伊斯兰教、现代性与宗教异端问题

Sadia Saeed
{"title":"伊斯兰教、现代性与宗教异端问题","authors":"Sadia Saeed","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197530016.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter undertakes a comparative and historical inquiry to address the role of sharia in shaping concrete state responses toward managing “heterodox” religious communities across time and space. The aim of this inquiry is, first, to undertake a critique of civilizational analyses that seek to capture supposedly essential features of Muslim societies, and second, to underscore the marginal role of sharia in adjudicating issues related to religious heterodoxy in both early modern empires and modern Muslim states. It analyzes, first, how Muslim rulers in two early modern Muslim empires, Safavid Iran and Mughal India, dealt with the same heterodox group, the Nuqtavi Sufi order. Next, it focuses on how two contemporary Muslim-majority states that emerged from these empires, Iran and Pakistan, have sought to regulate and discipline “heretical” groups in their midst—Baha’is in Iran and the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. The analysis opens space for formulating alternative accounts of transitions to modernity that are not beholden to teleological Eurocentric notions that normalize notions of unredeemable and non-usable pasts and always-already open and progressive futures.","PeriodicalId":430862,"journal":{"name":"Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Islam, Modernity, and the Question of Religious Heterodoxy\",\"authors\":\"Sadia Saeed\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197530016.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter undertakes a comparative and historical inquiry to address the role of sharia in shaping concrete state responses toward managing “heterodox” religious communities across time and space. The aim of this inquiry is, first, to undertake a critique of civilizational analyses that seek to capture supposedly essential features of Muslim societies, and second, to underscore the marginal role of sharia in adjudicating issues related to religious heterodoxy in both early modern empires and modern Muslim states. It analyzes, first, how Muslim rulers in two early modern Muslim empires, Safavid Iran and Mughal India, dealt with the same heterodox group, the Nuqtavi Sufi order. Next, it focuses on how two contemporary Muslim-majority states that emerged from these empires, Iran and Pakistan, have sought to regulate and discipline “heretical” groups in their midst—Baha’is in Iran and the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. The analysis opens space for formulating alternative accounts of transitions to modernity that are not beholden to teleological Eurocentric notions that normalize notions of unredeemable and non-usable pasts and always-already open and progressive futures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":430862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197530016.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197530016.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章进行了比较和历史调查,以解决伊斯兰教法在形成具体的国家应对管理跨时间和空间的“异端”宗教社区方面的作用。本研究的目的是,首先,对试图捕捉穆斯林社会的所谓基本特征的文明分析进行批判,其次,强调伊斯兰教法在裁决与早期现代帝国和现代穆斯林国家有关的宗教异端问题方面的边缘作用。首先,它分析了两个早期现代穆斯林帝国——伊朗萨法维王朝和印度莫卧儿王朝——的穆斯林统治者是如何处理同一个异端团体——努克塔维苏菲派的。接下来,本书聚焦于从这些帝国中崛起的两个当代穆斯林占多数的国家,伊朗和巴基斯坦,是如何试图规范和惩戒他们中间的“异端”团体——伊朗的巴哈伊教和巴基斯坦的艾哈迈迪亚教。这种分析为形成对现代性过渡的替代解释开辟了空间,这些解释不受目的论的欧洲中心主义观念的影响,这些观念使不可挽回和不可使用的过去以及始终开放和进步的未来的概念正常化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Islam, Modernity, and the Question of Religious Heterodoxy
This chapter undertakes a comparative and historical inquiry to address the role of sharia in shaping concrete state responses toward managing “heterodox” religious communities across time and space. The aim of this inquiry is, first, to undertake a critique of civilizational analyses that seek to capture supposedly essential features of Muslim societies, and second, to underscore the marginal role of sharia in adjudicating issues related to religious heterodoxy in both early modern empires and modern Muslim states. It analyzes, first, how Muslim rulers in two early modern Muslim empires, Safavid Iran and Mughal India, dealt with the same heterodox group, the Nuqtavi Sufi order. Next, it focuses on how two contemporary Muslim-majority states that emerged from these empires, Iran and Pakistan, have sought to regulate and discipline “heretical” groups in their midst—Baha’is in Iran and the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. The analysis opens space for formulating alternative accounts of transitions to modernity that are not beholden to teleological Eurocentric notions that normalize notions of unredeemable and non-usable pasts and always-already open and progressive futures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信