Civil Society in Muslim Contexts: The Problématique and a Critique of Euro-American Perspectives (Islamic Studies, Islamic Research Institute (IRI), International Islamic University,

Islamic Studies 51:1 (2012) pp. 27–48 27

Civil Society in Muslim Contexts: The Problématique and a Critique of Euro-American Perspectives

TANVIR ANJUM

Abstract Insisting on the historical and cultural specificity of the concept of civil society, many European and American scholars argue that it is a unique product of Europe, and its application to non-European contexts, particularly to the Muslim societies, is impossible or at least problematic, since the necessary pre-conditions for the existence of civil society are largely missing in them. In response, these dogmatic assertions have been challenged by proving theoretical possibility of existence of the civil society in Muslim contexts as well as by bringing empirical evidence to the fore. The present study is an attempt to analyze the assertions about the incompatibility of Islam with civil society. It highlights the limitations of the Euro-American perspectives on this issue, examines the contested role of religion in civil society, and locates the varied expressions of civil society in Muslim societies.

Introduction

In the contemporary discourse on development, liberalism, and modernism the concept of civil society has come to be understood as a response to state domination and neo-liberal marketization. Nowadays non-government organizations or NGOs, also referred to as civil society organizations or CSOs, have also assumed many roles of the government, and are considered to be an expression of civil society. The concept is as much popular as debated among the activists and development practitioners as well as scholars and academicians. The current civil society discourse that generated in 1970s and again in 1990s is, in fact, based on the revival of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century notion of civil society. Presently, there are multiple understandings of the conceptual construct of civil society, and there exists no single model of it, a fact which reveals theoretical complexity in its usage and application. The contemporary understandings of the notion of civil society are very much contested. In the recent years, the Euro-American or the so-

TANVIR ANJUM 28

called ‘Western’ perspectives on it have been questioned, and their analytical utility has been challenged. Though the concept originated and largely developed in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, fresh perspectives from the study of civil society in non-Euro-American contexts have led the contemporary scholars to propound alternative models of civil society. Civil society is subsumed as one of the constituting spheres of the triadic paradigm of social order, the other two spheres being the state and the market. It is sometimes understood as a sphere in an oppositional relationship with the state, and sometimes in constructive and cooperational relationship with it. It is also conceived as an intermediate institutional space, or a mediating sphere between an individual and a state, as well as a sphere completely autonomous from the state, neither having conflict nor collaboration or association with it. Moreover, a civil society is envisioned as a sphere which counter-balances state’s hegemony and domination, and a means of delivering services to people, which state is ideally supposed to deliver. The concept of civil society is important as well as relevant in analytical terms, for it raises a wide array of research questions pertaining to the relationship of various social actors/groups with the state and political authorities, as well as with other socio-political groups and the society at large. Making Orientalist and essentialist arguments, many European and American scholars of civil society have doubted the existence of civil society in Muslim contexts. Insisting on the historical and cultural specificity of the concept of civil society, they argue that it is a unique product of Europe, and its application to non-European contexts, particularly in the Muslim societies, is impossible or at least problematic, since the necessary pre-conditions for the existence of civil society are largely missing in them. The contemporary perceptions of and debate on the inherent incompatibility of Islam with civil society has further been shaped by the events of 9/11. In response, many scholars have challenged these ethno-centric assumptions and assertions, and argued for the theoretical possibility of the existence of civil society in the Muslim contexts and brought out its empirical evidence as well. The present paper is an attempt to examine the views of the scholars arguing for the absence of civil society in Muslim polities. It brings to the fore the weaknesses and deficiencies in the Euro-American perspectives in this regard. While doing so, it also examines the contested role of religion in the debates on the nature of civil society, and also tries to locate varied expressions of civil society in Muslim contexts, as suggested by some empirical studies on the subject. However, the study does not tend to be an exhaustive survey of literature dealing with the debates on the contested contemporary

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 29

understandings of civil society. Moreover, the empirical studies on civil society in Muslim contexts have been selectively cited owing to paucity of space.

Locating Civil Society in Muslim Contexts: The Problématique

Locating civil society in Muslim societies has been a problematic issue among some theorists and scholars. Since the arguments forwarded by them are closely entwined, it is worth separating them out for purposes of analytical clarity and discussion. First, some scholars argue that civil society is a product of Europe or the so-called ‘West,’ and other non-European or the so-called ‘non-Western’ societies do not and cannot have civil society. In this regard, the most fully articulated case to date comes from an anthropologist, the late Ernest Gellner. Commenting on ‘the world of Ibn Khaldun,’ i.e. medieval/premodern Muslim societies, Gellner asserts that civil society did not and could not exist there in any real sense. He adds that in medieval/premodern Muslim societies, civility and cohesion were mutually incompatible. Though political authority was well-organized, and there was concentration of power at the state level, the society was fragmented and lacked cohesion. Therefore, Muslim polities cannot be credited with civil society.1 He further argues that civil society cannot exist in societies in which the productive sector of society is atomized, weak and inert. “It cannot occur in an Umma, where the unique and exclusive sacralization of one faith makes pluralism impossible.”2 For him, Islam is ‘secularization-resistant,’3 due to which there is no separation between state and religion in the Muslim societies, and that there cannot exist civil society in them. Gellner makes claims to Islamic exceptionalism, and maintains that the Muslim societies are uniquely different from those in Europe and America because there is no separation of state and religion, and hence, no pluralism in the Muslim societies, which makes the existence of civil society impossible in them. Long before Gellner, Alexis de Tocqueville had forwarded a similar kind of essentialist argument when he wrote that though Muslims did not belong to an inferior race, their civilization is imperfect and decadent. The Muslim faith is responsible for their decadence since Muslim morality has crushed its

1 Ernest Gellner, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1994), 64, 71–72, 82, 193. 2 Ibid., 195. However, it is important to note that Gellner uses the concept of Ummah as an ideocracy, or a charismatic community, wherein the prime object of the government is virtue, and does not limit it to specifically refer to the Muslim community. See, for instance, 69. 3 Ibid., 14.

TANVIR ANJUM 30

believers with materialism and fatalism. In contrast, the spirit of Christianity has enabled the growth of democratic institutions in America.4

Secondly, some scholars insist on the historical and cultural specificity of the concept of civil society, arguing that the development of the concept is a unique accomplishment of Europe, and thereby an evidence of asserting European supremacy and hegemony over the rest of the world. It is argued that the concept of civil society is rooted in liberal European intellectual tradition, and therefore it can only be understood in context of democracy and modernity. The history of the concept is considered to be intertwined with other concepts such as market economy, citizenship, individualism, liberalism, civility, and social cohesion etc. The works of recent scholars such as Adam Seligman, John Hall and Şerif Mardin allude to the idea that the concept of civil society is a product of ‘the West,’ which cannot be found elsewhere. Seligman locates the roots of the idea of civil society exclusively in Europe.5 Hall follows a similar line of argument, and asserts that civil society emerged only in the Occident, and it is unlikely to spread outside parts of the Central Europe and Latin America.6 Şerif Mardin is, however, more explicit in this regard when he states that civil society is ‘a Western dream, a historical aspiration’ that does not translate into Islamic terms since it cannot be generalized beyond European contexts.7 So theorists and scholars consider the application of the concept of civil society to the non-European, particularly Muslim contexts, problematic, if not impossible.

Finally, in the furtherance of the preceding arguments, many civil society theorists assume that there are certain necessary preconditions for the existence of civil society. Their assumptions reveal a range of meanings and connotations attached to the term civil society, which have made the concept 4 De Tocqueville believed that there had been few religions in the world as deadly to human beings as that of [Prophet] Mu╒ammad. Its social and political tendencies were more to be feared, as it is a form of decadence rather than of progress. Moreover, he also suggested that Algeria (and by extension all the Muslim countries) required a political order with French and other European administrators, wherein the natives might continue to live according to the laws of Islam. Andrè Jardin, Tocqueville: A Biography, Lydia Davis and Robert Hemenway, trans. (London: Peter Halban, 1988), 322, 335. For an analysis of his views, see Kelly C., “Civil and Uncivil Religions: Tocqueville on Hinduism and Islam,” History of European Ideas, 20: 4 (1995), 845–850. 5 Adam Seligman, The Idea of Civil Society (New York: The Free Press, 1992). 6 John A. Hall, “Genealogies of Civility,” in Robert W. Hefner, ed., Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Modern Political Ideal (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1998), 53–77, esp. 53 and 75. See also John Hall, ed., Civil Society: Theory, History and Comparison (Cambridge: Polity, 1995). 7 Şerif Mardin, “Civil Society and Islam,” in John Hall, ed., Civil Society: Theory, History and Comparison (Cambridge: Polity, 1995), 278–79, for details see 278–300.

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 31

more contested and debatable. Norton, for instance, who has worked on the civil society in contemporary Middle East, considers democracy and capitalism, and in particular civility, as necessary preconditions for civil society, and infers that unfortunately these characteristics have been missing in large parts of the Middle East.8 For Norton, the absence of these preconditions for civil society explains the absence of civil society in the Middle East. Moreover, Norton not only sees civil society at the heart of democracy and participant political systems, he also views it grounded in free market economy. Other theorists and scholars of civil society also insist on the existence of these preconditions for civil society. For instance, while tracing the roots of the concept of civil society in the traditions of European political philosophy, Wagner stresses the need to link the concept of civil society with the commitment of political modernity to comprehensive democracy.9 Similarly, not only there is an explicit linkage between civil society and democratization according to Diamond,10 market economy is also a necessary precondition for the existence of civil society since, in his view, the very nature of civil society is ‘pluralistic and market-oriented.’11 In a likewise manner, though Zureik believes that it should not be assumed that there existed a distinct watershed between precapitalist/capitalist or precolonial/colonial societies, there is an absence of civil society (i.e. autonomous corporate institutions that operate with minimal state control) in the Arab society.12 Moreover, Gellner presumes individualism (which he calls ‘Modularity’) and social cohesion as necessary preconditions for the existence of civil society which, according to him, are lacking in Muslim societies, which cannot have civil society.13 These arguments that have been stated in detail logically lead to conclude the impossibility of translating the notion of civil society in Islamic terms. What follows is a critique of this conclusion.

A Critique of the Notion of Incompatibility of Civil Society with Islam

The Euro-American perspectives based on the assumptions and assertions

8 Andrew Richard Norton, “Introduction,” in Andrew Richard Norton, ed., Civil Society in the Middle East (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 1: 7–9, 12. 9 Peter Wagner, “Introduction” in Peter Wagner, ed., Languages of Civil Society (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), 2. 10 Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1999), 234–35. 11 Larry Diamond, “Rethinking Civil Society: Towards Democratic Consolidation,” Journal of Democracy, 5: 6 (1994), 4–18. 12 Elia Zureik, “Theoretical Considerations for a Sociological Study of the Arab State,” Arab Studies Quarterly, 3: 3 (1981), 256. 13 Gellner, Conditions of Liberty, 71, 103.

TANVIR ANJUM 32

regarding the incompatibility of Islam with civil society can be challenged on a number of counts. The ensuing discussion is particularly focused on the analysis and deconstruction of the statements of the theorists and scholars of civil society stated in the first section. The essentialist and Orientalist arguments of Gellner and De Tocqueville can be situated in the broader discourse on Orientalism elaborated by Edward Said in his monumental work Orientalism, wherein Said argues that in the European understanding, the Orient/East is imagined as a negative mirror-image of the so-called ‘West,’ completely devoid of civility, civic virtues and orderly social life, and wherein there is virtually only state and no society.14 Wittfogel’s ‘Oriental Despotism thesis’ portrays a similar kind of image of a centralized all-powerful absolutist state in Oriental regions with no autonomous and countervailing social groups within society in contrast to the Occident, where there existed politically organized ‘nongovernmental forces’ which restricted the absolutist regimes.15 Where Wittfogel’s thesis is said to have reinforced the distinction between the Orient and the Occident, it also assumed a complete absence of any expression of civil society in the Oriental world.16 Hann considers it ethnocentric to make sweeping generalizations to the effect that civil society is incompatible with Islam.17 Herbert questions the ‘simplistic integralist position’ of Gellner based on the assumption that according to Islam, all aspects of life should be directly governed by its unchanging precepts. Herbert further challenges the thesis of Gellner on four counts: (i) it ignores the different ways in which modernity has affected

14 According to Edward W. Said, Orientalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), the Orientalist discourse reinforced the ideology of colonialism and helped the imperialists to legitimize their conquests. The motive for studying the colonized people was not to produce knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but to help the colonialists in accomplishing their imperialistic designs. The Orientalist scholars through their study tried to establish the inferiority of the colonized people in Asia and Africa, particularly the Muslims, and the superiority of the Europeans. The Orientalists also assumed repressive relations between rulers and their subjects in the Muslim polities. Said later expanded this thesis in his work, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf, 1993). 15 Karl Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 49, 103. It is important to note that Wittfogel largely focused on the Communist China, but generalized his thesis to all the oriental regions. 16 For a brief discussion on Orientalism and Oriental Despotism thesis with reference to civil society, see Bryan S. Turner, “Orientalism and the Problem of Civil Society in Islam,” in Asaf Hussain, et al., eds., Orientalism, Islam, and Islamists (Brattleboro, Vermont: Amana Books, 1984), 23–42. 17 Chris Hann, “Introduction: Political Society and Civil Anthropology,” in Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn, eds., Civil Society: Challenging Western Models (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 15.

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 33

various regions and Muslim countries, and hence the discourse of civil society; (ii) Muslims have generated a range of responses to the discourses of democracy, civil society and human rights; (iii) the historical model of Gellner applies only to a minority of historic Muslim societies, and the historically predominant model of Muslim society has been characterized by institutional differentiation; and (iv) in contemporary times, Islam has considerably contributed to democratic pluralism in many Muslim countries. Herbert adds that social differentiation in the historical European societies is not a unique phenomenon, since historically most Muslim societies have been socially differentiated.18 Kamali also rejects the myth of Islamic exceptionalism as well as the essentialist arguments of civil society theorists like Gellner and maintains that no society is essentially different from another one since all societies have some common features.19 Kamali contends that Gellner’s understanding of Ummah (community of believers) as a homogenous phenomenon is misleading since it ignores the existence of diversity of cultures and institutions in Muslim societies. He further argues that neither the concept nor the function of civil society, as a complex of social institutions and groups counterbalancing the state, are alien to Muslim countries.20 It is worth mentioning that Gellner’s model of Muslim societies was based on inadequate empirical data largely drawn from some medieval/premodern North African Muslim societies, which he later generalized and applied to all the Muslim societies across the globe and for all times to come. Moreover, Gellner’s thesis implies a position that is more polemical than intellectual. Now coming to the second set of arguments, the Euro-centric approach and bias is implicit in the works of Adam Seligman, John Hall and Şerif Mardin who assert that there cannot be civil society outside Europe and America. Regarding Norton’s and Gellner’s insistence on civility as a necessary precondition for civil society, it may be argued that the concept of civility which entails tolerance and is the basis of social cohesion in European political thought seems to have been understood in a very narrow and reductive sense. Like Norton, Diamond’s understanding of civil society seems to be very Euro-centric, and hence, reductive as he deems democracy and market economy as essential preconditions for civil society. Similarly, Zureik has also limited the scope of the concept of civil society to corporate

18 David Herbert, Religion and Civil Society: Rethinking Public Religion in the Contemporary World (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003), 76–77, for details see 76–79. 19 Masoud Kamali, Multiple Modernities, Civil Society and Islam: The Case of Iran and Turkey (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2006), 36. 20 Ibid., 242, 245, for details see 242–46.

TANVIR ANJUM 34

institutions ignoring other autonomous civil associations which may also represent civil society. According to Goldberg, Zureik’s assertion is mistaken since she has included ‘corporate’ as a necessary precondition for institutions to exist as a form of civil society.21 Civil society does not seem to exist in Muslim societies when seen through the lens of Euro-American assumptions and conceptual baggage of the term. The views regarding to the civil society stated in the first section seem to be constrained by the straightjacket of European concepts which were born out of peculiar historical conditions in Europe, and it is misleading to search for the same historical conditions elsewhere outside Europe, and employ such historically-embedded concepts to non-European contexts without extricating these concepts from their historical-empirical baggage. In short, these essentialist and Orientalist arguments are based on the notion of Islamic exceptionalism, historical and cultural specificity of the concept of civil society as well as the underlying assumptions regarding the preconditions necessary for the existence of civil society in a polity. However, these arguments and their underlying assumptions raise the following questions: Can civil society exist and flourish in non-European settings, and particularly in Muslim societies? Were the conditions in which the concept of civil society developed exclusive to Europe? Do democracy, market economy, modernity and the like constitute the necessary preconditions for the existence of civil society? Can the concept of civil society be divested of its meanings and connotations rooted in liberal discourse? The ensuing discussion tries to address these questions by bringing to the fore the limitations of the Euro-American perspectives on the notion of civil society in general.

Euro-American Perspectives on Civil Society and their Limitations

The above discussion reveals that the theorists and scholars of civil society have largely employed a reductive approach while studying civil society in Muslim contexts. Moreover, it shows that the concept of civil society, as an analytical tool, is quite elusive and contested. Scholars have deployed different conceptions and models of civil society with little consensus on what constitutes civil society, and what organizations and institutional arrangements are included in it. In the words of a critic, “rarely has so heavy an analytic cargo been strapped on the back of so slender a conceptual beast.”22

21 Ellis Goldberg, “Private Goods, Public Wrongs, and Civil Society in Some Medieval Arab Theory and Practice” in Ellis Goldberg, et al., eds., Rules and Rights in the Middle East: Democracy, Law, and Society (Seattle: University of Washington, 1993), 249, footnote no. 4. 22 Robert W. Hefner, “On the History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Democratic Ideal,” in Robert W. Hefner, ed., Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 35

Owing to these and similar limitations, the Euro-American models of and perspectives on civil society have been contested both theoretically and empirically by the critics. The analytical utility of the Euro-American perspectives on civil society has been challenged by critics. Some have altogether questioned the possible use of the concept as an analytical tool for comparative purposes, while others considering these models to be inadequate for explaining societies in non-Euro-American contexts, have attempted to propound alternative models of civil society. Moreover, the conceptual problems in using the concept as an analytical tool notwithstanding, attempts have been made to redefine the concept in order to make it useful for appreciating the dynamics of state and society. Though Hudson believes that the concept of civil society is historically embedded, and therefore, considers ahistorical and decontextualized approaches to it misleading, he still thinks that it would be a mistake to associate civil society with a single concept such as capitalism, modernity, etc. without extensive qualifications.23 Critics further argue that the concept of civil society has been developed against the backdrop of a particular theoretical tradition. Since the discourse on the concept is deeply embedded in European political philosophy and social theory, therefore, the concept is largely understood in the context of liberal democracy and modernity. That is why modernity encompassing democracy and capitalism/market economy are considered to be essential preconditions for the existence of civil society. Critics of Euro-American perspectives such as Khilnani assert that democracy, capitalism, and modernity do not constitute the necessary preconditions for the existence of civil society.24 The critics brand the concept of civil society as ‘the self-image of modernity,’25 which embodies the ‘epic of Western modernity.’26 To them, the Orientalists have imposed concepts and

Modern Political Ideal (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1998), 7. 23 Wayne Hudson, “Problematizing European Theories of Civil Society,” in David C. Schak and Wayne Hudson, eds., Civil Society in Asia (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003), 9 and 12, for details see 9–19. 24 See for instance, Sunil Khilnani, “The Development of Civil Society,” in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, eds., Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 25, and J. Gray, Post-Liberalism (London: Routledge, 1993), 203. Beckman argues that some civil societies may not be necessarily supportive of democratization in a liberal sense (Björn Beckman, “Explaining Democratization: Notes on the Concept of Civil Society,” in Elisabeth Özdalga and Sune Persson, eds., Civil Society, Democracy and the Muslim World, Papers read at a conference held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul 28–30 October, 1996 (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 1997), 2). 25 Keith Tester, Civil Society (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 51. 26 Khilnani, “The Development of Civil Society,” 14.

TANVIR ANJUM 36

categories rooted in the cultural program of modernity that developed in Europe.27 It is also maintained that the concept of civil society was understood in the Enlightenment era in European context in contrast to the ‘others,’ the so-called ‘uncivil’ societies which included the unenlightened barbarians ruled by despotic rulers.28 Therefore, to Goody, civil society is an ethnocentric term,29 suggesting the superiority of Europe—the home of civil society, over the rest of the world. The civil society discourse is closely linked to other related concepts such as individualism and civility. Again, the concept of civil society is seen to be rooted in modern European ideals of liberal-individualism, wherein political and economic freedom has been understood in a narrow sense. Similarly, the concept of civility30 or tolerance and acceptance of differences as the basis of social cohesion and a precondition for civil society implies a narrow liberal-modern connotation in context of European political and social thought.31 Moreover, civil society is sometimes conceived within the framework of nation-state, but critics contend that the principles underlying civil society claim universal validity, and there were strong civil society initiatives before and without the nation-state.32 In other words, nationalism and nation-state are also not prerequisites for the existence of civil society. Hudson contends that the contemporary European literature on civil society confuses European configurations of civil society with civil society per se.33 Other critics also contend that civil society is not a unique product of Europe. Goody, for instance, argues that the uniqueness of the notion of civil society and the particular virtues of the European commune, especially in preparing the way for economic progress, have been greatly exaggerated.34 27 Miriam Hoexter, “Concluding Remarks: Public Sphere, Civil Society, and Political Dynamics in Islamic Societies,” in Miriam Hoexter, et al., eds., The Public Sphere in Muslim Societies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), 142. 28 Jack R. Goody, “Civil Society in an Extra-European Perspective,” in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, eds., Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 149. 29 Ibid., 151. 30 For a detailed discussion, see Leroy S. Rouner, ed., Civility (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000). 31 Partha Chatterjee claims that the concept of civil society has its roots in the provincialism of European social philosophy (Partha Chatterjee, “A Response to Taylor’s Modes of Civil Society,” Public Culture, 3: 1 (1990), 120. 32 Jürgen Kocka, “Civil Society in Historical Perspective,” in John Keane, ed., Civil Society: Berlin Perspectives (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), 47. 33 Hudson, “Problematizing European Theories of Civil Society,” 15. 34 Goody, “Civil Society in an extra-European Perspective,” 164. For Goody, this is also the case with the idea that the Enlightenment established a special form of rationality perceived to be responsible for achievements in Europe.

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 37

Owing to the liberal-modern connotations of the concept, the need to extricate it from the liberal agenda has been stressed by some critics. To Beckman, “the problem lies with the way in which the concept of civil society has been incorporated into a liberal political agenda in a way that reduces its usefulness, theoretically and analytically. It generates forms of circular reasoning which are incompatible with good theory…” 35 Moreover, in contemporary usage, there exists no single concept of civil society, as there are multiple conceptions of civil society in Euro-American intellectual tradition. Pointing out the ‘inflation’ in the use of the term, Seligman remarks that the concept has been used in every context imaginable and imbued with as many meanings as their authors.36 If we take into account the historical trajectory of the development of the concept, it will be revealed how the meanings of the term have changed over time acquiring quite different, and even conflicting, connotations in different theoretical traditions and historical contexts. For instance, in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe, when many unitary states with extensive control over definite territories emerged and consequently replaced the fragmented system of feudal rule, civil society was understood as an alternative to state of nature by John Locke (1632–1704).37 The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries or the Enlightenment era in Europe witnessed the emergence of modern state system with highly centralized and increasingly bureaucratic forms of absolute monarchical rule. In this era, the concept of civil society emerged as a critique to absolutism or monarchy in the works of Montesquieu (1689–1755),38 and as an arena restraining the absolute power of the ruler in the thought of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).39 When the latter part of the eighteenth century witnessed the mushroom growth of voluntary organizations and charitable societies, particularly in Britain, Adam Ferguson (1723–1816) conceived of civil society as a self-regulatory and self-governing

35 Beckman, “Explaining Democratization,” 1. 36 Adam B. Seligman, “Between Public and Private: Towards a Sociology of Civil Society,” in Robert W. Hefner, ed., Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Modern Political Ideal (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1998), 79–80. 37 John Dunn, “The Contemporary Political Significance of John Locke’s Conception of Civil Society,” in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, eds., Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 39–57. 38 M. Richter, “Montesquieu and the Concept of Civil Society,” The European Legacy, 3: 6 (1998), 33–41. 39 The notion of bürgerliche Gesellschaft or civil society in the works of Kant is understood as an arena or sphere that is beyond the political order but meant to restrain the absolute power of the ruler. H. Islamoglu, “Civil Society, Concept and History of” in Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001), 3: 1893.

TANVIR ANJUM 38

society in opposition to the state.40 Later, in the backdrop of the rise and growth of capitalism and industrialization in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, civil society was understood as a realm where economic relations and social transactions were perceived as important as political institutions by Adam Smith (1723–1790).41 Hegel (1770–1831) defined the concept as a legal sphere of the state,42 Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) as a realm of representative secondary institutions;43 and Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) as a counterpoint to the state.44 This brief overview reveals how the concept evolved with varied and quite often conflicting meanings which were embedded in the peculiar historical developments taking place in Europe over the centuries. At one point in time, civil society was equated with the state, while at the other, it was seen as opposed to the state; similarly at one point, it was equated with market economy, but later sharply distinguished from it. Thus different genealogies of the meanings of the term civil society partly explain why there are and have been multiple understandings of it, which have added to the complexity and ambiguity in its usage and application. In contemporary times, there are multiple usages of the concept of civil society. It is being used as: (i) a political slogan for criticizing various government policies at the hands of activists; (ii) a normative philosophical concept and utopian ethical ideal guaranteeing good life; and (iii) an analytical tool or model to explain various socio-political phenomena. The contemporary civil society discourse also reveals that the concept of civil society has been much politicized as well. That is why some critics declare it as a normative concept, while others vehemently reject it as a false-ideology having a non-reflexive character.45 Others argue that it is more ideological and

40 Ibid. See also, John Varty, “Civic or Commercial? Adam Ferguson’s Concept of Civil Society,” in Robert Fine and Shirin Rai, eds., Civil Society: Democratic Perspectives (London and Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, 1997), 29–48; and Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, Fania Oz-Salzberger, ed. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 41 Fania Oz-Salzberger, “Civil Society in the Scottish Enligtenment,” in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, eds., Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 58. 42 Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992), 91–116. 43 Jean Terrier and Peter Wagner, “Civil Society and the Problématique of Political Modernity,” in Peter Wagner, ed., Languages of Civil Society (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), 21–23. 44 N. Bobbio, “Gramsci and the Concept of Civil Society,” in John Keane, ed., Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives (London and New York: Verso, 1988), 73–100. See also Cohen and Arato, Civil Society and Political Theory, 144. 45 See for instance, Göran Therborn, “Beyond Civil Society: Democratic Experiences and their

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 39

programmatic than analytical.46 The contemporary understandings of civil society are contested on other counts as well. Not only various patterns of the state-civil society relationship ranging from opposition to collaboration, and from mere distinction to complete autonomy of civil society from the state, are being contested, the relationship of civil society with the market and the society at large is also being debated. Another contested issue in the discourse on civil society pertains to the relationship of civil society with religion. So with ever fluctuating, sometimes expanding and sometimes shrinking, conceptual frontiers of the concept of civil society, it is said to have acquired ‘conceptual polymorphousness.’47

The Contested Role of Religion in Civil Society

In the recent debates on civil society, its relationship with religion has been much contested. As pointed out earlier, some contemporary scholars have narrowed down the scope of civil society by excluding the role of religion or religious organizations from it. This notion of incompatibility of religious organizations with civil society has been postulated by scholars like Diamond who maintains that the pluralistic and market-oriented nature of civil society makes it incompatible with the religious, ethnic, revolutionary or millenarian organizations that attempt to monopolize a functional or political space in society. Therefore, he excludes the inward-looking group activity (such as for recreation, entertainment, or spirituality) from the scope of civil society.48 However, such a generalization seems to be unwarranted. It has been asserted that the roots of such assertions can be traced back to the classical European political theory, wherein the civil was considered to be opposed to the religious.49 In fact, almost all the accounts of civil society by Enlightenment Relevance to the ‘Middle East’,” in Elisabeth Özdalga and Sune Persson, eds., Civil Society, Democracy and the Muslim World, Papers read at a conference held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul 28–30 October, 1996 (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 1997), 45. 46 Beckman considers civil society as an “ideological rather than an analytical construct.” Beckman, “Explaining Democratization,” 1. Similarly, with reference to contemporary discourse on civil society in Africa, Mamdani observes that it is “more programmatic than analytical, more ideological than historical.” Mahmood Mamdani, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 13. 47 Hefner, “On the History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Democratic Ideal,” 7. Sven Reichardt also considers the term ‘polymorphic.’ “Civility, Violence and Civil Society,” in John Keane, ed., Civil Society: Berlin Perspectives (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), 141. 48 Diamond, “Rethinking Civil Society: Towards Democratic Consolidation,” 5–7. 49 Hann, “Introduction: Political Society and Civil Anthropology,” 6.

TANVIR ANJUM 40

thinkers shared some version of the Enlightenment critique of religion,50 the echo of which can still be heard in one of the contemporary conceptions of civil society denouncing any role of religion in it.

A number of civil society theorists and scholars have, however, advocated for broadening the scope of civil society by including religion in its theoretical-conceptual framework. Casanova, for instance, identifies religion in the public sphere of civil society, and views it as an important force resisting the domination of social life both by the state and the market.51 Douglass and Friedmann also consider religious organizations as one of the forms of civil society.52 Falk examines and argues for the theoretical possibility of the role of religion in the development of humane global civil society and governance.53 Hudson asserts that theoretically a civil society can be of religious nature.54 Similarly, Herbert also makes the case for the inclusion of religious associations and organizations within the theoretical-conceptual scope of civil society expressions.55

The arguments of the studies on the close connections between religion and civil society can broadly be classified into two categories: first that religion plays a constructive role in the development of civil society, and second that religion hinders the growth of civil society. Kocka, therefore, maintains that the role of religion and religiosity in the development or obstruction of civil society may be very different in different situations.56 An edited work by Juergensmeyer also identifies diversified roles which religion can play and is playing in global civil society.57 Wuthnow challenges the assumption that since religion promotes conflict, it is inimical to civil society. Instead, he argues that the presence of contending religious groups can play a positive role in the development of civil society.58

50 Herbert, Religion and Civil Society, 71 and 73. 51 J. Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994), 229. 52 C. Douglass and J. Friedmann, Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age (Chichester: Wiley, 1998), 2. 53 Richard A. Falk, Religion and Humane Global Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001). 54 Hudson, “Problematizing European Theories of Civil Society,” 14, 16. 55 Herbert, Religion and Civil Society. 56 Kocka, “Civil Society in Historical Perspective,” 45. 57 Mark Juergensmeyer, ed., Religion in Global Civil Society (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). See also Mark Juergensmeyer, “The Church, the Mosque, and Global Civil Society,” Mary Kaldor, et al., eds. Global Civil Society 2006/7 (London: Sage Publications, 2007), 144–159. 58 Robert Wuthnow, “A Reasonable Role for Religion? Moral Practices, Civic Participation, and Market Behavior” in Robert W. Hefner, ed., Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 41

A number of empirical case studies also prove the destructive and/or constructive role of religion in civil society. For instance, the study by Briscoe empirically proves how the Anglican Church destroyed indigenous civil societies in Australia during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.59 On the contrary, a plethora of literature brings to the fore the constructive role of religion in the development of civil society. The study by Dunn locates the traditional forms of civil society in the religious community of Mormons in America,60 while Vichit-Vadakan interprets the role of religious groups associated with the Buddhist temples, along with other groups, as a kind of civil society in Thailand.61 Foote examines the role and functions of ecclesiastical institutions in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Italy as a mode of civil society, and concludes that religious organizations may also be included within the scope of civil society.62 The study by D’Costa establishes the role and contribution of contemporary faith-based Muslim groups in Bangladesh as a part of civil society.63 In short, on the basis of empirical evidence, the case for the theoretical possibility of a civil society having a religious character is further substantiated.

Conceptualizing Civil Society in non-European Contexts

Keeping in view the deficiencies and problems in current understanding and usage of the concept of civil society, its study in non-European, including Muslim societies, may provide a corrective to the Euro-American perspectives on it. Critics argue that since there is no single model of civil society, its diverse expressions can be located in non-European societies which may have developed their own modalities and expressions of civil society. Therefore, the concept is redefined and expanded, in order to be applied to cross-cultural and

Possibility of a Modern Political Ideal (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1998), 113–29. 59 Gordon Briscoe, “Religion and the Destruction of Aboriginal Society: The Paradox of Australian Indigenous Civil Societies,” in Helen James, ed., Civil Society, Religion and Global Governance: Paradigms of Power and Persuasion (New York: Routledge, 2007), 61–71. 60 Elizabeth Dunn, “Money, Morality and Modes of Civil Society among American Mormons,” in Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn, eds., Civil Society: Challenging Western Models (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 27–49. 61 Juree Vichit-Vadakan, “Thai Civil Society: Exploring a Diverse and Complex Landscape,” in David C. Schak and Wayne Hudson, eds., Civil Society in Asia (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003), 87–102. 62 David Foote, Lordship, Reform, and the Development of Civil Society in Medieval Italy: The Bishopric of Orvieto, 1100–1250 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004). 63 Bina D’Costa, “Faith, NGOs and the Politics of Development in Bangladesh,” in Helen James, ed., Civil Society, Religion and Global Governance: Paradigms of Power and Persuasion (New York: Routledge, 2007), 219–37.

TANVIR ANJUM 42

cross-spatial settings. A large number of empirical studies identify diverse expressions of civil society in countries and regions like Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Russia, China, Japan, South East Asia and South Asia, etc. Most of these studies have, however, employed the European models of civil society. In addition, a few empirical studies attempt to challenge the Euro-American models of civil society by redefining and expanding the scope of the concept itself. For instance, Egyptian scholar Saad Eddin Ibrahim identifies varied modalities of civil society in the pre-modern Arab World.64 White views traditional informal women associations in urban Turkey as a form of civil society.65 As pointed earlier, Dunn’s study locates the traditional forms of civil society in the religious community of Mormons in America.66 Goody presents a case study of the possibility of civil society in pre-colonial Africa where there existed ‘headless’ tribes and polities, in addition to states with central government.67 Vichit-Vadakan interprets the role of indigenous traditional organizations such as informal kinship-based groups, philanthropic organizations, and religious groups associated with the Buddhist temples as a form of civil society in Thailand.68 Unlike the modernization theorists who viewed solidarities of caste, community and religion as undesirable, and as signs of backwardness in the decade of 1970s, Randeria considers the traditional identities of caste, solidarities of religion, linguistic, ethnic, and regional affiliations as expressions of civil society in modern India.69 Similarly, in her work on Muslim women and civil society in the Arab Gulf, Krause expands the definition and scope of civil society beyond its Euro-American

64 Saad Eddin Ibrahim, “Civil Society and Prospects for Democratization in the Arab World,” in Andrew Richard Norton, ed., Civil Society in the Middle East (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995) 1: 27–54. 65 Instead of locating civil society in formal structures and organizations, White approaches the issue differently by examining the beliefs, values and everyday practices as well as the informal associations of working-class women in Istanbul as different manifestations of civil society. Jenny White, “Civic Culture and Islam in Urban Turkey,” in Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn, eds., Civil Society: Challenging Western Models (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 143–154. 66 Dunn, “Money, Morality and Modes of Civil Society among American Mormons,” 27–49. 67 Goody, “Civil Society in an Extra-European Perspective,” in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, eds., Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 161–62, for details see 149–64. Goody suggests that though the ‘headless’ tribes and polities did not lack governance, they lacked a governing body of a centralized kind. So, according to Goody, there was little or nothing to which civil society could be opposed. 68 Vichit-Vadakan, “Thai Civil Society: Exploring a Diverse and Complex Landscape,” 87–102. 69 Shalini Randeria, “Entangled Histories: Civil Society, Cast Solidarities and Legal Pluralism in Post-colonial India,” in John Keane, ed., Civil Society: Berlin Perspectives (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), 213–42.

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 43

configurations and includes indigenous expressions of civil society and multiple forms of women’s agency in it.70 These studies reveal how widely the concept of civil society has been employed in contemporary literature. The findings of these studies prove the existence of diverse, indigenous and traditional forms of civil society in many non-European contexts. Many civil organizations and groups operate within their traditional ideology quite unlike modern-liberal models of civil society based on contract and market. Such indigenous, informal and traditional associations and groups based on ethnicity, kinship or religion, etc. are found in almost all societies. These should not be dismissed as ‘primordial,’ and hence not a form of civil society. There is a need to approach civil society in non-European contexts wary of the fact that all societies have different histories as well as social structures and traditions, and European societies cannot be simplistically compared or contrasted with the non-European ones. Moreover, dichotomous conceptual categories like formal-informal and traditional-modern employed in many empirical studies on civil society need also to be transcended in order to allow more room for analytical rigor and conceptual clarity. So now we return to the question of the possibility of the existence of civil society in Muslim contexts.

Civil Society in Muslim Contexts: Theoretical Possibility and Empirical Evidence

Challenging the assumptions and assertions regarding the incompatibility of civil society with Islam, many scholars have argued for a theoretical possibility of civil society in Muslim societies, while others have brought out empirical evidences of it as well. What follows is a brief analysis of their views and findings. Beckman points to the theoretical possibility of an Muslim civil society in addition to patriarchal, communist, fascist and liberal-democratic type of civil societies.71 For Herbert, Islam is not hostile to structural differentiation, which is the basis of civil society, in normative or practical sense.72 In other words, Islam or Muslim culture is not incompatible with civil society, and the theoretical possibility of civil society in Muslim contexts is not far fetched. Goldberg’s brief article interprets the legal and political devices in mercantile practices and urban markets in the premodern Arab society as an 70 Wanda Krause, Women in Civil Society: The State, Islamism, and Networks in the UAE (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 71 Beckman, “Explaining Democratization,” 2. 72 Herbert, Religion and Civil Society, 79 and 64.

TANVIR ANJUM 44

articulation of civil society. He argues that in premodern Arab society, there existed a civil society in which people managed to assert claims to and defend their property from kings on a systematic basis. Elsewhere in the same article, Goldberg asserts that “in medieval Muslim society there were significant and significantly successful attempts by the wealthy and the educated to construct patterns of social relationships that existed apart from and probably in opposition to the coercive rule of the state.”73 So in addition to economic relations, he also includes social relationships that constructed the civil society in premodern Arab world. He adds that the notion of civil society is largely misunderstood. Goldberg rightly observes that in nineteenth-century Europe, civil society was considered to have been created by groups having economic or commercial interests. Since the image of civil society is that of corporate urban institutions, the existence of non-corporate institutions which allow individuals to pursue common interests without direction or interference of the government is not recognized.74 As already mentioned, Ibrahim identifies varied modalities of civil society in the premodern Arab world, and points to the “resilient traditional Arab civil formations” of premodern times such as guilds, awqāf (charitable trusts and endowments), the ‘ulam┐’ (the religious scholars) and the ╗uf┘s. He interprets the leaders of these associations or groups as custodians of civil society, since they acted as advisers to the rulers and acted as mediators between the rulers and the ruled, and thus helped mitigate the absolutist nature of the premodern Arab Muslim state.75 Arjomand examines the institution of waqf in Islamic law, which dealt with philanthropic endowments or charitable trusts including madrasahs (institutions for Islamic learning) as the mode of agency of the Persian civil society under the Seljuqs and Ilkhanis from tenth to fourteenth centuries. The study reveals complex patterns of state-civil society relationship, including the complementary relationship between the two, as there existed the historical tradition of the involvement of public authorities in philanthropy. Moreover, Arjomand challenges the assumption of inveterate opposition between civil society and the state as the basis of the modern conception of civil society. He views the involvement of public authorities as a source of empowering civil society and strengthening its autonomous agency,76 rather than as a countervailing force for it.

73 Goldberg, “Private Goods, Public Wrongs, and Civil Society in Some Medieval Arab Theory and Practice,” 251, 252, for details see 248–71. 74 Ibid., 267. 75 Ibrahim, “Civil Society and Prospects for Democratization in the Arab World,” 30–31. 76 Said Amir Arjomand, “Philanthropy, the Law, and Public Policy in the Islamic World before

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 45

For centuries the Muslim societies have developed their own versions of civility and civil society which have been different from those of Europe. For Mitsuo, these include the independence of Muslim communities from the state under the spiritual leadership of the ‘ulam┐’, rule of law to protect personal life and property, religious and ethnic pluralism, and consultative and consensus-based methods of decision-making.77 So there has been civility and public sphere in the Muslim societies in its own ways including mechanisms to restrain the arbitrariness of rule and to ensure the autonomy of diversified associational life. It may be argued that the concept of civil society may be of European origin, most of its vital characteristics are also found in Islamic ethical theory. Hanafi in his article “Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society: A Reflective Islamic Approach” contends that Muslim civil society is differentiated involving many organizations and institutions,

since Islamic theory and practice sustain a number of legitimate human groupings existing between the state and the individual. These groupings are endowed with their own sphere of autonomy free from government intrusion, which made Islamic societies historically far less monolithic and undifferentiated than some Western stereotypes of a theocratic society allow.78

The varied modes of civil society range from the concept of ummah (which Hanafi defines as a nation without boundaries) to the institutions of ‘ulam┐’, judges, awqāf, ╗┴f┘ groups and the like. These institutions play roles similar to those identified with civil society.79 In a similar manner, Sajoo questions the myth of Islamic exceptionalism and the deterministic logic underlying the assumption that Muslim values are inherently incompatible with modern civil society and civic culture.80 A number of case studies in his edited work highlight the complexity and diversity in Muslim societies in terms of various forms of social and cultural practices, and civic institutional arrangements. Sajoo contends that civil

the Modern Era,” in Warren Frederick Ilchman, et al., eds., Philanthropy in the World’s Traditions (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1998), 127, for details see 109–32. 77 Nakamura Mitsuo, “Introduction,” in Nakamura Mitsuo, et al., eds., Islam and Civil Society in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2001), 5. 78 Hasan Hanafi, “Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society: A Reflective Islamic Approach,” in Simone Chambers and Will Kymlicka, eds., Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2002), 172 and 174, for details see 171–89. 79 Ibid., 173–75. 80 Amyn B. Sajoo, “Introduction: Civic Quests and Bequests,” in Amyn B. Sajoo, ed. Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives (London and New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, 2002), 7–8.

TANVIR ANJUM 46

society is not merely a ‘Western dream,’ it has become a Muslim dream in contemporary times.81 In the same volume, Arkoun, however, warns against the mistaken approach of applying the attributes and features of Euro-American civic cultures to the Muslim societies in order to locate civil society in them.82 In fact, Muslim societies had and may have their own expressions and modalities of civil society, very different from those of Europe and America. A recent study by Kamali analyzes the role of the bāzārīs (the merchants, producers and shopkeepers whose business centres on the bazaars), in addition to the ‘ulam┐’, who constituted the core of indigenous civil societies of Ottoman Empire in premodern Turkey, and premodern Persia. The work partly covers the role of the two groups in modern Turkey and Iran as well. Kamali not only challenges the Orientalist assertions including those by Gellner regarding the impossibility of civil society in Muslim contexts, he also suggests a sociological model of Muslim civil societies. He identifies two different patterns of civil society in the contemporary Muslim countries: one, an indigenous civil society based on a core of quasi-traditional and indigenous-modern influential groups; and second, a modern civil society built around a core of Euro-American intellectuals and modern social groups.83 In addition to the above, other studies briefly refer to some historical antecedents of civil society in premodern Muslim societies without much elaboration. Eickelman, for instance, refers to many precedents of civil society in premodern contexts, including that of the Buyid/Buwayhid dynasty of tenth- and eleventh-century Iran and Iraq, under which there existed an orderly social life based on shared understandings of trust, loyalty and patronage, as well as networks of obligations, which were distinct from the state.84 Similarly, while locating civil society in early and medieval Muslim polities, Thompson refers to the emergence of a new ‘Muslim civil society’ outside Arabia from eleventh century onwards which was constituted by a new patrician class of scholar merchant families autonomous from the state.85 However, the work focuses exclusively on the role of women in public sphere constituting civil society.

81 Ibid., 18. 82 Mohammed Arkoun, “Locating Civil Society in Islamic Contexts,” in Amyn B. Sajoo, ed., Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives (London and New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, 2002), 55. 83 Kamali, Multiple Modernities, Civil Society and Islam, 255. 84 Dale F. Eickelman, “Foreword” in Andrew Richard Norton, ed., Civil Society in the Middle East (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 2: x. 85 Elizabeth F. Thompson, “Civil Society,” in Suad Joseph and Afsaneh Najmabadi, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures (Leiden and Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2003), 2: 34–35.

CIVIL SOCIETY IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS 47

The role and functions of various institutions as agents of civil society have been duly recognized and studied in a number of scholarly works on civil society in different Muslim countries and regions. These studies show that attempts have been made to cross-spatially and cross-culturally apply the concept to Muslim civil societies. These studies provide empirical evidence of the existence of civil society in diverse geographical settings, which include studies on civil society in the Middle East, particularly Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey; African Muslim countries including Egypt, Sudan and Morocco; Central Asia, South Asia including Pakistan and Bangladesh; and South East Asia including Indonesia and Malaysia.86 However, these studies are focused more on contemporary Muslim societies, particularly in the context of democratization and modernization. Moreover, many of them study the so-called ‘modern’ expressions of civil society such as NGOs, CSOs and modern pressure groups, and do not generally focus on its traditional or indigenous modes. In fact, in the contemporary discourse, civil society is largely understood and perceived within the modernist framework employing a formal organizational approach to it. To conclude, the literature arguing for the theoretical possibility of civil society in the Muslim contexts and the empirical studies on it establish the relevance of the concept of civil society for the Muslim societies. The principles underlying civil society claim universal validity, and the concept is not culturally and historically specific. These studies reveal that historical antecedents of civil society and its diverse expressions are not to be exclusively located in European history alone; rather, they can be explored in non-European contexts including Muslim societies as well as in both modern and 86 See, for instance, Sheila Carapico, Civil Society in Yemen: The Political Economy of Activism in Modern Arabia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Masoud Kamali, Revolutionary Iran: Civil Society and State in the Modernization Process (Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate, 1998); Günter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff, Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism: Studies on Political Culture in Contemporary Turkey (Istanbul: Ergon, 2000); Denis Joseph Sullivan and Sana Abed-Kotob, Islam in Contemporary Egypt: Civil Society vs. the State (Boulder, Colo.: L. Rienner, 1999); Yoanes Ajawin and Alex de Waal, eds. When Peace Comes: Civil Society and Development in Sudan (Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea Press, 2002); James N. Sater, Civil Society and Political Change in Morocco (London and New York: Routledge, 2007); M. Holt Ruffin and Daniel C. Waugh, eds., Civil Society in Central Asia (Seattle: Center for Civil Society International, 1999); Mizan R. Khan and Mohammad Humayun Kabir, eds., Civil Society and Democracy in Bangladesh (Dhaka: Academic Press and Publishers in association with Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies, 2002); Iftikhar H. Malik, State and Civil Society in Pakistan: Politics of Authority, Ideology, and Ethnicity (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997); Mikaela Nyman, Democratising Indonesia: The Challenges of Civil Society in the Era of Reformasi (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2006); and Meredith Leigh Weiss, Protest and Possibilities: Civil Society and Coalitions for Political Change in Malaysia (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2005).

TANVIR ANJUM 48

premodern times. Neither the concept nor the function of civil society as a complex of social institutions and groups protecting public interests vis-à-vis the assertive claims of political authorities are alien to historical and contemporary Muslim societies across the globe. However, in order to conceptualize civil society in Muslim contexts, one needs to go beyond its narrow reductive Euro-centric understandings. Civil society in the Muslim context needs to be understood on its own terms, and not to be seen through the lens of European history.

∗ ∗ ∗