Has Mahmood Mamdani written about religion in his scholarship?

Executive summary — Quick answer, authoritative context. Mahmood Mamdani has written about religion, but he treats Islam primarily as a political and historical phenomenon rather than a theological system, focusing on how Western power, colonialism, and the Cold War shaped movements labeled “Islamist.” His best-known statement on this is the 2005 book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, which argues that distinctions between “good” and “bad” Muslims are political constructs and that terrorism and Islamist politics are rooted in modern political history rather than cultural or religious essence ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This framing recurs in later interviews and summaries of his work that stress Mamdani’s emphasis on political context over religious explanation ^[2].

1. Why scholars point to Good Muslim, Bad Muslim as decisive — the Cold War story that changes the frame. Mamdani’s central claim in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim is that the transformation of Islamist movements is best understood through the lens of state formation, decolonization, and Cold War geopolitics rather than religion as an immutable cultural essence. He tracks how Western policies and anti-communist strategies helped create and then delegitimize certain Islamist actors, producing binary public categories of “good” versus “bad” Muslims. Contemporary summaries and teaching guides continue to present this book as his core intervention on religion and politics; university catalogs and reviews identify the work as focused on political Islam and its historical roots ^{[1] [3]}. This situates Mamdani among scholars who treat religion as an object shaped by political structures, not as the explanatory variable.

2. What Mamdani writes — politics first, theology second (if at all). Across the available analyses, Mamdani consistently distinguishes cultural/religious identity from political identity, insisting that Islamist politics cannot be reduced to faith or culture ^[2]. His methodology reads as social-political analysis: archival history, policy critique, and attention to international relations. Commentaries and summaries emphasize that Mamdani critiques Western narratives that conflate Islam with terrorism and that he reframes questions about “fundamentalism” as problems of political power and historical contingency ^{[2] [4]}. This means readers looking for theological exegesis will find instead a rigorous critique of how religion is instrumentally invoked in political discourse.

3. Where he appears and where he does not — gaps and corroborations in secondary sources. Recent summaries and bookstore descriptions confirm Mamdani’s engagement with religion-as-politics, but some collections and anthologies that deal with religion and secularism do not include him, showing that his work is sometimes grouped outside literature framed explicitly as religious studies ^{[5] [3]}. This pattern underscores that Mamdani’s audience spans political science, history, and African studies, and that his interventions are cited when scholars want to stress historical-political causes of religious movements rather than theological debates. The absence from certain anthologies reflects disciplinary boundaries rather than a lack of engagement with religion.

4. Competing readings and potential agendas — what critics and supporters emphasize. Supporters treat Mamdani as offering an indispensable corrective to culturalist explanations of Islamist violence, highlighting Western policy responsibility and the contingency of political categories ^[2]. Critics who prefer theological or sociological explanations sometimes accuse political framings of underplaying internal religious dynamics; those critics are not represented in the supplied sources, but the pattern of Mamdani’s framing suggests a policy-critical agenda that centers state action and international politics ^{[2] [4]}. Readers should note that his emphases will align with audiences concerned about foreign policy accountability and decolonial historiography, and may clash with accounts prioritizing intra-religious doctrinal change.

5. Bottom line and where to read next — clear guidance for substantiation. The direct answer is yes: Mamdani has written about religion, principally as political Islam and the politics of labeling Muslims, and his signature text remains Good Muslim, Bad Muslim ^{[1] [3]}. For immediate substantiation, consult the 2005 book and recent university descriptions or interviews summarizing its argument; these sources consistently present Mamdani’s stance that religion must be read through political history ^{[1] [2]}. For broader context, follow later interviews and policy pieces that reiterate the Cold War and decolonization frame; readers seeking theological analysis should pair Mamdani with work from religious studies to capture internal doctrinal dynamics that Mamdani intentionally sidelines ^{[2] [5]}.