1
00:00:04,210 --> 00:00:05,680
Good afternoon. Good morning.

2
00:00:05,690 --> 00:00:13,480
Depending on your time zone and welcome to our third event for the term and it's actually coming right in the last week of term

3
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:20,080
here in Oxford of our Political Thought Seminar as part of the Middle East Centre's Contemporary Islamic Studies programme.

4
00:00:20,170 --> 00:00:25,989
And it gives myself and Satechi great pleasure to welcome two scholars from across

5
00:00:25,990 --> 00:00:31,149
the Atlantic who are really sort of leaders in the study of religion and secularism.

6
00:00:31,150 --> 00:00:36,520
To talk about this week's theme, the theme of religion scholars are Elizabeth Chapin,

7
00:00:36,520 --> 00:00:41,230
heard from Northwestern University, I understand Abbasi from Stanford University.

8
00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:45,400
And Beth, you'll be speaking about Decolonising, the category of religion.

9
00:00:45,730 --> 00:00:49,240
Oceania will be speaking about regulating religion in premodern Islamic government.

10
00:00:49,250 --> 00:00:54,580
So we're going to be straddling historical range in the course of this hour and a half.

11
00:00:54,880 --> 00:00:58,450
And we'll start with yourself, Beth, so I'll give you a brief introduction.

12
00:00:58,810 --> 00:01:05,080
You'll be able to speak for 20 minutes. Russian will then be able to speak for 20 minutes, and then we'll shift to a discussion.

13
00:01:05,290 --> 00:01:11,859
And we always tell participants, please feel free to put questions in the Q&A or in the chat and we'll come to them.

14
00:01:11,860 --> 00:01:15,400
So even mid-stream, while you're sort of listening, feel free to do that.

15
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:20,440
And Faisal and I will basically coordinate a discussion afterwards.

16
00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:29,830
So very often Beth and Rush and Faisal and I kind of take the privilege that we have as co-chairs of the panel to engage you both in discussion.

17
00:01:30,010 --> 00:01:34,300
And we thoroughly enjoy that process as well, but we usually try and get to everyone's questions as well.

18
00:01:35,020 --> 00:01:40,330
So without further ado, I'd like to briefly introduce it is a segment heard.

19
00:01:40,510 --> 00:01:47,530
So Beth is Professor of Political Science and Crown Chair in Middle East Studies at Northwestern University.

20
00:01:47,890 --> 00:01:54,549
She studies religion and global politics. She's a very prolific author and co-directs Talking Religion,

21
00:01:54,550 --> 00:02:01,420
Public Politics and the Media and Global Politics and religion research groups at Northwestern University.

22
00:02:01,900 --> 00:02:09,790
Her recent public pieces are three myths about religion and politics and dangerous logic at the borders, religion and the travel ban.

23
00:02:10,270 --> 00:02:17,889
It says here, Beth, and this is on your website. You're currently writing a book on about the American border and as political theology.

24
00:02:17,890 --> 00:02:21,970
But I have a feeling that that's the book you are just showing us as having been published.

25
00:02:22,780 --> 00:02:27,940
Oh, no, no. So you are currently writing, but you're also working on also published other recent work.

26
00:02:28,370 --> 00:02:31,600
Never a dull moment in your sort of literary life, shall we say?

27
00:02:31,780 --> 00:02:37,120
So without further ado, I'd like you to introduce your topic of Decolonising, the category of religion.

28
00:02:37,900 --> 00:02:40,940
Thank you. Thank you so much, Sam.

29
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:47,780
Thank you. So it's so good to see you. Even only on the Hollywood Squares screen, you're saying very nice to meet you.

30
00:02:47,780 --> 00:02:53,809
Thank you for being here. And I look forward to connecting with you and engaging with your work as we go forward.

31
00:02:53,810 --> 00:02:57,049
So this is really a privilege and an honour for me to be here.

32
00:02:57,050 --> 00:03:01,640
Thank you for having me. So I've been asked to speak today about the category of religion,

33
00:03:01,640 --> 00:03:07,640
and I want to begin with two brief vignettes that illustrate kind of the kind of thinking that I'm doing right

34
00:03:07,640 --> 00:03:14,120
now about decolonising the category and some of the tensions that inhere in that process in particular.

35
00:03:14,630 --> 00:03:20,900
The first is from the Teaching Law and Religion Case Study Archive that I co-curated with Winifred Fowler Sullivan.

36
00:03:21,260 --> 00:03:27,200
And it's a case that's based on the historical and anthropological work of Paul Johnson, who works in Brazil.

37
00:03:27,950 --> 00:03:32,360
The second will draw on historian Kate Ramsey's book on Voodoo and Power in Haiti.

38
00:03:32,810 --> 00:03:35,690
Each of these two vignettes, they're very short,

39
00:03:35,900 --> 00:03:44,420
is suggestive of the limits of the category of religion that we traffic in with such ease and facility in most of our everyday conversations,

40
00:03:44,870 --> 00:03:47,749
and specifically the ways in which that category,

41
00:03:47,750 --> 00:03:54,530
in fact in courts and reflects and re instantiate histories and relations of power that more often than not involved

42
00:03:54,710 --> 00:04:00,770
white Europeans asserting various forms of domination over peoples of colour in colonial and post-colonial contexts.

43
00:04:01,370 --> 00:04:06,110
I'll then suggest that those contexts do remain with us today in some surprising ways.

44
00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:10,430
Drawing on a very brief example from my own current work, my own research.

45
00:04:10,700 --> 00:04:15,319
So the first vignette in 1870 in Brazil, Judge Miguel Jose Tavares,

46
00:04:15,320 --> 00:04:22,730
received a letter which accused an Afro-Brazilian possession priest named Luca Rosa of practising false magic.

47
00:04:23,540 --> 00:04:27,260
Judge Tavares prosecuted Rosa for charlatan ism and fraud,

48
00:04:27,380 --> 00:04:32,090
claiming he was attempting to immorally profit by representing himself as the bearer of false,

49
00:04:32,090 --> 00:04:36,800
magical powers with no legal definition of religion outside of the church,

50
00:04:37,190 --> 00:04:44,570
the spectre of Rosa's syncretic and uncategorizable religion, the religion that falls outside the boundaries of the category of religion,

51
00:04:44,990 --> 00:04:50,090
raised a number of debates over what religion is and what it could be in Brazil at that time.

52
00:04:50,570 --> 00:04:58,010
Ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced to hard labour, and central to his conviction were fears of sexual deviance,

53
00:04:58,430 --> 00:05:02,870
material gain and of his, quote, stealing from Catholicism from nefarious sense.

54
00:05:03,470 --> 00:05:10,370
He received six years of prison and hard labour, and the context in which that case arose was the rise of separatism in Brazil,

55
00:05:10,370 --> 00:05:17,000
a movement originating in France that was concerned with spirits and spiritual possession, which became widespread in the 19th century.

56
00:05:17,450 --> 00:05:20,719
Its popularity amongst Afro Brazilians in particular,

57
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:26,120
alarmed the colonial authorities as Afro religions and ritual gatherings producing states of

58
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:31,040
possession were seen as potential sources of insurrection by the enslaved and lower classes.

59
00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:36,020
This is, of course, drawing on Paul Johnson's book on this topic and possession.

60
00:05:36,830 --> 00:05:41,840
As these laws repress the religious practises of Afro Brazilians began to spread,

61
00:05:42,140 --> 00:05:50,390
the juridical regulation of religion intersected very closely with issues of sexuality, race, class and power in this particular case of cover.

62
00:05:50,580 --> 00:05:57,620
The second vignette during the US occupation of Haiti, which occurred between 1958 and 1934,

63
00:05:57,980 --> 00:06:02,480
the Occupiers were concerned about potential political dissent and anti-colonial

64
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:06,620
insurgency being expressed once again through indigenous religious practises.

65
00:06:07,100 --> 00:06:13,730
The Americans, as a result, drew a close association between what they called sorcery and popular insurgency.

66
00:06:14,270 --> 00:06:16,970
They framed sorcery as insurgency,

67
00:06:17,420 --> 00:06:25,580
and they enforce laws against laissez les or spells in the name of moral decency as a way to consolidate American control over Haiti.

68
00:06:26,180 --> 00:06:30,560
To put it very bluntly, there is no religious freedom for sorcerer insurgents.

69
00:06:31,400 --> 00:06:34,070
There's also done for Catholics, by the way, in this context,

70
00:06:34,070 --> 00:06:41,270
these same anti superstition campaigns against voodoo targeting, materialism and paganism also targeted Catholicism.

71
00:06:41,630 --> 00:06:48,140
So there was a different grammar of policing in place at this time with different grammar of regulation, different grammar about casting.

72
00:06:48,470 --> 00:06:51,170
What is there is not religion, illegitimate religion.

73
00:06:52,070 --> 00:06:59,960
The Occupiers attempts to enforce moral decency were not understood, however, to involve the export or the establishment of religion.

74
00:07:00,260 --> 00:07:03,139
And this is important. I think instead they were.

75
00:07:03,140 --> 00:07:12,709
And today, as my work has shown, they remain in U.S. foreign policy in particular, entangled, deeply entangled with the promotion of universal values,

76
00:07:12,710 --> 00:07:20,060
the notions of a free market, modern scientism of democracy, of public health, the rule of law and indeed, religious freedom itself.

77
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:28,370
This, of course, is part of a global story involving the invention of these modern ideals of religion, secularism, nation and citizenship,

78
00:07:28,370 --> 00:07:35,330
which are all carefully and closely entangled with each other in ways that we need to examine in contextually specific ways.

79
00:07:35,930 --> 00:07:39,200
In his work on spirits in Brazil, Paul Johnson describes.

80
00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:46,210
The effects of the purification of the mid-17th century category of religion, conceived as a properly civil religion,

81
00:07:46,510 --> 00:07:54,010
in dialogue with and in contrast with what he calls a proto anthropological notion of spirit possession as civil danger.

82
00:07:54,730 --> 00:07:58,719
In a recent post on the blog contending modernity, Snelson, not another theorist,

83
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:03,040
wrote that whoever defines, identifies and explains religion wields much power.

84
00:08:03,430 --> 00:08:07,210
We've known this for some time. We've all been students of Talal Assad.

85
00:08:07,930 --> 00:08:17,530
These vignettes compel us to ask, Is it possible for scholars, practitioners, lawyers, decision makers, journalists to continue to use this term?

86
00:08:17,530 --> 00:08:23,079
Religion, given its entanglements with colonialism, its dizzyingly complex legal lives,

87
00:08:23,080 --> 00:08:29,080
its complicity in hierarchies and histories of domination, many of which are also deeply racialized.

88
00:08:29,560 --> 00:08:33,970
Can we deploy this category anymore without simply reproducing these hierarchies,

89
00:08:34,300 --> 00:08:40,300
these forms of oppression that are represented in these vignettes as well as in so much other work in this field?

90
00:08:40,780 --> 00:08:48,970
There's a brand new book just out called Errand in the Wilderness by Michael Graziano, which charts the religious governance effected through the CIA,

91
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:54,969
the Central Intelligence Agency, which I think of as some of the best new work in this area.

92
00:08:54,970 --> 00:08:59,890
But there's a lot of it. Can we then do something other than say we were wrong?

93
00:08:59,950 --> 00:09:03,010
Ukca Rossa And the Haitians deserve their religion too.

94
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:08,080
This is a struggle and I think we need to use the term very, very carefully.

95
00:09:08,560 --> 00:09:14,260
Modern, rational religion was and remains famously defined by its lack of entanglement,

96
00:09:14,260 --> 00:09:19,750
its separation from both supernatural powers on the one hand, and the secular state on the other.

97
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:24,790
It is widely acknowledged that making religion across colonial contexts has involved

98
00:09:24,790 --> 00:09:29,469
condemning and often criminalising practises described as superstition and witchcraft,

99
00:09:29,470 --> 00:09:37,690
and that these powers are criminalised as dangerous, uncivilised, wild, pre-modern, thuggish, demonic and dissenting.

100
00:09:38,290 --> 00:09:42,429
The state and its religions, meanwhile, become the domain of reason statecraft,

101
00:09:42,430 --> 00:09:46,870
law, individual belief and non-belief and modern forms of rational authority.

102
00:09:47,470 --> 00:09:55,930
Muddying that divide. Troubling that divide between good and bad religion, between religion and non religion is part of my job.

103
00:09:56,860 --> 00:10:00,819
The challenge and decolonising the concept of religion then will require more than

104
00:10:00,820 --> 00:10:06,040
merely including other practises into the category of religion and moving on.

105
00:10:06,340 --> 00:10:09,580
We need to think religion otherwise and carefully.

106
00:10:10,090 --> 00:10:13,959
I will give an example of a new book, Brent Carlson's new book,

107
00:10:13,960 --> 00:10:20,980
which is called Experiments with Power Obama and the Remaking of Religion in Trinidad, which I think accomplishes this very complex balancing act.

108
00:10:21,680 --> 00:10:27,100
Preston studies Obeah, which he describes as a form of spiritual work or experiment with power.

109
00:10:27,700 --> 00:10:34,089
He sets out in his project at first to redeem it. He wants to show that it's really not all that bad.

110
00:10:34,090 --> 00:10:36,340
It's not all that dangerous. It's a good religion.

111
00:10:36,340 --> 00:10:41,829
And presumably he wants to kind of add it to the pantheon of protected and respected world religions,

112
00:10:41,830 --> 00:10:45,400
which is exactly the move that is often made in policy debates as well.

113
00:10:45,820 --> 00:10:51,880
Bring them into the interfaith dialogue. Now what he learnt was that this wasn't going to work.

114
00:10:52,210 --> 00:10:56,800
He had assumed that religion in its proper forms was exclusive of harm and he wanted to

115
00:10:56,800 --> 00:11:02,140
morally vindicate its practitioners from the darker popular associations that went with it,

116
00:11:02,140 --> 00:11:08,170
which he saw as the product of, of course, its colonial and post-colonial denigration and criminalisation.

117
00:11:08,530 --> 00:11:12,879
Which is understandable. Obama, after all, was a crime in Trinidad until 2000,

118
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:20,530
and it remains one today in much of the Anglophone Caribbean press and was drawn to what he calls the race making powers of religion.

119
00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:24,879
And this is a complex idea that has to do with the race based exclusion of

120
00:11:24,880 --> 00:11:29,770
African identified practises from both sides of the secular religions dialectic,

121
00:11:30,310 --> 00:11:36,760
which he identifies this exclusion as a foundational act in the making of religion and secularism as modern universals.

122
00:11:37,330 --> 00:11:46,569
So the terms themselves in this account are deeply racialized across and conclude that the identification of evil with African, not religion,

123
00:11:46,570 --> 00:11:50,020
has been a key part of Western modernity's moral and racial discourse,

124
00:11:50,230 --> 00:11:56,170
particularly in representations of obeah and voodoo for American, British, French and West African audiences.

125
00:11:56,500 --> 00:12:02,050
Now, Vincent Lloyd and Jonathan can make a similar claim in their excellent volume, Race and Secularism in America.

126
00:12:02,350 --> 00:12:06,190
And I think that the entanglement of racialisation with the categories of secularism

127
00:12:06,190 --> 00:12:09,850
and religion needs to be a part of all of our discussions at this point.

128
00:12:10,870 --> 00:12:14,320
Now crossings redemptive project of Obama clearly runs into a wall.

129
00:12:14,410 --> 00:12:20,920
He says his interlocutors reversed the terms of that project rather than making Obama into a religion, he says.

130
00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:29,110
They made me ask how spiritual work challenged the hegemonic limits of the category of religion itself, forced outside the comfort of that category.

131
00:12:29,410 --> 00:12:33,190
He abandons his redemptive aims, and these are precisely the kind of moments.

132
00:12:33,670 --> 00:12:39,820
And they're kind of scary because in what categories you use to talk about what we do, when, where are our jobs, what department do we work in?

133
00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:46,839
But these these objects of study are challenging the hegemonic, moral, racial limits of our own received categories of analysis.

134
00:12:46,840 --> 00:12:50,100
And this is part of the challenge today. Religion is one such category.

135
00:12:50,110 --> 00:12:53,860
Of course, there are others as well. There's also some tension here.

136
00:12:54,310 --> 00:12:58,450
Eminent scholars such as Webb Payne and David Chidester have argued that we're

137
00:12:58,450 --> 00:13:02,229
not in any position to set aside these categories religious and secular.

138
00:13:02,230 --> 00:13:06,340
They're part, as Keynes suggests, both elites and everyday discourse.

139
00:13:06,340 --> 00:13:10,930
And they mediate self-awareness everywhere. They have themselves become social sex.

140
00:13:11,440 --> 00:13:16,960
Chidester agrees, after reviewing the history of religion's colonial productions on contested frontiers.

141
00:13:17,350 --> 00:13:25,060
He says we might happily abandon religion and religious as terms of analysis if we were not, as the result of that very history stuck with them.

142
00:13:25,690 --> 00:13:34,200
So the question is, are we stuck? The U.S. is out of Haiti at least this week, although certainly there are reparations to be paid.

143
00:13:34,710 --> 00:13:39,900
At the same time, the governing logics of the occupation endure, they persist.

144
00:13:39,960 --> 00:13:43,800
When it comes to the moral, racial limits of religion at home and abroad,

145
00:13:44,520 --> 00:13:49,410
I'll now turn finally to an example from my own current research on the American border,

146
00:13:49,860 --> 00:13:54,269
and specifically, we'll speak for a moment about them, what they are, holy death,

147
00:13:54,270 --> 00:13:57,930
the unofficial patron saint of the marginalised, threatened and the poor.

148
00:13:58,830 --> 00:14:04,530
She's a skeletal female figure, clad in a long robe, and she's holding a knife and a globe.

149
00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:10,020
You may have seen her represented. She also has kind of parallels in other traditions.

150
00:14:10,980 --> 00:14:15,930
Less anti-Semite has this incredibly rich history, and I can't go into that here due to reasons of time.

151
00:14:16,260 --> 00:14:23,010
She has many devotees in the borderlands, the US-Mexican borderlands, and she also now has devotees all over North America.

152
00:14:23,310 --> 00:14:31,080
She offers protection from harm, and she serves as a reminder that no one, not even Customs and Border Protection, can escape death.

153
00:14:32,160 --> 00:14:39,420
She embraces those in limbo. She loves the narco, which is a pejorative Mexican Spanish word, meaning low class and uncultured,

154
00:14:39,840 --> 00:14:43,560
which also carries anti-indigenous and racialized connotations.

155
00:14:44,010 --> 00:14:46,770
She's also beloved by many sexual minorities.

156
00:14:48,280 --> 00:14:54,580
Historians and ethnographers often portray Santa muerte de as a sympathetic would be saint of the downtrodden and leave it at that.

157
00:14:55,030 --> 00:15:00,730
US-Mexican and law enforcement officials tell a very different story about her, though, and this is where I became interested.

158
00:15:01,240 --> 00:15:10,810
Echoing their forefathers who occupied Haiti a century ago, they depict less than the stigma as a threat to American and Mexican national security.

159
00:15:11,500 --> 00:15:16,330
She is maligned by the Catholic Church as a form of idol worship, if not the devil itself.

160
00:15:16,870 --> 00:15:23,349
She is vilified by Mexican-American law enforcement as a folk saint of the drug cartels and criminalised

161
00:15:23,350 --> 00:15:29,350
as a death cult by the U.S. Foreign Military Studies Office and a source of spiritual insurgency.

162
00:15:29,860 --> 00:15:34,010
They turn. If I may, I'm just going to share my screen here.

163
00:15:35,350 --> 00:15:38,580
How's that? Can you see that now? Yeah. Very good. Okay.

164
00:15:38,590 --> 00:15:43,450
This is less than these mind. Everywhere you go, increasingly here in Chicago as well,

165
00:15:43,720 --> 00:15:50,920
you can find all kinds of devotional items to the Asante Sima, also known as Latin Fettuccini Girl.

166
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:59,050
In my own local grocery store, I have found this candle, this that which is one lights and says the prayer which is written in Spanish on the back.

167
00:15:59,560 --> 00:16:02,950
That 97 is absolutely everywhere. She is ubiquitous.

168
00:16:03,370 --> 00:16:07,779
Let me just show one more photo, if I may, which is taken last week in Nogales,

169
00:16:07,780 --> 00:16:14,050
which is a town on the border of the United States and Mexico, in southern Arizona, in northern Sonora.

170
00:16:14,320 --> 00:16:22,720
And this is a temple to send them what they where everyone is invited to come for the rosary every Sunday at 12 noon.

171
00:16:23,900 --> 00:16:28,160
So you get she is ubiquitous is just to give you a sense with her globe and her size.

172
00:16:29,450 --> 00:16:34,880
So let me just give you a little bit of a flavour of the fear that she inspires.

173
00:16:35,060 --> 00:16:42,770
One expert American law enforcement described devotion to her as a spiritual insurgency that involved worship of a perverted Christian God.

174
00:16:43,400 --> 00:16:48,590
This has made its way into the American courts as well. And I tell I'll tell this story in a longer version of this.

175
00:16:48,590 --> 00:16:54,080
But there are court records showing that there are prayer recitations, prayer books,

176
00:16:54,170 --> 00:17:04,460
statuettes and even skeletons emblazoned air fresheners for your car that are now being used as evidence in efforts to detain and convict suspects.

177
00:17:05,390 --> 00:17:09,500
Another expert described her as describing her connexion with the revival of human

178
00:17:09,500 --> 00:17:14,300
sacrifice in Mexico and specifically worship of the female Aztec god of the dead.

179
00:17:14,630 --> 00:17:22,310
So I'm interested in exploring some of the indigenous elements of the persecution of devotees of science and wordplay in particular.

180
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:26,330
So for law enforcement, her followers are anti religion.

181
00:17:26,660 --> 00:17:30,050
They use that term anti orthodox and anti law and order.

182
00:17:30,530 --> 00:17:36,240
While some in the drug trade may engage in non-religious killing for followers of what they, it is impossible.

183
00:17:36,260 --> 00:17:42,799
All killing is religious. In the eyes of law enforcement, devotees have fallen prey to bad religion,

184
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:47,300
exacerbated by a childlike attraction to pagan ways that conducive to violence.

185
00:17:47,810 --> 00:17:53,240
So she poses a kind of spiritual threat by marshalling these dangerous and subversive indigenous,

186
00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:56,480
pagan, dark skinned forces against US law enforcement.

187
00:17:56,810 --> 00:18:04,760
And this racially tinged fear of the cults threads through a master's thesis written for the U.S. Marine Corps University in Quantico.

188
00:18:05,120 --> 00:18:12,140
And I just want to give you one quote from that. And the thesis itself is called Santa Muerte de Threatening the U.S. Homeland, which sums it up.

189
00:18:12,500 --> 00:18:18,100
And the author, Warren Santander Day, is in and of itself a religion incompatible to good order and discipline.

190
00:18:18,110 --> 00:18:28,940
It promotes a society of lawbreakers. And then he goes on to trace the forms of devotion to the failure to codify Aztec religion.

191
00:18:29,390 --> 00:18:32,900
And he contrast that with canon law in Catholicism.

192
00:18:32,930 --> 00:18:39,829
He says the problem is Aztec religion has no written doctrine, but traditions passed on through word of mouth and ritualistic practise,

193
00:18:39,830 --> 00:18:44,510
making the belief system susceptible to the damaging effects of individual interpretation.

194
00:18:45,290 --> 00:18:53,869
So he says that basically the Mexican people who wear substance and where they they got this kind of embedded into the principles of their belief,

195
00:18:53,870 --> 00:18:59,780
this obsession with death and mysticism that they inherited from the indigenous predecessors to the Spanish colonials.

196
00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:04,370
And due to the lack of doctrine, the lack of a written doctrine in specific,

197
00:19:04,370 --> 00:19:12,260
the narco cultures have picked this up and then run with it and develop their own nefarious interpretations of reverence and sentiment.

198
00:19:12,830 --> 00:19:17,990
So if this slippery called could have been pinned down and written down, he says, things might have come together differently.

199
00:19:18,230 --> 00:19:21,650
But the bottom line is, right now, what we're facing is societal collapse.

200
00:19:22,100 --> 00:19:29,870
Now, I think I'm going to wrap up here and just say that I think that it'd be really easy to dismiss these perspectives as ignorant and that or naive,

201
00:19:30,140 --> 00:19:34,240
but they actually put people in jail for life in many of these cases.

202
00:19:34,250 --> 00:19:41,180
And so while that may be tempting, there are a lot of people who are suffering as a result of these understandings and

203
00:19:41,180 --> 00:19:45,530
these interpretations and these criminalisation of some of them where they worship.

204
00:19:46,360 --> 00:19:55,719
It's also possible to read her slightly differently and to understand the forms of insurgency and religiosity that she represents as a

205
00:19:55,720 --> 00:20:03,040
form of agency of political and religious solidarity and transformation that recalls earlier figures such as Our Lady of Guadalupe,

206
00:20:03,430 --> 00:20:08,139
who some of you may know first appeared in 1531 to the newly colonised indigenous

207
00:20:08,140 --> 00:20:13,810
peoples of Mexico and became associated herself with a male fossil deity named Tomasi.

208
00:20:14,500 --> 00:20:16,719
According to Luis Leone and like Santamaria,

209
00:20:16,720 --> 00:20:25,030
de Guadalupe decimated the border between European and Native American religions through processes of syncretism, continuity and transformation.

210
00:20:26,100 --> 00:20:31,710
In a new article in which he charts the contributions of indigenous political thought to the Mexican Revolution,

211
00:20:32,130 --> 00:20:39,930
Arturo Chang describes the revolutionaries efforts to reclaim Catholicism itself as simultaneously indigenous, Mexican and Pan-American.

212
00:20:39,960 --> 00:20:46,140
I think this is part of the future of the study, of the category of religion, which is why I'm highlighting it here in conclusion.

213
00:20:46,770 --> 00:20:51,899
And he wants to retell the whole history of Mexican Republicanism through this focus on marginalised

214
00:20:51,900 --> 00:20:57,480
groups that had envisioned their own postcolonial emancipation in collective indigenous terms,

215
00:20:57,930 --> 00:21:04,079
radical Republicanism and Indigenous demands came together in a restorative moment that demonstrated what

216
00:21:04,080 --> 00:21:10,200
Chang calls the influence of indigenous religion and plebeian politics and Republican political thought.

217
00:21:10,980 --> 00:21:14,340
Like her revolutionary forebears and with Chang's work in mind,

218
00:21:14,340 --> 00:21:22,070
we might ask if devotion to Santa muerte also represents another indigenisation of borderlands, religion and politics.

219
00:21:22,080 --> 00:21:32,160
Information. Her popularity surely exceeds her status as a demonised icon of death or a pitiable pseudo saint of the dispossessed.

220
00:21:32,820 --> 00:21:35,490
Confounding the line between pure and impure religion.

221
00:21:35,850 --> 00:21:43,050
Her celebrations are marked by an openness to the exorbitant, the unsettled, even the monstrous beyond the reach of church and state.

222
00:21:43,080 --> 00:21:48,750
She's a repository of anti-colonial, anti-racist and anti and indigenous agency.

223
00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:55,800
Her followers could be seen to represent a new indigenous ecclesia, in the sense described by Pamela Claassen,

224
00:21:56,190 --> 00:22:00,180
Paul Johnson and Winnie Sullivan in their new book by that name Ecclesia,

225
00:22:00,690 --> 00:22:06,180
a collective imbued with charisma that stands apart from the hegemony of both church and state,

226
00:22:06,570 --> 00:22:12,990
one that is composed of the inter, penetrating and mutually constitutive forces of religion and politics.

227
00:22:14,010 --> 00:22:19,860
Now to assimilate Santa marta into our pantheon of world religions would clearly be a mistake.

228
00:22:20,340 --> 00:22:23,820
Her devotees sit outside the secular religious dialectic.

229
00:22:24,120 --> 00:22:26,580
It is even perhaps irrelevant to them.

230
00:22:27,090 --> 00:22:34,590
How can we do them justice without reducing them to the categories from which they have been and continue to be violently excluded?

231
00:22:35,160 --> 00:22:44,040
Decolonising religion requires telling a series of different stories not only about religion then, but also about law, politics and indeed history.

232
00:22:44,520 --> 00:22:48,489
Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Beth.

233
00:22:48,490 --> 00:22:55,660
Really sort of a journey into a world of religion that is unfamiliar to many of us, but truly illuminating.

234
00:22:55,990 --> 00:22:59,680
And thank you also for keeping to time. So exactly 20 minutes.

235
00:23:00,690 --> 00:23:01,409
I'm going to,

236
00:23:01,410 --> 00:23:09,720
in the interest of time and the subsequent discussion straight on to Roshan's presentation regulating religion and pre-modern Islamic governments.

237
00:23:10,410 --> 00:23:19,110
So Russian Embassy is a mellon postdoctoral fellow in Humanities and lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at Stanford University.

238
00:23:19,230 --> 00:23:25,530
He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Mary in Languages and Civilisations at Harvard University in 2021,

239
00:23:25,800 --> 00:23:31,410
where his dissertation was awarded the prestigious Alwaleed bin Talal Prise for best dissertation in Islamic Studies.

240
00:23:32,100 --> 00:23:37,980
For those of us who have seen it, we just think we really think it was a thoroughly deserved recognition of its brilliance.

241
00:23:38,730 --> 00:23:45,930
He formerly served as an associate research scholar at the Obelisk Centre for Islamic Law and Civilisation at Yale Law School.

242
00:23:46,710 --> 00:23:49,790
And without further ado, I'd like to hand over to Ocean.

243
00:23:51,020 --> 00:23:54,830
Thank you so much. Let me just share my screen. We can see it.

244
00:23:55,070 --> 00:23:59,299
Excellent. Thank you both. And thank you both for this fascinating talk.

245
00:23:59,300 --> 00:24:04,490
And I feel as though I'm doing something very different and working on an entirely different historical context.

246
00:24:04,790 --> 00:24:13,429
I feel we align very closely in terms of our ethical objectives and even the ways in which we think about secularism.

247
00:24:13,430 --> 00:24:19,469
And precisely what I'll try to do today is to think religion otherwise by telling these other stories in history.

248
00:24:19,470 --> 00:24:23,090
Is this one indigenous to the Islamic context,

249
00:24:23,330 --> 00:24:30,350
not only as a as a way of helping contemporary Muslims think through these issues and how these categories have worked in their own context.

250
00:24:30,350 --> 00:24:36,110
But also what I'm really trying to do here is to use the example of the pre-modern Islamic past,

251
00:24:36,110 --> 00:24:42,200
to think through some issues around secularity, particularly within the field of secularism studies,

252
00:24:42,620 --> 00:24:51,379
which I think is a new way of moving forward to expand the horizons of our thinking beyond the modern or Euro-Atlantic centric view,

253
00:24:51,380 --> 00:24:55,130
which has naturally been at the forefront of secularism studies.

254
00:24:55,700 --> 00:24:58,729
So today I'll be talking about regulating religion in pre-modern Islamic governance,

255
00:24:58,730 --> 00:25:03,740
just as you'll see from the subtitle as a tool for thinking through the problems of secularity.

256
00:25:04,220 --> 00:25:10,640
So let me just get right into it. Essentially what I'm trying to do is to offer historical intervention into theory,

257
00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:17,150
which is to say, to use the hammer of history to de-legitimize the theoretical findings,

258
00:25:17,150 --> 00:25:21,440
but to problematise certain assumptions within a field,

259
00:25:21,830 --> 00:25:27,049
and to think through various of these issues as a way of helping me understand the Islamic past.

260
00:25:27,050 --> 00:25:34,070
Actually, so briefly and this is something which I think we all know what the advances in secular studies have taught us very clearly

261
00:25:34,070 --> 00:25:39,500
is that what we're really talking about when we think about secularism is the management and regulation of religion.

262
00:25:40,250 --> 00:25:44,389
And that, of course, is itself a category that's indebted to a distinctively Christian genealogy.

263
00:25:44,390 --> 00:25:48,530
And I think even in the modern Islamic context, when you come across these terms,

264
00:25:48,530 --> 00:25:52,610
there's no way in which they're not inflected by this Western genealogy.

265
00:25:52,700 --> 00:25:59,300
Given how pervasive the West is, it is perhaps the major, if not the central element of the operation of secularism.

266
00:25:59,540 --> 00:26:08,719
And I'm completely sympathetic to this view. But what I want to do today is to incorporate this non-Western pre-modern perspective on, quote unquote,

267
00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:13,730
religion in order to complicate certain of these assumptions that I've seen within the field.

268
00:26:14,600 --> 00:26:17,629
And again, it's only to complicate them, help us better understand them,

269
00:26:17,630 --> 00:26:21,830
not necessarily undermine them, because I've found so much value in each of these perspectives.

270
00:26:22,220 --> 00:26:28,250
So the first point I look at is this idea of secularism as a kind of questioning power, which I find very compelling.

271
00:26:28,250 --> 00:26:32,120
This features in the works of the undermine his book, Questioning Secularism.

272
00:26:32,360 --> 00:26:39,349
And it's a questioning power that's driven by this sort of indeterminacy at the heart of secularism around this religious secular divide,

273
00:26:39,350 --> 00:26:43,190
or, as Beth alluded to, good and bad religion.

274
00:26:43,700 --> 00:26:47,150
And the second is the understanding of legal secularisation.

275
00:26:47,450 --> 00:26:51,350
And here I'm really thinking about this sort of wonderful volume after secular law,

276
00:26:51,740 --> 00:26:58,110
which I think Andy Sullivan and others edited as the kind of ascension of a sort of Christian sovereignty.

277
00:26:58,130 --> 00:27:03,590
So there are these excellent articles in there are talking about this longer genealogy of the very notion of secular law.

278
00:27:04,430 --> 00:27:07,070
And so I want to think through that with the case of Islam.

279
00:27:07,580 --> 00:27:11,570
And then the last question, the last issue has to do with the universality and particularity,

280
00:27:11,660 --> 00:27:17,840
which I think is really at the core of much of our debate surrounding secularism.

281
00:27:18,080 --> 00:27:22,639
And I've always found a problem in trying to figure out precisely what's going on here.

282
00:27:22,640 --> 00:27:27,740
And and what I'll try to do today is to use this long to think through some of these issues a little more clearly.

283
00:27:28,040 --> 00:27:31,399
So how I'll proceed as I look at three case studies,

284
00:27:31,400 --> 00:27:36,800
so looking at a sort of theological historical question within pre-modern Islam and then thinking about the theoretical implications.

285
00:27:37,040 --> 00:27:43,909
And this is really a work in progress. I'm thinking of writing this shorter book that's oriented towards the field of secularism studies,

286
00:27:43,910 --> 00:27:46,970
so I'm really looking forward to your comments and feedback.

287
00:27:47,910 --> 00:27:51,860
So the first case study centres on the question of what makes an act of witnessing religion.

288
00:27:51,900 --> 00:27:56,810
So witnessing is this all important institution in all pre-modern forms of governance, really,

289
00:27:56,820 --> 00:28:02,130
because you don't have sort of modern forms of forensic evidence and these sorts of things.

290
00:28:02,520 --> 00:28:05,190
So the witness plays as all important role in court proceedings.

291
00:28:06,030 --> 00:28:15,480
One of the things that I encountered in my reading of Islamic law is that the Muslim jurists who are the functionaries at these imperial courts,

292
00:28:16,110 --> 00:28:21,299
they continuously debated this question in their legal handbooks and as also even outside of them about

293
00:28:21,300 --> 00:28:27,330
how and where to draw the lines between the DINI and the doing early forms of hostility and enmity.

294
00:28:27,550 --> 00:28:30,450
Aidala And in short, really the question is this.

295
00:28:31,050 --> 00:28:37,290
You know, if you have a witness, your house is harbouring some sort of hostility or some sort of enmity towards a plaintiff or defendant.

296
00:28:37,530 --> 00:28:46,620
This obviously delegitimizes their testimony and for various reasons, they had to separate these sorts of categories of enmity.

297
00:28:46,620 --> 00:28:53,790
Right. So on one level, a dini, a religious form of hostility was perforce legitimate,

298
00:28:53,790 --> 00:28:57,240
precisely because non-Muslims, for example, were not allowed to take a stand.

299
00:28:57,840 --> 00:29:02,879
Also because religious forms of animosity are legitimate in an Islamic polity.

300
00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:06,000
Obviously, it's sort of embedded deeply in the Koran.

301
00:29:06,000 --> 00:29:10,680
And one might say this sort of drawing of lines of distinction between these communities and

302
00:29:10,680 --> 00:29:14,850
even harbouring some sort of sort of and many are hostility towards someone else's religion.

303
00:29:15,360 --> 00:29:19,110
But at the same time, this poses a problem for these jurists in their functioning of the courts,

304
00:29:19,410 --> 00:29:23,850
because they needed to separate out secular forms of hostility in which,

305
00:29:23,850 --> 00:29:29,550
for example, as was said, people hate a certain person because of the tribe they're from, or so on and so forth.

306
00:29:29,910 --> 00:29:38,310
So basically they wanted to exclude the latter, this form of hostility from this sort of illegitimate form of testimony for pragmatic reasons,

307
00:29:38,850 --> 00:29:44,250
to protect sort of justice within the court proceedings, while also sanction sanctioning the former for ideological reasons.

308
00:29:44,550 --> 00:29:53,540
So this goes back to a textual basis, a SHAFI This foundational jurist speaks of conflict as giving way to hostility.

309
00:29:54,450 --> 00:29:58,950
So one of the commentators in the Shafi School, and I would say the shabby school,

310
00:29:58,950 --> 00:30:05,640
had the most sophisticated reflections on this particular question of Hossein Amrani, who lives in the 12th century.

311
00:30:05,970 --> 00:30:09,990
He divides between the Dina and Jeremy, as so many of these other jurists do.

312
00:30:10,230 --> 00:30:14,210
And he, for example, looks at the question, the issue of partisanship of ACB.

313
00:30:14,820 --> 00:30:17,000
And again, he limits it to the secular.

314
00:30:17,010 --> 00:30:27,690
So he says a a secular form of Azaria, whether it's tribal, ethnic, whatever it might be, is perforce alleged illegitimate in courts.

315
00:30:28,050 --> 00:30:34,200
But and also the other it's based on religious grounds is necessarily protected precisely because

316
00:30:34,200 --> 00:30:37,980
Muslims might harbour hostility towards Jews and Christians on the basis of their religion,

317
00:30:38,400 --> 00:30:45,360
but nevertheless, they have to serve in the courts upon hearing testimony or else the courts are not be able to function.

318
00:30:45,720 --> 00:30:53,040
And just to give an example of how this was not simply a kind of theoretical construct, but actually made its way into the into the courts.

319
00:30:53,400 --> 00:31:00,570
This shrewd handbook, accompanied by some of the analysis of the in the 17th century Egyptian Shafik scholar Johanna Lockwood.

320
00:31:00,810 --> 00:31:08,040
He actually replicates the official formula of Camembert here, which is required for documentary purposes within the model of courts.

321
00:31:08,430 --> 00:31:17,370
And the statement, which includes here as to the proposed witness, is that he is hostile and so too so and so on secular grounds.

322
00:31:17,370 --> 00:31:20,220
I know I do at least Milan and Forlani, although I don't know.

323
00:31:20,880 --> 00:31:30,780
So it became a term that actually I think became the the documentary and the legitimate way of speaking about hostility.

324
00:31:31,650 --> 00:31:37,350
And so the point I'm trying to make here is that. For the purposes of legal governance.

325
00:31:37,530 --> 00:31:46,050
Pre-modern Muslims actually had to, in the course of legal proceedings, divide between the religious and secular for particular political purposes.

326
00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:55,709
Pragmatic, logical. And this, I think, serves as a useful case for thinking about secularity in today's day and age,

327
00:31:55,710 --> 00:32:01,200
which is, of course, has often been approached through the perspective of of law.

328
00:32:01,740 --> 00:32:06,270
For example, Professor Hird and others have done so in thinking about this.

329
00:32:06,270 --> 00:32:09,929
I started to drawing on Hussein El-Gamal and the work of David Scott.

330
00:32:09,930 --> 00:32:13,979
Think about the problem space of doing the right and the problem space, as David Scott considers it,

331
00:32:13,980 --> 00:32:22,350
is essentially the sort of constellation of questions and answers upon which certain ideological and political stakes hang.

332
00:32:22,800 --> 00:32:26,129
And this is obviously historically conditioned. There's a temporal element to it there.

333
00:32:26,130 --> 00:32:29,220
There's no universal working at play in this equation.

334
00:32:30,060 --> 00:32:34,380
And so I thought, what are the stakes here in the question of the union and the legal courts?

335
00:32:34,890 --> 00:32:40,500
And the way I would elucidated is that the danger I environment binary in this case at least emerges as a

336
00:32:40,500 --> 00:32:45,540
sort of theoretical construct and importantly within a distinctively and self-aware Islamic tradition.

337
00:32:45,540 --> 00:32:49,949
This is long before the advent of European influence as a theoretical construct

338
00:32:49,950 --> 00:32:54,240
used to address practical issues emerging from the problem of religious plurality.

339
00:32:54,510 --> 00:32:58,320
So we see at the core of it is the question of religious plurality.

340
00:32:58,350 --> 00:33:05,280
This is not something that is sort of invented anew in the modern European world, but it's something that I think, and I'll argue later,

341
00:33:05,280 --> 00:33:12,800
actually goes back to the sassanian and to the Roman empires and the Islamic one being a novel development in this long direct.

342
00:33:14,320 --> 00:33:18,880
So what we see then, if we think about this comparatively and this is the kind of work I think I'm doing,

343
00:33:19,420 --> 00:33:23,710
one might describe it as archaeological in the audience sense of doing a sort of comparative analysis.

344
00:33:24,530 --> 00:33:30,530
As opposed to the modern regime of the secular right in which there are, as a divide and secular divide, obtains a distinctive salience.

345
00:33:30,560 --> 00:33:36,080
This is how he describes it, and I think it's the right way of doing it and even a sort of centrality to the political order.

346
00:33:36,350 --> 00:33:43,910
And I think Professor Herder was alluding to this as well. The notion of social order hangs on this divide and this dividing process.

347
00:33:44,360 --> 00:33:51,140
The Islamic problem space is merely a policy that is merely a tool of governance, of governance, rather than a tool of governmentality.

348
00:33:51,380 --> 00:33:58,940
And here I'm talking about Governmentality either Foucault. And that's precisely because it lacks this ideological hegemonic function.

349
00:33:59,180 --> 00:34:02,390
If we think about that term as grand schemes, it uses that.

350
00:34:03,610 --> 00:34:07,420
Here. We see it as a sort of pragmatic form of governance,

351
00:34:07,750 --> 00:34:17,470
a tool that I speak about here as a kind of product or or either a product or a tool of lawmaking, rather than being the very foundation of law.

352
00:34:17,650 --> 00:34:20,620
And this, you know, going back to that volume after secular law,

353
00:34:20,650 --> 00:34:25,330
it really shows that the very foundation of secular law is this sort of problem space.

354
00:34:25,600 --> 00:34:31,920
And so what I think this helps us do, it helps us clarify the distinctiveness of modern secularity as we bring it into a broader leaf.

355
00:34:32,240 --> 00:34:39,490
Historically speaking, it highlights the very pervasiveness rather than this sort of secularising strategy,

356
00:34:39,490 --> 00:34:42,040
which one finds in mediaeval historical context.

357
00:34:42,520 --> 00:34:48,129
And here I will also highlight the work of Connor O'Brien, a historian at Oxford in the History Department,

358
00:34:48,130 --> 00:34:52,570
who's written quite a bit about the mediaeval Christian Western secular.

359
00:34:52,930 --> 00:34:57,819
And he's he's developed this idea of secularising strategies as a sort of pragmatic

360
00:34:57,820 --> 00:35:02,890
form of differentiating between religion and non religion in the Western case,

361
00:35:03,220 --> 00:35:10,150
which I also see in the mediaeval Islamic case, and we could think about this as a form of secularity that might be more conducive

362
00:35:10,150 --> 00:35:15,130
to governance in terms of grappling with the problem of religious plurality,

363
00:35:15,400 --> 00:35:19,690
rather than a kind of rhetorical ideological use of secularity,

364
00:35:19,690 --> 00:35:27,400
which one which is precisely what one encounters in reading the law in America or reading the law in Europe and so on and so forth.

365
00:35:28,250 --> 00:35:32,720
I'll move on to my second case now. And of course, there's a lot to unpack here and hopefully we can do that in the Q&A.

366
00:35:33,500 --> 00:35:39,560
What is one to do when beliefs collide with principles of social order? This is, of course, a central question when we think about secularism today.

367
00:35:40,430 --> 00:35:42,260
And to stick with the theme of witnessing.

368
00:35:42,890 --> 00:35:50,960
I look now at this another 11th century scholar, a very important one from the Hanafi School ICRC, who was a canonical figure in the Hanafi School.

369
00:35:51,860 --> 00:35:59,719
So he also talked about witnessing in a different context, and he tells us a very expected thing that heretics usually and the Catholic Church,

370
00:35:59,720 --> 00:36:08,470
and we understand that heretics cannot transmit religious traditions. They can't serve as reliable witnesses to the testimony of religious evidence.

371
00:36:08,480 --> 00:36:11,630
Right. Because of their religious corruption.

372
00:36:12,080 --> 00:36:14,750
But what's interesting is he argues that heretics can, in fact,

373
00:36:14,750 --> 00:36:20,960
take the stand a in a court on a secular basis when they're not speaking to religious matters.

374
00:36:21,380 --> 00:36:29,210
And the way in which he formulates that is this is he says, witnessing is a part of the realm of injustices and disputes the law or not.

375
00:36:29,540 --> 00:36:35,150
And the heretic with respect to these matters is not partisan. Right. So it goes back to this question of bias, of partisanship.

376
00:36:35,690 --> 00:36:37,819
And it's interesting the way he formulates this,

377
00:36:37,820 --> 00:36:44,000
because I've done a lot of other work on this in my book I'm writing now, but this category up to volume of injustice.

378
00:36:44,000 --> 00:36:50,660
And so and it's often invoked in the context of distinguishing it from the religious realm or the realm of Baghdad.

379
00:36:50,840 --> 00:36:58,400
It's seen as a sort of civil realm in which, for example, Sharia can apply to non-Muslims, even as the ritual aspects of law cannot.

380
00:36:58,790 --> 00:37:05,420
This element can precisely because it's predicated on justice, this kind of universal justice, really, in the way in which they're considering it.

381
00:37:06,020 --> 00:37:09,410
And subsequently, this is a different point, but it also helps us think of these issues,

382
00:37:10,010 --> 00:37:13,549
he clarifies, in a different thing than believing in divine inspiration.

383
00:37:13,550 --> 00:37:17,120
Islam Harm Right is a very popular category of gods,

384
00:37:17,120 --> 00:37:24,019
essentially revealing the truth of the dream or even awake if one believes that this sort

385
00:37:24,020 --> 00:37:27,570
of kind of this knowledge that one receives is a socially practical form of knowledge,

386
00:37:27,590 --> 00:37:31,490
right? That one can sort of speak of it and use it as a basis of knowledge in courts,

387
00:37:31,910 --> 00:37:36,250
renders one's testimony invalid precisely on account of holding this false belief.

388
00:37:36,260 --> 00:37:40,490
So even the way they're talking about it is a very pervasive category.

389
00:37:40,910 --> 00:37:48,530
So because they hold they're holding on to this belief and invalidates their testimony because of the problems it poses to social order.

390
00:37:48,530 --> 00:37:55,280
Right. There's now and there's a sort of epistemic unsettling that's happening here, and they're aware of it and they're grappling with it.

391
00:37:55,760 --> 00:38:00,830
So it aligns in one in some ways, but also diverges from, for example, rule six,

392
00:38:00,920 --> 00:38:05,120
one of the U.S. rules of evidence, which I'm sure a professor and others are familiar with.

393
00:38:05,330 --> 00:38:08,959
While the rule of Forecloses enquiry into the religious beliefs or opinions of a witness for

394
00:38:08,960 --> 00:38:13,610
the purpose of showing that his character for truthfulness is affected by their nature,

395
00:38:13,790 --> 00:38:20,810
which is sort of what we're seeing here. An enquiry for the purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the prohibition.

396
00:38:21,050 --> 00:38:30,380
So this is a very complicated rule here where you're able to sort of look into religion as it pertains to this particular individual as a way of,

397
00:38:30,680 --> 00:38:32,450
you know, figuring out bias.

398
00:38:32,660 --> 00:38:40,010
But it's precluding a kind of deeper engagement with their religious beliefs as a way of invalidating the truthfulness of their testimony.

399
00:38:40,300 --> 00:38:42,950
What we see here is precisely that sort of thing.

400
00:38:43,250 --> 00:38:48,170
And and I'll talk about this in a second, but it helps us, I think, understand what's really going on here.

401
00:38:48,830 --> 00:38:53,990
And so here's I'm thinking about the the potentials and also the limits of legal secularisation.

402
00:38:54,320 --> 00:38:58,610
So what's interesting about what I think is happening with Saraki here is his help.

403
00:38:58,620 --> 00:39:03,620
He's helping us actually see the sort of paradoxical nature of secularity, of secularisation.

404
00:39:04,130 --> 00:39:10,520
So how I describe it is this that in his aspiration to secularise the legal realm in which I mean to

405
00:39:10,640 --> 00:39:17,270
exclude certain types of religious beliefs from functioning within this secular kind of regime of the law,

406
00:39:17,690 --> 00:39:20,390
by removing this sort of, quote unquote, questionable religious beliefs,

407
00:39:20,800 --> 00:39:25,250
he falls in this kind of paradoxical secularism of his own making akin to what we find in the modern period.

408
00:39:25,460 --> 00:39:31,370
Right. One which undermines its own neutrality precisely in the effort to produce a neutral public realm.

409
00:39:31,370 --> 00:39:34,700
Right. So this sort of catch 22 of secularism, right.

410
00:39:34,880 --> 00:39:37,730
In the process of creating the polity, you have to draw those boundaries.

411
00:39:37,730 --> 00:39:43,070
You have to ask these questions which are at the very heart of this problem space.

412
00:39:43,070 --> 00:39:49,100
Right. And and I think this is a useful way of characterising the problem space of, you know, secularism, if we think of it.

413
00:39:49,100 --> 00:39:56,100
And here I'm just sort of thinking out loud and creatively, if we think of it functionally in terms of the role it plays in managing human society.

414
00:39:56,180 --> 00:40:01,580
And the reason I put functionality at the forefront here is because I am thinking about this,

415
00:40:01,910 --> 00:40:05,140
you know, in a problem space that is very distinct, right?

416
00:40:05,210 --> 00:40:10,700
The questions and the answers that are being produced are hinged on very different epistemological assumptions,

417
00:40:10,700 --> 00:40:17,390
very different conceptions of the human right. Yet we still see the same sorts of grappling within the enterprise of governance.

418
00:40:17,690 --> 00:40:21,620
And that's why I think this sort of functional perspective might be useful way of pursuing this.

419
00:40:21,980 --> 00:40:24,640
What tells us is that it's somewhat universal.

420
00:40:24,660 --> 00:40:29,840
I know I use this word very carefully and I probably not even want to use it, but that we find it in other contexts.

421
00:40:29,840 --> 00:40:36,079
And this is, I think, an important move for us because it helps us move beyond our perspective,

422
00:40:36,080 --> 00:40:39,980
our kind of Eurocentric perspective when we think about secularism, that it can't be comprehend.

423
00:40:40,180 --> 00:40:44,680
They explained with reference reference to modernity. There's other things I can do with this.

424
00:40:44,680 --> 00:40:48,159
But let me just conclude with one last example, because I know we're short on time.

425
00:40:48,160 --> 00:40:52,960
I thought we started late. It's a very quick question here. Does Islamic law apply to non-Muslims?

426
00:40:52,990 --> 00:40:56,380
It's a very important question addressed our thinking about throughout the ages.

427
00:40:57,190 --> 00:41:02,020
And here I take a quote from an Romans book on Islamic law.

428
00:41:02,510 --> 00:41:10,120
What she says called The Assembly constituted a certain factual reality that contributed contributed to delimiting the claim space of Sharia,

429
00:41:10,300 --> 00:41:13,510
which I think is a very useful way of thinking about the Sharia. Right.

430
00:41:13,690 --> 00:41:19,209
And the thing that I find historically that happens in the mediaeval period between the ninth and the 12th century is

431
00:41:19,210 --> 00:41:26,180
that we see this gradual move towards restricting religious communities to the regulation of non civil internal affairs.

432
00:41:26,200 --> 00:41:32,710
Right. And this is akin to what I see in reading about colonial law in some ways, in a kind of essential way.

433
00:41:32,910 --> 00:41:40,390
It's sort of overlapping, right? Then you have this process of communal ization rights that communities have now to regulate, delimit themselves,

434
00:41:40,480 --> 00:41:44,860
hold the regulation of their internal affairs, which are precisely ritualistic,

435
00:41:44,860 --> 00:41:48,430
having to do with the ritualistic elements of marriage, of inheritance.

436
00:41:48,640 --> 00:41:50,950
And these are the same categories the jurists are using.

437
00:41:51,130 --> 00:41:57,340
And it's actually the same sort of categories we find under the Sassanian, under the Romans as well, with reference to the jurist.

438
00:41:57,700 --> 00:42:02,290
And so I see this as a process of sort of imperial governance.

439
00:42:02,290 --> 00:42:05,430
Right. But again, my point is not that it's the same thing.

440
00:42:05,440 --> 00:42:12,910
It's to say that this comparative work can help us think about what's distinctive about this modern process and the doctrinal basis for it.

441
00:42:12,940 --> 00:42:18,650
You know, here's one quote from Kashani Important. We are commanded by God to leave them to their own religious beliefs.

442
00:42:18,680 --> 00:42:23,770
Now you're actually doing Armageddon, right? What they believe is they hold on to or what they confess.

443
00:42:24,400 --> 00:42:29,470
So, again, this category of belief is also here, and I'm sort of thinking through what that's doing.

444
00:42:29,800 --> 00:42:33,340
But in terms of the theoretical applications, and I'm good at this,

445
00:42:34,120 --> 00:42:39,970
Julian Stevens is writing this wonderful book about colonial law in Islamic context within India.

446
00:42:40,150 --> 00:42:44,820
And she speaks of secular governance, legal governance as equal, the cumulative power of laws,

447
00:42:44,850 --> 00:42:49,370
normative scripts, and defining newly divided spheres of religious and secular governance.

448
00:42:49,390 --> 00:42:54,880
Right. And I think it's a wonderful definition. Now, as you'll see, I struck out newly here.

449
00:42:55,210 --> 00:43:00,010
Now, I think newly works in one way, in the sense that there's a new division taking place here,

450
00:43:00,010 --> 00:43:07,710
which I call it a kind of reinvention of the religious secular divide, which is based on a new cumulative power of laws, normative scripts.

451
00:43:07,720 --> 00:43:09,730
Right. And that's what I think is really distinctive here.

452
00:43:10,120 --> 00:43:16,520
But for example, you know, the close association of religion with domestic and ritual matters I don't think was a colonial innovation.

453
00:43:16,540 --> 00:43:21,580
I think, again, this is something that I've already found in my reading of Islamic law, even in the late antique world.

454
00:43:22,270 --> 00:43:27,459
And I think it actually coheres with this widely spread view that I find in my writers that I'm

455
00:43:27,460 --> 00:43:32,530
reading of the inherent universality of the enemy as opposed to the particularity of the DNA.

456
00:43:32,740 --> 00:43:35,800
This is something I worked a lot on in my I think a lot about in my book,

457
00:43:36,130 --> 00:43:44,120
but they often align with the other either as a kind of epistemic category of secular knowledge or in the terms of the donor.

458
00:43:44,120 --> 00:43:50,529
We as a kind of legal category with something that is supra confessional, right, as opposed to the DNA,

459
00:43:50,530 --> 00:43:56,590
which is culturally particular, which is based on, you know, cultural norms that are unique to one's own sort of history.

460
00:43:57,160 --> 00:44:04,270
And so I think what's really changed here is that under the modern secular order, the particularity of religion is no longer maintained.

461
00:44:04,270 --> 00:44:09,489
Right. And know we can think of Hegel, we can think of so many examples in the early modern European period.

462
00:44:09,490 --> 00:44:15,639
Right. So now the religious itself is now subject to the forces of Christianisation and Westernisation.

463
00:44:15,640 --> 00:44:21,430
Right. And this is where I absolutely agree with Professor Hertz that this manifests in a racialized and gender way.

464
00:44:21,580 --> 00:44:26,830
And that's precisely because and I'll concluded this I agree here with George Foreman's idea,

465
00:44:26,830 --> 00:44:29,950
and this is part of his contribution in race, in secularism in America.

466
00:44:30,250 --> 00:44:34,149
He critiques calls Schmidt, you know, call Schmidt or say liberalism.

467
00:44:34,150 --> 00:44:37,180
Secular, liberal, secular order has no political theology.

468
00:44:37,630 --> 00:44:41,709
And what he, I think compellingly argues is that, no, there's precisely a political theology.

469
00:44:41,710 --> 00:44:47,740
It's a racialized political theology. And that's what we are now realising in every manifestation that we look at,

470
00:44:47,740 --> 00:44:53,500
whether it's with Muslims in Europe or with precisely these Atlanta cases that Professor Hurd's looking at,

471
00:44:53,800 --> 00:45:01,240
there is this racialized Christian Western white supremacist order upon which hinges this problem space.

472
00:45:01,540 --> 00:45:07,029
Right. And part of what's happening here is I think that this particularity of religion has been

473
00:45:07,030 --> 00:45:12,519
tossed out and the universality has sort of pervaded all domains rather than this domain,

474
00:45:12,520 --> 00:45:16,760
which I see here, which I think is a far more robust conception and one that, you know,

475
00:45:16,840 --> 00:45:23,570
allowed for this precisely these complex spaces, communities to do, function and thrive.

476
00:45:23,590 --> 00:45:27,999
Indeed. I'll close with that. And I hope I haven't sort of lost you and all of these thoughts.

477
00:45:28,000 --> 00:45:29,469
I'm just really thinking the recently,

478
00:45:29,470 --> 00:45:35,710
but I'm really happy I had this opportunity to do it and I look forward to the conversation and I apologise for the time I've taken.

479
00:45:35,950 --> 00:45:39,940
Thanks. Thank you, Richard, for really a fantastic and extremely rich.

480
00:45:40,300 --> 00:45:41,170
Presentation.

481
00:45:41,350 --> 00:45:51,309
I think it got us all thinking a lot, and I think I'm happy to hand over essentially to physically if you want to conduct the Q&A portion of this.

482
00:45:51,310 --> 00:45:57,790
But I just want to start by reminding everyone that we do have these two wonderful scholars for the next 40 minutes or so.

483
00:45:58,300 --> 00:46:01,390
And so if anyone has any questions now, now's the time to ask.

484
00:46:01,900 --> 00:46:05,590
As panellists, we also have our own questions that I'll hand over to,

485
00:46:05,590 --> 00:46:11,410
basically because I really feel like I have the privilege to sort of take things to this point.

486
00:46:12,160 --> 00:46:17,830
But thanks. Thanks for stopping by. Thanks very much, Richard and Beth, really both wonderful presentations.

487
00:46:17,830 --> 00:46:26,080
So much squeezed in, too. So little time. I only wish we had more time, but of course, as do you can only do for 2 hours.

488
00:46:26,080 --> 00:46:29,470
Maximum defined and we won't even keep you for 2 hours.

489
00:46:30,320 --> 00:46:36,459
You know, perhaps I can begin with a question for but one for you, Beth, and then one for you and Rashan.

490
00:46:36,460 --> 00:46:44,800
And then we can, you know, Sam, I'm sure, will chip in and then we'll we'll get questions slowly filtering in from the audience.

491
00:46:45,250 --> 00:46:52,600
So, Beth, you know, I took you to say that in a way, religion as a category is only possible universally,

492
00:46:52,930 --> 00:46:55,960
even though where the universal belongs is disputed.

493
00:46:56,410 --> 00:47:02,500
So religion is an abstract universal category in its own right, like the state, like the secular.

494
00:47:02,980 --> 00:47:08,710
So in some ways they are all part of the same in on the same plane in some strange way,

495
00:47:09,040 --> 00:47:13,239
even though you want to make distinctions between them, between universal and particular.

496
00:47:13,240 --> 00:47:19,629
But of course, those two categories are dependent, one on the other that, you know, you can't have the particular without the universal.

497
00:47:19,630 --> 00:47:24,310
It's simply a moment of the universal in, say, Hegelian sense.

498
00:47:25,000 --> 00:47:28,330
And in that sense, they're all part, if you will, of a secular order.

499
00:47:29,170 --> 00:47:33,340
And, you know, the question centre word erasers, which I find so interesting,

500
00:47:33,340 --> 00:47:42,459
is not simply the recognition of which you, I think, very rightly say about the problem, but the category of religion.

501
00:47:42,460 --> 00:47:50,920
But how do you actually think the non universal this goes back to Webb Keynes critique in another way, you know,

502
00:47:50,920 --> 00:47:59,139
whereas he would say that we've all inherited the category of religion so it's already part of our life once what we do,

503
00:47:59,140 --> 00:48:06,400
you know, in a way, my point is not that it's like but you already have the universal how would you think it view need

504
00:48:06,400 --> 00:48:11,200
to unpick it how is it possible to think the non universal and why this interests me is because.

505
00:48:12,270 --> 00:48:16,100
In some other work I've been doing on Gandhi, Ghandi as a political thinker.

506
00:48:16,110 --> 00:48:25,140
You know, he very deliberately comes to this question as in part someone who identifies as a Hindu.

507
00:48:25,680 --> 00:48:31,560
Hinduism being a religion, if you want to call it that, that does not, in his view, permit conversion.

508
00:48:32,070 --> 00:48:37,590
So it is a non expansive religion. We can argue whether that was correct or not, but in his view.

509
00:48:39,090 --> 00:48:46,830
And it makes him think about how Hinduism does or does not belong in the category of religion itself,

510
00:48:47,430 --> 00:48:52,080
alongside, say, Christianity as as expansive religions.

511
00:48:52,680 --> 00:48:58,590
But it's not just religion that he's talking about. He also questions humanity as a universal category for him.

512
00:48:58,630 --> 00:49:05,850
You know, I've come to the provisional conclusion that he plays with negative ideas, and so many of God's ideas are negative.

513
00:49:05,860 --> 00:49:13,350
I can say non-violence, non-cooperation, non possession, you know, where you're presumed positive, but you're never talked with.

514
00:49:13,440 --> 00:49:21,180
It's always the negative that you deal with. And a gaming, Hadian says negative is the principle of movement and dynamism in general.

515
00:49:21,600 --> 00:49:26,850
But what you're suggesting is something that seems similar and yet quite different with certain words.

516
00:49:27,540 --> 00:49:33,860
You know, you ended both by talking about the let me quote it, you know how it decimates the border.

517
00:49:33,870 --> 00:49:39,690
I found that such a striking phrase, because, of course, it's not just the U.S. Mexican border,

518
00:49:40,080 --> 00:49:47,250
which is what you you also made a border between the universal and the particular between religion, the secular, all kinds of borders.

519
00:49:47,790 --> 00:49:51,030
But that doesn't do the kind of Gandhian negative.

520
00:49:51,210 --> 00:50:01,380
It rather seems to shift the phenomenon away from the language game of Universal in particular, which are conjoined anyway.

521
00:50:02,030 --> 00:50:09,719
But apart from saying this is something different. It cannot be talked about in terms of the religion, the religious and the nonreligious,

522
00:50:09,720 --> 00:50:13,410
the religious and the secular, the cultic and the religious or whatever.

523
00:50:14,160 --> 00:50:21,670
How might you characterise it, say, in contrast with this kind of, you know, Gandhi's negative approach to the problem?

524
00:50:21,710 --> 00:50:26,640
Sorry, it's a rather lengthy question due to the kind of richness of your presentation.

525
00:50:27,530 --> 00:50:31,130
Thank you so much, Faisal. I think that it's a very important question.

526
00:50:31,910 --> 00:50:37,910
How to characterise it I think is I'm not sure and maybe I need to look into

527
00:50:37,910 --> 00:50:41,450
some of those candy and resources that would be helpful in characterising it.

528
00:50:41,780 --> 00:50:52,460
I would say that part of the challenge or as I search for resources for thinking through how to do precisely what you're describing,

529
00:50:52,970 --> 00:51:01,580
is actually related to what Roshan is talking about, in fact, which is what your talk brought to mind.

530
00:51:01,580 --> 00:51:08,540
Roshan was this very important necessity of kind of making two moves at once,

531
00:51:08,540 --> 00:51:15,170
which is that kind of parochial ization of liberal ideals on the one hand.

532
00:51:15,380 --> 00:51:23,120
And that may be in some ways that the process of privatisation may in some ways be related to the Gandhian sensibility that Faisal is describing.

533
00:51:23,120 --> 00:51:23,840
I'm not sure.

534
00:51:24,380 --> 00:51:33,110
But on the other hand, it's also a reworking and a refashioning from the inside of those very ideals so that they are no longer recognisable.

535
00:51:33,320 --> 00:51:38,390
And in that sense that touches on what I'm hearing and correct me if I'm mistaken, what I'm hearing from you,

536
00:51:38,690 --> 00:51:49,519
which is this Gen Y domain, which is a very different, rather refashioned understanding of the secular that has different ethos,

537
00:51:49,520 --> 00:51:52,580
a different sensibility, different aspirations,

538
00:51:52,850 --> 00:51:59,750
and a very different understanding rigidities of the problem space that it is creating and that is instantiated vis a vis the religious.

539
00:52:00,140 --> 00:52:04,400
So where I think, I mean, there's more than one move and that needs to be made.

540
00:52:04,400 --> 00:52:08,300
And as I was listening to Hussain and as I was listening to you on your question,

541
00:52:08,780 --> 00:52:15,590
I kept thinking about two thinkers, which is William Connolly's work on the ethos of Pluralisation,

542
00:52:16,040 --> 00:52:27,829
which is very good at making those precisely those kind of e centring arising moves, but very much with a certain kind of ethos,

543
00:52:27,830 --> 00:52:33,049
a certain kind of mode of engagement, which also brings to mind not marzuki work in Washington.

544
00:52:33,050 --> 00:52:39,080
I thought of her specifically when you were speaking and her argument in her book, Islam in America, which some of you may be familiar with.

545
00:52:39,800 --> 00:52:47,090
She has a powerful conclusion at the end in which she argues for the need to disconnect the liberal idea of the liberal secular ideal.

546
00:52:47,090 --> 00:52:52,610
But the liberal ideologue general from the very exclusive norms and codes that it's become tied to.

547
00:52:52,970 --> 00:53:00,020
So there's a sense in which there is an internal refashioning of stepping back, a sense of humility, kind of tempering,

548
00:53:00,020 --> 00:53:07,820
of the arrogance that reminded me of precisely the ideal of working that you were describing was Shane, if I'm not understanding it.

549
00:53:08,570 --> 00:53:12,630
And so I feel like the universal particular only gets us so far here.

550
00:53:12,680 --> 00:53:17,600
And so I'm very sympathetic to that gesture that you're suggesting this this guardian move.

551
00:53:17,930 --> 00:53:22,910
And I'm not sure how I would say through that prism or through that lens,

552
00:53:23,300 --> 00:53:29,240
but I do think that it will involve not only kind of listening and trying to

553
00:53:29,240 --> 00:53:35,360
understand these alternative religiosity is in the forms of political agency,

554
00:53:35,780 --> 00:53:43,009
you know, just kind of from the outside, but actually actively reforming what Nadia calls the ensemble of codes and norms

555
00:53:43,010 --> 00:53:47,390
of exclusion that have become so closely associated with liberal order in which,

556
00:53:48,020 --> 00:53:54,860
you know, there's Rule 610 of the US federal policy of evidence is one of the main rules that gets cited in these cases,

557
00:53:55,580 --> 00:54:00,170
and they're kind of trying to parse that language that we wish they had read and put on the screen for us.

558
00:54:00,440 --> 00:54:06,530
And that language can obviously be read a lot of different ways, and it's a question of how it's read and by whom and which context.

559
00:54:06,530 --> 00:54:12,139
And I think that those small differences and those shifts in the level of arrogance and the level

560
00:54:12,140 --> 00:54:16,580
of presumption and the level of presumed liberal hegemony are going to be really important.

561
00:54:16,940 --> 00:54:19,780
But tell me whether I need to read about this.

562
00:54:19,880 --> 00:54:25,340
I got in the inflexibility and maybe it'll give me a whole new understanding of something with it and be most happy.

563
00:54:25,340 --> 00:54:29,160
Thank you so much. Well, I'm not sure about that.

564
00:54:29,170 --> 00:54:36,850
I think, you know, the Santa muerte example really teaches us a great deal, obviously, and I'm looking forward to your book once it comes out.

565
00:54:36,850 --> 00:54:43,149
But I don't know I don't know if you since Beth referred to your talk, whether you would like to enter this conversation.

566
00:54:43,150 --> 00:54:47,620
But I have another question for you as well. And as I'm sure there's a sidebar.

567
00:54:48,190 --> 00:54:51,579
Sure. I mean, I think you can go ahead. I mean, I'm just very glad to hear this.

568
00:54:51,580 --> 00:54:54,639
And I think you helped me think through some of the things I'm trying to do.

569
00:54:54,640 --> 00:55:01,570
I mean, I precisely am. I think the primary motivation in doing this kind of work was to add that extra

570
00:55:01,570 --> 00:55:06,700
move that I thought was not that I felt very deeply and very personally.

571
00:55:06,700 --> 00:55:12,340
I felt like I needed to do. And I haven't seen that in much of his book and I'm looking forward to reading it.

572
00:55:12,580 --> 00:55:20,319
But it's precisely the sort of refashioning that I think is strategically a useful way, a valuable way for us to move forward as well.

573
00:55:20,320 --> 00:55:25,090
Right. Because it does I think it even I mean, not even more so.

574
00:55:25,090 --> 00:55:25,959
Probably equally so.

575
00:55:25,960 --> 00:55:34,000
It unsettles the these codes that underwrite the language we use and the way in which these laws like as you, as you mentioned, are interpreted.

576
00:55:34,270 --> 00:55:41,049
So it's in this act of refashioning that I think, especially if, you know, if you have a whole movement of people doing this sort of thing,

577
00:55:41,050 --> 00:55:46,150
which I think I at least I'm noticing is taking place now in the academy and even outside.

578
00:55:46,450 --> 00:55:48,909
I think that's a really valuable thing moving forward.

579
00:55:48,910 --> 00:55:57,100
So I really appreciate the way in which you describe my project of the anyway as a sort of bringing attention

580
00:55:57,100 --> 00:56:02,829
to this very different ethos and sensibility and aspiration that informs a similar kind of project,

581
00:56:02,830 --> 00:56:06,340
but in from a very different perspective that can trouble our way of proceeding right.

582
00:56:06,730 --> 00:56:14,410
And I think I would just add that doing it from the Islamic perspective is the most unsettling sort of a way of moving forward,

583
00:56:14,410 --> 00:56:20,889
because it's disturbing precisely because Islam is at the very heart of this project of secularism and I mean,

584
00:56:20,890 --> 00:56:23,980
in sense of it being the great other of secularism.

585
00:56:24,260 --> 00:56:28,120
And I think that's what also was provoking me so much in my reading of the sources

586
00:56:28,120 --> 00:56:33,819
is that it did not map on even to the sort of modern rehabilitation of Islam,

587
00:56:33,820 --> 00:56:42,280
which obviously emerged out of a colonial dialectic between Orientalism and modern nationalists, who for good reasons had to develop,

588
00:56:42,580 --> 00:56:48,520
you know, projects of Islamic modernity that were going to be effective within their societies.

589
00:56:48,520 --> 00:56:53,770
But of course, you know, fell into the trap of being encoded by this this larger logic.

590
00:56:53,770 --> 00:57:00,130
Right. And I think the moment we're in now that we're able to sort of move beyond that and think about, you know, historicism,

591
00:57:00,140 --> 00:57:06,010
these sorts of things, the particularity not only of the Islamic, but obviously, of course, of the the secular and the Western.

592
00:57:06,250 --> 00:57:11,680
And so, yeah, this has been super helpful. And yeah, yes, I'd be very interested in hearing your question some and the others.

593
00:57:11,680 --> 00:57:19,120
So thanks thanks for said. You know I was thinking when you were speaking it's very new stuff so I'm really you know,

594
00:57:19,450 --> 00:57:23,770
I just wanted to congratulate you for allowing us to think in these ways.

595
00:57:24,010 --> 00:57:28,680
But when you were talking about. The Dean and dunia distinction.

596
00:57:28,680 --> 00:57:38,640
For instance, in contrast to the religion and the secular one of our times, I realise you're not making the fundamental distinction between them.

597
00:57:39,450 --> 00:57:44,430
The religion, secularism, distinction of our times is often understood in spatial terms.

598
00:57:45,120 --> 00:57:46,770
Not always, but very often.

599
00:57:47,880 --> 00:57:57,480
The public space of the secular and, if you will, private space which could be inside you, or it could be a building or something, an institution,

600
00:57:57,600 --> 00:58:09,690
whether the Dean Junior distinction is a temporal one or can be a temporal one, certainly in the in more modern usages of the union.

601
00:58:09,690 --> 00:58:20,559
But now that I am familiar with. The gesture is off to the transient nature of the bonia that it might be ubiquitous.

602
00:58:20,560 --> 00:58:26,380
And that's one word that might describe it nicely, perhaps, but it is purely transient.

603
00:58:26,590 --> 00:58:28,720
But as Dean is a kind of permanent thing.

604
00:58:29,350 --> 00:58:35,590
And, you know, how might this allow us or would it perhaps allow us to think slightly differently about the categories?

605
00:58:35,920 --> 00:58:42,040
You could, of course, use the more familiar ones of a word be, in other words, the newest world.

606
00:58:42,790 --> 00:58:51,640
But that has a quite distinct Christian genealogy otherworldliness as opposed to being, which I take it is not otherworldly in that sense.

607
00:58:52,190 --> 00:58:55,390
But if we think about temporality here,

608
00:58:55,510 --> 00:59:01,809
then I think the universality of the domain that you ended with is really fascinating because it's a, if you will,

609
00:59:01,810 --> 00:59:09,400
a universality premised upon transience, premised upon the vanity of this world, which is as yet,

610
00:59:09,640 --> 00:59:14,440
and therefore everywhere it's transient, and yet it survives, and yet it contains.

611
00:59:14,440 --> 00:59:17,560
And yet it's ubiquitous, as I said, in that way.

612
00:59:19,080 --> 00:59:24,750
Does that make sense? That's one question. And the other had to do with the particularity of dying.

613
00:59:25,440 --> 00:59:31,560
And, you know, so on the one hand, of course, it seems abstract because of that quotation you read at the very end,

614
00:59:32,340 --> 00:59:37,830
the, if you will, being of non-Muslims is also called itself like only Muslims have been and other people don't.

615
00:59:38,250 --> 00:59:45,810
So this and that is you are you know, that it's a large part of your problem this kind of equivalence and availability of be think that.

616
00:59:46,410 --> 00:59:47,610
But I just wonder.

617
00:59:49,680 --> 01:00:00,180
But you know, are we talking about this as kind of abstract universality or are we talking about a set of different particularities?

618
01:00:01,060 --> 01:00:05,800
I believe that is a is a real difference without distinction that I'm making here.

619
01:00:06,250 --> 01:00:14,050
But I just wondered, you know, I was thinking of the term, the plural of being A, B, R, which is not so often used.

620
01:00:14,260 --> 01:00:21,080
And it seems to, at least in the Indian material, that animals re-emerge or emerge in the 18th or 19th centuries,

621
01:00:21,610 --> 01:00:24,190
perhaps like the earlier in the late Mughal period.

622
01:00:24,670 --> 01:00:31,059
And that sort of makes sense because you're thinking of what Akbar and the Mughals are doing with the idea of being in the DNA,

623
01:00:31,060 --> 01:00:41,590
Lanhee and all of that. As for women writes about, you know, and their, you know, what, what imperial what empire does to ideas such as the.

624
01:00:41,770 --> 01:00:43,330
So it goes back to what you were saying.

625
01:00:43,870 --> 01:00:52,240
But before that, I mean, is is the plural of being used in this sense of secular Christianity or is it a kind of collection of,

626
01:00:52,300 --> 01:00:56,050
if you will, specificities? You know, what kind of abstraction is it?

627
01:00:56,080 --> 01:00:59,110
Again, this might be a distinction without a difference.

628
01:00:59,990 --> 01:01:04,280
And now these are excellent questions and thank you for them to begin with.

629
01:01:04,280 --> 01:01:09,229
The first you know, I'm thinking I've been thinking a lot about the specialisation of of secularism a lot.

630
01:01:09,230 --> 01:01:14,540
And I actually had one of my grad students who is working on specialisation with another case.

631
01:01:14,540 --> 01:01:20,750
And this is a late 20th century case. I forget the name, but it has to do with a community and ritual sacrifice.

632
01:01:20,840 --> 01:01:25,549
Sacrifice being another one of the central nodes around which this other ization takes place.

633
01:01:25,550 --> 01:01:30,440
Right. And on secular transplant, it's interesting with Dean and Dunya, I mean,

634
01:01:30,440 --> 01:01:36,050
the way I and I find your characterisation very interesting and creative and fruitful,

635
01:01:36,320 --> 01:01:40,820
I'm not sure if it entirely maps on to the way I have the historical reality I've encountered.

636
01:01:40,820 --> 01:01:44,450
So the first thing to know, which is interesting, is that, I mean,

637
01:01:44,450 --> 01:01:50,599
it's really hard to say where the Antonia comes from within the Arabic and then the logical and in the case that we're going to argue.

638
01:01:50,600 --> 01:01:54,469
But my own sense is that it comes from a spatial perspective.

639
01:01:54,470 --> 01:01:56,690
So it's actually the close and the FA.

640
01:01:56,690 --> 01:02:02,540
So Dean and Dunya, when we see it in pre-Islamic poetry, it actually speaks of the nearness and the foreignness.

641
01:02:02,540 --> 01:02:05,450
And Robin has written this excellent book in which she talks about some of that.

642
01:02:05,810 --> 01:02:13,700
But what I see in the mediaeval context is, you know, things have settled are two separate distinctions that I have to sort of work through.

643
01:02:14,060 --> 01:02:18,530
So there is the donia and the acid of this life in the next life, and there's Dean and Donia.

644
01:02:18,920 --> 01:02:25,730
And I actually think Dean and Donia map on to a special kind of boundary drawing,

645
01:02:26,000 --> 01:02:30,319
whereas the Donia in Austria is obviously very expectedly a temporal in nature.

646
01:02:30,320 --> 01:02:32,060
So we have two sorts of categorisations.

647
01:02:32,480 --> 01:02:38,240
And what's interesting about that is that when we see the Damien that we invoked in the cases in which I'm looking,

648
01:02:38,240 --> 01:02:45,200
whether in law or in politics, I think you do find it's working to sort of, you know,

649
01:02:45,200 --> 01:02:51,169
do this sort of conceptual specialisation work, right, of drawing these boundaries of, okay, well,

650
01:02:51,170 --> 01:02:55,970
where does religion stop and where does where do we go beyond and that sort of thing, right.

651
01:02:56,300 --> 01:03:03,740
And what's interesting about and I'm just thinking now about secularism as a kind of modern, distinctly modern European phenomenon, right.

652
01:03:04,790 --> 01:03:08,510
When we talk about secularism today, is secularism today a specialised discourse?

653
01:03:09,020 --> 01:03:10,759
I think it even goes back to Locke.

654
01:03:10,760 --> 01:03:20,690
And when I was reading Locke and my students this order, you know, it's really about creating a new secular, universal, secular human body, right?

655
01:03:21,020 --> 01:03:29,870
And it's about stripping away. I mean, this entire tradition that informs personhood, right, on premise informs the subject.

656
01:03:30,350 --> 01:03:36,550
And that's the entire process that Locke is outlining in order to create a secular public sphere.

657
01:03:36,560 --> 01:03:39,889
Right. So we're talking about a public when we're talking about a public,

658
01:03:39,890 --> 01:03:44,480
I think it's a distinctively modern phenomenon and it would be anachronistic to use it in the mediaeval context.

659
01:03:44,660 --> 01:03:52,729
I mean, there might be creative ways to think through it, but when we think about the kind of locking in public, it's sort of a mechanism of creating.

660
01:03:52,730 --> 01:03:58,549
What I would say is this modern capital a subject who is able to only work according to the rationalist

661
01:03:58,550 --> 01:04:04,040
logic of the European Enlightenment and therefore be far more useful to the ends of modernity.

662
01:04:04,040 --> 01:04:09,320
Right. And this is also that has written about and everyone has written about, and it's been a fascinating sort of intervention.

663
01:04:09,530 --> 01:04:15,320
And so I think that is uniquely distinct about the kind of modern secular order in terms of specialisation.

664
01:04:15,530 --> 01:04:18,650
And so thinking about this graduate student of mine has worked on this.

665
01:04:18,890 --> 01:04:25,430
You see this happening with respect to specific spaces about whether a church and I think this case happened in Florida,

666
01:04:25,670 --> 01:04:30,110
whereas the space in which the sacrifice can take place and it's all about public order,

667
01:04:30,110 --> 01:04:33,650
I mean, the entire discourse is about the welfare of the people and that sort of thing.

668
01:04:33,950 --> 01:04:37,669
It even becomes nationalist. It's un-American to engage in ritual sacrifice.

669
01:04:37,670 --> 01:04:43,309
Right? What does that even mean? And so so that is a sort of entirely distinct thing.

670
01:04:43,310 --> 01:04:48,730
So when I'm thinking about a now and thinking about specialisation in terms of the DNA away,

671
01:04:48,770 --> 01:04:52,250
I do want to separate it from that kind of a specialised discourse.

672
01:04:52,430 --> 01:04:59,509
Now, I think this kind of conceptual space making and adjudicating is a kind of natural phenomenon amongst thinkers,

673
01:04:59,510 --> 01:05:01,730
especially jurists who are trying to do this sort of work.

674
01:05:02,090 --> 01:05:08,030
But the process by which that happens, the concrete effects of them, I think are entirely different precisely because the codes are different.

675
01:05:08,030 --> 01:05:12,649
Right. And then finally, the question I think is I think you're right.

676
01:05:12,650 --> 01:05:18,440
I mean, what you do find is there I would agree I would agree with your second formulation.

677
01:05:18,440 --> 01:05:22,300
Right. I think it is a set of particularities that they're in.

678
01:05:22,520 --> 01:05:28,100
And that actually helps me think through this. Right. Because maybe we're not really talking about universality per se.

679
01:05:28,130 --> 01:05:38,000
We're talking about a recognition of a set of particularities which they view as mapping on to a certain kind of universal phenomenon.

680
01:05:38,120 --> 01:05:43,189
I think they would agree to that. And they don't use they use are beyond quite a bit in the mediaeval context.

681
01:05:43,190 --> 01:05:46,220
But really that the the standard term is Miller. Right.

682
01:05:46,400 --> 01:05:54,200
So there's Miller which really becomes the term for a religious community, whereas Dean can have a sort of existential element to it, right?

683
01:05:54,460 --> 01:05:58,070
In the individual persons, Dean Miller always means a religious community.

684
01:05:58,070 --> 01:06:02,070
So Miller. It becomes the standard term for representing various communities.

685
01:06:02,070 --> 01:06:06,570
So we have obviously this vast literature around middle one to [INAUDIBLE] ride the creeds and the religions.

686
01:06:06,870 --> 01:06:11,010
And it's actually interesting to think in terms of what the president is talking about, right,

687
01:06:11,760 --> 01:06:19,799
why these categories are used and how and by whom and at what points they take on particular significance.

688
01:06:19,800 --> 01:06:25,280
Right. Because, you know, if you think about this of this classification literature of various million,

689
01:06:25,290 --> 01:06:29,429
which is, you know, goes back to Shahristani, who's the kind of high point it dies down for a while.

690
01:06:29,430 --> 01:06:32,610
And then in the early modern period under the Ottomans, it picks up again.

691
01:06:32,610 --> 01:06:39,630
You have a translation of these works into Turkish. And this is all in the context of what historians now are calling confessional ization.

692
01:06:39,840 --> 01:06:43,260
So you have obviously the Ottoman side of the divide, but the move, I would say,

693
01:06:43,260 --> 01:06:49,260
towards the modern state of creating a subject along the lines of a unified religious creed.

694
01:06:49,260 --> 01:06:53,909
Right. And so I do think that sort of maps on to what the modern state does.

695
01:06:53,910 --> 01:06:58,200
Right. And here I would actually say we have early modern modernity is right. We have multiple modalities.

696
01:06:58,200 --> 01:07:02,429
And we need to also think through that as a way of in particular that particular

697
01:07:02,430 --> 01:07:06,930
moment of the state and thinking of new ways of imagining our modern condition.

698
01:07:07,110 --> 01:07:10,350
But, you know, I've said too much now that these are very great questions. So thank you.

699
01:07:11,530 --> 01:07:15,820
Thank you. Thank you. I mean, that's just very scintillating discussion all round.

700
01:07:16,360 --> 01:07:17,979
So, Beth, I'm going to send back to you.

701
01:07:17,980 --> 01:07:25,000
And I understand we've got sort of maybe 13 minutes left and I still want to welcome, you know, any of the participants.

702
01:07:25,000 --> 01:07:29,500
I don't want us to only the Geminis to questions. So if you want to put in questions, please feel free.

703
01:07:30,010 --> 01:07:32,110
But while I have the chance, I'm going to put mine.

704
01:07:32,110 --> 01:07:41,530
And so Beth, in a sense, at a certain point you were talking about sort of colonising religion and leaving in a sense,

705
01:07:42,040 --> 01:07:44,350
leaving behind the category of religion altogether.

706
01:07:45,070 --> 01:07:50,709
This reminds me of the number of conversations that we constantly have in religion departments about,

707
01:07:50,710 --> 01:07:54,940
you know, what's going to happen to our department after we discard this term as a conceptual category.

708
01:07:55,210 --> 01:07:59,500
And they sort of politics of not making the case too hard, shall we say.

709
01:08:00,070 --> 01:08:07,190
But at the same time, you know what, really, one of the things that struck me as an Islamist, as you're talking about Santa marta, is, you know,

710
01:08:07,240 --> 01:08:15,129
this would be seen as a sort of like very problematic sort of cultic practise within an Islamic paradigm,

711
01:08:15,130 --> 01:08:18,580
certainly in modern times, but also in to the pre-modern times.

712
01:08:18,580 --> 01:08:26,799
And I wanted to actually tie in Russian with this to a certain extent that, you know, number one, is it meaningful for us to think in terms of, okay,

713
01:08:26,800 --> 01:08:33,220
we need to discard a category or these categories or just sort of the experimentation and,

714
01:08:33,400 --> 01:08:37,270
you know, contingent inventions of people at different points in time.

715
01:08:37,270 --> 01:08:42,700
And, you know, it gives us a great, you know, reason to exist as academics who can spend our careers writing about them.

716
01:08:43,150 --> 01:08:53,320
But beyond that, you know, it is this kind of like a kind of existential dance that academics and people are performing in various ways.

717
01:08:53,950 --> 01:09:02,440
You know, in a sense, I got the sense that there is a kind of tendency towards recognising particularism everywhere.

718
01:09:03,360 --> 01:09:12,780
And is that the universal that will ultimately subvert all of the sort of conceptual efforts at organising these sort of into principles?

719
01:09:13,230 --> 01:09:19,290
I don't know, maybe a bit of a subversive question and perhaps one I haven't thought through as well as I would like.

720
01:09:19,290 --> 01:09:28,590
But just to sort of add onto that, you know, these sorts of practises with the same to death, so to speak,

721
01:09:29,070 --> 01:09:39,360
would how would you situate something like that within an Islamic sort of mediaeval paradigm, if there can be one?

722
01:09:39,720 --> 01:09:44,870
And just to think about how decolonising religion in Latin America through, you know,

723
01:09:45,270 --> 01:09:51,780
decolonial theory in many ways is about sort of creating pluribus ability,

724
01:09:51,780 --> 01:09:57,630
as they say, recognising that there isn't a universal, that there are many universal projects.

725
01:09:58,080 --> 01:10:03,380
And is it useful to think of the mediaeval Islamic project as a universal project that is, you know,

726
01:10:03,390 --> 01:10:07,920
creating another particularism in effect that we've become a bit more conscious of in the present?

727
01:10:08,930 --> 01:10:15,800
I think I've sort of mixed in both of your presentations in that question, but I'd love to hear your reflections action on this.

728
01:10:15,920 --> 01:10:23,240
Thank you. Thank you so much, Osama. The first thing I want to just say is it seems like part of the challenge.

729
01:10:24,290 --> 01:10:26,989
We've been talking a lot about universality versus particularity,

730
01:10:26,990 --> 01:10:34,639
and it seems like part of the challenge to me would be to recognise the power of the taken for granted.

731
01:10:34,640 --> 01:10:43,420
And I just put in the chat a book that may be of interest to Rashan in particular and perhaps others as well, which is newly out by Elaine France.

732
01:10:43,430 --> 01:10:52,010
And she's actually looking at French Catholic secularism, Catholic, and she's looking it's called the privilege of being banal.

733
01:10:52,490 --> 01:11:01,700
And so for me, part of the challenge is I don't see it really as an academic exercise, but rather as an intellectual and political project,

734
01:11:02,060 --> 01:11:09,440
which is to, first of all, to understand that which is seen as banal and to make it not banal.

735
01:11:09,920 --> 01:11:13,210
And that's that you could cast that as particular izing it.

736
01:11:13,220 --> 01:11:19,790
You could also cast it as understanding, perhaps a bit more modestly, because the particular, as Faisal kindly reminded us,

737
01:11:19,790 --> 01:11:28,700
always requires that universal and perhaps we want to work to dislodge that tendency to be toggling between those two so tirelessly all the time.

738
01:11:29,030 --> 01:11:35,780
So the first is to recognise the power of the taken for granted and then to perhaps think very

739
01:11:35,780 --> 01:11:43,069
carefully about how to present alternative perspectives that are not indebted to that paradigm,

740
01:11:43,070 --> 01:11:47,510
to that framing, that are working in a different conceptual grammar,

741
01:11:47,840 --> 01:11:59,090
that are working out of a different set of ascetic practises and histories that are not at all relating themselves back to that presumed universal,

742
01:11:59,090 --> 01:12:09,380
which we have now been allies. And so that leads to foreseen spaces, encounters, understandings, histories,

743
01:12:09,830 --> 01:12:18,410
sensibilities that I don't think we can neatly categorise in terms of the universal in particular, but rather we can.

744
01:12:19,400 --> 01:12:26,330
And maybe you're right, maybe we are falling back into the some sort of just world of particulars.

745
01:12:26,330 --> 01:12:33,980
But I do think that there's a certain way of relating to that universal and to trying to problematise that and to dethrone it.

746
01:12:34,220 --> 01:12:37,880
That puts us in a slightly different epistemological and political space.

747
01:12:38,240 --> 01:12:42,680
And the other thing is, I don't think all of this is academic because I do spend a fair amount of time,

748
01:12:42,860 --> 01:12:51,650
often despite my right, the best interest of my sanity, trying to translate some of these very complex, nuanced,

749
01:12:52,250 --> 01:12:59,329
problematise nations of politics, the history, the secular, the religious into the public discourse,

750
01:12:59,330 --> 01:13:08,450
into more accessible language that becomes perhaps a resource for individuals who are engaged in, say, lawmaking.

751
01:13:08,470 --> 01:13:15,260
I've done congressional testimony just about just almost a year ago who are involved in policymaking,

752
01:13:15,260 --> 01:13:20,090
who are to play an imminent role in the media, in setting certain kinds of conversations.

753
01:13:20,480 --> 01:13:28,430
And I, in a very modest way, try to just nudge them toward the possibility of some of these alternative perspectives.

754
01:13:28,430 --> 01:13:31,759
And I have found that people are often quite open, surprisingly open.

755
01:13:31,760 --> 01:13:38,870
And this reflects maybe a lot of Shane is a very optimistic young person's perspective that I appreciate, is that, no, it's not all for nought.

756
01:13:38,870 --> 01:13:44,680
And, you know, it's not just in our ivory towers, especially you and Oxford Ivory there, but, you know,

757
01:13:44,690 --> 01:13:53,780
just that really there is some space for people who want to be they want to find a way out of the predicaments and the rigidities and the hate.

758
01:13:53,780 --> 01:13:56,990
And so much of the violence that we're seeing in this country right now,

759
01:13:57,290 --> 01:14:02,749
there is a real appetite, I think, for alternative ways of thinking and being and understanding.

760
01:14:02,750 --> 01:14:06,350
And so I'm optimistic about the possibility of conversations like this,

761
01:14:06,350 --> 01:14:14,450
leading to some success of other conversations that then do have an actual impact, however modest, in public policy in these legal debates.

762
01:14:14,720 --> 01:14:20,480
And I'm anxious to hear about what some of them what they would look like in an Islamic mediaeval context.

763
01:14:20,480 --> 01:14:23,480
So I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you so much.

764
01:14:24,550 --> 01:14:29,200
Yeah. Just very quickly, you know, I'm not a mediaeval Muslim jurist, so I can't say this definitively,

765
01:14:29,200 --> 01:14:34,089
but what I will say is that it would not have looked like how know how it looks today.

766
01:14:34,090 --> 01:14:42,549
Right. And what you're studying. And it's precisely because when it came to the the cultic or the particulars of religious traditions practises.

767
01:14:42,550 --> 01:14:45,820
Right. That's precisely where this autonomy was granted.

768
01:14:45,880 --> 01:14:56,470
I mean, absolutely. Really. Right. I mean, we know, for example, of, you know, very famously Zoroastrian ancestral marriages.

769
01:14:57,220 --> 01:15:01,240
They were being totally at odds with Muslim morality.

770
01:15:01,450 --> 01:15:04,330
Right. Famous, famously allowed. Right.

771
01:15:05,050 --> 01:15:11,390
And precisely that distinction I was talking about with Danny about that as being sort of protected around that,

772
01:15:11,430 --> 01:15:14,139
that these sort of practises would never have been.

773
01:15:14,140 --> 01:15:20,290
I think, first of all, they would not have been problematise in the way that they are in the secondary order.

774
01:15:20,290 --> 01:15:25,129
And moreover, they wouldn't have been as central to the very maintenance of that social order.

775
01:15:25,130 --> 01:15:32,440
Right. And what's really I'm starting to think about now, what's interesting is in thinking about that that arrangement that took place then,

776
01:15:32,710 --> 01:15:35,650
is the stark divergence between two realities, right?

777
01:15:35,660 --> 01:15:41,620
So you have this theoretical reality of the protection of the particularity of a community, right?

778
01:15:41,620 --> 01:15:44,829
So it seems like you have nice communities who are just regulating themselves.

779
01:15:44,830 --> 01:15:48,160
And this is essentially the assumption, the kind of society. An assumption, right.

780
01:15:48,430 --> 01:15:52,659
That they are products of embodied traditions, that we are not in an optimum conception.

781
01:15:52,660 --> 01:15:58,059
These are rational individuals that can all be subsumed within some sort of universal regulation.

782
01:15:58,060 --> 01:16:01,780
Right. There is that implicit recognition on the part of the mediaeval jurist.

783
01:16:02,050 --> 01:16:08,650
But what's striking is that the historical reality is far more complicated because they were not siloed off community as right.

784
01:16:08,650 --> 01:16:13,690
So even though they were theorising the sort, particularly what one finds and I'm working on this in a different aspect,

785
01:16:13,690 --> 01:16:20,349
thinking about how Sufis were Christian at the same time there are Muslim rites and also just so much historical work being done on the,

786
01:16:20,350 --> 01:16:24,820
you know, the Balkans and other places where you find literally a shared world.

787
01:16:25,300 --> 01:16:30,040
So it's not as if the pre-modern mediaeval reality was one in which you just had particularities.

788
01:16:30,520 --> 01:16:34,060
You know, so often there are different districts within the cities,

789
01:16:34,240 --> 01:16:42,450
but actually a really robust culture in which people are interacting as humans with one another despite their difference.

790
01:16:42,610 --> 01:16:45,700
Confessional differences, right. And that's the really striking thing.

791
01:16:45,700 --> 01:16:50,920
And I think this historical work is only going to increase start to news as this wonderful God massive book,

792
01:16:51,910 --> 01:16:54,190
you know, the making of the mediaeval, mediaeval Middle East.

793
01:16:54,190 --> 01:17:01,510
And the second half the book is, I think, groundbreaking work that will only be further and talking about the actual shared world that we encounter.

794
01:17:01,690 --> 01:17:08,889
And so I don't have an answer to this, but I do think about I think a lot about this this historical reality,

795
01:17:08,890 --> 01:17:16,990
which doesn't seem to map on to our vision of this dark ages, of lack of plurality, of lack of actual syncretism.

796
01:17:17,020 --> 01:17:20,530
Right. We really do find that. So this is just some scattered thoughts around that.

797
01:17:20,530 --> 01:17:24,550
But I think it's a form. Thank you so much.

798
01:17:25,090 --> 01:17:29,290
I'm very conscious of the time. We have maybe a couple of minutes and someone did put their hand up.

799
01:17:29,290 --> 01:17:34,659
But before we take that potentially, because we usually ask people to write that question.

800
01:17:34,660 --> 01:17:36,250
So I had asked the gentleman,

801
01:17:37,000 --> 01:17:45,970
I just want to say I happened to be in Windsor right now at an interfaith sort of I'm at Windsor Castle actually in the Queen's residence,

802
01:17:46,300 --> 01:17:56,709
so at St George's House. And the last time I was here, we actually had the MP who acts as sort of the I forget the exact title,

803
01:17:56,710 --> 01:17:58,840
but she deals with international religious freedom.

804
01:17:59,290 --> 01:18:04,360
So I actually I mean, this is why I appreciate your writing in these areas, because it is very accessible.

805
01:18:04,370 --> 01:18:09,370
It can be read and understood by a lawyer in her case who has become an MP.

806
01:18:10,540 --> 01:18:13,899
I don't think it wasn't a baroness. I think it was an actual Fiona.

807
01:18:13,900 --> 01:18:18,400
I forget her. MP but I recommended your book to her.

808
01:18:18,400 --> 01:18:23,080
I sent her an email with the title and link and I hope I mean she expressed an interest in it.

809
01:18:23,560 --> 01:18:27,850
So, you know, I hope that complicates the worldviews that were being discussed in that room.

810
01:18:28,210 --> 01:18:34,500
Fingers crossed. Thank you so much. We don't have the question and I'm really conscious of time.

811
01:18:34,500 --> 01:18:38,790
I hope that they will indulge us for not taking this question.

812
01:18:39,210 --> 01:18:42,900
But first, all I don't know if you want to call proceedings to a conclusion,

813
01:18:43,320 --> 01:18:48,120
and I am happy to actually just quickly mention we're having our next session,

814
01:18:48,420 --> 01:18:54,659
next and final session for the year in a week's time on the 22nd of June with Fadi,

815
01:18:54,660 --> 01:19:00,000
by the way, and Nadia Abu Ali from Duke University and the American University of Beirut,

816
01:19:00,540 --> 01:19:04,890
respectively, talking about Marxism in relation to Islamic political thought.

817
01:19:04,900 --> 01:19:09,960
So we very much look forward to that. Thanks very much, Osama.

818
01:19:10,110 --> 01:19:17,129
Thank you all an audience and thank you in particular, Beth and Roshan, really wonderfully stimulating presentations.

819
01:19:17,130 --> 01:19:26,360
And we really could have gone on. But I do hope we shall meet in person rather than simply online at some point to chat.

820
01:19:26,400 --> 01:19:29,580
It'll be good to meet you properly, Beth. It'll be wonderful to see you again.

821
01:19:30,210 --> 01:19:33,270
And with that, we will close this session.

822
01:19:33,270 --> 01:19:36,560
Very successful one, I think. Thank you all.

823
01:19:36,570 --> 01:19:42,570
And we shall be in touch. And the recording, I think, will be put up and you will be sent a link to it.

824
01:19:43,440 --> 01:19:46,740
Thank you. Thank you. It it's lovely to be here with you.

825
01:19:46,800 --> 01:19:47,700
Have a wonderful day.