Selective adaptation does not dissolve a tradition’s coherence or integrity.

Evidence

To represent the contemporary Islamic revival (known by those who approve of it in the Arab world as as-sahwa, “the awakening”) as a form of crypto-nationalism, to refer to it explicitly by the term “cultural nationalism,” is to propose that it is best understood as a continuation of the familiar story of Third World nationalism. That proposal renders the claim by Muslim activists to be part of a historical Islamic tradition specious because, as cultural nationalists, they must be seen as part of something essentially (though distortedly) “modern.” However, the fact that those active in the revival are usually highly critical of “traditional” teachers and practices does not prove that they are really rejecting tradition. Belonging to a tradition doesn’t preclude involvement in vigorous debate over the meanings of its formative texts (even over which texts are formative) and over the need for radical reform of the tradition. The selectivity with which people approach their tradition doesn’t necessarily undermine their claim to its integrity. Nor does the attempt to adapt the older concerns of a tradition’s followers to their new predicament in itself dissolve the coherence of that tradition—indeed that is precisely the object of argument among those who claim to be upholding the essence of the tradition. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 950

Categorization

• XREF: Asad’s definition of tradition—debate over a tradition’s own formative meaning—offers a frame parallel to how Cooper treats Christian doctrine as internally contested yet continuous.
• DEFINE: Clarifies what it means to ‘belong to a tradition’: not static reproduction but argument over the tradition’s own meanings, including which texts count.