If you’ve ever scrolled through a history feed or sat in a political science lecture, you’ve likely encountered "The Question." You know the one: How did the Islamic world go from being the global leader in science, philosophy, and trade to facing the modern challenges of authoritarianism and underdevelopment?

 Some blame religion itself, claiming Islam is "incompatible" with progress. Others point exclusively to Western colonialism or the Mongol invasions. Prof. Ahmet T. Kuru thinks that's lazy thinking. And after reading his 2019 book Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment, it's hard to disagree with him. In his award-winning book, Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment, Ahmet T. Kuru offers a perspective that feels like a lightbulb moment for anyone trying to make sense of history.

The Myth of “Built-in” Decline

The most refreshing thing about Kuru’s work is how he dismantles the "essentialist" argument. He reminds us that for centuries (roughly the 8th to the 11th), the Muslim world wasn't just participating in global progress—it was driving it. In the early centuries of Islamic civilization, Muslim societies were genuinely dynamic. Scholars explored philosophy and science. Merchants ran thriving trade networks. Independent thinkers pushed intellectual boundaries. In many respects, the Muslim world was ahead of Europe. As Kuru points out, scholars weren't state employees, and merchants had the money and freedom to fund independent thought. So, when Kuru hears people say, "Islam causes stagnation," his response is essentially: then how do you explain the first few hundred years? So, what changed?

The Turning Point: The Ulema-State Alliance 

The core of Kuru's thesis centers on what he calls the "ulema–state alliance." Starting around the eleventh century, he argues, something important shifted in many Muslim societies. Political rulers began forging tight alliances with religious scholars — the ulema — and that relationship gradually reshaped who held power, whose ideas mattered, and what kinds of thinking were allowed to flourish. Over time, the rulers and the religious scholars (the ulema) realized they were stronger together. The state provided the ulema with funding and status; the ulema provided the state with religious legitimacy.

One of the most compelling threads in the book involves the merchant class. This might sound like an odd focus for a book about religion and politics, but Kuru makes a convincing case that independent merchants were crucial to the intellectual vitality of early Islamic civilization. They had money, they had networks, and they used both to support scholars and fund institutions outside of state control. When the merchant class lost its influence and the scholars became part of the government bureaucracy, the "intellectual oxygen" in the room began to thin. The focus shifted from innovation to preservation—from asking new questions to defending the status quo.

Prof. Ahmet T. Kuru's argument suggests that the "stagnation" we see in some modern societies isn't a religious problem—it's an institutional one. When a state swallows up the economy and dictates the limits of intellectual inquiry, progress dies. It doesn’t matter what the official religion or ideology is; the result is the same: authoritarianism and a "brain drain."

A Global Phenomenon

The world has clearly taken notice of Kuru’s thesis. Since its release in 2019, the book has become a bit of a global phenomenon. It’s been translated into over ten languages—from Arabic and Persian to Chinese and Frenchto Turkish and Indonesian, and more.  Most recently, the Khusro Foundation released Urdu and Hindi editions, bringing these vital conversations to millions of readers in South Asia.

The book hasn't just sold well; it’s earned the "Oscars" of the academic world, picking up the Robert L. Jervis and Paul W. Schroeder Prize and the Louis Marin Prize. It’s a rare feat for a book to be both a scholarly heavyweight and a readable guide for the curious public.

What makes this book genuinely useful — beyond the historical argument — is its insistence on challenging what Kuru calls "essentialist" explanation. History is messy. Institutions evolve. Political alliances shift. The same religious traditions can produce very different outcomes depending on the surrounding political and economic structures. By tracing that complexity across more than a thousand years, Kuru shows that Muslim societies weren’tfated to end up where many of them are today.