Table of Contents
The Dangerous Myth of Separating Preaching from Statecraft
A few weeks ago, I attended a seminar discussing the general state of Islamic affairs. Eventually, the floor was given to a dignified, venerable Sheikh whom I did not personally know. However, the immense respect and reverence the audience showed him suggested that he had spent his entire life in preaching and serving Islam.
The man spoke with undeniable sincerity and devotion. He certainly did not lack knowledge of the sacred texts. What he lacked, however, was a deep understanding of reality, the nature of human societies, and the political dynamics of states and empires. The Sheikh uttered a sentence that pierced my heart like a poisoned arrow. He declared: “Political authority is not among the goals of Islamic preaching (Da’wah). Our sole objective is to convey the word of Allah to the people and spread His religion across the globe. As for political power, it is a liability, not a prize; an arduous burden, not an honor.”
It is terrifying, and a source of deep sorrow and bitterness, to realize that such myths and delusions still reside in the hearts of some preachers, scholars, and religious figures. If these individuals cannot grasp the necessity of power from their books, the Prophetic biography (Seerah), and the history of nations, they should at least understand it from the contemporary reality whose flames burn them every day.
Do they not observe their own circumstances? Do they not see how those who wield political power—even if they belong to a tiny minority with no popular backing—can rely on their ethnic or sectarian faction to subjugate millions? Armed with state power, they force the masses into submission, leaving the people utterly powerless to resist. In fact, the ruler goes even further: he wages war against the religion and creed of the millions. He will either defeat it completely, or hollow it out and distort its core.
Furthermore, using his political power and wealth, he can handpick scholars from among those very millions to legitimize his rule. They will bestow upon him the grand Islamic titles of leadership, guardianship, and the Imamate, turning the religion into a mere servant of his throne. Simultaneously, they brand his political opponents as terrorists and Kharijites (renegades), twisting the faith to mandate their suppression and slaughter.
The Prophetic Methodology and Political Authority in Islam
This was never the way of the Prophet (Peace be upon Him), nor was it His methodology! This is not how history has unfolded, how states were established, or how the days have passed. The undeniable truth is that every ideology, every preaching mission, and every movement fundamentally seeks political authority. This is not out of a greedy desire for wealth, prestige, or dominance, but because attaining political authority in Islam—or within any ideological framework—is the only realistic avenue to spread and establish that very message.
From the very moment the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) announced His message, He directed His call toward the elites, the leaders, and the rulers of his people. When the nobility of the Quraysh tribe rejected Him, He did not surrender; He traveled to the leadership of Ta’if. When they too refused, He systematically presented Himself to various Arab tribes—specifically targeting their nobles, chieftains, and decision-makers, rather than merely focusing on the weak and the commoners.
When the elites stubbornly resisted, the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) did not waste His time exclusively preaching to the disenfranchised and the enslaved. He knew that the masses are ultimately followers. They could never gather around Him in sufficient numbers to overpower the ruling class—contrary to the naive and absurd notion that has sprouted within the contemporary Islamic movement since the 1970s, a notion that was never the methodology of early modern reformers like Hassan al-Banna or Sayyid Qutb.
When the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) finally entered Medina, he entered as a sovereign ruler, not merely as a preacher. He dismantled the old political system—which had been desperately trying to rebuild itself after the devastating Battle of Bu’ath, nearly crowning AbduLLAH ibn Ubayy as king—and established Himself as the absolute political authority and legislative reference. Later, when Abu Bakr inherited the Islamic state, he dedicated all his efforts to ensuring that the sovereign authority was not diminished by a single fraction. He famously fought those who withheld even a small tether of a camel that they used to pay to the Messenger of ALLAH (Peace be upon Him)!
Umar ibn al-Khattab profoundly noted that what truly destroys the religion is “the rule of misguided imams.” Similarly, Uthman ibn Affan laid down a golden maxim:
“Indeed, ALLAH restrains through the sovereign power (Sultan) what HE does not restrain through the Quran.”
The Historical Alliance Between Ideology and State Power
This is how nations have always operated. Any ideology or school of thought that failed to establish a state faced one of three fates: it died and was buried, it survived in secrecy and extreme marginalization with zero societal impact, or it was cynically hijacked by the ruling power to legitimize its own throne and subjugate the masses.
Even the major sub-schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Madhahib) only spread through the backing of state authority. For instance, the Hanafi school only achieved its massive reach because Abu Yusuf served as the Chief Justice during the Abbasid reign of Harun al-Rashid. By appointing only Hanafi scholars as judges, the masses naturally gravitated toward learning the school, allowing it to dominate the entire Islamic East.
Similarly, the Maliki school only flourished in North Africa and Al-Andalus due to the direct backing of the Umayyad authority in Al-Andalus, a legacy that persists today. This is not merely my personal observation; it is the precise explanation provided by the great Andalusian scholar Imam Ibn Hazm when analyzing the historical spread of jurisprudential schools. To add to his profound insight, we must note that the Shafi’i school only dominated Egypt and the Levant under the political umbrellas of the Zangid and Ayyubid dynasties, who were Shafi’i-Ash’ari in their orientation. Likewise, the Hanbali school—and particularly the Salafi/Wahhabi methodology—only witnessed its massive modern revival and expansion following the establishment of the Saudi state, which officially adopted it.
The Global Reality of Ideological Dominance
This undeniable historical law applies to every movement, ideology, or preaching effort. The Twelver Shia sect would never have achieved its historical resurgence without the violent establishment of the Safavid Empire, nor its modern prominence without Khomeini’s state. On a global scale, Communism would never have reached the far corners of the earth had the massive state apparatus of the Soviet Union not propelled it. The exact same principle dictates the dominance of Capitalism and Liberalism, which are forcefully backed by the collective power of Western nations and the American empire.
Even the spread of vile, secular ideologies in deeply religious lands required the brutal force of the state. A tyrant like Gamal Abdel Nasser could never have aggressively spread socialism and secular nationalism in a country that fundamentally despised it, like Egypt, without wielding absolute state authority and the sword. The exact same reality applies to the oppressive nationalist regimes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Hafez al-Assad in Syria, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Ideologies simply do not conquer societies through mere debate; they require the vehicle of political power.
Modern Geopolitics and the Inevitability of Political Conflict
In fact, the very flourishing of the modern Islamic current from the 1970s up to this exact moment was primarily made possible by the margins created during clashes over political authority. Had Anwar Sadat not needed to resurrect the Islamists from the graveyard to counter the lingering state apparatus of Abdel Nasser, the Islamic revival in Egypt would never have occurred. If it were not for the bitter political conflict between Abdel Nasser and Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood would not have flourished and spread their ideas across Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. You can say the exact same about the Islamic movements in Jordan and Yemen!
This reality becomes glaringly obvious when you compare these instances with countries where the ruling authority had no political need to utilize the Islamic current, such as Saddam’s Iraq or Gaddafi’s Libya. In those nations, no new Islamic awakening or flourishing of the religious movement occurred. The reason is starkly simple: the overarching political authorities never required the Islamists, and thus gave them no space to breathe.
Furthermore, the global rise of the Jihadist current only occurred through these exact geopolitical loopholes in international power struggles. The Afghan war—as universally agreed upon by historians, including leading Jihadist strategists like Abu Musab al-Suri—was the powerful catalyst for the massive resurgence of Jihadist movements. This resurgence only materialized because the monumental clash between Capitalism and Communism created vast operational spaces for the Mujahideen, allowing them to mobilize through countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, often with generous state funding or, at the very least, state permission for citizens to donate to their brethren in Afghanistan.
A Final Awakening for Preachers and Reformers
However, once the geopolitical conflict was settled, all these states rapidly turned against the Jihadists, scattering and dismantling them. Abu Musab al-Suri poignantly likened the fate of the Jihadists after the Global War on Terror to the ancient ‘People of the Ditch’ (Ashab al-Ukhdud), who were brutally massacred for their faith.
The contemporary Arab Spring revolutions offer the most glaring proof of this dynamic. The masses yearn for freedom and religion, while the rulers desire absolute tyranny and wage war against the faith. The scales of this battle consistently tilt in favor of those holding political power. Were it not for the chaotic spaces created by the internal struggles for authority, the surviving revolutions would not have remained alive to this day. It is entirely by the grace of Allah that He creates these narrow vents and operational spaces for the people to strive for justice.
In conclusion, political authority is the ultimate destination of every ideology, and it is the necessary starting point for any real, structural change. If acquiring political authority in Islam was an inescapable necessity in ancient times when state power was limited, how can it be ignored today? Modern states now possess absolute dominance over the masses, monopolize mass media, and wield massive, heavily armed military forces. How can anyone rationally believe that Islam can spread and flourish without sovereign authority, or that preachers can magically avoid—or even survive—the inevitable struggle for political power?
Sources:
Mohamed Elhamy. الدعاة والأفكار وحتمية السلطة. Blog Post.
