The present study, by employing the modern term "Political Islam," seeks to demonstrate that the connection between Islam and politics is not a novel phenomenon and has existed throughout all periods of the pre-modern era. The central question, therefore, is: what was the nature of Political Islam in the pre-modern era and how did it evolve? Utilizing the methodology of "Historical Sociology" and comparing findings between Sunni and Shi'a Political Islam in the pre-modern age, this conclusion was reached:



Sunni Political Islam emphasized the necessity of a government, with its legitimacy based primarily on consensus (ijmā'), appointment (nass), and domination (ghalaba), aimed essentially at preserving the existing order. In contrast, Shi'a Political Islam, by emphasizing the theory of the divine appointment (nass) of the Imamate, confined legitimacy exclusively to the rule of the infallible Imams, and during the occultation (ghayba) period, to the jurists (fuqahā).



These foundational differences manifested in four distinct models of engagement with power: 1) Arbitrative-Assistive, 2) Interactive-Solidaristic, 3) Prohibitive-Threatening, and 4) Aggressive-Radical. These models, in turn, led to the formation of distinct political institutions and behaviors across different epochs. In Sunni Political Islam, the Caliphate and Sultanate were consolidated with a pragmatic approach, ensuring governance and stability. However, in Shi'a Political Islam, the absence of the infallible Imam gradually resulted in the central political-social role of the jurists.



Consequently, Sunni scholars (ulama) predominantly operated within the framework of ruling institutions, often adopting a pro-establishment (position) stance. In opposition, Shi'a scholars, by advancing the theory of the deputyship (niyābah) of the Imam, maintained a more distant and critical relationship with state power, frequently positioning themselves in opposition.