The trouble with religiosity constructs

Citation

Wilson, J.A.J. (2013), "The trouble with religiosity constructs", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jima.2013.43204baa.001

The trouble with religiosity constructs

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Islamic Marketing, Volume 4, Issue 2

Welcome to Issue 2 in Volume 4 of JIMA. Whilst this editorial is short, nevertheless I think that it seeks to highlight a critical area in the study of Islamic marketing, concerning religiosity constructs. There are studies, which seek to measure religiosity and I am often left reflecting upon the following:

• •

  Can it be measured with sufficient criticality, and levels of homogeneity?

• •

  If so, with studies often being undertaken over relatively short periods and narrow horizons, with little iteration: can they offer anything more a snap shot?

• •

  To what degree can findings be generalised?

• •

  Is this goodwilled hunting – where the faithful are stalked and reduced to trophies in a cabinet? Here, they become lifeless “animals” catalogued, classified and quantified.

• •

  Is the pursuit of religiosity a mirage?

Conventionally within the teachings of Islam, the Qur’an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), religiosity could be understood by the Arabic term iman. Hermeneutical interpretations and translations of this word embody multi-dimensional concepts, which comprise of: faith; belief in the seen and unseen; humility; submission; certitude; patience; a just balance; a fusing of thoughts, feelings and actions; syncretism; causality and synchronicity. Furthermore, iman is seen to rise and fall, depending on such variables as: space, time, context, age, health, thoughts, feelings, actions and the environment.

I would now like to share a story cited widely within Muslim culture.

A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab[1] and spoke in praise of another:

Umar asked him: “Are you his nearest neighbour, such that you know his comings and his goings?”Man: “No.”Umar: “Have you been his companion on a journey, so that you could see evidence of his good character?”Man: “No.”Umar: “Have you had dealings with him involving dinars and dirhams, [money] which would indicate the piety of the man?”Man: “No.”Umar: “I think you saw him standing in the mosque, muttering the Qur’an and engaged in worship?”Man: “Yes.”Umar: “Go, for you do not know him […]”Umar then approached the man being discussed and said, “Go and bring me someone who knows you.”

This story illustrates how complicated judging religiosity is. Polemically, I could argue how many of us as researchers accept on face value what appear to be indicators of religiosity – based upon asking participants direct questions or searching for artefacts of consumption and appearance? However, as the story highlights: more cyclical and reflexive participant observation methods and consumer culture theory approaches are surely needed – to delve deeper, critically and longitudinally.

I am by no means wishing to deter researchers from submitting work based upon proposed quantified scales and evaluations of religiosity. However, I am suggesting that more mixed-methods and multi-layered hermeneutical reflective approaches are required; if they are to mirror reality, the full-spectrum of lived experiences, and to safeguard against killing the spirit of the spiritual.

Umar was a companion of the Prophet Muhammad. He was the second Khaleef (ruler/successor to Muhammad); and one of the most powerful and influential figures in Islamic history.

Jonathan A.J. Wilson