Crucial to facilitating the agency of the transnational Muslim Umma is our ability to accurately interpret geopolitical events. As political uncertainty and polarization rage across the world, however, understanding the real causes and triggers underlying specific events has become ever more difficult and contentious. The rise of disinformation online poses a major threat to public perception of political events, with numerous instances of its impact on everything from election results to vaccine uptake to belief in conspiracy theories.

Despite the rise of disinformation, or perhaps because of it, popular discourse in the West has witnessed an increase in political overconfidence in recent years. Amid a slew of self-proclaimed experts with platforms rivaling mainstream media, and information available at the click of a button, studies suggest that people in the US think they know more about politics than they actually do.¹ This overconfidence lends itself to the fostering of extreme beliefs and societal division.

Public opinion is shaped by more than just “fake news”; the way information is presented, or “framed,” is also highly influential. Framing involves presenting information through a particular perspective—the frame—that consciously highlights or undermines relevant aspects of that information. It is to present the facts of a case through a certain lens in order to foster particular interpretations of those facts over other possible interpretations. By thus doing, an audience’s awareness of particular dynamics is constructed to one end or another.

Frames are ubiquitous. At the most basic level, operating mostly unconsciously, they take the form of worldviews, ideologies, creeds, and social imaginaries² through which our understanding of the world is inevitably reflected. In a narrower register, they are consciously deployed for various social, cultural, and political ends. This latter active use of framing is critical for social movements that seek to create social change by explaining world events and struggles through a particular lens and setting the agenda for political action.

Propaganda is also an example of active framing; the frames at play in Western legacy media, for instance, have come under increased scrutiny since Israel’s assault on Gaza, with many highlighting the biases, and outright lies and misinformation, in reporting on the war intended to manufacture support for Israel. The difference between ethically grounded active framing and propaganda is that while both seek to influence public opinion, the latter, unlike the former, employs the intentional use of rumors, lies, half-truths and other forms of misinformation.

This piece focuses on active framing in the context of ummatic political analysis. To produce political analysis that serves the ambitions of a united Muslim civilization, it is essential to identify, develop, and apply ummatic frames to interpret news and evolving global dynamics that impact the Muslim Umma. This article makes the case for active ummatic framing of political events and proposes foundational frames for analysts and commentators to consider, which are open to further discussion and refinement.

 

Understanding Frames

“Politics is all about frames…once you’ve defined a frame, you’ve coloured or changed the meaning of everything that is contained in that frame.”³

Framing constitutes a social construction of meaning and is rooted in communicative interaction. First coined by sociologist Erving Goffman in 1974, “frames” were defined as the culturally determined definitions of reality that allow people to make sense of objects and events. The scholarly literature on frame analysis has since developed a deeper theorization of the concept. Kimberly Fisher argues that frames are semi-structured elements of discourse that are used to make sense of information.⁴ David Snow and others discuss how events and objects do not have intrinsic meaning, but are formed through interpretive processes.⁵ Snow uses the helpful analogy of picture frames that focus attention by defining what is “in frame” and “out of frame,” and also function as an articulation mechanism, tying various aspects of a discourse together.⁶

The relationship between framing and ideology has been much debated. Snow and Bedford resolve potential conflation between the two by distinguishing ideology as a “cultural resource” for framing activity.⁷ Consequently, framing amplifies events and experiences drawing from associated ideologies and dominant belief systems. Another way to conceptualize the difference, as suggested above, is to think of ideology or worldview as a mostly unconscious, inactive process that uses already-adopted frames, and framing as an active, conscious process that includes the innovation of new frames. There is of course a dialectical relationship here, such that one’s worldview directs the framing process and new frames, once adopted and matured, become part of one’s worldview.

How realities are framed is crucial to how human beings respond to them. This has been evidenced at the psychological level; behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 for his analysis, in work done with Amos Tversky, on how framing influences decision making. For instance, being presented with the benefits of a particular option was far more likely to motivate selection, as opposed to highlighting the risks. Concurrently, highlighting the losses of a choice can prompt an aversion twice as powerful psychologically as gains.⁸

The early history of Islam also provides evidence of framing, including in the conduct of the noble Prophet ﷺ. In the battle of Hunayn, the Prophet ﷺ rallied the fleeing troops with the declaration, “I am the Prophet, this is no lie! I am the son of Abdul Mutallib!”⁹ Choosing to frame himself not only as the prophet of Allah, but also the descendant of one of Makkah’s most prominent chieftains, was aimed at strengthening the hearts of those who had newly converted to Islam for whom tribal affiliations still held great sway.

The political role of framing in mass communication has been widely studied and is increasingly recognized by experts and laypeople alike. In today’s information-saturated world, people rely on news and media to simplify complex issues and guide their opinions.¹⁰ Even when not resorting to outright propaganda, news outlets often subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, frame geopolitical events to align with their country’s “national interest,” influencing public perception accordingly.

Framing is a crucial tool for social movements seeking to influence public opinion and drive social change. By strategically framing their message, activist groups can mobilize supporters, attract broader public backing, and counter opposition. This intentional framing not only motivates change but also serves as a corrective to misinformation and simplistic perspectives. Successful framing  in this context “mobilizes potential adherents and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists.”¹¹

Various contemporary social movements have demonstrated the intentional use of framing. Climate change activists have emphasized the urgency of environmental issues by highlighting the potential loss of biodiversity if swift action is not taken. LGBT rights groups have presented their cause as one of secular equality and the protection of gender minority groups, who they argue face disproportionate risks in society. Similarly, the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” campaigns in the abortion debate revolve around contrasting frames: one emphasizing the rights of the mother, the other the rights of the unborn child. In each of these cases, the goal is not simply to present arguments but to prioritize specific perspectives to guide and mobilize public opinion.

Research on effective framing for social mobilization has identified several stages and strategies that movements typically employ. Three key framing tasks that significantly influence a movement’s reach have been identified:¹²

• Diagnostic framing: identifying a problem and assigning responsibility.
• Prognostic framing: proposing solutions to a problem.
• Motivational framing: calling for mobilization and outlining a strategy for action.

 

Further, one crucial stage is frame alignment, where the frames held by individuals become consistent with those articulated by a social movement. Frame alignment requires that the frames presented are in line with a larger worldview and rank highly in terms of priority within a given belief system. Finally, the frame’s messaging must be clear and relevant to the audience. A framing that is not substantiated or not relatable to those whose opinions it is targeting will find little support for its actions or analysis.

 

Developing Ummatic Frames

Efforts to mainstream an ummatic approach to addressing contemporary challenges and understanding global events require that suitable ummatic frames are used to provide accurate, insightful, and reliable political analysis. Identifying and developing such frames is a dynamic exercise; the following articulation of five frames is an attempt to initiate this discourse and by no means a definitive or exhaustive list. For the purpose of political analysis, diagnostic and prognostic frames are the most applicable, setting the stage for motivational calls to action at a later stage.

 

Frame 1: The Umma is a transnational, and potentially powerful, agent

The concept of the Umma as a distinct and potentially influential entity is central to ummatic discourse. Regional analyses of the Muslim world often downplay the significance of the ummatic bond, emphasizing instead nationalistic, ethnic (pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism), or regional affiliations. However, ummatic analysis is founded on the belief that the Umma constitutes a unique analytical unit due to its transnational and transregional religious, civilizational, and geographical connections.

The scriptural foundations of the ummatic identity have been elucidated in Ovamir Anjum’s paper “What is Ummatics?”¹³ Muslims are a religious community, distinct from others by virtue of their beliefs and their commitment to uphold Allah’s justice on Earth. Particularly relevant to political analysis is the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ that states: “The believers, in their mutual kindness, compassion, and sympathy, are like a single body; when one part complains, the rest responds with wakefulness and fever.”¹⁴ This underscores the sense of awareness and concern that Muslims must have for their brethren in other parts of the world. The suffering of one part of the community mandates that others empathize and attempt to relieve that difficulty as best they can.

This sentiment, while rarely acted upon by the regimes in the Muslim world, is one that is strongly held in Muslim populations across the world.¹⁵ It is observed in the protests of solidarity with the people of Palestine, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are donated by communities around the world to those suffering from poverty, conflict, and natural disasters, and even the support for particular sporting individuals and teams—such as the extraordinary support received by the Moroccan football team in the Qatar World Cup of 2022. It also is clear in the longstanding desire for representative Muslim leadership that has been absent since the fall of the Ottoman caliphate.

Decolonization and independence movements across the Muslim world drew heavily on Islamic concepts and sentiments in the hope of resurrecting the spirit of Islamic governance; on attaining independence from France, Algerian revolutionaries rejoiced with the slogan, “Congratulations, O Muhammad ﷺ, Algeria has returned to you!” Similarly in Pakistan, the urdu couplet, “What does Pakistan mean? There is no God but Allah!” became a revolutionary slogan of activists in the independence movement to emphasize the Muslim nature of the state. It can only be assumed that if contemporary regimes respected this sentiment in the Muslim world, the implications of holding to this identity would materialize more overtly on the global stage today.

Thus, despite the current relative disempowerment of Muslims, ummatic sentiment is fundamental to Muslim identity and influences public perception of global events. The shared aspiration for a prosperous Umma motivates Muslims, and ummatic political analysts in particular, to interpret world events through an ummatic lens, revealing and reinforcing the potential of the Umma as a transnational agent, even though it presently lacks the agency of other global actors.

 

Frame 2: Disunity among Muslims is a primary cause of the Umma’s prevailing disempowered state, among other factors

The question as to why the Muslim Umma is disempowered has provoked heated debate and generated substantial scholarship. While this diagnostic frame does not seek to provide one authoritative answer to all the broad-based challenges faced by Muslims today, it does stress that disunity among the Umma and a lack of political leadership are key reasons for civilizational decline. The division and discord in the Umma’s ranks stands in direct contradiction to the Quranic instruction and warning:

“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you—when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided.”¹⁶

Numerous factors have contributed to the decline of the Umma and its state of disunity today. Muslims’ own failures must be acknowledged here; weak faith, a love of the dunyā, and a decreased commitment to creatively implement Islam in the radically changed conditions of modernity also played a role in the Umma’s decline. Algerian intellectual Malek Bennabi’s concept of “colonizability” helps explain this historical decline: internal deterioration results first in mental and then physical colonization. Bennabi identifies the source of colonizability as the loss of the Qur’an as the impulse and living force in the hearts of Muslims.¹⁷ This was not necessarily a reduction in the īmān of individual Muslims, but in their vision of the Qur’an as the living force that guides both private practice and social organization.

External factors have also significantly contributed to the decline of the Umma and its prevailing disunity. Colonialism’s enduring impact cannot be overlooked, as it exacerbated existing divisions and created new ones within the Muslim world, with far-reaching consequences for the political, economic, and legal systems of Muslim-majority nations. Extensive political analysis and scholarly research have explored the effects of authoritarianism and external interference in the Muslim world.¹⁸ The incomplete political and economic independence of Muslim states, and its wide-ranging consequences for civil society, present substantial challenges to ummatic cooperation and must be duly acknowledged.

Important for this frame is also what it excludes of purported reasons from the Umma’s decline. The persistent desire exhibited by Muslims worldwide to integrate Islam in their sociopolitical organization is not a source of stagnation, as secularist narratives are wont to suggest. The failure of the Muslim world to adequately secularize has been long lamented by orientalists, politicians, and academics alike as the reason for lower levels of development. Such claims have been severely contested for generalizing the diverse experience of the Muslim world, selectively ignoring material factors in favor of a hyper focus on religious doctrine and upholding the presumed superiority of secularism (and its alleged neutrality), one that is increasingly rejected.¹⁹ The ummatic political analyst must be able to see beyond these caricatures and identify the more nuanced reasons behind decline and disempowerment.

Further, while acknowledging the interconnectedness of spiritual and political dimensions within the Umma is important, attributing the Muslim world’s multifaceted crises solely to individual religious laxity is an oversimplification. This perspective, often encapsulated in the notion that “the Umma will not succeed until mosques are full at fajr,” falls short of comprehensive sociopolitical analysis. It tends to moralize rather than analyze, neglecting the interplay of social, cultural, and political forces. While ummatic political analysis must consider Muslims’ responsibility for their response to contemporary challenges, we must not, in the words of Bennabi, “confound the salvation of the individual soul with the evolution of societies,”²⁰ while nevertheless recognizing how they are inextricably linked, and the role of the Quran in guiding personal and social organization.

As an illustration of its use, this frame can be applied to the Zionist occupation of Palestine. The Zionist entity has thrived on Muslim disunity, perceiving movements like the Arab Spring and Morsi’s election in Egypt as threats to its dominance. Sykes-Picot’s legacy of fragmented states in the Levant (Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon) facilitated Palestine’s partition, as these weakened nations prioritized their own sovereignty. Today, Egypt’s authoritarian regime maintains the Rafah border closure even amidst genocide, while Jordan suppresses protests against the massacres in Gaza. Decades of Western intervention, amplified by the War on Terror, have entrenched US influence in the region, compelling regional regimes into complicity.

 

Frame 3: The nation-state is the principal marker of Muslim disunity and its divisive nature is an obstacle to ummatic empowerment

This frame builds upon the previous diagnostic analysis of Muslim disunity, focusing specifically on the impacts of the modern nation-state. While much political analysis recognizes the harm caused by colonialism and the artificial borders it imposed on much of the Global South, politicians and international bodies still prioritize the nation-state’s functionality. Consequently, they emphasize reinforcing national borders, state sovereignty, and nationalist sentiments as crucial for establishing and preserving state identity and architecture.

On the contrary, for the ummatic political analyst the nation state, while the current order of the day, has shown itself to be an abject failure in governing the Muslim-majority world.²¹ Most of these states lack genuine sovereignty and are, at best, semi-colonized, compelled to submit to the dominance of Western powers. International legal frameworks and institutions are often exploited to the detriment of less developed countries, while multinational corporations leverage the influence of powerful states to safeguard their interests and pursue unrestricted growth and exploitation. While states in the Global South have struggled with the construction of national identities and state legitimacy, “developed” countries are now also struggling with polarization and ethnonationalism in the face of rising immigration and globalization.

In addition to this, the nation-state, far from being a neutral technology, is inherently secularizing. Wael Hallaq has written at length on the structurally secular nature of the nation-state and its consequent inability to be used by Muslims hoping to Islamicize society through it.²² This does not mean that an ummatic approach to political organization would stand against all modern technologies of governance or the administrative capabilities of the state today.²³ However, some of its structures, technologies, and approaches contradict the Islamic ethos, culture, and approaches to governance.²⁴ Further, the nation-state demands loyalty at the expense of other identities, contradicting the base premise of Muslim unity as per the Islamic ʿaqīda.

This is most clearly highlighted in the growing anti-refugee sentiment across many parts of the Muslim world. Discrimination towards Syrian refugees, scapegoated for the worsening economy, has heightened in Türkiye in recent years.²⁵ In December 2023, hostility towards Rohingya refugees resulted in hundreds of Indonesian university students storming a temporary encampment of Rohingya demanding their deportation from Aceh.²⁶ Similarly, Pakistan announced its decision to deport hundreds of thousands of Afghan migrants in October 2023, some of whom had been living in the country for years, a move endorsed by more than 84% of the public according to some polls.²⁷ The shared religious bonds between all these groups have been subordinated to the “national identity” and “national interest” of each state, contradicting the obligation of Islamic solidarity. Consequently, ummatic political analysis must propose solutions to disunity and disempowerment by reference to frames other than those dependent upon the values that underpin the nation-state.

 

Frame 4: Ummatic political unity is the means of reclaiming Muslim agency

While prognostic frames are not necessary for political analysis, a baseline that coherently follows the diagnostic frames previously mentioned is helpful. If the disempowerment of the Umma is the problem, the solution lies in its empowerment through unity: “to seek in discourse and practice comprehensive unity and unification of the Umma through systematic mitigation of inequities and inequalities. This means solidarity not only on political but also spiritual, social, and economic levels.”²⁸ The unity of the Umma serves both pragmatic and transcendent purposes. The Muslim Umma has a covenant with Allah as elucidated in the Qur’an: “And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over humanity.”²⁹ Standing as witnesses and delivering the justice of Islam to the world requires leadership, strength, and organization, which in turn requires political unity.

Analysis that decries Islam as the source of the division or unjust governance cannot be considered ummatic. Rather, Islamic governance should be recognized as a time-tested strategy for managing deep differences, both those within the umbrella of the Islamic faith, and with people of other beliefs. Whilst overcoming nationalism, sectarianism, and persecution of minorities that undeniably exist in the Muslim world today will be an uphill battle, the idea that secularization is the only pathway to achieve these ends must be challenged by ummatic analysis. While it need not elaborate on the details of potential ummatic management or the political institutions that are needed, such analysis should underscore future Muslim agency and autonomy as a move towards accountable and forward-looking institutions.

Historical precedent also substantiates the argument for ummatic political unity as a catalyst for reclaiming Muslim agency. Muslim unity fostered periods of significant political influence and societal advancement. The early Islamic caliphate, characterized by a strong sense of community and shared purpose, facilitated remarkable territorial expansion, intellectual flourishing, and the establishment of just governance structures. Similarly, during the Ottoman caliphate’s zenith, a unified Muslim polity commanded respect on the global stage and played a pivotal role in shaping international relations. These historical examples serve as a potent reminder that Muslim unity is not merely a utopian ideal but a tangible and achievable goal with the potential to unlock the Umma’s latent power and usher in an era of renewed agency and influence.

 

Frame 5: Ummatic solidarity must extend to all Muslims and uphold the red lines of Prophetic political engagement

Political analysis is never purely empirical or analytical. It also seeks, fundamentally, to categorize different actors as good guys and bad guys, or to use Carl Schmitt’s rendition, friends and enemies.³⁰ Solidarity is derived from an underlying worldview, but is also driven by global geopolitical rivalries, pushing people to take a side over economic, ethnic, and ideological fault lines. Political analysis consequently reflects solidarity, be that ideological, religious, ethnic, or strategic.

This is evident in the case of support for Palestine. Some of the strongest advocates for Palestine originate from socialist or left-wing politics, who frame the cause as a fight against settler colonialism that withholds rights and resources from the indigenous people of the land. Russia and China also espouse pro-Palestinian rhetoric on the basis that Israel is an imperialist outpost of the United States. Yet, it is due to this anti-imperialist solidarity that many of these same advocates for a free Palestine will turn a blind eye to the abuses committed by parties that are non-Western, such as the crimes of the Assad regime against the Syrian people, and those of China against the Uyghur Muslims.

For Muslim political analysts, however, selectively choosing which causes to champion and which to ignore contradicts the principles of genuine ummatic solidarity, which is rooted in Islamic teachings and values. A red line of prophetic political engagement is the sanctity of a Muslim’s life. This is made clear in the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ which states that the blood of a Muslim is more sacred in the sight of Allah than the Ka’ba and its surroundings.³¹ On the Day of ʿArafa he similarly declared: “Allah has made sacred upon you the blood, wealth, and honor of each other, just as the sanctity of this day of yours in this land of yours in this month of yours.”³²

This does not translate to blindly taking the side of a Muslim. On the contrary, the Prophet’s ﷺ message was distinctive in elevating a commitment to truth and justice above family, tribal, ethnic, or even religious ties: “Help your brother, whether he is oppressor or oppressed.” People asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! We understand helping him when oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By preventing him from oppressing others.”³³

Consequently, prophetic political engagement cannot overlook oppression for some short-term gain. Yet this is something that has been witnessed repeatedly in recent years as a wave of interest in normalization agreements with Israel has swept across the Middle East. These developments cannot be viewed as anything other than a betrayal of the highest order, and one that has been largely rejected by the people of the region.

It is as a consequence of our division into nation-states today that the leaders of Muslim countries engage in pleasantries with governments that persecute their brothers and sisters in faith elsewhere. Ummatic analysis should instead contextualize and provide informed perspectives on the abuses that Muslims face in different parts of the world, while making a consistent stand for justice. It is the actualization of our mission as the Umma of the Prophet ﷺ that Muslims be a middle nation standing witness over humanity.

 

Conclusion

Ummatic political analysis, while not compromising on truth and accuracy, serves a broader purpose. It firstly aims to take back the narrative of the Muslim world from mainstream media that has demonized Muslims and Islam as backward and violent for decades. More than twenty years after 9/11, just when it seemed the War on Terror narratives had petered out, the genocide in Gaza has exposed once again the lengths media outlets and political commentators will go to uphold Islamophobic and dehumanizing portrayals of Muslims. Wresting influence away from these platforms is as much a moral obligation as it is a practical one, for how can analysis employing such blatantly partisan framings be trusted?

Ummatic political analysis must also provide reliable and insightful explanations of global politics, highlighting the significance of various stakeholders and events as per the interests of Muslims. In a world of growing misinformation, Muslim journalists and analysts must take up the challenge of systematically translating and interpreting international issues for their communities. The past two decades have seen significant growth of Muslims in these fields, but a focus on framing with the intention of creating broader civilizational change is much needed.

A political project that aims to realize a united Umma requires that Muslims are confident in their worldview. The Islamic ʿaqīda is central to all our communal endeavors, no less so when it comes to content that seeks to interpret the affairs of the Muslim Umma with the hopes of initiating positive change. Knowledge precedes empowerment; deriving solutions to our collective obstacles can consequently only be achieved once those problems are well understood, and on our own terms.

Suggested citation:

Aisha Hasan, “Towards Ummatic Frame for Political Analysis,” Ummatics, 02 Oct 2024, https://ummatics.org/geopolitics-and-international-relations/ummatic-frames/.

1. Ian G. Anson, “Epistemic Confidence Conditions the Effectiveness of Corrective Cues against Political Misperceptions,” Research and Politics 1, no. 8, (2022).
2. Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004)
3. Thomas Hartmann, Cracking the Code (San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2007), 128.
4. Kimberly Fisher, “Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe,” Sociological Research Online 2, no. 3 (1997).
5. David A. Snow, Rens Vliegenthart, and Pauline Ketelaars, “The Framing Perspective on Social Movements: Its Conceptual Roots and Architecture,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 2nd ed, eds. David Snow, Sarah Soule, Hanspieter Kriesi, and Holly McCammon (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2019), 392–410.
6. David Snow, “Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields,” in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 1st ed, eds. David Snow, Sarah Soule, Hanspieter Kriesi, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004): 380–412.
7. David Snow and Robert Benford, “Clarifying the Relationship Between Framing and Ideology,” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 5, no. 1, (2000).
8. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Prospect theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47, (1979): 263–291.
9. Bukhārī, #2874; Muslim, #1776.
10. Barry Tadlock, Ann Gordon, and Elizabeth Popp, “Framing the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage: Traditional Values Versus Equal Rights,” in The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, eds. Craig Rimmerman and Clyde Wilcox (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007): 193–214.
11. David Snow and Robert Benford, “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization,” International Society of Movement Research 1 (1988): 198.
12. David Snow, Burke Rochford, Steven Worden, and Robert Benford, “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation,” American Sociological Review 51, no. 4, (1986): 464–481.
13. Ovamir Anjum, “What is Ummatics?” Ummatics, March 9, 2023, https://ummatics.org/ummatics-foundations/what-is-ummatics/
14. Bukharī, #6011; Muslim, #2586.
15. Sadek Hamid, “Islam Beyond Borders: Building Ummatic Solidarity in the 21st Century,” Ummatics, Jan 25, 2023, https://ummatics.org/society-and-civilization/islam-beyond-borders-building-ummatic-solidarity-in-the-21st-century/.
16. Qurʾan, Āl-ʿImrān, 3: 103.
17. Malek Bennabi, Islam in History and Society, trans. Asma Rashid (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1999 [1954]).
18. See, for instance, Steven A. Cook, Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007); Marc Lynch, The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East (New York: Public Affairs, 2016); and Stephen J. King, The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2009).
19. Joseph Kaminski, “Secular Neutrality and the Failed Political Experiment in Tunisia,” Ummatics, Sep 12 2022,  https://ummatics.org/islamic-governance-models/secular-neutrality-and-the-failed-political-experiment-in-tunisia/.
20. Sarah Bellal, “Bogeymen and where to find them: Reading Bennabi,” The Qarawiyyin Project, October 3, 2020,  https://qarawiyyinproject.co/2020/10/03/bogeymen-and-where-to-find-them-reading-bennabi/.
21. Joseph Kaminski, “Irredeemable Failure: The Modern Nation-State as a Nullifier of Ummatic Unity,” Ummatics, December 14, 2022. https://ummatics.org/geopolitics-and-international-relations/irredeemable-failure-the-modern-nation-state-as-a-nullifier-of-ummatic-unity/.
22. Wael Hallaq, The Impossible State: Islam, Politics and Modernity’s Moral Predicament (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
23. Ovamir Anjum, “Why Ummatics: A Series of Contentions”, Ummatics, June 12 2024, https://ummatics.org/ummatics-foundations/why-ummatics-a-series-of-contentions/.
24. For a detailed articulation on this, see Jaan Islam, “Divergent Statecrafts: Between Islamic Governance and Modern Nation-State Power,” Ummatics, forthcoming.
25. Khalil Ashawi and Ali Kucukgocmen, “Syrians worry over Turkey opposition’s anti-immigrant stance,” Reuters, May 26, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/anger-fear-among-syrians-amid-turkish-oppositions-anti-immigrant-campaign-2023-05-26/.
26. “Indonesian students evict Rohingya from shelter demanding deportation,” Al Jazeera, Dec 27, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/27/indonesian-students-evict-rohingya-from-shelter-demanding-deportation.
27. “Pakistan: Government must stop ignoring global calls to halt unlawful deportation of Afghan refugees”, Amnesty International, April 4, 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/pakistan-government-must-halt-deportation-of-afghan-refugees/.
28. Ovamir Anjum, “What is Ummatics?” Ummatics, March 9, 2023, https://ummatics.org/ummatics-foundations/what-is-ummatics/.
29. Qurʾan, al-Baqara, 2: 143.
30. Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
31. Ibn Māja, #3932.
32. Bukhārī, #67.
33. Bukhārī, #2444.