A Conversation with Hassan Ansari on the Tradition of Islamic Studies in the West

Islamic studies in the West has a long-standing tradition, and understanding and examining it could be a very good and suitable subject for a comprehensive research project. However, since we intend in this discussion to focus more on the current state of Islamic studies in the West, my initial question to you is this: you are well aware that two traditions of Islamic studies are currently underway in the West. One proceeds according to that same long-standing, classical tradition, which has its own particular characteristics—and I would like you to briefly explain that tradition as well—and the other is the tradition of Islamic studies in the contemporary world, which deals more with the relations between Islam and the West and, to some extent, one could say it focuses more on the tradition of political Islam. In your view, what are the characteristics and epistemological foundations of these two traditions?

پاسخ: سنت شرقشناسی که ریشه های اولیه اش به ویژه به حمله ناپلئون به مصر مربوط است تاکنون مورد مطالعه شماری از دانشمندان قرار گرفته و چنانکه می دانیم عده ای هم مانند ادوارد سعید نظرات انتقادی نسبت به مبانی معرفتی‌ این سنت ابراز داشته اند. واقعیت این است که چه با نظرات ادوارد سعید در این باره موافق باشیم و چه نباشیم یک چیز مسلم است و آن اینکه شرقشناسی با آن پیش زمینه های سده نوزدهمی پایان گرفته و الآن چیزی با آن عنوان نداریم. این سنت اساساً سنتی بود مبتنی بر پیشینه نقد کتاب مقدس در مغرب زمین و با شیوه های فیلولوژیک. البته تا آنجایی که به نقد متن مربوط می شد چنین بود. قسمتی هم مطالعات صرف تاریخی بود. حاصل آن هم هزاران کتاب و مقاله و صدها تصحیح متن بوده است که خوب پایه بسیار خوبی فراهم کرد برای آشنایی نه تنها غربیان با اسلام بلکه زمینه را برای انتقال دانش انتقادی تاریخ و آشنایی با متون به کشورهای اسلامی فراهم کرد. شیوه فیلولوژیک و یا شیوه نقد تاریخی و تحلیلی متون مقدس بعدها مورد انتقادات و اصلاحاتی قرار گرفت و این انتقادات تأثیرات خود را بر مطالعات اسلامی نیز گذاشت. درباره اصالت متون نظریاتی متفاوت گاه در همین سنت ابراز شد. فی المثل رویکردهای گلدتسیهر و یا شاخت درباره اصالت حدیث و یا فقه اسلامی را باید در این زمینه یاد کرد. کما اینکه درباره خود متن قرآن و تاریخ آن بحث های زیادی شکل گرفت که تا امروز ادامه دارد. یکی از مهمترین مسائل در این میان تحولی است که درباره تاریخ و تحول زبان عربی و شعر و ادب عرب پیش و درست پس از اسلام مطرح است و بحث از اصالت آن مستقیماً با بحث از تحول زبان دینی اولیه در اسلام مرتبط است و حتی با زبان و متن قرآن. اصالت متون اسلامی مسئله بسیار مهمی برای سنت اسلامشناسی و شرقشناسی بوده است. برخی از نتایج تحقیقات دوره سیطره پژوهش های فیلولوژیک بعداً مورد تردید گروهی از اسلام‌شناسان غربی قرار گرفت که از نوعی نگاه شکاکانه نسبت به اصالت متن های اولیه و از جمله قرآن و حدیث برخوردار بودند و به نوعی تجدید نظر در این زمینه فرا می خواندند. آثاری هم در این مکتب نوشته شد. اما بعدها به ویژه با تحقیقاتی که سزگین و اعظمی و با شکلی دیگر موتسکی و از یک نقطه نظر باز متفاوت گریگور شولر درباره ادبیات مکتوب و شفاهی سامان دادند وضعیت تغییر کرد. در این میان کسانی مانند پروفسور فان اس موضعی میانه دارد و پروفسور مادلونگ از نوعی نگاه خوشبینانه و همدلانه نسبت به اصالت متون برخوردار است. اینها را گفتم تا نشان دهم که تنوع گسترده ای در سنت های مرتبط با شیوه های تحلیل و نقد تاریخی متن و فیلولوژیک وجود دارد. از آن سو گرایش پدیدارشناسانه همواره بخشی از سنت مورد توجه در این نوع مطالعات بوده است. در این سنت ریشه های زبانی و یا اصالت متون و تأثیرگذاریها مورد توجه کمتری قرار می گیرد. مهم، شناسایی و فهم و درک ماست از پدیده ای تاریخی. حال این پدیده تاریخی می تواند متنی باشد که در لحظه ای تاریخی ساخته شده است و ما‌ آن را باید بشناسیم. تحول تاریخی این متن چندان مهم نیست؛ مهم فهم آن است در آن پیش زمینه خاص. حال که از این دو شیوه سخن رفت مناسب است گفته شود که در کنار همه اینها و به ویژه در سده بیستم شیوه تحقیقات آنتروپولوژیک هم همواره از سوی تعدادی از شرقشناسان مد نظر بوده است. این شیوه خود مورد انتقاد گرفته و به ویژه از سوی علوم اجتماعی جدید. چنانکه می دانید در دهه های اخیر شیوه های علوم اجتماعی جدید هم در پژوهش های اسلام شناسی و شرقشناسی داخل شده است. اینها همه شیوه ها و زمینه های تازه ای را جلوی روی محققان حوزه های اسلام و شرق در مغرب زمین قرار داده است. در نهایت باید اشاره کنم به آنچه در پرسش شما هم مطرح شده است: در دو سه دهه اخیر بخشی از مطالعات در حوزه اسلام مربوط است به اسلام معاصر. در این قسمت البته نوع مطالعات فرق می کند و حوزه تخصص ها و زمینه های آن متفاوت است. این نوع مطالعات گاه حتی مستند به پژوهش های تاریخی سنت های آکادمیک در اسلامشناسی نیست و طبعاً مصرف متفاوتی دارد.

سنتی خاص امروزه در غرب به مسائل مهمی مانند اسلام و غرب، تروریسم در جهان اسلام و اسلام سیاسی می پردازد. آیا می توان این موارد و یا مسائل شبیه این را جزو سنت اسلام شناسی برشمرد؟

Answer: This is the very point I touched upon slightly in my response to the previous question. As I said, sometimes this type of study relies on the findings of the traditions of Islamic studies and Orientalism. At other times, those specializing in the field of historical studies comment on contemporary Islam or evaluate contemporary Islam based on their historical studies. All of this is natural. Today, political Islam, and especially its Salafi and Jihadi face, has become a global problem. Critiquing these ideologies is an important and necessary task; as long as we lack a historical perspective on religion, society, and history, the rampant growth of these ideologies will continue. Of course, these viewpoints also have social and political contexts, but context alone is not sufficient. There is also a fundamental flaw somewhere in the theoretical perspectives of Muslims in the Islamic world that must be resolved. The work of Western Islamicists, of course, involves the phenomenology of these viewpoints and ideologies, their discursive analysis, and sometimes the examination of their historical backgrounds, which occasionally entails offering suggestions as well, and these may sometimes find reflection in Western media; sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. But on the other hand, it must be understood that the examination of this issue by Western researchers as a global problem is a natural matter; just as in Iran, the necessity of understanding contemporary Islam has been properly grasped for at least a decade.

Let us return to the first question. The tradition of Islamic studies in the West naturally pays attention to issues such as the history of Islam, Quranic studies, Hadith, philosophy, theology, and so on. Given the changes that have occurred in the methods of Islamic studies, do we witness changes, innovations, and new creativity in the research I enumerated?

Answer: As I mentioned, the aforementioned methods have always been subject to criticism from opposing spectrums or have undergone modifications. The tradition of Islamic studies in the West is a living tradition. The existence of dozens of reputable journals in various fields, along with the annual publication of several hundred books on related subjects and dozens of conferences and seminars, has provided a context in which these discussions and methods are constantly debated and examined. As I said, regarding the issue of the authenticity of texts, if someone today speaks of Schacht, it is only to recall the history of this type of study; otherwise, today, with the research conducted on the early process of the compilation of jurisprudence and Hadith, Schacht's views on the formation of Islamic jurisprudence can no longer be fully accepted. Of course, parts of it remain valid, but many of its foundations have collapsed, and that framework is no longer useful for understanding the history of the evolution and formation of Islamic jurisprudence. One of the reasons for this is the publication of new texts. Many of the texts published in the last half-century have changed our understanding of jurisprudence, Hadith, and the evolution of beliefs. In just these past few years, important texts from the first two centuries of Islam have been discovered. I myself found the text of the book al-Tahrish by Dirar ibn Amr in Yemen, the critical edition of which will be published soon. You see, in the academic tradition in the West, issues do not remain static. These viewpoints are not stagnant and arising from dogmatic perspectives, or they should not be. Even figures like Patricia Crone, who once defended revisionist viewpoints on the authenticity of texts, later changed these views to a large extent. Therefore, we are faced with a dynamic tradition.

You know well that in the tradition of Islamic studies in the West, some departments pay attention to the fields of theology and philosophy, but their focus often tends toward medieval figures like Avicenna and Averroes. Apart from historical attention, is an engagement with serious theological and philosophical issues also seen among them? And do they pay attention to philosophy as philosophy?

Answer: The work of history and religion departments is more historiography than engagement with contemporary philosophical issues. That said, one should not forget that what scholars in the history of philosophy do has always had, and will continue to have, an impact on the current of living, contemporary philosophical thought. The problem, however, is that Islamic philosophy is not a living current within global philosophies. In Iran and Islamic countries, we can of course use the fruits of the labor of historians of philosophy in the West to dynamize, keep alive, and enrich philosophical thought within the Islamic tradition. As you know, Islamic philosophy is a period that mediates between the philosophies of antiquity and late antiquity on the one hand, and Renaissance philosophy on the other. Therefore, the study of Islamic philosophy and its history, and the study of Islamic philosophical texts, is to some extent an unavoidable necessity for studying the history of European philosophies, and at the very least for studying medieval philosophy. Thus, the study of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and especially Averroes is also of interest to historians of philosophy in its general sense in the West.

You have certainly encountered the term "Arabic philosophy" many times. In your opinion, what is the reason for the persistence of such an approach, given the expansion and activity of many figures in Islamic studies among Iranians in recent years?

Answer: The term "Arabic philosophy" was first used in Islamic and Oriental studies circles because the texts being studied, especially in the nineteenth century, were predominantly in the Arabic language. The study of those texts was also considered part of the study of Arabic language and literature, rather than Islamic or religious thought. In any case, in the tradition of Islamic philosophy, Greek texts were translated into Arabic, and later the books of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes were mainly in Arabic. From the perspective of the philological tradition, the historical examination and analysis of these texts was considered part of linguistic investigations concerning the Arabic language. This is despite the fact that some of the Greek texts were translated not by Muslim translators, but within the Islamic philosophical tradition in Baghdad by Christian or Sabian translators into Arabic and even Syriac. Moreover, as we know, Christian theologians in Baghdad sometimes wrote their theological treatises in defense of Christianity in Arabic and sometimes in Syriac, and their philosophical books were occasionally composed in Syriac. In any case, at least what was compiled in Arabic was referred to in the Islamic studies tradition as "Arabic philosophy," and sometimes this term encompassed all such texts, even if they were composed in Syriac within Islamic civilization. Later, despite Westerners' familiarity with Persian texts in philosophy, this term persisted. One reason for this was that the context for these studies was sometimes within Middle Eastern or language departments, rather than in religion departments, and therefore the context for studying these texts was within the Arabic language section. In France, for example, the reason can specifically be attributed to the fact that in the university system, the basis is determined by these linguistic frameworks, not religious ones. However, with efforts made especially in the twentieth century, the use of "Islamic philosophy" has gained much more currency today, or at least the combined form "Arabic and Islamic philosophy." Sometimes, to refer to the philosophy of the Safavid period—to which the bulk of Persian texts in this field must be attributed—the title "Shi'i philosophy" is used. In any case, in the history of thought, the ethnic question is not at issue. The main issue is the language of thought and the historical frameworks and religious systems belonging to it. On the other hand, in the Arab world, there is a concern to present everything in Islamic history and thought under the title of Arab thought, philosophy, or sciences, which of course arises solely from ethnic and nationalist viewpoints and has nothing to do with academic systems. The root of this issue goes back to ethnic ideologies, especially from the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser onward. As we know, the Iraqi Ba'ath Party spent heavily on this, and a number of Arab writers and thinkers theorized for it, such as Mohammed Abed al-Jabri, whose era has of course now passed and become a thing of the past.

At the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, you paid more attention to issues of theology and philosophy and tried to focus more on these matters. Have the types of research you have conducted been able to steer us somewhat toward a space free from historical discussions, toward serious intellectual and epistemological issues with Iranian and Islamic underpinnings, or has it guided us more toward comparative discussions? Should we fundamentally pay more attention to comparative discussions or historical ones?

Answer: Comparative discussions in the field of philosophy are not detached from historical studies. In principle, no serious topic in thought is, or can be, free from a historical perspective. In Iran, of course, I believe the most important necessity today is to establish and give weight to the historical perspective on texts, religion, and philosophy. Theoretical discussions are good, especially if they are comparative; in the sense that we find a way to know ourselves in relation to the thoughts of the “other.” We must see our own philosophical thinking in its relation to modernity and the philosophies of the modern age, and thereby find a way to renew thought and bring it to life. Otherwise, we will constantly be marking time; however, this type of study must always keep an eye on historical studies.

As a final question, please explain why, in the West, attention to the early Islamic era still predominates in Islamic studies, while we Iranians, particularly in the fields of theology and philosophy, believe that our philosophical and epistemic tradition has been continuous and that one can find serious figures and personalities in the field of theology, for example, in the schools of Shiraz, Isfahan, and even Tehran?

Answer: Well, as I said earlier, the reason is that in the West, especially due to familiarity with Averroes, knowledge of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and other early philosophers of the Islamic period carries added importance. Not only because Avicenna himself was an influential figure in Latin culture, but also because of his indirect influence through Averroes. Their acquaintance with later schools, such as those of Shiraz, Isfahan, and Tehran, is more of a recent phenomenon and the result of the efforts of a few in the late twentieth century, particularly Henry Corbin. These areas, of course, due to the predominance of a theological cast over philosophical writings and also the dominance of a Sufi or religious coloring, are studied more in departments of religion or Middle Eastern studies than in philosophy. Furthermore, most scholars who work on these periods have an attachment to Iranian studies and are familiar with the Persian language. In any case, this part of studies in the field of philosophy of the Safavid era and beyond has not yet developed much in the West, and what is published is mostly on the margins, or consists of studies undertaken by Iranians or Shiites studying in the West.

.

---

.

A Conversation with Hassan Ansari on the Tradition of Islamic Studies in the West

Source: Hassan Ansari's Personal Website

.

---

.