Who owns the shrine? Competing meanings and authorities at a pilgrimage site in Khorezm1
Who owns the shrine? Competing meanings and authorities at a pilgrimage site in Khorezm1
复制标题
神社的所有权是谁的？
DOI：
10.1080/02634930601022526
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Kehl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Kehl
在前苏联的中亚地区，对圣徒（avliyo）的崇拜在伊斯兰教的虔诚中扮演着重要的角色。圣迹不仅限于社会的文盲阶层或农村地区，在城市地区也可以找到，往往就在清真寺和宗教学校的附近。与大多数其他伊斯兰社会一样，无论是普通穆斯林还是受过宗教教育的人，都不认为圣地、清真寺和宗教学校是排他性的。正如马丁·货车·布鲁内森（Martin van Bruinessen）所指出的那样，乌里玛（穆斯林宗教权威）本身往往来自苏菲派家庭，对他们来说，“对伊斯兰经文的研究、对圣徒的崇拜和神秘活动的表演并不代表伊斯兰教的替代版本，而是一个整体的一部分”。然而，当中亚处于苏联统治之下时，清真寺和神社之间的相互关系变得严重不安。即使只是在很小的范围内，苏联人也为伊斯兰教的神学和法律的研究以及对规范仪式的公开遵守提供了空间。在中亚和哈萨克斯坦穆斯林委员会的主持下，注册的清真寺和伊斯兰当局（苏联使用的“神职人员”）被纳入国家机器，而与此同时，以圣地为基础的宗教活动被剥夺了任何法律的框架。具有建筑意义的神殿被变成了旅游景点或博物馆，而其他神殿则被关闭，甚至被摧毁。为了诋毁几个世纪以来的古老传统，破坏宗教机构的权威，苏联人煞费苦心地证明，以圣地为基础的信仰和做法实际上是非伊斯兰的。具有讽刺意味的是，这一官方观点与伊斯兰圣经学家的观点相呼应，也渗透到苏联民族志学者的著作中。后者主要研究中亚的伊斯兰教，主要涉及那些被视为前伊斯兰教过去的“残余”的宗教生活因素，主要是萨满教。在整个苏联时期，圣人和神社崇拜一直是反宗教宣传的最佳目标，但强度各不相同。“媒体和文学都在谈论圣地崇拜给社会带来的危害。. . .中亚调查（2006年9月）25（3），235-250
In pre-Soviet Central Asia, the veneration of saints (avliyo) played a prominent role in Islamic piety. Far from being limited to the illiterate strata of society or to the countryside, saintly shrines were also to be found in urban areas, often in the immediate neighbourhood of mosques and madrasas. As in most other Islamic societies, shrines, mosques and madrasas were not thought of as exclusive categories, either by ordinary Muslims or by the religiously educated. As Martin van Bruinessen notes, often the ulama (Muslim religious authorities) themselves came from Sufi families, for whom ‘the study of Islamic texts, the veneration of saints and the performance of mystical exercises do not represent alternative versions of Islam but are part of one integrated whole’. The interrelation between mosque and shrine, however, became seriously disturbed when Central Asia came under Soviet dominance. If only on a very small scale, the Soviets granted space for the theological and legal study of Islam as well as for the public observance of the canonical rites. Registered mosques and Islamic authorities (‘clergy’ in the Soviet usage) became incorporated into the state apparatus under the auspices of the Muslim board of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, while at the same time shrine-based religious activities were denied any legal framework. Shrines of architectural relevance were turned into tourist sites or museums, while others were closed down and even destroyed. In order to discredit centuries old traditions and to undermine the authority of the religious establishment, the Soviets took pains to demonstrate that shrine-based beliefs and practices were actually un-Islamic. This official view, which ironically echoed that of Islamic scriptualists, also pervades the writings of Soviet ethnographers. Working on Islam in Central Asia, the latter predominantly dealt with those elements of religious life which were regarded as ‘survivals’ of a pre-Islamic past, mainly shamanism. With varying intensity, saint and shrine veneration remained a favourite target of antireligious propaganda throughout the Soviet period. ‘Both the media and the literature dwelt on the harm brought upon society by the cult of holy places. . . . Registered clergy were Central Asian Survey (September 2006) 25(3), 235–250