The Aga Khan IV, the 49th hereditary imam of the Isma'ilis, presents himself as an apolitical figure. Under his aegis, nonetheless, the Institution of Imamat functions as a transnational, neoliberal organization with ties to political establishments wherever it operates. How can, then, this claim to apoliticality be understood? Furthermore, unlike many spiritual leaders who draw on theology and polemical doctrines in constructing religious authority, the Aga Khan advocates a sociological axiom: pluralism. This paper traces the discursive shifts in the Aga Khan’s notion of pluralism since the 1970s to highlight its political agency. As a non-doctrinaire doctrine, the Aga Khan’s pluralism proclaims itself to be “secular” and universalist—not sectarian. It aims at building a more diverse and tolerant global community—as Jonah Steinberg demonstrates. Yet, Nizari Isma'ilis are a religious minority whose legitimacy has constantly been undermined by hostile Sunni and Shi'a authority claims. Furthermore, as Isma'ilis are scattered across multiple countries, including the European Union, their present imam does not enjoy official political recognition—as Daryoush Mohammadpoor’s Authority Without Territory demonstrates. The emphasis on civil society in the Aga Khan’s formulation of pluralism implies that his institution acts within nation-states, without an intent to govern over them. To be effective in its humanitarian efforts, the Aga Khan’s Development Network forges political alliances with states as political actors, without the latter feeling threatened by the growing power of the former. This paper articulates how pluralism as a mode of social organization serves a dual agenda. First, it redistributes agency to different actors beyond the hegemony of the dominant Muslim groups. Second, it consolidates legitimacy while operating under the established apparatuses of nation-states. This paper analyzes the Aga Khan’s doctrine of pluralism to show how it takes distinct shapes within different modalities of “the secular.” I will juxtapose pluralism to multiculturalism and b) republican secularism, as articulated in the work of Charles Taylor and Olivier Roy, respectively. As a case study, I will discuss the implications of pluralism in the context of French laïcité, focusing on the law of 2004 that banned the conspicuous presence of religious signs in public space.