Content area
Full Text
THE OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE MODERN ISLAMIC WORLD (4 volumes). Editor in Chief JOHN L ESPOSITO. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.
The Oxford Encyclopedia (OEMIW) amply fulfils the aim set out at the start, in a diplomatic and useful preface, by the Editor in Chief, John Esposito: to meet the need for 'a major reference work that provides immediate access to current scholarship on the presence and influence of Islam on a global scale'. Above all, perhaps, OEMIW is intended to be accessible to the general reader: to provide succinct articles on or relating to contemporary Muslim politics and societies, clearly written, with useful bibliographies. Esposito claims that three characteristics make the new Encyclopedia distinctive and timely: it focuses on the modern period (since the late 18th century); it relies heavily on the methodologies of the social sciences; and it `balances an essentialist approach with the empirical realities of the Islamic world,' theory with practice, text with context. It seeks to provide new information and fresh perspectives, with a perspective that is comparative, comprehensive and systematic.
Esposito helpfully relates the origins and the history of the project. Referring respectfully to the work's most obvious predecessor, the Encyclopaedia of Islam, he outlines the ways in which OEMIW intends to complement the latter, both in coverage and approach: its main focus is modern as opposed to classical and medieval; it concentrates on how Muslims have expressed themselves through political and social action as well as texts; using the methods of the social sciences as well as religion, history and literature. Esposito also contrasts OEMIW's coverage and approach to those of the 1970 Cambridge History of Islam. For the Middle East and North Africa, another predecessor is the one-volume 1988 Cambridge Encyclopedia of that region, which is more focused on politics, geography and history, far less on sociology, anthropology and particularly Islam; it is besides, illustrated, and follows a very different format from OEMIW.
Any reviewer of an Encyclopaedia inevitably brings their own disciplinary prejudices and predilections; mine are no doubt evident from my comments. As an anthropologist, the first good sign I noted was that there were no less than four anthropologists among the 5 Consultants and 14 Advisers (though none among the 8 Editors).
The four...