Empire, Colonialism, and Religious Mobility in Transnational History

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nuanced and well-articulated thesis backed by extensive (and similarly nuanced) reading of empirical literature on the topic. This article will be a good antidote both to those understating the impact of colonialism on religious practices and those overstating it. As a "bird's eye view" of a quite vast literature, this is impressively broad as a survey without trafficking in poorly-qualified claims. A very welcome piece of scholarship that would work well as a citational reference point and reading in the classroom.

My only thought is that the organization of the paper's body might be overly-sectionalized, and it is hard to fully make sense of the delineations between headings and subheadings. (See, esp., the header at line 497.) That's something that the author might wish to tweak prior to publication. That said, I think if it ran as is, that wouldn't stand as much of a flaw. 

Author Response

Question: In the methodology of the attached article, please Include a brief reason (one short paragraph) why I chose these religions.

 

Reply: Thank you. I value the comments. I have added the following parts to justify why I chose these religions.

The study focuses on Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, as these three traditions have historically played central roles in shaping religious mobility under empire. Christianity, particularly through missionary networks in British and French colonies, was instrumental in both the expansion of imperial authority and indigenous resistance. Islam’s transnational scholarly, trade, and Sufi networks across the Ottoman, Mughal, and African colonial territories highlight the persistence of religious mobility that operated both within and in contestation to imperial structures. Buddhism, particularly in Southeast Asia, presents an alternative framework where monastic networks, colonial patronage, and reform movements negotiated both cooperation and defiance under Western imperial rule. These three traditions were chosen not only due to their significant role in transnational religious movements but also because they illustrate distinct modes of interaction—state-sponsored religious expansion, transregional scholarly circulation, and localized adaptations—that reveal the complexity of religious mobility under colonialism.

 

Please increase a few items on syncretism to balance the effort I have put into resistance and assimilation.

 

Reply: Thank you. I have added as the suggested.

Religious mobility under empire was not only a process of forced conversions and institutional impositions but also a fertile ground for syncretism and hybridization. Encounters between imperial and indigenous traditions frequently led to new religious formations that blended elements from both traditions, often challenging colonial hierarchies. One of the most striking examples of religious syncretism occurred in Latin America, where Catholicism incorporated indigenous rituals, cosmologies, and symbols, such as the veneration of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, which fused Aztec religious imagery with Christian devotion. Similarly, African Christian churches integrated local spiritual practices, healing traditions, and communal rituals into Christianity, defying missionary expectations and producing new forms of religious expression (Adogame, 2013).

 

In South and Southeast Asia, Islamic and Buddhist communities also engaged in selective borrowing, reinterpretation, and synthesis to navigate colonial rule. The Islamic modernist movements of the late 19th century, led by figures such as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, sought to reconcile Islamic teachings with European scientific and political ideas while resisting Western dominance (Salem, 2004). Similarly, Buddhist revivalist movements in Sri Lanka and Burma adapted Western education models, printing technologies, and institutional frameworks to promote Buddhist nationalism, while still maintaining indigenous religious authority (Blackburn, 2010). These examples illustrate that religious mobility was not a one-directional process of domination but a site of negotiation, resistance, and transformation, where indigenous religious actors actively shaped their spiritual traditions in response to imperial pressures.

 

Question: Please Define key terms religious mobility

 

Reply: Thank you.

Religious mobility refers to the movement of religious actors, institutions, texts, artifacts, and practices across geographic and political boundaries. This movement can be voluntary or forced and occurs through missionary expansion, pilgrimage, trade networks, migration, and imperial policies. In transnational history, religious mobility is understood as part of interconnected imperial and colonial networks that facilitated or constrained the circulation of religious ideas and people (Bayly, 2004; Osterhammel, 2014). Within postcolonial studies, religious mobility is also analyzed in terms of power asymmetries, where colonial rule transformed indigenous spiritual landscapes through coercion, assimilation, and cultural contestation (Said, 1978; Chatterjee, 1993). Religious mobility, therefore, is not a neutral process but an arena of political, cultural, and ideological negotiation, shaping both imperial governance and indigenous resistance in profound ways.

 

Question: While the paper has a solid argument for resistance and adaptation, one wonders if there are no negative points, such as the propensity of religious mobility to help assimilation or collaborations.

 

Reply: This is an important comemnt. I have added some more perspectives to strike a balance.

 

While the paper has built a strong argument for religious resistance and adaptation, it is important to acknowledge that religious mobility also facilitated assimilation and collaboration with colonial structures. Missionary expansion, for example, was not only a tool of cultural imperialism but also created a new class of indigenous intermediaries who served colonial administrations. In British India and French West Africa, missionary-educated elites often worked within colonial bureaucracies, reinforcing imperial authority rather than resisting it (Viswanathan, 1998).

 

Similarly, religious institutions were sometimes co-opted into colonial governance. The British alliance with Islamic institutions in Sudan and Nigeria, for example, allowed them to control local populations through existing religious leadership structures while restricting radical reformist movements (Metcalf, 1995). In French Algeria, colonial authorities strategically integrated Islamic legal institutions into governance while simultaneously undermining their autonomy, ensuring religious mobility served state control rather than indigenous agency (Robinson, 2000).

 

Religious mobility also played a role in facilitating sectarian divisions, which colonial powers often exploited to maintain control. In Lebanon, India, and Iraq, imperial authorities institutionalized religious identities within legal and political frameworks, reinforcing communal divisions that persisted long after decolonization (Makdisi, 2000). These examples underscore that religious mobility was not inherently liberatory or subversive; rather, its impact was highly contingent on the broader political and structural forces shaping it. By incorporating both the resistance and collaboration aspects of religious mobility, this study presents a more nuanced understanding of how faith traditions were transformed under empire.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are attached on the Word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 Question: My only thought is that the organization of the paper's body might be overly-sectionalized, and it is hard to fully make sense of the delineations between headings and subheadings. (See, esp., the header at line 497.) That's something that the author might wish to tweak prior to publication. That said, I think if it ran as is, that wouldn't stand as much of a flaw.

 

Reply: Thank you have tried to tweak some of the subtitle.