Islam as Critical Practice: Young Muslims Discuss their Religious Development

In modern Russia, religion is seen as a conservative social force aimed at consolidating society on the basis of common values. At the same time, as human history shows, religions often acted as a powerful political force, leading to great social transformations. Such a dual approach to religion was embodied in the views of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory (M. Horkheimer and others), as well as a number of Islamic intellectuals of the "left" wing, such as G. Jemal and F. Isak. These thinkers emphasized that religion in certain historical periods could be a liberating force acting in the interests of the most oppressed members of society, while in others, on the contrary, it could promote oppression and support the interests of power elites. The paper presents the results of studies of young Russian Muslims based on the methodology of critical social psychology, which develops the views of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. The results show that a person's religious conversion is preceded by a critical rethinking of his own way of life, which was also noted in earlier studies conducted among representatives of Christianity and Judaism. At the same time, it was found that the critical attitude does not disappear with the adoption of Islam. The antagonism between the former “secular” and the current Islamic way of life is only strengthened by the opposition of the social position of Muslims and the “majority”. Initial dissatisfaction with the conditions of one's own life is transformed into a larger social criticism.

1. “Islam, imeyushchiy mirnuyu i dobruyu sushchnost'”: diskurs o traditsionnom islame v srede tyurok-musul'man evropeyskoy chasti Rossii i Kryma [The Concept of Traditional Islam in Modern Islamic Discourse in Russia.]. Bekkin R. (еd.). Serija “Studia religiosa”. Moscow: New Literary Observer; 2021. 280 р. (In Russian)

2. Brittain C.S. The Frankfurt school on religion. Religion Compass. 2012;6:204–212.

3. Marx K., Engels F. Sobranie sochineniy [Collected works]. Vol. 1. Ryazanov D. (ed.). Moscow, Leningrad: State Publishing House; 1928. 663 p. (In Russian)

4. Goldstein W.S., King R., Boyarin J. On a balanced critique: (or on the limits of critique). Critical Research on Religion. 2017;5(1):3–8.

5. Mendieta E. Theology as Social Critique and Enlightened Reason. The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers. Mendieta E. (ed.). New York and London: Routledge; 2005, рр. 1–17.

6. Horkheimer M. Theism and Atheism. The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers. Mendieta E. (ed.). New York and London: Routledge; 2005, рр. 213–223.

7. Dzhemal G. Osvobozhdenie islama [Liberation of Islam]. Moscow: Umma Press; 2004. 412 р. (In Russian)

8. Zakirov A.A. Koranicheskaya germenevtika F. Isaka v kontekste islamskoy teologii osvobozhdeniya [Quranic hermeneutics of F. Isak in the context of Islamic Theology of Liberation]. Islam v sovremennom mire [Islam in the modern world]. 2021;4:63–78. (In Russian)

9. Busygina N.P. Metodologiya kachestvennykh issledovaniy v psikhologii. Uchebnoe posobie [Methodology for Qualitative Research in Psychology. Tutorial]. Moscow: Scientific Publishing Center INFRA-M; 2013. 304 p. (In Russian)

10. Melnikova O.T.,Khoroshilov D.A.Sovremennyekriterial'nyesistemyvalidnosti kachestvennykh issledovaniy v psikhologii [Modern criteria system of identifying the validity of qualitative research in Psychology]. Natsional'nyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [National Psychological Journal]. 2014;2(14):34–46. (In Russian)

11. Paloutzian R.F., Murken S., Streib H., Robler-Namini S. Conversation, deconversation, and spiritual transformation: a multilevel interdisciplinary view. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. Paloutzian R.F., Park C.L. (ed.). New York: The Guilford Press; 2013, рp. 399–421.

12. Rambo L.R. Understanding religious conversion. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1993, Р. 242.

13. Halama P. Empirical approach to typology of religious conversion. Pastoral Psychology. 2014;2(64):185–194.