Leaving the Muslim Brotherhood: Self, Society and the State

Abstract

community (after all, Islam is a religion and religions are binding sacred narratives). Nevertheless, belonging and bonding are shaped by other elements – linguistic, regional, ethnic, local, customary, etc. – which makes many believe that the religious element can be discarded or ignored in a logic of ‘either or’. Most probably, this logic can be predicated on a secular bias: some believe that one is either religious or not and that religious experience stands in opposition to established religion. And so, the dichotomy between tradition and daily experience is a false one in most cases because both the self and the community are formed by both traditions and daily experiences. Launay refers to daily practices as an index of religiosity. Traditions can also be indices of daily experience (traditions emerged as practices of individuals and communities; dīn, sunna and sharīʿa all mean the straight path one should follow). Nonetheless, other elements such as language or ethnicity can play the same role as Islam in the formation of the self and the community. Consequently, private religious lives are connected to established religion in the same way as one is bonded to community, language and ethnicity. One can go around it, transgress at one’s own risk or adapt to it. Institutional Islam and traditions are source material that individuals play with while also being shaped by them. Perhaps that is why daily Islam looks stubbornly conservative and attached to tradition while at the same time being creative in playing with it.