R.

Kamla
Critical
/ Critical
Perspectives
PerspectivesononAccounting
Accounting31
31 (2015)
(2015)64–74
64–74
1

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

j o u rn al h om e p ag e : www.elsevier.c om/l ocate/cpa

Critical Muslim intellectuals’ thought: Possible contributions

to the development of emancipatory accounting thought
Rania Kamla *
Heriot Watt University, School of Management and Languages, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
This paper provides an overview of the intellectual debates of a number of Critical
Received 7 April 2013
Muslim Intellectuals (CMIs) and explores their possible contributions to critical
Received in revised form 31 December 2014
accounting research. The paper illustrates how CMIs’ thought based on postcolonial
Accepted 22 January 2015
Available online 28 May 2015 perspectives of cultural hybridity and second modernity can enrich and inform
critical accounting research attempts to develop an emancipatory accounting
Keywords: project. This paper demonstrates that CMIs’ thought and methodology can
Islam contribute to challenging the domination of western/conventional accounting and its
Critical Islam claims to objectivity, neutrality and universality. In particular, the paper highlights how
Critical Muslim intellectuals CMIs’ enlightened approaches to hermeneutics; their emphasis on spirituality, ethics and
Emancipatory accounting liberation theology; their radical epistemological and methodological research and
Religion education agendas offer outward- looking alternatives to developing accounting
thought.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the intellectual debates of a number of contemporary Muslim
intellectuals to inspire and contribute to the development of an emancipatory accounting project. These ‘Critical Muslim
Intellectuals’ (CMIs) are representing what is called ‘critical Islam’ and are proposing exciting and provocative agendas for
critical engagement and debates in the Muslim world especially on issues of historicity, epistemology and interpretation
(Cooper, 1998; Cooper, Nettler, & Mahmoud, 1998; Kersten, 2011). They attempt to develop an Islamic worldview that is
consistent with the modern environment, but also derives from ‘Islam’s wider civilisational heritage’ (Kersten, 2011, p. xv;
Cooper et al., 1998). The proposals put forward by these thinkers are emerging as an alternative discourse on Islam that
is now beginning to influence the Islamic world1. Integral to CMIs’ thought is a rejection of an essentialist view of ‘what
Islam

* Tel.: +44 7731321507.

E-mail address: r.kamla@hw.ac.uk
1
The paper builds on the work of a number of progressive Muslim intellectuals considered part of the contemporary Critical Islam movement.
Specifically, the paper builds directly on the writings of Fazlur Rahman (Pakistan); Mohammed Arkoun (Algeria) and Hassan Hanafi (Egypt). The paper also
builds on other Critical Muslim Intellectuals’ thought like Abdelkareem Soroush (Iran); Mohammed Talbi (Tunis); Madjed (Malaysia) Husyn Ahmed
Amin (Egypt); Mohamed Abd Jabri (Morocco); Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur (Tunisia); Hassan Al-Turabi (Sudan); Mohammad Abduh (Egypt) and Ismail
Ragi Al- Farouqi (Palestine). The works of these other intellectuals are summarized in Abu-Zahra (1998), Cooper (1998), Cooper et al. (1998), Nettler
(1998), Esposito and Voll (2001), Vakili, (2001) and Kersten (2011). The author acknowledges that many of these mentioned interpretations of CMIs’
thought are done by western authors. This raises a concern about promoting orientalists’ points of views of Islamic history and thought. The author in
this study, in order to overcome promoting orientalist readings, is careful to check these views against the original work of CMIs, especially Arkoun,
Hanafi and Rahman and her
own knowledge, as a Muslim author, of Islamic history.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.01.014
1045-2354/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
exactly means’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 113; Vakili, 2001). While CMIs’ agendas and thought vary and build on vast sources of
knowledge, they share common themes including: (1) rejecting that the Qur’an and Sunna provide ‘any clear-cut evidence
for the obligation to establish an Islamic state’. (2) Asserting that ‘Islam recognizes certain socio-political principles
without ideologising them’. (3) Perceiving Islam as ‘timeless and universal, and must therefore be understood in a dynamic
way, and as subject to constant transformation’. (4) Arguing that as ‘only God possesses absolute truth, man’s
understanding of Islam is always relative, and so the resulting poly-interpretability prevents any authoritative truth
claims, stimulating an attitude of tolerance instead.’ (Kersten, 2011, pp. 64–65).
Islamic thought and Muslims’ voices are absent or distorted in most social science disciplines in the West generally.
Islam in the West is often perceived as the ultimate opposite trademark to liberalism. Interest in Islamic thought mainly
focuses on the ‘tendency’ of the Islamic tradition to encourage acts of violence and terrorism, especially against the
‘liberal’ West (Mandaville, 2001; Arkoun, 2002). Thus, while the emergence of CMIs’ thought is taking place throughout the
Muslim world, very few studies have looked at this phenomenon from a global perspective (Kersten, 2011). In accounting,
this paper is the first to consider the possible contributions of CMIs’ thought for the development of emancipatory
accounting thought. Much of accounting literature, including critical accounting research, does not engage or link
accounting to religious or theological perspectives when envisioning an emancipatory accounting project. In addition, the
few papers that engage with religion and theology do so from a Christian perspective, ignoring other religious
perspectives like those of Islam (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004; Jacobs & Walker, 2004). Gallhofer and Haslam (2004, p.
383) maintain that this lack of engagement with religion in the critical accounting literature could be due to perceptions
of religion in that literature as a ‘conservative force in the service of hegemony, helping to preserve an unjust and
exploitive socio-political and economic order’, or as an abstract force dealing with irrelevant issues. For Gallhofer and
Haslam (2004, p. 383) aspects of religious and theological thought like Liberation Theology can be ‘inspirational and
insightful’ for an emancipatory accounting project as they are concerned with resisting repression and focus on
‘emancipatory praxis’. Similarly, for Molisa (2011), there is a need for critical accounting research to engage more with
spiritual dimensions if they are to be able to fulfill their desires for developing an emancipatory accounting project and
make sense of emancipation. Jacobs and Walker (2004) also maintain that as critical accounting seeks to study accounting
in its socio-economic and political context, it is useful to explore the interrelationship between accounting and
religion.
This paper, in reviewing CMIs’ thought and its commonalities with critical accounting thought will contribute to
addressing the aforementioned lacuna in the accounting/critical accounting literature. It will demonstrate how CMIs’
values, especially commitment to cultural hybridity and second modernity, are reconcilable with critical and
emancipatory accounting values. CMIs’ thought and methodology enforce and enrich critical accounting researchers’
approaches to critiquing conventional accounting’s claims to objectivity, neutrality and universality. Therefore, despite
that much of the ground work has been already discussed in critical accounting research in the western literature,
introducing CMIs’ thought to this debate is necessary in order to build a bridge between western and Islamic thought and
contribute to the spirit of solidarity amongst civilizations; increasing possibilities for intercultural and interreligious
encounters in the accounting field and beyond. In the specific context of the Muslim world, CMIs’ thought can inform
Muslim scholarship in the field of accounting, contributing to the development of a framework of accounting that can
meet the future needs of Muslim societies, especially the needs of ordinary people. In achieving its objectives, the
paper builds on postcolonial theory to enable better understanding of CMIs’ ambitious research agenda that is based on
concepts such as cultural hybridity and second modernity. CMIs’ work mixes Islamic heritage with a comprehensive
appreciation of western thought, reflecting the
‘multilayered identity of the postcolonial Muslim intelligentsia’ to which these thinkers belong’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 25).
The paper is structured in four sections. Section 2 provides an overview of CMIs’ philosophical and theoretical
approaches based on postcolonial notions of cultural hybridity and second modernity. Section 3 demonstrates parallels
between CMIs’ thought, critical and emancipatory accounting thought. It elaborates on how CMIs’ thought enriches the
emancipatory accounting agenda through challenging dominant methodological and theoretical approaches to
accounting; increasing emphasis on social justice and inclusion of displaced voices; enhancing ethical and moral depth to
accounting and promoting an interreligious and intercultural accounting agenda. Section 4 provides the conclusion.

2. CMI’s thought returns to philosophy, cultural hybridity and second modernity

Reviewing CMIs’ thought requires an appreciation of the historical context and conditions that gave rise, provoked and
inspired these thinkers. CMIs’ thought, despite being radical and innovative in today’s Muslim world, builds on early lost
2
Islamic philosophical traditions of ‘the rationalist theology school known as Mu’tazila , and the ideas of philosophers such
as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and – in particular – Ibn Rushd (Averroes)’ (Kersten, 2011, pp. 4–5). These emancipatory
philosophical endeavours have been employed in Islamic history, where the period between the 9th and 13th
centuries witnessed a remarkable influence of Greek philosophy on Islamic thought. Dynamic schools of theology and
law at the time emerged

2
Mu’tazilism (9th to 13th century) was founded in Al-Basra (modern day Iraq). Al-Mu’tazila’s thought was based on the view that it was ‘necessary to
give a rationally coherent account of Islamic beliefs’. Al-Mu’tazila generally had five theological principles, of which the two most important were ‘the
unity of God and divine justice. The former led them to deny that the attributes of God were distinct entities or that the Qur’an was eternal, while the
latter led them to assert the existence of free will’ (Muslim Philosophy, 2012).
 R.R.Kamla
Kamla/ Critical
/ CriticalPerspectives
PerspectivesononAccounting
Accounting3131(2015)
(2015)64–74
64–74
6 6
(Arkoun, 2002). These philosophical traditions dominated Islamic thought until Hanbalism, led by Ibn Taymiyyah, in the
12th and 13th Centuries advocated a return to the Islam of the Salaf al-Saleh (Islamic society at the time of the Prophet,
and the earlier interpretations of Quran and Sunnah) and banned philosophy from Islamic thought, considering it a rival
3
ideology to religious studies (Kersten, 2011) . Thereafter, Islamic thought lost sight of many of these revolutionary
achievements that were dismissed by the ulama4 as ‘‘isolated’’ and were ‘quietly buried’ (Rahman, 1982, p. 30). The
ulama and religious insititutions often developed close links to political leaderships, leaving Sharia frequently used for
political purposes. Since then, traditional and conservative ulama often maintained orthodoxy and hindered efforts to re-
engage with issues that became considered ‘unthinkable’ in Islamic thought today (Esposito & Voll, 2001; Arkoun, 2002).
Thus, Islamic Sharia and law applied in the majority of Muslim countries today is static, based on conservative and
traditional interpretations, not applicable to present social problems. This resulted in isolating Muslims and hindered
political and socio-economic change in Islamic societies (Abu-Zahra, 1998).
This stagnation in Islamic thought was also reinforced by the rise of the materialist civilisation in Europe, which
resulted in the expansion and domination of European capitalism into non-European cultures and its counter ‘ideology of
liberation’ movement that aimed at independence from colonial domination (Arkoun, 2002, p. 14)5. In most Muslim
countries, post- colonial states that emerged in the late 1950s used the same strategy as that of the ‘‘French Third
Republic’’ to unite their nations in line with the ‘‘principles of the Republic’’, with a much more authoritarian and
intolerant style of governance. In Muslim countries, the so-called socialist and liberal regimes imposed censorship on
intellectual and cultural activities. In addition to this censorship from above, another form of censorship manifested
from below, ‘imposed by public opinion, especially on matters related to religion. Many intellectuals came to interiorize
this dual control in the name of the Nation, or the religion, adding self-censorship to that already imposed from
outside’ (Arkoun, 2002, p. 13). Thus, while Europe constructed an intellectual and cultural modernity from the 16th
century onward, the Muslim world was unable to play a role in this development. It further moved away from its
own heritage of practicing philosophy and theology and accumulated an array of issues that were deemed
6
‘unthinkable’ (Arkoun, 2002) .
In this context of intellectual stagnation and inequitable socio-economic and political environment, at the beginning of
the 20th Century, Muslims began questioning their status and attempted to reform their societies. Frustrated by a sense of
‘inadequacy and weakness in the face of the expanding European imperial and industrial powers’ the new educated elite
began to break the monopoly of traditional ulama on Islamic thought. Thinkers like the Egyptian Mohammad Abduh
(educated in the West but with deep knowledge of Islamic heritage) emerged and represented new and challenging
intellectual debate related to Islam and Sharia (Esposito & Voll, 2001). In the late 20th century, this trend continued, when
a number of intellectuals emerged and challenged the monopoly of traditional ulama over Islamic thought. These
thinkers, called in this paper Critical Muslim Intellectuals (CMIs), are increasingly playing a role in the transformation of
their societies and providing a critique to existing institutions and mentalities and in the making of contemporary Islam
(Esposito & Voll,
2001). Many of these CMIs (like Arkoun, Hanafi and Rahman) share a ‘concern on how the Muslim world should develop
and change in order to join the global community’ (Abu-Zahra, 1998, p. 84).
CMIs, therefore, represent a new generation of Muslim thinkers in the postcolonial era (Kersten, 2011). Their activism
and critique of dominant institutions, conservative ulama and thought as well as their vision for renewal and reform in
the contemporary Muslim world are placing them as a possible alternative to the role of religious scholars in Muslim
societies and the role of intellectuals in modern secular societies (Esposito & Voll, 2001). These CMIs are mainly
academics specializing in the study of Islam in universities at home and abroad. They have deep understanding of Islamic
heritage and of the Western academe in the humanities and social sciences (Kersten, 2011; Cooper, 1998). In writing
this paper and attempting to summarize CMIs’ thought, a significant difficulty emerged. These thinkers come from
diverse cultures and provinces spreading from North Africa to the Middle East and Southeast Asia. They offer voluminous
amount of publications. Thus, addressing their varied agendas on Islamic thought requires addressing the different sources
of Islamic knowledge as well as western social sciences. Despite the diversity and variety of their thought, their
interests and agendas link and overlap significantly. Commonalities amongst CMIs’ thought stems from their
philosophical approaches that are inspired by Mu’tazila’s schools of thought and disciplines. CMIs consider these
approaches to provide ‘an endogenous methodology for studying religion’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 157).

3
Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali school of thought emerged in troubled times in the Muslim world during the Mongol invasion, creating an
environment where Muslims perceived a need to return to the past and to increasingly use religion to oppose and call for jihad against those who are
perceived as enemies (Muslim Philosophy, 2012).
4
The term ulama refers to Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law and tradition.
5
Other factors and events have also contributed to hindering intellectual and critical thought in the Muslim world. For example, the Crusades’ attacks
on the Muslim world were devastating and resulted in the withdrawal and distrust between the Islamic world and the Western world. Other factors include
the continued schism between Sunni and Shiaa Muslims and thought. This schism has also continued until this day to shape conflicts in the Islamic world
and to hinder intellectual exchange between the two sects (cf. Arkoun, 2002).
6
For instance, debates on whether the Qu’ran is eternal or created were commonplace in the tenth and eleventh century amongst Muslim theologians
and philosophers especially those following Al-Mut’azala rational thought. Debates on such issues in today’s Islamic environment in general are
considered
‘unthinkable’ (Arkoun, 2002). Another example of issues that are not openly debated in today’s Islamic traditional thought are debates on the Quran’s
historiography, i.e. in relation to how the Quran was written and compiled; how the written documents went through a process of selection and
marginalization of some issues (Tatar, 1998; Arkoun, 2002).
 It could be said that CMIs share a common feature of ‘postcolonial cultural hybridity’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 12; Cooper,
1998). Cultural hybridity is a theme in postcolonial studies, which refers to the ‘‘in-between space’’, which ‘can neither be
reduced to the self nor the other, neither to the First nor to the Third World, neither to the master nor to the slave’.
Hybridity forms the place where new meaning can be produced (Kersten, 2011, p. 35). Contemporary CMIs discourses on
hybridity give way to what is termed ‘second modernity’ which ‘unlike the drive of ‘‘first modernity’’ towards a
universalism of global equality, . . . tries to synthesize universalism, relativism, nationalism and ethnicism, as well as . . .
religious diversity’. In this second modernity to be universal is to be more responsive to diversity and particularity. It also
means that people should be less
‘tenaciously attached to their ‘‘cultures of origin’’ and explore instead the new possibilities that cosmopolitanism opens
up’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 37; see also Calhoun, 1995 for similar discussions on universality). Hybridity and second
modernity implies that conflicting philosophical positions are placed in ‘conversation with each other’ and are based on a
‘sympathetic and careful reading of counter-positions’. The paradigm shift becomes a precondition for implementing a
dynamic Islamic fiqh or methodology. CMIs, therefore, attempt to retain associations between a number of dichotomies
such as between
‘being and becoming, man and God, mind and matter, reason and intuition, science and religion, sacred and profane, subject
and object, thinking and action’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 112).
CMIs’ hermeneutical approaches informed by cultural hybridity and second modernity have significant epistemological
implications on understanding religious knowledge (as one aspect of many branches of human knowledge). CMIs argue
that religious knowledge is ‘not divine by virtue of its divine subject matter, and it should not be confused with religion
itself’ (Vakili, 2001, p. 154). While Muslims perceive the ‘Qur’an as the Word of God providing all the believers with clear,
eternal, indisputable norms, teachings and ideal commandments to enlighten this life and lead to Salvation in the next’,
CMIs point to that, throughout history, the scholars of Islam (whether Sunni or Shiaa) have interpreted the texts
(Qur’an, Sunnah and teachings of earlier scholars) differently and through different methodologies (like linguistics, logic,
Aristotelian philosophy or contemporary hermeneutics). These interpretations are also influenced by the world-views of
the particular scholar who
‘possesses a distinct understanding of the world, nature and a Muslim’s place in both’. Thus, while religion itself is sacred,
there is nothing sacred about human understanding of it. Any attempt to interpret the Quran in a literalist and rigid way
can crush its spirit, and therefore, it is ‘neither possible nor desirable’. Attempts of interpretations should be continuous as
there is always ‘both room and necessity for new interpretations’ (Rahman, 1982, pp. 144–145). The texts’ meanings,
therefore, are continuously deconstructed and transformed to produce understandings that surpass previous meanings
(Arkoun, 2002; Harrison, 2010)7.
CMIs’ methodological approaches provide accounting research and knowledge with alternative worldviews that
emphasize historicity combined with transcultural dynamics and endogenous methodology. These all have revolutionary
and radical implications for mainstream accounting research and knowledge. They imply that in accounting research there
is a possibility to combine advanced methodologies developed in social sciences in the West (like hermeneutics,
discourse analysis, and positive research methodologies) with endogenous methodologies developed in particular contexts
like that in the Islamic world including the Sufi, Mu’tazila, kalam (theology) and usul-al-fiqh. The next section will
elaborate further on the implications of CMIs’ thought and methodology on the developed of an emancipatory
accounting project.

3. CMIs’ thought: Demonstrating parallels with critical and emancipatory accounting

Critical accounting research has made significant advances in providing a critique of the way that mainstream
accounting perceives the accounting phenomenon as technical and apolitical, displacing other ways of researching and
understanding accounting. According to critical accounting researchers there is a need for alternative and new insights into
accounting that can challenge the mainstream dominant understanding of accounting and study accounting in action in its
organizational, socio-economic and political contexts (Chua, 1986; Tinker, 2004). Critical accountants’ problematized
how conventional accounting approaches build on neo-classicalism intellectual developments in the fields of business,
accounting and finance and tend to ‘divide fact from value, the real from the ideal, the positive from the normative, the
ethicist from the realist and – most devastating of all – the secular from the non-secular’ (Tinker, 2004, p. 459).
Accounting, in this context, became a tool for ‘efficiency’ and ‘control’ for the purpose of capital accumulation and
profitability. Here, the discipline of accounting has abandoned the role of philosophy in providing the ‘ethical and
moral breadth that informed the early periods of the enlightenment project and social sciences’ (Tinker, 2004, p. 460).
A number of critical accounting researchers, therefore, engaged in promoting an emancipatory accounting framework
that critique the limitations of conventional accounting and envisage new roles for accounting and accountants that are
concerned with social justice, resolving social conflicts and improving humans’ well-being (rather than just be
concerned with economic transactions) (Chua, 1986; Tinker & Neimark,
1988; Dillard, 1991; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2003, 2004; Molisa, 2011). CMIs’ approaches can contribute to this
emancipatory project through challenging dominant methodological and theoretical approaches in conventional
accounting; shifting

7
CMIs’ hermeneutical approaches build and extend the works of numerous intellectuals such as ‘Claude Le´ vi-Strauss, Ferdinand de Saussure, Hans-
Georg Gadamer, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricœur, and Toshihiko Izutsu’ (Tatar, 1998, p. 132). What is common
amongst most CMIs (like Rahman and Arkoun whose works are considered closely in this study) is that they are departing from the dominant literal
interpretations that dominate Islamic texts’ understandings today and rejecting an authoritative orthodox interpretation. They, rather, employ
alternative theories of meaning. In doing so, they reject that the meaning of the text is ‘‘passively received" and embrace that ‘different interpretations of
the Qur’an can arise from different interpretive contexts’ (Harrison, 2010, p.217).
accounting emphasis to concerns with social justice and the inclusion of silenced voices; providing an ethical and moral
breadth to accounting thought and promoting interreligious and intercultural approaches to accounting.

3.1. Challenging dominant methodological and theoretical approaches to accounting thought

CMIs generally have developed creative (and controversial as far as the Islamic world is concerned) methodological and
epistemological alternatives combining recent achievements in western humanities’ scholarship with knowledge of
Islam’s civilisational heritage. CMIs’ methodological and epistemological approaches perceive knowledge as ‘provisional’
and reject authority in knowledge (Nettler, 1998). Thus, the ‘closed official corpus of the Islamic logosphere’ must be
8
subject to discourse analysis and hermeneutics (Kersten, 2011, p. 204) . Under this methodology, the religious
phenomenon is one aspect of human life and should be understood according to historical events. This does not undermine
religion nor trivialize it. On the contrary, religion is strengthened as it is interpreted against the empirical standards of
history (Nettler, 1998). CMIs, therefore, give priority to a historical perspective of epistemology over a descriptive
approach to what ‘Islam’ means. The Qur’an, for them, should be understood in the context in which it was revealed in
order to avoid abstract understandings of its text and the manipulation of the text by political Islamists and governments
(Nettler, 1998; Arkoun, 2002; Kersten,
9
2011) . For CMIs, like Rahman (1982, p. 5), the Quran and Islamic heritage ‘occurred in the light of history and against a
social
historical background. The Quran is a response to that situation, and for the most part it consists of moral, religious, and
social pronouncements that respond to specific problems confronted in concrete historical situations’. Islamic reform and
renewal is, thus, only achieved if the historical study of Islamic heritage is understood through new knowledge and
principles (Filali-Ansari, 1998; Esposito & Voll, 2001). In order to overcome conditions of ‘unthought’ in the Muslim world,
CMIs encourage intellectuals to pursue revolutionary hermeneutical (ijtihad) methods in order to achieve ‘real advances in
the collective consciousness’ (Filali-Ansari, 1998, p. 170). Renewal requires a new form of ijtihad (the making of decisions
in Islamic law without solely depending on the conjunctions and views of other influential scholars) and
continuous reinterpretations of Islamic texts where the concern is not only ‘to go to old books to dig out bits and pieces’
but to also ‘go back to the roots, and create a revolution at the level of principles’ (Esposito & Voll, 2001, p. 127). Many
CMIs insist that this ijtihad is not merely the responsibility of the ulama and theologians but the whole community
(Esposito & Voll, 2001).
For CMIs, therefore, religion and belief ‘can only be strengthened in being constantly measured and interpreted against
empirical standard of history’ and expansion of knowledge (Nettler, 1998, p. 131). Indeed, CMIs argue that the Qur’an and
the Prophet’s teachings give knowledge a very high value and gaining knowledge is connected to better faith. Here,
knowledge required is knowledge that can expand the vision and horizon of the person. It is not limited to issues of
theology or
‘knowledge of the ends of life’ but also to knowledge about the universe, humanity and history (Rahman, 1982, p. 135). A
consistent theme amongst CMIs, therefore, is to situate religious knowledge, including theology, in a wider framework of
human science in general, including natural sciences but particularly history, philosophy and social sciences. This makes
their approaches to knowledge significantly anthropological and implies an ambitious interdisciplinary research and
education agendas that are international and include historians, social scientists and ethicists (Rahman, 1982; Cooper, 1998;
Kersten, 2011). Here, the most important task of an education system is to develop critical thinkers that can ‘problematise
all systems that claim to produce meaning’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 196).
The above mentioned methodological and hermeneutical approaches imply a significant departure and critique to the
dominant notion in conventional accounting’s thought, where reality can be explained through numbers. As some critical
accountants pointed out, accounting, in the context of modernity and capitalism, is mostly considered a scientific and
objective discipline based on instrumental reasoning and devoted to bringing economic efficiency and progress (Davis,
Menon, & Morgan, 1982; Tinker, Merino, & Neimark, 1982; Chua, 1986; McKernan & MacLullich, 2004). This has implied
ontological and epistemological boundaries that limit accounting research to economic and market-based theoretical
perspectives (especially neo-classical perspectives) and allowed for the domination of positivism and quantitative
methods in accounting research. CMIs’ insistence on hermeneutics, discourse analysis and historical methodological
approaches, thus, challenges the dominant decision-usefulness thesis in mainstream accounting research and allows for
the emergence of different, equally important, ‘‘bodies of accounting knowledge’’. It implies the need for greater
emphasis on ‘long-term historical studies’ and ‘detailed historical explanations like ethnographic studies of organizational
structures and processes which show their societal linkages’ rather than quantitative methods and mathematical or
statistical modeling that provide dominant concepts of value benefiting the interests of ‘dominant groups’ (cf. Chua, 1986,
p. 623). Here, there is a need for greater acknowledgement in accounting research of the influence of the worldview of the
researcher on the research, which could lead to the realization that accounting information could be attributed
diverse and different meanings. Such appreciation is important in accounting research as it makes the researcher
aware of his/her approach and helps the

8
These include ‘the body of Qur’an commentaries (tafsir); the hadith collections containing the ‘‘Traditions of the Prophet" and key sources of his
biography (sira), as well as mystical texts’ (Kersten, 2011, p.204).
9
In the meantime, the process of interpretation should be mindful of the Quranic teachings as a whole (weltanschauung) before transposing the ethical
guideline to today’s environment so that ‘each meaning understood, each law enunciated, and each objective formulated will cohere with the rest’
(Rahman,
1982, p.5). Here, Rahman proposes a ‘‘double movement" methodology from the present situation, to Quranic times and back to the present. His approach
is linked to Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach in relation to the ‘‘Fusion of Horizons". Rahman differs from Gadamer, however, in that Rahman had more
faith in the ability of the interpreter to reach an objective understanding of the text in its original context (Rahman, 1982; Harrison, 2010; Kersten,
2011).
researcher ‘to become more sensitive to the multi-faceted nature of the phenomenon being investigated and to broaden
and refine the strategy of research that is to be adopted’ (Davis et al., 1982, p. 316).
Critique of neutrality in CMIs and critical accounting literature does not infer that the researcher will become
‘irrational’ or will abandon attempts to give rational explanations for theories of choice. It rather infers that accounting
reality should be understood as being emergent and changing with the socioeconomic, historical and political
contexts. This helps
‘understanding of accounting in action’ rather than constructing ‘rigorous but artificial models of human action which
presume rational consensual goals’ (Chua, 1986, p. 618; Hopwood, 1983). It also helps avoiding abstract understandings of
the accounting craft divorced from practice and enables better understanding of the use of accounting information and
10
numbers to ‘legitimize particular sectional interests’ (Chua, 1986, p. 617) .
Furthermore, CMIs’ commitment to second modernity discussed in section two coincides with critical accountants’
calls for paradigms’ shifts in accounting research. Paradigms that are considered conflicted in accounting research
(like functionalist, interpretive, radical structuralist or radical humanist) could open up to conversation with each other
and to understanding of different approaches’ contribution to the development and improvement of accounting
knowledge and research (Chua, 1986) without the dominance or the displacement of one approach over the other in
explaining the accounting phenomenon. Instead of different approaches (or paradigms) being sought independently,
‘each mode of research should preferably be informed by, and serve to heighten, our awareness of their respective
limitations. And, thus, knowledge of everyday accounting may be developed that is not only empirical and/or interpretive
but also constructively critical’ (Willmott, 1983, p. 403). Here a paradigm shift becomes possible and associations
between dichotomies such as between subjective and objective, positive and normative, sacred and secular, scientific and
traditional are established. This revolutionary approach to accounting research broadens the horizons of conventional
accounting thought and questions the positive approach claim to realism. It allows accounting the potential to engage in
social and political issues and address issues of inequality and injustice (Tinker et al., 1982; Moerman, 2006).
The concern of CMIs with the way that conservative ulama dominate the sphere of Quranic and Islamic texts’
interpretations, reflects also a concern addressed in critical accounting research on how accounting experts and the
profession have dominated the sphere of developing accounting thought and standards. This domination has created an
‘aura’ of expertise, excluding non-experts and making it difficult for them to understand morality and values incorporated
in these accounting principles, standards and interpretations (cf. Reiter & Williams, 2002; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004).
Reiter and Williams (2002) explain how the accountancy profession in the US has for long resisted change, especially
to the domination of neo-economic theories in their attempts to guarantee that control and power remains with the elite.
One way to challenge such domination is to challenge ‘censorship’ in the profession and academia where the
accounting craft is perceived in technical terms, claiming objectivity and neutrality and thus resulting in ‘hegemonic
interpretations’ of accounting by the profession and mainstream researchers that end-up claiming universal validity and
displacing other more radical interpretations (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004, p. 394; Hopwood, 1983).
CMIs’ insistence on hermeneutics, endogenous methodological approaches as well as interdisciplinary and critical
research and education agendas, mirror critical accounting researchers’ calls for resisting Eurocentrism in its vision to
transform and improve accounting social practices (Moerman, 2006). This implies that dominant accounting thought and
influential accounting texts (including accounting laws, regulation, standards and text books) that often reinforce
mainstream and conventional views of accounting and its role in society (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004; Sikka, 2012) need to
be historically and contextually re-read and interpreted to illuminate their socio-economic consequences.
Authoritative accounting texts are specific manifestations of certain social and historical influences. They include social
and moral pronouncements that are a response to historical and social contexts mainly shaped in the Anglo-American
settings as a result of the expansion of the material civilization and capitalism in the West. Thus, they reflect ‘relative and
context-bound’ principles that cannot and should not be treated as ultimately universal (Vollmer, 2003; Gallhofer &
Haslam, 2004).
Mirroring CMIs’ concerns with advocating interdisciplinary and critical education and research agendas implies that
any concern with an emancipatory accounting project should also be concerned with the educational practices of
accounting whether for accountant graduates or for the public (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004). It should be concerned with
developing critical accounting thinkers that are able to problematise current and dominant systems and structures. This can
be achieved through introducing interdisciplinary education (and research) agendas rather than a specialist and technical
ones. This critical and multidisciplinary agenda introduces anthropological, historical and philosophical dimensions to
the study and understanding of accounting and its impact on society. It introduces the ‘analytical-critical’ skills needed in
accountants in order to provide the necessary intellectual tools to counter the hegemonic domination of un-critical
and instrumental mainstream accounting thought. It builds on both secular and non-secular dimensions in order to foster
an intimate dialogue between the two for the development of accounting in society. Further, the incorporation of
philosophy and critical reasoning equips students with analytical-critical skills needed to generate new ideas and
question conservative and mainstream perceptions of accounting (Morgan, 1983; Tinker, 2004). This will allow students,
researchers and practitioners to interpret, understand and even change the interrelationships between accounting and
society and the structural conflicts

10
For CMIs, as for critical accountants like Tinker (1991), development of Islamic (and accounting) thought does not entirely negate old tradition (or
conventional accounting) but builds on, develop and take the viable and positive from the old (see the debate on the negation of the negation in Tinker
(1991) and Solomons (1991).
embedded in accounting discourse (Morgan, 1983; Chua, 1986; Dillard, 1991). Further, the holistic and interdisciplinary
approach to accounting’s education promotes the linking and integrating between ‘micro- and macro-levels of analysis’ and
avoids the conventional accounting academe distinction between financial and managerial accounting through the
introduction of a broader range of theoretical perspectives (Chua, 1986, p. 625; Cooper, 1983; Hopwood, 1983; Roslender &
Dillard, 2003; Tinker, 2004). In this context, Reiter and Williams (2002) argue that in order to provide a more progressive
accounting education, there is a need for accounting researchers to become interested in research carried out outside
their specialized accounting journals. Further, more interdisciplinary journals related to accounting should be created in
order to suggest different research approaches to solving accounting problems (Reiter & Williams, 2002).

3.2. A concern with social justice and the inclusion of silenced voices in accounting

Cultural hybridity championed by CMIs challenges ‘privileged readers of traditions and the bearers of the ‘‘true’’ Islam’
(Kersten, 2011, pp. 35–36). To achieve this, Arkoun (2002, p. 29) proposes a method of ‘Emerging Reason’ in order to
rethink problems related to the articulation of religion. The ‘Emerging Reason’ method is:
Interested in all types of silenced voices throughout history, like all those voices silenced today in Islamic contexts,
either by official censorship or by the pressures of public opinion manipulated by political activists; it reactivates
the persecuted, innovative mind, it refuses to write a history of thought, literature and the arts based exclusively on
the so- called representative authors and works selected, in fact, by the dominant tradition in each period and each
milieu.
CMIs, thus, advocate a hermeneutical philosophy to develop a ‘radically new style of Islamic theology, giving a central
role to the idea that the interpretation of both the Qur’an and core Islamic religious concepts must be sensitive to the
perspective of those who are at the margins of the social structure within which interpretation occurs’. This
hermeneutical philosophy will liberate Islam from the ‘narrow interpretations claiming to be universal and objective
while really being just ‘‘the product of ideology’’ motivated by conservative political and social agendas’ (Harrison, 2010,
p. 216; Arkoun, 2002). In this context, CMIs point out that the Islamic concept of fitra as the natural faculty ‘unifying
feature of human nature’ implies inclusiveness and pluralist understanding of human religiosity. Fitra yields ‘the
universal human principles of goodness, mutual respect, equality of views and doctrines and peace’ as key to
understanding the world and the relationships with God for all humans (Kersten, 2011, p. 92; Nettler, 1998).
A hermeneutical philosophy based on ‘‘emerging Reason’’ and the concept of fitra implied that many CMIs engaged in
Liberation Theology. For instance, Rahman (1982, p. 5) points to how the Quran connects issues of polytheism with
‘exploitation of the poor, malpractices in trade, and general irresponsibility towards society’. The Quran has ‘put forward
the idea of a unique God to whom all humans are responsible and the goal of eradication of gross socioeconomic inequity’.
While the Qura’an puts emphasis on eternal issues like belief in God and the Day of Judgment, it links closely belief in God to
human accountability and action (Rahman, 1982, p. 5). Socioeconomic justice and redistribution of wealth are
highlighted as important principles in Islam on the basis of trusteeship and accountability to God (wealth is the wealth of
God on which we are entrusted, and thus we do not have the right to monopolize it, exploit it or misuse it) (Esposito & Voll,
2001). The message to Muhammad, therefore, was not only about ‘demolishing of a plurality of gods, but a sustained and
determined effort to achieve socioeconomic justice’ (Rahman, 1982, p. 15). Theology and religion, thus, can be used in
order to help in mobilizing the masses and giving them power and liberation. Hanafi (1981) also points out that in
Islamic societies the religious structures have reflected the political structures and aided the elites in gaining control over
the masses. Liberation Theology, thus, enables the countering of exploitation through using hermeneutics to reexamine
the structure of inherited belief structures and systems (Hanafi, 1981; Esposito & Voll, 2001). Hermeneutics and
reinterpretations of Islamic heritage and texts, therefore, should have the aim of bringing freedom, social justice, equity
and mass mobilization. Theology is not only about obtaining ‘eternal rights by knowing the truth’ instead it is a
‘theoretical analysis of action’ where the central concern is the conduct of people. Belief in God is thus related to the
founding of an ethical based sociopolitical order that enables the formation of a good and just society (Esposito & Voll,
2001, p. 87; Hanafi, 1981; Rahman, 1982). For Rahman (1982, pp. 19–
20), Quranic emphasis on socioeconomic justice and egalitarianism implies that any legislation that follows from the
Qur’an should have social justice as its end goal. Extracting general principles from the Qur’an requires these principles to
build on the ‘broad, humane principles of justice, mutual help, and mercy worked into the fabric of the Quranic
legislation’.
Parallel to CMIs’ concern to open up the methodological approaches in Islamic theology to ‘all types of silenced voices’,
critical accountants critique the confined methodological paradigms and theoretical approaches to researching accounting
that displaces people’s voices and perceptions ‘as active markers of their social reality’ (Chua, 1986, p. 610; Tinker et al.,
1982; Shearer, 2002). They argue that accounting’s thought should be open to the participation of the general public and
not remain limited to the spheres of ‘‘traditional experts’’ (Sikka, Willmott, & Lowe, 1989; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004).
Emerging Reason championed by CMIs implies an interest in the voices of those on the margins rather than merely the
voices of those who are privileged in society and considered ‘representatives’ of the accountancy profession. Critical
accountants argue that the ‘narrow gateways’ to researching accounting limits the influence of accounting research on
praxis, especially in issues related to social justice and struggle and undermines issues of power and domination in
society and organizations (Moerman, 2006, p. 173). For critical accountants, accounting research, therefore, should
incorporate methodology that draws attention to the social conditions that are creating and sustaining current socio-
economic systems (Davis et al., 1982; Tinker et al., 1982; Cooper, 1983). Sikka (2012), for instance, argues that there is a
need to expose the role of the profession
and accountancy firms in supporting capital and the advantaged groups in society that earn the social status they enjoy.
Accounting research can contribute to this reflection through exploring ways to identify the oppressed in society and ways
to help them through questioning and changing societal structures and giving them a voice (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004;
Sikka,
2012). To do so, there is a need to illuminate how accounting has naturalized the interest of capital and ignored the welfare
of the working classes, contributing to ‘bad distribution of wealth’ and to financial crises (Sikka, 2012). Accounting
values dominating mainstream accounting research like ‘social efficiency and economic progress’ often provide unequal,
coercive and exploitive exchange mechanisms as they serve the interests of the powerful in society by providing them
with financial information as well as rules and regulations that will assist the market in ‘efficiently’ allocating resources
(Chua, 1986; McKernan & MacLullich, 2004; Jacobs, 2011). Accounting practices concentrate on investors, managers and
agency costs ignoring other forms of value creation like employees and the State. Accounting, thus, has become an
integral part of the system rather than providing a tool to check, control or challenge it (McKernan & MacLullich, 2004;
Sikka, 2012). In this context, professional ‘rhetorical’ claims to serve the public interest and contribute to the social welfare
of society are hard to verify or observe (Sikka et al., 1989; Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004).
The above-mentioned mainstream understanding and role of accounting, while dominant, is not inevitable (Gallhofer
& Haslam, 2004; Jacobs, 2011). Accounting, through education and engagement, ‘can be turned to serve notions of
justice, equality and democracy’ (Jacobs, 2011, p. 512). Thus, there is a need for accounting information to be
mobilized as an
‘‘educational force’’ to make oppression visible to people and groups that are facing this oppression (Gallhofer & Haslam,
2004; Sikka, 2012). New insights that can be gained from the Emerging Reason methodology that aim towards brining
freedom, social justice and the mobilization of the masses, can illuminate to students and researchers the conditions of
sexual, racial and class discrimination and their relationship to accounting; dimensions that are scarce in mainstream
accounting research (Hopwood, 1983; Cooper, 1983; Chua, 1986; Sikka, 2012). They can help students better understand
the interrelationship between accounting, economic crises and socioeconomic conflicts in society (Morgan, 1983;
Tinker & Neimark, 1988; Dillard, 1991). Additionally, Building on the concept of fitra, implies overcoming the ‘arrogance
of scientific reasoning’ that alienates the masses and their values and does not allow for their voices to be heard. The task of
accounting research and education, thus, should include an investigation into people’s experiences (especially the
disadvantaged) and their interrelationship with accounting and accounting information constructs. For instance, stories
and insights into the lives of people living on low-income and have limited opportunities to access education and training
can make visible the impact of unequal distribution of wealth and the role of accounting in it (Sikka, 2012). To refuse to
incorporate these insights into accounting research and education or to marginalize methods like interviews, case studies,
oral history and reflexive stories in accounting research is to deprive accounting thought from essential insights that can
help renew and emancipate accounting’s theoretical positions and strategies of intervention (Chua, 1986; Gallhofer &
Haslam, 2004; Moerman, 2006).

3.3. Emphasizing an ethical and moral breadth to accounting

Many CMIs argue that spirituality still has a place in ‘secularization theory’ advocated by Nietzsche and Weber (Kersten,
2011, p. 42). Social science and theories, for them, should be open to what religion can offer to humanity, especially in
terms of ethics. In the meantime, religion should also be open to advances in social sciences and theories, which provide
guidance for people on both intellectual and spiritual grounds.
CMIs’ emphasis on hermeneutics prevents Muslims from claiming universal and ultimate truths on ‘historically-
conditioned’ circumstances. CMIs, however, still perceive that Islam and the Qur’an hold social and ethical notions that can
be transcended in time and place and can provide ‘universal moral guidance to humanity’ (Nettler, 1998, p. 131). For CMIs,
Quranic ‘revelation is first and foremost a guide to action and not a source of knowledge’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 166; Hanafi,
1981). Islam is, thus, ‘a universal set of values applicable to every human being, while at the same time respecting the
historicity and cultural particularities of how these values unfolded on a collective level in human societies’ (Kersten,
2011, p. 83). Whereas Islam claims to be ‘‘relevant to any time and any place’’, the doctrine ‘may vary in its external
forms according to time and place’. This move from the universal to the particular has ‘introduced an explicitly humanist
way of thinking to define the relationship between religion and culture’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 86). Further, CMIs point out
that any careful study of the Quran reveals that ‘ethics are its essence’ and are what links theology and Sharia law
(Rahman, 1982, p.
155; Filali-Ansari, 1998). Rahman (1982, p. 155), for example, maintains that a systematic reading of the Quran reveals a
desire to instate a condition of taqwa (piety) in the human-being where ‘a mental state of responsibility from which an
agent’s actions proceed but which recognizes that the criterion of judgment upon them lies outside him’. Thus, taqwa
entails a sense of responsibility, which is placed as a precondition to morality and requires coherence between the
person’s mind (rationality) and heart (spirituality). The displacement of the concept of taqwa in secular societies and
the blurred link between law and morality are resulting in a ‘chaotic state of affairs’ (Rahman, 1982, p. 156; Kersten,
2011).
CMI’s understandings of the link between spirituality, responsibility and accountability, have implications for
accounting. For a start, accounting, like other branches of social science, needs to be open to religion, spirituality and
ethics in order to bring change. The concept of taqwa in Islam emphasizes the link and interdependency between the
heart and the mind; between responsibility and accountability with belief, spirituality and morality. Such a link between
the material and the spiritual is important in order to bring betterment and avoid an unjust society. It offers an
alternative to market capitalism notions where values and moralities are perceived for the home and practicalities for
work and where the relentless pursuit of efficiency and profit maximization in accounting practices has displaced other
dimensions like ethics, the spiritual and the
sacred. As many critical accountants point out, accounting’s morality became merely connected to reason, specifically
technical and specialized knowledge (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004; McKernan & MacLullich, 2004; Tinker, 2004).
Mckernan and MacLullich (2004, p. 327) argue that a revolution on the level of principles in accounting will not be
possible as long as accounting thought is divorced from the ‘moral authority and force’ that religion and spirituality can
provide. For them, the crisis in accounting is mainly a moral one where regulations and laws informed by rationality have
proved to be unable to provide the moral substance on their own. Thus, there is a need for ‘the mystical loving relationship
of the subject and the other’ to also inform these laws and regulations as they ‘restore authority to financial reporting
and resolve the crisis it presently faces’ (McKernan & MacLullich, 2004, p. 334). Emancipatory accounting, therefore, can
only be realized if the ‘crude dichotomy’ between materialism, spirituality and ethics is abandoned and a holistic approach
to change is adopted (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2004, p. 507; Jacobs, 2011). Therefore, accounting should begin to emphasize
and reflect values other than financial and capitalistic ones. It can begin to focus on communities, the environment, on
intangibles and non-material aspects. Here, accounting and accounting information becomes a ‘guide for action’ for the
betterment of society rather than merely a source of information for decision-making purposes. This emphasis on
betterment is integral to the emancipatory accounting project (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2003, 2004; Kamla, Gallhofer, &
Haslam, 2006; Molisa, 2011).

3.4. Interreligious and intercultural approaches to accounting

While CMIs are open to applying advanced methodologies that were developed in Western thought, they remain very
aware of the tendency of European scholarship in studying humanities to promote itself as universal, threatening
alternative schools of thought (Kersten, 2011). CMIs, therefore, insist on the concept of cultural hybridity to draw
attention to the multiple influences on modernization beyond the Western influence. They argue that a failure to take
into account these
‘multiple paths to modernization’ leads not only to the simplistic assumption of a move ‘in the direction of cultural
uniformity and standardization,’ but also to the neglect of the ‘influence of non-Western civilizations . . . on one another . .
. by adopting a world-historical instead of a Eurocentric point of view it becomes possible to recognize cultural particularity
as a global value’ (Kersten, 2011, pp. 36–37). In the meantime, CMIs, like Arkoun, criticize how traditional ulama in
Islamic history have neglected the use of emerging and dynamic methodology that builds on philosophical contributions
of early Muslim philosophers like Ibn Rushd (Averroes) as well as non-Islamic thought and values that enable the
salvaging of the
‘transcultural dynamics between civilizations’ (Kersten, 2011, p. 201; Cooper, 1998).
Cultural hybridity advocated by CMIs attempts, therefofore, to create a dialogue and exchanges between the periphery
and the center and between different peripheries. This dialogue aims at creating ‘an ironic double consciousness’ open to
new meanings (Kersten, 2011, p. 38). Such notions of hybridity, modernity (second modernity) and possibilities of
exchange and dialogue allowed CMIs to reconcile and develop Islamic heritage and thought with modern European
thought and science. In this sense, CMIs practice their agency by studying Western consciousness through a Third World
consciousness in a scientific and philosophical way. They are advocates of interreligious and intercultural dialogues based
on engaging in a scholarly fashion with the ‘religious comparative’ without being ‘apologetic or polemic’ towards the
study of comparative religions (Esposito & Voll, 2001, pp. 33–34). The essence of CMI’s approach to
interreligious/intercultural dialogue constitutes the identification of ‘‘higher principles’’, ‘which are to serve as the basis for
the comparison of various systems of meanings, of cultural patterns, of moralities, and of religions; the principles by
reference to which the meanings of such systems and patterns may be understood, conceptualized and systematised’.
Muslim and non-Muslim scholars/students are thus encouraged to engage in comparative religious studies, which can
illuminate these common principles (Esposito & Voll,
2001, p. 34). Examples of these ‘‘common principles’’ include human responsibility and accountability demanded in all
religions as a key to the ‘realization of the one brotherhood of humankind’ (Esposito & Voll, 2001, p. 35). The concept of
tawhid (surrender to God) is also a common concept encompassing the three Abrahamic religions. In addition, fitra (‘a
unifying feature of human nature’) is considered an aspect of the ‘pluralist understanding of human religiosity’ (Kersten,
2011, p. 93).
CMIs’ calls for interreligious/intercultural dialogue also implies ‘‘intimate dialogue’’ with secular sciences in order to
foster an intellectual dialogue and focusing on the links between religious and non-religious sciences in universities to
11
foster an ‘‘Islamic environment of learning’’ (Vakili, 2001, p. 172) . According to Rahman (1982), secular sciences are
linked to religious ones and are integral to Islamic intellectualism as Muslim scientists are motivated and encouraged by
the Quran’s emphasis on seeking knowledge in all spheres including the study of the universe. The study of philosophy
provides a ‘much- needed analytical-critical spirit and generates new ideas that become important intellectual tools for
other sciences, not least for religion and theology’ (Rahman, 1982, pp. 157–158; Arkoun, 2002). For CMIs, philosophy should
not be regarded as a rival but as a supportive tool to religious studies. Philosophy and reason for them are not the same as
westernization and they insist that rational thought is compatible with the Islamic message and is a precondition for
renewal and thought in the Islamic umma (community of believers). Many of the values cherished and advocated by
CMIs in their changing vision parallel the original values of the enlightenment and its notion of emancipation (Kersten,
2011).
CMIs’ calls for interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Islam and the West have implications for accounting
thought. In talking about emancipatory accounting based on ethics, there is a need to move from the universal to the
11
The purpose here is not to Islamize nonreligious sciences but to provide an interaction between these fields of study (Vakili, 2001).
particular to rethink the relationship between accounting and culture. Accounting practices and values are shaped in certain
socioeconomic contexts and their meanings do not go beyond that context. As CMIs promote a contextual and historical
theology, their thought emphasizes the need of cultural hybridity and ‘differentiated universalism’ as a challenge to
metanarratives in accounting research (cf. Moerman, 2006, p. 182). In an increasingly multicultural world, therefore,
accounting researchers and learners globally should be exposed to variety of methods and theoretical approaches rather
than be limited to the dominant Anglo-American ‘techniques based on assumptions of uniformity across cultures and
social contexts’ (Reiter & Williams, 2002, p. 601). This could include the possibility of introducing intellectual debates from
outside the Anglo-American dominant theoretical perspectives like for instance incorporating aspects of Islamic (and
other non- Western, secular or non-secular emancipatory) thought in the accounting research and educations
agendas. These transcultural dimensions are needed in order to enrich accounting knowledge (Morgan, 1983; Gallhofer
& Haslam, 2004; Tinker, 2004). In this context, an emancipatory project of accounting needs to be cautious not to
impose a fixed understanding or ‘unsubjective’ emancipation and to realize that there are no universal or absolute notion
of emancipation (Jacobs, 2011).
Furthermore, accounting could help create this interreligious/intercultural dialogue and global understanding by
pointing ‘to the global interconnectedness of forms of repression and thus help to arrive at common and counter-
hegemonic reading of accounting’ (Gallhofer & Haslam, 2004, p. 395). As Tinker (2004) explains there is a close
connection between mainstream Western establishments’ perceptions of Islam today and accounting. Tinker (2004, p. 466)
argues that American militarization in the Middle East and the demonization of Islam and Muslims in the West are
examples of ‘a savage political diversion from an economic depression; a depression triggered by corporate and accounting
criminality’. Accounting, as the case with other social sciences, should play a role in drawing people’s attention to the
connection between the rhetoric of
‘Islam as the enemy’ with the attempts to retain the current social order; progress ‘is only possible by recognizing this
interdependency’ between the carnage in the Middle East and injustice in Western (especially US) societies in the form of
‘employment, health care, and stock-market-tied-pension-benefits, and all-time record high bankruptcy levels’.
Accountants’ reluctance to illuminate this link makes them complicit in injustice in their own societies and abroad
(Tinker, 2004, p. 466).
The notion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue advocated by CMIs could also encourage engagement between
parties that seem at the opposite sides of the spectrum like critical accounting researcher and religious studies
researchers including those of Islam (Kamla, 2009). In this sense, researchers from these different disciplines need to
show an ‘open- minded’ approach to learn from each other in addressing issues like resisting the dominance of
neoclassical Western capitalism, its exploitation of the weak and hostilities to Muslims and the ‘other’ (Kamla, 2009).
This engagement is important to getting parties to question their positions and reflect on them. Only then is an
emancipatory accounting project is possible.

4. Conclusion

This paper has pointed to how CMIs’ thought based on cultural hybridity and second modernity could be useful (if not
essential) to an emancipatory accounting project. CMIs’ efforts are a reminder to all accounting researchers and academics
of a need to go beyond the boundaries of mainstream Western accounting if we are to achieve a more emancipatory
accounting project. The critical accounting project in particular could gain from a mutual cooperation with CMIs’ thought
as they both realize the importance of historical and socioeconomic analysis in social sciences. Thus, the critical accounting
project needs to be more inclusive of progressive religious notions that share its aim in interrogating capitalism and
its institutions including accounting. CMIs’ cultural hybridity and second modernity approaches could also offer the
possibility of radical and revolutionary changes to the way accounting is addressed in the mainstream. By rejecting
objective, instrumental and universal assumptions that mainly build on Western thought, accounting research can move
from nearly exclusive emphasis on ‘marginalist’ assumptions to incorporating insights from CMIs’ critical social science
theories. It can also begin to highlight the ‘amazing diversity’ of accounting practices in different cultural contexts
(Hopwood, 1983, p. 289; Tinker et al., 1982).
CMIs’ thought illustrates the commonalities and parallels between critical Islamic thought with other religious and
secular perspectives concerned with enhancing social justice and resisting repression. Their thought counters perceptions by
both militant Islamists and the West of the incompatibility of Islam with Western thought. From this it could be
concluded that an emancipatory accounting project requires an inclusive and outward-looking approach to engage with
the various groups, view points and individuals that can influence the way we perceive accounting and its role in society. At
the moment, the influence of CMIs’ thought on accounting or on other social science disciplines is very limited.
Nonetheless, in the decades to come, the demographics in the Muslim world are set to change and educated classes will
increase in absolute and proportional numbers (Kersten, 2011). This will lead to an increased exposure to CMIs’ thought in
social sciences in general. The Muslim Diaspora and Muslim students and researchers in the West in particular have a
role to play in transforming, articulating and developing CMIs’ thought in the various disciplines of social sciences
including accounting. After all, the majority of contemporary CMIs were schooled and lived in the West at one stage
of their lives. Such transnational experiences had significantly enriched CMIs’ thought and provided them various
avenues for interreligious and intercultural engagements and dialogue (Mandaville, 2001). Critical engagement between
Muslim and non-Muslim students, researchers and practitioners of accounting, therefore, has the potential to produce
accounting researchers and practitioners that are able to reform and challenge the dominance of mainstream accounting
thought and practices globally. Such a challenge, it is
hoped, could bring to the fore more emancipatory forms of accounting that better serve the objectives of equity and social
justice.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Prof. Christine Cooper and the two anonymous reviewers for their very valuable comments, which I
believe have improved the paper significantly.

References

Abu-Zahra, N. (1998). Islamic history, Islamic identity and the reform of Islamic law: The thought of Husayn Ahmad Amin. In J. Cooper, R. L. Nettler, & M. Mahmoud
(Eds.), Islam and modernity: Muslim intellectuals respond (pp. 82–104). London, UK: I.B. Tauris.
Arkoun, M. (2002). The unthought in contemporary Islamic thought. London, UK: Saqi Books.
Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory: Culture, history, and the challenge of difference. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, LXI(4), 601–632.
Cooper, D. (1983). Tidiness, muddle and things: Commonalities and divergences in two approaches to management accounting research. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 8(2/3), 269–286.
Cooper, J. (1998). The limits of the sacred: The epistemology of ‘Abd al-Karim Soroush. In J. Cooper, R. L. Nettler, & M. Mahmoud (Eds.), Islam and modernity:
Muslim intellectuals respond (pp. 38–56). London, UK: I.B. Tauris.
Cooper, J., Nettler, R. L., & Mahmoud, M. (1998). Islam and modernity: Muslim intellectuals respond. London, UK: IB Tauris.
Davis, S. W., Menon, K., & Morgan, G. (1982). The images that have shaped accounting theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(4), 307–318.
Dillard, J. F. (1991). Accounting as a critical social science. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(1), 8–28.
Esposito, J. L., & Voll, J. O. (2001). Markers of contemporary Islam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Filali-Ansari, A. (1998). Can modern rationality shape a new religiosity? Mohamed Abed Jabri and the paradox of Islam and modernity. In J. Cooper, R. L. Nettler,
& M. Mahmoud (Eds.), Islam and modernity: Muslim intellectuals respond (pp. 156–171). London, UK: I.B. Tauris.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2004). Accounting and liberation theology: Some insights for the project of emancipatory accounting. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 17(3), 382–407.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2003). Accounting and emancipation: Some critical interventions. London: Routledge.
Hanafi, H. (1981). Al-Turath wa-al-tajdid. Beirut: Dar al-Tanwir.
Harrison, V. S. (2010). Hermeneutics, religious language and the Qur’an. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 21(3), 207–220.
Hopwood, A. (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2/3), 287–305. Jacobs,
K. (2011). Enlightenment and emancipation: Reflections for critical accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(5), 510–515. Jacobs, K., &
Walker, S. P. (2004). Accounting and accountability in the Iona Community. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(3), 361–381. Kamla, R.
(2009). Critical insights into contemporary Islamic accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(8), 921–932.
Kamla, R., Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2006). Islam, nature and accounting: Islamic principles and the notion of accounting for the environment. Accounting Forum,
30(3), 245–265.
Kersten, C. (2011). Cosmopolitans and heretics: New Muslim intellectuals and the study of Islam. London, UK: Hurst & Company.
Mandaville, P. (2001). Transnational Muslim politics: Reimagining the umma. London and New York: Routledge.
McKernan, J. F., & MacLullich, K. K. (2004). Accounting, love and justice. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(3), 327–360.
Moerman, L. (2006). People as prophets: Liberation theology as a radical perspective on accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(2), 169–
185.
Molisa, P. (2011). A spiritual reflection on emancipation and accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(5), 453–484.
Morgan, G. (1983). Social science and accounting research: A commentary on Tomkins and Groves. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), 385–388.
Muslim Philosophy (2012). Ash’ariyya and Mu’tazila. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H052 (Accessed 21/09/2012).
Nettler, R. L. (1998). Mohamed Talbi’s ideas on Islam and politics: A conception of Islam for the Modern world. In J. Cooper, R. L. Nettler, & M. Mahmoud (Eds.),
Islam and modernity: Muslim intellectuals respond (pp. 129–155). London, UK: I.B. Tauris.
Rahman, F. (1982). Islam and modernity: Transformation of an intellectual tradition. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Reiter, S. A., & Williams, P. F. (2002). The structure and progressivity of accounting research: The crisis in the academy revisited. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 27(6), 575–608.
Roslender, R., & Dillard, J. F. (2003). Reflections on the interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting project. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(3), 325–351.
Shearer, T. (2002). Ethics and accountability: From the for-itself to the for-the-other. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6), 541–574.
Sikka, P. (2012). Bad distribution of income and economic crisis: The hand of accountancy. British accounting and finance conference (BAFA). Paper presented in BAFA
conference in Brighton, UK.
Sikka, P., Willmott, H., & Lowe, T. (1989). Guardians of knowledge and public interest: Evidence and issues of accountability in the UK accountancy profession.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2(2), 47–71.
Solomons, D. (1991). Accounting and social change: A neutralist view. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(3), 287–295.
Tatar, B. (1998). Interpretation and the problem of the intention of the author: H.-G. Gadamer vs. ED Hirsch (vol. 5). CRVP.
Tinker, T. (1991). The accountant as partisan. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(3), 297–310.
Tinker, T. (2004). The enlightenment and its discontents: Antinomies of Christianity, Islam and the calculative sciences. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 17(3), 442–475.
Tinker, T., & Neimark, M. (1988). The struggle over meaning in accounting and corporate research: A comparative evaluation of conservative and critical
historiography. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1(1), 55–74.
Tinker, A. M., Merino, B. D., & Neimark, M. D. (1982). The normative origins of positive theories: Ideology and accounting thought. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 7(2), 167–200.
Vakili, V. (2001). Abdolkarim Soroush and critical discourse in Iran. In J. L. Esposito & J. O. Voll (Eds.), Makers of contemporary Islam (pp. 150–174). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Vollmer, H. (2003). Bookkeeping, accounting, calculative practice: The sociological suspense of calculation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(3), 353–381.
Willmott, H. C. (1983). Paradigms for accounting research: Critical reflections on Tomkins and Groves’ everyday accountant and researching his reality.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(44), 389–405.