Summary:
This research aims to explore and analyze the complex relationship between religion and political governance in a world where the interplay between religion and politics is increasingly prominent. Through a historical and cultural lens, the study examines various dimensions of this interaction, starting from religious texts to their practical applications in different political systems.
The study seeks to provide scholarly contributions that enrich academic understanding of this critical issue by examining how religion influences politics and vice versa, with a focus on analyzing the role religion plays in shaping political policies and beliefs.
The research relies on both descriptive and historical methodologies, utilizing observation and document analysis tools. It explores the relationship between religion and politics and its societal impact in general. The study attempts to answer several questions regarding the relationship between religion and politics in terms of consistency and change, as well as the influence and mechanisms of that influence. It delves into Islam’s specific relationship with politics, the stages this relationship has undergone, and the visions that have governed it, aiming to arrive at conclusions and recommendations that open new avenues for the relationship between religion and the state. The goal is to foster individual satisfaction, societal security, and peace.
This entire discussion is structured through the following key sections:
- Introduction
- Types of Relationship Between Religion and Politics
- The Reconciliatory Relationship Between Religion and Politics
- The Exploitative Relationship Between Power and Religion
- The Adversarial Relationship Between Religion and Power
- Religious Movements and Politics in Our Troubled East
- The Salafi Movement and Its Schools
- Scientific Salafism
- Madkhali Salafism
- Radical Salafism (Al-Qaeda and ISIS)
- Commonalities Among the Different Forms of Salafism
- Hizb Al-Tahrir Between Power and Politics
- The Muslim Brotherhood
- Twelver Ja’fari Shi’ism
- Findings and Recommendations
- Conclusion
Introduction:
The relationship between religion and politics is an ongoing and ancient dialectic, as old as religion itself, from divine revelations to prehistorical beliefs. This debate arises from the role religion was meant to play in the real world and the behavior of the faithful, based on their religious affiliation. The relationship may be conciliatory, leading to human well-being and happiness in this world. Alternatively, it could be exploitative, where politicians and religious figures use religion to achieve their ambitions, manipulate the masses, or it may become adversarial, characterized by conflict and opposition.
The nature of this relationship between religion and politics varies with different approaches and societal contexts. Politics, ideally, serves the public good, aiming to achieve the common interest of the nation’s citizens and striving for the common good both nationally and globally. However, politics is also a fierce struggle for power, to represent nations and manage their affairs on behalf of the people’s mandate.
Religion, on the other hand, represents a spiritual truth rooted in faith in God, or in a supernatural force that offers humanity meaning to life and guidance on how to achieve their purpose of existence. This expression of faith goes beyond doctrinal beliefs, spiritual experiences, and ritual practices; it extends to people’s actions, behaviors, and commitments in social life.
Those who deny any social dimension of religion in public life and in relationships with others may believe that there is no connection between religion and politics, and they act accordingly. Secularists—or what some term “radical secularism”—embrace this view, seeking to defend it politically, legally, and socially. They go so far as to argue that individuals’ public display of religious symbols, such as a Christian wearing a cross or a Muslim woman wearing the hijab, is a violation of the secularization of public space, which they believe cannot tolerate any religious expressions.
Undoubtedly, the ideological background of this position reflects a wariness of religion, as if it inherently carries the seeds of division and stands in opposition to the dynamics of social cohesion, civil peace, and national political unity. Hence, advocates of radical secularism emphasize the confinement of religion to the private sphere, meaning it belongs within the home, mosque, temple, or church, rejecting any presence or extension of religion into the public sphere, such as the streets, schools, or public institutions. This perspective is reflected in a well-known slogan in some Arab societies: “Religion is for God, and the nation is for all.”
Interestingly, a certain group of religious individuals aligns with radical secularists. Under the pretext of preserving the purity of religion, they too reject any connection or relationship between religion and politics. They adopt a rigid religious stance, claiming to protect the sanctity of religion, while also viewing politics as inherently corrupt and filled with conflicts that are incompatible with religion’s moral standards.
This position leads, in practice, to these religious individuals withdrawing from public life and disengaging from political affairs, to avoid compromising their spiritual values or religious beliefs. They can be considered radical in their own right, as they view religion as a transcendent truth that exists beyond the natural course of life.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that the religion they adhere to offers a vision and teachings about public matters and how they should be managed. This belief often results in a struggle for political power in the name of religion, and religious parties arise, claiming that a particular religion provides the ultimate solutions to all issues of governance, as reflected in the slogan “Islam is the solution.”
These individuals are divided into two groups: one group believes that attaining power to implement their religious teachings in political life must be achieved through democratic means, as a reflection of the people’s will. The other group, however, claims that their rise to power is not contingent on the people’s opinion but is a divine mandate that must be fulfilled—not in the name of the people but in the name of “God’s sovereignty” over all aspects of life. These claimants, who present themselves as implementers of God’s laws in society, often end up dominating life, suppressing freedoms, and curtailing the diversity of opinions, beliefs, and perspectives, all under the guise of possessing exclusive knowledge of divine truth and the authority to enforce it upon everyone. Both historical and modern experiences of this approach, whether tied to one religion or another, have shown its negative impact on both society and religion alike.
Between radical secularism and totalitarian religious politics, there is a third approach to the relationship between religion and politics. This approach acknowledges the independence of political authority and governance from any religious reference, as it stems from the people’s choices, which are tied to their collective interests rather than individual religious affiliations. At the same time, this approach recognizes the presence of religion in the public sphere—not as a closed sectarian or communal system, but through its followers as individuals and citizens who enjoy freedom of belief, thought, and expression. Therefore, they also have the right to express their political views based on their faith convictions.
The validity of this third option lies in its ability to foster a political discourse that is open to both criticism and partnership with others, all in the service of the common good of the citizens. It also views society and the public sphere as a collective good, too valuable to be dominated by any individual, group, or authority, under any pretext or title.
The Reconciliatory Relationship Between Religion and Politics:
The relationship between religion and politics can be reconciliatory and harmonious when religion governs both the rulers and the ruled. In such a scenario, an oppressive ruler cannot exploit or oppress the people or plunder their wealth because they are aware of a higher authority—religion—that oversees, regulates, and holds them accountable for their actions, decisions, and behavior. Meanwhile, the governed are also aware of their rights and responsibilities, staying within their limits without overstepping them. This balance ensures the public interest is served in this world, as politics in this context is understood as doing what is best for the people.
Imam Al-Ghazali eloquently summarized this relationship by saying: “Religion is the foundation, and politics is its protector. That which has no foundation will collapse, and that which has no protector will be lost.” This concise statement expresses the ideal relationship between politics and religion: politics is the guardian that protects religion among people, ensuring that its values and rulings are applied justly. It guarantees that there is no oppression, exploitation, or enslavement, while religion remains the reference and foundation for both rulers and the governed to whom they must return and adhere.
We have witnessed unique examples of this reconciliatory and complementary relationship between religion and politics during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. A famous example is when Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) expressed this principle in his well-known statement: “If a mule stumbled in Iraq, I would fear that Allah would question me about it because I did not pave the road for it.” This reflects his sense of responsibility as a ruler under the guidance of religion. Additionally, when the companions suggested nominating Abdullah ibn Umar to succeed Umar as caliph, he responded, “One from the family of Al-Khattab is enough,” highlighting humility and awareness of the weight of religious and political responsibility.
The Exploitative Relationship Between Power and Religion:
The second type of relationship is one of exploitation, where political leaders use religion and its representatives to fulfill their ambitions and objectives. They manipulate religious texts to legitimize their actions and behaviors, often directing religious figures to issue fatwas that reinforce their existence. This exploitative relationship has led some individuals to reject religion, perceiving it as the “opiate of the masses” and a sedative for the people. The ruler utilizes religion to justify tyranny, violence, and theft, causing some scholars to distance themselves from politics, seeking refuge from its practices. They have witnessed the distasteful manipulation of religious leaders by those in power, as many scholars have strayed from their principles at the doors of rulers and in the courts of kings, legitimizing oppressive rule and injustice in the name of religion. This has sparked significant revolts against religion and has been a primary reason for calls to separate religion from the state, advocating for secularism as a solution to political issues.
This subject has been discussed by writer Youssef Abdulaziz Al-Qurashi in an analytical study on the relationship between Islam as a religion and political authority, examining how this relationship shifts in different contexts.
The Hostile Relationship Between Religion and Authority:
The third type of relationship is one of hostility between religion and politics. This adversarial relationship emerged after the French Revolution, when revolutionaries called for the exclusion of religion from politics and its removal from all aspects of life. They witnessed a troubling alliance between the church and the rulers, which led to tyrannical, totalitarian rule in the name of God. This partnership produced a climate that suppressed science and its advocates under the pretext of protecting religion, culminating in the execution of many accused of heresy.
This antagonistic relationship spread from Western societies to Islamic communities under the argument that the separation of religion and politics is essential for societal progress and development, claiming that religion is the root of backwardness, injustice, and tyranny. This tense relationship persists to this day, as the struggle continues in our societies over the application of Sharia and its authority within constitutional frameworks.
Proponents of this viewpoint cite data and surveys indicating that religious observance tends to be more entrenched in the most vulnerable populations, particularly in impoverished nations and failed states. In contrast, studies suggest that more prosperous segments of society in wealthy nations experience a systematic erosion of religious practices, values, and beliefs.
However, this third relationship has its counterarguments based on the realities of life. A look at Islamic societies before the French Revolution reveals that the relationship between religion and politics was one of reconciliation and complementarity. Religion was not a cause of societal backwardness or ignorance; rather, it played a significant role in many successive Islamic governments in promoting knowledge and fostering the emergence of Muslim scholars who contributed to various fields, including medicine, astronomy, pharmacology, and sociology.
Religion served as a crucial factor in holding oppressive rulers accountable, instilling a sense of reverence and respect for religious principles in the hearts of leaders, which limited their tyranny and oppression. A ruler who adhered to religious values and principles was often seen as a model of justice, piety, integrity, and righteousness. Islamic history illustrates that when religion distanced itself from politics, it led to oppression and tyranny; conversely, when a caliph upheld religious values, it resulted in exceptional examples of justice and integrity.
Religious Movements and Politics in Our Troubled East:
The Salafi Movement and Its Schools:
Discussions surrounding Salafis began to gain significant attention in Arab media following the Arab Spring, as prior focus primarily centered on the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists. Despite often negative portrayals, this phenomenon indicates a strong presence of Salafis on the ground. The newfound atmosphere of freedom in some Arab countries post-revolution offers them the opportunity to increase their visibility and participation, a development that alarms many parties involved.
What concerns us now is how the Salafi movement will engage with this new reality, leveraging it effectively instead of retreating into a narrow focus on traditional activities, such as study circles, lessons, and seminars—practices they have long engaged in when opportunities arose. They have faced periods of repression that deprived them of even the most basic rights to promote their beliefs.
Here, we will present contemporary Salafi thought from a critical scientific perspective, despite the fact that the scholars and adherents of this school often resist criticism, viewing their methodology as infallible and considering salvation to lie solely within it, while they regard divergence as a path to destruction. It can be said that this Islamic current is among the most confused, fluctuating, and contradictory regarding political matters.
First, it should be noted that Salafism comprises three strands: the scientific, the madkhali, and the jihadist (along with its derivatives). These three groups share many fundamental principles, beliefs, and ideas, but they diverge in others, particularly concerning complex political issues. Although they all agree that Islam encompasses both religion and state, doctrine and law, and that it addresses all aspects of life, their approaches to this principle vary widely based on personal preferences and ideological backgrounds. We will begin by discussing the first group:
Scientific Salafism:
Those within the scientific Salafi movement view politics as a secondary concern, often deeming it a waste of effort and time, or even a distraction from what truly matters. They profess that Islam is both a religion and a state and that it is suitable for all times and places. However, they overlook the integral relationship between religion and politics, failing to recognize that by disengaging from political affairs and discouraging involvement, they inadvertently adopt a form of secularism, which they vehemently reject. In essence, one could argue that scientific Salafism embodies a “purely secular” stance regarding politics, both in their positions and theoretical frameworks.
Worse still, they have gone so far as to characterize the prophets, peace be upon them, as sharing this disinterest in politics, asserting that they focused solely on calling people to God and avoided political matters. This assertion stands in stark contrast to the clear verses of the Quran. For instance, Allah says:
“O Dawood, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, for it will lead you astray from the path of Allah. And whoever deviates from the path of Allah will have a severe punishment because of what they have forgotten on the Day of Account.” (Quran 38:26)
Moreover, concerning Prophet Yusuf, Allah states:
“And when he reached maturity, We gave him judgment and knowledge. And thus do We reward the doers of good.” (Quran 12:22)
Indeed, all prophets were bestowed with judgment and knowledge, even at a young age, as illustrated by the case of Prophet Yahya, of whom Allah says:
“O Yahya, take the Scripture with determination.” And We gave him judgment [while he was] still a boy.” (Quran 19:12)
Similarly, Allah mentions Prophet Musa:
“And We gave him judgment and knowledge. And thus do We reward the doers of good.” (Quran 28:14)
The prophets were actively engaged in political matters; for example, Prophet Ibrahim confronted Nimrod. Allah narrates:
“Have you not considered the one who argued with Ibrahim about his Lord because Allah had given him kingship? When Ibrahim said, ‘My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death.’ He said, ‘I give life and cause death.’ Ibrahim said, ‘Indeed, Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west.’ So the disbeliever was overwhelmed.” (Quran 2:258)
Isn’t it always the case that those who oppose the call of the messengers are the leaders and the elite? As stated repeatedly in the words of God about all the messengers: “The leaders who disbelieved from among his people said.” Who are the leaders? They are the noble, the elite, and those with influence, whose interests conflict with the call of the messengers!
These people are unaware of the enmity between the prophets and the corrupt politicians, who are the first to obstruct the path of reform. According to their view, the call of the messengers is limited to a set of spiritual matters, convincing people of the necessity of worshiping God alone, reducing the meaning of worship to bowing, prostration, supplication, and seeking help, without realizing that they are neglecting the importance of governance and arbitration, which are also part of worship and monotheism. God Almighty says:
“Judgment is only for Allah. He has commanded that you not worship except Him. That is the correct religion. But most of the people do not know.” (Yusuf: 40)
It has previously been pointed out that they are mistaken in distinguishing between lordship and divinity in the context of governance, and that they have separated the terms “Lord” and “God,” which has led them to this dangerous leniency in this critical doctrinal issue! Just as they criticize those who associate partners with God in certain types of personal worship, they should equally criticize those who associate partners with God in governance, for He says: “They have no protector besides Him, nor should anyone share in His judgment.” (Al-Kahf: 26). This prohibition, expressed as a statement, is more significant than a direct prohibition!
Among the pitfalls of this current is their error in interpreting texts that generally involve political matters, and removing them from their contexts, such as their interpretation of the Prophet’s saying (Peace be upon him): “You must listen and obey, even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisin is appointed over you…” Here, they interpret the hadith to mean that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) generalized the obligation of obedience to all rulers, even if they are unworthy of leadership! This is a grave distortion because the Prophet (Peace be upon him) stated this in a specific context—establishing the principle of obedience among the Arabs, who were living in chaos and did not recognize any form of authority, often refusing to submit to kings. They believed themselves to be the noblest and most honorable of people. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) wanted to clarify to them the necessity of obeying the ruler, even if he was not Arab! So where does this interpretation fit with what they have said?
The Madkhali Salafism
These individuals have surpassed the first group in both theory and practice, and have become, through their beliefs, methodology, and behavior, shields for tyrants and mouthpieces for oppressive regimes in our wretched East. They legitimize their tyranny and whitewash their crimes. At the same time, they wage war on scholars and reformers who disagree with them, under the pretext of confronting the people of innovation. This was clearly evident in their alignment with the current ruling systems. As Sufyan al-Thawri (may God have mercy on him) said: “A people do not fall into innovation except that they subsequently find it permissible to raise the sword.”
These Madkhalis are the descendants of the first group, as they use the same arguments; however, they are bolder in their positions than the former! Thus, we can consider that the scientific Salafism has theorized, while the Madkhalism has applied!
This type of Salafism has become clear and known to the majority of Muslims more than ever. They are the same individuals who initially supported the Arab Spring revolutions, celebrated them, and called for supporting the revolting Arab peoples. Then, they reversed their stance, began to describe these revolutions as sedition and terrorism when their governments’ policies changed, and even retracted their old fatwas to please the authorities.
The Savage Salafism (Al-Qaeda and ISIS)
Unlike the first two groups, these individuals see no righteousness or reform except through the removal of all Arab governments without exception. They consider them infidels in their entirety and label them with the term “tyrant” without any restrictions. They even extend this label to anyone working in any government sector. The most extreme among them even declare the people themselves as infidels because, in their view, they accept the rule of disbelief. According to them, anyone who does not declare those whom God and His Messenger have declared as infidels to be infidels is, therefore, an infidel like them!
In reality, they are the rebellious offspring of Salafism. It is sufficient to note that they began with the takfir (declaration of disbelief) of those who abandon prayer, which is a fatwa of the scholars of scientific Salafism. This has led to all their positions and actions, not to mention their adherence to the most extreme opinions within the Hanbali school, adding even more extremism and radicalism to their beliefs.
Commonalities Among the Types of Salafism
There is a common factor among all types of Salafism mentioned above: they do not believe in democracy because they consider it infidelity, given that democracy means rule by the people, whereas governance should be for God.
It can be said that this statement holds some truth but is intended for falsehood. Democracy has its merits and demerits, and one should be fair in assessing things. Just because we say that the rule belongs to God does not mean that people’s governance will always oppose God’s rule. Indeed, Allah has delegated authority to people in many matters, as stated in His word regarding the judgment for hunting:
“Let there be among you [two] witnesses from among yourselves.” (Al-Ma’idah: 95)
And regarding reconciliation between spouses:
“And if you fear dissension between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his people and one from her people.” (An-Nisa: 35)
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “My Ummah will never agree upon misguidance.” This is a ruling for all, indicating that consensus is a ruling of the people, not of God, yet it is validated by God’s law! Therefore, differentiation and fairness are necessary.
Another commonality among the three previous categories of Salafism is that most of their theorists and followers do not see the legitimacy of forming Islamic parties because partisanship conflicts with Allah’s statement: “Indeed, this, your religion, is one religion.” (Al-Anbiya: 92)
Hizb Al-Tahrir Between Authority and Politics
The party rejects democracy and considers it infidelity, advocating for radical change and rejecting incremental reforms. It calls for the establishment of a caliphate across the Islamic world and has prepared a special constitution for it, based on historical divisions and mechanisms such as the division of provinces, princes, and governors. The party relies on a specific theory of change that necessitates first raising political awareness and then seeking support from military leaders or those in power. It has a particular vision of global conflict, viewing all events in the world as reflections of the historical struggle between Americans and the British, as existed in the 1950s and 1960s.
In its literature, politics is defined as the management of the affairs of the nation, both internally and externally, performed by the state and the people. The state is the entity that practically carries out this management, while the people hold the state accountable for it. The internal management of the nation’s affairs by the state involves implementing principles domestically, which constitutes domestic policy.
On the other hand, the external management of the nation’s affairs by the state involves its relationships with other countries, peoples, and nations, as well as the dissemination of principles worldwide, which constitutes foreign policy. Understanding foreign policy is essential for preserving the existence of the state and the nation, forming a fundamental aspect of effectively carrying the message to the world, and is a necessary action for organizing the relationship between the nation and others in a proper manner.
The Muslim Brotherhood
The group established its own organization, choosing an international structure (i.e., an organization that extends across multiple countries in the world), and has actively operated on a pan-Arab level during certain political phases. It has left a significant mark in some Islamic countries, making it a target of opposition from various Arab and Islamic regimes, as well as a subject of accusations and slander. The group has faced bans and prohibitions, particularly the central organization in Egypt, and its members have been subjected to persecution, imprisonment, and, in some cases, execution.
The intellectual foundations of the group regarding political work are based on what is referred to as the “Twenty Principles,” which do not declare any Muslim who utters the two testimonies of faith as a disbeliever. Hassan al-Banna, in his letter on teachings, spoke about the pillars of the Brotherhood’s allegiance, the most important of which is “understanding,” meaning the understanding of Islam. He directs his words to the individual member of the Brotherhood, emphasizing the need to understand Islam within the framework of the twenty principles, which he then summarizes.
The Brotherhood has given special attention to these principles, making them the constitution of their call. Many of their educational leaders and active scholars have explained them, with the most notable explanation being by Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali in his book “The Constitution of Cultural Unity.” The principles emphasize the comprehensiveness of Islam in all aspects of life, including religion and worldly matters, governance and beliefs, affirming the authority of the Quran and its understanding according to the rules of the Arabic language, as well as the authority of the Sunnah, which is interpreted through trustworthy hadith scholars, thus affirming the Brotherhood’s adherence to the Sunni sect.
The principles address some rules to regulate religious thought and practice in an attempt to balance between Sufism and Salafist tendencies. They discuss the issue of visions (dreams) and state that they are not considered evidence for legal rulings. Additionally, they assert that amulets, incantations, divination, knowledge claims, and claiming to know the unseen, along with anything that lacks evidence from a verse or hadith or an established supplication, should be opposed.
The principles grant the opinion of the Imam and his deputy the authority to choose and approve rulings based on circumstances and customs in areas lacking explicit texts. It emphasizes that anyone’s statements can be accepted or rejected, except for the infallible Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Every Muslim is encouraged to follow an Imam from the religious leaders and should strive to understand the evidence supporting their teachings as much as possible. Furthermore, the principles state that doctrinal disagreements in subsidiary matters should not lead to division in religion or result in animosity; each scholar who strives for understanding will receive a reward, and any issue that does not lead to actionable outcomes should not be pursued, as it is a form of unwarranted complication prohibited by Islamic law.
The principles also cover some matters of belief, such as the belief in ambiguous verses without negation or interpretation, and their opposition to innovations in religion, along with other aspects that generally align with the Salafi approach but may differ in some details from certain Salafi currents.
One of the most significant points in the principles is their stance on the issue of takfir (excommunication). The second-to-last principle states: “We do not declare a Muslim who acknowledges the two testimonies of faith and acts according to them as a disbeliever—regardless of their opinion or sins—unless they acknowledge a word of disbelief, deny something known by necessity in religion, reject a clear verse of the Quran, interpret it in a way that does not align with the Arabic language, or perform an act that cannot be interpreted in any way other than disbelief.”
The Sufi Current and Traditional Leadership
Sufi orders represent a prominent religious phenomenon in the history of Islamic societies. These orders emerged early in Islamic history and have continued to spread and expand throughout the Muslim world over the past centuries, increasing their religious influence and social power. These orders played an important role during the colonial era, taking on the mantle of cultural resistance against foreign invasion of Islamic lands. Some of their leaders led armed military fronts against the colonizers, such as Emir Abd al-Qadir in Algeria, Sheikh Ma’a al-Ainayn bin Sheikh Muhammad Fadl in Mauritania, and the Sanusi in Libya.
However, these orders distanced themselves from direct political engagement since the emergence of modern national states. Nevertheless, they have remained a significant force due to their substantial social and religious influence, which has made these orders, in some Arab countries, a part of the political equation. Various political systems have sought to manage their relationship with these orders to ensure their interests. With the rise of what is now known as “political Islam” movements, Sufism entered international plans, and interest in and encouragement for its intellectual and educational approach emerged as a means to counter the tide of violent movements and social-political Islam.
In other countries, such as Syria and Lebanon, the Sufi movement merged with traditional leadership. In Syria, following the popular protests at the beginning of 2011, it split into two factions: the first promoted the narrative of the Syrian government, while the second supported—according to its perspective—the popular demands referred to as the Syrian revolution.
The Twelver Ja’fari Shi’a
Shi’a Islam consists of several sects, with the most well-known being the Ismailis, Zaidis, and Twelvers. It can be said that for hundreds of years, neither the Ismailis nor the Zaidis, nor other Shi’a sects, have had any political activity. Currently, only the Twelver Shi’a are active in the political arena, and it is these groups that we will discuss regarding their perspective on the relationship between religion and politics, as well as the discrepancy between their vision and the reality they live.
The relationship between religion and politics among the Twelver or Ja’fari Shi’a requires a separate examination, but it can be stated briefly that Shi’a thought does not distinguish between religion and politics. Just as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a political ruler and a messenger from Allah, the world cannot function properly without a political ruler who is also religious. They believe that the Prophet explicitly designated Ali ibn Abi Talib in the event of Ghadir Khumm as his successor.
Following this, the jurists of the Twelver Shi’a established that leadership is reserved for twelve Imams, beginning with Ali and concluding with the Mahdi, who is a descendant of Ali and his wife Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet.
There are statements from Ali ibn Abi Talib that refute this perceived form of governance. Al-Tabari reported in “The History of the Messengers and Kings” that when Imam Ali was asked to become the caliph, he responded: “My allegiance must not be hidden and can only be with the consent of the Muslims,” implying that he considered the approval of the Muslims, making political leadership stem from it.
In one of the letters of Imam Ali found in “Nahj al-Balagha,” which is authoritative among Twelver Shi’a jurists, he clearly stated: “Consultation is for the Emigrants (Muhajirun) and the Ansar; if they agree on a man and name him an Imam, that will be pleasing to Allah.”
Despite all this, the jurists of the Twelver Shi’a insist that the guardianship referred to by the Prophet in the famous Ghadir Khumm saying, “Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader,” is a political guardianship and not merely one of support and brotherhood, as understood by the majority of Muslims. Even those who witnessed the event after the Prophet’s death did not claim—nor did Ali himself—that, based on this narration, Ali should assume leadership after the Prophet. If Ali had understood the caliphate in the way they envision, he would not have pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar. This is acknowledged by most of the authoritative Shi’a texts, regardless of how they interpret it. Furthermore, even if what they attribute to Ali were correct, it would contradict their position.
Moreover, if Ali had understood the Ghadir narration as a divine mandate for his leadership, he would not have said what he expressed in “Nahj al-Balagha.” He also would not have pledged allegiance, even if coerced, as many Shi’a scholars claim. If the companions who attended the event at Ghadir Khumm had understood the narration as indicating a political and religious authority among them, they would have contested Abu Bakr and Umar regarding it, at least to some extent.
Continuing with the history of the Twelver Shi’a and their narratives, we find that even this principle they established for themselves has not been consistently adhered to, as it suffered a significant blow after what is referred to as the Great Occultation—the occultation of their twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Hasan al-‘Askari (the Mahdi)—which has lasted for nearly 11 centuries. They have stumbled politically at every stage, producing new theories of governance in light of the occultation until they recently settled on a theory called “Guardianship of the Jurist,” where the jurist (religious scholar) serves as the political and religious ruler until the appearance of the twelfth Imam.
Currently, for most Twelver Shi’a, the “Supreme Leader” is Ali Khamenei in Iran. His followers in Arab countries have established states within states to implement his commands and authority, as seen in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Popular Mobilization Forces), Yemen (Houthis), and others.
Thus, in both cases, there is no separation or distinction among the Twelver Shi’a between religion and politics. On the contrary, the Imam is both the political and religious ruler; and not only that, but he is also divinely appointed and infallible.
All these previous religious currents undoubtedly give us a clear picture of how each current is influenced by religious texts and interprets them differently from other currents, sometimes in opposing ways. This, in turn, has shaped the laws and principles of political governance for each group or current, which was utilized by Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid to critique Islamic political thought, citing the fundamental differences among these currents despite their reliance on the same source.
Results and Recommendations:
Results:
- The interaction between religion and politics is multifaceted and clearly shows how each can influence the other in various ways, thereby affecting the social and cultural structure of societies.
- Historical examples have been identified that indicate religion has, at times, supported political regimes; while at other times, it has been exploited to achieve political interests, highlighting its dual nature.
- The impact of religion on politics does not manifest uniformly; instead, it varies depending on local religious and political currents, emphasizing how religion can adapt and respond to changing political challenges.
- Diverse influences of religion on laws and public policies have been observed, where it can contribute to shaping legal frameworks that reflect religious values in certain systems.
- It was found that religion can play a role in enhancing political stability and national unity when used to build bridges of understanding and reconciliation between different groups.
Recommendations:
- It is essential to distinguish between using religion as a tool to achieve political goals and employing it to promote ethical values and social justice, ensuring that religion does not become a means of exclusion or discrimination.
- There should be recognition that religion can serve as a catalyst for reform and social progress while being cautious not to use it as a tool for political domination or repression, which requires awareness and accountability from leaders and the community.
- Promoting dialogue and interaction between religious and political leaders will contribute to developing a shared and balanced understanding that respects spiritual needs without neglecting the material and political needs of communities.
- Establishing educational and cultural institutions aimed at promoting an understanding of religion in line with democratic values and human rights.
- Efforts should be made to develop research methodologies that objectively assess the impact of religion on political life and seek a more precise understanding of the role religion can play in enhancing good governance.
Conclusion
Islamic political movements, both political and non-political, which are considered the most prevalent in Arab societies—though this varies relatively from one country to another—have witnessed a growing role on one hand and an opening for political practice following the onset of the Arab Spring revolutions. However, the counter-revolutions reflected an international reluctance to allow their presence in Arab political life. Additionally, these movements vary in their political activities depending on their existence in different countries.
The Islamic political movements in our troubled East, with their diversity and complexity, have experienced significant transformations during and after the Arab Spring revolutions. Despite their apparent increasing role and active participation initially, the subsequent phase revealed international and regional reservations regarding their prominent presence in the political scene. The cases of Egypt and Tunisia provide tangible examples of this transformation, as their political responses to Islamic movements differed due to complex interactions among international pressures, local dynamics, and changes in political agendas. While these movements continue to seek to strengthen their positions and influence, the future remains filled with challenges and open possibilities for new developments shaped by the changing political reality.
References:
- Daw, Fadi. 2017. “Religion and Politics.” Tadauliya website. https://n9.cl/m58r4
- Assad, Talal. “Forms of Secularism: Religion, Modernity, and Politics.” Dar Jadawel for Publishing, Translation, and Distribution. Lebanon, Beirut, 2020.
- Source Number 1.
- Hashemi, Nader. “Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Towards a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies.” Arab Network for Research and Publishing. Beirut, 2017.
- Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad Al-Ghazali. “Revival of the Religious Sciences.” Religion and Kingship. 1096 – 1102 AD.
- Al-Qurashi, Youssef. “On the Theory of Authority in Islam.” Master’s Thesis. Ankara University. Dar Al-Nama, 2018.
- Norris, Pippa, and Inglehart, Ronald. “Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics in the World.” Arab Center for Studies. First Edition, 2018
- Jouiti, Olivier. “Religion, Secularism, and Democracy in the Middle East.” – An Analysis of the Interaction Between Religion, Secularism, and Democracy in the Middle East.
- Safi, Louay. “The Doctrine and Politics: General Theory of the Islamic State.” Dar Al-Fikr Al-Mu’asir. Damascus, 2001.
- Bishara, Azmi. “In Answering the Question: What is Salafism?” Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. Qatar, 2018.
- Hassan, Bashir bin Hassan. 2019. “Salafism and Politics.” Noon Post. https://n9.cl/yq5g1
- Media Office of Hizb Al-Tahrir. 2019. Fourth Edition. “Political Concepts of Hizb Al-Tahrir.”
- Mahmoud, Abdul Samir. 1989. “Explanation of the Twenty Principles.” Dar Ammar for Publishing and Distribution.
- Al-Afandi, Abdul Wahab, et al. “Islamic Movements and Their Impact on Political Stability.” Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, Abu Dhabi, 2002.
- Wadi, Sobhi. 2019. “Al Jazeera Center for Studies – Cooperation or Conflict: What is the Relationship Between Sufism and Political Islam in West Africa?”
- Al-Isnawi, Abu Al-Fadl. 2013. “The Arab Center for Studies.” The Dilemma of the Political Role of the Arab Sufi Current and How to Activate It After the Spring of Revolutions (3/3).
- Ramadan, Jaafar. 2019. “Al-Ataba Al-Hasaniyya Al-Muqaddasa Website.” Ali ibn Abi Talib in Ghadir Khumm, Prince of the Believers.
- Kadivar, Mohsen. 2023. “Official Website of Mohsen Kadivar.” Analysis of Shiite Political Thought.
- Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir. “History of the Prophets and Kings.” Edited by Muhammad Abu Al-Fadl Ibrahim. Cairo: Dar Al-Ma’arif. Second Edition.
- Al-Radhi, Sayyid Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan Al-Mousawi. “Nahj Al-Balagha.” Edited by Sobhi Saleh. (Cairo and Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Misriyyah and Dar Al-Kitab Al-Lubnani, 2004).
- Al-Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir Al-Isfahani. “Bihar Al-Anwar.” Edited by Muhammad Baqir Al-Bahbudi. Second Corrected Edition. Shiite Library, 1983.
- Source Number 18.
- Kadivar, Mohsen. “The Powers of the Guardian Jurist are the Same as the Special Powers of God, Blessed and Exalted” in “The Book of the Guardian Jurist: A Critique of the Theory of Governance in Shiite Political Thought.” Translated by Hasan Al-Sarraf. Doha: Arab International Relations Forum, 2021, pp. 193-216.
- Abu Zayd, Nasr Hamid. “Text, Authority, Truth: Islam and Politics.” Religious Thought Between the Will to Knowledge and the Truth. Arab Cultural Center, 1995.
Sources:
- Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.” – The book discusses how cultural and religious differences affect international relations.
- Casanova, José. “Public and Private in Modern Religion.” – The book explores the relationship between religion and the public sphere in modernity.
