Political Islam movements in the region have played a significant role over the past years, particularly in the aftermath of the “Arab Spring” uprisings. These movements believe in Islam as a political, social, legal, and economic system suitable for running the state and building its institutions rather than merely a religion.
These movements differ in vision and orientation. Some seek to establish a global Islamic Caliphate, others restrict their activities within a specific state, and some operate on a regional scale. Among the most prominent is the Muslim Brotherhood, active across several Arab countries including Syria and Egypt.
In an exclusive interview with +963, writer and political analyst Tariq Ajib addressed several questions regarding the possibility of the Syrian president charting a new course for the country away from political Islam, and the future of political Islamist movements in the region.
Below is the full interview:
Will the current Syrian government, with its Islamic background, seek reconciliation with Israel? And what would be the regional implications?
There have been statements from Syrian President Ahmad Al-Shar’a suggesting that he will distance himself or rather that he is not affiliated with political Islam, jihadism, or even the Arab Spring. This could be seen as a form of disengagement from the historical baggage of the new Syrian administration, or as a desire to open doors to the future without being bound by its political or Islamic background.
Generally speaking, political Islam finds it extremely difficult to accept reconciliation with Israel, as it is rooted in an ideological doctrine with rigid convictions, some of which are jihadist. However, there may be security agreements or truces that regulate the current clashes between Damascus and Tel Aviv in one way or another. Political groups within Islamist ruling systems may lean toward reconciliation with Israel, but as a doctrine, political Islam is far removed from such a notion.
If we stay with the Syrian issue, the situation in Syria is currently very confusing and unclear. There are still no clear signs of what the political system will look like, whether it will be based in political Islam, or it will be a civil or secular system.
Read also: Syria’s New Parliament: Debate Over Postponement and Representation Crisis
After the recent statements by the Syrian president, is Ahmad al-Sharaa drawing a new roadmap for the country away from political Islam?
President Ahmad al-Sharaa speaks pragmatically in his statements, but pragmatism alone cannot bring about change on the ground with regard to political paths or future visions. It is essential for these statements to be tied to tangible steps that promote stability, good regional relations, and serve Syria’s interests. Only then can a genuine roadmap be drawn for the country away from political Islam, which remains a cornerstone of the ruling power in Syria.
I believe President al-Sharaa will not be able to draw up a new map away from political Islam just yet. He must first secure concrete measures on the ground, a process that requires time. However, no matter how long this takes, al-Sharaa must begin with steps that translate these positive statements, on which many Syrians are counting. This will happen amid significant challenges, including the influence of Islamist factions and armed groups.
Thus, Al-Shar’a must demonstrate in practice that he intends to draw a new roadmap that guarantees Syria’s unity, safeguards its people, secures their livelihood and basic needs, enforces stability, and ensures civil peace while involving all parties in governance.
How do you view political Islam in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia over the past years?
Unfortunately, political Islam movements have proven through all the experiences that have taken place in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere that they are incapable of managing regimes or building states, but only of destroying them and disrupting life in them. The problem with political Islam throughout the world, and especially in our region, is that it has the ability to bring about change and gain a large share of political life and opinion-making, but when it comes to power, it becomes unable to continue because it has an exclusionary ideology and is incapable of participating with other components in the administration of the state and governance. Consequently, coups accelerate after clashes with other political currents that are not based on Islam or religion in their approach to governing the country. Therefore, I believe that the political Islam movements in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia have all fallen into this trap and failed at the same time to govern properly, as we have seen in those countries over the past few years.
What political transformations have the Shiite armed factions in Iraq undergone?
The experience of Shiite armed factions in Iraq is relatively new. Historically, Shiites were not involved in forming militias or systematically using arms within specific projects or international or domestic agendas. For this reason, these Shiite factions in Iraq began to grow stronger after the US occupation of Iraq, which necessitated the existence of factions known at the time as the resistance, especially since the United States was in serious conflict with Iran in Iraq. Tehran therefore supported, formed, and armed these factions by all means possible.
The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) created a new reality through their fight against ISIS over the past years. This marked a political transformation, as these groups—originally formed under the pretext of resisting the U.S. presence shifted toward accommodation with it, while Iran sought to dominate Iraq and control its government through these factions. The liberation of Mosul from ISIS was a decisive turning point, cementing the PMF’s growing power and influence.
Also read: The Syrian “Neo-Islam” and the Restrained Identity
“Neo-Islam”: how does the West want us to be?
The term “Neo-Islam” is meaningless. and those who promote it aim to steer Islam in a direction that serves Western interests and distances it from its essence, fundamentals, and beliefs, even though these do not conflict or differ with the will of the West when that will is to serve the peoples, the region, and its unity, security, and stability. However, when Western interests target the security of Islamic countries, their economies, and their wealth, and seek to control and control their resources and even their movement towards the future, making them hostages to the West, then in this case it wants a submissive Islam that accepts everything the West dictates in terms of rights, freedoms, humanity, and civilization.
There are indeed shared moral, social, human, and intellectual values between Islam and the West. However, the new models the West wants to impose on Islam are in direct contradiction with its essence. In short, “Neo-Islam” is a version of Islam stripped of its values, principles, and core.
Does political Islam have a future in the region?
Political Islam movements will continue in the region, but I believe that within a short period all states governed by political Islam will weaken. We have two models of political Islamic governance in the region: Iran and Turkey. The latter is considered a strong source, as it has its secular legacy, the legacy of previous governments, and institutions it inherited from past administrations. It is strong, capable, and able to bear this burden for a while, but after this period there will be change in Turkey, especially after Erdoğan. There will be political activity and movements such that political Islam, or Islamist rule, will be removed from power.
On the other hand, there is also the issue of political Islam ruling in Iran. I believe that although it may persist for a certain period, later the form of governance there will change, whether from within or from external influence. We are not necessarily speaking of a regime overthrow, but change will be imposed either through internal political activity, or through agreements with the outside that allow space for transformation.
At the same time, with the rise of free speech, genuine political life, and popular pressures, I believe that in the coming years political Islam will not have a distinctive political or governmental presence. Rather, it will exist as movements or parties with opinions and participation in governance, but these movements will no longer be the primary authority in the countries where they are present.
