Within scholarship on contemporary Islam, one of the issues that has generated considerable discussion (and often perplexity) concerns the accuracy or validity of Muslim historical claims. Many authors have pointed to a discrepancy between what Muslim activists today invoke as belonging to the traditions of Islam and the actual historical record of Islamic societies. It is argued that historical reality is ignored or rejected, while a false, distorted, or selective version of the past is affirmed in its place. In attempting to characterize and explain this use (or misuse) of history, scholars have had recourse to a variety of concepts, some of which merit a re-examination, especially in light of recent work within historiography. A brief review of these concepts suggests a need for new analytical approaches to the styles of historical argumentation prevalent within Islam today

Hirschkind, C.

Leiden University Scholary Publications

Historical Approaches1 8 I S I M  N E W S L E T T E R  8 / 0 1Rend er i ng Tr a di ti o nsC H A R L E S  H I R S C H K I N DWithin scholarship on contemporary Islam, one ofthe issues that has generated considerable discus-sion (and often perplexity) concerns the accuracy orvalidity of Muslim historical claims. Many authorshave pointed to a discrepancy between what Muslimactivists today invoke as belonging to the traditionsof Islam and the actual historical record of Islamic so-cieties. It is argued that historical reality is ignored orrejected, while a false, distorted, or selective versionof the past is affirmed in its place. In attempting tocharacterize and explain this use (or misuse) of histo-ry, scholars have had recourse to a variety of con-cepts, some of which merit a re-examination, espe-cially in light of recent work within historiography. Abrief review of these concepts suggests a need fornew analytical approaches to the styles of historicalargumentation prevalent within Islam today.Tradition, Myth,and Historical Factin Contemporary IslamA common current argument is that theIslam invoked by contemporary activists isan ‘invented tradition’, in the sense that itis founded by a sort of historical sleight-of-hand, positing ancient roots while actuallybeing of recent origin. In many ways, Hobs-bawm and Ranger1 provided the re-spectability of a concept for a phenome-non that had long been central to the defi-nition of fundamentalist Islam: namely, theduplicitous (or in sympathetic accounts,naive) misrepresentation of history. Addi-tionally, Benedict Anderson’s work,2 i nshowing how a similar creative historiogra-phy undergirded modern nationalism, en-couraged scholars to interpret Islamist his-torical claims within the framework of na-tionalist politics. Accordingly, argumentsfor the traditional Islamic status of theheadscarf, democratic political forms, orthe idea of an Islamic state are unmaskedas strategic moves within a modern politicsof cultural authenticity, and thus as not re-ally – historically – authentic. One paradox-ical aspect of this argument, it might benoted, is that while cultural authenticity isoften criticized as a reactionary form ofmodern politics, it is assumed that there isan a u t h e n t i c relation to the past (not in-vented, mythological, etc.), and that Is-lamists are in some sense living falsely notto acknowledge it and adjust to its de-m a n d s .Anthropologies of errorScholars have also frequently drawn onthe resources of 19t h-century anthropologyin their attempts to grasp the mode of his-torical reasoning employed by contempo-rary Muslims. Note, for example, Aziz al-Azmeh’s use of the notion of the f e t i s h i nhis complaint that ‘their [Arab society’s] ex-aggerated attachment to what is past andwhat they fetishize as “Heritage” meansthat they are effectively forbidden to per-ceive reality for what it is or acquire themeans to evolve.’3 As developed withincolonial anthropology, fetishism referredto the false attribution of objective valueby non-Europeans, the sacralization of ob-jects that European Christians recognizedas actually profane. Al-Azmeh’s referenceto the incapacitating effects of a historicalvision clouded by religious passion testi-fies to the ongoing impact of this scholarlyt r a d i t i o n .Colonial anthropology also bequeathedto students of religion a particular elabora-tion of the concept of myth, one to whichscholars of Islam have frequently had re-course. Take, for instance, the followingtwo well-known authors’ suggestions thatMuslims have a ‘mythical’ or ‘mystical’ rela-tion to knowledge:‘The historian and the sociologist mustcall attention to the anachronism inherentin [the Islamists’] approach and its nullifica-tion of the historicity of meaning as subjectto the political, economic, and culturalmetamorphoses of society… The Muslimcognitive system is essentially mythical.’4‘It is in the myth of the complete and Per-fect Man, and not in the corpus or in Histo-ry, that one can read the universal, that allknowledge adds up and that the return tothe golden age – the time of the prophet –is foreshadowed. It is with this mysticalconception of knowledge that the new [Is-lamist] intellectual completes his home-made construction.’5There is often a slide in such argumentsfrom the simple charge that Islamists cheatin representing history to the more compli-cated claim that they are incapable ofgrasping reality. The latter claim resemblesthe long-since discarded anthropologicaltheory, associated primarily with the earlyLevy-Bruhl, that primitives were possessedof a mythical consciousness. This pejora-tive sense of myth is particularly surprisingin light of the large body of literature ex-ploring the importance of myth withinmodern societies, its foundational rolewithin our individual psychologies, nation-al politics, social customs and other areas.The assertion that Muslim historicalclaims involve a kind of mythical reasoningis frequently coupled with the idea thatsuch claims ignore or deny ‘real history’.Gilles Kepel, for example, notes: ‘What dis-tinguishes the extremist Islamist move-ment from the bulk of Muslims as far as ref-erence to the golden age is concerned isthat the former blot out history in favor ofthe reactivation of the founding myth,while the latter accommodate themselvesto the history of Muslim societies.’6 T h eclaim being made is not that Muslim ac-tivists offer no accounts of the past; on thecontrary, they are generally accused of ex-aggerating its importance. Rather, it is nothistory as an account of past events whichIslamists erase, but history understood asthe sole ground of present reality, as thereal (material) conditions of their lives.Kepel implies that by not ‘accomodat[ing]themselves’ properly to these conditions,Islamists take up a false or distorted rela-tion to their actual historical situation. Heassumes, in other words, that there is a sin-gle correct relationship to the past: whenMuslims do not acknowledge its dictates, itis they, and not the analyst’s concept ofhistory, that are at fault.Sources and selectivityLet us look more closely at the issue ofhistorical accuracy, since it seems to ani-mate much of the scholarly critique of Is-lamist arguments. What all of these viewshave in common is the assertion that Is-lamist claims are not supported by histori-cal facts. But is this claim valid? Historicalfacts, in the sense of the documentary orarchaeological remnants that constitutethe historian’s sources, provide evidencebut are not equivalent to ‘history’. Werethis not the case, then the historian’s taskwould be to simply collect and displaythese remnants. Historical narratives, how-ever, are produced by interrogating thesources, asking particular questions ofthem so as to reveal patterns and process-es more extensive than the sources them-selves. It is by embedding source materialswithin a theoretical construct of historythat a particular kind of historical knowl-edge is produced. Moreover, it is not thesources themselves that determine whichconstruct is to be applied (e.g. economic,social, theological); that decision precedesthe analysis, and to some degree condi-tions which sources will be relevant, capa-ble of providing evidence. As not every his-torical detail can be presented, this processalways involves a certain selectivity: withinany narrative, certain objects of discourseare excluded while others are foreground-ed. Importantly, this selection and arrange-ment reflects the use to which that narra-tive is put, the institutional forms (political,theological, scientific) which that historicalpractice upholds, legitimates, and extends.Historical writing, in other words, is alwaysshaped by the historian’s location at a par-ticular time and place, and by the commit-ments that he or she holds. It is odd, there-fore, that we fault Islamist historical narra-tives for presenting the past from a limitedperspective, as this is a feature of a l l h i s t o r-ical works.This does not mean to imply, of course,that we need to interpret Muslim history‘Islamically’ (or theologically, for that mat-ter), but that to the extent that Muslims doso, that choice will impact their societies inways that (secular) historical work musttake into account. Thus, the goal shouldnot be to unmask the error of Muslim his-torical practices from the standpoint of aset of supposedly universal criteria, but toask what their presuppositions, modes ofconstructing and arguing from sources,and methods of verification are, and howthese practices have been transformedunder current conditions in Muslim soci-eties. This entails greater attention to thekinds of historical objects which Muslimhistorical practices presuppose and thepurposes and projects those practices sus-t a i n .To say this is to acknowledge that a tradi-tion is more than a mere record of factswhich the researcher (with proper academ-ic training) can scrutinize and re-describe.As J.L. Austin noted long ago, argumentsabout history always entail a performativeaspect: any assessment of their validitymust take into consideration the context ofgoals, practices, and assumptions withinwhich they are embedded.7 For this reason,we need to recognize that the institutionalgoals, standards, and competencies (bothmoral and intellectual) involved in Westernacademic practice may be distinct in cer-tain aspects from those undergirding Is-lamic knowledges. The statements madeby a professor at a Western university, forexample, and those of an ca l i m in SaudiArabia are embedded in very differentkinds of social-historical projects. This dif-ference conditions the kinds of engagementeach will have with Islamic tradition, thestatus of their respective claims. Despitethe increasing scope and speed of globalinteraction and movement (‘globaliza-tion’), such differences in societal and insti-tutional location remain extremely impor-tant to contemporary relations of powerand knowledge. This point seems to be in-sufficiently appreciated by those scholarswho rush to chastise Muslims for unfaith-fully rendering their own traditions.N o t e s1 . Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds.) (1988),The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.2 . Anderson, Benedict (1991), Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origins and Spread ofN a t i o n a l i s m, London: Verso.3 . Al-Azmeh, Aziz (1996), Islams and Modernities,N e w York: Verso, p. 57.4 . Arkoun, Mohammed (1994), Rethinking Islam:Common Questions, Uncommon Answers, B o u l d e r ,Colo.: Westview Press, p. 99.5 . Roy, Olivier (1996), The Failure of Political Islam,Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 148.6 . Kepel, Gilles (1993), Muslim Extremism in Egypt:T h e Prophet and the Pharaoh, Berkeley: Universityof California Press, p. 228.7 . Austin, John L. (1962), How to Do Things withW o r d s, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,p. 143-145.Charles Hirschkind is an assistant professor att h e Department of Anthropology, University ofWisconsin, Madison, USA.E-mail: Chirschk@hotmail.com

Tradition, Myth, and Historical Fact in Contemporary Islam

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2715667/download

Tradition, Myth, and Historical Fact in Contemporary Islam

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Leiden University Scholary Publications