Georgetown University Law Center
Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW
2017
Religious Difference in a Secular Age: The Minority
Report by Saba Mahmoud (2016) Book Review
Lama Abu-Odeh
Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected]
This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1951
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2927118
Feminist Dissent (forthcoming)
This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author.
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub
Part of the Religion Law Commons
BookReviewof
SabaMahmood’sReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAge:TheMinorityReport,
PrincetonUniversityPress(2016)
LamaAbuOdeh
SabaMahmoodisnotahugefanofpoliticalsecularism,particularly,initsmodernliberal
expressionasthetwinprinciplesofreligiousliberty(RL)and(religious)minorityrights(MR).In
herbook,ReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAge:AMinorityReport,thatusesthebeleaguered
plightoftheEgyptianCoptstothinkofsecularism“critically”,Mahmoodcontendsthatthe
culpritfortheirstateofsiege,sufferingdiscriminationasindividualsandperiodicsectarian
assaultfromreligiousmajorityMuslimsascommunity,isnotsomuchtheincomplete
secularismofEgypt,Egypt’sreligiosityasonemightbetemptedtothink,ratheritsEgypt’s
politicalsecularismperse.Thisissobecausesecularism’spromiseoffreedomof
religion/minorityrightsgrantedtotheCoptsofEgypt,asexpressedintheformalliberallegal
systemofEgypt,failstodeliverontheirpromiseofprotectionbecauseofthenatureofstate
interventiontheyinvite.Forthesadfactisthatsecularism’spromisequicklyturnsintoits
threat.Theliberallegalprincipleof“religiousliberty”endsupgivinglicensetothestateto
defineandregulatetheveryreligionitclaimstogranta“laissezfaire”toanditspromiseof
minorityrightsonlyaddstothepredicamentofthisminoritybydefiningitassuch.Theminority
statusmakesthem“stickoutlikeasorethumb”sotospeakexposingthemtofurtherattack
andcausingthemtorecoilinunhealthywaysintheirparticularity,attachedtotheirchurchand
theirreligiousdoctrine,anddrivingthemintodamagingallianceswithauthoritarian
dictatorshipsforprotection.ThisisnotthelonefateofthereligiousminorityofEgypt,
Mahmoodargues,butofthatofanycountrythatadoptsthelegalliberalexpressionsof
secularismthatEgyptdoes,eventhoselikeWesterndemocracieshistoricallysteepedin
secularisttraditions.WhatdifferenceinstatusWesternreligiousminoritieshavefromtheCopts
ofEgyptcanonlybeattributedtothedifferenceininterpretationreligiousmajoritiesofthe
respectivecountriesendupgivingtothetwinlegalexpressionsofsecularism(RLandMR).The
menaceofsecularismonthesereligiousminoritiesmightdifferbutitistherewherever
secularismtreadsitsliberalpath1.
Butifnotsecularismwithitstwinliberalprinciplesthenwhat?Itisnotentirelyclear.
Mahmood’scriticaldiscoursesometimeswaxesanarchist,attimeslibertarianandatmany
others,traditionalistconservative(nostalgicforthepre-modern).Forinstance,sheoffersby
wayofnostalgicreferencestothepremoderntimesoftheOttomanempireapossible
alternativetothecontemporaryglobalizedidealofpoliticalsecularism,ridingroughshodonthe
backoftheoverbearingmodernstate,whenOttomanreligious(non-Muslim)communities
enjoyedanindependentcorporatestatusasAhlAlZimmainexchangeforacceptingtheir
formalinequalitytotheMuslimmajorityoftheself-avowedlyMuslimCaliphate.Theideabeing
thatthepre-modernstateisnotasheavilyinterventionistasthemodernonechoosinginstead
torunitsvariouscommunitiesthroughsixdegreesofseparationthathadallowedsuch
communitiesindependenceindefiningtheirinternaldoctrinesandinrunningtheircommunal
affairs.IftheyhadtopayJizya(tax)tobuyofftheircorporateindependenceandiftheyhadto
beformallyplacedassecondinstatustotheMuslimmajoritythenthetrade-offmaynothave
beensobad.Inotherwords,Mahmoodseemstosuggestthatthetrade-offbetweensecondclassstatusforcorporatestatusissuperiortotheonepositedbythemodernsecularstate
betweenequalcitizenshipforminoritarianstatuscombinedwiththegrantofreligiousliberty.
1
Mahmoodsays,“WhileIslamicconceptsandpracticesarecrucialtotheproductionofthisinequality,Iarguethat
themodernstateanditspoliticalrationalityhaveplayedafarmoredecisiveroleintransformingpreexisting
religiousdifferences,producingnewformsofcommunalpolarization,andmakingreligionmoreratherthanless
salienttominorityandmajorityidentitiesalike.Furthermore,Isuggestthatinsomuchassecularismis
characterizedbyagloballysharedformofnational-politicalstructuration,theregulationofreligiousdifference
takesamodularformacrossgeographicalboundaries.Twoparadoxicalfeaturesofthissecularpoliticalrationality
areparticularlygermane.First,itsclaimtoreligiousneutralitynotwithstanding,themodernstatehasbecome
involvedintheregulationandmanagementofreligiouslifetoanunprecedenteddegree,therebyembroilingthe
stateinsubstantiveissuesofreligiousdoctrineandpractice.Second,despitethecommitmenttolevelingreligious
differencesinthepoliticalsphere,modernseculargovernancetransforms—andinsomerespectsintensifies—
preexistinginterfaithinequalities,allowingthemtoflourishinsociety,andhenceforreligiontostriatenational
identityandpublicnorms.Whilethesefeaturescharacterizeallmodernstates,inthecaseofnon-Westernpolities
suchasEgypttheyareoftenjudgedtobethesignsoftheirincompletesecularization.
Mahmood,Saba(2015-11-03).ReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAge:AMinorityReport(p.2).PrincetonUniversity
Press.KindleEdition.
2
Forwhatisobtainedintheformerissomethingverypreciousindeed:thetentaclesofthestate
offthebackofreligiouscommunities.ReligiousDifference,thenormMahmoodwantsto
protect,isthusbettersecured.
Butifpre-moderntimescouldnotberedeemedforFoucaultthroughhistoricalreversal,then
theywillsadlyhavetoeludeMahmoodhispupiltoo(Mahmood’sFoucaultianismsleftmewith
aheadachewithoutmakingmethewiser),andinfollowingthefootstepsofhermentorinhis
lastdays,sheendsherbookwiththeobliquereferenceto“ethics”asourrefugefromthe
overbearingstateasamore“realistic”?alternative.Shesays,
Thishopeissymptomaticofour(notjustEgyptians’)collectiveincapacityto
imagineapoliticsthatdoesnottreatthestateasthearbiterofmajority-minority
relations.Giventhiscontext,theidealofinterfaithequalitymightrequirenotthe
bracketingofreligiousdifferencesbuttheirethicalthematizationasanecessary
riskwhentheconceptualandpoliticalresourcesofthestatehaveproved
inadequatetothechallengethisidealsetsbeforeus.
Sadlyforus,thiswastheconcludingparagraphofthebookandweareleftwithnoguideposts
astowhat“ethicalthematizationasanecessaryrisk”meantthoughIconfessitleftmewiththe
imageofaCopticpopenegotiatingapeacepactwithaMuslimclericoverbittercoffee,onthe
rightsandwrongs(notrightsandduties)ofintercommunalsocialrelations.Italsoleftmewith
thequeasyfeelingthattheethicsofthereligiousPatriarchsmaynotatallprovesuperiortothe
rightsanddutiesofthemodernliberalstate,aucontraire,decidedlyinferior.Infact,Ithink,it
isMahmood’swager,andshehintsatthishereandthereinherbook,that,lefttotheirown
corporatistdevices,religiouspatriarchsaremorelikelytotreadthepathofdoingtheright
thing,ethically,thantheywouldbewhentheyareunderthesleeplesspanopticaleyeofthe
liberallegaliststate.HowthiscouldbedoneisaquestionthatislefthanginginTheMinority
Report,muchasthethesisthatfemalesubmissivenessamongreligiouslyconservativewomen
inEgyptrequiredrelativistunderstandingfromfeministsdidinThePoliticsofPiety,Mahmood’s
previousbook.
3
LibertyasRight
Mahmoodwrites,
WhileIappreciatetheprotectionsandfreedomsthatsecularismmightextendto
religiousdissentersandnonbelievers,Iwouldalsoliketopointoutthatpolitical
secularismisnotmerelytheprincipleofstateneutralityortheseparationof
churchandstate.Italsoentailsthereorderingandremakingofreligiouslifeand
interconfessionalrelationsinaccordwithspecificnorms,themselvesforeignto
thelifeofthereligionsandpeoplesitorganizes.Thisdimensionofpolitical
secularism-shotthroughasitiswithparadoxesandinstabilities-needstobe
understoodforthelifeworldsitcreates,theformsofexclusionandviolenceit
entails,thekindsofhierarchiesitgenerates,andthoseitseekstoundermine.
Thetwodimensionsofpoliticalsecularism-itsregulatoryimpulseanditspromise
offreedom-arethoroughlyintertwined,eachnecessarytotheenactmentofthe
other.
Mahmoodisabsolutelyrightthatsecularismreordersreligiouslifeaccordingtonormsforeign
tothelifeofthosewhopracticesuchreligions.Ofcourseitdoes;infact,asasecularistmyself,I
shouldhopeitdoes.Iftheoppositeweretrue,iftheprincipleofnoseparationbetweenchurch
andstateweretoprevail,thensecularistslikemewouldhavehadtheirownlivesupended
insteadandinwaysthatthespecificinterpretationoftheprincipleofnoseparationinourstate
woulddictate.Wemayhavetoveilinpublic.Wemayhavetobeshepherdedtomidday
prayersinourworkplaces.Wemayhavetolietopublicenforcersaboutnotfastingin
Ramadan.Manyterriblyunsecularthings,“foreigntothelives”ofussecularistswouldhaveto
takeplaceandwewon’tlikeitonebit.
Bettertheythanus,Isay!
Thisisalltosaythatthefactthatsecularismupendsthelifeofthereligiousisnothingmore
thananexpressionofitsnormativevictoryoverthecounternorm-noseparationbetween
churchandstate-thatlurksintheshadow,justabouteverywhere,asanalternativeorganizing
legalprinciple.InsofarasMahmoodclaimstobethinkingofsecularism“critically”bypointing
thisparticularfeatureofsecularismthenIamafraidshehasinsteadmerelyreiteratedthe
4
obvious.Thisisnotexactlyafeatureof“secularism”alone,rather,anyprevailinglegalnorm:
legalnormsbiteandthisisjustthewaythatlegalnormsofsecularismdo!
ItiswhenMahmoodarguesthatthe“regulatoryimpulse”ofsecularisminfactcontradictsits
promiseofreligiouslibertythatIfindmyselfpausing.Tobemoreprecise,whatisbafflingtome
istheargumentthatlegalregulationandlibertyareopposites,thattopointtotheregulatory
aspectsofsecularismistocatchsecularism’sclaimofguaranteeingreligiouslibertyinagotcha
moment:redhandedcommittinganobviouscontradiction.
Thisissobecauselibertyandregulationarenotexactlyopposites.Libertycanonlyexpressitself
inregulatedformandtothinkofregulationasadamperonlibertyistobeguiltyofformalist
reasoningthatholdslittlewateroncloseinspection.Infact,andcontrarytoMahmood’s
analysis,inwhich“religiousliberty”isdiscussedindependentlyfrom“minorityrights”allocating
achapterforeach,religiouslibertyisnothingbutminorityrights.Thisissobecauselibertyis
brokendowntoabundleofclaims,privileges,powers,andimmunitiesthatregulatethe
relationshipofcitizensofthestateonthequestionofreligion.Thetotalsumoftheseclaims,
privileges,powersandimmunitiesiswhatwecall“rights”andtheyareoneandthesameas
‘religiousliberty”.Forhowastatechoosestodistributethesesetsofprivileges,claims,powers
andimmunitiesonthequestionofreligioniswhatdistinguishesitsownmodeofsecularism
fromthenext.Eachdistributionaffectsmajority/minorityrelationsdifferently,adifferencethat
isobscuredifonereadthesignifierRL/MRformally,thewayMahmooddoes,anditisalsoa
differencethatmayverywellbeworthdyingfor.
Takeforinstancethepracticeof“veiling”inaMuslimmajoritycountrythatadoptsRL/MRinits
legalsystem.Awomanmighthavea“righttoveil”inthisstateasaninstanceofherreligious
libertybutthiscouldmeandifferentthingslegally.Itcertainlymeansandatminimumthatshe
doesn’thaveadutytoveil.Forifshedoes,thentheprivilegetoweartheveil,whichthe“right
toveil”entailsistakenawayfromher.Butastatethatseesthe“righttoveil”asanexpression
ofreligiouslibertymightlegallyinterpretthisrightasallowingthewomantoweartheveil
5
anywhereinpublic.Butthenitcoulddosobutcreateanexceptiontotheexerciseofthe
privilegeofveilingincertainplacessuchassay“privateschools”administeredbyChristian
missionaries.Thoseschoolsaregiventheoptionofrefusingtoadmitveiledwomenasstudents
eventhoughpublicschoolsfinancedbythestateareprohibitedfromdoingso.Theargument
beingthatChristianschoolsasareallowedtochoosewhatviolatesthereligiouslibertyoftheir
studentswithintheconfinesoftheirownadministeredschoolsandiftheyconsiderveilingas
introducingMuslimsymbolisminthepublicspaceoftheChristianprivateschoolthentheymay
verywellchoosetoprohibitwearingit.Alternatively,astatemightprohibitanexceptionasthe
abovetothe“righttoveil”,seeingintheexceptionaviolationoftheMuslimgirl’sreligious
libertythatwouldnotbetolerated,butatthesametimeabstainfromfacilitatingtherightto
veil.Anditcoulddoso,byprohibitingpreachingtheveilinthecurriculumorclasspedagogyof
publicschools.Theargumentbeingthatpreachingtheveilviolatesthereligiouslibertyofthe
Christianstudentminority.Anyteacherthatdoessorisksbeingexpelledfromhisorherjob.
Butthenastatecoulddotheopposite:itcouldallowforanexceptiontoveilinginprivate
schoolsbutrequirestheassignmentofstatecurriculuminthoseschoolsthatadvocatesveiling
asthewordofGodforMuslims.Alloftheseformsofregulationareexpressionsofthe“rightto
veil”itselfanexpressionof“religiousliberty”–nodutytoveil-itselfanexpressionofwhat
Mahmoodcalled“cultureofthemajority”buteachhasadifferentconfigurationwitha
differentdistributiveconsequenceforthemajorityandtheminority,ortousetherathervague
andliteraryexpressionthatMahmooduses,each“createsalifeform”differentthanthenext
one.
FamilyLaw
Mahmoodarguesthatcontrarytocommonperceptionitisnot“religion”thatcreatesgender
inequality,ratheritissecularism,itsveryopposite.Thisissobecausepoliticalsecularism
“jams”women,family,sexualityandreligion,inthesameplace“theprivate”(asdistinctfrom
6
“public”)creatingaformof“cross-contamination”-thereligiousappropriatethefamilyandthe
familyacquiresthequalityofthereligious.
InMahmood’swords:
Iarguethatfamilylaw,asanautonomousjuridicaldomain,isamoderninventionthatdidnot
existinthepremodernperiod.Itispredicateduponthepublic-privatedividesofoundationalto
thesecularpoliticalorder,anduponamodernconceptionofthefamilyasanuclearunit
responsibleforthereproductionofthesocietyandthenation.Religion,sexuality,andthefamily
arerelegatedtotheprivatesphereunderthissystem,therebyconjoiningtheirlegalandmoral
fates.Asaresult,familylawhascometobearaninordinateweightinthereproductionand
preservationofreligiousidentity.
Noteherehow,inordertoregisterhernextcritiqueof“politicalsecularism”,Mahmooddrops
intheparagraphaboveallreferencetotheliberallegalcomplexof“liberty/rights”that
characterizedherpreviousdiscussionandtransitionstoanotherone,namely,“the
public/private”one.ThismightbebecausetherulethataddressesallEgyptians,religious
majorityandminority:“Youareunderthedutytomarryaccordingtothedoctrineofthe
religionyouareborninto”isanexpressionneitherof“religiousliberty”norindeedof“minority
rights”.Itisnotexactlyagrandexpressionof“secularism”.Whateverinvisiblelinethereisthat
separates“secularism”,withalltheinternalpossibilitiesofitsarticulation,iscrossedhereto
somethingthatis“not-secularism”.
If,however,theEgyptianstatekepttheruleabove,namely,“thedutytomarryaccordingto
religiouslaw”,butalsoallowedforanopt-outrightofmarryingaccordingto“civillaw”and
madethisrightavailabletoallEgyptians,thenwewouldstillbewithinthedomainofthe
“religiousliberty”ofsecularism.Butthenifsuchanoptionexisted,manyEgyptians,Muslims
andotherwise,wouldhaveflockedtothisopt-out,thereby“minimizing”religiousdifference.It
wouldthenbehardtoargue,asMahmooddoes,thatitwas“secularism”thatexaggerated
religious“difference”(orgenderinequality);andthemorecommononethatitwasunfinished
secularismthatwastheculpritwouldmakemuchmoresense.
7
Moreover,itwouldbepreposteroustoarguethatastatethatregulatesmarriageaccordingto
civillaw,butthatalsoallowspeopletomarryaccordingtotheirownreligiousceremonies,such
astheUS,sitsonthesame“politicalsecularism”spectrumwithastatesuchasEgyptthat
requirespeopletomarryaccordingtotheirrespectivereligiouslawsjustbecausebothlaws,
civilandreligious,arepassedbythestate.Theymaysitonthesame“patriarchal”spectrum,
dependingontheparticularfamilyrulespassedineach;theymaysitonthesame
public/privatedividespectrumwiththefamilytreatedasthedomainofthe“private”inboth,
buttheycan’tpossiblybedescribedassittingonthesame“secularism”spectrum.Toexpand
themeaningof“secularism”toeverythingthemodernstatepassesaslawthattakesreligionas
itsobject-whetheritpermitsitspublicexpression,orrequiresitorprohibitsit-istomake
“secularism”literallyincoherentbyerodingthedifferencebetweenitanditsopposite.Itisin
effecttoarguethatlivinginastatethatorderswomentoveilinpublicsuchasSaudiArabiaand
IranissameaslivingasawomaninastatesuchastheUSthatdoesnot.
Todosoriskssoundingabsurd.
EIPR(EgyptianInitiativeforPersonalRights)
AsImentioned,IcouldnothavewrittenReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAgewithoutconducting
workwithEIPRandotherminority-rightsgroupsinCairo.However,asIworkedwiththese
activists,Irealizedthattheassumptionsthatinformedtheirworkwerenotsimply“theirs”but
belongedtoaglobalpoliticaldiscoursethatexertsanimmenseforceonourcollective
imagination…..UponmyreturnfromEgypt,asIbegantheprocessofanalysisandwriting,Iwas
compelledtodigbeyondtheethnographicencountertograspfragmentsofthepastcongealed
th
intothepresent….thisprocessinturnrequiredanengagementwithhistoricalmaterialsfrom18 centurytothepresent…Thebookthuscouldnothavebeenbornwithouttheethnographic
encounter,butalsohadtotranscenditinordertomakesenseofwhatIencountered.
Thishasbecomesomewhatofafamiliartrope2:theanti-enlightenmentUS-basedacademic
“transcendstheethnographicencounter”withthelocalactivistwhohadgoneoutofhis/her
waytohostandassistthevisitinganthropologizingacademic,bydiscovering,upongoingback
2
ItissofamiliarIamstartingtothinkitisnecessary.Ihavecommentedonittwice:
See
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/lama-abu-odeh/holier-than-thou-antiimperialist-versus-local-activist
and
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/15350
8
hometoAmerica,towherethelandofenlightenmentisyoumightsay,thatthelocalactivist
wasinthegripofanenlightenmentdiscoursethatwasglobalized(bummer!)butthathadthe
problemthatitlimited“ourcollectiveimagination”!Thesenseofadmirationtheacademicmay
havehadfortheworkoftheactivistwhentheywereintheverylocalplace,andMahmoodis
fullofpraisefortheworkofthelawyersofEIPR,becomesatadambivalentfromadistanceas
theactivistnowappearstobesufferingsomekindofa“falseconsciousness”,youknow,the
typeyouhavewhenyou’reintotoomuchenlightenment!
AsIknowsomeofthelawyerswhoworkatEIPRandasIamfamiliarwiththeworktheydo,I
findithardtobelievethatthoselawyerswerenotawarethat“theassumptionsthatinformed
theirworkwerenotsimplytheirs!”Theyknewallrightthattheywerepartofaglobalized
rightsmovementandthattheyweredeployingtheinternationallanguageofhumanrights:
religiousliberty,minorityrightsandall!Isuspectthoughthattheselawyers’secularism,which
theyhadputintogoodactivistuseonbehalfoftheCoptsandotherreligiousminoritiesthrough
carefuldeploymentofrightsdiscourse,didn’tgodownwellwithMahmoodwhoseacademic
agenda,asthisbookquiteamplyrepresents,isantagonistictosecularism.
Andeventhough“theassumptionsthatinformed[theselawyers’]work…belongedtoaglobal
politicaldiscourse”,contrarytoMahmood,Ithinktheseassumptionswereverymuch“theirs”.
ForMahmoodmakesmuchofthetaintedoriginsandthebadcompanythat“political
secularism”hadhistoricallykeptinitslongandillustrioustravelingcareeracrosstheoceans.
FromitsearlyoriginsasarusetoallowEuropeanpowerstointerveneintheaffairsofthe
OttomanEmpireonbehalfofreligiousminorities,toitslaterassociationwithbadprojectssuch
asneoliberalism,AmericanEvangelism,andCoptsoftheUSdiaspora,“religiousliberty”
knockedonthedoorofthe“orient”threateninglyinthecontextof“differentialsovereignty”.
Astherecipientsofsecularismgavenoproper“consent”,andevenworse,somethingprecious
waslostintheprocess,namely,“religiousdifference”,thissecularismbecameirredeemably
taintedforMahmood.Itsglobalismwasimperialismsimpliciter,orsoseemedthesuggestionof
TheMinorityReport.
9
AndyetwhattheEIPRlawyersdidsowellandsoeffectivelywastoseeinthissecularismits
universalistpromiseandbyputtingittogoodactivistusemadeitverymuchtheirown.For
“RL/MR”thedefiningprinciplesofsecularismisnothingbutacompromiseformationonthe
twinuniversalnormsofequality(ofcitizenship)andliberty(ofreligiouspractice),thedetailsof
which,howitwouldbetranslatedintolawsandregulations,wasanobjectofstruggleforrights
thattheselawyerschosetowageandpushtodefine.AsItriedtoshowinmydiscussionofthe
possiblerulesthatthisconfigurationcouldproduce,thedifferencebetweentheoneandthe
othermayverywellbeadifferenceworthdyingfor!Ratherthan“limittheimagination”,itwas
theverystuffthatfireditup!
Farfromseeingtheinevitablecomplexityofthecompromiseformationequality/libertyof
secularismastheselawyersdid,Mahmoodtreatedanyincursionfromtheformer(equality)on
thelatter(liberty)paranoia-cly,asonlyaradicallibertarianwoulddo.Anyformofregulationof
religiousliberty,orwhatshelikestocall“religiousdifference”,forthepurposesofpromoting
equalitywasexcoriatedastoointrusiveandusedtoshowthe“contradictionandparadoxof
secularism”.
Inshort,whileEIPRlawyersstruggledforEgyptianstobeequalandfreeintheonlystatethey
knewandlivedin,Mahmoodwaxedlibertarian(denouncingregulation),anarchist(denouncing
thestate)andreligiousconservative(nostalgicfortheOttoman)allatthesametime!
Shemaywintheconteston“imagination”,buttheoneon“justice”,IamafraidtheEIPR
lawyerswillhavetowineachtime.
10
Conclusion
ReadingTheMinorityReportwasaveryoddexperience.AbookonsecularisminEgyptthat
doesn’tmakeasinglereferencetoAlSahwaAlIslamiyya(“TheIslamicAwakening”)thesocial
phenomenonthathashauntedthelivesofCopts(aswellasMuslims),fordecadesnow,and
pushedthemtoeithermigratetotheWestinwavesinfearfortheirlivesandlivelihoodorto
alternativelyseekprotectionbysupportingdictatorships,leavesthereaderthinkingthatthey
hadjustfinishedreadingnotatractontheoryexactly,butonideology,andnotthegoodkind!
ItseemsoddnottoengagewithaphenomenontheEgyptianhistorianSherifYounis,describes
inthismanner:
[Al Sahwa] has colored the lives of people across the span of forty years with the darkest of
tones:popularizingaccusatoryandviolentlanguageaswellasthesenseofgrievanceandsiegein
popularandsemiofficialreligiousdiscourse;givingrisetotheviolenceofexplosionsandsuicides
that has killed people and upended their lives, their livelihood and their sense of security;
touchingthelivesofthenonChristianArabs,instillingdreadandfearintheirhearts,threatening
them in their possessions and nurturing sectarian feelings among the populace; it has
undermined the status of women in society, threatened public rights and liberties, created a
regime of censoring terror among writers and artists, and left a trail of death material and
psychological in its trail….. All of this under the heading “The Return to Islam” whose grand
3
theoristwasSayyedQutub. ItisthisthatEIPRlawyerswereinterveninginonbehalfofAlSahwa’svictims.Ofcourse,there
aremanyinterestingtheoreticalquestionsthatcouldbeposedaboutthissecularism,including
theroleofthemodernEgyptianstateindelimitingitscompromisedformandthewaysinwhich
itiscomplicitinthisSahwa,butthosewouldhaveonlybeenpossibleifsufficientaccountof
whatthatsecularismwasinterveninginwasofferedbyMahmood.Insteadwhatwasproduced
wassomethingofamystificationinwhich“secularism”itselfwasmadetoappearasifitwere
theculpritbehindCopticmisery.
3
TalkdeliveredataconferenceinMoroccoin2014entitled,“ImpedimentstotheRenewalofIslamicDiscourse
anditsDynamics:IslamasaLocusofConflict”.Manuscriptwithauthor.
11
TheMinorityReportisatextthattriestorespondtotheproblemofessentializingIslam(the
culturalismproblem)byperformingaflipsothatallthebadattributestypicallyassociatedwith
“Islam”arenowattributedtosecularisminstead.Itissecularismthatdiscriminates,thatis
sectarian,thatencouragesviolence,thatisrepressive,sexist,etc.ThisMahmooddoesbyon
theonehandhyper-politicizingsecularism(depletingitofitsuniversalistdrive),andonthe
otherunder-politicizingitbyignoringitsinternalindeterminacy,complexity,openstructureand
varieddistributiveeffects.Theresultisanaccountthatmovesbetweencrudehistoricismsecularismisitshistory-andformalistgeneralizationsreminiscentoftheways“Islam”istreated
inmainstreamdiscourse.Islamisnothingbutthehistoryofitsconquestsanditsdoctrines
createtheworldinaspecificway.
Butaflipdoesnotacritiquemake.
12