http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2005/03/renaissance-japan/ The Japan History Group Blog Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:08:31 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2005/03/renaissance-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-44116 Islamic History at the AHA | chapati mystery Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:20:36 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=62#comment-44116 [...] Jonathan Brown’s paper presented a very helpful overview and redefinition of the early modern history of Islamic legal scholarship, one which actually reverberated back to the Renaissance panel in its implicit (at least, I inferred it) invocation of the Reformation. He argued that the 18c revival and reform movements — Salafi, Wahhabi, etc. — which we now refer to as “fundamentalist” need to be understood in the context of the Sunni tradition of legal scholarship, and their challenge to the traditional methodologies rather than their doctrinal positions. Brown defines the dominant Sunni legal traditions as “Cumulative”: though they took slightly different doctrinal positions and had slightly different emphases (especially with regard to hadith v. local tradition conflicts), they all are very deferrential to past decisions and consensuses. Though the Cumulative tradition is sometimes very selective in which decisions it cites, it assumes that scholars of the past were aware of contradicting hadith and Quranic verses when they made their decisions, so that all older decisions could be cited as authoritative, even if apparent contradictions exist. Law, in the Cumulative tradition, was largely a settled matter, with only marginal and exceptional cases requiring innovative thinking. Most Cumulative scholars were pro-Sufi and friendly towards Shi’a traditions, as well. The “Iconoclastic” schools, though, assume an “existential egalitarianism” in which scholars of the present are no less competent than scholars of the past at interpreting Quran and Hadith, and prefer to go back to the original texts and authoritative hadith (and they have their own standards for this, as well, rejecting the theological orthodoxy of the transmitter as a measure of authoritative transmission, for example) directly rather than relying on putative claims of consensus and permissive selectivity. Iconoclasts reconnect the study of hadith with active law, because the issues are not, in their view, settled. It’s a more “Do It Yourself” style, requiring greater attention to detail, and spurring a new critical scholarship, as well as new tensions: the Iconoclasts are associated with anti-Sufi and anti-Shiite positions (though a group of brothers — Qumari? I really could have used a dramatis personae — are cited as examples of exceptions). Brown didn’t explicitly mention the Reformation analogy, but it strikes me as potentially very useful. It also reminds me a great deal of the divide between the Orthodox and Conservative (aka Traditional) traditions in Judaism, very much tied to the consensus positions of the past, and the Reform and Reconstructionist (aka Liberal) projects, though, as I think about it, the Liberal tradition in Judaism is not tied to the original texts in the same way at all. In the discussion period, Brown pointed out that the tensions between these approaches were not at all new to the 18c, but internal crises resulted in the differences becoming entrenched and open at that point. [...] [...] Jonathan Brown’s paper presented a very helpful overview and redefinition of the early modern history of Islamic legal scholarship, one which actually reverberated back to the Renaissance panel in its implicit (at least, I inferred it) invocation of the Reformation. He argued that the 18c revival and reform movements — Salafi, Wahhabi, etc. — which we now refer to as “fundamentalist” need to be understood in the context of the Sunni tradition of legal scholarship, and their challenge to the traditional methodologies rather than their doctrinal positions. Brown defines the dominant Sunni legal traditions as “Cumulative”: though they took slightly different doctrinal positions and had slightly different emphases (especially with regard to hadith v. local tradition conflicts), they all are very deferrential to past decisions and consensuses. Though the Cumulative tradition is sometimes very selective in which decisions it cites, it assumes that scholars of the past were aware of contradicting hadith and Quranic verses when they made their decisions, so that all older decisions could be cited as authoritative, even if apparent contradictions exist. Law, in the Cumulative tradition, was largely a settled matter, with only marginal and exceptional cases requiring innovative thinking. Most Cumulative scholars were pro-Sufi and friendly towards Shi’a traditions, as well. The “Iconoclastic” schools, though, assume an “existential egalitarianism” in which scholars of the present are no less competent than scholars of the past at interpreting Quran and Hadith, and prefer to go back to the original texts and authoritative hadith (and they have their own standards for this, as well, rejecting the theological orthodoxy of the transmitter as a measure of authoritative transmission, for example) directly rather than relying on putative claims of consensus and permissive selectivity. Iconoclasts reconnect the study of hadith with active law, because the issues are not, in their view, settled. It’s a more “Do It Yourself” style, requiring greater attention to detail, and spurring a new critical scholarship, as well as new tensions: the Iconoclasts are associated with anti-Sufi and anti-Shiite positions (though a group of brothers — Qumari? I really could have used a dramatis personae — are cited as examples of exceptions). Brown didn’t explicitly mention the Reformation analogy, but it strikes me as potentially very useful. It also reminds me a great deal of the divide between the Orthodox and Conservative (aka Traditional) traditions in Judaism, very much tied to the consensus positions of the past, and the Reform and Reconstructionist (aka Liberal) projects, though, as I think about it, the Liberal tradition in Judaism is not tied to the original texts in the same way at all. In the discussion period, Brown pointed out that the tensions between these approaches were not at all new to the 18c, but internal crises resulted in the differences becoming entrenched and open at that point. [...]

]]> http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2005/03/renaissance-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-6214 Frog in a Well - The Japan History Group Blog Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:57:37 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=62#comment-6214 [...] I admit that I’m a great admirer of Berry, but this is going to be fun. My own thoughts about Early modern Japan as an intellectual renaissance are going to have to be tested against this scholarship. The University of California Press is pleased to announce the publication of: [...] [...] I admit that I’m a great admirer of Berry, but this is going to be fun. My own thoughts about Early modern Japan as an intellectual renaissance are going to have to be tested against this scholarship. The University of California Press is pleased to announce the publication of: [...]

]]> http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2005/03/renaissance-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-602 ClioWeb | Home Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:24:55 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=62#comment-602 [...] ime). Jonathan at Frog in a Well explores the use of historical analogy in a discussion of Renaissance Japan. In a similar thread, Bede’s Journal discusses the idea that All History [...] [...] ime). Jonathan at Frog in a Well explores the use of historical analogy in a discussion of Renaissance Japan. In a similar thread, Bede’s Journal discusses the idea that All History [...]

]]>