Theory, Theology, and Fraternal Friendship: A Response

I want to begin by extending my gratitude to Haroon Bashir for organizing and steering this special forum, to the ReOrient journal for hosting it, to S. Sayyid and Shvetal Vyas Pare for penning a very thoughtful introduction, and most importantly, to Ghazal Asif, Humeira Iqtidar, and Abdulkader Tayob for their time and labor in composing such generative and thoughtful responses to Perilous Intimacies.I am keenly aware of the degree of intellectual hospitality involved in conducting a close reading of a book and then composing reflections on it that highlight its contributions, tensions, and shortcomings.I am most grateful to all the discussants for the gift of their attention to this book.Since a foundational purpose of the ReOrient journal is that of forging pathways towards a decolonial understanding of Islam and Muslim life, let me briefly comment on how I envisage the contribution of Perilous Intimacies to such a political and analytical endeavor, before turning to the questions, observations, and critiques of the forum discussants, which coincidentally also connect with the theme of decoloniality in varied ways.The theoretical infrastructure of Perilous Intimacies rests on the conviction that any exercise of decolonial politics or intellectual inquiry is impossible without situating at its core a critique of secular power and its assumptions about religion, especially Islam.What do I mean by that?Let me explain.The positioning of Islam as the Other of politics, and the secular canonization of Muslims into predetermined oppositional categories such as pluralist/puritan, inclusivist/exclusivist, moderate/extremist is the original sin of colonialism, including in South Asia.Though secular power can take many forms and trajectories in different contexts, at its heart is the assumption that religion as a category of life is readily available for definition, regulation, and canonization (See Mandair 2009;Abeysekara 2008;