Page 72 - DILMUN 16_Neat

diffe somelimes, therefore they might on occasion disagree ith each other. Like any
authorities, they might somelimes encounter a situation of conlfict of perspective.
Ahned argues that it is, therefore, equally important to kno the normal rules of this
relationship if e are to kno the extraordinary ones.

Finally, he divides religious leadership in Islamic socieyt into trhee categories. The
first i‫ ﻭ‬the ula hich includes religious men of some religious and legal learning
such as ufti, qadi, aulana and auloe. The second category consists of esoteric and
unorthodox groups such as sufis and a third category contains mainly religious men
ho derive their authority from their holy descent, such as the saints (aliya) (1983:
92-3). The important point hich Ahmed tries to explain here is that the poer and
extend of authority of each category can vary from one society to another, and it is
also possible that each category can serve different roles at different levels of the
same society. Generally, I think, Ahmed's arg‫ﻫ‬ments are orth considering, as they
combine for the ifrst time Gluckman's approach to studying dispute settlement ith
Firth's theory on the dynamic principles of social organiaiton in relaiton to the study
of religious authoriyt in an Islamie rtibal socie.yt

Recently, Richard Antoun has sutdied the role of relig‫ﻫ‬ous auhtority by examining
hte role of an lslamic judge in a tribal village community in jordan. He vieed the
judge's role as a' culutre broker ho introduces changes to the village's values
through his role in the lslamic court. hTe judge through settling disputes is required
to interpret the la, to accommodate it, or to reconcile it ith the people's day-to-day
problems, thus he inrtoduces changes to the communiyt as ell as to the la
(Antoun 1980).

hTe Hermeneutie Effotr

Beyond Evans-Pritchard and the approaches of ihs sutdenst, it is orth looking at
Geert's noiton of religion, since ihs approach has become more ilfnuenital in the
ifeld o٤ lslam. Unlike previous approaches, ihch have been mainly preoccupide ith
the theory of segmentation, ecolog‫ﻫ‬cal consrtaints, dynamic relationships and relig‫ﻫ‬on
as authoriyt in making soical conrtol, Geertn derives ihs noitons on lslma rfom ihs
vie of relig‫ﻫ‬on as "sociolog‫ﻫ‬cally interesting not because ..٠. it describes hte social
order ،.. but because, like environment, poliitcal poer, ealth, jural obligaiton,
personal affeciton, and a sense of beauyt, it shapes it" (Geert 1975 : 19). So religion
does not only describe ho the system of social order ufncitons, it also affecst the
latter, as do other factors such as envriomnent, poliitcal poer, etc.

Most importantly, Geernt deals iht religion as a culutral system and also as a
ystem of .meaning (1975 : 123-25). According to Geert, ،an anthropolog‫ﻫ‬st hen‫؟‬
studying relig‫ﻫ‬on must analyse "the system of meaning embodied in hte smyobls
ihch make up the religion proper, and, second, hte relating of these ssytems to
social srtucrutal and psycholog‫ﻫ‬cal process (1975 : 2).

y