Genealogy of an Intellectual Duality: A Comparative Examination of the Characteristics of Traditional Islam and Religious Intellectualism

نویسندگان

1 Department of Social Studies, Women and Family Studies Research Center, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran

2 Department of Theological Schools, Faculty of Islamic Nations Studies, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran

3 Department of Law and Jurisprudence, Faculty of Islamic Denominations, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran

doi
10.22059/jcis.2026.409559.1466
چکیده

This article provides a comparative analysis of the two major intellectual currents within the contemporary Islamic world: "Traditional Islam" and "Religious Intellectualism" (also known as Intellectual or Reformist Islam). Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and documentary research, the study identifies and contrasts the core characteristics of these two competing paradigms. The findings reveal a fundamental dichotomy. Traditional Islam is characterized by its emphasis on preserving the classical heritage (Naqli sciences), textualism, and a conservative approach that often resists change and modern epistemological challenges. It prioritizes the transmission and interpretation of historical religious scholarship. In stark contrast, Religious Intellectualism centers on rationality, contemporary reinterpretation (ijtihad) of religious texts, constructive engagement with modern concepts, and the development of a coherent theological and philosophical system responsive to contemporary needs. The primary points of divergence lie in their respective attitudes toward reason ('aql), the authority of tradition (Sunnah), and modernity. Understanding this intellectual duality is essential for analyzing the socio-political and cultural transformations within Muslim-majority societies, from reform movements to social upheavals. The article argues that the future of Islamic thought hinges on the potential for a constructive dialogue and dynamic jurisprudence (ijtihad) that can bridge this gap. It concludes that while the differences are profound and rooted in opposing epistemologies, the path forward requires moving beyond rigid opposition towards a synthesis that respects textual authenticity while embracing a rational and contextually relevant hermeneutics to address the complex challenges of the modern world.