Al-Hayya, Hamas and political Islam
there is a widespread belief that no equivalent to the term “political islam” exists in other countries. some argue that there is no such thing as “political christianity,” “political judaism,” “political buddhism,” or “political hinduism.”
according to this view, there are only political parties that have religious affiliations or religiously inspired names. as a result, the term “political islam” has become closely associated with islamic states and societies.
in western discourse, the term “political islam” is often used to describe islamist or fundamentalist groups that are considered extremist, radical, or armed. it is also commonly associated with salafist groups and their alleged tendency toward radicalism and violence.
however, critics of this approach argue that it ignores the political power historically exercised by other religions. for example, medieval churches in europe held significant political authority. their political control was gradually dismantled, particularly following the french revolution.
the passage also argues that some american presidents and religious figures have expressed beliefs that they were divinely appointed. it further claims that some jews in israel have sought to establish the state as jewish in identity and have engaged in conflicts involving religious and ethnic dimensions.
the author argues that these examples could also be described as forms of “political christianity” or “political judaism.”
the passage identifies the muslim brotherhood as one of the clearest examples of what it calls “political islam.” according to the author, the muslim brotherhood’s primary objective, in the countries where it has operated, including western countries, has been to gain political power.
the passage then discusses khalil al-hayya, the newly elected head of hamas’s political bureau. according to the author, al-hayya expressed gratitude to iran, the houthis, hezbollah, and several armed factions in iraq for their support and weapons provided to hamas.
the author points out that hamas emerged from the muslim brotherhood. the author also criticizes al-hayya for not acknowledging kuwait and the kuwaiti people for their long-standing support of the palestinian cause.
the author states that kuwait has supported the palestinian cause since the 1950s and that many kuwaitis have contributed financially to it. the passage also mentions qatar, saudi arabia, the uae, and other countries as having supported the palestinian cause.
the author questions how al-hayya could have overlooked kuwait’s support. the author believes that al-hayya was politically experienced enough that this omission could not have been accidental.
the passage argues that al-hayya deliberately ignored kuwait’s historical support for palestine. at the same time, the author criticizes iran, arguing that iran has directed missiles and drones toward infrastructure and civilian areas in the gulf.
the author also claims that iran has used allied armed groups in iraq to threaten kuwait with aggression.
finally, the author argues that hamas, because of its origins in the muslim brotherhood, has ambitions to gain political influence or power in arab countries, particularly the gulf states. the author describes this as part of what they consider an expansionist political agenda.
