Islam and Politics
Lecture 1: 57 Shades of Islam
Before 9/11 nobody cared about Islamic Politics. Since 9/11, a lot of people have been trying to
understand the reason behind the attack. It’s the turning point of political Islam; it changed the way
in which people look at political Islam. There are three hypotheses created in the aftermath of 9/11.
1. Mingling between religion and politics is unique to Islam.
a. Zionism: the movement that’s religiously motivated and aims at bringing together
people with Jewish ethnicities in order to go back to their ‘promised land’
b. Crusades – role of Papacy: Papacy at that time had a dominant role in advocating for
the crusades
c. Hindu nationalist: Hinduism is used a lot in the political rhetoric in order to boost the
politics based on identity
d. Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka: Buddhist monks establishment have a lot of role
This hypothesis that there is a mingling between religion and politics is NOT really unique to
Islam… In parts of world history, we are able to see in any other religion, movements motivated or
inspired by the religion.
2. Islam is a monolith (=a large political structure regarded as indivisible)
3. Political Islam is a single unified movement, and it is inherently violent.
The Muslim World
The area is proportional to the number of population of Muslims living in that country.
- An interesting fact (that most people are not aware of) is that the majority of Muslims
actually do not live in the Middle East. One of the fuels to ‘this’ kind of understanding to
Islamic politics is the fact that people always think about Middle East when they talk about
the Muslim world. Consequently, because the Middle East is very unstable, the fear of
Political Islam becomes even more fierce.
- Indonesia is the country with the most Muslim population.
- The majority of Muslims live in Asia-Pacific.
- How Islam is practiced in different kinds of the world is different
o Pacific-Asia area is huge and so diverse this affects how the mingling between
religion and politics/development/society is particular to the situation.
,Asia-Pacific has never been under the ‘attack’ of conquests of Islam. Islam missionaries have never
set their foot in these areas. Ottoman Empire never captured Indonesia. They have never been under
a Muslim empire. Yet they are home to the majority of Muslims worldwide. How? => Muslim
merchants
There’s a huge part of Muslim world that converted themselves to Islam, not because they were
defeated by the dynasties or anything, but they converted through Muslim merchants. How? =>
message of equality (rhetoric used a lot) everyone is the same before God – the universal message
that human beings are equal was especially interesting to people in societies which use systems that
differentiate people like the caste system in India (where the majority of the people are already at
the bottom because the hierarchy is pyramid scheme). For this reason they were happy to convert
because in the eyes of God, they are seen equal.
Another explanation to why Islam was ‘popular’ and ‘successful’ in Asia-Pacific is for example, at that
time, majority of Indonesians had embraced Hinduism and Buddhism (which is imported from India
mostly). A tradition of Hinduism leads to bride burning, where if the husband dies, the wife has to be
burnt alive with him. Islam comes in and says that you don’t need to practice that and culturally this
provides relief.
Divisions in Theological Leadership
Sudden death of the Prophet in 632 AD, dispute over the leaderships succession
o the death was quite sudden; people were not ready to be left without a leader
o differences in opinion
no clergy (no central authority), but there are Ulama, “the learned individuals”
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali are all companions of the prophet. There’s a confusion among
communities about which one of them will be the new leader.
A group supported Ali (cousin of prophet and also, husband of prophet’s daughter). However this
group was not able to convince the majority and instead, Abu Bakr was chosen as the new leader. He
was older and father-in-law of the prophet. Abu Bakr ran for only 2 years and retired because of
sickness. The group that supports Ali tried once again to bring Ali to power but were unsuccessful.
After Umar was assassinated and the third caliph was chosen to be Uthman. Finally after Uthman, Ali
rose to power.
Basically this division in terms of historical/political leadership happened very early in Islam. Sunni
believes all four righty guided caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali) while Shia (the party of Ali),
supporters of Ali, believes that it has to be Ali, from the beginning, to play the leadership after
Muhammad. Despite the division, these groups are able to expand their territory. Kharijites, are very
small and they are the radical splinter of Shia. Kharijites used to be the supporters of Ali but ended
up assassinating him themselves because they disagreed with some policies of Al
,Kharijites are VERY small, however they are VERY important. Why? => The kind of ideology that they
established from the beginning is that if they have some type of interpretation of something, and the
other Muslim groups disagree, they are the enemies.
For Kharijites, it’s permissible to spill the blood of other Muslims if they do not agree with their
interpretations or the position they have. => exactly why they assassinated Ali
↳ This ideology was used by the extremist Islamists, who executed the attack in 9/11.
The seeds have already been there in Islam.
Division in the traditions of socio-religious interpretation
, Customary/Traditionalism: is the majority tradition at all time and places
o religious teaching is interpreted in the way that’s more relaxed in the sense that you
take the custom in place and blend it with Islam – it doesn’t radically change
anything
Revivalism: arose in the 18th century Saudi Arabia with Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab as
prototype
➤ Revivalist and Modernist-Liberal are responses to modernity (mass literacy and prints of
scriptures) combined with social decadency and Western colonization.
➤ The main point of difference between them: ijtihad
Ijtihad (ijtihad is an interpretive tool that applies legal reasoning based on sacred texts)
Rational adjudication/Islamic interpretation on divine sources: Qur’an and Sunna (tradition
of the prophet).
For the customary group, the person who has the right to the interpretation has to satisfy
the below requirements:
o Complete knowledge of Qur’an: when every verse was revealed, in what
circumstances, literal meaning of every word and its connotation
o Have memorized the entire Qur’an
o Mastery of science of Hadith(Sunna), command of at least 3000 major hadiths
o Very devout and pious
o Deep familiarity with all branches of Islamic jurisprudence
⮕ Revivalists and Modernists-Liberals demand the rights for ijtihad for all learned individuals, taking
away the monopoly of Ulama
Revivalists
They believe that there are too many traditions/customs that are not in line with the teaching of
Islam. They want to revive the original message of religion. For this reason revivalists and modernists
share the same messages; they call upon the return to Islamic traditions. They criticize the fact that
customary practice has been the defining practice of Islam in the world.
We have to return back to Qur’an and the Sunna.
All of the local customs are “unislamic”
Emphasize Arabic language
Illegitimacy of local political institutions = unislamic
Revivalists as sole qualified interpreters of Islam => customary interpretations are wrong
Prototype: Muhammad ibn Al Wahab, 18 th century Arabia
o criticizes a lot the tradition of Islam as it’s practiced in a lot of other countries
Wahhabism is a puritanical form of Sunni Islam and is practiced in. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
Modernists-Liberal – The point in which East and West meet
We need to return back to Qur’an and the Sunna. They agree with revivalists that ijtihad has to be
taken away from the Ulama. HOWEVER, they disagree on one thing. Revivalists want to take away
the monopoly from the Ulama, the learning individuals OF the customary tradition but they want to
replace Ulama with their people because to them, THEIR interpretation matters, theirs is the only
true one. Whereas Modernist-Liberals are more democratic in the sense that they believe that the
Lecture 1: 57 Shades of Islam
Before 9/11 nobody cared about Islamic Politics. Since 9/11, a lot of people have been trying to
understand the reason behind the attack. It’s the turning point of political Islam; it changed the way
in which people look at political Islam. There are three hypotheses created in the aftermath of 9/11.
1. Mingling between religion and politics is unique to Islam.
a. Zionism: the movement that’s religiously motivated and aims at bringing together
people with Jewish ethnicities in order to go back to their ‘promised land’
b. Crusades – role of Papacy: Papacy at that time had a dominant role in advocating for
the crusades
c. Hindu nationalist: Hinduism is used a lot in the political rhetoric in order to boost the
politics based on identity
d. Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka: Buddhist monks establishment have a lot of role
This hypothesis that there is a mingling between religion and politics is NOT really unique to
Islam… In parts of world history, we are able to see in any other religion, movements motivated or
inspired by the religion.
2. Islam is a monolith (=a large political structure regarded as indivisible)
3. Political Islam is a single unified movement, and it is inherently violent.
The Muslim World
The area is proportional to the number of population of Muslims living in that country.
- An interesting fact (that most people are not aware of) is that the majority of Muslims
actually do not live in the Middle East. One of the fuels to ‘this’ kind of understanding to
Islamic politics is the fact that people always think about Middle East when they talk about
the Muslim world. Consequently, because the Middle East is very unstable, the fear of
Political Islam becomes even more fierce.
- Indonesia is the country with the most Muslim population.
- The majority of Muslims live in Asia-Pacific.
- How Islam is practiced in different kinds of the world is different
o Pacific-Asia area is huge and so diverse this affects how the mingling between
religion and politics/development/society is particular to the situation.
,Asia-Pacific has never been under the ‘attack’ of conquests of Islam. Islam missionaries have never
set their foot in these areas. Ottoman Empire never captured Indonesia. They have never been under
a Muslim empire. Yet they are home to the majority of Muslims worldwide. How? => Muslim
merchants
There’s a huge part of Muslim world that converted themselves to Islam, not because they were
defeated by the dynasties or anything, but they converted through Muslim merchants. How? =>
message of equality (rhetoric used a lot) everyone is the same before God – the universal message
that human beings are equal was especially interesting to people in societies which use systems that
differentiate people like the caste system in India (where the majority of the people are already at
the bottom because the hierarchy is pyramid scheme). For this reason they were happy to convert
because in the eyes of God, they are seen equal.
Another explanation to why Islam was ‘popular’ and ‘successful’ in Asia-Pacific is for example, at that
time, majority of Indonesians had embraced Hinduism and Buddhism (which is imported from India
mostly). A tradition of Hinduism leads to bride burning, where if the husband dies, the wife has to be
burnt alive with him. Islam comes in and says that you don’t need to practice that and culturally this
provides relief.
Divisions in Theological Leadership
Sudden death of the Prophet in 632 AD, dispute over the leaderships succession
o the death was quite sudden; people were not ready to be left without a leader
o differences in opinion
no clergy (no central authority), but there are Ulama, “the learned individuals”
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali are all companions of the prophet. There’s a confusion among
communities about which one of them will be the new leader.
A group supported Ali (cousin of prophet and also, husband of prophet’s daughter). However this
group was not able to convince the majority and instead, Abu Bakr was chosen as the new leader. He
was older and father-in-law of the prophet. Abu Bakr ran for only 2 years and retired because of
sickness. The group that supports Ali tried once again to bring Ali to power but were unsuccessful.
After Umar was assassinated and the third caliph was chosen to be Uthman. Finally after Uthman, Ali
rose to power.
Basically this division in terms of historical/political leadership happened very early in Islam. Sunni
believes all four righty guided caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali) while Shia (the party of Ali),
supporters of Ali, believes that it has to be Ali, from the beginning, to play the leadership after
Muhammad. Despite the division, these groups are able to expand their territory. Kharijites, are very
small and they are the radical splinter of Shia. Kharijites used to be the supporters of Ali but ended
up assassinating him themselves because they disagreed with some policies of Al
,Kharijites are VERY small, however they are VERY important. Why? => The kind of ideology that they
established from the beginning is that if they have some type of interpretation of something, and the
other Muslim groups disagree, they are the enemies.
For Kharijites, it’s permissible to spill the blood of other Muslims if they do not agree with their
interpretations or the position they have. => exactly why they assassinated Ali
↳ This ideology was used by the extremist Islamists, who executed the attack in 9/11.
The seeds have already been there in Islam.
Division in the traditions of socio-religious interpretation
, Customary/Traditionalism: is the majority tradition at all time and places
o religious teaching is interpreted in the way that’s more relaxed in the sense that you
take the custom in place and blend it with Islam – it doesn’t radically change
anything
Revivalism: arose in the 18th century Saudi Arabia with Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab as
prototype
➤ Revivalist and Modernist-Liberal are responses to modernity (mass literacy and prints of
scriptures) combined with social decadency and Western colonization.
➤ The main point of difference between them: ijtihad
Ijtihad (ijtihad is an interpretive tool that applies legal reasoning based on sacred texts)
Rational adjudication/Islamic interpretation on divine sources: Qur’an and Sunna (tradition
of the prophet).
For the customary group, the person who has the right to the interpretation has to satisfy
the below requirements:
o Complete knowledge of Qur’an: when every verse was revealed, in what
circumstances, literal meaning of every word and its connotation
o Have memorized the entire Qur’an
o Mastery of science of Hadith(Sunna), command of at least 3000 major hadiths
o Very devout and pious
o Deep familiarity with all branches of Islamic jurisprudence
⮕ Revivalists and Modernists-Liberals demand the rights for ijtihad for all learned individuals, taking
away the monopoly of Ulama
Revivalists
They believe that there are too many traditions/customs that are not in line with the teaching of
Islam. They want to revive the original message of religion. For this reason revivalists and modernists
share the same messages; they call upon the return to Islamic traditions. They criticize the fact that
customary practice has been the defining practice of Islam in the world.
We have to return back to Qur’an and the Sunna.
All of the local customs are “unislamic”
Emphasize Arabic language
Illegitimacy of local political institutions = unislamic
Revivalists as sole qualified interpreters of Islam => customary interpretations are wrong
Prototype: Muhammad ibn Al Wahab, 18 th century Arabia
o criticizes a lot the tradition of Islam as it’s practiced in a lot of other countries
Wahhabism is a puritanical form of Sunni Islam and is practiced in. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
Modernists-Liberal – The point in which East and West meet
We need to return back to Qur’an and the Sunna. They agree with revivalists that ijtihad has to be
taken away from the Ulama. HOWEVER, they disagree on one thing. Revivalists want to take away
the monopoly from the Ulama, the learning individuals OF the customary tradition but they want to
replace Ulama with their people because to them, THEIR interpretation matters, theirs is the only
true one. Whereas Modernist-Liberals are more democratic in the sense that they believe that the
