
Egyptian
Muslim Brothers
in the
1930s,
to the Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979 were manifestations of this
universality
and
centrality.
ISLAM AND AUTHORITARIANISM The connection between Islamic culture and au-
thoritarianism are established
through
the
legitimizing power
of such a
patriarchal
conception
of
leadership
as za' im
(leader)
and za'ama
(leadership). Although
za' im
2This
category
also includes the historians who advanced historical claims on Islam and
politics.
Comments on the
adequacy
of these claims are not meant to
imply judgments
on
their entire scholarly contributions.
364 MOADDEL
in Arabic refers to the charismatic
political
leader,
the earliest use of the term in-
dicated that it was not a
compliment (Lewis 1988,
pp. 59-60).
When a certain
Imam of the Yemen called himself "commander of the
faithful,"
he was addressed
in the
protocol
of the Mamluk
chancery
of
Egypt
as the "za'im of the faithful." In
other
words,
"he thinks he
is,
but we know better." But in the modem
period,
the
term was used in a
positive
sense as
Egyptian
Nationalist leader Mustafa Kamil
was called al-za'im
al-amin,
"the faithful
leader,"
and President
Qasim
of
Iraq,
called himself al-za'im
al-awhad,
"the
unique
leader"
(Lewis 1988,
p. 60).
For
Sharabi
(1963, p. 590) also,
za' im is a
type
of
leadership
claimed
by
Arab leaders
to
legitimize
the
power they
had seized
through
a
military coup,
when "the un-
known successful leader of a
coup
d'etat
emerges
at first as a
genuine
za'
im,
that
is,
as a
savior,
a
hero,
a
symbol
of national honor and
freedom,
and in
possession
of all
power
in the state."
Likewise,
Vatikiotis
(1973, p. 310)
considered za'im
and za'ama as
part
of a
preexisting
Islamic cultural
tradition, giving
credence to
authoritarian
leaderships
in
post-coup Egypt
and
post-revolutionary Algeria.
For
Lapidus (1992),
on the other
hand,
modem authoritarianism is rooted in the
second
golden age
of historical Islam
highlighted by
the rise of Islamic
empires.
Under these
empires,
classical Islamic
theory
of
sovereignty
retreated to
provide
a
space
for a secular
theory
of
patrimonialism,
where
"power
is not an
expression
of the total
society
but the
prerogative
of certain individuals or
groups,"
and where
"the exercise of
political power
was
organized through
networks of clients and
retainers"
(p. 17).
This historical
legacy
of authoritarianism and clientalist
patri-
monialism has continued into the modem
period
as,
for
example, "many
features
of Turkish
republic
and the Ataturk
program may
be derived from the
patrimonial
premises
of the Ottoman
empire" (p. 23).
ISLAM AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY While various features of Islamic tradition are
employed
to
explain
the rise of authoritarian
regimes,
the failure of
democracy
in the Muslim world is attributed to Islam's
conceptual inadequacy
in the area of
individual
rights.
Lewis
(1993b) argued
that Western
democracy
is rooted in Roman
law of the
legal person-a corporate entity
with certain
rights
and
obligations.
While
Christianity
"was forced to
recognize
the
authority
of Roman law"
(Gibb
1947,
p. 85),
in
Islam,
in
contrast,
there is no such
recognition,
hence,
no
legis-
lative function. And without
legislative function,
there is no need for
legislative
institutions nor for
any principle
of
representation (Lewis 1993b).
There is still another
way
that Islamic cultural tradition constrained the devel-
opment
of democratic
polity.
It
may
be
argued
that the
varying conceptions
of
humans
upheld
in
Christianity
and Islam could have been a factor that contributed
to the rise of
democracy
in the West and the
persistence
of authoritarianism in the
Islamic world. "Christian
political
thinkers
began
from the
premises
that man was
a disobedient sinner and that the
Almighty
detested the stench of
anarchy" (Perry
1989,
p. 8).
Given man's
essentially
evil
character,
these thinkers devised a formula
to tame a
political
ruler. As Madison & Hamilton
(1911, p. 264) stated,
"if men
were
angels,
no
government
would be
necessary.
If
angels
were to
govern
men,
neither external nor internal controls on
government
would be
necessary."
This
pessimistic
view of human nature in fact
may
have led to the
development
of demo-
cratic
political
institutions as thinkers like Madison devised the
system
of checks
and balances to
keep
the rulers from misrule. In the Islamic
tradition,
on the other
hand,
there is an
optimistic
view of
humans, which,
it
may
be
postulated,
ensured
the extension of the
system
of
patriarchy
in the Islamic world into the modern era.
For there was no need to
question
the
power
of the
patriarch,
who is in essence a do-
gooder.
In classical Islamic
political theory,
the
emphasis
is to find and install the
rightful caliph.
After he is
installed, following
his order is
binding
to all Muslims.
One
may question
this
interpretation,
for Islam not
only
recommended
rebelling
against
an
impious
leader,
but also
provided
a
conceptual
foundation for the devel-
opment
of
democracy.
Such
concepts
as shura
(consultative body), ijma (consen-
sus),
and masliha
(utility) pointed
to an
affinity
between Islam and
democracy.
The
problem
in Islamic
sociopolitical theory
is then the absence of an
adequate
test of
"Islamicity" (Gragg 1957).
Or as Kerr
(1966, p. 10)
further
elaborated,
the doctrine
of
Caliphate
failed to
provide
a
procedure
of
identifying, choosing, installing,
and
if
necessary, deposing,
the
caliph.
Nor did the doctrine of
jurisprudence
offer the
means of
officially ascertaining
the consensus on a
given point
of law. This lack of
procedural
rules in
Islam,
not abstract
theological
ideas about individual
rights
and
responsibilities,
is thus considered the source of the Muslim
inability
to
replace
an authoritarian ruler and to arrive at a
parliamentary democracy.
Through
a life-time of
scholarship,
the
mastering
of
languages,
translation of the
works of
prominent
Muslim scholars into Western
languages,
a
systematic
anal-
ysis
of the
developments
in Islamic theories of
government
and
jurisprudence,
and a detailed
description
of the
changes
in the
relationship
between the state
and
religious
institutions,
the Islamicists have made invaluable contributions to
the
understanding
of Islam and
politics. Nevertheless,
their
explanatory
models
have serious
methodological problems.
In the absence of a
systematic
historical
comparison,
it is not
convincing
to
argue
that such features of Muslim societies
as
patrimonialism, political despotism,
or the weakness of
democracy
are a con-
sequence
of certain features of Islamic
cultures,
which are extracted from Islamic
text in an essentialist and reductive method.
And,
when Islam is
compared
with the
West
(e.g.,
Lewis
1993b),
this
comparison
is
unsystematic
without due attention
to variations
among
Islamic
countries,
control
cases,
alternative
explanations,
or
the effect of other historical variables.
Further,
the causal connection between
Islamic cultural tradition and historical outcomes is almost
always
made
subjec-
tively,
based on the Islamicists' own
secondary interpretation
of the
religious prin-
ciple.
This
point
is
particularly
evident in Lewis's
(1988) analysis
of
political
ter-
minology,
which is
premised
on the belief that the
religious origins
of words would
determine
political thinking
to a
special degree,
and
assuming
that Islamic culture
constituted a
single, all-encompassing,
and
enduring totality (see Halliday 1996,
p. 204). Likewise,
Sharabi's and Vatikiotis' reference to claimant
(za'ama)
to ex-
plain
the rise of authoritarianism does not account for the effects of such other
366 MOADDEL
factors as the role of
deteriorating
economic
conditions,
economic
inequalities,
conflicts between the
ruling
elite and
political groups,
the rise of
nationalist,
so-
cialist,
and anti-Western
ideologies,
and the socioeconomic
background
of
military
officers as the contextual factors
contributing
to the involvement of the
military
in
politics. Finally,
while the Islamicists
displayed
a commendable skill in their thick
description
of various
aspects
of Islamic
theology
and intellectual
history,
their
assertions about Muslims were often
replete
with
vague generalization
and ethnic
stereotyping.
Claims that Muslims are averse to "the
thought-processes
of ratio-
nalization"
(Gibb 1947,
p. 7),
and that Orientals' lack a sense of law
(Macdonald
1965), may
serve little
scholarly purpose.
Said's
Critique
of Orientalism
Said went
beyond
these
shortcomings by rejecting
Western
scholarship
on Islam
as an
ideological project, closely
connected to various
aspects
of Western
polit-
ical, economic,
and cultural domination of the Orient. This
project
was
shaped,
as it
were,
in different
periods
of encounter between Islam and the
West, by
the
European
fear of the
expansion
of Islam between the seventh and fourteenth cen-
turies
(Said 1977,
p. 59); by
the Christian
propaganda
warfare
against
Islam in
the Middle
Ages
when Islam was
portrayed
as a
misguided
form of Christian-
ity
and Muhammad as an
imposter (pp. 61-62); by
the codification of Islam in
d'Herbelot's
Biblioteque orientale,
where Islam was
placed
in the
profane history
while Judaism and
Christianity
in the sacred
(pp. 64-71); by
Dante's Divine Com-
edy,
where Muhammad was condemned to the
eighth
circle of Hell
(p. 68); by
Anquetil's
translation of Avesta
(p. 76); by
Jones' works on the
languages
and cul-
tures of the Orient
(p. 77);
and
by
the universe of discourse founded
by Napoleon
following
his invasion of
Egypt (1798-1801),
whose
agencies
of domination and
dissemination included the Institut
d'Egypte
and
Description
de
l'tgypte (pp.
81-
87).
This tradition continued unabated in the works of modem writers such as
Renan, Goldziher, Macdonald,
von Grunebaum, Gibb,
and Lewis
(Said 1977,
p. 105),
with the difference that modem Orientalism derived from
secularizing
ele-
ments in
eighteenth-century Europe (Said 1977,
p. 120).
To show the
unchanging
character of
Orientalism,
Said
pointed
to Gibb's reductive and
negative generaliza-
tions of
Islam,
Grunebaum's
presumption
about Islam as a
unitary phenomenon,
incapable
of
development, self-knowledge,
or
objectivity (Said 1977,
pp. 298-99),
and Lewis's
portrayal
of Islam as an "anti-Semitic
ideology"
and the Arab as "a
neurotic sexual
being" (Said 1977, pp. 312-18).
Although
the criticisms of mainstream
scholarly
work on Islam were
published
as
early
as the 1960s
[Abdel-Malek 1963,
Turner
1978,
Rodinson 1979
(1972)],
the
publication
of Orientalism
generated
considerable debate in the field of Islamic
studies
(Lewis 1993c,
Turner
1989,
Ahmad
1992, Halliday 1996). Among
the
shortcomings
of Orientalism noted
by
its
critics,
one raised
by Halliday (1996,
p. 211)
is
particularly noteworthy,
that
is,
because ideas are
produced
within the
context of
domination,
it cannot be concluded that
they
are invalid. In
fact,
the
Orientalists'
allegedly
unfavorable evaluation of Islam
notwithstanding,
the central
misgiving
about the Saidian critical
project
is that Said left unanswered the
very
historical issues in relation to which the Orientalist discourse was formulated. One
may
have no doubt about Cromer's colonial mission in
Egypt,
to
give
one clear
instance where
knowledge
and
power
were intertwined. But can one
summarily
dismiss his criticisms of
nineteenth-century Egypt
for its
religious
intolerance,
"barbaric"
penal
law, degradation
of
women,
and
despotic political
institutions
(1908, pp. 135-63)?
Ibn Khaldun's
Concept
of
Asabiyya
and
the
Theory
of
Dynastic Life-Cycle
A crucial element in the Saidian broadside that is
worthy
of further assessment
is his
description
of the Orientalists' secular bias
regarding
the
incompatibility
of the
principles
of rational
analysis
and those of the shari'a. Is a non-Western
cultural tradition such as Islam
capable
of
developing
its own secular-rational rea-
soning
to arrive at
self-knowledge?
Is "Islamic"
sociology possible?
Ibn Khaldun's
scholarship provides
a
ground
to entertain these
questions.
Ibn Khaldun's
sociological analysis
of historical
change
is a secular outcome
of the efforts of Islamic
theologians-cum-political
theorists to resolve anomalous
situations
facing
the Islamic
conception
of
politics.
The
problem
that motivated
Ibn Khaldun and his
prominent
Muslim antecedents was the tension in Islamic
social
thought
between "ideal and
actuality,
the
spiritual
and the
temporal,
virtue
and
power,
God's command and man's behavior"
(Kerr 1966, p. 1).
This tension
was most
apparent
in the Islamic
theory
of
sovereignty-Khilafa (caliphate).
After
the first four
caliphs,
labeled
by
the honorific title of the Rashidun
(exemplars
of the ideal Muslim
rulers),
the balance of
power increasingly
shifted in favor
of the Kurdish,
Turkish,
or Caucasian
military elite,
whose actions were dictated
by
the
exigencies
of
political power
rather than the shari'a. The
question facing
Muslim thinkers was how to reconcile these elite's claim to
sovereignty
with
the
requirements
of the
highest
office in Islam
(Cromer 1908,
pp. 135-63).
The
revisions made to Islamic
political theory
first
by
al-Mawardi
(991-1031),
then
by
al-Ghazali
(1058-1111),
down to Ibn
Taymiyya (1263-1328)
and Ibn Khaldun
(1333-1406) progressively
amounted to the
acceptance
of the
reality
of secular
politics-the
differentiation between
religious
and
political leadership (Gibb 1937,
Rosenthal
1958,
Hourani
1983).
When thinkers as diverse as Ibn
Taymiyya
and Ibn Khaldun declared that the
caliphate
after the death of the fourth
caliph
had ceased to exist and the
sovereignty
exercised
by
the
Umayyads (661-750)
and the Abbasids
(750-1258)
had never
been more than a
"royalty" (Encyclopedia ofIslam 1960, p. 945), they
admitted the
existence of a
political reality
in the Islamic land whose
governing principles
were
something
other than the shari'a. These
thinkers, however,
did not recommend
rebelling against
the ruler.
Instead, they attempted
to uncover the
sociological
principles governing
his actions in order to reconcile
religion
and the secular law
368 MOADDEL
of
politics.
It is thus from
appreciating
the
dynamic
of Islamic culture
giving
rise
to a secular
analysis
that it
may
be
possible
to detect the
orientalizing
nature of the
Islamicists' account of the Muslim
theologians'
attitude toward the
existing polity.
Contrary
to the Islamicists'
claims,
it is not that these
theologians
were
attempting
to make concession to
political expediency
and thus became
appreciative
of the
status
quo.
It is rather because
they
were
facing
different kinds of intellectual as
well as
practical problems-striving
to find a formula to overcome the destructive
power
of tribal warlords and the vanities of
paganism.
On the
reality
of Oriental
despotism,
Ibn Khaldun was
certainly
in
agreement
with the Islamicists as is
evident from his
disapproval
of
royal authority
as a form of social
organization
that
"requires superiority
and
force,
which
expresses
the wrathfulness and
animality
(of
human
nature)" (Ibn
Khaldun
1967,
p. 385).
Ibn Khaldun's
political sociology
addressed the
problem
of
political
order.
He was aware of the destructiveness of the bedouin tribes and the contradiction
between their natural
disposition
and urban civilization. He was also
cognizant
of
the bedouins'
ability
to found states. He formulated a
cyclical theory
of
dynastic
change
to
explain
the
process
of the
rise, consolidation, expansion,
and eventual
demise of
royal authority.
He coined the
concept asabiyya
as a
type
of
group
solidarity
based on blood or
strong
bond of mutual affections
among
the members
of the
group,
which make them
willing
to
fight
and die for one another. This
solidarity
is the
key
element in the bedouins'
military prowess
and
driving
force
that enabled them to overcome
city-dwellers
and establish
royal authority.
Once the
state is set
up,
the ruler creates a new
system
of
power
relations and
governmental
structures,
which creates a
period
of
political stability,
a
necessary
condition for the
expansion
of division of labor and the
flourishing
of civilization. With contentment
and
luxury,
however,
a
period
of decline
begins,
the
asabiyya
of soldiers
weakens,
the ruler's
extravagances
lead to heavier
taxes,
divisions within the
dynasty
occur,
and urban civilization
eventually
vanishes. In the
end,
the old
dynasty
is
replaced
by
a new
one,
which draws
power
from a new
group.
Such is the natural life
span
of
dynasties.
For Ibn
Khaldun, however,
an
enduring
state was
possible only through
the introduction of
religion
to create a new bond of
unity
to fill the void created
by
the decline of the
asabiyya
and
weakening
of the link between the ruler and ruled
at the later
stage
of the natural life
span (Hourani 1983,
pp. 22-24).
In this
manner,
the shari'a once more would become the
organizing principles
of
society.
Ibn Khaldun's
path-breaking Muqaddima (An
Introduction to
History)
in
three
impressive
volumes was thus an intellectual exercise to resolve the
practical
and
theological problems facing
his faith. His historical
project,
however,
went
beyond religious reasoning
and
produced
a secular scientific
approach
to the
study
of social life. This work furnished a
conceptual
framework and a set of ideas and
propositions
about the
geographic
and climatic conditions of human
civilization,
bedouins' social
characteristics,
the succession of and the differences in
group
solidarity
between the bedouins and
sedentary people,
the
principles
of economic
growth
and
transformation, royal
authorities,
the
caliphate,
and
jurisprudence (Ibn
Khaldun
1967).
The
rediscovery
of Ibn Khaldun in the nineteenth
century generated
consid-
erable interest
among
historians and social scientists.
Among
recent works that
addressed various
aspects
of Ibn Khaldun's
perspective,
one
may
cite an assess-
ment of its contribution to
historiography (Lacoste 1984)
and to economic
thought
(Soofi 1995),
the relevance of Ibn Khaldun's
insights
for
addressing
the
problem
of economic
development
in Arab countries
(Weiss 1995),
a
comparison
of
Toyn-
bee with Ibn Khaldun
(Irwin 1997),
and
exposition
of Ibn Khaldun's
sociological
thought (Baali 1988, Faghirzadeh 1982).
There are also a few works that
applied
Ibn Khaldun's framework to
studying
Islamic culture and
politics.
For
example,
Wittek
(1938, pp.
40-46;
see also Anderson
1979, p. 363), echoing
Ibn Khaldun's
theory
of
dynastic change, presented
an account of the rise of the Ottoman
empire
in the formation of a structural
harmony
between the two
contradictory principles
of nomadic
fraternity
and urban civilization.
Likewise,
Gellner
(1981)
made ref-
erence to Ibn Khaldun in
describing
cohesion and
identity
in the
Maghreb,
and
Ottaway
&
Ottaway (1970, p. 282)
referred to the
concept
of
asabiyya
in their
discussion of the rise of
personal power
in
Algeria.
A more critical and
systematic application
of Ibn Khaldun's
approach
to
analyze
the culture and
politics
of
contemporary
Islamic societies is
noticeably
absent.
The
existing
works are either full of
eulogistic
statements about the works and the
genius
of Ibn Khaldun or consist
simply
of a
superficial application
of his
theory
that fails to
encompass
the
impressive
feat of his
sociological-historical project.
THE SPECIFICITY OF MUSLIM POLITICS
If one discards the view that Islamic culture and modem
politics
were
incompati-
ble,
one still needs to
explain
the
persistence
of the
political
role of Islam in modem
life. One line of
argument
advanced
by
recent
proponents
of the secularization the-
ory pointed
to Muslim societies' lower level of economic
development compared
to that of the West
(Hunter 1998),
and to the
prophecy
that as
they
are
modernized,
new forms of cultural
expressions
and new
types
of social
conflict,
not too differ-
ent from those
already experienced
in the advanced industrial
democracies,
will
emerge,
and Islam will be "domiciled with the
sphere
of
interiority" (Tibi 1990,
p.
139). In
addition,
this
argument
attributes the discord between Islamic countries
and the West to
geopolitical
factors and colonialism not to the decline of secu-
lar
ideologies
in Islamic countries
(Milton-Edwards 1996,
Hunter
1998).
Gellner
(1981)
did not believe the secularization
theory
to be
fully applicable
to all Muslim
societies. In certain
cases,
modernization
may
entail a conflict with
religion, e.g.,
Kemalism in
Turkey,
while in other cases Muslim reformism and nationalism
may
go
hand in hand.
Citing
Mardin
(1977),
he
argued
that "nationalism and modernist
political
movements
may
be
anti-religious
if
previously religion
has been
closely
tied to the old order"
(Gellner 1981,
pp. 58).
In
general,
he
argued,
because
among
the four
major
world
civilizations-Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism,
and
Islam-"only
Islam survives as a serious faith
pervading
both a folk and a Great
370 MOADDEL
Tradition"
(p. 4),
Islam maintains the
potential
to
play
a
significant
role in
politi-
cal modernization. Its tradition of
religious
scholars and laws constitutes a source
and
symbol
of nationhood. Thus "in
Islam, purification/modernization
on the one
hand,
and the re-affirmation of a
putative
old local
identity
on the
other,
can be
done in one and the same
language
and set of
symbols" (p.
5;
see also Carroll
1986, Juergensmeyer 1993).
This "Muslim
exceptionalism"
(Hefner 1998, p. 90)
is consistent with the
experience
of such Islamic countries as
Iran,
where the ulama
actively partici-
pated
in the Constitutional Revolution
(Hairi 1977),
and
Algeria,
where the re-
formist movement formed a crucial
component
of the liberation
struggle against
the French
(Gellner 1981,
pp.
161-69,
Ruedy 1992).
The
predominant tendency
of the Islamic movements in the second half of the twentieth
century,
however,
hardly
fits this nationalist model. These movements are
largely
oriented toward
the destruction of the
existing
nation-state and the formation of a transnational
Islamic order. The
ideological objectives
of these movements are less to do with
the
safety
of the commonwealth and more with the communion of the soul with
God and eternal salvation. Two lines of research have offered alternative
expla-
nations of these still
emerging yet
distinctive Islamic
political
movements. The
first focuses on the
analysis
of Islamic fundamentalism and tries to uncover the
nature of the social
processes underpinning
this
particular
form of
religious
ac-
tivism. The
other, spearheaded by anthropologists,
turns
away
from the Islami-
cists' reductive text-based and monolithic
conception
of the Islamic movement in
order to uncover the role of Islam in
everyday
interaction of Muslims in diverse
settings.
The Social Processes Theories of Islamic Fundamentalism
Shift in the focus of
analysis
from Islamic text and culture to social context
pre-
sumes that the determinants of Islamic fundamentalism lie in the
processes
outside
religion.
To uncover the
key
features of these
processes
has become the concern of
a
growing
number of social scientists in order to
explain
this
major yet unexpected
political
and cultural turn in
many
Islamic countries in recent decades. Their ef-
forts
generated
a
large
number of studies under the rubrics of Islamic
revivalism,
resurgence,
fundamentalism, radicalism, reassertion,
and radical Islamism.
Despite
their
large number,
these studies are characterized
by
a low level of theoretical in-
tegration
and
parsimony.
The list of
explanatory
variables used remained extensive
and included almost
every possible
factor that could be construed as
plausible
in
the
unfolding saga
of radical Islamism: economic
crisis,
social dislocation and
marginality,
authoritarianism,
Westernization and cultural
invasion,
defeat in wars
(Arab-Israeli
war in
1967,
in
particular),
crisis of national
identity, quest
for na-
tional
authenticity, legitimation
crisis,
crisis of
secularism,
and the
unity
of
religion
and
politics
in Islam.
Among
the
diversity
of
studies, however,
three clusters of
views are discernible. The first are those that stress such factors as economic
crisis,
expansion
of social
inequality,
and authoritarianism. These are crisis theories. The
second
group
consists of those that note the
emergence
of a cultural
duality
or two
conflicting systems
of
authority
in Islamic countries as their
point
of
departure.
These studies are referred to as cultural
duality
theories. The first
group
considers
Islamic fundamentalism a social movement in Islamic
countries,
the second
group
takes the historical
development
of the Islamic
oppositional
movement
seriously
and
emphasizes
its
religious
dimension
(Burke 1988,
pp. 18-19).
The third
group
consists of those that focus on the state
culture/ideology
and
religious
outcomes.
These are
grouped
as state culture theories.
CRISIS THEORIES Islamic fundamentalism is seen as a
response
to various forms
of
economic, political,
and cultural crisis. For
Dekmejian
(1985,
pp.
27-32, 161),
the crisis that
engulfed Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi
Arabia,
and Persian Gulf countries
was a
profound
social crisis-one that is at once a crisis of
identity, legitimacy,
rulership, culture,
economic
development,
and
military credibility. Likewise,
Deeb
(1992, pp. 52-55)
stressed the multifaceted nature of the crisis
leading
to the rise
of Islamic fundamentalism in
Algeria, Tunisia,
Libya, Lebanon,
and the Gaza
Strip
and the West Bank:
political stagnation,
economic
stagnation, deteriorating
security conditions, persuasiveness
of Western
culture,
and the
perception
that the
secular states were
antagonistic
to Islam. Reference to serious economic
problems
is also a crucial
part
of Anderson's
(1997) explanation
of Islamic fundamentalism in
Tunisia,
Algeria,
and
Morocco,
and of Vanderwalle's
(1997)
in
Algeria.
The
former,
however, placed
a
greater
stress on
government
authoritarianism and
exclusionary
policies
that
prompted
the fundamentalists to resort to
violence,
while the latter
emphasized
the rentier nature of the state. For
Esposito (1997)
economic difficulties
combined with
geopolitical
interests were the
contributing
factors to the rise of
Islamic fundamentalism in the Persian Gulf
regions.
Margulies
&
Yildizoglu (1997)
focused on the effects of crisis on class
politics
and the
realignment
of class forces in
Turkey.
In their
view, rapid
industrialization
and rural-urban
migration, rising
waves of workers
struggle,
and
growing peasant
militancy produced
the economic crisis of the late 1960s. The latter in turn caused
changes
in the
existing
class forces. The interests of
big
business that were
closely
linked with
foreign
capital began
to clash with the interests of small and medium
provincial capital.
This
process paralleled
a
change
in
party politics
as the Justice
Party gradually
became the
party
of
big
business and
consequently
lost the
support
of other
constituencies,
giving
rise to a number of smaller
parties.
One of
these,
the National Order
Party (later
the National Salvation
Party, NSP) emerged
as the
first
party
in
many
decades to
espouse political
Islam. The
party's
electoral bases
were
among artisans,
small
traders,
and low income
groups
from the rural areas
(Margulies
&
Yildizoglu 1997,
pp. 147-48).
These and similar studies
(Esposito
1984,
pp. 152-55,
Esposito
et al.
1991,
Hunter
1988,
pp. 282-83,
Munson
1988,
p. 119,
Youssef
1985,
Voll
1992,
Faksh
1997,
Ibrahim
1980)
have now become
part
of the conventional
explanations
that have seen the rise of Islamic fundamentalism
as the
response
to Western cultural
invasion,
economic
infiltration,
and
political
domination of the
region
and the
ensuing
socioeconomic crisis and
arbitrary
rule.
The state's
exclusionary policies
and economic difficulties are factors in the
rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
Nevertheless,
the connection between economic
372 MOADDEL
crisis and Islamic fundamentalism is not
always
correct. For
example,
none of the
periods
that marked the rise of Islamic fundamentalism-the
growth
of the
Society
of the Muslim Brothers in
Egypt
in the late 1920s and
1930s,
the
opposition
of
the ulama to the state and the rise of Islamic activism in Iran in the 1960s and
the
1970s,
and radical Islamism in
Algeria, Jordan,
and
Syria
in the 1960s and
1970s-can be characterized as that of
profound
economic crisis. On the con-
trary, many
of the countries that
experienced revolutionary
Islamic
movements,
Iran in
particular,
were also
experiencing
considerable economic
development.
Second,
these studies do not
explain
how the
ideology
of Islamic fundamentalism
was
produced.
References to such diffused factors as Westernization and
quest
for national
identity
are too
vague
to
provide
an
adequate explanation
of the rise
of this movement. For if that were the
case,
one would have
naturally expected
the rise of Islamic fundamentalism instead of Islamic modernism to
emerge
in
nineteenth-century Egypt
and
India,
which were under direct colonial domina-
tion
(Moaddel 2001a). Further,
the social
composition
of the leaders and the ac-
tivists of the Islamic movement in
Pakistan, Jordan,
and
Turkey
were drawn over-
whelmingly
from "the new middle class"
(Mitchell 1969,
Mutlu
1996,
Ahmad
1991,
Moaddel
2002),
and
religious
commitment of Muslims in Java was
posi-
tively
correlated with education and
occupational prestige (Tamney 1979, 1980).
These facts cast doubt on the notion that fundamentalism was
simply
a reaction
of
poor
sections of the
population
to the
problems
of modernization.
Finally,
there
are too
many
variables in these
analyses-no well-specified
model of determi-
nation of the connection
among
the
explanatory
variables within their historical
context.
CULTURAL DUALITY THEORIES The studies in this
group
have overcome some of
the
shortcomings
of crisis theories.
Focusing
on the rise of Islamic
revolutionary
movements in
Iran, they began by noting
the existence of two
parallel
structures of
domination-the state and the
organizational hierarchy
of the Shi'i ulama
(Akhavi
1980, Arjomand 1984a,b, 1986,
Dabashi
1993).
Akhavi
(1980) provided
a de-
tailed account of the
changing clergy-state relationship
in the twentieth
century.
The state's intrusions into the ulama's socioeconomic and cultural
prerogatives
caused the ulama to
engage
in
oppositional
activities
leading
to the revolution
of 1977-1979. Keddie
(1972),
while
advancing
a similar line of
argument,
em-
phasized
the institutional
autonomy
of the Shi'i
ulama,
in contrast to their Sunni
counterparts,
as a crucial source of their
power. Along
the same line but with a more
detailed
analytical subtlety, Arjomand (1984a)
first traced the historical
develop-
ment of the institution of the ulama--or what he called
hierocracy-from
the state
of
heteronomy
and subordination to the state
following
the Safavids' declaration of
Shi'ism as Iran's national
religion
in 1501 to the consolidation of
power
and institu-
tional
autonomy
around the turn of the nineteenth
century.
In the twentieth
century,
the social dislocation and moral disturbances
produced by
the state-initiated-and
directed
modernization,
on the one
hand,
and the state's encroachments
upon
the ulama's socioeconomic and cultural
privileges
resulted in the confrontation
between the
hierocracy
and the state. Within this context the distinctive
phe-
nomenon of
"revolutionary
traditionalism,"
that
is,
"a
general
movement for the
defense of Islam
against
Western
influence,"
emerged (Arjomand
1984b, pp.
197;
1986,
pp.
397-99,406).
These works
represent
a
major
step
forward in
understanding
the
dynamic
of
the
relationships
between Shi'ism and the state in the Iranian
context,
and
by
one
remove,
between
religions
and
regimes. They,
however,
fail to
explain adequately
the
popularization
of the
religious opposition beyond
the traditional section of the
population
to include the members of the educated middle classes and moder
intellectuals. This weakness is
particularly
evident in Dabashi's
(1993)
otherwise
comprehensive description
of the works of Islamic
revolutionary ideologues. Only
in a
very
short
passage
does Dabashi hint of the
significance
of the state in the
formation of the Islamic
revolutionary
discourse.
STATE CULTURE THEORIES This
approach
is similar to that of cultural
duality
the-
ories,
with the
principal
difference that the
duality
between the state and
religion
is not
presumed given
but is rather
produced
as the Islamic discourse is
shaped
in
oppositional
relations to state
ideology
and cultural
policies.
Roberts
(1988,
pp. 567-70),
for
example,
related the rise of radical Islamism in
Algeria
to a
shift in the state's cultural and economic
policies
of
catering
to Muslim con-
servatism from Boumediene's
coup
in 1965 until 1970 to the
launching
of new
initiatives under the rubrics of revolution culturelle and revolution socialiste in the
early
1970s. This
left-turn,
which included the
implementation
of a
wide-ranging
program
of radical social
reforms,
stimulated the rise of the Islamic
opposition.
While the 1965-1971
period
saw
public property expanding
at the
expense
of
foreign capital
alone,
the
"agrarian
revolution"
promulgated
in November 1971
involved the nationalization of
large
estates of Muslim landowners and the estab-
lishment of a collective farm sector. This measure alienated an
important
section of
Algerian public opinion
from the
regime,
and the
opposition began
to attack the
regime's
socialist
ideology
in Islamic terms. This left turn also resulted in the
regime's
closer
relationship
with communist and socialist
countries,
which in turn
increased its
vulnerability
to the
opposition propaganda
that the
regime
was
gov-
erned
by
alien
ideologies. Finally,
the state's new
policies
entailed mobilization
of the
younger generation
to defend the nation not
against
external enemies but
against
internal enemies of the revolution socialiste. The
regime
thus
helped
dev-
elop
and
legitimize
a critical attitude
among
the
youth
toward the
existing
bases of
authority.
Likewise, Kepel (1993, pp. 26-67)
related the radicalization of the
Egyptian
Muslim Brothers
(MB)
and the extremist ideas of
Sayyid Qutb
to the rise of
authoritarianism
following
the
military coup
of 1952. The assassination of MB
founder Hassan al-Banna
during
the
pre-coup period,
the victims of the 1954
hangings,
the
appalling
conditions of Tura
prison
in
Cairo,
where most of the
leaders of the MB were
held,
and the extensive use of
physical
and
psychological
torture-all made
deep impressions
on the
thinking
of the
Brothers,
most
notably
374 MOADDEL
that of
Sayyid Qutb,
one of the most celebrated
ideologues
of the
post-coup
Islamic
movement.
"Sayyid Qutb
was horrified
by
the barbarism of the
camp guards, by
the
inhumanity
with which
they
had let the wounded die. Various witnesses
report
that it was then that he lost his last
remaining
illusions as to the Muslim character
of the Nassir
regime" (Kepel
1993,
p. 28). Kepel's
contention is
highly plausible
because the
general
orientation of the Brothers in the 1930s and 1940s was that
of
political
moderation and interest in
parliamentary politics.
An extremist trend
in the movement
grew
as the Brothers were excluded from
political participation
before and more so after the
coup (Mitchell 1969).
On a broader cultural
level,
Esposito (2000)
and a
group
of contributors to this edited volume
(Esposito
&
Tamimi
2000) pointed
to a cultural conflict between secularism and Islam as the
key
context for the rise of Islamic
opposition. Esposito
used the term "militant
secular fundamentalism" to denote a movement that had
gone beyond
the idea of the
separation
of
religion
and
politics
to take "an
anti-religious
and anticlerical belief"
(Esposito
2000,
p. 9).
Moaddel
(2002) analyzed
the
relationship
between
religion
and state in
Egypt, Iran, Jordan,
and
Syria
to
explain
what he considered Jordanian
exceptionalism-the peaceful
coexistence between the Hashemite
Kingdom
and
the Jordanian MB. For
him,
state
ideology
was the
key
variable
explaining
the
variations in the discourse and orientations of the Islamic movements in these
countries. He contends that the rise of secular
ideological
state in
Egypt, Iran,
and
Syria politicized
the
process
of culture
production, providing
a favorable context
for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The Jordanian MB remained moderate
because of the
non-ideological
nature of the
regime. Further,
the democratization
process
launched
by
late
King
Hussein in 1989 favored the secularization of the
Jordanian Islamic movement.
The
Anthropology
of Political Islam
The broader social context
operationalized
in terms of such variables as
changes
in class
relations,
class
politics,
the rise of the new middle class
professionals,
the
emergence
of a cultural
duality,
and most
significantly
the structure and
policies
of
the state
may
account for cross-national variations and similarities in the Islamic
movements.
Nevertheless,
these
variables,
by themselves,
do not account for the
specificity
of the Islamic movement within its sociohistorical
setting,
and
they
tend to overlook the
microprocesses
at work in the
generation
of Muslim
poli-
tics.
Anthropologists
have
attempted
to fill this void
by noting
the vast
regional
and
temporal
variations in Islamic rituals and
symbols,
each case
constituting
an
"ordered universe" whose order is revealed
by comparing (Geertz 1968,
pp. 54).
For
them,
these
space-
and time-bound
microprocesses may
be discovered
by
fo-
cusing
on the structure of the
religious system
within the network of
myth,
ritual,
and
magic (Zein 1974,
pp.
xix, xxi). Contrary
to the Islamicists who fixed their
gaze
on abstract
religious
ideas and the
proponents
of the social
processes
models
who stressed
macro-variables,
the
proponents
of these
approaches attempted
to
demonstrate how
religious
rituals in their
specific
context,
for
example, legitimize
the
pattern
of social
exchange
and
political
structure of
patron-client relationship
(Reeves 1990) or, alternatively, provide
an effective means for
political
mobiliza-
tion
(Fischer 1980,
Ashraf & Banuazizi
1985,
Mardin
1989).
For Eickelman & Piscatori
(1996, pp. ix),
while texts and doctrine are of sec-
ondary importance
in
explaining
the nature of Muslim
politics,
the
key question
is
how the
politics
of Islam
play
out in the
daily
lives of Muslims. In their
views,
what
makes
political
actions and choices
recognizably
Muslim is the
way
Islam
pro-
vides the
symbols
in terms of which diverse Muslim
groups
defined their
identity
as Muslims. These authors
identify
two
processes
as fundamental to the
shaping
of Muslim
politics.
One is
objectification whereby
Islam becomes the
object
of
interest for a
large
number of
people
as
they
become conscious of their
religion
and
raise
questions
about its
nature, significance,
and
import
in
affecting
their
daily
conduct. These
objective questions
are moder
queries
that
shaped
the discourse
and
practice
of Muslims in all walks of life
(
Eickelman & Piscatori
1996, p. 38).
The other is the
fragmentation
of
authority
in Muslim
politics.
The ulama are no
longer
the sole
interpreters
of Islam. The Sufi
leaders,
engineers, professors
of
education,
medical
doctors, army
and militia leaders-all vie for the intellectual
control of Islam
(p. 131).
Symbolic politics
and contests over the definition of
symbols
are most evident
in the
politics
of
veiling,
where conflict with state
authority,
the debate on the
proper
form of dress for
women,
and the
dispute
over the Islamic
conception
of
women's
public presence
intersect. As a result of this
contest, veiling
is trans-
formed from a
private inconsequential
act to a
public symbol,
to a
political
act
as it
challenges
state
authority,
to a Muslim act as it relates to a
widely
shared
Islamic tradition of ideas and
practice-all elevating veiling
to an
integral part
of
the
identity
of Muslim activists
(Eickelman
& Piscatori
1996,
pp.
4, 99).
Recent
feminist
literature, however,
considers the
question
of
veiling symptomatic
of the
centrality
of the
gender
issue in Muslim
politics.
It is a
sign
of self-definition and
implied
Western criticism in the
contemporary
Islamic movement. The relations
of Muslim activists to Western
modernity
"take
shapes
and
acquire
sense
through
women's bodies and women's voices"
(Gole 1996, p. 4).
In a similar
fashion,
Kandiyoti (1991), Moghadam (1994),
and Taraki
(1996) argued
that
gender
had
become a
political
issue when Islamic
groups expressed
their
disapproval
of West-
ern culture
by characterizing
westernized women as a
symbol
of the moral
decay
of western civilization. Badran
(1995, pp. 22-24),
on the other
hand, argues
that
as a cultural
practice
and as a
symbol,
the veil means different
things
to differ-
ent
political groups:
for
feminists,
it has been a
gender issue;
for
colonialists,
an
obstacle to their westernization
efforts;
for nationalist
men,
a national
issue,
and
for conservative
men,
an Islamic issue. For other feminist
writers,
the real issue
is
power
and control
(Lazreg 1994)
that
underpinned
the Islamic fundamentalists
"obsession with women" and their
sexuality (Messaoudi 1998,
pp. 108-9).3
These
3For more discussions of Islam and
gender relations,
see Ahmed
(1992),
Abu
Lughod
(1998),
Karam
(1998),
Abdel Kader
(1987),
Zuhur
(1992),
Paidar
(1995),
and Moaddel
(1998).
A more
comprehensive
discussion of the extant work on
Islam,
gender,
and
power
certainly
deserves a
separate
assessment.
376 MOADDEL
examples
demonstrate how
objectification
of
religion
and
fragmentation
of reli-
gious authority provided
the immediate social context within which Islam
shaped
and informed the
political
behavior of Muslims.
When combined with a macro-social
processes model,
the
objectification
and
fragmentation provides
a more
complete explanation
of Muslim
politics.
On a
general level, objectification simply implies
a
process whereby people
become
conscious of their own
culture,
including religion,
and
fragmentation points
to the
emergence
of
competing
claims over cultural
authority.
Thus these two
processes,
by
themselves,
do not
explain
the
politicization
of
religion.
If under certain cir-
cumstances
objectification
and
fragmentation
would
give
rise to Islamic
activism,
it is because the monolithic cultural
order,
imposed
from above
by
the secular ide-
ological
and intrusive
state, politicized religion
and
provided
a favorable context
for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. This
interpretation
is reinforced
by
consi-
dering
the
process
of cultural
change
in
post-revolutionary Iran,
where a monolithic
religious
discourse is
imposed
from
above,
and where the
process
of
objectifica-
tion and
fragmentation,
far from
politicizing religion,
has
given
rise to some sort
of civic Islamic movement and secularization of
religion (Moaddel 2001).
RENTIERISM VERSUS ISLAM: POLITICS
UNDER THE RENTIER STATE
Any sociological study
of the
relationship
between Islamic culture and
politics
would be
inadequate
without
considering
other sociohistorical variables that
may
account for the
specificity
of
politics
in Islamic countries. This is true
given
that a
significant
trend in recent
historiography
of Islamic countries has concluded that
"in most Muslim-ruled
politics throughout
most of
history,
the nature of ritual
prac-
tice,
codes of
law,
spiritual
orientation,
or whatever has been irrelevant to the state"
(Metcalf 1995, p. 956).
In reference to
contemporary political issues,
another trend
either
implicitly
or
explicitly presumed
that there was
nothing
distinctive about
Islamic countries that indicated a serious
departure
from the historical
patterns
experienced by
other countries.
Accordingly,
diverse
political developments
in
many
of these countries conform to the
pattern
of "Third World
passage"
from
colonialism to
independence (Owen 2000,
p. 239),
to the dictates of the
dynamics
of the world
capitalist economy
(Foran 1993,
Mardin
1973,
Wallerstein
1980),
to
the
general logic
of collective
action,
class
coalition,
and
political
conflict
(Parsa
2000),
and to the historical model of
European imperial policy
and the functional
utility
of absolutism in
meeting
the demands of state formation
(Anderson 1991).
These
efforts, however,
tended to overlook the
political specificity
of Islamic coun-
tries: the
predominance
of
patrimonialism, absolutism, authoritarianism,
and the
fact that
many
of these countries have thus far remained
impervious
to the world-
wide democratic transition in the last two decades
(O'Donnell
et al.
1986,
Linz &
Lipset 1988).
If Islam is irrelevant to the
political
structures of Islamic
countries,
then how can one
explain
their
specific
features?
The rentier state model advanced a
compelling analysis
of this
specificity,
attempting
to
supercede
that of the Islamicists. Far from
being
an outcome of
Islamic culture or the historical
legacy
of
Islam,
this model focuses on the effect of
enormous
petrodollars
on the structure and functions of the state in Islamic coun-
tries. First used
by
Mahdavi
(1970, pp. 428-67)
in reference to
Iran,
the
concept
of the rentier state, or the rentier
economy, applies
to a
country's
reliance on sub-
stantial external rent in the form of the sale of
oil,
transit
charges (Suez Canal),
or tourism. This
economy
is believed to have
far-reaching political, social,
and
cultural
consequences. First, only
a small fraction of the
population
is
directly
involved in the creation of wealth. As a
result,
moder social
organizations
asso-
ciated with
productive
activities were
developed only
to a limited extent.
Second,
the work-reward nexus is no
longer
the central feature of economic transactions
where wealth is the end result of the individual involvement in a
long, risky,
and
organized production process.
Wealth is rather
accidental,
a windfall
gain,
or situ-
ational,
where
citizenship
becomes a source of economic benefit. To
acquire
wealth
requires
different
types
of
subjective orientation,
which Beblawi
(1987, p. 52)
called "rentier
mentality"
and "rentier ethics." Non-economic criteria such as
prox-
imity
to the
ruling
elite and
citizenship
became the
key
determinants of income.
Rentierism thus reinforced the state's tribal
origins,
as it
regenerated
the tribal hier-
archy consisting
of
varying layers
of beneficiaries with the
ruling
elite on
top,
in an
effective
position
of
buying loyalty through
their redistributive
power.
As the state
is not
dependent
on
taxation,
there is far less demand for
political participation
(pp. 53-59).
Brynen (1992)
and Luciani
(1988)
focused on the authoritarian
consequences
of
rentierism. In their
view,
since the state revenues are
dependent
on the international
market,
rather than domestic
production,
the
ruling
elite are much less constrained
by
the interests of domestic
groups
and social classes. Rentier
politics,
as a
result,
is different from the situation where the state's
appropriation
of societal resources
through
taxation
spurs
the
population
to seek a
greater
voice in the allocation of
state
expenditures.
The
state-society relationship
is of a different sort in a rentier
economy.
It is
premised
on the state's
providing
welfare for its
people
and the
people keeping
aloof from
political participation.
"Indeed,
if
anything,
the
slogan
of the American Revolution--"no taxation without
representation"-is
reversed:
in a rentier
state,
state-society
relations seem
predicated
on the
principle
of "no
taxation,
no
representation" (Brynen 1992,
p.
75,
Luciani
1988,
p. 463).
Political
change may
occur when the web of
patrimonial
domination is disturbed
by
the
crisis of rentierism. This
change may
contribute to the democratization of the state
(e.g.,
for
Jordan,
see
Brynen 1992), political
violence
(e.g.,
for
Algeria,
see
Ruedy
1992),
or revolution
(e.g.,
for
Iran,
see
Skocpol 1982).
The rentier state model thus
provides
a serious alternative to Islam-centered
models of
politics
summarized in this
essay. Nevertheless,
the
proponents
of ren-
tier state model still need to demonstrate how rentierism contributed to such
phe-
nomena as rentier
mentality, patrimonial solidity, tribalism,
and the failure of
democratic
change.
To
fully
test the rentier
model,
it is
necessary (a)
to use the
378 MOADDEL
methodology
of network
analysis
to determine the
hierarchy
of the chain of de-
pendency (ties
of
friendship,
who knows
who,
family
ties,
and tribal
affiliations),
how decisions are made, and how the available resources
(i.e., rent)
are distributed
among
various
clienteles; (b)
to
carry
out an attitudinal
survey
to measure the
preva-
lence of rentier
mentality
and rentier
ethics;
and
(c)
to
apply comparative
historical
methods to assess and
explain
the differences in
political
structure between the
rentier and nonrentier states.
CONCLUSIONS: SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The studies summarized and assessed were diverse not
only
in terms of their
propo-
sitions and claims about the nature of Islamic culture and its connection to
politics
but also in terms of the
methodology
and the kind of
empirical
evidence their
prac-
titioners
bring
to bear in
support
of their claims.
Undoubtedly,
further research
is needed to overcome the
conflicting
views and to transcend the current state of
knowledge.
To this
end,
several
methodological
issues and an
agenda
for research
need to be addressed.
First,
one must
clarify
the different
conceptualizations
of
Islam used in various
perspectives
and how this difference has led researchers to
identify varying
mechanisms in terms of which Islam
shaped
the
political
behav-
ior of Muslims.
Next,
it is
necessary
to
clearly spell
out the
relationship
between
theory
and data in each of the
perspectives.
Does an
analysis
of Islamic texts
pro-
vide the
right
kind of data to understand Muslim
political
attitudes and
political
behavior? For what kind of
analysis
are the text-based data useful? Are
sundry
eco-
nomic and
political
data
pertaining
to various forms of crisis collected at the level
of nation-state
adequate
to
explain
the individuals'
propensity
to
join
the Islamic
fundamentalist movement?
Finally,
considerations must be
given
to the use of
ag-
gregated
social
survey
data to
capture
the value orientations of the Islamic
public
to-
ward various
sociopolitical
issues. What are the determinants of
religiosity among
Muslims? Of national
identity?
Of attitudes toward
democracy,
the
military,
au-
thoritarian
leadership,
the
government's
role in the
economy,
and
political parties?
Islam: Shared Beliefs Versus Shared Discourse
Two different
conceptions
of Islam have informed the
analyses
of the Islamic
political
movement. One is a consensus-based or
subjectivist conception
of Islam-
a set of beliefs about
society
and
government
shared
by
Muslim activists. For
example,
Ahmad considered Islamic fundamentalism as
"inspired by
the belief
that
Islam,
as a
complete way
of life
encompassing
both
religion
and
politics,
is
capable
of
offering
a viable alternative to the
prevalent
secular
ideologies
of
capitalism
and socialism and that it is destined to
play
an
important
role in the
remaking
of the
contemporary
world"
(1991, p. 507;
see also Lewis
1993c,
p.
133;
Arjomand 1986;
Algar 1969).
This belief combined with the activists' emotional
attachment to the cause of the movement is
taught
to create a
potent sociopolitical
force. The
unity
and
solidity
of the Islamic movement is thus
internal;
it is a
part
of
the
psychological
function of Islam in
creating
a
strong
bond of attachments
among
Muslims. This
conception, however,
becomes
problematic
in a case like the Iranian
Revolution in which different
political groups
with
conflicting understandings
of
Islam are involved.
An alternative
conception
considered Islam as a
discourse,
a set of shared
conceptual
frameworks, rituals,
and
symbols. Islam,
in this
view,
has an
objective
presence
in the
language
drawn from the
general
Islamic
teachings
but
shaped
by
the
specific sociopolitical
context,
and in a series of ritualistic
practices
and
figurative
behaviors that can be observed in the Islamic movements. Far from
being
a set of shared
beliefs, political
Islam became a
potent revolutionary
force
precisely
because it meant different
things
to different
people,
a
conception parallel
to that
of Furet
(1981).
Islamic
political unity
is a function of factors external to
Islam,
e.g.,
the
ideology
of the secular state
(Moaddel 1993).
Both
conceptions
are relevant for
understanding
the
political
behavior of
Muslims-the first
may capture
the individuals' emotional
attachments,
while the
latter
may provide
an account of how Islam constituted an all-inclusive
language
for
people
with different
backgrounds. They
also
provide
alternative
propositions
and
hypotheses regarding
the connection between Islam and
political
extremism.
For
example,
we
may
be able to test whether it is the structure of the Islamic
discourse
or, alternatively,
the emotional commitment of Muslim activists to the
cause of the movement that
explains political
extremism. A
comparative analysis
of diverse Islamic movements in different Islamic countries
may provide
a clue.
Value Orientation of the Islamic Public
Virtually
all the
existing
claims on Muslim
political
attitudes are based on either
analytical
deduction from the Islamic
texts,
the
published
works
by
Muslim cul-
tural
elite,
data on the Islamic movements and
events,
or oral
history. However,
inferences drawn from these sources
regarding
the attitudes and value orientations
of the Islamic
public may
have the
problems
of
validity, generalizability, memory
loss,
and
incompleteness.
A scientific social
survey
is
naturally
a most effective
way
of
collecting
data
in Islamic countries
(e.g.,
Peacock
1978,
Palmer et al.
1982).
In the
past,
social
surveys
were
hampered by governmental
restrictions on research and a lack of
funding.
In recent
years, however, political stability
and the
increasing
awareness
among
the
ruling
elite of the
practical
benefits of such
surveys
has resulted in a
noticeable
easing
of restrictions. In
many
Islamic
countries,
centers for
strategic
studies with
political polling
units are
currently
established. It is now
possible
to
carry
out full-scale national attitudinal
surveys
in
virtually
all Islamic
countries,
if
funds are available. An
example
of recent efforts is a
comparative
national
survey
in
Egypt,
Iran,
and Jordan. These
surveys
included
many
items from the World
Value
Survey questionnaire
in addition to new items
specifically designed
for
Islamic countries
(Moaddel 2001b). Using
this
questionnaire,
similar
surveys
are
also
being
carried out in
Algeria, Indonesia, Morocco,
and Pakistan. These
surveys
380 MOADDEL
provide
invaluable
aggregated
data
about,
among
other
issues,
the
degree
of the
religiosity
of the Islamic
public,
their attitude toward the role of
religion
in
politics,
gender
relations and
gender roles,
the
significance
of
religion
in the formation of
their
identity,
the
relationship
between
religion
and
democracy, religious tolerance,
and the
relationship
between
religion
and
pluralism.
Text Versus Context
The Islamicists'
tendency
to
explain
Muslim
political
behavior and concrete
po-
litical institutions in terms of the
analysis
of Islamic text is
hardly
defensible. Yet
textual
analysis provides indispensable
evidence for
assessing
which
economic,
political,
or
ideological categories predominate
in the Islamic cultural traditions.
In what
way
could these
categories shape
Muslim
political
attitudes? Is there ad-
equate
discursive
space
in the Islamic
thought
to
promote
intellectual reflections
and innovation?
Textual
analysis may proceed
at three levels. The first involves a
systematic
comparison
of Islamic texts with an ideal
typical conception
of rationalization and
political
modernization.
Currently,
scholars'
interpretations
differ
widely. People
like
McDonald, Gibb,
and Lewis cited above
point
to a
conflict,
while others to
compatibility
between Islam and rationalism
(Torrey 1892,
Rodinson
1974,
Gran
1979).
The differences
among
scholars
may
be due to their
methodologies,
to the
nature of the text
they
used to base their
judgment,
or to the differences in their
subjectivist interpretations.
Lewis
(1988)
was
preoccupied
with the
meanings
of
words,
and Gibb
(1947, p. 15)
blamed the "atomism of the Arab mind"
[not
necessarily Islam], which,
"whether in relation to the outer world or in relation to
the
processes
of
thought,
cannot throw off its intense
feeling
for the
separateness
and
individuality
of the concrete events"
(p. 7;
see also von Grunebaum
1964).
Torry (1892),
on the other
hand,
counted the number and
frequency
of trade-related
words in the
Quran
to conclude that in the Islamic
theology
the
relationship
between
God and humans is commercial in nature and conforms to the
language
of trade.
The second level
requires
a
systematic comparative analysis
of the Islamic texts
with those of Western or other cultural traditions. This exercise
may
be useful in
assessing
the status
of,
for
example,
the economic
category
in the Islamic
thought
in
light
of the
centrality
of this
category
in Western tradition
(Dumont 1977).
Or
one
may
be able to determine the
degree
to which the rationalization of economic
thought
and
activity
in
Islam,
or lack
thereof,
affected the relative
significance
of the
economic vis-a-vis the
ideological.
It
may
be
possible
to asses the
degree
to which
Islamic culture
departed
or conformed to what
may
be considered the
triumph
of
the economic over the
ideological
in Western
context,
which is believed to have
signified
"a
calming
of the
ideological impulse, allowing
its creative
expression
but
swiftly clipping
its
excesses,
which in turn aided the foundation of a civil
society"
(Seneviratne 1999, p. 15).
The third level entails a
comparative analysis
of the Islamic texts with non-
Islamic narrative and
legendary
material in
Arabic, Persian, Turkish,
and other
indigenous languages.
Narrative texts contained useful data for
sociological
anal-
ysis (Franzosi 1998),
and the cultural traditions of Islamic countries are
replete
with
vast resources of
poetry, parables,
stories,
and
religious/nonreligious mythologies.
These resources
convey
invaluable information on how
meanings
are
constructed,
people's subjectivity
is
formed,
the
conceptions
of "us versus others" take
shape,
and the
nationalist, ethnic,
or
religious identity
is constituted. Are there differences
between the
religious
narrative and
nonreligious
narratives in terms of the structure
of
meaning they carry?
In
sum,
several
analytical
levels are involved in the
study
of Islamic culture-
diversity
in Muslim histories versus the
formality
of the Islamic
text,
Islam as a
beliefs
system
versus Islam as a
discourse,
the
political
behavior and the views
of Muslim
political
leaders versus cross-national variation in the world views of
the Islamic
publics. Recognizing
that each level often
explains only
a
particular
aspect
of Muslim
politics
would
certainly prevent
the occurrence of what
might
be
termed an
ecological fallacy (e.g., using
text-based
knowledge
to
explain
Muslim
political behavior)
and so enrich the
discipline
of Islamic studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank
Marjan Sadeghi
for her invaluable
library assistance,
NancyLee
Donham for her excellent editorial
work,
and the Annual Review
of
Sociology
editor and an
anonymous
reviewer of this article. This
essay
is an out-
come of a
comparative
historical
study
of
ideological production
in the Islamic
world,
which has been
supported by
two
grants
from the National Science Foun-
dation
(SBR 96-014398,
SBR
92-13209)
and one
grant
from the United States
Institute of Peace
(USIP-080-965).
The Annual Review
of Sociology
is online at
http://soc.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Abdel Kader S. 1987.
Egyptian
Women in
a
Changing Society,
1899-1987. London:
Lynne
Reinner
Abdel-Malek A. 1963. Orientalism in crisis.
Diogenes
44
(winter):103-40
Abu
Loughod
L. 1998.
Remaking
Women:
Feminism and
Modernity
in the Mid-
dle East.
Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Ahmad A. 1992. In
Theory.
London: Verso
Ahmad M. 1991. Islamic fundamentalism in
South Asia: the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Tab-
lighi
Jamaat of South Asia. In Fundamen-
talisms
Observed,
ed. ME
Marty,
RS
Ap-
pleby, pp.
457-528.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Ahmed L. 1992. Women and Gender in Islam:
Historical Roots
of
A Modern Debate. New
Haven,
CT: Yale Univ. Press
Akhavi S. 1980.
Religion
and Politics in Con-
temporary
Iran.
Albany:
State Univ. New
York Press
Algar
H. 1969.
Religion
and State in Modern
Iran.
Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Anderson L. 1991. Absolutism and the re-
silience of
monarchy
in the Middle East.
Polit. Sci.
Q. 106(1):1-15
Anderson L. 1997.
Fulfilling prophecies:
state
382 MOADDEL
policy
and Islamic radicalism. In Political
Islam:
Revolution, Radicalism,
or
Reform,
ed. JL
Esposito, pp.
17-31. London:
Lynne
Rienner
Anderson P. 1979.
Lineages of
the Absolutist
State. London: Verso
Arjomand
SA. 1984a. The Shadow
of
God and
the Hidden Imam.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Arjomand
SA,
ed. 1984b. From Nationalism
to
Revolutionary Islam, Albany,
NY: State
Univ. NY Press
Arjomand
SA. 1986. Iran's Islamic revolu-
tion in
comparative perspective.
World Polit.
(April):383-414
Ashraf
A,
Banuazizi A. 1985.
State, class,
and
modes of mobilization in the Iranian revolu-
tion. State, Cult. Soc.
1,
3
(Spring):3-40
Baali F. 1988.
Society,
State,
and Urbanism: Ibn
Khaldun's
Sociological Thought.
New York:
State Univ. NY Press
Badran M. 1995. Feminists, Islam, and Nation.
Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Baylay
CA. 1988. Indian
Society
and the Mak-
ing of
the British
Empire. Cambridge:
Cam-
bridge
Univ. Press
Beblawi H. 1987. The rentier state in the
Arab world. In The Rentier
State,
ed. H Be-
blawi, GLuciani, pp.
49-62. London: Croom
Helm
Burke E. 1988. Islam and social movements:
methodological
reflections. In
Islam,
Poli-
tics,
and Social
Movements,
ed. E Burke
m,
IM
Lapidus, pp.
17-35.
Berkeley:
Univ.
Calif. Press
Brynen
R. 1992. Economic crisis and
post-
rentier democratization in the Arab world:
the case of Jordan. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 25:69-
97
Carroll TG. 1986. Islam and
political
commu-
nity
in the Arab world. Int. J. Middle East
Stud. 18:185-204
Chandra S. 1982. Medieval India:
Society,
The
Jagirdari
Crisis, and the
Village.
Delhi:
Macmillan
Cromer EB. 1908. Modern
Egypt.
Vol. 2. New
York: Macmillan
The Calcutta Review. 1845. 1852. 1855.
Dabashi H. 1993.
Theology of
Discontent. New
York: NY Univ. Press
David A. 1996. Sir William
Jones,
Biblical Ori-
entalism and Indian
scholarship.
Mod. Asian
Stud.
30(1):173-84
Dekmejian
RH. 1985. Islam in Revolution:
Fundamentalism in the Arab World.
Syra-
cuse,
NY:
Syracuse
Univ. Press
Deeb MJ. 1992. Militant Islam and the
politics
of
redemption.
Ann. Am. Acad.
of
Polit. Soc.
Sci.
(Nov):52-65
Dumont L. 1977. From Mandeville to Marx:
The Genesis and
Triumph of
Economic Ide-
ology. Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Eickelman
DF,
Piscatori J. 1996. Muslim Poli-
tics.
Princeton,
Encyclopaedia ofIslam.
1960. Ed. HAR
Gibb,
vol. 4. Leiden: Brill
Esposito
JL. 1984. Islam and Politics.
Syracuse,
NY:
Syracuse
Univ. Press
Esposito
JL. 1997. Political Islam and Gulf se-
curity.
In Political Islam: Revolution, Radi-
calism, or
Reform,
ed. JL
Esposito, pp.
53-
74. London:
Lynne
Rienner
Esposito
JL. 2000. Islam and secularism in the
twenty-first century.
In Islam and Secularism
in the Middle
East,
ed. A
Tamimi,
JL
Espos-
ito, pp.
1-12. New York: New York Univ.
Press
Esposito JL,
Haddad
J,
Voll J. 1991. The
Contemporary
Islamic Revival. New York:
New York Univ. Press
Esposito JL,
Tamimi
A,
eds. 2000. Islam and
Secularism in the Middle East. New York:
New York Univ. Press
Faksh MA. 1997. The Future
of
Islam in
the Middle East: Fundamentalism in
Egypt,
Algeria,
and Saudi Arabia.
Westport,
CT:
Praeger
Faghirzadeh
S. 1982.
Sociology of Sociology.
Tehran: Soroush
Fischer MJ. 1980. Iran: From
Religious
Dis-
pute
to Revolution.
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Foran J. 1993.
Fragile
Resistence.
Boulder,
CO:
Westview
Forster C. 1829. Mahometanism Unveiled.
London
Forbes D. 1951. James Mill and India. Cam-
bridge
J.
5(1):19-33
Franzosi R. 1998. Narrative
analysis-or why
(and how) sociologists
should be interested
in narrative. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24:517-
54
Furet F 1981.
Interpreting
the French Revolu-
tion. New York:
Cambridge
Univ. Press
Geertz C. 1968. Islam Observed:
Religious
De-
velopment
in Morocco and Indonesia. New
Haven,
CT: Yale Univ. Press
Gellner E. 1981. Muslim
Society. Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
Univ. Press
Gershoni I. 1999.
Egyptian
liberalism in an
age
of 'crisis of orientation': Al-Risala's reaction
to fascism and
nazism,
1933-39. Int. J. Mid.
East Stud. 31:551-76
Gershoni
I,
Jankowski JP. 1995.
Redefining
the
Egyptian Nation, 1930-1945.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
Univ. Press
Gibb HAR. 1937. Al-Mawardi's
theory
of the
Khilafah. Islamic Cult. XI:291-302
Gibb HAR. 1947. Modern Trends in Islam.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Gole N. 1996. The Forbidden Modern: Civi-
lization and
Veiling.
Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
Press
Gragg
K. 1957. The tests of
'Islamicity'.
Mid.
East Forum
32(Nov):15-17,
33
Gran P. 1979. Islamic Roots
of Capitalism,
Austin: Univ. Texas Press
Habib I. 1963. The
Agrarian System of Mughal
India
(1556-1707).
New York: Asia Publ.
House
Hairi H. 1977. Shi'ism and Constitutionalism
in Iran.
Leiden,
Netherlands: E.J. Brill
Halliday
F. 1996. Islam and the
Myth of
Con-
frontation:
Religion
and Politics in the Mid-
dle East. London: I.B. Tauris
Hefner RW. 1998.
Multiple
modernities: Chris-
tianity, Islam,
and Hinduism in a
global-
izing age.
Annu. Rev.
Anthropol.
27:83-
104
Hourani A. 1983. Arabic
Thought
in the Liberal
Age:
1798-1939.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Hunter ST. 1988. The Politics
of
Islamic Re-
vivalism.
Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Press
Hunter ST. 1998. The Future
of
Islam and the
West: Clash
of
Civilization or
Peaceful
Co-
existence.
Westport,
CT:
Praeger
Hunter WW. 1871. The Indian Musalmans.
London: Trubner
Ibn Khaldun. 1967. The
Muqaddhimah:
An In-
troduction to
History. Transl,
R Rosenthal.
Princeton,
Ibrahim SE. 1980.
Anatomy
of
Egypt's
mil-
itant Islamic
groups: methodological
notes
and
preliminary findings.
Int. J. Mid. East
Stud. 12:423-53
Irwin R. 1997.
Toynbee
and Ibn Khaldun. Mid-
East. Stud.
33(3):461-79
Jones W. 1970. The Letters
ofSir
William
Jones,
ed. G
Cannon,
Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon
Juergensmeyer
M. 1993. The New Cold War?
Religious
Nationalism
Confronts
the Secular
State.
Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Karam AM. 1998. Women, Islamisms and the
State. New York: St. Martin's
Kandiyoti
D. 1991.
Women, Islam and the State.
Philadelphia,
PA:
Temple
Univ. Press
Keddie N. 1972. The Roots of Ulama
power
in
modem Iran. In
Scholars, Saints, and
Sufis,
ed. N
Keddie, pp.
211-29.
Berkeley:
Univ.
Calif. Press
Kepel
G. 1993. Muslim Extremism in
Egypt:
The
Prophet
and Pharaoh. Los
Angeles:
Univ. Calif. Press
Kerr M. 1966. Islamic
Reform:
The Political
and
Legal
Theories
of
Muhammad 'Abduh
and Rashid Rida.
Berkeley,
CA: Univ. Calif.
Press
Lacoste Y. 1984. Ibn Khaldun. London: Verso
Lambton AKS. 1963. Justice in the medieval
Persian
theory
of
kingship.
Studia Islamica
XVI:91-119
Lapidus
IM. 1992. The Golden
Age:
the
polit-
ical
concepts
of Islam. Ann. Am. Acad. Poli.
Soc. Sci.
(Nov):
13-25
Lazreg
M. 1994. The
Eloquence of
Silence:
Algerian
Women In
Question. New York:
Routledge
Lewis B. 1972. Islamic
concepts
of revolution.
In Revolution in the Middle East and Other
Case
Studies,
ed. PJ
Vatikiotis, pp.
3040.
London:
George
Allen & Unwin
384 MOADDEL
Lewis B. 1988. The Political
Language of
Islam.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Lewis B. 1993a. Islam in
History:
Ideas, Peo-
ple,
and Events in the Middle
East. Peru,
IL:
Open
Court
Lewis B. 1993b. Islam and liberal
democracy.
Atlantic Month. Feb.
Lewis B. 1993c. Islam and the West. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Lincoln B. 1999. Mr. Jones's
myth
of ori-
gins.
In
Theorizing Myth:
Narrative, Ideol-
ogy,
and
Scholarship, pp.
76-100.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Linz
JJ, Lipset SM,
eds. 1988.
Democracy
in
Developing
Countries. Vol. 2.
Boulder, CO:
Lynne
Rienner
Luciani G. 1988. Economic foundations of
democracy
and authoritarianism: the Arab
world in
comparative perspective.
Arab Stud.
Q.
10:457-75
Macdonald DB. 1965. The
Religious
Attitude
and
Life
in Islam.
Beyrouth: Khayats
Madison
J,
Hamilton A. 1911. The Federal-
ist or the New Constitution. New York: E.P.
Dutton
Mahdavi H. 1970. Patterns and
problems
of eco-
nomic
development
in rentier states: the case
of Iran. In Studies in the Economic
History of
the Middle
East,
ed. MA
Cook, pp.
428-67.
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Majeed
J. 1990. James Mill's The
History of
British India and utilitarianism as a rhetoric
of reform. Mod. Asian Stud.
24(2):209-
24
Mardin S. 1973.
Center-periphery
relations: a
key
to Turkish
politics?
Daedalus
102(1):
169-90
Mardin S. 1977.
Religion
in modem
Turkey.
Int. Soc. Sci. J.
XXIX(2):279-97
Mardin S. 1989.
Religion
and Social
Change
in
Modern
Turkey.
New York: State Univ. NY
Press
Margulies R, Yildizoglu
E. 1997. The resur-
gence
of Islam and the welfare
party
in
Turkey.
In Political Islam:
Essays from
Mid-
dle East
Report,
ed. J
Beinin,
J
Stork, pp.
144-53.
Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Messaoudi K. 1998. Unbowed: An
Algerian
Women
Confronts
Islamic Fundamentalism.
Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
Metcalf B. 1995. Presidential address: Too little
and too much: reflections on Muslims in the
history
of India. J. Asian Stud.
54(4):951-
67
Mill J. 1848. The
History of
British India. Vol.
1. London: James Madden
Millar J. 1781. The
Origin of
the Distinction
of
Ranks; or,
An
Inquiry
into the Circumstances
Which Give Rise to Influence and Authority
in the
Different Members
of Society.
London:
J.
Murray.
3rd ed.
Milner A. 1892.
England
in
Egypt.
London:
Macmillan
Milton-Edwards B. 1996. Islamic Politics in
Palestine. London: I.B. Tauris
Mitchell RP. 1969. The
Society of
the Muslim
Brothers. London: Oxford Univ. Press
Moaddel M. 1986. The Shi'i Ulama and the
state in Iran.
Theory
Soc. 15:519-56
Moaddel M. 1993.
Class, Politics,
and Ideol-
ogy
in the Iranian Revolution. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
Moaddel M. 1998.
Religion
and women: Is-
lamic modernism versus Islamic fundamen-
talism. J. Sci. Stud.
Relig. 37(1):108-30
Moaddel M. 2001a. Conditions for
ideological
production:
the rise of Islamic modernism in
India,
Egypt,
and Iran.
Theory
Soc. 30:669-
731
Moaddel M. 2001b. In search of a
sociopoliti-
cal
community:
the cases of
Egypt,
Iran,
and
Jordan.
Unpublished
NSF funded
proposal
Moaddel M. 2002. Jordanian
Exceptionalism:
An
Analysis of State-Religion Relationship
in
Egypt, Iran, Jordan, and
Syria.
New York:
Palgrave
Moaghadam
V. 1994.
Identity
Politics and
Women.
Boulder,
CO: Westview
Munson H Jr. 1988. Islam and Revolution in
the Middle East. New
Haven,
CT: Yale Univ.
Press
Mutlu K. 1996.
Examining religious
beliefs
among university
students in Ankara. Br.
J. Sociol. 47:353-59
O'Donnell
G,
Schmitter
PC,
Whitehead L, eds.
1986. Transition
from
Authoritarian Rule:
Prospects for Democracy.
Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins
Univ. Press
Ottaway D, Ottaway
M. 1970.
Algeria:
The
Politics
of
A Socialist Revolution.
Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Owen R. 2000.
State,
Power and Politics in the
Making of
the Modern Middle East. London:
Routledge
Paidar P. 1995. Women and the Political Pro-
cess in
Twentieth-Century
Iran.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
Univ. Press
Palmer
M, Nedelcovych MS,
Khashan
H,
Munro DL. 1982.
Survey
Research in the
Arab World: An
Analytical
Index. Outwell,
UK: Mena
Parsa M. 2000. States, Ideologies,
and Social
Revolutions.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ.
Press
Peacock JL. 1978. Muslim Puritans:
Reformist
Psychology
in Southeast Asian Islam. Berke-
ley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Perry
L. 1989. Intellectual
Life
in America: A
History. Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Reeves EB. 1990. The Hidden Government:
Ritual, Clientalism, and
Legitimation
in
Northern
Egypt.
Salt Lake
City:
Univ. Utah
Press
Richards JF. 1990. The
seventeenth-century
cri-
sis in South Asia. Mod. Asian Stud.
24(4):
625-38
Richter JDD. 1908. A
History of
Missions
in India. London:
Oliphant
Anderson &
Ferrier
Richter JDD. 1910. A
History
ofProtestantMis-
sions in the Near East. New York:
Fleming
H Revell
Roberts H. 1988. Radical Islamism and the
dilemma of
Algerian
nationalism: the em-
battled Arians of
Algiers.
Third World Q.
10(2):556-89
Rodinson M. 1974. Islam and
Capitalism.
Lon-
don:
Penguin
Rodinson M. 1979
[1972]. Marxism and the
Muslim World. London: Zed
Rosenthal EU. 1958. Political
Thought
in Me-
dieval Islam: An
Introductory
Outline. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Ruedy
J. 1992. Modern
Algeria:
The
Origins
and
Development ofA
Nation.
Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Press
Safran N. 1961.
Egypt
in Search
of
Political
Community. Cambridge:
Harvard Univ. Press
Said EW. 1977. Orientalism. New York: Pen-
guin
Seneviratne HL. 1999. The Work
of Rings.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
Sharabi HB. 1963. Power and
leadership
in the
Arab world. Orbis
vii(3):583-95
Skocpol
T. 1982. Rentier state and Shi'a Is-
lam in the Iranian revolution.
Theory
Soc.
11(3):265-83
Smith CD. 1973. The 'crisis of orientation': the
shift of
Egyptian
intellectuals to Islamic sub-
jects
in the 1930's. Int. J. Mid. East Stud. 4:
382-410
Smith CD. 1983. Islam and the Search
for
So-
cial Order in Modern
Egypt:
A
Biography of
Muhammad
Husayn Haykal. Albany:
State
Univ. NY Press
Sprenger
A. 1851. The
Life of
Muhammad. Al-
lahabad,
India
Soofi,
A. 1995. Economics of Ibn Khaldun re-
visited. Hist. Polit. Econ.
27(2):387404
Tamney
JB. 1979. Established
religiosity
in
modem
society:
Islam in Indonesia. Sociol.
Anal. 40:125-35
Tamney
JB. 1980.
Fasting
and modernization.
J. Sci.
Study
Relig.
19:129-37
Taraki L. 1996. Jordan Islamists and the
agenda
for women: between discourse and
practice.
Mid. East. Stud.
32(1):140-58
Tibi B. 1990. Islam and the Cultural Accom-
modation
of
Social
Change. Boulder,
CO:
Westerview
Torrey
C. 1892. The
commercial-theological
terms in the Koran. Ph.D. diss. Univ. Strass-
burg/Leyden,
Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
Turner B. 1978. Marx and the End
of
Oriental-
ism. London: Allen & Unwin
Turner B. 1989. From Orientalism to
global
so-
ciology. Sociology 23(4):629-38
Vanderwalle D. 1997. Islam in
Algeria:
reli-
gion, culture,
and
opposition
in a rentier state.
In Political Islam:
Revolution, Radicalism,
or
Reform,
ed. JL
Esposito, pp.
33-52. London:
Lynne
Rienner
386 MOADDEL
Vatikiotis PJ. 1973. Tradition and
political
lead-
ership:
the
example
of
Algeria.
InMan, State,
and
Society
in the
Contemporary Maghirb,
ed. IW
Zartman, pp.
309-29. New York:
Praeger
Voll J. 1992. Fundamentalism in the Sunni Arab
world:
Egypt
and the Sudan. In Fundamen-
talisms
Observed,
ed. ME
Marty,
RS
Ap-
pleby, pp.
345-402.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
von Grunebaum G. 1954. Medieval Islam:
A
Study
in Cultural Orientation.
Chicago:
Univ.
Chicago
Press
von Grunebaum G. 1964. Modern Islam: The
Search
for
Cultural
Identity.
New York:
Vintage
Wallerstein
I.
1980. The
world-economy
and the
state structures in
peripheral
and
dependent
countries.
Paper prepared
for UNITAR Int.
Conf. on alternative
development strategies
and the future of Asia. New Delhi
Watson A. 1898. The American Mission in
Egypt:
1854-1896.
Pittsburgh:
United Pres-
byterian
Board of Publ.
Watson C. 1908. In the
Valley of
the Nile: A
Survey of
the
Missionary
Movement in
Egypt.
New York: FH Revell
Watt M. 1960. Shi'ism Under the
Umayyads.
J. R. Asiatic Soc.
3,
4:158-72
Weiss D. 1995. Ibn Khaldun on economic trans-
formation. Int. J. Mid. East Stud. 27:29-37
Wittek P. 1938. The Rise
of
the Ottoman Em-
pire.
London: R. Asiatic Soc. Great Britain
and Ireland
Youssef M. 1985. Revolt
Against Modernity.
Muslim Zealots and the West. Leiden: EJ
Brill
Zein AHM. 1974. The Sacred Meadows: A
Structural
Analysis of Religious Symbolism
in an East
African
Town. Evanston: IL:
Northwestern Univ. Press
Zuhur S. 1992.
Revealing Reveiling:
Islamic
Gender
Ideology
in
Contemporary Egypt.
Albany:
State Univ. NY Press

Annual Reviews

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Reviews

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Reviews

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Study of Islamic Culture and Politics: An Overview and Assessment

Author(s): Mansoor Moaddel

You might also like