was not enough, add to it a “nationwide stratified survey of popular understandings of the Islamic legal tradition” (10). As for the obligatory book-review quibble, I have only one to share: The book starts with Moustafa cautioning his readers not to conflate the “judicialization of religion” with your run of the mill “judicialization of politics.” I am not sure if the distinction is convincing, and he elaborates on it only briefly in an immediate footnote (2. fn 5). I would have loved to learn more why he thought the distinction useful to begin with? So do not let the small size of this book fool you. At 158 pages, the scope of work behind it is as meticulous as it is immense (the footnotes alone are a gold mine to pilfer and embezzle). And for such a serious often heavy subject, the book is laced with a subtle sense of humor to belie it all. On Islamic law for example, Moustafa wryly observes that the “shariah courts did not drop from the heavens. Rather they are creatures of state law” (15). Appropriately, the book closes with the ironic observation that liberal litigation may itself be responsible for the expansion of illiberal legal precedents—a predicament for progressive activists who are “damned if they do and they are damned if they do not” (154).

中文翻译：

---

性别、另类和人权：鱼缸里的自由。通过拉特纳卡普尔。爱德华·埃尔加出版社，2018 年。

还不够，再加上“对伊斯兰法律传统的大众理解的全国分层调查”（10）。至于强制性的书评狡辩，我只有一个要分享：这本书从穆斯塔法开始，警告他的读者不要将“宗教司法化”与你的工厂“政治司法化”混为一谈。我不确定这种区别是否令人信​​服，他只是在紧接的脚注 (2. fn 5) 中对其进行了简要阐述。我很想了解更多，为什么他认为区分有用？所以不要让这本书的小尺寸欺骗了你。158页，其背后的工作范围既细致又庞大（仅脚注就是一个可以窃取和挪用的金矿）。对于这样一个严肃而沉重的主题，这本书充满了微妙的幽默感来掩盖一切。例如，在伊斯兰教法方面，穆斯塔法讽刺地指出“伊斯兰教法法庭并非从天而降。相反，它们是国家法律的产物”（15）。恰如其分地，这本书以具有讽刺意味的观察结束，即自由诉讼本身可能是导致不自由的法律先例的扩大的原因——这是进步活动家的困境，他们“如果这样做就该死，如果不这样做就该死”（154）。