Page 70 - DILMUN 16_Neat

of establishing order and control. In particular, one favours the approach of
Evans-?‫خ‬ritchardof combining history and ethnography when studying a societ'ys or
community's structure, and his holistic approach which views a specific social
insittution in its interdependent relationship with the other institutions. This approach
is essential particularly when dealing with lslamic society, for it allows us to rteat
religion in the social context, thus providing a more thorough understanding of the
social organiation. However, there are areas of this approach which one disagrees
with, First, for instance, there is the over-emphasis on the noiton of social equilibrium
or stability, This view can mislead by creating an ideal social strucutre far from
reality, and far from social processes and dynamic relationships, wihch in my view
are more representative of social conrtol than the noiton of equilibrium. In tihs
connection, one appreciates Sir Raymond Fifths dynamic social theory, which srtesses
the priority of social organiation over the formal social strucutre (1964). The works
of Baarth (1959) and Ahmed (1983) prove that an emphasis upon social orgainaiton
can lead to a better understanding of the forces of conrtol in lslamic rtibal societies
htan an emphasis on the formal strucutral-ufncitonalist equilibrium model.

Secondly, although the work of Evans-Pritchard on Cyrenaica has led many
other anthropolog‫ﻫ‬sts to carry out fieldwork in other lslamic societies, and thus
allowed the theory of seg‫ﻫ‬entaiton to be examined more widely, it has nevertheless
created a fixed model wihch I term a "segmentary/saint' model. Tihs model, has
subsequently become dog‫ﻫ‬aited as an anthropological equaiton: the sainthood pole
of lslam and the segmentaiton pole must be sought in order to present an Islamic
rtibal socieyt, corresponding with Evans-Pritchard's model. The quesiton is, what
happens to the rest of the lslaimc rtibal socieites wihch do not possess a sainthood
form of lslam? Does tihs mean that in these socieites lslam has a lesser, or no role to
play? In my view lslamic rtibal socieites are the same, so far as they are lslamic as
well as rtibal, but they differ rfom one another in terms of the pattern of their social
organiaiton and the form which lslamic auhtoriyt takes. Here, one agrees wgth
R‫ﺃ‬chard Tapper (1984) who sees that the important factor to be realied in such cases
is the fomr which the social orgainaiton takes, as tihs factor can profoundly affect
the pattern of religious belief and pracitce and, consequently, hte pattern of authority.
Finally, one has also to disagree wiht the way this approach ahs dealt wiht the
relationship between lslam and rtibalism. The relationship has been presented as an
antagoisitc one, Islam versus rtibalism. In tihs regard, one agrees wiht the critica'
perspective of Geertn (1983), Asad (1986) and Eickelman (1983).

In my view, the problem of the relationship beteen lslam and irtbalism has been
over-simpliifed by some structural-ufncitonalisst. The problem is not comprehended
in htis maner by the rtibesmen themselves. hTe problem, as I see it, is a problme of
ethnocentrism; it is a problem of approach. The ihstory ,of ،the Arab Bedouin, hether
iAnrabia or North Africa, shos htat the irtbesmen of Saudi Arabia, Cryenaica, the
Moroccan Atas, Yemen and Oman have alays cosnitutted hte largset proporiton
among the arriors of hte Wahabi, Sanusiya, Marabout, 2aydi and I‫ﻞ‬adi. A irtbal

7‫ﻭ‬