Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What Makes a “Muslim Intellectual”? On the Pros and Cons of a Category
Cool article from a promising new journal.
http://meta-journal.net/article/view/1038
(full article at the "PDF" link)
At its core, this essay contains a substantiated plea for bringing about conceptual clarity to the notion of "Muslim intellectual," which thefrequent and highly ideologically charged public usage of this term seems to distort. In search for a sound analytical concept of "intellectual" first, relevant sociological and philosophical deliberations are highlighted, indicating that both of their notions differ to such an extent that their applicability to academic pursuit must be doubted. Yet, by discussing some considerations by a study of Islam open to the approaches of the social sciences a possible framework for an analytically meaningful concept of "Muslim intellectual" is presented. At the same time, however, arguments are presented for why those contemporary Muslim thinkers who are usually credited with being "Muslim intellectuals: would hardly fit the analytical criteria for such label.
These days, numerous terms, concepts, and labels bustle about in the popular media, impacting not just the common mind, but also academic discourse. This development is quite alarming, as it causes widely accepted rules of academic speech (e.g. Popper 1, 16-9, 22-5) to become infested with heavily value-laden and pithily used terms. This seems to be even more the case in the current highly emotionally charged media coverage of Islam- and Middle East- related developments in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which were justified on the basis of religion. To illustrate this rather troubling situation:
Recently, the terms salafī, salafiyya, Salafist, and Salafism have been flying around the media, labeling a quite heterogeneous group of Muslims who stand out visibly in their attempts to strictly adhere to the beliefs and, beyond that, the practices of earlier generations of believers. In the public perception, the term salafī has become representative of someone who, on religious grounds, rejects all values upon which the overwhelming majority of contemporary societies are based (liberal, democratic, secular, etc.). This rather woolly notion of salafī has now entered the academic context without, in most cases, being subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. This is regrettable for several reasons. Firstly, such a lack of conceptual clarity lumps those reform-inclined Muslims in Egypt and the Levant at the turn of the twentieth century, who have explicitly labeled themselves as "salafiyya", alongside various contemporary groups and personalities that range from the state-supportive religious establishment in Saudi Arabia to militant manifestations such as al-Qāʿida. Secondly, the absence of a clearly defined analytical term will render every deduction on this basis at least problematic, if not void.
A similar label originating perhaps more in popular speech is that of the "Muslim intellectual," the subject of the present paper. Hardly ever properly defined, this tag appears to be ascribed to those Muslims who, by emphasizing rationality over slavishly adhering to a textual tradition, support the general compatibility of Western and Islamic social and political values. In short, the badges "salafis" and "intellectuals" represent the "bad guys" and "good guys," respectively, from a perspective clearly shaped in a Western normative framework.
These days, numerous terms, concepts, and labels bustle about in the popular media, impacting not just the common mind, but also academic discourse. This development is quite alarming, as it causes widely accepted rules of academic speech (e.g. Popper 1, 16-9, 22-5) to become infested with heavily value-laden and pithily used terms. This seems to be even more the case in the current highly emotionally charged media coverage of Islam- and Middle East- related developments in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which were justified on the basis of religion. To illustrate this rather troubling situation:
Recently, the terms salafī, salafiyya, Salafist, and Salafism have been flying around the media, labeling a quite heterogeneous group of Muslims who stand out visibly in their attempts to strictly adhere to the beliefs and, beyond that, the practices of earlier generations of believers. In the public perception, the term salafī has become representative of someone who, on religious grounds, rejects all values upon which the overwhelming majority of contemporary societies are based (liberal, democratic, secular, etc.). This rather woolly notion of salafī has now entered the academic context without, in most cases, being subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. This is regrettable for several reasons. Firstly, such a lack of conceptual clarity lumps those reform-inclined Muslims in Egypt and the Levant at the turn of the twentieth century, who have explicitly labeled themselves as "salafiyya", alongside various contemporary groups and personalities that range from the state-supportive religious establishment in Saudi Arabia to militant manifestations such as al-Qāʿida. Secondly, the absence of a clearly defined analytical term will render every deduction on this basis at least problematic, if not void.
A similar label originating perhaps more in popular speech is that of the "Muslim intellectual," the subject of the present paper. Hardly ever properly defined, this tag appears to be ascribed to those Muslims who, by emphasizing rationality over slavishly adhering to a textual tradition, support the general compatibility of Western and Islamic social and political values. In short, the badges "salafis" and "intellectuals" represent the "bad guys" and "good guys," respectively, from a perspective clearly shaped in a Western normative framework.