review of Religious Difference in a Secular Age: A Minority Report
The opening of the book perhaps sets it up for a historical misunderstanding. Muslims are by default "arab conquerors," despite the histories written about the civilizing missions of Ismaili dais, who later founded the Fatimid dynasty. Simply put, Muslims were once civil minorities as well, who did not come to Africa merely as conquerors. The Fatimid state has a curious similarity with the current Egyptian state in terms of how it relates to minorities--make the elites among Copts and Jews part of their social legitimacy. (Jews-- not so much in today's Egypt.) If we keep this continuity theme in mind, then the idea of "religious minority" in Egypt is different than the "Jewish" in Europe problem, posed by Dr. Saba Mahmood in her book at the very beginning, within the context of Marx's "Jewish Question." Jewish people in Europe were never elevated to the status of Fatimid-era Copts. There is even a book which discusses the violent nature of European states in the 16th century and the connection with the roots to the Holocaust by another author, but I have not read that book. Mahmood highlights the challenges faced by judiciaries in both Europe and Egypt in the 20th century, yet does not delve into the social contracts of the Fatimid state. Minorities can indeed hold power amongst themselves, ruling over the sha'ab (non-elite classes of people).
Secondly, the changes and ruptures she notes about the Coptic community is interesting, which I am not too familiar. Yet the minority status-as-marginalization is not really a historically rooted one, even if Copts were persecuted by the Byzantines. The Fatimids, again, were also not welcomed in Egypt in the beginning. They faced challenges by the populace, both Muslim and otherwise. The Fatimids gained authority without socio-cultural hegemony in some periods. Among the regular non-ruling class Muslims, many did not accept the infallibility / authority of appointed Ismaili imams and some also saw the business-missionizing aspect of Ismaili'ism as dubious. The question of rule was shaky even for Fatimid Muslims when they gained the seats of power, who ostensibly shared the faith of non-Ismaili Muslims in Egypt. Mobs harassed representatives of the state, showing how the process of conversion was uneven and shaky.
Secondly, the changes and ruptures she notes about the Coptic community is interesting, which I am not too familiar. Yet the minority status-as-marginalization is not really a historically rooted one, even if Copts were persecuted by the Byzantines. The Fatimids, again, were also not welcomed in Egypt in the beginning. They faced challenges by the populace, both Muslim and otherwise. The Fatimids gained authority without socio-cultural hegemony in some periods. Among the regular non-ruling class Muslims, many did not accept the infallibility / authority of appointed Ismaili imams and some also saw the business-missionizing aspect of Ismaili'ism as dubious. The question of rule was shaky even for Fatimid Muslims when they gained the seats of power, who ostensibly shared the faith of non-Ismaili Muslims in Egypt. Mobs harassed representatives of the state, showing how the process of conversion was uneven and shaky.
The author rightly points to differing policies toward minorities between Ottomans and Mamluks; however, that later stage of Sunnification in Egypt (e.g., the co-optation of Al-Azhar which was founded by Ismaili'is) is not sufficiently explained in her opening chapter. Those who are inclined to view Egypt's history dynastically may be more accepting of her periodization.
The Baha'i faith, which she explored later in the book, also poses a similar question. Since the founder regarded their revelation as temporally continuous with The People of the Book (Jews -> Christians -> The House of Muhammad -> Shi'a Muslim imams -> Bab), rather than an a priori difference from the beginning of Time. This tension is left unexplained, perhaps for the purpose of her argument.
I am using the term Ismaili from a modern perspective as well, which needs some qualifications. for those who are not familiar with the history. Dr. Khalil Andani has a wonderful Zoom lecture on this subject for those who are interested:
