Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper challenges the “convert” versus “heritage Muslim” binary in the study of religious conversion. Drawing on ethnographic material from Kazakhstan, it examines how Slavic converts to Islam create communities based on shared commitment that exceed ethnic-religious and other binaries.

Paper long abstract

This paper challenges the analytical adequacy of the “convert” versus “heritage Muslim” (or “ethnic Muslim”) binary. In a context where Muslim belonging is commonly framed as ethnic inheritance, one might expect clear boundaries between those “born Muslim” and those who adopt Islam through conversion. However, ongoing fieldwork conducted since 2024 demonstrates how this categorical distinction becomes unstable through shared practices and community formation.

Ethnic Kazakhs who become religiously observant describe experiences that closely resemble those of Slavic converts: accounts of “coming to Islam,” conscious commitments to religious practice, and efforts to distinguish themselves from “non-practicing Muslims.” Across both groups, participants emphasise personal choice, knowledge acquisition, and disciplined practice over inherited affiliation. They similarly navigate questions of authenticity, sincerity, and motivation, positioning themselves as believers whose Muslim identity is actively cultivated rather than passively received. These parallels suggest that the key analytical distinction lies not in ethnic background but in the process through which Muslim identity is consciously constructed through practice, keeping the boundaries dynamic.

Moreover, converts and heritage Muslims participate in shared religious spaces that transcend ethnic categorisation. Russian-language study circles, mixed prayer groups, and informal mentorship networks, alongside Kazakh-majority mosques, bring together individuals of diverse origins based on shared commitment. In these settings, the widely used “neophyte” label loses much of its purchase, even as Slavic converts continue to encounter and negotiate it. The paper argues that attending to these dynamics allows us to reconsider categorical definitions of religious conversion.