William andrew kopwe the open university of tanzania

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. 
   To analyze Sharī’a debate in the Country.
   
2. 
   To analyze Sharī’a practice in Tanzania mainland context.
   
3. 
   To analyze challenges and prospects of sharī’a implementation in the Country.
   
4. 
   To find out influence of the demand and discourses of Sharī’a implementation in inter-religious, intra-religious and the state-religion relations in the Country.
   

1.4 The Significance of the Study

The study about Sharī’a implementation is a multidimensional one. It touches areas such as social-anthropological, economical, political, inter-religious, intra-religious and state-religion relations. Its findings are paramount both in daily life of people and academic arena because they answer questions which crosscut the society. Since Tanzania is a Country of pluralism ranging from religious, cultural, to political plurality the study is timely and invaluable for the Country today and for future times. It is expected that results of this research will help Muslims and non-Muslims in the Country achieve good understanding of Sharī’a and its implementation, particularly in the Tanzania mainland context. That will decrease prejudices, suspicions and accusations between Christians and Muslims in the Country to a great extent. This in turn will perpetrate amicable Christian-Muslim co-existence. Also, this study will help the policy makers to properly address the issue of Sharī’a implementation for the sake of peace, integrity and tranquility of the Country.

1.5 Theoretical Framework

Several theories have been used in one way or another in this study. However, three theories of religion were cardinal for the analysis of the demand, debate and implementation of Sharī’a in the Country. Those are the ‘theory of Great and Little Traditions’, ‘theory of religious economy’ and the ‘theory of religious globalization’.

1.5.1 Great and Little Tradition Model

Given the aim of the study, the Great and Little Tradition Model is the cardinal model to be applied. Contextual analysis of Sharī’a implementation in Tanzania Mainland is an anthropological study. This model is a methodology employed by anthropologists of Islam for studying diversity in Islamic religion. It tries to clarify the variations from textual Islam and local practices of Islam and the adaptability of Islamic religion to indigenous socio-cultural conditions and needs.
This model was first coined by Robert Redfield (1989). He proposed this model for the study of religions and cultures in the world. This model also includes his view of peasant societies as half societies with half-cultures. He comments that when we study peasant culture or religion we have to know that peasant culture cannot be fully understood from what goes on in the minds of villagers alone. To maintain itself, peasant culture requires continual communication to the local community of thought originating outside from the minds of remote teachers, priests, or philosophers whose thinking affects and perhaps is affected by peasantry.
With this model Redfield (1989) has brought revolution to the traditional anthropological view. Traditionally, anthropologists insisted that any culture should be studied independently as an isolated tradition. This worldview is what anthropologist referred to as “autonomous cultural systems” which implies a culture that is self-sustaining. Such culture “does not need to be maintained by a complementary, reciprocal, subordinate, or other indispensable connection with a second system.” For Redfield, religion or culture cannot be studied or explained as if they are isolated from any outside influence. They are aspects or dimensions of wider civilization of which they form part of.
Biernatzki (1991:2-3) gives similar argument showing that in the world there is no self-sustaining culture. He gives an analogy of international trade whereby by people find their domestic product to be insufficient, hence need to be supplemented by products from outside. Thus “A similar count of the cultural institutions of any society would show that most originated someplace else. Even the few that can claim to be ‘native’ owe much to the foreign influences. If we trace their histories back far enough, most of the political, economic, educational and religious arrangements we take for granted have been introduced to our own society from elsewhere”.
Ronald A. Lukens-Bull (1999) adopted Redfield’s model to specifically study Islam. This study agrees with Lukens-Bull’s adoption of Redfield’s model as primary theory to study Islam. Lukens-Bull says that, for Redfield, every religion or culture in the world can be divided into two categories. The first is the orthodox form of the religion or culture, which is the Great Tradition. For Redfield, this form of religion is the religion of the reflective few. This kind of religion is handed down over the centuries through teachings in the schools and sermons in the worshipping places. The Great Tradition is also known as textual tradition, orthodox, philosophical religions, high traditions, and universal traditions. Little Tradition is the heterodox form of religion or culture. This Tradition incorporates many elements of local tradition and practice. This is the religion as it is practiced in daily life by ordinary people. Redfield (1989) calls this as “unreflective many” as compared to the Great Tradition.
The two Traditions are interdependent, in interactions and connected to each other. Redfield comments that, “Great and Little Traditions are dimensions of one another; those people who carry on the lower layers and those who maintain the high alike recognize the same order of “highness and lowness”” (Redfield, 1989:42). Redfield calls this kind of relation as ‘cyncretization’. Lukens-Bull (1999) says that McKim Marion proposes two ways by which the two traditions interact. Those processes are Universalization and Parochialization. “Universalization is the process by which a local tradition is transformed into a great tradition or part of a great tradition and parochialization, or contextualization, involves the translation of symbols by means of drawing out certain aspects of the world religion and expressing it in terms meaningful to the local culture”. In Universalization process the Little tradition can be either deprecated, whereby, the elites of religion vie the Little tradition as unorthodox or the tradition may be adjusted, whereby; the Little tradition is tolerated by the officials of the religion (Lukens-Bull, 1999).
Giving examples of great and Little Traditions and their Universalization and Parochialization in Islam, Lukens-Bull quotes Katherine Ewing saying that; the very fact that Islam started in Arabia and then spread around the world suggests the process of universalization. In contemporary Islam, certain nearly universal practices, such as the jilbab (a women’s garment covering the head and extending to the wrists and ankles, but not veiling the face) have their origin in Arab cultural practices and not in the teaching of Muhammad. However, the Jilbab, the veil, and other Sharī’a-bases practices become symbols of orthodox Islam and, in some settings, ethnic markers (Lukens-Bull, 1999).
Lukens-Bull concludes that Islam can be examined through these lenses. In the case of Sharī’a implementation in Tanzania Mainland, the two trends of tradition are realities which have to be studied in two levels of analysis: Sharī’a as understood by local Muslims in the Country and “the Sharī’a” as enjoined in Islamic grand sources.
The above levels of analysis are in consonant with the ‘Great and Little Tradition Model’ on one hand and the issue of diversity in Islam on the other. This kind of analysis is similar to what Richard Antoum (1989) undertook in his analysis of diversity of Islam, particularly in Islamic ‘accommodation of traditions’, to borrow his expression. Antoum suggests five perspectives of studying the diversity in Islam. First is the perspective of beliefs themselves or text. Second is the perspective of the linker and interpreter, where-by the reference is to the preacher. Third is the perspective of the cognitive system. Fourth is the perspective of social structure and finally is the perspective of the folk.
Nevertheless, though this study adopts Lukens-Bull’s philosophy of the using the ‘Great and Little Tradition Model’ as a lens for studying Sharī’a and Islam, there has been several critics of the model. Lukens-Bull provides a summary these critics that:
Goldziher (1910) says that anthropologists made mistakes to take Islam as monolithic whole. The Great and Little Traditions Model used by some anthropologists to study diversity in Islam is a result of such mindset. For him diversity is a vivid characteristic of Islam. Diversity in Islam is far more than the Shi’a-Sunni division. “The world-wide Islamic community, even within each major section is typified by cultural diversity” (Lukens-Bull, 1999:7). Therefore, even the Great Traditions and Little Traditions are not unified whole. Because of this there are individual interpretation in theology and practice involved at both levels. That is to say, there are many Great(s) and Little(s) traditions. This invalidates the categorization of diversity in Islam as Great and Little traditions.
El-Zein (1972) argues that the dichotomy of folk Islam versus elite Islam is infertile and fruitless being only an Islamic elite's attempt to dominate the discourse about what constitutes real religion. Various theological and anthropological interpretations of the meaning of Islam are dependent upon assumptions which define and limit what can be properly considered "religious" and "Islamic" (distinguish a folk from elite and a real from a false Islam). It is ironic that anthropology studies folk Islam while using the principles of elite Islam.
Eickelman (1982) also says that when scholars mention Great and Traditions they tend merely to juxtapose them and not explore their complex interrelationships – the distinction between these traditions also leads to a division of labour between those who are interested in local forms of a religious tradition and those who are interested in religious texts – this leads to an overly narrow view of the tradition.
Regardless of the above criticisms the Great and Little Tradition model is appropriate for contextual analysis of Sharī’a implementation in Tanzania. Muslims in Tanzania belong to different groups whose origins can be traced from different sources. The difference in origin and traditional backgrounds more or less affect the interpretation of the textual instruction that makes the practice of Sharī’a among the Muslim to be diverse. Furthermore, since Islam is an adaptive religion whereby it incorporates local beliefs and practices, Muslims in Tanzania are not uniform in their Sharī’a practices. Hence, the model will help to analyze this difference in respect to their responses toward the issue of Sharī’a demand in the Country.