Challenges for the historian of religion

¶ … History of Religion

Historians of religion face a host of methodological problems, many of which stem from researcher bias. Tapper (1995) examines the construction and consolidation of a viable Islamic anthropology: an academic anthropology with roots in Islamic ideology. Like Marxist or feminist anthropologies, Islamic anthropology critiques the dominant Western paradigm in order to come up with new and possibly more enlightening frames of reference with which to study the world's cultures. In "Metaphors and Sacred History," Varisco (1995) offers a specific example that inadvertently illustrates Islamic anthropology in action. By adopting the terminology and metaphors integral to Islamic culture, historians of religion can offer the academic community more valid interpretations, descriptions, and theories of Muslim societies. Extending their arguments beyond the boundaries of Islam, all historians of religion should take care to thoroughly explore terminology, ideology, assumptions, and biases before claiming to convey a universal perspective.

Tapper (1995) points out that the anthropology of Islam presumes a Western perspective, rooted in an "application of the methods of cultural/social anthropology to the study of Islam as a world religion," (p. 185). Breaking down this statement makes apparent the challenges to the historian of religion. The history of religion or of any particular religion, like the anthropology of religion, attempts to be scientific in its approach in order to be accepted into the canon of Western academic literature. Thus, the "application of the methods of cultural/social anthropology" infers the application of accepted methodologies, which may include participant/observation in the field of anthropology as Tapper (1995) points out. Historians' methods differ, favoring instead the examination of artifacts or explication of validated primary source texts. Already the historian of religion has a problem, for what constitutes an "artifact" or a "primary source" depends on several intervening factors. Interpretation of historical texts can be especially problematic because not all texts can or should be taken literally; many of the allegories or metaphors within them have lost their original meaning over time; and linguistic or cultural barriers may prevent a complete understanding of the value, import, or impact of those texts on the people under scrutiny. Varisco's (1995) exploration of the tribal lineage of Muhammad emphasizes the importance of adopting the frame of reference most conducive to unbiased understanding. The term "tribe" connotes different things for Muslim and non-Muslim people, and the only way to effectively understand Muslim social structure is to grapple with the Muslim meaning of tribe.

Similarly, the historian of religion must cloak her- or himself in the language, mindset, and semantics of the culture being studied. To presume that the "methods of cultural/social anthropology" are universal is to reveal a fundamental flaw in the historiography. What validates the Western academic model may render such a study irrelevant in another's point-of-view. Historians of religion can and should present their assumptions clearly, laying out the perspectives from which they work. An Islamic anthropologist would chronicle and interpret a historical event differently from a Western anthropologist. Because a history of religion begins with a set of limitations that cannot be overcome, it is more imperative to clarify the ideological perspective(s) of the historiography. The limitations of history include the availability of primary source material, the validity of all source material, the possible absence of key data, and the loss of contextual meaning that naturally occurs over time.

Tapper (1995) also refers to "the study of Islam as a world religion." To study Islam as a world religion may or may not require an inclusion of cultural context. Islam as a religion may be impossible to discuss without reference to political, social, economic, and theological realities. As Tapper (1995) points out, the three major approaches of Western social theory are each "flawed by their commitment to positivism, objectivity, and scientific detachment," (p. 186). Some may wonder how it could be possible to study religion with scientific detachment, since scientific detachment is partly defined by the absence of religious sentiment. If a historian is too detached, he or she cannot come to terms with the language best used to understand any given tradition: for example the "body" of Muhammad and the Prophet's tribe. Denying relevance of mystical experiences, subversive or minority views, or even non-linear representations of history would be doing a disservice to the history of religion. A scholar doesn't necessarily have to spend time in a monastery to understand Zen but it wouldn't hurt. Encounters with terms and ideologies add the missing semantic value that can make a history of religion whole and truly meaningful. If scholastic inquiry aims to present an unbiased and thorough understanding it may be essential to temporarily adopt alternative frames of reference.

At the same time, the scholarly history of religion depends on the presentation of historical material and artifacts without placing any value judgment upon those artifacts and texts. One of the problems Tapper (1995) found in the attempted construction of an Islamic anthropology was a hypocritical bias: in critiquing Western social science for its narrow-mindedness, Islamic anthropologists were themselves creating even less tenable methodologies. Any ideological approach to the social sciences can be problematic, but as Tapper (1995) shows, ideology can offer interesting and valid alternative points-of-view. Without Marxist or feminist ideologies, academic would be bereft of a thorough understanding of history and likewise, an Islamic ideology is welcome as an integral part of the history of religion.