Critique Of The s And Mahmood s Influential...

Following Hirschkind’s and Mahmood’s influential ethnographies, a great deal of attention has been afforded to Islamic Revivalism and in particular, there has been an intense focus on ethical self-cultivation and the achievement of piety. As a response to this, there have been calls for a shift in analytical attention towards ‘everyday’ Islam. These works have tried to show how ethics are an intrinsic part of everyday life and do not necessarily depend upon religious frameworks. However, this turn towards â€Å"the everyday† has been subject to fierce criticism, notably from Fadil and Fernando who argue that the approaches of Schielke and others relies on a strong normative claim about human nature which renders revivalist or pious Muslims as exceptional and not â€Å"real† . I argue that whilst we need to consider how Muslims navigate and enact ethical teachings in their everyday lives, â€Å"the everyday† must not be treated as a cate gory which excludes the religious. In this essay, I shall begin by outlining Schielke’s call for a shift in analytical attention to the Islam of the everyday. Then, I shall move on to consider Fadil’s and Fernando’s critique of studies of everyday Islam which they argue is based on normative assumptions about what constitutes the everyday. Finally, I shall consider whether we can attempt to transcend the binary between approaches which focus on the everyday and self-cultivation through new approaches. Sumuli Schielke argues that despite the religious