Page 68 - DILMUN 16_Neat

particular way of looking (Geerty 1968 : 95). People, therefore, tend to attach meaning
o their actions in order to communicate Ihrough then. We believe that this notion is
very relevant as il enables us to see how tribesmen view themselves as Muslim. In
our opinion, Ceertz's nolions on "١hick description' or ethnography ancd of peopl'es
world view and action, provide a more illustralive understanding of the cultural
system of a specific group. If Geerlz's notions are applied in combination with Firth's
dynamic approach, this combination of approaches can provide a useful analytical
framework especially in dealing with the problem of authority and social control in
the context of lslamic tribal society.

Acknowledgment

The Fieldwork upon which some of this paper is based extends over seven years. The
longest period spent amongst the Hajari was for thirteen months (ju‫ﺏ‬l1978 - ju1988 )‫ﺎ‬. Sev‫ﺑ‬eral
trips have been made since then, the latest were in February 1992 and January 1994

A generous grant was received from the University of Bahrain for the first period of
fieldwork and for the completion of Ph.D. and other postgraduates studies at University of
Edinburgh. I wish to thank Anthony Good, from University of Edinburgh, and Charles Sarvan,
Shaikh Khalid bin Khalifa, and john Hilles, from University of Bahrain, for their useful
comments and advices.

eslpomf ath, ese debates and arguments took place between, for instance, Cellner (1969‫ﺃﺭ‬E
1981) and Asad (1968), Ahmed (1968) and Tapper (1992). Some other anthropologists have also
written about the same subject, such as Eickelman (1981, 1983), Geert; (1968), el-2ein (1977)
and Davis (1988).

<gee for example Ahmed's interpretation of Pakhutn culture and society as compared to
that of Barth (Ahmed 1980, Barth 1959.

3F0‫ ﻡ‬the problem of'native anthropologist", see the collection of essays in Faihm (1982) and
El-oSlh and Alltorki (1988), also the ASA special monograph dedicated to the same issue
(Jackson 1987). In all these works (Fahim, 1982; El-Solh and Alltorki, 1988; Jackson, 1987) th
problem of anthropolog‫ﻫ‬st working in his/her own culture is well addressed.

F0; the first kind of works, I refer largely to works that have been carired out by studen‫؟‬
of Biritsh oScial Anthropolog‫ ﻫ‬school, like that of Ahmde in North-westemr Frontier in
Pak‫ﺳ‬stan (1980), of Antoun in Jordan (1971) and Drsech in Yemen (1989). On the other hand,
great amount of the latter kind of works come from the symbolic anthrop‫ﺑ‬log‫ﻫ‬, in general, and
from mAerican school of Culutral Anthropolog‫ﻫ‬, in particula.r Eamplse of these sort of
ethnographic writings are manifsetde in the works carride out in various commuinitse of
Morcoco, such as that of Geertz (1971), Rosen (1984), Eickelman (1976), Rabinow (1975),
Car‫ﺕ‬an‫ﺕ‬aanow(1980) and Dwyer (1982).

81