"Progressiver Islam" im ausgehenden Zarenreich: Das Plädoyer des St. Petersburger Imams und Regierungsbeamten Ataulla Bajazitov (1846-1911) für die Partizipation der Muslime an der modernen Zivilisation

Ataulla Bajazitov (1846-1911) fulfilled a social double role by serving his Tatar community in St. Petersburg as imam and the Russian state as military Muslim ‘cleric’, translator and teacher. By founding Russia’s first monolingual Tatar newspaper, initiating St. Petersburg’s first Friday mosque and presenting scriptural and rational arguments for the compatibility of Islam and the modern Civilization to a Russian-speaking public as early as 1883, he has been a pioneer among the Muslims in Russia in several respects. In contrast though to similar activities of his Russian contemporary, the Krim Tatar Ismail Gasprinskii (1851-1914), Bajazitov’s endeavours have remained almost unnoticed in Western scholarship. Also in Tatarstan, his books have been only recently reprinted. The present study analyzes Bajazitov’s three monographs written in Russian, namely A Response to Ernest Renan’s lecture “Islam and Science” (1883), The Relationship of Islam towards Science and People of Different Faith (1887) and Islam and Progress (1898). There, he exposes many positions that around that time started to become key arguments of Muslim reformers in the Near East for the progressivness of Islam. The study takes also into account reactions to Bajazitov’s monographs by Russian officers in Tashkent who tried to demonstrate the backwardness of Islam, especially Nikolai Petrovič Ostroumov’s (1846-1930) response in his book entitled Quran and Progress – On the intellectual awakening of today’s Russian Muslims (1901/1903).

Less than Nihilism

Chapter 2 by Luca Di Blasi (...) gives us an insight into the history of nihilism, specifically by exposing a continuity (or else a cycle or repetition) between the earliest debates on the subject in the turn of the nineteenth century and latest ones in the turn of the twenty-first Di Blasi emphasizes the fact that the struggle between philosophy and religion, reason and faith, was a pertinent motif in Jacobi’s critique of Fichte’s philosophy and in Hegel’s response to this critique. A similar problematic, and similar dynamic, recurs two centuries later, where debates around the concept of nihilism among thinkers like Vattimo, Derrida, Habermas, and Žižek again revolve around the relation between religion, science, secularism, and “post-secularism.” Beginning with Hegel, Di Blasi’s chapter ends with a focus on Žižek as a “neo-Hegelian” showing how, in attacking his contemporaries, Žižek mirrors and revives Hegel’s approach in his critique of Jacobi and Fichte. Suggestively, Žižek informs us that now “the circle is closed” and that “to be a Hegelian today does not mean to assume the superfluous burden of some metaphysical past, but to regain the ability to begin from the beginning...”

Religion as Social Reality. A Take on the Emic–Etic Debate in Light of John Searle’s Philosophy of Society

In this article I argue that the shift from a private to a public–social understanding of religion raises new ontological and epistemological questions for the scientific study of religion\s. These questions are deeply related to three central features of the emic– etic debate, namely the problems of intentionality, objectivity, and comparison. Focusing on these interrelated issues, I discuss the potential of John Searle’s philoso- phy of society for the scientific study of religion\s. Considering the role of intentional- ity at the social level, I present Searle’s concept of “social ontology” and discuss its epistemological implications. To clarify Searle’s position regarding the objectivity of the social sciences, I propose a heuristic model contrasting different stances within the scientific study of religion\s. Finally, I explore some problematic aspects of Searle’s views for a comparative study of religion\s, and sketch a solution within his frame- work. I shall argue that a distinction between the epistemological and ontological dimensions of religious affairs would help clarify the issues at stake in the past and future of the emic–etic debate.

Dramas of Recognition: Philosophy as Literary History

Offers a critique of the concept of recognition (Honneth, Fraser), arguing that, from a literary-historical perspective, it connstitutes a step back behing modernism toward the agenda of Realism.