1
00:00:05,890 --> 00:00:07,440
Good afternoon. Good morning.

2
00:00:07,720 --> 00:00:17,110
Depending on your timezone and welcome to our third event for the term and it's actually coming right in the last week of term here in

3
00:00:17,110 --> 00:00:27,270
Oxford on the of the our political thought seminar as part of the Middle East Centre's sort of contemporary Islamic studies programme.

4
00:00:28,120 --> 00:00:34,299
And it gives myself and facility a great pleasure to welcome two scholars from across

5
00:00:34,300 --> 00:00:40,510
the Atlantic who are really sort of leaders in the study of religion and secularism.

6
00:00:40,510 --> 00:00:44,170
To talk about this week's theme, the theme of religion.

7
00:00:44,980 --> 00:00:51,639
Our scholars are Elizabeth Shachtman, heard from Northwestern University, I understand Abbasi from Stanford University.

8
00:00:51,640 --> 00:00:54,730
And Beth, you'll be speaking about Decolonising, the category of religion.

9
00:00:55,720 --> 00:00:59,260
Oceania will be speaking about regulating religion in premodern Islamic government.

10
00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:05,320
So we're going to be straddling historical range in the course of this hour and a half.

11
00:01:06,340 --> 00:01:12,850
And we'll start with yourself, Beth, so I'll give you a brief introduction and you'll be able to speak for 20 minutes.

12
00:01:13,510 --> 00:01:19,389
Russian will then be able to speak for 20 minutes, and then we'll shift to a discussion and we always tell participants,

13
00:01:19,390 --> 00:01:25,570
please feel free to put questions in the Q&A or in the chat and we'll come to them.

14
00:01:25,570 --> 00:01:29,110
So even mid-stream, while you're sort of listening, feel free to do that.

15
00:01:29,590 --> 00:01:34,149
And Faisal and I will basically coordinate a discussion afterwards.

16
00:01:34,150 --> 00:01:40,240
So very often Beth in Russia and Faisal and I kind of take the privilege that

17
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:45,970
we have as sort of co-chairs of the panel to engage you both in discussion.

18
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:51,670
And we thoroughly enjoy that process as well. So but we usually try and get to everyone's questions as well.

19
00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:57,430
So without further ado, I'd like to briefly introduce Elizabeth segment heard.

20
00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:05,710
So Beth is Professor of Political Science and Crown Chair in Middle East Studies at Northwestern University.

21
00:02:06,100 --> 00:02:13,450
She studies religion and global politics. She's a very prolific author and co-directs Talking Religion,

22
00:02:13,450 --> 00:02:20,320
Public Politics and the Media and Global Politics and religion research groups at Northwestern University.

23
00:02:20,650 --> 00:02:29,170
Her recent public pieces Sorry three myths about Religion and Politics and Dangerous Logic at the borders, religion and the travel ban.

24
00:02:31,030 --> 00:02:39,819
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.

25
00:02:39,820 --> 00:02:43,930
But I have a feeling that that's the book you were just showing us as having been published.

26
00:02:44,740 --> 00:02:50,350
Oh, no, no. So you are currently writing, but you're also working on you've also published other recent work,

27
00:02:51,340 --> 00:02:54,970
never a dull moment in your sort of literary life, shall we say.

28
00:02:56,350 --> 00:03:02,140
So without further ado, I'd like you to introduce your topic of Decolonising, the category of religion.

29
00:03:02,920 --> 00:03:07,690
Thank you. Thank you so much, Sam. Thank you for so it's so good to see you.

30
00:03:07,750 --> 00:03:11,950
Even only on the Hollywood Squares screen, you're saying very nice to meet you.

31
00:03:11,950 --> 00:03:17,950
Thank you for being here. And I look forward to connecting with you and engaging with your work as we go forward.

32
00:03:17,950 --> 00:03:21,189
So this is really a privilege and an honour for me to be here.

33
00:03:21,190 --> 00:03:25,780
Thank you for having me. So I've been asked to speak today about the category of religion,

34
00:03:25,780 --> 00:03:32,589
and I want to begin with two brief vignettes that illustrate kind of the kind of thinking that I'm doing right

35
00:03:32,590 --> 00:03:39,070
now about decolonising the category and some of the tensions that in here in that process in particular.

36
00:03:39,580 --> 00:03:47,200
The first is from the Teaching Law and religion case study archives that I that I co-curated with Winifred Fowler SULLIVAN.

37
00:03:47,560 --> 00:03:53,500
And it's a case that's based on the historical and anthropological work of Paul Johnson, who works in Brazil.

38
00:03:54,190 --> 00:03:58,630
The second will draw on historian Kate Ramsey's book on Voodoo and Power in Haiti.

39
00:03:59,080 --> 00:04:01,990
Each of these two vignettes, they're very short,

40
00:04:03,190 --> 00:04:11,650
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,

41
00:04:12,100 --> 00:04:14,979
and specifically the ways in which that category,

42
00:04:14,980 --> 00:04:21,780
in fact in courts and reflects and re instantiate histories and relations of power that more often than not involved

43
00:04:21,940 --> 00:04:28,030
white Europeans asserting various forms of domination over peoples of colour in colonial and post-colonial contexts.

44
00:04:28,630 --> 00:04:33,340
I'll then suggest that those contexts do remain with us today in some surprising ways.

45
00:04:33,820 --> 00:04:37,660
Drawing on a very brief example from my own current work, my own research.

46
00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:42,580
So the first vignette in 1870 in Brazil, Judge Miguel Jose Tavares,

47
00:04:42,580 --> 00:04:49,990
received a letter which accused an Afro-Brazilian possession priest named Luca Rosa of practising false magic.

48
00:04:50,800 --> 00:04:54,520
Judge Tavares prosecuted Rosa for charlatan ism and fraud,

49
00:04:54,610 --> 00:04:59,349
claiming he was attempting to immorally profit by representing himself as the bearer of false,

50
00:04:59,350 --> 00:05:04,450
magical powers with no legal definition of religion outside of the church.

51
00:05:04,950 --> 00:05:09,750
The spectre of Rose's syncretic and uncategorised uncategorizable religion.

52
00:05:09,780 --> 00:05:13,170
The religion that falls outside the boundaries of the category of religion,

53
00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:18,660
raised a number of debates over what religion is and what it could be in Brazil at that time.

54
00:05:19,170 --> 00:05:27,300
Ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced to hard labour and labour, and central to his conviction were fears of sexual deviance,

55
00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:32,160
material gain and of his, quote, stealing from Catholicism from nefarious sense.

56
00:05:32,790 --> 00:05:39,689
He received six years of prison and hard labour. Now, the context in which that case arose was the rise of separatism in Brazil,

57
00:05:39,690 --> 00:05:46,290
a movement originating in France that was concerned with spirits and spiritual possession and which became widespread in the 19th century.

58
00:05:46,740 --> 00:05:50,010
Its popularity amongst Afro Brazilians in particular,

59
00:05:50,010 --> 00:05:55,409
alarmed the colonial authorities as Afro religions and ritual gatherings producing states of

60
00:05:55,410 --> 00:06:00,330
possession were seen as potential sources of insurrection by the enslaved and lower classes.

61
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:06,270
This is, of course, drawing on Paul Johnson's book on this topic and possession.

62
00:06:06,450 --> 00:06:11,490
As these laws repress the religious practises of Afro, Brazilians began to spread.

63
00:06:11,820 --> 00:06:18,430
The juridical regulation of religion intersected very closely with issues of sexuality, race, class and power.

64
00:06:18,450 --> 00:06:28,110
In this particular case, a VUCA approach to. Second vignette during the US occupation of Haiti, which occurred between 1958 and 1934,

65
00:06:28,470 --> 00:06:32,970
the Occupiers were concerned about potential political dissent and anti-colonial

66
00:06:32,970 --> 00:06:37,110
insurgency being expressed once again through indigenous religious practises.

67
00:06:37,590 --> 00:06:44,220
The Americans, as a result, drew a close association between what they called sorcery and popular insurgency.

68
00:06:44,760 --> 00:06:47,460
They framed sorcery as insurgency,

69
00:06:47,910 --> 00:06:56,070
and they enforce laws against laissez les or spells in the name of moral decency as a way to consolidate American control over Haiti.

70
00:06:56,940 --> 00:07:01,350
To put it very bluntly, there is no religious freedom for sorcerer insurgents.

71
00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:04,860
There's also done for Catholics, by the way, in this context,

72
00:07:04,860 --> 00:07:12,030
these same anti superstition campaigns against voodoo targeting, materialism and paganism also targeted Catholicism.

73
00:07:12,390 --> 00:07:18,720
So there was a different grammar of policing in place at this time with different grammar of regulation, different grammar of outcast.

74
00:07:19,230 --> 00:07:21,930
What isn't there is not religion, legitimate religion.

75
00:07:22,830 --> 00:07:30,720
The Occupiers attempts to enforce moral decency were not understood, however, to involve the export or the establishment of religion.

76
00:07:31,020 --> 00:07:33,899
And this is important, I think. Instead, they were.

77
00:07:33,900 --> 00:07:43,500
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,

78
00:07:43,500 --> 00:07:50,820
the notions of a free market, modern scientism of democracy, of public health, the rule of law and indeed, religious freedom itself.

79
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:59,639
This, of course, is part of a global, global story involving the invention of these modern ideals of religion, secularism, nation and citizenship,

80
00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:06,630
which are all carefully and closely entangled with each other in ways that we need to examine in contextually specific ways.

81
00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:14,700
In his work on separatism in Brazil, Paul Johnson describes the effects of the purification of the mid-17th century category of religion.

82
00:08:15,060 --> 00:08:20,700
Conceived as a properly civil religion in dialogue with and in contrast with what

83
00:08:20,700 --> 00:08:25,290
he calls a proto anthropological notion of spirit possession as civil danger.

84
00:08:26,580 --> 00:08:32,129
In a recent post on the blog Contending Identities, Nelson and other authors wrote that whoever defines,

85
00:08:32,130 --> 00:08:36,810
identifies and explains religion wields much power. We've known this for some time.

86
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:39,150
We've all been students of Talal Asad.

87
00:08:40,140 --> 00:08:49,740
These vignettes compel us to ask, Is it possible for scholars, practitioners, lawyers, decision makers, journalists to continue to use this term?

88
00:08:49,740 --> 00:08:55,290
Religion, given its entanglements with colonialism, its dizzyingly complex legal lives,

89
00:08:55,290 --> 00:09:01,290
its complicity in hierarchies and histories of domination, many of which are also deeply racialized.

90
00:09:01,770 --> 00:09:06,180
Can we deploy this category anymore without simply reproducing these hierarchies,

91
00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:12,510
these forms of oppression that are represented in these vignettes as well as in so much other work in this field?

92
00:09:12,990 --> 00:09:21,209
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,

93
00:09:21,210 --> 00:09:27,180
the Central Intelligence Agency, which I think of as some of the best new work in this area.

94
00:09:27,180 --> 00:09:32,100
But there's a lot of it. Can we then do something other than say we were wrong?

95
00:09:32,130 --> 00:09:35,190
You go, Rosa. And the Haitians deserve their religion, too.

96
00:09:36,300 --> 00:09:40,260
This is a struggle. And I think we need to use the term very, very carefully.

97
00:09:40,740 --> 00:09:46,440
Modern, rational religion was and remains famously defined by its lack of entanglement,

98
00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:51,930
its separation from both supernatural powers on the one hand, and the secular state on the other.

99
00:09:52,530 --> 00:09:56,999
It is widely acknowledged that making religion across colonial contexts has involved

100
00:09:57,000 --> 00:10:01,660
condemning and often criminalising practises described as superstition and witchcraft.

101
00:10:01,680 --> 00:10:09,900
Imagine these powers are criminalised as dangerous, uncivilised, wild, pre-modern, thuggish, demonic and dissenting.

102
00:10:10,470 --> 00:10:14,610
The state and its religions, meanwhile, become the domain of reason statecraft,

103
00:10:14,610 --> 00:10:19,050
law, individual belief and non-belief and modern forms of rational authority.

104
00:10:19,650 --> 00:10:28,140
Muddying that divide, troubling that divide between good and bad religion, between religion and non religion is part of my job.

105
00:10:29,070 --> 00:10:37,469
The challenge and decolonising the concept of religion then will require more than merely including other practises into the category of religion.

106
00:10:37,470 --> 00:10:41,790
And moving on. We need to think religion otherwise and carefully.

107
00:10:42,270 --> 00:10:46,139
I will give an example of a new book, Brent Crossing's new book,

108
00:10:46,140 --> 00:10:53,190
which is called Experiments with Power Obeah and the Remaking of Religion in Trinidad, which I think accomplishes this very complex balancing act.

109
00:10:53,850 --> 00:10:59,280
Christian studies obeah, which he describes as a form of spiritual work or experiment with power.

110
00:10:59,880 --> 00:11:06,810
He sets out in his project at first to redeem it. He wants to show that it's really not all that bad.

111
00:11:06,810 --> 00:11:09,060
It's not all that dangerous. It's a good religion.

112
00:11:09,060 --> 00:11:14,549
And presumably he wants to kind of add it to the pantheon of protected and respected world religions,

113
00:11:14,550 --> 00:11:20,020
which is exactly the move that is often made in policy debates as well, bringing them into the interface.

114
00:11:21,180 --> 00:11:24,600
Now what he learnt was that this wasn't going to work.

115
00:11:24,900 --> 00:11:29,490
He had assumed that religion in its proper forms was exclusive of harm and he wanted to

116
00:11:29,490 --> 00:11:34,860
morally vindicate its practitioners from the darker popular associations that went with it,

117
00:11:34,860 --> 00:11:42,260
which he saw as the product of, of course, its colonial and post-colonial denigration and criminalisation, which is understandable.

118
00:11:42,270 --> 00:11:48,930
Obey, after all, was a crime in Trinidad until 2000, and it remains one today in much of the Anglophone Caribbean.

119
00:11:49,560 --> 00:11:53,250
Crossan was drawn to what he calls the race making powers of religion.

120
00:11:53,730 --> 00:11:57,600
And this is a complex idea that has to do with the race based exclusion of

121
00:11:57,600 --> 00:12:02,490
African identified practises from both sides of the secular religions dialectic,

122
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:09,450
which he identifies this exclusion as a foundational act in the making of religion and secularism as modern universals.

123
00:12:10,020 --> 00:12:14,410
So the terms themselves in this account are deeply racialized.

124
00:12:15,060 --> 00:12:22,710
Crossing concludes that the identification of evil with African, not religion, has been a key part of Western Modernity's moral and racial discourse,

125
00:12:22,950 --> 00:12:28,890
particularly in representations of Obama and voodoo for American, British, French and West African audiences.

126
00:12:29,190 --> 00:12:34,770
Now, Vincent Lloyd and Jonathan can make a similar claim in their excellent volume, Race and Secularism in America.

127
00:12:35,070 --> 00:12:38,910
And I think that the entanglement of racialisation with the categories of secularism

128
00:12:38,910 --> 00:12:42,570
and religion needs to be a part of all of our discussions at this point.

129
00:12:44,250 --> 00:12:47,730
Now crossings redemptive project of Obey clearly runs into a wall.

130
00:12:47,790 --> 00:12:53,740
He says his interlocutors reverse the terms of that project rather than making Obama into a religion.

131
00:12:53,790 --> 00:12:59,670
He says They made me ask how spiritual work challenged the hegemonic limits of the category of religion itself,

132
00:13:00,480 --> 00:13:06,930
forced outside the comfort of that category. He abandons his redemptive aims, and these are precisely the kind of moments.

133
00:13:07,380 --> 00:13:13,530
And they're kind of scary because in what categories you used to talk about what we do when where are our jobs, what department do we work in?

134
00:13:13,830 --> 00:13:20,570
But these these objects of study are challenging the hegemonic, moral, racial limits of our own received categories of analysis.

135
00:13:20,580 --> 00:13:24,130
And this is part of the challenge today. Religion is one such category, of course.

136
00:13:24,210 --> 00:13:27,570
There are others as well. There's also some tension here.

137
00:13:28,020 --> 00:13:35,940
Eminent scholars such as Webb Pen and David Chittister have argued that we're not in any position to set aside these categories religious and secular.

138
00:13:35,940 --> 00:13:40,049
They're part, as Keynes suggests, both elites and everyday discourse.

139
00:13:40,050 --> 00:13:44,070
And they mediate self-awareness everywhere. They have themselves become social.

140
00:13:45,150 --> 00:13:50,670
Chittister agrees. After reviewing the history of religion's colonial productions on contested frontiers.

141
00:13:51,060 --> 00:13:58,770
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
00:13:59,400 --> 00:14:07,920
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
00:14:08,430 --> 00:14:13,620
At the same time, the governing logics of the occupation endure, they persist.

144
00:14:13,680 --> 00:14:17,520
When it comes to the moral, racial limits of religion at home and abroad,

145
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:23,130
I'll now turn finally to an example from my own current research on the American border,

146
00:14:23,580 --> 00:14:27,989
and I specifically will speak for a moment about sent them what they are holy death,

147
00:14:27,990 --> 00:14:31,620
the unofficial patron saint of the marginalised, threatened and the poor.

148
00:14:31,650 --> 00:14:37,350
She's a skeletal female figure, clad in a long robe, and she's holding a knife and a globe.

149
00:14:38,370 --> 00:14:43,500
You may have seen her represented. She also has kind of parallels in other traditions.

150
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:49,350
Less anti-Semite has this incredibly rich history, and I can't go into that here due to reasons of time.

151
00:14:49,650 --> 00:14:56,400
She has many devotees in the borderlands, the US-Mexican borderlands, and she also now has devotees all over North America.

152
00:14:56,700 --> 00:15:04,500
She offers protection from harm, and she serves as a reminder that no one, not even Customs and Border Protection, can escape death.

153
00:15:05,550 --> 00:15:12,840
She embraces those in limbo. She loves the narco, which is a pejorative Mexican Spanish word, meaning low class and uncultured,

154
00:15:13,260 --> 00:15:16,980
which also carries anti-indigenous and racialized connotations.

155
00:15:17,430 --> 00:15:20,190
She's also beloved by many sexual minorities.

156
00:15:22,440 --> 00:15:28,740
Historians and ethnographers often portray Santa muerte as a sympathetic would be saint of the downtrodden and leave it at that.

157
00:15:29,190 --> 00:15:34,890
US-Mexican, Mexican and law enforcement officials tell a very different story about her, though, and this is where I became interested.

158
00:15:35,400 --> 00:15:45,360
Echoing their forefathers who occupied Haiti a century ago, they depict less than these themes as a threat to American and Mexican national security.

159
00:15:46,020 --> 00:15:50,850
She is maligned by the Catholic Church as a form of idol worship, if not the devil itself.

160
00:15:51,420 --> 00:15:57,870
She is vilified by Mexican American law enforcement as a folk saint of the drug cartels and criminalised

161
00:15:57,870 --> 00:16:03,900
as a death cult by the U.S. Foreign Military Studies Office and a source of spiritual insurgency.

162
00:16:04,410 --> 00:16:11,210
They are term. If I may, I'm just going to share my screen here and pull up a slide of something where that.

163
00:16:11,550 --> 00:16:16,800
Okay. This is less than Disney mine. Everywhere you go, increasingly here in Chicago as well.

164
00:16:17,070 --> 00:16:24,240
You can find all kinds of devotional items to the Asante Sigma, also known as Latin Fettuccini Girl.

165
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:27,540
In my own local grocery store, I have found this candle,

166
00:16:27,540 --> 00:16:35,010
this that which is my knights and says the prayer which is written in Spanish on the back last Antisemite is absolutely everywhere.

167
00:16:35,160 --> 00:16:41,100
She is ubiquitous. Let me just show one more photo, if I may, which is taken last week in Nogales,

168
00:16:41,100 --> 00:16:47,370
which is a town on the border of the United States and Mexico, in southern Arizona, in northern Sonora.

169
00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:59,220
And this is a saint, a templo, a temple to send them with they where everyone is invited to come for the rosary every Sunday at 12 noon.

170
00:16:59,910 --> 00:17:04,160
So you get to she is ubiquitous is just to give you a sense with her globe and her size.

171
00:17:05,430 --> 00:17:12,450
So let me just let me just give you a little bit of a flavour of the fear that she inspires.

172
00:17:12,630 --> 00:17:20,310
One expert, American law enforcement described devotion to her as spiritual insurgency that involved worship of a perverted Christian God.

173
00:17:20,970 --> 00:17:26,160
This has made its way into the American courts as well. And I tell all, tell this story in a longer version of this.

174
00:17:26,160 --> 00:17:34,750
But there are court records showing that there are prayer recitations, prayer books, statuettes and even skeletons emblazoned.

175
00:17:34,770 --> 00:17:42,030
Air fresheners for your car that are now being used as evidence in efforts to detain and convict suspects.

176
00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:47,070
Another expert described her as described her connexion with the revival of human

177
00:17:47,070 --> 00:17:51,870
sacrifice in Mexico and specifically worship of the female Aztec god of the dead.

178
00:17:52,200 --> 00:18:00,480
So I'm interested in exploring some of the anti indigenous elements of the persecution of devotees of science and what they in particular.

179
00:18:01,170 --> 00:18:04,530
So for law enforcement, her followers are anti religion.

180
00:18:04,860 --> 00:18:08,220
They use that term anti orthodox and anti law and order.

181
00:18:08,730 --> 00:18:14,450
While some in the drug trade may engage in non-religious killing for followers of them, what they it is impossible.

182
00:18:14,460 --> 00:18:21,000
All killing is religious. In the eyes of law enforcement, devotees have fallen prey to bad religion,

183
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:25,500
exacerbated by a childlike attraction to pagan ways that conducive to violence.

184
00:18:25,980 --> 00:18:31,410
So she poses a kind of spiritual threat by marshalling these dangerous and subversive indigenous,

185
00:18:31,410 --> 00:18:38,040
pagan, dark skinned forces against US law enforcement and this racially tinged fear of the cult.

186
00:18:39,060 --> 00:18:44,340
Threads through a master's thesis written for the U.S. Marine Corps University in Quantico.

187
00:18:44,670 --> 00:18:51,720
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.

188
00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:57,659
And the author warns Santa muerte de is in and of itself a religion incompatible to good order and discipline.

189
00:18:57,660 --> 00:18:59,820
It promotes a society of lawbreakers.

190
00:19:00,090 --> 00:19:12,450
And then he goes on to trace the forms of devotion to the failure to codify Aztec religion, and he contrast that with canon law in Catholicism.

191
00:19:12,480 --> 00:19:19,379
He says the problem is Aztec religion has no written doctrine, but traditions passed on through word of mouth and ritualistic practise,

192
00:19:19,380 --> 00:19:24,060
making the belief system susceptible to the damaging effects of individual interpretation.

193
00:19:24,840 --> 00:19:33,600
So he says that basically the Mexican people who wear substance and wear say they got this kind of embedded into the principles of their belief,

194
00:19:33,600 --> 00:19:39,540
this obsession with death and mysticism that they inherited from the indigenous predecessors to the Spanish colonials.

195
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:44,100
And due to the lack of doctrine, the lack of a written doctrine in specific,

196
00:19:44,100 --> 00:19:52,220
the narco cultures that pick this up and then run with it and develop their own nefarious interpretations of reverence in Santa muerte.

197
00:19:52,800 --> 00:19:57,930
So if this slippery cult could have been pinned down and written down, he says, things might have come together differently.

198
00:19:58,170 --> 00:20:01,620
But the bottom line is, right now, what we're facing is societal collapse.

199
00:20:02,070 --> 00:20:09,840
Now, I think I'm going to wrap up here and just say that I think that it would be really easy to dismiss these perspectives as ignorant and or naive,

200
00:20:10,110 --> 00:20:14,189
but they actually put people in jail for life in many of these cases.

201
00:20:14,190 --> 00:20:20,820
And so while that may be tempting, there are a lot of people who are suffering as a result of these.

202
00:20:21,600 --> 00:20:27,210
These. Understandings and these interpretations and these criminalisation of them which they worship.

203
00:20:28,050 --> 00:20:37,410
It's also possible to read her slightly differently and to understand the forms of insurgency and religiosity that she represents as a

204
00:20:37,410 --> 00:20:44,700
form of agency of political and religious solidarity and transformation that recalls earlier figures such as Our Lady of Guadalupe,

205
00:20:45,090 --> 00:20:49,829
who some of you may know first appeared in 1531 to the newly colonised indigenous

206
00:20:49,830 --> 00:20:54,950
peoples of Mexico and became associated herself with a fossil deity named Ton,

207
00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:57,510
not seen, according to Luis Leone,

208
00:20:57,510 --> 00:21:05,120
and like sent them where they Guadalupe decimated the border between European and Native American religions through processes of syncretism,

209
00:21:05,130 --> 00:21:13,800
continuity and transformation. In a new article in which she charts the contributions of indigenous political thought to the Mexican Revolution,

210
00:21:14,220 --> 00:21:22,020
Arturo Chang describes the revolutionaries efforts to reclaim Catholicism itself as simultaneously indigenous, Mexican and Pan American.

211
00:21:22,020 --> 00:21:27,389
I think this is part of the future of the study of the category of religion, which is why I am highlighting it here.

212
00:21:27,390 --> 00:21:33,990
In conclusion, and he wants to retell the whole history of Mexican Republicanism through this focus on marginalised

213
00:21:33,990 --> 00:21:39,560
groups that had envisioned their own postcolonial emancipation in collective indigenous terms,

214
00:21:40,020 --> 00:21:44,729
radical republicanism and Indigenous demands came together in a restorative

215
00:21:44,730 --> 00:21:48,970
moment that demonstrated what Chang calls the influence of indigenous Haiti,

216
00:21:49,020 --> 00:21:52,260
religion and plebeian politics and Republican political thought.

217
00:21:53,010 --> 00:21:56,370
Like her revolutionary forebears and with Chang's work in mind,

218
00:21:56,430 --> 00:22:04,920
we might ask if devotion to Santa muerte also represents another indigenisation of border lands, religion and politics information.

219
00:22:05,880 --> 00:22:14,250
Her popularity surely exceeds her status as a demonised icon of death or a pitiable pseudo saint of the dispossessed.

220
00:22:14,890 --> 00:22:17,550
Confounding the line between pure and impure religion.

221
00:22:17,940 --> 00:22:25,169
Her celebrations are marked by an openness to the exorbitant, the unsettled, even the monstrous, beyond the reach of church and state.

222
00:22:25,170 --> 00:22:30,840
She's a repository of anti-colonial, anti racist and anti and indigenous agency.

223
00:22:31,290 --> 00:22:37,860
Her followers could be seen to represent a new indigenous ecclesia in the sense described by Pamela Claassen,

224
00:22:38,250 --> 00:22:42,270
Paul Johnson and Whitney Sullivan in their new book by that name Ecclesia,

225
00:22:42,780 --> 00:22:48,240
a collective imbued with charisma that stands apart from the hegemony of both church and state,

226
00:22:48,630 --> 00:22:55,080
one that is composed of the inter, penetrating and mutually constitutive forces of religion and politics.

227
00:22:56,070 --> 00:23:01,950
Now, to assimilate Santa muerte into our pantheon of world religions would clearly be a mistake.

228
00:23:02,430 --> 00:23:05,910
Her devotees sit outside the secular religious dialectic.

229
00:23:06,180 --> 00:23:08,640
It is even perhaps irrelevant to them.

230
00:23:09,180 --> 00:23:16,650
How can we do them justice without reducing them to the categories from which they have been and continue to be violently excluded?

231
00:23:17,250 --> 00:23:26,100
Decolonising religion requires telling a series of different stories not only about religion then, but also about loss, politics and indeed history.

232
00:23:26,580 --> 00:23:29,639
Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Beth.

233
00:23:29,640 --> 00:23:37,380
Really sort of a journey into a world of religion that is unfamiliar to many of us, but truly illuminating.

234
00:23:38,340 --> 00:23:41,639
I'm going to quickly and thank you also for keeping to the time.

235
00:23:41,640 --> 00:23:44,700
So exactly 20 minutes.

236
00:23:45,090 --> 00:23:52,049
I'm going to and in the interest of time and the subsequent discussion straight on to

237
00:23:52,050 --> 00:23:56,990
reactions sort of presentation regulating religion in pre-modern Islamic governments.

238
00:23:57,000 --> 00:24:06,000
But Russian Embassy is a mellon postdoctoral fellow in humanities and lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at Stanford University.

239
00:24:06,900 --> 00:24:13,200
He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Mary in Languages and Civilisations at Harvard University in 2021,

240
00:24:13,470 --> 00:24:19,080
where his dissertation was awarded the prestigious Alwaleed bin Talal Prise for best dissertation in Islamic Studies.

241
00:24:20,370 --> 00:24:27,570
For those of us who've seen it, we just think we really think it was a thoroughly deserved recognition of its brilliance.

242
00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:37,530
He formerly served as an associate research scholar at the Abdullah Centre for Islamic Law and Civilisation at Yale Law School.

243
00:24:38,310 --> 00:24:41,400
And without further ado, I'd like to hand it over to you. Okay.

244
00:24:42,570 --> 00:24:46,260
Thank you so much. Let me just share my screen.

245
00:24:46,400 --> 00:24:50,129
Oh, thank you both. And thank you both for this fascinating talk.

246
00:24:50,130 --> 00:24:55,320
And I feel as though I'm doing something very different and working on an entirely different historical context.

247
00:24:56,040 --> 00:25:04,649
I feel we align very closely in terms of our ethical objectives and even the ways in which we think about secularism.

248
00:25:04,650 --> 00:25:10,690
And precisely what I'll try to do today is to think religion otherwise by telling these other stories in history.

249
00:25:10,690 --> 00:25:14,310
Is this one indigenous to the Islamic context,

250
00:25:14,550 --> 00:25:22,050
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.

251
00:25:22,050 --> 00:25:27,810
But also what I'm really trying to do here is to use the example of the pre-modern Islamic past,

252
00:25:27,810 --> 00:25:33,870
to think through some issues around secularity, particularly within the field of secularism studies,

253
00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:44,310
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,

254
00:25:44,310 --> 00:25:48,060
which has naturally been at the forefront of secularism studies.

255
00:25:48,900 --> 00:25:51,930
So today I'll be talking about regulating religion in pre-modern Islamic governance,

256
00:25:51,930 --> 00:25:56,970
and as you'll see from the subtitle, as a tool for thinking through the problems of secularity.

257
00:25:57,450 --> 00:26:03,569
So let me just get right into it. Essentially what I'm trying to do is to offer historical intervention into a theory,

258
00:26:03,570 --> 00:26:11,100
which is to say to use the the hammer of history to de-legitimize the theoretical findings,

259
00:26:11,100 --> 00:26:16,170
but to problematise certain assumptions within the field,

260
00:26:16,560 --> 00:26:21,810
and to think through various of these issues as a way of helping me understand the Islamic past.

261
00:26:21,810 --> 00:26:28,799
Actually, so briefly and this is something which I think we all know what the advances in secular studies have taught us very clearly

262
00:26:28,800 --> 00:26:34,260
is that what we're really talking about when we think about secularism is the management and regulation of religion.

263
00:26:35,610 --> 00:26:39,780
And that, of course, is itself a category that's indebted to a distinctively Christian genealogy.

264
00:26:39,780 --> 00:26:43,919
And I think even in the modern Islamic context, when you come across these terms,

265
00:26:43,920 --> 00:26:48,360
there's no way in which they're not inflected by this Western genealogy.

266
00:26:48,840 --> 00:26:56,100
Given how pervasive the West is, it is perhaps the major, if not the central element of the operation of secularism.

267
00:26:56,370 --> 00:27:05,519
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,

268
00:27:05,520 --> 00:27:10,860
religion in order to complicate certain of these assumptions that I've seen within the field.

269
00:27:12,510 --> 00:27:15,540
And again, it's only to complicate them, help us better understand them,

270
00:27:15,540 --> 00:27:19,770
not necessarily undermine them, because I've found so much value in each of these perspectives.

271
00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:26,940
So the first point I'll look at is this idea of secularism as a kind of questioning power, which I find very compelling.

272
00:27:26,940 --> 00:27:30,810
This features in the works of the saying no, the undermine is book questioning secularism,

273
00:27:32,220 --> 00:27:39,180
and it's a questioning power that's driven by this indeterminacy at the heart of secularism around this religious secular divide,

274
00:27:39,180 --> 00:27:42,990
or, as Beth alluded to, good and bad religion.

275
00:27:43,410 --> 00:27:47,940
And the second is the the understanding of legal secularisation.

276
00:27:48,240 --> 00:27:52,140
And here I'm really thinking about this wonderful volume after secular law,

277
00:27:52,830 --> 00:27:59,210
which I think only Sullivan and others edited as the kind of assumption of a sort of Christian sovereignty.

278
00:27:59,220 --> 00:28:04,680
Celebrities, excellent articles, and they're talking about this longer genealogy of the very notion of secular law.

279
00:28:05,580 --> 00:28:08,190
And so I want to think through that with the case of Islam.

280
00:28:08,670 --> 00:28:12,690
And then the last question the last issue has to do with the universality of particularity,

281
00:28:12,760 --> 00:28:19,500
which I think is really at the core of much of our debate surrounding secularism.

282
00:28:19,740 --> 00:28:24,299
And I've always found a problem in trying to figure out precisely what's going on here.

283
00:28:24,300 --> 00:28:28,060
And and what I'll try to do today is to use Islam to think through some.

284
00:28:28,130 --> 00:28:33,850
These issues a little more clearly. So. How I'll proceed as I look at three case studies.

285
00:28:33,850 --> 00:28:39,250
So looking at a sort of theological historical question within pre-modern Islam and then thinking about the theoretical implications.

286
00:28:39,490 --> 00:28:46,300
And this is really a work in progress. I'm thinking of writing this shorter book that's oriented towards the Field of Secularism study,

287
00:28:46,380 --> 00:28:49,450
so I'm really looking forward to your comments and feedback.

288
00:28:50,320 --> 00:28:54,670
So the first case study centres on the question of what makes an act of witnessing religion.

289
00:28:54,700 --> 00:28:59,589
So witnessing is this all important institution in all pre-modern forms of governance, really,

290
00:28:59,590 --> 00:29:05,620
because you don't have sort of modern forms of forensic evidence and these sorts of things.

291
00:29:06,010 --> 00:29:08,650
So the witness plays as all important role in court proceedings.

292
00:29:09,550 --> 00:29:19,810
So 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,

293
00:29:20,470 --> 00:29:23,350
they continuously debated this question in their legal handbooks.

294
00:29:23,350 --> 00:29:31,690
And as I'll show even outside of them about how and where to draw the lines between the Dini and the doing early forms of hostility and enmity.

295
00:29:32,140 --> 00:29:35,950
Diala And in short, really the question is this you know,

296
00:29:35,950 --> 00:29:41,650
if you have a witness who is harbouring some sort of hostility or some sort of enmity towards a plaintiff or defendant,

297
00:29:41,920 --> 00:29:53,229
this obviously delegitimizes their testimony and for various reasons they had to separate these sorts of categories of enmity.

298
00:29:53,230 --> 00:30:02,559
Right. So at one level, a DINI or a religious form of hostility was perforce legitimate,

299
00:30:02,560 --> 00:30:06,010
precisely because non-Muslims, for example, were not allowed to take a stand.

300
00:30:06,580 --> 00:30:11,620
Also because religious forms of animosity are legitimate in an Islamic polity.

301
00:30:11,620 --> 00:30:14,769
Obviously, it's sort of embedded deeply in the Koran.

302
00:30:14,770 --> 00:30:19,419
And one might say this sort of drawing of lines of distinction between these communities and

303
00:30:19,420 --> 00:30:25,090
even harbouring some sort of sort of and many are hostility towards someone else's religion.

304
00:30:25,570 --> 00:30:29,320
But at the same time, this poses a problem for these jurists in their functioning of the courts,

305
00:30:29,620 --> 00:30:34,059
because they needed to separate out secular forms of hostility in which,

306
00:30:34,060 --> 00:30:40,180
for example, as was said, people hate a certain person because of the tribe they're from, or so on and so forth.

307
00:30:41,170 --> 00:30:49,990
So basically they wanted to exclude the latter, this form of hostility from this sort of illegitimate form of testimony for pragmatic reasons,

308
00:30:50,530 --> 00:30:55,930
to protect sort of justice within the court proceedings, while also sanctioning that, sanctioning the former for ideological reasons.

309
00:30:56,230 --> 00:31:05,500
So this goes back to a textual basis, a SHAFI This foundational jurist speaks of conflict as giving way to hostility.

310
00:31:05,510 --> 00:31:10,899
Abdullah. So one of the commentators in the Shafi School, and I would say the shabby school,

311
00:31:10,900 --> 00:31:19,420
had the most sophisticated of reflections on this particular question of Hossein Madani, who lives in the 12th century.

312
00:31:19,750 --> 00:31:23,740
He divides between the Dina and Jeremy, as so many of these other jurists do.

313
00:31:24,010 --> 00:31:28,000
And he, for example, looks at the question, the issue of partisanship of ACB.

314
00:31:29,530 --> 00:31:39,520
And again, he limits it to the second. So he says a a secular form of of of Azaria, whether it's tribal, ethnic, whatever it might be,

315
00:31:39,820 --> 00:31:48,880
is perforce alleged illegitimate in courts but and also be based on religious grounds is necessarily protected

316
00:31:49,180 --> 00:31:53,820
precisely because Muslims might harbour hostility towards Jews and Christians on the basis of their religion,

317
00:31:54,220 --> 00:32:01,390
but nevertheless they have to serve in the courts upon testimony or else the courts are not able to function.

318
00:32:02,170 --> 00:32:09,400
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
00:32:10,330 --> 00:32:17,860
This shrewd handbook sponsored by some of the analysis of the in the 17th century Egyptian Shafik scholar Johanna Lockwood.

320
00:32:18,100 --> 00:32:25,870
He actually replicates the official formula of the matter here, which is required for documentary purposes within the model of courts.

321
00:32:26,260 --> 00:32:35,200
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
00:32:35,200 --> 00:32:38,080
I don't know how to do it. The Falantil Fulani are now, I don't know.

323
00:32:38,710 --> 00:32:50,680
So it became a term that actually, I think became the the documentary and the legitimate way of speaking about hostility.

324
00:32:51,550 --> 00:32:57,210
And so the point I'm trying to make here is that. For the purposes of legal governance.

325
00:32:57,420 --> 00:33:01,860
Pre-modern Muslims actually had to, in the course of legal proceedings,

326
00:33:01,860 --> 00:33:08,130
divide between the religious and secular for particular political purposes, pragmatic, theological.

327
00:33:08,460 --> 00:33:16,620
And this, I think, serves as a useful case for thinking about secularity in today's day and age,

328
00:33:16,620 --> 00:33:22,080
which is, of course, has often been approached through the perspective of of law.

329
00:33:22,630 --> 00:33:27,150
For example, Professor Hird and others have done so in thinking about this.

330
00:33:27,150 --> 00:33:30,809
I started to drawing on Hussein El-Gamal and the work of David Scott.

331
00:33:30,810 --> 00:33:34,860
Think about the problem space of doing the right and the problem space, as David Scott considers it,

332
00:33:34,860 --> 00:33:43,950
is essentially the sort of constellation of questions and answers upon which certain ideological and political stakes hang.

333
00:33:45,030 --> 00:33:48,749
So and this is obviously historically conditioned. There's a temporal element to it there.

334
00:33:48,750 --> 00:33:53,790
There's no universal working at play in this equation.

335
00:33:54,600 --> 00:33:59,460
And so I thought, what are the stakes here in the in the question of the Dunya and the legal courts?

336
00:34:00,960 --> 00:34:09,060
And the way I would proceed would elucidated is that the danger of a binary in this case at least,

337
00:34:09,060 --> 00:34:14,670
emerges as a sort of theoretical construct and importantly within a distinctively and self-aware Islamic tradition.

338
00:34:14,670 --> 00:34:19,680
This is long before the advent of European influence as a theoretical construct

339
00:34:19,680 --> 00:34:23,970
used to address practical issues emerging from the problem of religious plurality.

340
00:34:24,240 --> 00:34:28,020
So we see at the core of it is the question of religious plurality.

341
00:34:28,050 --> 00:34:36,150
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,

342
00:34:36,150 --> 00:34:45,030
actually goes back to the sassanian and to the Roman empires and and the Islamic one being a novel development in this long trek.

343
00:34:46,560 --> 00:34:49,379
So what we see then, if we think about this comparatively,

344
00:34:49,380 --> 00:34:54,240
and this is the kind of work I think I'm doing it one might describe it as archaeological in the audience sense

345
00:34:54,240 --> 00:34:59,490
of doing a sort of comparative analysis as opposed to the modern regime of the secular right in which there are,

346
00:34:59,490 --> 00:35:02,780
as a divide and secular divide, obtains a distinctive salience.

347
00:35:02,790 --> 00:35:08,340
This is how I describes it, and I think it's the right way of doing it and even a sort of centrality to the political order.

348
00:35:08,580 --> 00:35:16,680
And I think Professor Herder was alluding to this as well. The notion of social order hangs on this divide and this dividing process.

349
00:35:17,100 --> 00:35:23,880
The Islamic problem space is merely a problem of the Dunya is merely a tool of governance, of governance, rather than a tool of Governmentality.

350
00:35:24,120 --> 00:35:31,710
And here I'm talking about Governmentality. I love Foucault, and that's precisely because it lacks this ideological hegemonic function.

351
00:35:31,950 --> 00:35:40,560
If we think about that term as Graham Skinner's right uses it here, we see it as a sort of pragmatic form of governance,

352
00:35:40,890 --> 00:35:50,880
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.

353
00:35:51,030 --> 00:35:54,030
And this, you know, going back to that volume after secular law,

354
00:35:54,060 --> 00:35:58,680
it really shows that the very foundation of secular law is this sort of problem space.

355
00:35:59,760 --> 00:36:06,060
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.

356
00:36:06,720 --> 00:36:16,670
Historically speaking, it it highlights the very pervasiveness rather than this sort of secularising strategy,

357
00:36:16,680 --> 00:36:19,260
which one finds in mediaeval historical context.

358
00:36:19,710 --> 00:36:25,320
And here I will also highlight the work of Connor O'Brien, a historian at Oxford in the History Department,

359
00:36:25,320 --> 00:36:29,790
who's written quite a bit about the mediaeval Christian Western secular.

360
00:36:30,150 --> 00:36:35,670
And he's he's developed this idea of secularising strategies as a sort of pragmatic

361
00:36:35,670 --> 00:36:40,710
form of differentiating between religion and non religion in the Western case,

362
00:36:41,070 --> 00:36:48,000
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

363
00:36:48,000 --> 00:36:53,640
to governance in terms of grappling with the problem of religious plurality,

364
00:36:53,910 --> 00:36:58,229
rather than a kind of rhetorical ideological use of secularity,

365
00:36:58,230 --> 00:37:05,940
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.

366
00:37:07,350 --> 00:37:11,790
I'll move on to my second question now. And of course, there's a lot to unpack here, and hopefully we can do that in the Q&A.

367
00:37:14,100 --> 00:37:20,180
What is one to do when beliefs collide with principles of social order? This is, of course, a central question when you think about secularism today.

368
00:37:21,560 --> 00:37:26,450
And to stick with the theme of witnessing, I look now at this.

369
00:37:27,020 --> 00:37:33,740
Another 11th century, a scholar, a very important one from the Hanafi School ICRC, who was a canonical figure in the Hanafi School.

370
00:37:34,640 --> 00:37:43,100
So he also talks about witnessing in a different context, and he tells us a very expected thing that heretics usually attend the Catholic Church.

371
00:37:43,100 --> 00:37:46,170
And we understand that heretics cannot transmit religious traditions. Right?

372
00:37:46,210 --> 00:37:51,850
They can't serve as reliable witnesses to the testimony of religious evidence.

373
00:37:51,870 --> 00:37:55,730
Right. Because of their religious corruption.

374
00:37:56,870 --> 00:37:59,540
But what's interesting is he argues that heretics can, in fact,

375
00:37:59,540 --> 00:38:06,470
take the stand in a court on a secular basis when they're not speaking to religious matters.

376
00:38:07,460 --> 00:38:13,340
And the way in which he formulates that is this is he says, witnessing is a part of the realm of injustices and disputes.

377
00:38:13,700 --> 00:38:18,259
The Harlem nomad and the heretic with respect to these matters is not partisan.

378
00:38:18,260 --> 00:38:21,200
Right. So it goes back to the question of bias, of partisanship.

379
00:38:22,520 --> 00:38:28,310
And it's interesting the way he formulates this, because I've done a lot of other work on this in my book I'm writing now,

380
00:38:28,550 --> 00:38:31,350
but this category of the volume of injustice and so on,

381
00:38:31,370 --> 00:38:37,130
and it's often invoked in the context of distinguishing it from the religious realm or the realm of a bad.

382
00:38:37,670 --> 00:38:45,230
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.

383
00:38:45,620 --> 00:38:52,130
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.

384
00:38:52,850 --> 00:38:56,240
And subsequently, this is a different point, but it also helps us think of these issues.

385
00:38:56,840 --> 00:39:03,950
He clarifies in a different thing that believing in divine inspiration in harm right is a very popular category of gods,

386
00:39:03,950 --> 00:39:10,849
essentially revealing the truth of a dream or even awake if one believes that this sort

387
00:39:10,850 --> 00:39:14,320
of kind of this knowledge that one receives is a socially practical form of knowledge,

388
00:39:14,420 --> 00:39:18,320
right? That one can sort of speak of it and use it as a basis of knowledge in courts,

389
00:39:18,740 --> 00:39:23,080
renders one's testimony invalid precisely on account of holding this false belief.

390
00:39:23,090 --> 00:39:27,320
So even the way they're talking about it is a very pervasive category.

391
00:39:28,490 --> 00:39:36,110
So because they hold they're holding on to this belief and invalidates their testimony because of the problems it poses to social order.

392
00:39:36,120 --> 00:39:42,860
Right there's now and there's this sort of epistemic unsettling that's happening here, and they're aware of it and they're grappling with it.

393
00:39:44,240 --> 00:39:50,300
So it aligns in one in some ways, but also diverges from, for example,

394
00:39:50,840 --> 00:39:55,040
one of the US rules of evidence, which I'm sure a professor and others are familiar with.

395
00:39:55,250 --> 00:39:58,879
While the rule of Forecloses enquiry into the religious beliefs or opinions of a witness for

396
00:39:58,880 --> 00:40:03,530
the purpose of showing that his character for truthfulness is affected by their nature,

397
00:40:03,710 --> 00:40:10,730
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.

398
00:40:10,970 --> 00:40:15,799
So this is a very complicated rule here where you're able to sort of look into

399
00:40:15,800 --> 00:40:22,370
religion as it pertains to this particular individual as a way of figuring out bias.

400
00:40:22,580 --> 00:40:30,500
But it's precluding a kind of deeper engagement with their religious beliefs as a way of invalidating the truthfulness of their testimony.

401
00:40:30,740 --> 00:40:33,440
Well, what we see here is precisely that sort of thing.

402
00:40:33,770 --> 00:40:38,660
And and I'll talk about this in a second, but it helps us, I think, understand what's really going on here.

403
00:40:41,810 --> 00:40:46,940
And so here's I'm thinking about the potentials and also the limits of legal secularisation.

404
00:40:47,300 --> 00:40:51,590
So what's interesting about what I think is happening with surrogacy here is his help.

405
00:40:51,620 --> 00:40:56,600
He's helping us actually see the sort of paradoxical nature of secularity, of secularisation.

406
00:40:57,110 --> 00:41:03,500
So how I describe it is this that in his aspiration to secularise the legal realm in which I mean to

407
00:41:04,520 --> 00:41:11,990
exclude certain types of religious beliefs from functioning within this secular kind of regime of the law,

408
00:41:13,850 --> 00:41:16,520
by removing this sort of, quote unquote, questionable religious beliefs,

409
00:41:17,010 --> 00:41:21,380
he falls in this kind of paradoxical secularism of his own making akin to what we find in the modern period.

410
00:41:21,620 --> 00:41:27,499
Right. One which undermines its own neutrality precisely in the effort to produce a neutral public realm.

411
00:41:27,500 --> 00:41:30,860
Right. So this sort of catch 22 of secularism, right.

412
00:41:31,040 --> 00:41:33,859
In the process of creating neutrality, you have to draw those boundaries.

413
00:41:33,860 --> 00:41:39,220
You have to ask these questions which are at the very heart of this problem space.

414
00:41:39,230 --> 00:41:46,219
Right. And and I think this is a useful way of characterising the problem space of, you know, secularism, if we think of it.

415
00:41:46,220 --> 00:41:53,190
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.

416
00:41:53,270 --> 00:41:58,670
And the reason I put functionality at the forefront here is because I am thinking about this,

417
00:41:59,000 --> 00:42:02,290
you know, in a problem space that is very distinct, right?

418
00:42:02,330 --> 00:42:07,819
The questions and the answers that are being produced are hinged on very different epistemological assumptions,

419
00:42:07,820 --> 00:42:14,510
very different conceptions of the human right. Yet we still see the same sorts of grappling within the enterprise of governance.

420
00:42:15,620 --> 00:42:19,550
And that's why I think this sort of functional perspective might be useful way of pursuing this.

421
00:42:20,840 --> 00:42:23,479
What tells us is that it's somewhat universal,

422
00:42:23,480 --> 00:42:29,240
and 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.

423
00:42:29,240 --> 00:42:36,110
And this is, I think, an important move for us because it helps us move beyond our perspective,

424
00:42:36,110 --> 00:42:38,600
our kind of Eurocentric perspective when we think about secularism,

425
00:42:38,900 --> 00:42:44,300
that it can't be comprehensively, comprehensively explained with reference reference to modernity.

426
00:42:44,540 --> 00:42:49,609
There's other things I can do with this, but let me just conclude with one last example, because I know we're short on time.

427
00:42:49,610 --> 00:42:54,410
I thought we started late. There's a very quick question here. Does Islamic law apply to non-Muslims?

428
00:42:54,440 --> 00:42:57,860
It's a very important question address to start thinking about throughout the ages.

429
00:42:58,550 --> 00:43:03,680
And here I take a quote from on Roma un's book on Islamic law,

430
00:43:04,190 --> 00:43:11,780
which she says called within me constituted a certain factual reality that contributed contributed to delimiting the claim space of Sharia,

431
00:43:11,960 --> 00:43:15,170
which I think is a very useful way of thinking about the Sharia. Right.

432
00:43:15,350 --> 00:43:21,650
And the thing that I find historically that happens in the mediaeval period around the ninth, three between the ninth and the 12th century,

433
00:43:22,910 --> 00:43:30,090
is that we see this gradual move towards restricting religious communities to the regulation of non civil internal affairs.

434
00:43:30,110 --> 00:43:36,590
Right. And this is akin to what I see in reading the colonial law in some ways, in a kind of essential way.

435
00:43:36,800 --> 00:43:43,190
It's sort of overlapping, right, that you have this process of communal ization rights that communities have now to regulate,

436
00:43:43,970 --> 00:43:49,610
let delimit themselves of the regulation of their internal affairs, which are precisely ritualistic,

437
00:43:49,610 --> 00:43:53,210
having to do with the ritualistic elements of marriage, of inheritance.

438
00:43:53,420 --> 00:43:55,730
And these are the same categories the jurists are using.

439
00:43:55,910 --> 00:44:02,120
And it's actually the same sort of categories we find under the Sassanian, under the Romans as well, with reference to the jurist.

440
00:44:02,450 --> 00:44:07,069
And so I see this as a process of sort of imperial governance.

441
00:44:07,070 --> 00:44:10,990
Right. But again, my point is not that it's the same thing.

442
00:44:11,000 --> 00:44:19,220
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.

443
00:44:19,280 --> 00:44:24,950
You know, here's one quote from Casani important addressed. We are commanded by God to leave them to their own religious beliefs.

444
00:44:24,990 --> 00:44:30,080
Now you're actually doing our Mallya ordinance, right? What they believe is they hold on to or what they confess.

445
00:44:31,430 --> 00:44:36,500
So again, this category of belief is also here, and I'm sort of thinking through what's what that's doing.

446
00:44:37,430 --> 00:44:41,000
But in terms of the theoretical implications and I'm good at this,

447
00:44:42,950 --> 00:44:49,250
Julien Stephens has written this wonderful book about colonial law in the Islamic context within India,

448
00:44:49,400 --> 00:44:54,080
and she speaks of secular governance, legal governance as, quote, the cumulative power of laws,

449
00:44:54,090 --> 00:44:58,660
normative scripts and defining newly divided spheres of religious and secular governance.

450
00:44:58,670 --> 00:45:04,160
Right. And I think it's a wonderful definition. Now, as you'll see, I struck out newly here.

451
00:45:04,460 --> 00:45:09,290
Now, I think newly works in one way, in the sense that there's a new division taking place here,

452
00:45:09,290 --> 00:45:12,440
which I call it a kind of reinvention of the religious secular divide,

453
00:45:12,740 --> 00:45:19,540
which which which is based on a new cumulative power of laws, normative scripts.

454
00:45:19,550 --> 00:45:21,560
Right. And that's what I think is really distinctive here.

455
00:45:22,520 --> 00:45:28,940
But for example, you know, the close association of religion with domestic and ritual matters I don't think was a colonial innovation.

456
00:45:28,940 --> 00:45:34,010
I think, again, is something that I've already found in my reading of Islamic law, even in the late antique world.

457
00:45:35,270 --> 00:45:40,190
And I think it actually coheres with this widely spread view that I find in my writing.

458
00:45:40,230 --> 00:45:45,510
Is that a reading of the inherent universality of the enemy as opposed to the particularity of the DNA?

459
00:45:45,720 --> 00:45:50,700
This is something I work a lot on and I think a lot about in my book, but they often align with the DNA.

460
00:45:50,700 --> 00:45:57,089
We are there either as a kind of epistemic category of secular knowledge or in the terms of the donor.

461
00:45:57,090 --> 00:46:03,510
We as a kind of legal category with something that is supra confessional, right, as opposed to the DNA,

462
00:46:03,510 --> 00:46:09,570
which is culturally particular, which is based on, you know, cultural norms that are unique to one's own sort of history.

463
00:46:10,140 --> 00:46:17,250
And so this what's really changed here is that under the modern secular order, the particularity of religion is no longer maintained.

464
00:46:17,250 --> 00:46:22,469
Right. And here we can think of Hegel. We can think of so many examples in the early modern European period.

465
00:46:22,470 --> 00:46:28,620
Right. So now the religious itself is now subject to the forces of Christianisation and Westernisation.

466
00:46:28,620 --> 00:46:35,670
Right. And this is where I absolutely agree with Professor Herr that this manifests in a racialized and gender way.

467
00:46:35,820 --> 00:46:41,580
And that's precisely because and I'll concluded this I agree here with George Shulman's idea,

468
00:46:41,580 --> 00:46:44,700
and this is part of his contribution in race, in secularism in America.

469
00:46:45,000 --> 00:46:51,930
He critiques call Schmidt. You know, Karl Schmidt will say liberalism, secular, liberal, secular order has no political theology.

470
00:46:52,350 --> 00:46:56,459
And what he, I think compellingly argues is that, no, there's precisely a political theology.

471
00:46:56,460 --> 00:47:02,490
It's a racialized political theology. And that's what we are now realising in every manifestation that we look at,

472
00:47:02,490 --> 00:47:08,580
whether it's with Muslims in Europe or with precisely these Atlanta cases that professor are looking at,

473
00:47:08,880 --> 00:47:16,680
there is this racialized Christian Western white supremacist order upon which hinges this problem space.

474
00:47:16,980 --> 00:47:22,440
Right. And part of what's happening here is I think that this particularity of religion has been

475
00:47:22,440 --> 00:47:27,929
tossed out and the universality has sort of pervaded all domains rather than this dunia domain,

476
00:47:27,930 --> 00:47:32,200
which I see here, which I think is a far more robust conception and one that, you know,

477
00:47:32,280 --> 00:47:39,359
allowed for this precisely these complex spaces, communities to do, function and thrive.

478
00:47:39,360 --> 00:47:44,099
Indeed. I'll close with that. And I hope I haven't sort of lost you and all of these thoughts.

479
00:47:44,100 --> 00:47:45,569
I'm just really thinking the recently,

480
00:47:45,570 --> 00:47:51,840
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.

481
00:47:52,750 --> 00:47:57,970
Thanks. Thank you, Richard, for really a fantastic and extremely rich presentation.

482
00:47:58,180 --> 00:48:08,589
I think it got us all thinking a lot, and I think I'm happy to hand over potentially to physically if you want to conduct the Q&A portion of this.

483
00:48:08,590 --> 00:48:15,070
But I just want to start by reminding everyone that we do have these two wonderful scholars for the next 40 minutes or so.

484
00:48:15,580 --> 00:48:18,700
And so if anyone has any questions now, now's the time to ask.

485
00:48:19,390 --> 00:48:22,270
As panellists, we also have our own questions.

486
00:48:22,810 --> 00:48:30,580
So but I'll hand over to basically because I really feel like I have the privilege to sort of take things to this point.

487
00:48:31,330 --> 00:48:37,600
Well, thanks. Thanks for stopping by. Thanks very much. Rich and Beth, really both wonderful presentations.

488
00:48:37,600 --> 00:48:40,330
So much squeezed in to so little time.

489
00:48:40,930 --> 00:48:50,440
I only wish we had more time, but of course, as you can only do for about 2 hours, maximum might find and we won't even keep you for 2 hours.

490
00:48:52,200 --> 00:48:59,559
You know, perhaps I can begin with a question for but one for you, Beth, and then one for you and Russian.

491
00:48:59,560 --> 00:49:09,010
And then we can, you know, some, I'm sure will chip in and then we'll we'll get few questions slowly filtering in from the audience.

492
00:49:10,630 --> 00:49:19,960
So, Beth, you know, I took you to say that in a way, religion as a category is only possible universally.

493
00:49:20,290 --> 00:49:23,320
Even though where the universal belongs is disputed.

494
00:49:23,770 --> 00:49:30,250
So that religion is an abstract universal category in its own right, like the state, like the secular.

495
00:49:30,760 --> 00:49:37,720
So in some ways they are all part of the same in on the same plane, in some strange way,

496
00:49:38,050 --> 00:49:43,750
even though you want to make distinctions between them, between universal and particular.

497
00:49:43,750 --> 00:49:50,110
But of course, those two categories are independent, one or the other, that, you know, you can't have the particular without the universal.

498
00:49:50,130 --> 00:49:54,790
It's simply a moment of the universal in in sectarian sense.

499
00:49:55,510 --> 00:49:58,840
And in that sense, they're all part of you will have a secular order.

500
00:49:59,650 --> 00:50:07,840
And you know, the question Santa word erasers, which I find so interesting is not simply the recognition of which you,

501
00:50:08,200 --> 00:50:12,969
I think very rightly say about the problem with the category of religion.

502
00:50:12,970 --> 00:50:21,430
But a how do you actually think the non universal this goes back to web Keynes critique in another way you know

503
00:50:21,430 --> 00:50:28,210
whereas he would say that we've all inherited the category of religion so it's already part of our life words.

504
00:50:28,690 --> 00:50:34,299
What do we do? In a way, my point is not that it's like, but you already have the universal.

505
00:50:34,300 --> 00:50:37,540
How would you pick it? You need to unpick it.

506
00:50:37,540 --> 00:50:41,710
How is it possible to think that non universal and why this interests me is because.

507
00:50:42,700 --> 00:50:46,590
In some other work I've been doing on Gandhi as a political thinker.

508
00:50:46,600 --> 00:50:53,020
You know, he very deliberately comes to this question, as in part.

509
00:50:55,990 --> 00:51:01,240
Someone who identifies as a Hindu. Hinduism being a religion, if you want to call it that.

510
00:51:01,690 --> 00:51:07,070
That does not, in his view, permit conversion. So it is a non expensive religion.

511
00:51:07,090 --> 00:51:10,180
We can argue whether that was correct or not, but in his view.

512
00:51:11,680 --> 00:51:19,420
And it makes him think about how Hinduism does or does not belong in the category of religion itself,

513
00:51:20,020 --> 00:51:25,560
alongside Islam and Christianity as as expansive religions.

514
00:51:27,400 --> 00:51:33,280
But it's not just religion that he's talking about. He also questions humanity as a universal category for him.

515
00:51:33,360 --> 00:51:41,870
You know, I've come to the provisional conclusion that he plays with negative ideas, and so many of God's ideas are negative.

516
00:51:41,890 --> 00:51:48,100
I can say non-violence, non-cooperation, non possession, you know, where you presumed positive.

517
00:51:48,400 --> 00:51:51,670
But you know what's talked with. It's always the negative that you gain with.

518
00:51:52,330 --> 00:51:57,190
And again, he alien says negative is the principle of movement and dynamism in general.

519
00:51:58,630 --> 00:52:04,520
But what you're suggesting is something that seems similar and yet quite different.

520
00:52:04,540 --> 00:52:11,240
It's not a word. You know, you ended, Beth, by talking about the let me quote it.

521
00:52:11,260 --> 00:52:19,300
You know how it decimates the border. I found that such a striking phrase, because, of course, it's not just the US-Mexican border,

522
00:52:20,350 --> 00:52:29,200
but which is what you you also made a border between the universal and the particular, between religion, the secular, all kinds of borders.

523
00:52:29,710 --> 00:52:32,980
But that doesn't do the kind of Gandhian negative.

524
00:52:34,480 --> 00:52:48,140
It rather seems to. Shift the phenomenon away from the language game of universal in particular, which are conjoined anyway.

525
00:52:49,160 --> 00:52:57,620
But. But apart from saying this is something different, it cannot be talked about in terms of the religion,

526
00:52:57,640 --> 00:53:02,740
the religious and the non-religious, the religious and the secular, the cultic and the religious or whatever.

527
00:53:04,960 --> 00:53:14,200
How might you characterise it, say, in contrast with this kind of, you know, Gandhi's negative approach to the problem?

528
00:53:14,210 --> 00:53:20,140
Sorry, it's a rather lengthy question due to the kind of richness of your presentation.

529
00:53:20,620 --> 00:53:24,220
Thank you so much, Faisal. I think that's it's a very important question.

530
00:53:26,230 --> 00:53:27,879
How to characterise it,

531
00:53:27,880 --> 00:53:35,770
I think is I'm not sure and maybe I need to look into some of those Gandhi and resources that would be helpful in characterising it.

532
00:53:36,100 --> 00:53:45,819
I would say that part of the challenge or as I search for resources for thinking through how

533
00:53:45,820 --> 00:53:54,130
to do precisely what you're describing is is actually related to what Roshan is talking about,

534
00:53:54,280 --> 00:53:58,179
in fact, which is what your talk brought to mind.

535
00:53:58,180 --> 00:54:06,219
Roshan was this very important necessity of kind of making two moves at once,

536
00:54:06,220 --> 00:54:12,850
which is that kind of parochial position of liberal ideals on the one hand.

537
00:54:13,060 --> 00:54:20,799
And that may be in some ways that the process of privatisation may in some ways be related to the Gandhian sensibility that Faisal's describing.

538
00:54:20,800 --> 00:54:21,520
I'm not sure.

539
00:54:22,030 --> 00:54:31,840
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.

540
00:54:32,050 --> 00:54:43,209
And in that sense that touches on what I'm hearing and correct me if I'm mistaken, when I'm hearing from you and which is this Gen Y domain,

541
00:54:43,210 --> 00:54:50,530
which is a very different, rather refashioned understanding of the secular that has different ethos,

542
00:54:50,530 --> 00:54:53,590
a different sensibility, different aspirations,

543
00:54:53,830 --> 00:55:01,240
and a very different understanding rigidities of the problem space that it is creating and it is instantiating a the religious.

544
00:55:01,990 --> 00:55:06,910
So what I think, I mean, there are there's more than one move and that needs to be made.

545
00:55:06,910 --> 00:55:10,810
And as I was listening to Shane and as I was listening to this on your question,

546
00:55:11,290 --> 00:55:18,310
I kept thinking about two thinkers, which is William Connolly's work on the ethos of Pluralisation,

547
00:55:18,760 --> 00:55:29,680
which is very good at making in those precisely those kind e centring, pragmatic, surprising moves,

548
00:55:30,370 --> 00:55:35,859
but very much with a certain kind of ethos, a certain kind of mode of engagement.

549
00:55:35,860 --> 00:55:42,459
Which also brings to mind Nadia MARZOUKI, whose work in machine I thought of her specifically when you were speaking and her argument in her book,

550
00:55:42,460 --> 00:55:44,800
Islam in America, which some of you may be familiar with.

551
00:55:45,520 --> 00:55:52,809
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,

552
00:55:52,810 --> 00:55:58,360
but the liberal ideal in general from the very exclusive norms and codes that it's become tied to.

553
00:55:58,720 --> 00:56:04,330
So there's a sense in which there is an internal refashioning of stepping back, a sense of humility,

554
00:56:04,690 --> 00:56:12,429
a kind of tempering, of the arrogance that reminded me of precisely the ideal of democracy that you were describing.

555
00:56:12,430 --> 00:56:20,230
Machine, if I'm not understanding it. And so I feel like the universal particular only gets us so far here.

556
00:56:20,260 --> 00:56:25,210
And so I'm very sympathetic to that gesture that you're suggesting this this guardian move.

557
00:56:25,510 --> 00:56:30,490
And I'm not sure how I would say through that prism or through that lens,

558
00:56:30,880 --> 00:56:43,960
but I do think that it will involve not only kind of listening and trying to understand these alternative religiosity is in forms of political agency,

559
00:56:44,910 --> 00:56:52,690
you know, just kind of from the outside, but actually actively reforming what Nadia calls the ensemble of codes and norms

560
00:56:52,690 --> 00:56:57,040
of exclusion that have become so closely associated with liberal order in which,

561
00:56:57,700 --> 00:57:04,510
you know, this Rule 610 of the US federal policy of evidence is one of the main rules that gets cited in these cases,

562
00:57:05,230 --> 00:57:09,820
and they're kind of trying to pass that language that Russian had read and put on the screen for us,

563
00:57:10,570 --> 00:57:16,209
and that those kinds of that language can obviously be read a lot of different ways.

564
00:57:16,210 --> 00:57:19,630
And it's a question of how it's read and by whom and which context.

565
00:57:19,630 --> 00:57:25,209
And I think that those small differences and those shifts in the level of arrogance and the level

566
00:57:25,210 --> 00:57:29,920
of presumption and the level of presumed liberal hegemony are going to be really important.

567
00:57:30,670 --> 00:57:35,649
But tell me whether I need to read about this in the insensibility,

568
00:57:35,650 --> 00:57:39,879
and maybe it'll give me a whole new understanding of something with it and the most happy.

569
00:57:39,880 --> 00:57:43,690
Thank you so much. Well, I'm not sure about that.

570
00:57:43,690 --> 00:57:51,909
I think, you know, the Santa marta example really teaches us a great deal, obviously.

571
00:57:51,910 --> 00:57:54,900
And I'm looking forward to your book once it comes out.

572
00:57:54,910 --> 00:58:00,399
But I don't know either of you since Matt referred to your talk whether you would like to enter

573
00:58:00,400 --> 00:58:05,650
this conversation that I have another question for you as well as I'm sure there's Osama.

574
00:58:05,950 --> 00:58:10,179
I'm sure. I mean, I think you can go ahead. I mean, I'm just yeah, I'm very glad to hear this.

575
00:58:10,180 --> 00:58:13,270
And I think you helped me think through some of the things we're trying to do.

576
00:58:13,270 --> 00:58:20,320
I mean, I precisely am. I think the prior the primary motivation in doing this kind of work was to add that

577
00:58:20,560 --> 00:58:26,170
extra move that I thought was not that I felt very deeply and very personally.

578
00:58:26,170 --> 00:58:32,350
I felt like I needed to do. And I haven't seen nothing much a good book and I'm looking forward to reading it.

579
00:58:32,590 --> 00:58:41,049
But it's precisely this sort of refashioning that I think is strategically a useful way, a valuable way for us to move forward as well.

580
00:58:41,050 --> 00:58:47,170
Right. Because it does I think even I mean, not even more so, probably equally so.

581
00:58:47,170 --> 00:58:55,210
It unsettles the these codes that underwrite the the language we use our use and the way in which these laws,

582
00:58:55,240 --> 00:58:57,070
like as as you mentioned, are interpreted.

583
00:58:57,340 --> 00:59:04,120
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,

584
00:59:04,120 --> 00:59:09,210
which I think I at least I'm noticing is taking place now in the academy and even outside.

585
00:59:09,970 --> 00:59:13,150
I think that's a really valuable thing moving forward.

586
00:59:13,150 --> 00:59:23,979
So I really appreciate the way in which you describe my project of that anyway as as sort of bringing us or bringing

587
00:59:23,980 --> 00:59:30,160
attention to this very different ethos and sensibility and aspiration that informs a similar kind of project,

588
00:59:30,160 --> 00:59:33,430
but from a very different perspective that can trouble our way of proceeding.

589
00:59:33,430 --> 00:59:42,339
Right. 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,

590
00:59:42,340 --> 00:59:49,569
because it's disturbing precisely because Islam is at the very heart of this project of secularism and I mean,

591
00:59:49,570 --> 00:59:52,660
in sense of it being the great other of secularism.

592
00:59:52,920 --> 00:59:57,219
And I think that's what also was provoking me so much in my reading of the sources

593
00:59:57,220 --> 01:00:02,920
is that it did not map on even to the sort of modern rehabilitation of Islam,

594
01:00:02,920 --> 01:00:12,160
which obviously emerged out of a colonial dialectic between Orientalist and and modern nationalists who for good reasons had to develop,

595
01:00:12,450 --> 01:00:19,299
you know, projects of Islamic modernity that were going to be effective within their societies.

596
01:00:19,300 --> 01:00:25,570
But, of course, you know, fell into the trap of being encoded by this this larger logic.

597
01:00:25,570 --> 01:00:35,320
Right. And I think it's it's I think the moment we're in now that we're able to sort of move beyond that and think about, you know, historic sizing,

598
01:00:35,320 --> 01:00:41,200
these sorts of things, the particularity not only of the assignment, but obviously, of course, of the the secular and the Western.

599
01:00:41,440 --> 01:00:46,840
And so, yeah, this has been super helpful. And yeah, course I'd be very interested in hearing your question some in the other.

600
01:00:46,850 --> 01:00:55,570
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,

601
01:00:55,880 --> 01:01:00,220
I just wanted to congratulate you for allowing us to think in these ways.

602
01:01:02,200 --> 01:01:07,720
But when you were talking about. The Dean and of distinction, for instance.

603
01:01:10,790 --> 01:01:14,810
In contrast to the religion and the secular one.

604
01:01:16,890 --> 01:01:21,420
Of our times. I realise you're not making the fundamental distinction between them.

605
01:01:23,330 --> 01:01:28,310
The religion, secularism, distinction of our times is often understood in spatial terms.

606
01:01:29,000 --> 01:01:30,650
Not always, but very often.

607
01:01:31,770 --> 01:01:39,690
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.

608
01:01:40,290 --> 01:01:45,120
An institution, whether the Dean Junior Distinction.

609
01:01:47,060 --> 01:01:50,810
Is a temporal one or can be a temporal one.

610
01:01:53,510 --> 01:01:58,940
Certainly in the in more modern usages of the Indian but where that I am familiar with.

611
01:02:03,380 --> 01:02:11,930
The gesture is off to the transient nature of the bonia that it might be ubiquitous.

612
01:02:11,930 --> 01:02:17,780
And that's one word that might describe it nicely, perhaps, but it is purely transient.

613
01:02:18,420 --> 01:02:20,500
Whereas Dean is a kind of permanent thing.

614
01:02:21,170 --> 01:02:27,410
And how might this allow us, or would it perhaps allow us to think slightly differently about the categories?

615
01:02:27,740 --> 01:02:31,100
You could, of course, use the more familiar ones of.

616
01:02:35,710 --> 01:02:39,170
I've just lost the word B. In other words, it's the new world.

617
01:02:41,110 --> 01:02:44,680
But that has a quite distinct Christian genealogy.

618
01:02:44,950 --> 01:02:52,030
Otherworldliness as opposed to being rich, I take it, is not otherworldly in that sense.

619
01:02:52,570 --> 01:02:55,809
But if we think about temporality here,

620
01:02:55,810 --> 01:03:03,129
then I think the universality of the Dunya that you ended with with is really fascinating because it's a, if you will,

621
01:03:03,130 --> 01:03:10,270
a universality premised upon transience, premised upon the vanity of this world,

622
01:03:10,270 --> 01:03:16,629
which is yet and therefore everywhere it's transient, and yet it survives, and yet it contains.

623
01:03:16,630 --> 01:03:19,750
And yet it's ubiquitous, as I said, in that way.

624
01:03:21,250 --> 01:03:24,760
Does that make sense? That's one question. And the other had to do with.

625
01:03:27,450 --> 01:03:30,780
The particularity of being a.

626
01:03:32,010 --> 01:03:38,130
And, you know, so on the one hand, of course, it's it seems abstract because of that quotation you read at the very end,

627
01:03:38,880 --> 01:03:44,400
the, if you will, being of non-Muslims has also called itself like only Muslims have been and other people don't.

628
01:03:44,820 --> 01:03:46,490
So they and that is your you know,

629
01:03:46,500 --> 01:03:54,900
that it's a large part of the problem with this kind of equivalence and availability of do think that but I just wonder.

630
01:03:56,960 --> 01:04:08,780
But you know, are we talking about this as kind of abstract universality or I don't you know, are we talking about a set of different particularities?

631
01:04:11,290 --> 01:04:17,110
I believe that is a is a real is a it's a difference without distinction that I'm making here.

632
01:04:17,560 --> 01:04:26,380
But I just wondered because, you know, I was thinking of the term, the plural of the beyond, which is not so often used.

633
01:04:27,820 --> 01:04:33,850
And it it seems to, at least in the Indian material, that animals come, you know,

634
01:04:33,970 --> 01:04:40,750
re-emerge or emerge in the 18th, 19th centuries, perhaps like the earlier in the late Mughal period.

635
01:04:41,830 --> 01:04:48,219
And that sort of makes sense because you're thinking of what about in the Mughals are doing with the idea of being in the DNA.

636
01:04:48,220 --> 01:05:00,730
Lahiri and all of that. As for me writes about. You know and there you know what what imperial what empire does to ideas such as the.

637
01:05:01,240 --> 01:05:10,060
So it goes back to what you were saying. But before that, I mean, is is the plural of the used in this sense abstractly redundant?

638
01:05:10,120 --> 01:05:17,580
Or is it a kind of collection of, if you will, specificities, you know, what kind of abstraction is it?

639
01:05:17,590 --> 01:05:20,650
Again, this might be a distinction without a difference.

640
01:05:21,520 --> 01:05:25,809
And no, these are excellent questions and thank you for them to begin with.

641
01:05:25,810 --> 01:05:30,760
The first you know, I'm thinking I've been thinking a lot about the specialisation of of secularism a lot.

642
01:05:30,760 --> 01:05:36,069
And I actually had one of my grad students who is working on specialisation with another case.

643
01:05:36,070 --> 01:05:42,280
And this is a late 20th century case. I forget the name, but it has to do with a community and ritual sacrifice.

644
01:05:42,370 --> 01:05:50,470
Sacrifice being another one of the central nodes around which there's this other ization takes place right on second reasons plane.

645
01:05:51,820 --> 01:06:00,550
It's interesting with Dean and Antonia I mean the way I and I find your characterisation very interesting and creative and fruitful,

646
01:06:01,270 --> 01:06:07,450
I'm not sure if it entirely maps on to the way of the historical reality I've encountered.

647
01:06:07,450 --> 01:06:11,109
So the first thing to know, which is interesting, is that, I mean,

648
01:06:11,110 --> 01:06:17,280
it's really hard to say where the Antonia comes from within the Arabic and then the logical and

649
01:06:17,560 --> 01:06:22,480
in the case of Arabic and largely but my own sense is that it comes from a special perspective.

650
01:06:22,480 --> 01:06:24,700
So it's actually the close and the FA.

651
01:06:24,700 --> 01:06:30,549
So Dean and Dunya, when we see it in pre-Islamic poetry, it actually speaks of the nearness and the foreignness.

652
01:06:30,550 --> 01:06:33,460
And and BROADMAN has written this excellent book in which he talks about sort of that.

653
01:06:34,630 --> 01:06:42,520
But what I see in the mediaeval context, as you know, things have settled, are two separate distinctions that I have to sort of work through.

654
01:06:42,850 --> 01:06:47,320
So there's the Donia and the athlete of this life in the next life, and there's Dina and Donia.

655
01:06:47,710 --> 01:06:55,150
And I actually think Dina and Donia map on to a special kind of boundary drawing,

656
01:06:55,420 --> 01:06:59,739
whereas the Donia in October is obviously very expectedly a temporal in nature.

657
01:06:59,740 --> 01:07:01,480
So we have two sorts of categorisations.

658
01:07:02,050 --> 01:07:08,680
And, and what's interesting about that is that when we see the Demian that we invoked in the cases in which I'm looking,

659
01:07:08,680 --> 01:07:10,570
whether in law or in politics.

660
01:07:12,860 --> 01:07:22,820
I think you do find it's working to sort of, you know, do this sort of conceptual specialisation work, right, of drawing these boundaries.

661
01:07:23,090 --> 01:07:28,459
Okay. Well, where does religion stop and where does where do we go beyond and that sort of thing.

662
01:07:28,460 --> 01:07:37,700
Right. And and what's interesting about and I'm just thinking now about secularism as a kind of modern, distinctly modern European phenomenon, right.

663
01:07:38,720 --> 01:07:42,440
When we talk about secularism today, is secularism today a specialised discourse?

664
01:07:43,430 --> 01:07:45,499
You know, I think it even goes back to Locke.

665
01:07:45,500 --> 01:07:56,239
And when I was reading Locke and my students this quarter, you know, it's really about creating a new secular, universal secular human body.

666
01:07:56,240 --> 01:08:08,330
Right. And it's about stripping away I mean, this entire tradition that informs personhood, right, on various forms of subject.

667
01:08:08,750 --> 01:08:13,520
And that's the entire process that Locke is outlining.

668
01:08:13,520 --> 01:08:16,420
And in order to create a secular public sphere. Right.

669
01:08:16,640 --> 01:08:21,469
So we're talking about a public when we're talking about a public, I think is a distinctively modern phenomenon,

670
01:08:21,470 --> 01:08:24,050
and it would be anachronistic to use it in the mediaeval context.

671
01:08:24,230 --> 01:08:33,110
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.

672
01:08:33,110 --> 01:08:40,940
What I would say is this modern capital of a subject who is able to only work according to the rationalist logic of the European Enlightenment,

673
01:08:41,150 --> 01:08:46,879
and therefore be far more, far, far more useful to the ends of modernity.

674
01:08:46,880 --> 01:08:52,670
Right. And this is Assad has written about and everyone has written about, and it's been a fascinating sort of intervention.

675
01:08:52,880 --> 01:08:58,670
And so I think that is uniquely distinct about the kind of modern secular order in terms of specialisation.

676
01:08:58,880 --> 01:09:02,000
And so thinking about this graduate student of mine has worked on this.

677
01:09:02,270 --> 01:09:08,780
You see this happening with respect to specific spaces about whether a church and I think this case happened in Florida,

678
01:09:09,020 --> 01:09:13,459
whereas the space in which the sacrifice can take place and it's all about public order,

679
01:09:13,460 --> 01:09:17,000
I mean, the entire discourse is about the welfare of the people and that sort of thing.

680
01:09:17,780 --> 01:09:21,499
It even becomes nationalist. It's un-American to engage in ritual sacrifice.

681
01:09:21,500 --> 01:09:27,770
Right? What does that even mean? And so so that is a sort of entirely distinct thing.

682
01:09:27,770 --> 01:09:34,060
So when I'm thinking about a now and thinking about specialisation in terms of the DNA away,

683
01:09:34,160 --> 01:09:37,610
I do want to separate it from that kind of a specialised discourse.

684
01:09:37,790 --> 01:09:44,869
Now, I think this kind of conceptual space making and adjudicating is a kind of natural phenomenon amongst thinkers,

685
01:09:44,870 --> 01:09:47,090
especially jurists who are trying to do this sort of work.

686
01:09:47,480 --> 01:09:53,389
But the process by which that happens, the concrete effects of them, I think are entirely different precisely because the codes are different.

687
01:09:53,390 --> 01:09:58,430
Right. And then finally, the same question I think is I think you're right.

688
01:09:58,430 --> 01:10:04,219
I mean, what you do find is the I would agree I would agree with your second formulation.

689
01:10:04,220 --> 01:10:08,050
Right. I think it is a set of particularities that they're in.

690
01:10:08,300 --> 01:10:13,879
And that actually helps me think through this. Right. Because maybe we're not really talking about universality per se.

691
01:10:13,880 --> 01:10:24,530
We're talking about a recognition of a set of particularities which they view as mapping onto us a certain kind of universal phenomenon.

692
01:10:24,650 --> 01:10:29,750
I think they would agree to that and they don't use the use are beyond quite a bit in the mediaeval context.

693
01:10:29,750 --> 01:10:33,379
But really the the, the, the, the, the standard term is Miller.

694
01:10:33,380 --> 01:10:41,450
Right. So there's Miller, which really becomes the term for a religious community, whereas Dean can have a sort of existential element to it.

695
01:10:41,450 --> 01:10:45,859
Right. The individual persons, Dean Miller always means a religious community.

696
01:10:45,860 --> 01:10:49,849
So Miller becomes the standard term for representing various communities.

697
01:10:49,850 --> 01:10:54,350
So we have obviously this vast literature around middle one [INAUDIBLE], right, the creeds and the religions.

698
01:10:54,650 --> 01:10:58,459
And it's actually interesting to think, you know, in terms of what the president is talking about.

699
01:10:58,460 --> 01:11:10,150
Right. Why these categories are used and how and by whom and at what points they they they they take on a particular significance.

700
01:11:10,150 --> 01:11:16,030
Right. Because, you know, if you think about this current this classification literature of various Miller which is,

701
01:11:16,030 --> 01:11:19,780
you know, goes back to Shahristani, who's the kind of high point it dies down for a while.

702
01:11:19,780 --> 01:11:22,959
And then in the early modern period under the Ottomans, it picks up again.

703
01:11:22,960 --> 01:11:29,980
You have a translation of these works into Turkish, and this is all in the context of what historians now are calling confessional ization.

704
01:11:30,190 --> 01:11:33,610
So you have obviously the Ottoman side of the debate, but the move, I would say,

705
01:11:33,610 --> 01:11:41,319
towards the modern state of creating a subject along the lines of a unified religious creed.

706
01:11:41,320 --> 01:11:45,969
Right. And so I do think that sort of maps on to what the modern state does.

707
01:11:45,970 --> 01:11:50,260
Right. And here I would actually say we have early modern modernity is as we have multiple modalities.

708
01:11:50,260 --> 01:11:54,489
And we need to also think through that as a way of in particular that particular

709
01:11:54,490 --> 01:11:58,990
moment of the state and thinking of new ways of imagining our modern condition.

710
01:11:59,170 --> 01:12:02,620
But, you know, I've said too much now that these are very great questions.

711
01:12:02,620 --> 01:12:10,850
So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I mean, that's just very scintillating discussion all round one of the.

712
01:12:10,900 --> 01:12:18,550
So I'm going to send back to you and I understand we've got sort of maybe 13 minutes left and I still want to welcome,

713
01:12:19,270 --> 01:12:24,129
you know, any of the participants. I don't want to as to only the Gemini's the question.

714
01:12:24,130 --> 01:12:28,540
So if you want to put in questions, please feel free. But while I have the chance, I'm going to put mine.

715
01:12:28,550 --> 01:12:38,290
And so Beth, in a sense, at a certain point you were talking about sort of colonising religion and leaving,

716
01:12:38,290 --> 01:12:41,800
in a sense, leaving behind the category of religion altogether.

717
01:12:43,000 --> 01:12:49,510
This reminds me of the number of conversations that we constantly have in religion departments about, you know,

718
01:12:49,540 --> 01:12:53,079
what's going to happen to our department after we discard this term as a conceptual

719
01:12:53,080 --> 01:12:58,660
category and and and the sort of politics of not making the case too hard,

720
01:12:58,810 --> 01:12:59,470
shall we say.

721
01:13:00,040 --> 01:13:09,639
But at the same time, you know what, really, one of the things that struck me as an Islamist as as you're talking about Santa marta is, you know,

722
01:13:09,640 --> 01:13:19,570
this would be seen as a sort of like a very problematic sort of cultic practise within an Islamic paradigm,

723
01:13:19,570 --> 01:13:23,020
certainly in modern times, but also in to the pre-modern times.

724
01:13:23,020 --> 01:13:28,000
And I wanted to actually tie in Russian with this to a certain extent that, you know,

725
01:13:28,630 --> 01:13:33,790
number one, you know, does it is it meaningful for us to think in terms of, okay,

726
01:13:33,790 --> 01:13:40,690
we need to discard a category or these categories all just sort of the experimentation and,

727
01:13:41,320 --> 01:13:46,120
you know, contingent inventions of people at different points in time.

728
01:13:46,120 --> 01:13:51,550
And, you know, it gives us a great, you know, reason to exist as academics who can spend our careers writing about them.

729
01:13:52,000 --> 01:14:03,670
But beyond that, you know, it is this kind of like kind of existential dance that academics and people are performing in various ways.

730
01:14:05,110 --> 01:14:15,460
You know, in a sense, I got the sense that there is a kind of a tendency towards recognising particularism everywhere.

731
01:14:16,380 --> 01:14:25,800
And is that the universal that will ultimately subvert all of the sort of conceptual efforts at organising these sort of into principles?

732
01:14:27,060 --> 01:14:35,010
I don't know, maybe a bit of a subversive question and perhaps one we haven't one to have thought through as well as I would like.

733
01:14:35,010 --> 01:14:46,110
But just to sort of add onto that, you know, these sorts of practises with the Saint of death, so to speak,

734
01:14:47,730 --> 01:14:59,190
would how would you situate something like that within an Islamic sort of mediaeval paradigm, if there can be one?

735
01:15:00,060 --> 01:15:05,170
And just to think about how decolonising religion in Latin America through, you know,

736
01:15:05,580 --> 01:15:12,719
decolonial theory in many ways is about sort of creating pluribus ability,

737
01:15:12,720 --> 01:15:19,080
as they say, recognising that there isn't a universal that there are many universal projects.

738
01:15:20,510 --> 01:15:25,799
And is it useful to think of the mediaeval Islamic project as a universal project that is, you know,

739
01:15:25,800 --> 01:15:30,390
creating another particularism in effect that we've become a bit more conscious of in the present?

740
01:15:31,320 --> 01:15:38,670
I think I've sort of mixed in both of your presentations in that question, but I'd love to hear your reflections, Beth and Hassan, on this.

741
01:15:39,120 --> 01:15:47,010
Thank you. Thank you so much, Nama. The first thing I wanted to say is it seems like part of the challenge.

742
01:15:48,060 --> 01:15:50,760
We've been talking a lot about universality versus particularity,

743
01:15:50,760 --> 01:15:58,409
and it seems like part of the challenge to me would be to recognise the power of the taken for granted.

744
01:15:58,410 --> 01:16:07,200
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 Oliphant.

745
01:16:07,200 --> 01:16:11,130
And she's actually looking at French Catholic secularism.

746
01:16:12,660 --> 01:16:15,780
And she's looking it's called the privilege of being banal.

747
01:16:16,260 --> 01:16:21,240
And so for me, part of the challenge is I don't see it really as an academic exercise,

748
01:16:21,630 --> 01:16:27,120
but rather as an intellectual and political project, which is to,

749
01:16:27,640 --> 01:16:38,550
first of all, to understand that which is seen as banal and to make it not banal to and that's that you could cast that as particular izing it.

750
01:16:38,560 --> 01:16:45,150
You could also cast it as understanding, perhaps a bit more modestly, because the particular, as Faisal kindly reminded us,

751
01:16:45,150 --> 01:16:54,690
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.

752
01:16:55,020 --> 01:17:03,690
So the first is to recognise the power of the taken for granted and then to perhaps think very

753
01:17:03,690 --> 01:17:10,979
carefully about how to present alternative perspectives that are not indebted to that paradigm,

754
01:17:10,980 --> 01:17:15,420
to that framing, that are working in a different conceptual grammar,

755
01:17:15,750 --> 01:17:27,600
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,

756
01:17:27,600 --> 01:17:37,890
which we have now been allies. And so that leads to foreseen spaces, encounters, understandings, histories,

757
01:17:38,340 --> 01:17:44,730
sensibilities that I don't think we can neatly categorise in terms of the universal in particular,

758
01:17:45,060 --> 01:17:54,840
but rather we can, you know, and maybe you're right, maybe we are falling back into the some sort of just world of particulars.

759
01:17:54,840 --> 01:18:02,520
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.

760
01:18:02,730 --> 01:18:06,390
That puts us in a slightly different epistemological and political space.

761
01:18:07,170 --> 01:18:11,460
And the other thing is, I don't think all of this is academic because I do spend a fair amount of time,

762
01:18:12,030 --> 01:18:21,990
often despite my right, the best interest of my sanity, trying to translate some of these very complex, nuanced,

763
01:18:22,590 --> 01:18:30,149
problematic nations of politics, history, the secular, the religious into the public discourse,

764
01:18:30,150 --> 01:18:40,470
into more accessible language that becomes perhaps a resource for individuals who are engaged in, say, lawmaking.

765
01:18:40,500 --> 01:18:47,670
I've done congressional testimony just about just almost a year ago who are involved in policymaking,

766
01:18:47,670 --> 01:18:54,060
who are eminent to play an imminent role in the media, in setting certain kinds of conversations.

767
01:18:54,450 --> 01:19:02,399
And I, in a very modest way, try to just nudge them toward the possibility of some of these alternative perspectives.

768
01:19:02,400 --> 01:19:05,729
And I have found that people are often quite open, surprisingly open.

769
01:19:05,730 --> 01:19:12,840
And this reflects maybe what we're saying. This very optimistic young person's perspective that I appreciate is that, no, it's not all for nought.

770
01:19:12,840 --> 01:19:15,870
And, you know, it's not just in our ivory towers that.

771
01:19:15,960 --> 01:19:18,660
See you in Oxford, Ivory there. But, you know,

772
01:19:18,660 --> 01:19:25,680
just really there is some space for people who want to be they want to find a way out of the predicaments

773
01:19:25,680 --> 01:19:30,960
and the rigidities and the hate and so much of the violence that we're seeing in this country right now.

774
01:19:31,260 --> 01:19:36,719
There is a real appetite, I think, for alternative ways of thinking and being and understanding.

775
01:19:36,720 --> 01:19:40,350
And so I'm optimistic about the possibility of conversations like this,

776
01:19:40,350 --> 01:19:48,810
leading to some sense of other conversations that then do have an actual impact, however modest, in public policy in these legal debates.

777
01:19:49,080 --> 01:19:54,810
And I'm anxious to hear about what some of them what they would look like in an Islamic mediaeval context.

778
01:19:54,820 --> 01:19:58,610
So I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah.

779
01:19:58,620 --> 01:20:03,599
Just very quickly, you know, I'm not a mediaeval Muslim jurist, so I can't say this definitively.

780
01:20:03,600 --> 01:20:09,509
But what I will say is that it would not have looked like how it how it looks today.

781
01:20:09,510 --> 01:20:19,290
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.

782
01:20:19,290 --> 01:20:22,560
Right. That's precisely where this autonomy was granted.

783
01:20:23,100 --> 01:20:25,720
I mean. Absolutely. Really. Right.

784
01:20:25,740 --> 01:20:38,460
I mean, we know, for example, of, you know, very famously Zoroastrian ancestral marriages, though, being totally at odds with Muslim morality.

785
01:20:38,670 --> 01:20:48,640
Right. Famous. Famously allowed. Right. And precisely that distinction I was talking about with you about that as being sort of protected around that,

786
01:20:48,660 --> 01:20:51,350
that these sort of practises would never have been.

787
01:20:51,360 --> 01:20:57,509
I think, first of all, they would not have been problematise in the way that they are in the secular order.

788
01:20:57,510 --> 01:21:02,360
And moreover, they wouldn't have been as central to the very maintenance of that social order.

789
01:21:02,360 --> 01:21:09,660
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,

790
01:21:09,930 --> 01:21:12,870
is the stark divergence between two realities, right?

791
01:21:12,900 --> 01:21:18,840
So you have this theoretical reality of the protection of the particularity of a community, right?

792
01:21:18,840 --> 01:21:22,049
So it seems like you have nice communities who are just regulating themselves.

793
01:21:22,050 --> 01:21:25,080
And this is essentially the assumption and the kind of society and assumption.

794
01:21:25,080 --> 01:21:29,879
Right, that they are products of embodied traditions, that we are not in the lockean conception.

795
01:21:29,880 --> 01:21:35,280
These are rational individuals that can all be subsumed within some sort of universal regulation.

796
01:21:35,280 --> 01:21:39,390
Right. There is that implicit recognition on the part of the mediaeval jurist.

797
01:21:39,990 --> 01:21:46,110
But what's striking is that the historical reality is far more complicated because they were not siloed off community.

798
01:21:46,260 --> 01:21:51,629
Right? So even though they were theorising the sort of togetherness, what one finds and I'm working on this in a different aspect,

799
01:21:51,630 --> 01:21:58,320
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,

800
01:21:58,320 --> 01:22:02,790
you know, the Balkans and other places where you find a literally a shared world.

801
01:22:03,270 --> 01:22:08,010
So it's not as if the pre-modern mediaeval reality was one in which you just had particularities.

802
01:22:08,490 --> 01:22:12,030
You know, so often there are different districts within the cities,

803
01:22:12,210 --> 01:22:20,730
but actually a really robust culture in which people are interacting as humans with one another despite their difference.

804
01:22:20,910 --> 01:22:24,000
Confessional differences, right. And that's the really striking thing.

805
01:22:24,000 --> 01:22:29,220
And I think this historical work is only going to increase Jackson to has this wonderful God massive book,

806
01:22:30,210 --> 01:22:32,490
you know, the making of the mediaeval, mediaeval Middle East.

807
01:22:32,490 --> 01:22:39,780
And the second half the book is, I think, groundbreaking work that will only be further than talking about the actual shared world that we encounter.

808
01:22:39,990 --> 01:22:47,190
And so I don't have an answer to this, but I do think about I think a lot about this this historical reality,

809
01:22:47,190 --> 01:22:55,290
which doesn't seem to map on to our vision of this dark ages, of lack of plurality, of lack of actual syncretism.

810
01:22:55,330 --> 01:22:58,830
Right. We really do find that. So this is just some scattered thoughts around that.

811
01:22:58,830 --> 01:23:02,850
But I think it's a fun. Thank you so much.

812
01:23:03,300 --> 01:23:08,190
I am very conscious of the time. We have maybe a couple of minutes and someone did put their hand up.

813
01:23:08,190 --> 01:23:13,559
But before we take that potentially because we usually ask people to write that question.

814
01:23:13,560 --> 01:23:22,500
So I had asked the gentleman, I just want to say that I actually I happen to be in Windsor right now at an

815
01:23:22,500 --> 01:23:27,350
interfaith sort of I'm at Windsor Castle actually in the Queen's residence,

816
01:23:27,690 --> 01:23:38,969
so at St George's House. And the last time I was here, we actually had the the MP who acts as sort of the I forget the exact title,

817
01:23:38,970 --> 01:23:41,100
but she deals with international religious freedom,

818
01:23:41,970 --> 01:23:48,120
which is so I actually I mean, this is why I appreciate your writing in these areas because it is very accessible.

819
01:23:48,120 --> 01:23:53,130
It can be read and understood by a lawyer in her case who has become an MP.

820
01:23:54,270 --> 01:23:57,959
I don't think it wasn't a baroness. I think it was an actual Fiona.

821
01:23:57,960 --> 01:24:08,370
I forget her. MP But I recommended your book to and I sent her an email with the title and link and I hope I mean she expressed an interest in it.

822
01:24:08,820 --> 01:24:13,110
So, you know, I hope that complicates the world views that were being discussed in that room.

823
01:24:13,500 --> 01:24:19,100
Fingers crossed. Thank you so much. We don't have the question and I'm really conscious of time.

824
01:24:19,100 --> 01:24:25,430
I hope Baden-Clay will indulge us for not taking this question.

825
01:24:25,880 --> 01:24:31,670
But I face it, I don't know if you want to call proceedings to a conclusion.

826
01:24:32,000 --> 01:24:40,640
Thanks very much for. Thank you all an audience and thank you in particular, Beth and Roshan really wonderfully stimulating presentations.

827
01:24:41,060 --> 01:24:50,660
And we really could have gone on so but I do hope we shall meet in person rather than simply online at some point.

828
01:24:52,070 --> 01:24:55,550
Richard, it'll be good to meet you properly, Beth. It'll be wonderful to see you again.

829
01:24:56,780 --> 01:25:01,189
And with that, we will close this session.

830
01:25:01,190 --> 01:25:05,209
Very successful one, I think. Thank you all.

831
01:25:05,210 --> 01:25:08,900
And we shall be in touch. Thank you. Thank you.

832
01:25:09,020 --> 01:25:12,570
It was lovely to be here with you. Have a wonderful day. All right.

833
01:25:12,910 --> 01:25:13,460
Bye bye.