A few months ago, Asaad al-Shaibani was a jihadist. Now, he is Syria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and a fierce champion of the free market. “We need the help of the international community to support us in this new experiment,” al-Shaibani told the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this February. After ousting the brutal 53-year Assad regime on December 8, 2024, al-Shaibani’s party, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized power. Now in command, the Islamist group—once linked to al-Qaeda and ISIS—has turned from insurgency to investment, placing an open economy at the top of their agenda.
Al-Shaibani’s shift toward the international community is not surprising. For decades, Islamist movements defined themselves by their opposition to Western imperialism—rejecting not only military and political intervention but also the economic systems that sustain Western dominance. Yet today, many of the Muslim world’s most prominent Islamist politicians are turning toward the free market, courting Western investment and accepting International Monetary Fund (IMF) backed reforms. Although this embrace of neoliberal economic policy may seem like a betrayal of Islamist core values, the shift is pragmatic. In a world where the free market has few challengers, even anti-capitalist movements must engage with the international economy to maintain relevance. Rather than abandoning their ideological foundations, Islamist movements are attempting to craft hybrid political models that reconcile Islamic principles with market-driven strategies.
Political Islam begins with the story of Muhammad. Born in Mecca in 570 CE, Muhammad was not only a prophet, but a merchant and a political leader—roles that distinguish him from history’s other religious founders. When he died in 632 CE, he left behind his religious teachings and the principles that governed his state, known today as Sharia law. Today, the concept of Islamic theological governance is referred to as Islamism, and the first Islamic state—the Rashidun Caliphate, founded by Muhammad—has been the blueprint for centuries of Islamist governments and movements. Implementations of Islamism—from the Ottomans to the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda—have been radically divergent, reflecting their disparate understandings of how to establish a government based on Muhammad’s example.
These varied interpretations of Islam lead groups to prioritize different values in their political agendas—ranging from positive concepts like social welfare, to but also to serious human rights violations, such as suppressing LGBTQ+ and women’s rights. Historically, major ideological principles that many of these groups derived from Islam were economic. The Quran condemns selfishness, materialism, and greed while emphasizing themes of equality, social justice, moderation, and mutual responsibility. Sharia law prohibits the charging of interest (riba) and the accumulation of wealth through exploitative practices like monopolies, and mandates that believers redistribute a portion of their wealth through zakat.
During Cold War-era decolonization, Islamist movements framed their political struggles as resistance to the West—theologically supported by interpreting Islamic economic systems as in direct opposition to Western capitalism. As Muhammad Qutb, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood scholar, put it, “Capitalism cannot prosper or grow without usury and monopoly both of which were prohibited by Islam aboutone thousand years before the existence of Capitalism.” Consequently, the century’s most powerful Islamist-inspired movements, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, governed with anti-Western economic principles: pursuing protectionist trade policies and nationalizing industries.
Yet, as economies across the world further intertwine and Cold War challenges to capitalism fade in influence, political Islam has had to adapt to a world where neoliberalism dominates. Take, for instance, Malaysia’s Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). Founded in 1951 with the goal of gradually establishing a Sharia-based Islamic state, PAS initially opposed Western influence and advocated for leftist economic policies. However, in recent years, the party has softened its stance. In 2020, PAS joined the ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) coalition, which has made supporting the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—a landmark Asia-Pacific free trade agreement that promotes regional economic cooperation, tariff reductions, and trade liberalization among member states—a key legislative priority. By aligning with the PN coalition—backing RCEP—PAS demonstrates its willingness to engage with the broader global economic order and free market practices. The story is similar across the Muslim world. The region’s most powerful and conservative Islamist parties, from Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to Jordan’s Islamic Action Front (IAF), are embracing what they once most detested—capitalism.
Of course, none of these parties’ transformations were as drastic as that of Syria’s HTS. President Ahmed al-Shaara has been traveling the globe, pitching Syria’s economy to foreign investors: “Syria has a huge opportunity for investment […] The KSA and Qatar are countries that love Syria very much, and they hurried to support the Syrian people […] We are discussing with them having big investment projects that build infrastructure, create jobs, and bring returns.” For now, Gulf states like Saudi Arabia have been the most willing iInvestors, but al-Shaara—who fought against the United States in Iraq just years ago—is clear that his ultimate goal is warming his nation to the West. “It is a top priority to lift the sanctions,” he said. “The United States of America does not have any interest in maintaining the suffering of the Syrian people.”
The practical reasons behind this shift are evident. Although HTS has been a political force in Syria since 2017, it has never held major roles in its government. The party inherits a nation ravaged by 13 years of civil war, which has plunged 90 percent of Syrians into poverty. Inflation has skyrocketed and thousands of homes have been destroyed. The realities of ruling a nation in crisis have prompted HTS to temper their Islamism in favor of stabilization. Promising to play by the West’s rules—including market-driven policies—means HTS can attract crucial foreign aid and investment, stabilizing their position on the world stage, which is integral to rebuilding Syria.
Yet, despite these pragmatic shifts, HTS asserts that it has not abandoned its vision of an Islamic-inspired government. Instead, the party has attempted to reconcile its beliefs with capitalism. Before it took control of Syria, HTS ruled over a small province, Idlib. By the time the Assad regime fell, HTS had transformed Idlib from one of the nation’s most desolate provinces into one of its most prosperous. This transformation was achieved through an economic regime of “Islamic capitalism.” Private enterprise and local businesses were encouraged, while taxes on production were rebranded as Zakat—facilitating a degree of economic freedom in the region while utilizing Islamic rhetoric. Now, as it governs the entire nation, HTS seeks to scale up its ‘Idlib model.’ The party’s prompt privatization of Syria’s many state-controlled businesses, slashing of the civil service, and its embrace of international trade—while still maintaining that they will govern with Islamic principles—indicates ‘Islamic Capitalism’ will be pivotal in its expansion strategy.
Whether HTS will be able to successfully replicate its marriage of Political Islam and capitalism on a national level—appeasing both their Islamist supporters and the international community while balancing their nation’s recovery—remains to be seen. But it is not alone in attempting to justify this approach. As Islamists across the globe embrace capitalism, they are not hiding their shift, but actively arguing that it is supported by Islam. Rachid Ghannouchi, leader of Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda movement, which ascended to power in 2013, summed up this position: “The economic system we outline encourages private entrepreneurship and initiative, and provides incentives for investment […] We do not believe in the inevitability of ideological polarisation or the so-called religious-secular clash.” Rhetoric similar to Ghannouchi’s echoes throughout the Muslim World. Politicians are not only adopting free market policies but also arguing that said policies reflect their core Islamic values.
A particular interpretation of scripture may support this contemporary argument. Muhammad, after all, was a merchant, and Muslims are encouraged to follow the Sunnah, or Muhammad’s example. As such, commerce and entrepreneurship are not only permissible, but Sunnah. Some Islamic scholars even argue that the concepts underlying Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” are reminiscent of Muhammad’s teachings: “Only God controls the prices.” Financial innovations, such as sukuk bonds—which, unlike traditional interest-based bonds, represent an ownership stake in an asset—give traditional capitalist instruments a Sharia-style makeover, allowing Islamic governments to participate in the global economy while claiming adherence to ideological principles. HSBC, Barclays, J.P. Morgan, and Citibank all now offer sukuk bonds as a part of their financial portfolios, and Islamist-dominated countries like Tunisia, Malaysia, and Pakistan heavily conduct business in them.
While Islam may not wholly oppose free-market principles, it is hard to harmonize Islamic economic values with the West’s specific version of capitalism—increasingly defined by exploitation and extreme inequality. Reshaped capitalistic practices can only be reconciled with purported goals of creating Islamically-sanctioned, economically just societies if they curb inequality. Islamist parties’ embrace of neoliberalism may currently be a pragmatic choice, but they also reveal the malleability with which these groups use religion to justify their political actions. If ‘Islamic Capitalism’ fails to create economically just societies, these groups will expose their religious claims as hollow.