Georgetown University Law Center Georgetown University Law Center

Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW

2017

Religious Difference in a Secular Age: The Minority Report by Religious Difference in a Secular Age: The Minority Report by

Saba Mahmoud (2016) Book Review Saba Mahmoud (2016) Book Review

Lama Abu-Odeh Georgetown University Law Center, la34@law.georgetown.edu

This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1951

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2927118

Lama Abu-Odeh, Secularism's Fault, Feminist Dissent, Summer 2017, at 148-161 (reviewing

Saba Mahmood, Religious Difference in a Secular Age: A Minority Report (2016)).

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: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub

Part of the Religion Law Commons

BookReviewof SabaMahmood’sReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAge:TheMinorityReport, PrincetonUniversityPress(2016) LamaAbuOdehSabaMahmoodisnotahugefanofpoliticalsecularism,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

2

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-offbetweensecond-

classstatusforcorporatestatusissuperiortotheonepositedbythemodernsecularstate

betweenequalcitizenshipforminoritarianstatuscombinedwiththegrantofreligiousliberty.1Mahmoodsays,“WhileIslamicconceptsandpracticesarecrucialtotheproductionofthisinequality,Iarguethatthemodernstateanditspoliticalrationalityhaveplayedafarmoredecisiveroleintransformingpreexistingreligiousdifferences,producingnewformsofcommunalpolarization,andmakingreligionmoreratherthanlesssalienttominorityandmajorityidentitiesalike.Furthermore,Isuggestthatinsomuchassecularismischaracterizedbyagloballysharedformofnational-politicalstructuration,theregulationofreligiousdifferencetakesamodularformacrossgeographicalboundaries.Twoparadoxicalfeaturesofthissecularpoliticalrationalityareparticularlygermane.First,itsclaimtoreligiousneutralitynotwithstanding,themodernstatehasbecomeinvolvedintheregulationandmanagementofreligiouslifetoanunprecedenteddegree,therebyembroilingthestateinsubstantiveissuesofreligiousdoctrineandpractice.Second,despitethecommitmenttolevelingreligiousdifferencesinthepoliticalsphere,modernseculargovernancetransforms—andinsomerespectsintensifies—preexistinginterfaithinequalities,allowingthemtoflourishinsociety,andhenceforreligiontostriatenationalidentityandpublicnorms.Whilethesefeaturescharacterizeallmodernstates,inthecaseofnon-WesternpolitiessuchasEgypttheyareoftenjudgedtobethesignsoftheirincompletesecularization.Mahmood,Saba(2015-11-03).ReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAge:AMinorityReport(p.2).PrincetonUniversityPress.KindleEdition.

3

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’)collectiveincapacitytoimagineapoliticsthatdoesnottreatthestateasthearbiterofmajority-minorityrelations.Giventhiscontext,theidealofinterfaithequalitymightrequirenotthebracketingofreligiousdifferencesbuttheirethicalthematizationasanecessaryriskwhentheconceptualandpoliticalresourcesofthestatehaveprovedinadequatetothechallengethisidealsetsbeforeus.

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.

4

LibertyasRightMahmoodwrites,

WhileIappreciatetheprotectionsandfreedomsthatsecularismmightextendtoreligiousdissentersandnonbelievers,Iwouldalsoliketopointoutthatpoliticalsecularismisnotmerelytheprincipleofstateneutralityortheseparationofchurchandstate.Italsoentailsthereorderingandremakingofreligiouslifeandinterconfessionalrelationsinaccordwithspecificnorms,themselvesforeigntothelifeofthereligionsandpeoplesitorganizes.Thisdimensionofpoliticalsecularism-shotthroughasitiswithparadoxesandinstabilities-needstobeunderstoodforthelifeworldsitcreates,theformsofexclusionandviolenceitentails,thekindsofhierarchiesitgenerates,andthoseitseekstoundermine.Thetwodimensionsofpoliticalsecularism-itsregulatoryimpulseanditspromiseoffreedom-arethoroughlyintertwined,eachnecessarytotheenactmentoftheother.

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

5

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

6

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

7

“public”)creatingaformof“cross-contamination”-thereligiousappropriatethefamilyandthe

familyacquiresthequalityofthereligious.

InMahmood’swords:

Iarguethatfamilylaw,asanautonomousjuridicaldomain,isamoderninventionthatdidnotexistinthepremodernperiod.Itispredicateduponthepublic-privatedividesofoundationaltothesecularpoliticalorder,anduponamodernconceptionofthefamilyasanuclearunitresponsibleforthereproductionofthesocietyandthenation.Religion,sexuality,andthefamilyarerelegatedtotheprivatesphereunderthissystem,therebyconjoiningtheirlegalandmoralfates.Asaresult,familylawhascometobearaninordinateweightinthereproductionandpreservationofreligiousidentity.

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.

8

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,IcouldnothavewrittenReligiousDifferenceinaSecularAgewithoutconductingworkwithEIPRandotherminority-rightsgroupsinCairo.However,asIworkedwiththeseactivists,Irealizedthattheassumptionsthatinformedtheirworkwerenotsimply“theirs”butbelongedtoaglobalpoliticaldiscoursethatexertsanimmenseforceonourcollectiveimagination…..UponmyreturnfromEgypt,asIbegantheprocessofanalysisandwriting,Iwascompelledtodigbeyondtheethnographicencountertograspfragmentsofthepastcongealedintothepresent….thisprocessinturnrequiredanengagementwithhistoricalmaterialsfrom18thcenturytothepresent…Thebookthuscouldnothavebeenbornwithouttheethnographicencounter,butalsohadtotranscenditinordertomakesenseofwhatIencountered.

Thishasbecomesomewhatofafamiliartrope2:theanti-enlightenmentUS-basedacademic

“transcendstheethnographicencounter”withthelocalactivistwhohadgoneoutofhis/her

waytohostandassistthevisitinganthropologizingacademic,bydiscovering,upongoingback

2ItissofamiliarIamstartingtothinkitisnecessary.Ihavecommentedonittwice:Seehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/lama-abu-odeh/holier-than-thou-antiimperialist-versus-local-activistandhttp://english.al-akhbar.com/node/15350

9

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.

10

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.

11

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 oftones:popularizingaccusatoryandviolentlanguageaswellasthesenseofgrievanceandsiegeinpopularandsemiofficialreligiousdiscourse;givingrisetotheviolenceofexplosionsandsuicidesthat has killed people and upended their lives, their livelihood and their sense of security;touchingthelivesofthenonChristianArabs,instillingdreadandfearintheirhearts,threateningthem in their possessions and nurturing sectarian feelings among the populace; it hasundermined the status of women in society, threatened public rights and liberties, created aregime of censoring terror among writers and artists, and left a trail of death material andpsychological in its trail….. All of this under the heading “The Return to Islam” whose grandtheoristwasSayyedQutub.3

ItisthisthatEIPRlawyerswereinterveninginonbehalfofAlSahwa’svictims.Ofcourse,there

aremanyinterestingtheoreticalquestionsthatcouldbeposedaboutthissecularism,including

theroleofthemodernEgyptianstateindelimitingitscompromisedformandthewaysinwhich

itiscomplicitinthisSahwa,butthosewouldhaveonlybeenpossibleifsufficientaccountof

whatthatsecularismwasinterveninginwasofferedbyMahmood.Insteadwhatwasproduced

wassomethingofamystificationinwhich“secularism”itselfwasmadetoappearasifitwere

theculpritbehindCopticmisery.

3TalkdeliveredataconferenceinMoroccoin2014entitled,“ImpedimentstotheRenewalofIslamicDiscourseanditsDynamics:IslamasaLocusofConflict”.Manuscriptwithauthor.

12

TheMinorityReportisatextthattriestorespondtotheproblemofessentializingIslam(the

culturalismproblem)byperformingaflipsothatallthebadattributestypicallyassociatedwith

“Islam”arenowattributedtosecularisminstead.Itissecularismthatdiscriminates,thatis

sectarian,thatencouragesviolence,thatisrepressive,sexist,etc.ThisMahmooddoesbyon

theonehandhyper-politicizingsecularism(depletingitofitsuniversalistdrive),andonthe

otherunder-politicizingitbyignoringitsinternalindeterminacy,complexity,openstructureand

varieddistributiveeffects.Theresultisanaccountthatmovesbetweencrudehistoricism-

secularismisitshistory-andformalistgeneralizationsreminiscentoftheways“Islam”istreated

inmainstreamdiscourse.Islamisnothingbutthehistoryofitsconquestsanditsdoctrines

createtheworldinaspecificway.

Butaflipdoesnotacritiquemake.