This is not a question about why people are or become Muslims, because it is not a question about the religious attraction of Islam. Instead, it is about why Islam is politically attractive, and why a State would adopt Islam as a basis for public policy?

Part of the reason lies in a State's need for power. Might does not make Right, but it does create Ability, whether to do Right or Wrong. Without some level of Power, a state is impotent to do anything.

State power can flow from raw force, but it best flows from the presence of security, legitimacy, hegemony, revenue, and growth. With the presence of these factors, citizens are more likely to accept the existence and intrusion of the State. True power flows not from forcing people to do things, but by them doing things willingly.

The process of employing Islam for the purposes of state power is usually called "Islamism.

" Islamism is every bit as much a political as it is a religious movement, and it takes on a different form in each country where it occurs. Because of this, no one form of Islamism is any more purely "Islamic" than any other. Also, no form of Islamism is a historical inevitability.

Nasr explores in depth two particular developments of Islamism, one in Pakistan and one in Malaysia. Both are fascinating studies of how modern states can make varying uses of the exact same religion to achieve political goals. However, for the purposes of this review, I will focus on what he says about the case of Pakistan, because it has obvious implications for current world events.

In its earliest days, Pakistan suffered from serious ethnic divisions and conflicts, and as such, Islam became a vital means of achieving political and national unity. Among the people there was little sense of allegiance to the ruling secular powers, because those in charge were many of the same who were in charge during the colonial days.

However, whenever the state moved towards incorporating Islam, the people could feel more comfortable with it. Islam made the state legitimate, and as long as the people perceived it thus, the State has the power to accomplish its goals. With that, Islam became an "anchor" for both the State and society:

By Islamizing the public sphere, they brought Islam into the public arena and established a measure of control over its flow in society and politics. In this process, the state was interested in regulating Islamist politics, extending its control over Islamic institutions and Islamist movements. Islamists in turn wanted access to state resources and influence in public policy making.

Unfortunately, the more secular governments were unable to convince people that they were Islamic enough, resulting in strong Muslim dissident movements. More than one democratically elected government fell, the last one in 1979 when General Zia ul-Haq staged a coup and took over. He and the people who followed him decided to "ride the tiger" and make full use of Islam.

Ul-Haq was well suited to do this because he was personally a very pious individual, having earned the nickname "the religious scholar" from his military colleagues. One of his main goals was to employ Islam to establish order in Pakistani society:

Islamic norms and ideals were to provide the state with normative tools for exercising social control. ...Islamic values and laws were used to bring order to the productive sectors of society by guaranteeing sanctity of private property and restoring confidence among private investors, all of which had been undermined...

But Islam was not only used to gain greater control over society - just as importantly, it was used to gain control over Islamic dissidents. Previously, dissident organizations could establish themselves as distinct from the more secular state, making a claim for the people's allegiance based upon their Islamic identity.

But now, with the state making its own claims to Islamic identity, the dissidents lost their ability to claim to be a distinct alternative to the State. The State worked to keep things that way by gaining control over Muslim institutions. Of particular importance was State control over the seminaries: here, the State could influence how Islam was taught and the nature of Islam's relationship with the government.

Understanding how Islam relates to the State in Pakistan is crucial to understanding how Pakistan has been reacting in the current campaigns against Muslim terrorism. It is obvious that many people in Pakistan are opposed to the West attacking any Muslim nation, including Afghanistan.

If the government goes too far to support the West, it will lose its "Islamic" credentials, and the people will no longer support it. Without legitimacy, the government will either fall or have to resort to naked force and repression to maintain control. But so many years of Islamization have resulted in a military intelligence community and police forces dominated by very devout Muslims. It is unlikely that they would be willing to suppress widespread Islamic dissent throughout society.

So the government of Pakistan is in a very difficult position. The West will not tolerate it if Pakistan supports terrorism, or supports any government which facilitates terrorism. But the Pakistani people won't allow their government to go too far in supporting the West. The government is walking a tightrope, and it will be interesting to see if they can manage to avoid falling.