Review of Saffari, S. (2017). Beyond Shariati:
Modernity, Cosmopolitanism, and Islam in Iranian Political Thought. London
and New York: Cambridge University press. 256 pp. $99.99, ISBN:
9781107164161"
UNEDITED VERSION FOR JOURNAL OF Middle East Media and Book
Reviews Online (MEMBR)
Questions pertaining to the conceptual relationship between
Islam and modernity -and therefore between cultural relativism and (hegemonic)
universalism- continue to occupy the minds of scholars of contemporary/modern
Islam and/or Muslim societies. The book
under review examines the thought and legacy of Ali Shari’ati ( d.1977) ,
famously dubbed an ‘ideologue of the
Iranian Revolution’ and what are broadly termed ‘neo-Shari’atis’ (
i.e. Shariati’s intellectual interlocutors) through this broad theoretical lens. In
essence in many ways the book under review wishes to problematize the preponderant
view of Islam’s (supposed) incompatibility with modernity by examining the
ideas of Ali Shari’ati and how they have been interpreted by neo-Shariatis (p.4-5).
Saffari identifies that the main argument of the book is to present the ideas
of Shari’ati and neo-Shari’atis as a
simultaneous critique of Eurocentric conceptualisations of modernity as well as
essentialist understandings of Islam. This is achieved by their espousal
of “socio-politically progressive discourse of indigenous modernity that
engages freely and creatively with a
wide range of emancipatory projects in the modern world “(p.5) thereby forging
a distinct third way ,discursively speaking, between hegemonic universalism and
essentialist particularism. This third way, in turn, is conceptualised as a
form of non-western post-colonial cosmopolitanism which informed by and imbued
in local systems of knowledge.
While there are many existing studies on the ideas and legacy
of Shari’ati and the debates surrounding Islam and modernity, Saffdari
considers that his approach is unique insofar as it focuses on the arguments of
Shariati’s intellectual followers in the context of the debates on Islam and
modernity briefly alluded to above as well as its ‘dialogical’ approach which
is also conceptualised as a methodological tool the book adopts (p. 14).
The book consists of an introduction, five chapters and a
conclusion. In the introduction the main concepts, methodological cum
theoretical framework are presented. In this respect it is noteworthy that the
author does not see the main aim of the book to be evaluative in nature but
seeks to place the ideas of Shariati and neo-Shariatis in “conversation with some other responses to European
Enlightenment and colonial modernity in Islamic thought, postcolonial thought
and Western normative thought along the axis of four major themes :the
genealogy of modernity, the Islam/modernity binary, colonial legacy and
Eurocentrism , and identity and identitarianism”(p.18). Also a useful, albeit brief
biography of Shariati and his legacy as a “radical Islamic thinker’ is included
in the introduction.
The first two chapters seek to contextualise the ideas of
Shariati and neo-Shariatis by examining a (too narrow) range of modern Muslim
scholars’ responses to the manifold challenges the modern condition poses to
the Islamic tradition. A particular focus is placed on Muslims scholars such as
Abu Zayd, Arkoun and Soroush who while remaining within an ‘authentic’ approach
to reform of the Islamic tradition are considered not to have not fallen into
the Islam/ modernity binary conceptual trap ( in contrast to Islamists like S.Qutb, Maududi and Khomeini who have).
The other three chapters are much more original and are
designed “ to reveal the ways in which
Shariati’s thought finds common ground with a wide range of global discourses that treat Europe’s Enlightenment modernity, its metanarratives of modernization and secularization ,and its
associated socio-political and socioeconomic formatives ( i.e. nation-state
structures and capitalist economics) as objects of reform and critique
“(p.15). In this respect Saffari’s
comparative approach brings into conversation Shari’ati’s view of religiously
mediated indigenous modernity with J. Casanova’s concept of public religion and
that of N. Eisenstadt’s multiple
modernities construct (Chapter 3); Ch. Taylor’s idea of communitarian thought ,
Cornel West’s liberation theology and F. Dallmayr’s Gadamerian phenomenology (
Chapter 4). Chapter 5 theorizes the relationship
between universalism and ‘nativism’ from the conceptual perspective of a ‘civilizational framework’ as espoused in the
thought of Shariati and neo-Shariatis. The author engages primarily with the
scholarship of Edward Saeed, Hamid Dabashi and Fred Dallmayr when wresting with
the question of the conceptual relationship between Islam and modernity, East
and West, colonial and postcolonial, nativist and cosmopolitan, universalist
and particular. In this respect the author’s main argument is that “For
neo-Shariatis, Shariati’s idea of an indigenous modernity, with its overall
civilizational framework , represents neither
a total rejection of modernity
nor the total embrace of the native self” and call instead for “a
critical and selective approach toward
both the local sources of identity and the global condition of modernity , one
based on the recognition of cultural flux and hybridity” which “seeks to
transcend the prevailing oppositional binaries of tradition/modernity, Islam/West,
and East/West”(p.1610. Ultimately, the aim is to establishing a new dialogical
relationship between these binaries which conceptualise them as
‘co-constitutive’, ‘unfinished projects’ and complementary ‘existential
orientations’( p.156-162).
In the conclusion titled “Toward a Postcolonial
Cosmopolitanism” Saffari focuses primarily on outlining arguments about the
discursive or intellectual advantages ‘neo-Shariatism’ has (over competing form of Islamic
reformism) in the context of post
Islamism ( as defined by Asef Bayat ) with respect to solving the main
conundrum that book has addressed ,namely the conceptual relationship between
Islam and modernity. One such argument is that only ‘neo-Shariatism’ is in a
position to simultaneously develop ‘religiously mediated and contextually
grounded accounts of secularism and democracy ‘yet maintain a critical posture toward
“western-style, liberal democracy’ which is by many Muslims associated with
legacies of imperialism and western
hegemony. Another identified advantage of neo-Shariatism is its insistence on
non-banishment of religion from the public sphere and its privatisation and the
recognition of its emancipatory potential as an anti-dote to religious
conservatism and fundamentalism. Other purported advantages include the role neo-Shariati thought can play with
respect to facilitation of social
welfare, socio-economic development and gender equality in Muslim majority
contexts (p.173-177). Finally, Saffari argues
that neo-Shariatism offers a plausible venue for the process of indigenization
of modernity in universalist terms by being a socially and grass roots oriented
process that is premised on what I have elsewhere in the context of defining
progressive Muslim thought (Duderija,2011, Duderija 2017) termed epistemological openness and methodological
fluidity and that is not purely intellectual in disposition but is based on ‘social
hermeneutics’ (Duderija 2017).
This reviewer is not an expert on Shariati and my views of
the book will primarily focus on its conceptual rigorousness and how
neo-Shariantism fits into the larger framework of contemporary Islamic
intellectual currents, especially progressive Muslim thought (Duderija
2007, Duderija,2011;
Duderija
2013; Duderija
2017).
One of the main strengths of the book is its acute attention
to the conceptual, methodological and conceptual difficulties in maintaining an
essentialist and binary conceptual relationship between concepts such as
tradition/Islam -modernity and
East/Islam –West. Another important theoretical intervention of the book
is its balanced, multiple critique of both Orientalist and Occidentalist
tendencies in scholarship when approaching the same conundrum. The book’s
conceptual rigorousness is
somewhat diminished by inadequate theorising of the concepts of progress in the context of the book’s main aim ,namely
the efforts of Shari’ati and neo-Shariaties in advancing a contextually
grounded discourse of progressive social
and political change by means of
indigenization of modernity. While Saffari repeatedly states that the
Western-centric ,European Enlightenment concept of progress as conceptualised
by Hegel and Fukuyama, for example, is not the progress that neo-Shariatism
accepts no alternative definition of
progress is offered. This is despite the fact that existing scholarship on this
very concept of progressive does exist on which this reviewer has been
publishing since 2007 in the context of theorising progressive Muslim thought (
Duderija, 2007,Duderija 2011, Duderija 2017).
Moreover, the concept of authenticity should have been much
more problematized. Saffari uses it to basically denote a process of return to
Islamic nativism and cultural relativism, which is what some readers of
Shariati have ascribed to him as being
an advocate of ( which is according to
Saffari an erroneous reading of Shariati) . But the process of authenticity in
the context of theorising the Islamic intellectual and cultural heritage
(turath) can also be conceptualised as
a critical, creative one too (Duderija,2011). More generally speaking
insufficient, if any, attention, was given to the very concept of turath itself.
Finally, the purported advantages of neo-Shariantism and its
worldview outlined above very much mirror the ideals, values and objectives
that underpin progressive Muslim thought and its weltanschauung ( Duderija,2007;Duderija,2011; Duderija 2017) .
From that perspective neo-Shariantism , especially its more cosmopolitan
manifestations, should be considered as part of a progressive Muslim thought
whose theoretical framework both in terms of
its conceptualisations of turath
and late modernity episteme has found
fruitful answers to the main question the book under review addresses.
Comments
Post a Comment