Haider Ali 18-10286

Ethnography of Pakistan Instructor: Dr. Julie Flowerday

Three ways to compare Talal Asads The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam and Akbar S.

Ahmeds Defining Islamic Anthropology

Talal Asad and Akbar are two Muslim scholars engaged in the discussion around the idea of

an Islamic anthropology, however, as Akbar himself points out in his paper, Talal Asad

represents the Muslim Left in Social sciences while the work of Akbar focusing on the

emancipatory potential of Islam and Jihad may seem to be leaning towards the opposite side.

Their projects have the obvious difference of approach where Asad uses the concept of

Anthropology of Islam while Akbar uses Islamic Anthropology.

The first point of reference from where Asad and Akbar differ is their notions of

Essence and Diversity. These two terms are apparently different in meaning but they are key

words in discourse over the conceptualization of social realities. Assigning or discovering the

essence of a subject, for instance Islam, relates to the unification of its possibly varying forms

and tends to reduce it. On the other hand, the notion of diversity delves into variations and

exceptions under an umbrella term. Asad critiques Gellners attempt at interpreting Islam in a

narrow conceptualization and tries to find diversity through the investigation of discursive

traditions to identify marginalized questions. He also shows the dangers of following the

conceptualization of Islam as a historical totality. Akbar, although, is arguing for the merits

of an Islamic Anthropology, ends up defending Gellner. He deviates from Gellner in

suggesting a Universal, Humanistic and Emancipatory Islam, however, assigns some

essential elements to Islam. These elements are the widely accepted inseparability of Islam as

a whole way of life and its fundamental role even in structures of Political life and power.
 Secondly, Akbar and Asad apart from being involved in the same project of reviewing

the idea of Islamic Anthropology are also similar because they are both responding to

Orientalism. Both of them may seem to critique orientalist knowledge production but Asad

more than Akbar is successful in that project. Akbar mentions the problem of orientalist

tendencies in western anthropology and the usefulness of Islamic Anthropology in countering

it but fails to critique Gellner who shows such tendencies. Asad on the other hand identifies

Gellnerss tendency drawing from his predecessors of French Sociology of Maghrib and so

on. In terms of, Orientalism and Post-Colonialism, the work of Gellner plays an exoticizing

and reducing role that Asad has aptly brought into light.

Finally, Akbar and Asad also present contrasting projects when you look at the

scale of their study. The former has used more generalizations, assumptions and established

notions while the latter has challenged established scholarship and therefore has had to utilize

a plethora of details. Therefore, Asad has been able to present a stronger and more unique

study using a large number of observations which are interconnected. In this way, Asad has

been able to present a breakthrough in knowledge through this original paper and has even

been able to introduce a new concept i.e. Discursive Traditions. On the other hand, Akbar has

followed a conventional approach, which had to rely more on declarations rather than

descriptions of the potential of an Islamic Anthropology.

In conclusion it will be useful to add that Talal Asads notion of the Anthropology of

Islam is clearly more suitable for the study of Islam, rather than, the Islamic Anthropology of

Akbar S. Ahmed because the former succeeds in identifying new ways of engaging with the

topic without introducing new forms of bias.