Islam as Global Order

Does the historical experience of Islam as a global religion offer general lessons about global order today? Muslims have historically referred to a world in which they could be citizens that was much larger than their locality: Dar al-Islam. This chapter identifies three properties that have lent deep and felt meaning to this otherwise amorphous concept: partial control, free movement, and cultural heteroglossia. Partial control meant that for Muslims the state was only one among many other authorities that were equally legitimate, and where multiple loyalties were the norm. Free movement of people was a natural corollary to the centrality of commerce in Muslim economies, pilgrimage routes, and the global structure of educational networks. Cultural heteroglossia refers to the ways by which the diversity of Muslim communities around the world appeared unproblematic, so that Muslims could continue to imagine themselves as a single global community, even though they rarely needed to act that way. The chapter concludes by exploring how those properties could be integral to a global order today.

Islam as Social Movement

The chapter identifies five common features of modern Islamic social movements: 1) They tend to begin as mutual aid societies rather than as clearly defined political entities; 2) they offer themselves up as ways for society at large to organize itself outside the state; 3) they signify the increasing politicization of society itself; 4) they are only partially oriented to capturing state power; and 5) they tend to transform when they capture the state or become part of it. The jihadist movements are treated as a sub-case of Islamic mobilization, and the chapter considers five theses concerned specifically with jihadism: 1) jihadism as generic radicalism camouflaged in religious language; 2) jihadism as fusion of two previously distinct theaters (local wars and global youth culture); 3) jihadism as Islamized traces of former, secular regimes; 4) jihadism as nihilism borne out of a sense of impasse; and 5) jihadism as critical mimicry of government ideology.

Introduction

WHY DOES ISLAM appear to persist as a powerful reference point for so many believers? This is the question of this book. Like any other question, an answer makes sense only to the extent that we clearly understand what is being asked. I wish to explore how an Islamic perspective on common affairs, among other perspectives, takes shape and becomes established in public life. In charting out this process, I will focus only on the sociological aspects of Islam, being aware that this focus leaves out vast areas of religious life—including the nature of belief, theological reason, and juridical debates. I will, however, address these areas whenever they have some bearing on the sociology of the faith....

Conclusion

The conclusion addresses some key characteristics of Islam in connection with sociology of religion. In particular, it explores the idea of religion as a historically emerging compromise amongst a myriad of populations; the dynamics by which ethical standpoints emerge out of metaphysical contemplation; and the dialectics of love and fear as approaches to divinity. On the basis of these discussions it introduces the notion of Islam as a “reserve discourse” that is called upon to solve social and political problems not as a first option, but only when other discourses have fared poorly. The modern problems that were addressed in the book include social solidarity; participatory ethics; political legitimation; social justice; and civic ethics.

Islam as Public Philosophy

Surveying the structure of Islamic public philosophy over 100 years, this chapter identifies two major approaches: instrumental reason and hermeneutics. The instrumentalists present Islam as an instrument to solve problems. The hermeneuts, by contrast, present Islam as an educational project designed to elevate the intellectual capacities of humanity. The instrumentalists argue that humans should be capable of knowing god’s intentions, whereas the hermeneuts argue that this knowledge is not available to humans with certainty. Overall, whereas the instrumentalists see the proper role of the pious person to consist in applying god’s law, the hermeneuts see that role to consist of interpreting god’s intention. One approach sees divinity as external to the self, whereas the other see it as existing in dialectical relation to it. The chapter charts out the genealogies of each school in various countries, and analyzes the relationship of each to competing secular discourses, including anti-colonial nationalism and the debates on the character of the modern state.