In the wake of European colonization, Muslims across the globe have wrestled with the problem of intellectual dualism, or the bifurcation of knowledge into the distinct Islamic and modern Western spheres. This article examines the career of Pakistani intellectual and University of Chicago professor, Fazlur Rahman (1919–1988), who emerged as a particularly significant figure in this debate over intellectual dualism in the latter half of the twentieth century. Arguing that academic methodologies were integral for Muslim understandings of Islam, Rahman broke down the dichotomy between Western and Islamic knowledge in favour of a merging of the two, an approach I term ‘fusionism’. He propagated this fusionist vision, with mixed success, in his native Pakistan and across the Islamic world. In his position as a respected professor at the University of Chicago, Rahman furthermore re-imagined and utilized the Western university as a valuable space for modern Islamic thought, thereby challenging any sharp boundary between the two discourses and their respective institutions.
During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many Muslim modernists exhibited mixed records regarding democracy. On the one hand, they articulated cogent arguments that Islam was, at its heart, democratic in nature and worked to counter Islamist claims to the contrary. Some crafted robust visions for Islamic democratic governance. On the other hand, many of the same modernists forged political alliances with military authoritarian regimes. How can we explain this seeming inconsistency between modernist democratic ideals and their not-so-democratic practices? This article argues that this paradoxical pattern stems from a classic dilemma within democratic theory: the tyranny of the majority. After providing a brief history of majoritarian fears in Western political theory, the article investigates two prominent case studies from mid-twentieth-century Pakistan and Indonesia. The first examines Fazlur Rahman’s ties to Ayub Khan’s military regime in 1960s Pakistan, and the second analyzes why a movement of young modernists was willing to collaborate with Suharto’s New Order regime in 1970s Indonesia. Together, the two cases demonstrate that Muslim modernists balance their genuine hopes for an Islamic democratic future with persistent fears of majoritarian tyranny by advocating for constraints on the majority will. While these constraints can be controversial and even authoritarian in nature, they have important parallels in Western democratic thought. Ultimately, this article argues that Muslim modernists’ mixed records are a function of democratic theory itself rather than some Islamic exception to it.
No abstract
Emerging from a 2005 conference at the University of Passau (Germany),Susanne Schroter’s edited volume brings together an interdisciplinary groupof scholars, from anthropologists and historians to literary scholars and Muslimfemale activists, to examine this complex subject. The book is organizedinto four country-specific sections on Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,and Thailand, respectively. The fifth and final section, consisting of only onechapter, adds a transnational dimension by analyzing the Tablighi Jama‘at.Despite the volume’s breadth of disciplinary and geographic contributions,its authors share a common project: the recuperation of Muslim women’s history,and especially female Muslim agency, amidst the rise of Islamization inSoutheast Asia.In her introductory essay, Schroter works to unite the country-specificcontributions under a broader regional framework. She argues that whereasIslam in Southeast Asia has traditionally been “moderate, especially with regardto its gender orders” (p. 7), the recent “upsurge of neo-orthodox Islamposes a threat” (p. 37) to women’s rights. With characterizations of conservativeMuslims as “religious zealots” (p. 16) and “hardliners” (p. 19), shepresents Islamization as a process in which “orthodox” Muslims, often withinternational ties, have imperiled the moderate Islam of traditional SoutheastAsia and the liberal Islam of Muslim reformers. The majority of the volume’scontributors embrace this framing narrative. On the one hand, this globalstory enables them to shine new light on the region’s pressing debates overIslam and gender. Yet, on the other hand, the framework consistently placesfemale agency in absolute distinction with so-called orthodox Islam, therebyeclipsing a more complicated landscape of ethical contestation and culturaldifference.Building on Schroter’s framework, the book’s opening section on Indonesiafeatures four chapters, each of which emphasizes challenges Muslimwomen face in asserting their rights an identities in various Indonesian Islamicspheres. To begin, Nelly van Doorn-Harder investigates the Harmonious FamilyProgram of ‘Aisyiyah, Muhammadiyah’s sister organization, as “a tool totransmit the reformist views on gender and women’s position within marriage” ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.