The concept of multiple loyalties informs the thematic structure of this entry. It reviews the literature on Islamic political allegiance with the following loyalty objects in mind: loyalty to Tribes/Ethnic Groups, loyalty to Homeland/Nation, loyalty to Islam, loyalty to leadership/state, loyalty to the Ottomans, Muslim loyalties under colonial rule, loyalty to non-Muslims, and Muslim loyalties in the West. Throughout medieval Muslim political thought, loyalty, walā’, was understood as a commitment to one’s obligations toward friends, allies, patrons, clients, rulers, and groups as early as the 7th century. Loyalty could pertain to a variety of possible objects, including God, people, political and religious groups, and those higher, lower, or equal in the social hierarchy ^[1]. The idea is to demonstrate that, while religion is far from being the only component that defines attitudes of loyalty or disloyalty, loyalty as a moral foundation ^[2] and identity commitment ^[3] is interwoven and dependent on different elements. For Haidt, loyalty/disloyalty is a fundamental value to social ethics, expressed in various rituals of allegiance, social practices, political alliances, group memberships, and rivalries and conflicts within societies; loyalty/disloyalty is used, among other things, to adapt to challenges, resist pressures, respond to crises, undertake individual and collective actions, and repel attacks from rival groups. This moral foundation is, thus, essential to social structuring (family, clan, community, nation, etc.), political action (party, elections, coalitions, war, etc.), and identity formation (in-group vs out-group belonging ^[2] (pp. 154–157).

In Muslim contexts, the multiplicity of loyalties manifests itself, on the one hand, in the objects and forms of political loyalty. On the other, depending on the situation, linkages to other categories are formed in each object of loyalty. Some Muslims may view conflicts between numerous commitments, while others may not; it also depends on the hierarchy of loyalties, the importance of the values of individuals and communities, and the personal, political, and religious factors that shape these loyalties. Up until recently, Mottahedeh (1980) has been the most authoritative work on loyalty in medieval Islam. Mottahedeh focuses on the ways in which people form allegiances with the social classes and ruling elites of the Buyid dynasty (945–1055). He makes a distinction between two kinds of loyalty: acquired loyalties and loyalties of category. The acquired loyalties are typically formal and involve an allegiance sermon (bay’a) toward the ruler, which was considered sacrosanct in theory but was frequently violated. Loyalty expressed in treaties is similar to the allegiance of bay’a in status and outcomes. Another way to gain allegiances was by gifts and sponsoring of scribes and slaves. These acquired allegiances were reliant on the ruler or the patron and perished along with him. Loyalties of a category (or group) are the second sort. Individuals’ loyalty can be ascertained by their wealth, reputation, or lineage history, all of which are typically influenced by family. Social or professional group affiliations are another type of group loyalty ^[4]. The mapping of religious, political, and social affiliations functions in Muslim cultures in intricate ways and is more complex than previously believed, which may have been Mottahedeh’s greatest contribution.

Studies on political loyalty in Islam have centered on salafism. It is hoped that this study will contribute to a deeper understanding of a wider range of opinions on the topic in Muslim contexts both past and present. Furthermore, Muslim counterdiscourses have challenged the theologization of allegiance in the last 10 years, developing ideas of complementarity and multiplicity of loyalties in the process, all of which are important insights I set out to investigate here. Sufi order loyalty may also have political significance as well. As a result, it is highly relevant both historically and currently and has political implications. I will not discuss it, though, as it involves a mystic and religious component unique to the Sufi order or master, and it has to be investigated in light of the Sufi understanding of knowledge, lineage, and discipleship. In any case, separate and comprehensive research covering all of these issues is required.

I acknowledge the limits of this study and that the style is practical. I envisage it as an encyclopedic approach intended to survey the literature around specific areas of research. It became more challenging to maintain a smoother transition as the piece got longer and the surveyed list of works got larger. Due to a lack of space to engage with every work in full, I also refrained from critically analyzing some of the works. Another methodological limitation of the study is that, because I used a thematic approach, I did not differentiate between studies undertaken in the 20th century and those conducted in the last 24 years, or between research on medieval Islam and studies on current Islam.