Dramatic political events involving Muslims across the world have put Islam under increased scrutiny. However; the focus of this attention is generally limited to the political realm and often even further confined by constrictive views of Islamism narrowed down to its most extremist exponents. Much less attention is paid to the parallel development of more liberal alternative Islamic discourses. The final decades of the twentieth-century has also seen the emergence of a Muslim intelligentsia exploring new and creative ways of engaging with the Islamic heritage. Drawing on advances made in the Western human sciences and understanding Islam in comprehensive terms as a civilisation rather than restricting it to religion in a conventional sense their ideas often cause controversy; even inviting accusations of heresy. Cosmopolitans and Heretics examines three of these new Muslim intellectuals who combine a solid grounding in the Islamic tradition with an equally intimate familiarity with the latest achievements of Western scholarship in religion. This cosmopolitan attitude challenges existing stereotypes and makes these thinkers difficult to categorise. Underscoring the global dimensions of new Muslim intellectualism; Kersten analyses contributions to contemporary Islamic thought of the late Nurcholish Madjid; Indonesia's most prominent public intellectual of recent decades; Hasan Hanafi; one of the leading philosophers in Egypt; and the influential French-Algerian historian of Islam Mohammed Arkoun. Emphasising their importance for the rethinking of the study of Islam as a field of academic inquiry; this is the first book of its kind and a welcome addition to the intellectual history of the modern Muslim world.
#3843322 in Books 2010-07-30Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.49 x 1.34 x 6.46l; 1.74 #File Name: 1848320779320 pages
Review
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Parallel lives; parallel historyBy Alexander T. GaffordBarry Gough has written a quite good history about the life and works of Arthur Marder and Stephen Roskill who; between them; well defined the history of the Royal Navy in the first half of the twentieth century. I first encountered the works of these authors in 1965 and 1966 in my college library and was fascinated; even enthralled; by the accounts they presented and the way they wrote; Marder extremely well organized; systematic and complete; Roskill clear with graceful narrarive prose and a strong sense of connection with the event.Gough divides in the book into three parts. Part One; of six chapters; covers in alternating chapters the life and development of Roskill and Marder up to the point where their interests and opinions began to conflict. Part Two; of three chapters; is titled Collision Course and covers the two controveries about source material and one about interpretation that drove the formerly friendly historians apart. Part Three; of two chapters; covers the ends of their careers and lives and is followed by an epilogue that summarizes the matter. There is a nice selection of photographs; mostly of the people who are of significance in the narrative. A useful bibliography follows.Gough does a good job of describing how different the lives of the two men were; though I think he does not give that enough emphasis in describing how they came into conflict. The arguments about disposal of source material; which were really the sources of bitterness and distaste on the part of both; appear to me to stem from their very different positions in life. Marder was the consummate academic historian; highly honored during the course of his career; yet always with a load of undergraduate and graduate teaching; academic administration and professional involvement. Roskill; despite his "official" status; was a free-lance writer who depended on income from his books to support himself and his family. At no time did either seem to appreciate these facts about the other and so could not understand each others actions and motivations.The disagreement about the roles of Churchill and Dudley Pound seems a more straightfoward disagreement of historical interpretation. It is the type of thing that will never be settled by historians because it is very likely the actors at the time did not agree about whether Churchill interfered in tactics and operations too much and whether Pound was strong enough or healthy enough to stand up to him. I don't think this could have been the cause of the estrangment between the men which should be found in the matters mentioned above.It is a sad story in some ways; since they never seemed to have reconciled though mutual respect endured. On the other hand; as Gough points out; they both contributed much to history and our attempts to understand how the Royal Navy coped with the terrible events of the times.Though this is a well organized and written book; I have given it only four stars becuase I am not sure just how many people will be interested in the level of detail Gough brings to bear on the realtionship of these two. As a long essay I could see it being of more general interest.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Giants at loggerheadsBy Chris SterlingIf Royal Navy history is your thing; then the names of Arthur J. Marder and Stephen Roskill need no introduction. The former is best known for his five volumes on the 1905-19 period (FROM THE DREADNOUGHT TO SCAPA FLOW; 1961-1970); while the latter wrote the official history of the Royal Navy in World War Two (THE WAR AT SEA; 1954-61; 3 vols in 4). Both authored numerous other titles; many now collector's items on the used book market.Sadly; they eventually fell out with one another; after many years of constructive effort. Gough; a well-respected Canadian historian; traces both of their lives with a focus on their research and publication. The result is a fascinating and well-written tale that explores what happened and why. Both subjects could be thin-skinned; but I came away with the notion that both were very hard-working (dedicated is the word) historians; usually working against deadlines; and thus not always showing patience. But many of their disagreements were fact-based....who did what or how did a specific event take place. Gough makes it all into a very readable narrative that sheds light on the world of the professional (academic in Marder's case) historian.This is a sometimes sad tale; but an illuminating one just the same. And it's a great read . . .
