New Books Network – Radio Reorient

Episode 13:2 - Sherman Jackson Part 2
Date: October 24, 2025
Host: Saman Syed with panel (Chella Ward, Claudia Radovan, others)
Guest: Sherman Jackson (with contributions from Professor Halak)
Book Discussed: The Islamic Secular by Sherman Jackson

Episode Overview

This episode continues the deep dive into Sherman Jackson’s The Islamic Secular, focusing on religion and state, secularism, Sharia’s place in the modern world, religious pluralism, and how Muslims might conceptualize tradition and political imagination beyond Western paradigms. The episode features a robust, respectful dialogue between Jackson, the hosts, and Professor Halak, weaving together classical Islamic theory, critiques of both Islamic and Western thought, and practical considerations for modern Muslim societies.

Main Themes & Purposes

• Challenging the Reduction of Sharia to Law: Jackson interrogates the tendency to reduce Islam and Sharia to mere legal codes, warning against both a totalizing and a wholly secularized vision.
• Islamic Nominalism vs Divine Ontology: Explores whether God's law is rooted in “pre-existing ontology” or in divine, sovereign command.
• Pluralism and the Modern State: Considers how premodern Islamic societies were legally pluralist and questions “legal monism” as the only template for governance today.
• Tradition, Change, and Political Imagination: Advocates moving beyond “Orientalist” and colonial frameworks to develop new ways Muslim communities engage with political, cultural, and religious plurality.
• Addressing Islamophobia and Misconceptions about Sharia: The post-interview panel discusses how Sharia is often misrepresented in Western discourse, and the need for a nuanced understanding among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Detailed Discussion Breakdown

1. Reconciling Ontology, Divine Sovereignty, and Nominalism

Timestamps: 02:16–09:35

• Jackson critiques Ahmad's concept of a “pretext” ontology – the idea that God’s moral truth exists independently and fully outside revelation:
  • “We must be very careful about the distinction between God's ontological sovereignty ... and then God's ... Shari sovereignty – what God dictates to us as humans ... The two realms are not coterminous necessarily ... that’s an erroneous assumption.” (Sherman Jackson, 04:00)
• Jackson's “nominalist” approach: God is not bound by any pre-existing ontology. What’s forbidden is forbidden because God names it so.
  • “There’s nothing in the essence of pork, let’s say, that makes it najis, it’s najis because ... God has decided this is a virtually impure substance and that’s it.” (Sherman Jackson, 07:40)
• Emphasizes that moral facts in the world (such as “water freezes at 32°F”) don’t directly yield Sharia’s moral or legal obligations.

2. Critique of Halak and the 'Impossible State'

Timestamps: 10:27–16:14

• Sharia not coterminous with Islam: Jackson cautions against distending Sharia until it is equated with every aspect of Islam. Instead, Sharia has clear boundaries, and there are legitimate non-Shari and even “Islamic-secular” spheres.
  • “My problem is distending Sharia to the point that Sharia and Islam become coterminous. And therefore, if Sharia is law, then Islam is law, and there's nothing else to contemplate outside the dictates …” (Sherman Jackson, 11:55)
• Giving examples (economic planning), Jackson notes that Sharia provides parameters (what is forbidden) but does not dictate detailed implementation (the specifics of a five-year economic plan).
• The non-Shari is not "non-Islamic" or irreligious; Islam’s vision incorporates more than just what is directly dictated by law.

3. Living Tradition: Interpretation, Adaptation, and Colonization

Timestamps: 16:14–25:55

• Ongoing negotiation: The Islamic legal tradition has always debated, reinterpreted, and adapted rules. Modern representations can be more rigid than premodern reality.
  • “It’s more us in our reading of them who are rigid and inflexible.” (Sherman Jackson, 17:06)
• Impact of colonialism: Colonial projects deliberately delegitimated Islamic institutions, blaming “the tradition” for decline and disconnecting Muslims from their own historical processes.
• Modernity is not unique: Muslims have faced many “modernities” before (e.g., Mongol conquests, territorial expansion) and adapted—negotiating principles with reality.

4. Legal Pluralism in Islamic and Modern States

Timestamps: 25:55–33:45

• Critique of Naim: Jackson assesses Abdullahi An-Na'im's Islam and the Secular State, suggesting Naim problematically conflates religion and Sharia, and buys into the narrative that religion must be regulated (and thus marginalized) to secure pluralism.
  • “All religion becomes potentially coercive ... you have to marginalize Sharia or the social political welfare of the state ... will be at risk.” (Sherman Jackson, 27:39)
• Pre-modern Islamic states were legally plural: Non-Muslims had significant autonomy, and multiple legal systems operated alongside each other—contradicting the idea that the only option is legal monism.
  • “Its sovereignty was not challenged by the fact that Christians can drink, eat pork ... Jews can deal in interests ...” (Sherman Jackson, 29:50)
• Modern possibilities: Other legal models (e.g., India, South Africa) incorporate legal pluralism today.
• Democracy, consensus, and homogenization: There are pitfalls in assuming “consensus” or “liberal democracy” are always peaceful or tolerant. Modern European states have less structural tolerance for religious minorities compared to premodern Islamic lands.

5. Historical Pluralism & Modern Mythologies

Timestamps: 32:25–36:02

• Persistence of minorities: In key Islamic centers (Iraq, Syria), religious minorities survived and thrived for centuries, unlike in many Christian-majority societies.
  • “Just imagine ... places like Iraq, Syria ... took over 250 years before they were a simple majority Muslim ... That’s older than the United States of America.” (Sherman Jackson, 32:32)
• The Muslim state traditionally did not see the need to forcibly homogenize religiously.
  • “The Muslim state did not see a similar need to homogenize in ways that others seem to think.” (Sherman Jackson, 33:45)
• Calls for greater “political imagination” among Muslims beyond the limitations of 18th-century Western frameworks.

6. On Coercion and Sharia in the Modern State

Timestamps: 36:02–39:12

• Coercion is multifaceted: Critiques Naim for focusing only on physical coercion, ignoring subtler forms (social pressures, economic threats).
  • “Why these are not recognized as regimes of coercion is sort of beyond me.” (Sherman Jackson, 36:55)
• No political order can operate without some coercion, physical or otherwise. Removing Sharia does not equal a “coercion-free” society.

7. Methodology & Tone in Debate

Timestamps: 39:08–41:24

• Jackson emphasizes respectful critique: “I try very hard ... to make my points directly ... but without sort of deprecating those with whose ideas I disagree ... Respect is not necessarily agreement.”
  • (Sherman Jackson, 39:12)

8. Recovering Tradition and Imagination

Timestamps: 41:24–42:32

• To really revive Islamic tradition, one must “be prepared to go and get it,” not just accept what’s been handed down through recent (often colonial) filters.
  • “If you want tradition, you must be prepared to go and get it, because you cannot simply rest confident that what has been handed down to you in the name of tradition is actually that tradition.” (Sherman Jackson, quoting T.S. Eliot, 41:43)

Panel Reflection and Analysis

Timestamps: 43:16–52:53

• Claudia Radovan notes how Sharia becomes a focal point for Islamophobia, presented as a threat, and used as a symbol of supposed Muslim “backwardness.”
• Chella Ward contextualizes Jackson’s argument: the boundaries of Sharia, the fluidity of sacred/secular, and how past Muslim societies lived with multiple legal systems simultaneously.
• Claudia and Chella reference current examples, e.g., the informal but widely-followed boycott of Coca-Cola among Muslims in solidarity with Palestine, showing the living, political dimensions of Muslim ethics outside formal Sharia.
• Panelists discuss secularism in Western countries, noting that supposedly “neutral” or “secular” laws—including those restricting LGBTQ or reproductive rights—are still shaped by Christian values and traditions.
• Sharia as a dog whistle: Despite Western legal frameworks drawing from religious values, “Sharia” is uniquely stigmatized.
  • “It seems like Sharia has become like this dog whistle terminology.” (Unidentified Host, 52:53)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Divine Sovereignty:
  • “God is not dependent upon, does not answer to any pre-existing ontology in terms of what God can dictate as the code of conduct by which we as human beings become responsible.” (Jackson, 07:56)
• Pluralism in Premodern Islam:
  • “All kinds of religious minorities had all kinds of rights to do all kinds of things that Muslims did not have the right to do. And this was not a trouble, it was not a bother to the Muslim state.” (Jackson, 29:24)
• On Political Imagination:
  • “There is a lack of political imagination … we begin our political thinking in the 18th century and in the 18th century west and we don’t have any real resources other than some very romantic notions ...” (Jackson, 34:25)
• On Tradition:
  • “If you want tradition, you must be prepared to go and get it, because you cannot simply rest confident that what has been handed down to you in the name of tradition is actually that tradition.” (Jackson, 41:43; quoting T.S. Eliot)
• On Respectful Debate:
  • “Respect is not necessarily agreement. The same with Professor Halat, the same with Professor March ... you can be very straightforward with your criticisms without being ad hominem and without lowering the standard of discourse.” (Jackson, 39:14)

Key Timestamps for Reference

• Sharia vs. Divine Ontology/Nominalism: 03:08–09:35
• Narrow vs. Totalizing Concept of Sharia (Halak): 11:50–16:14
• Tradition and Colonial Disruption: 16:14–20:42
• Legal Pluralism in Muslim History: 25:55–29:50
• Critique of Modern Legal Monism & Pluralism: 29:50–32:25
• Panel’s Reflection on Sharia, Secularism & Islamophobia: 43:16–52:53

Tone & Style

The tone throughout is scholarly, reflective, incisive but respectful. Jackson models critical engagement with major thinkers (Ahmad, Halak, An-Na’im) while upholding the value of intellectual humility. The closing panel discussion brings personal insights, linking academic debates to community lived experience and contemporary issues.

Summary Takeaways

• Sharia is neither totalizing nor fully secular but bounded and contextually negotiated; Islam is broader than the law.
• Premodern Islamic societies were legally diverse; legal monism is not a necessary modern standard.
• True tradition requires active retrieval, not just passive inheritance, especially post-colonial disruption.
• Political pluralism and imagination are vital for Muslims navigating modernity, but must be rooted in real knowledge of history and law.
• Western societies, while claiming secularity, still operate within religiously-inflected legal frameworks; critiques of Sharia must be situated within this context.
• Respectful, robust debate is crucial for intellectual and community progress.

Recommended Action:
Go read The Islamic Secular for a fuller, nuanced exploration of these themes. This conversation just scratches the surface.