The concept of political Islam
By: Zaher Baher
October 2025
In this article, I aim to clarify, explain, and explore the roots of the concept of ‘political Islam’. I will address several crucial questions, such as: What is the purpose behind the way leftists and communists present this concept? Is its use in this particular framework deliberate or accidental? And are those who use it fully aware of its meaning?
The terms ‘political Islam’ and Islamist extremism have become common among political writers and analysts in the Middle East. In the United Kingdom, the media and politicians also use these terms, especially in the aftermath of terrorist attacks.
As far as I know, the term was first used by the Arab economist Samir Amin, and later adopted by leftists and communists in the region.
In my opinion, the use of the concept of political Islam in writing and literature is not only incorrect but also a serious misrepresentation by both leftists and Islamists even by those who use it out of ignorance.
I believe the most accurate term to use is Islamic authoritarian or authoritarian Muslim instead of the commonly used one. I base this view on the following reasons:
First, the way this concept has been used both politically and linguistically is incorrect. Muslim people may view the problems they face in their social lives and societies as political issues, but that does not necessarily mean they are fanatical or authoritarian. In other words, ordinary Muslims can address and resolve their problems without becoming extremists or seeking to seize power or establish a state in the name of Islam. They may politicize their issues and struggles, but this does not mean they themselves are political in the sense of belonging to any fanatical or terrorist Islamic organization.
Second, extremist actions and reactions can be found in all areas of society. Violence exists in every part of social life. People do not need to hold political power to be violent or authoritarian. The authority they already have may allow them to abuse others or use violence against those under their care, guidance, or influence. Teachers, parents, managers, directors, clan leaders, family heads, police officers, and other leaders can all be violent and authoritarian. Just as political leaders and governments often display violent tendencies, many of these individuals do as well. The justification for being abusive or authoritarian is often the desire to control others a tactic used to dominate and achieve power. Therefore, anyone who adopts this mindset, including those labelled as “political Islam” or “political Muslims,” can be considered extremist.
If this were not the case, why would a head of a household become extremist or violent toward their own family members? Similarly, why would a schoolteacher act violently toward students, a priest toward his followers, or a mullah or imam in a religious school (madrasa) toward his students? The same question applies to office managers, company directors, or factory supervisors who behave harshly toward their employees and workers.
This authoritarian tendency can also be applied to the heads of government whether in democratic or dictatorial systems and to politicians in positions of power. All of them seek to control those who are obedient and under their authority, often by imposing their power upon them. When they realize they can no longer maintain control or enforce their authority, they tend to resort to violence and oppression. Therefore, we can conclude that it is authoritarian tendencies that ultimately lead to violence.
In short, the root cause of violence is a potential tendency that exists within political parties, which becomes apparent when they come to power. It is essentially the desire for, or demand of, power.
When a government is unable to control mass movements, protesters, or demonstrators, it becomes clear that they cannot manage the situation, often leading them to resort to violence and, in some cases, even murder to suppress and oppress people. The same applies to terrorist groups, regardless of their name: when they cannot control certain individuals or contain a group, they often turn to violence and assassination as a tactic.
Obviously, the tools of violence* and repression are used twice: first, to gain power, and then, once in power, violence is employed again to maintain authority and control. Here, politics functions as a tactic, while power itself is the strategy, the ultimate goal. All political parties and their leaders, from left to right, religious or secular, prioritize one thing above all else: acquiring and maintaining power, regardless of the claims they make.
Third, if we look back at the creation and spread of Islam from the time of Prophet Muhammad to the present Islamic political groups and parties, whether fighting internally or externally, have always been and continue to be driven by the pursuit of power, and nothing else. All the conflicts and battles during the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Rashidun Caliphs**, the Umayyad and Abbasid states***, the Safavid and Ottoman empires, as well as between Shiites and Sunnis, were ultimately struggles for power, not purely for God or religion. Religion, in these cases, served primarily as a tactic to achieve the ultimate goal: power.
All Muslims, whether ordinary people or those in positions of authority, agree that God has the power to do anything. So why would God need Islam and Muslims to spread the religion through the use of force or any kind of power? Why would God need to create a state to promote Islam and expand the Muslim nation (the Ummah of Muhammad) when he could do so in an instant if he wished? In reality, the history of Islam from its very beginning shows that many disputes and killing both past and present, internal and external have been driven by the pursuit of power.
I also believe that the media, politicians, and political parties deliberately misuse this concept to restrict its meaning among certain groups. They want to tell us that these people are terrorists simply because they have disputes with “us.” It is presented as a “culture clash,” a “conflict between two civilizations,” or attributed to a lack of education and improper upbringing.
The media, politicians, and political parties, whether in power or in opposition, deceive us by saying these things. They want us to believe that violent people are born violent that it is in their blood. In fact, what they say serves to justify themselves and their position. They create the impression that they are engaging in politics to improve our lives, protect us, and provide opportunities for survival and peaceful living. What they do not tell us, however, is the nature of the politics and policies they intend to implement, many of which are very different from the promises they make while in opposition.
If they tell us that extremist right-wing groups and Islamic terrorist groups are authoritarian and that this is the reason for all the violence, how would people respond to them? Of course, by saying this, they are implicitly admitting that the essence of power found in the state, government, and authority is inherently violent and capable of terror.
Meanwhile, political parties in the Middle East deliberately use this concept. They avoid using the term authoritarian Islam. Similarly, leftists and communists consciously use the term in a way that constitutes a serious betrayal or injustice to “political Islam” or political Muslims, labelling them as if the term applies only to them, while ignoring themselves and other parties that share similar tendencies.
What is clear regarding these leftist, communist, and other political parties in the UK whether in power or in opposition is that their use of this term serves to exclude themselves from other oppressive and extremist forces while presenting themselves as champions of freedom and human rights. Therefore, if these parties label others as Islamic or authoritarian Muslims, they should, by the same standard, be included themselves. After all, they advocate for democratic states, communist states, nation-states, civil states, and workers’ or proletarian states. They are no different from authoritarian Islamists who seek the power of a caliphate, because the common factor on both sides is a strong belief in ideology and a tendency toward authoritarianism and repression. Neither side is less extreme than the other.
* Undoubtedly, there are many tools and forms of violence and repression, ranging from speech to the creation of laws, all used to silence and oppress
** The Rashidun Caliphs, or “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” were the first four leaders of the Islamic community following the death of Prophet Muhammad: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Their 29-year reign (632–661 CE), known as the Rashidun Caliphate, is regarded by many Muslims as a model of ideal Islamic governance.
*** The Umayyad state, also known as the Umayyad Caliphate, was the second Islamic caliphate, ruling from 661 to 750 CE with its capital in Damascus. It was the first Islamic dynasty, established by Muʿawiya I following the death of the fourth caliph, Ali. The Umayyad state became one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Spain in the west to Central Asia in the east.
The Abbasid Caliphate was a vast Islamic empire that ruled from 750 to 1258 CE, with its capital in Baghdad. As the third Islamic caliphate, it overthrew the Umayyad dynasty and ushered in the Golden Age of Islam, a period marked by major achievements in science, culture, and philosophy. The Abbasids were a dynasty descended from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the uncle of the Prophet Muhammad.