Germany is often held up as a model of “moderate secularism,” a nation that cooperates with religious communities rather than strictly separating from them. Yet, a new study suggests that beneath this cooperative surface lies a more complex and uneven reality. When minority religious practices enter the courtroom, they are often subjected to a process of “legal translation” that can determine whether they are accommodated, restricted, or even completely misunderstood . The research, published in Religions, examines five recent German court cases to reveal how this “selective secularism” operates in practice.
What is ‘Selective Secularism’?
The study’s author, Zakaria Sajir, argues that the German legal system, while formally neutral, operates through a logic of “selective secularism.” This means that courts rely on implicit baselines—such as assumptions about what constitutes “ordinary” institutional practice, security, or child welfare—that are not neutral at all. These baselines often reflect culturally dominant norms, making it harder for minority religious claims to be recognized unless they can be translated into a language the state already understands.
Legal Arenas and Their “Ordinary” Baselines
| Legal Arena | Baseline Considered “Ordinary” | Impact on Minority Claims |
|---|---|---|
| Prisons | Security, administrative manageability, and institutional routine. | Practices like praying with a rug or requiring halal food are seen as potential disruptions, requiring special justification. |
| Urban Public Space | Public order and the state’s monopoly on norm enforcement. | Islam-coded moral interventions can be quickly securitized and criminalized as a threat to public order. |
| Criminal Justice | The state’s framework for restorative justice (e.g., victim-offender mediation). | Community-led mediations may be recognized, but only if they can be shown to mirror the state’s legal requirements. |
| Family Law/Child Welfare | The “intact” child and bodily integrity. | Rituals like circumcision are scrutinized against a standard of child autonomy that may not account for the religious community’s perspective. |
A Journey Through Five Cases of Unequal Justice
The study analyzes five cases, each showcasing a different governance outcome. These cases illustrate how the legal system’s “translation” process determines the fate of minority practices.
Case 1 & 2: Restriction
In the first case, a Muslim prisoner in Aachen was denied permission to keep his prayer rug in his workroom to observe prayer times. The court accepted his right to pray but argued the rug posed a security risk, as it could be used to conceal objects. The court prioritized the prison’s need for “control” over the inmate’s religious practice, a clear example of restriction through carceral containment .
The second case involved the “Shariah Police” in Wuppertal, where a group of young men wearing high-visibility vests with that label urged other Muslims to avoid alcohol and gambling. The court convicted them, interpreting the performance not as a moral patrol but as a coercive, para-police threat. By linking the term “Shariah Police” to groups like the “Islamic State,” the court translated a local, hybrid performance into a security problem, showing how religionized securitization can restrict expression in public spaces .
Case 3: Constrained Negotiation
A prisoner in Berlin requested halal food, arguing it was required by his faith. While the court acknowledged the religious importance and allowed for a “Muslim diet” that excluded pork and gelatine, it stopped short of requiring the prison to actively provide ritually slaughtered meat. This outcome, termed constrained negotiation, allows for minimal accommodation—such as allowing prisoners to buy their own halal food—while placing the burden back on the individual and leaving the “ordinary” prison menu unchallenged .
Case 4: Negotiated Recognition Without Integration
This case shows how a minority practice can be recognized by the state, but only on the state’s terms. After a Syrian refugee assaulted another, community members organized a mediation process that resulted in a public apology and compensation. A German court accepted this as a valid victim-offender settlement under criminal law. While the court recognized the mediation as functionally equivalent to official procedures, it accepted it only because it could be translated into the legal criteria of Section 46a StGB. The outcome is negotiated recognition without integration—the Syrian practice is accepted, but it does not change the underlying German legal framework .
Case 5: Legal Recalibration
The most dramatic case involved the circumcision of a four-year-old boy. A regional court in Cologne ruled that the procedure constituted bodily harm and that parental consent was invalid. This ruling triggered a massive political and social backlash, with Jewish and Muslim communities mobilizing to defend the practice as a central religious rite. Their “post-secular mobilisation” was successful: the German parliament passed a new law, Section 1631d of the Civil Code, explicitly permitting male circumcision under regulated conditions. This case demonstrates that even in a system of selective secularism, intense mobilization can lead to legal recalibration, forcing the state to formally accommodate minority religious practices .
Table 2: Governance Outcomes in German Religious Diversity Cases
| Governance Outcome | Description | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Restriction | Minority practice is curtailed through security or public order reasoning. | Prayer Rug Case: Prisoner denied prayer rug in workroom on security grounds. ‘Shariah Police’ Case: Group convicted for public order offense. |
| Constrained Negotiation | Minimal accommodation is offered, but the burden of compliance is placed on the minority individual. | Halal Food Case: Prison provides pork-free diet, but prisoner must source halal meat himself. |
| Negotiated Recognition without Integration | Minority practice is recognized by the state, but only if it conforms to existing legal categories. | Syrian Mediation Case: Community-led mediation accepted as valid victim-offender settlement under criminal law. |
| Legal Recalibration | Initial judicial restriction leads to political mobilization and a new law that formally accommodates the practice. | Circumcision Case: Judicial ruling against circumcision leads to a new law explicitly permitting it. |
The Art of ‘Legal Translation’
The study’s key finding is that minority claims are more likely to succeed when they can be translated into goals that state institutions already value. For example, the Syrian mediation was successful partly because it aligned with the legal system’s interest in restorative justice and repairing harm . The circumcision case was recalibrated because the claims of religious freedom were translated into a powerful argument about child welfare and the need for regulated inclusion . Conversely, the prayer rug and “Shariah Police” cases failed because they were translated into the language of security and public order, areas where courts are very reluctant to accommodate.
Conclusion
The research concludes that Germany’s “moderate secularism” does not treat all religions equally. It shows that the legal system’s reliance on “ordinary” baselines—from prison security to child welfare—creates a hierarchy where majority norms are privileged. The study makes a powerful argument that if Germany wants to live up to its promise of religious freedom, it must pay closer attention to how courts translate minority claims. As the circumcision case shows, political and legal mobilization by minority communities can force change, but the burden of proof and translation often remains unfairly placed on their shoulders .
Reference: Sajir Z. Selective Secularism and the Governance of Religious Diversity in German Case Law: A Case-Illustrative Socio-Legal Analysis. Religions. 2026; 17(7):780. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel17070780
Other Articles:
