Thanawi's descriptions of customs and Thao's post got me to thinking about similarities between the West and Islamic society in the Bihishti Zewar. These customs described by Thanawi seem to form sociocultural norms practiced by Muslims during this period of time. Often, the customs were extravagant and, as he points out, quite ostentatious. They seem to have formed what the West perceives as Culture (with a capital C). In Victorian Britain, customs existed in much the same way as described by Thanawi. Everyday life was codified by the upper class, and those who did not follow these customs were marginalized or seen as uncultured. It seems like this same codification prevailed in the Islamic society in the Bihishti Zewar. There were particular cultural practices which led to a posturing to attain a certain reputation. In fact, it seems like most of these customs contained a bit of ostentation that served no other purpose but to elevate or maintain desireable social status. Thanawi does quite a bit to dispel these customs, and in my opinion for the best of their well-being. I only think this because of the pages and pages of Bhishti Zewar dedicated to describing (nearly a play by play) of a typical day in the life of a Muslim during this time. Their days- down to the minutes- seemed hindered by these practices which were at the end of the day rendered meaningless. To cite particularly the amount of time spent exchanging money that never was really exchanged, just passed to someone so that they could look at it and then sent back. I also thought it was particularly interesting how Thanawi saw some of these customs as paganistic, because their meaning was not inscribed by anything Islamic, and they had no practical meaning, so the meaning must have come from some unexplained superstition. I am getting this from page 98 in Book 6, "Women also place a sword or knife near the woman giving birth, to protect her against evil. This is, again, a polytheistic charm."
I guess my question is then (since liberation has been such a topic of discussion): does anyone else see the Bihishti Zewar as necessary, as I do, to the freeing of Islamic culture, so that these dudes can just move on to more important things? Also, how do you feel about this from a socioeconomic perspective, and what do you think the effects were it had on the lower class-who were probably just left to emulate these customs to the best of their abilities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not quite sure what you mean by "move on to more important things" -- I think that I would have a better sense of your argument if I knew what you thought Islam was hoping to turn into (or Thanawi's variant of Islam).
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a class aspect to Thanawi's argument. This is Islam for the respectable middle-classes (not Islam for the aristocrats or Islam for the poor). This may seem like a weird comparison, but think about Thanawi's view of the rich and the poor as fitting in pretty similarly to Jane Austen's: the aristocrats are snooty and indulgent; the poor don't aspire to appropriate refinement. It's the middle classes who hold together the cultural and moral seams of the nation. That's where Thanawi puts the emphasis in his polemic. As for the lower classes, my guess is that Thanawi thinks that what's good for their betters is good for them, too, though it is much harder to observe strict seclusion (purdah) for women, when women have to be bread-winners, too.