Michael Arnold

On July 16, US President Joe Biden's wrapped up his highly anticipated trip to the Middle East that included stops in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Saudi Arabia where he attended a summit meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council along with Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq. Much of the coverage of the trip was focused on interpreting Biden's 'fist bump' with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, overlooking the more concrete developments to emerge out of the various meetings. Beyond that, the nature of the meetings pointed to a shift in US relations with its traditional regional partners, which is not wholly captured by the 'pivot to Asia' or end of 'Pax Americana' narratives. US domestic political dynamics will continue to complicate these endeavours, however, in an era of renewed great power competition, momentum towards maintaining an interest-based approach devoid of the ideologically-driven policies of the post-9/11 era will continue. This Policy Outlook explores the contours of American engagement in the region in light of this shift with a focus on the implications of Joe Biden's visit for the American strategic outlook in the Middle East. The opinions expressed in this policy outlook represent the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the TRT World Research Centre.

Over the past few years, Lebanon has seen a convergence of unprecedented political, humanitarian, financial, and socioeconomic crises. In October 2019, citizens rose up to demand accountability and push for reforms to end decades of impunity and corruption. On May 15, Lebanon heads to the polls for the first parliamentary elections since the crisis began. This Policy Outlook examines key themes and questions leading up to the polls as well and explores local and regional implications of potential results.

In the midst of a severe economic crisis, the protests that broke out in Lebanon on October 17th represent a potential monumental rupture in the country’s post-Civil War political and social order. Lebanon’s ruling class has been shaken and traditional political dynamics have been disrupted. Yet, in a state often characterised as weak, the political and social regime premised on sectarian and confessional divisions remains strong. Attempts to re-enforce sectarian divisions by traditional political parties are a clear demonstration of this dynamic. While the protest movement continues to press its demands for the removal of what they see as a corrupted political class, an independent cabinet and new a new electoral law, many challenges remain. Understanding both the dynamics of the protest movement and the lenses through which politics are viewed in the country represents an important piece of the puzzle in understanding where the country may be heading and determining long-term policy solutions to the country’s economic, political and social ills.

This paper examines the relationship between Sufism and the development of Sunni learning in the Mamluk period. It asks to what extent and in what capacity did 'Sufism', or more specifically those identified as Sufis, contribute to the development of the learned Institution in the Mamluk period and to what extent was the patronage of Sufism a reflection of a clearly defined Mamluk religious policy. In other words, why did the Mamluks patronize Sufis and what was their connection to the overall Mamluk patronage of Sunni Muslim learning? As the organizations that made up the Learned Institution were arguably the primary vehicle for the transmission, promotion and development of a increasingly distinctive Sunni identity, this paper will - by default - explore the relationship between Sufism and Sunni orthodoxy in this period. By examining the waqfīyyah for the khanqāh of Sultan Baybars al-Jashankir and the waqfīyyah for the khanqāh of Sultan Barquq the paper sheds light on possibilities as to why positions were reserved for Sufis in organizations directed primarily towards learning. Additionally, one cannot seek to understand Sufism and Sufis in the Mamluk period without addressing the paradigms in which they and their activities are commonly discussed. Therefore, this paper critically interrogates the popular/elite, sufi/ulema binary that is present in so much of the literature by employing Vincent Cornell’s concept of ‘juridical Sufism’ supported by the primary literature (waqfiyyah documents, historical chronicles and biographical dictionaries) of the period.

There has been a compelling case made recently by Muslim scholars, as well as scholars of Islam within the academy, that a re-invigorated study of philosophy and metaphysics has a significant role to play in establishing a more ethical society based on a reasoned faith. For these scholars, ethics is ultimately impoverished when metaphysics is ignored. The picture these scholars paint of the Islamic intellectual heritage, particularly in its Sunni variety, is often bleak and re-articulates the trope that the Islamic scholarly heritage took a decidedly anti-rational turn following Ghazali’s critique of philosophy. In this view, with few exceptions, following the alleged decline of philosophy in the Muslim world, Muslim scholars have not methodically approached ethical concerns. Part of the issue here revolves around a persistent ambiguity in the use of terminology. Ethics as a philosophical category of its own cannot be found in a single corresponding category in the Islamic intellectual heritage. For questions that pertain to philosophical notions of ethics, one is driven towards the literature produced by the vast Sufi tradition. Thus, while it may be applicable to analyze modern Muslim output in terms of ethics as being wanting, it is inaccurate to say that ethical considerations were neglected by the Sunni intellectual tradition.  At the same time, there is a danger of over reading the extent to which Sufism, as a distinct science among the Islamic sciences, can provide an all-encompassing and independent ethical framework within Islamic thought. This paper will examine the place of Sufism, or the science of tsawwuf, in light of a persistent ambiguity regarding the place of ‘ethics’ in Islam and how Sufism fits into an overarching ethical framework within the Sunni Islamic intellectual tradition.

McGill Institute of Islamic Studies Graduate Student Symposium, Montreal (2015): Reform Movements and Contemporary Thought Panel
Abstract: This research focuses on the conceptualization of ‘rights’ in the context of the ongoing discussions on both the academic, policy and media planes on the nature of the relationship between Islam and ‘human rights’. This discussion has been primarily legalistic in nature reflecting the prioritization of the legal in contemporary Islamic Studies and is dominated by two perspectives, which can be termed  ‘antagonistic’ and ‘harmonistic’. The former is generally associated with orientalist or neo-orientalist commentators, the latter with Muslim modernists and apologists. This paper takes the position that these dominant perspectives in the Islam-Human Rights discourse are based on an anachronistic tendency to artificially collapse the distance between past and present, and between modernity and tradition. Consequently, rights in Islam are examined on the basis of modern conceptualizations, which are largely philosophically foreign to the classical Islamic tradition. In light of the above, this paper critically examines the conception of ‘rights’ as conceived in the Western and Islamic tradition respectively and concludes that atomistic analyses of Islamic law in the context of discussions on human rights only serve to increase perspectival distortion between Muslims and non-Muslims.

McGill Institute of Islamic Studies Graduate Student Symposium, Montreal 2014: Contemporary Developments in Islamic Law Panel.
Abstract:
In light of the 2013 Pew Forum study on the political and social views of Muslims around the world, which indicated that not only do a majority of the world's Muslims support basing their respective national laws on the Shari'ah, but also expressed seemingly contradictory views regarding freedom of religion. A significant portion of those surveyed in the study, particularly in the MENA region and South Asia, indicated a high degree of support for capital punishment with regards to apostates, while simultaneously expressing support for freedom of religion. Additionally, classical Islamic legal formulations on apostasy appear to contradict widely recognized higher principles supporting freedom of belief. In light of both the classical legal treatment of apostasy as well as the results of the Pew Forum survey, this paper undertakes a critical re-examination of apostasy in light of Islamic law. Through a critical appraisal of the juridical treatment of apostasy as well as evidence cited in support of capital punishment, this study argues that classical legal rulings on apostasy are circumstantial and therefore do not qualify as immutable. This implies that these classical formulations do not necessarily apply to the contemporary circumstances of the majority of the world's Muslims. Additionally, an examination of scriptural evidence for freedom of religion in conjunction with an exploration of principles of Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) demonstrates further that capital punishment for apostasy cannot be upheld as an immutable ruling. Finally, methods and approaches to Islamic law that could facilitate a better understanding of Islamic law in light of contemporary socio-political circumstances are discussed.

Six months after popular protests erupted across the country, the pandemic is making a meal out of an already fragile situation. Six months ago, Lebanon witnessed a popular protest movement sweep across the country in response to a litany of long-term issues facing the country, most immediate of which was the country's growing economic crisis.

The recent declaration in Egypt warning against watching highly popular Turkish historical dramas like Resurrection: Ertugrul on the basis they represent an attempt to 'revive the Ottoman Empire' is the latest misfire in a series of salvos by Turkey's regional rivals to counter Turkish 'soft power'.

Syria has arguably become the key battleground where this competition continues to play out. It has become a theatre where regional rivalries – involving actors such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Iran – have become interwoven with international projects involving the US, Russia and China.

In September of last year, Turkey and Russia reached a tentative agreement to avoid a Russian-backed, regime-led offensive in Idlib, Syria’s last major bastion of rebellion. Since late April, that agreement has been threatened by renewed aggression from the Syrian regime backed by Russian air power. As of yet, all public indications by the interested parties indicate that the offensive is designed to achieve limited objectives. Although it remains to be seen if the agreement and limited objectives will hold, a complete ceasefire reportedly brokered by Russia and Turkey seems to confirm this assumption.

Since the devastating loss in the Six Day War of 1967 – which led to the occupation that has continued until today – Arab states have effectively done nothing to change the situation on the ground. In fact, 1967 arguably marks a turning point in modern Arab political history which witnessed a slow but certain shift away from what was, up until that point, the overriding political priority of the young Arab states: namely, the defeat of Israel.

This article begins with an important caveat: namely, that like all political works written in times of upheaval and change, this one also suffers from certain essential defects. Naturally, there are important and sensitive issues which ultimately require the fullest of treatments but can now only be dealt with on a tentative and circumspect basis, as they are still in the process of playing out....

Diversity and difference, both within and between societies, continually give rise to a series of important and potentially divisive questions, as societies embodying different civilizational outlooks and values and divergent epistemologies are increasingly voicing differences on issues ranging from political representation and social autonomy to gender and sexuality. Finding morally defensible and politically viable answers to these questions is arguably one of the great challenges of our time.