Revisions in Islamic Political Jurisprudence: Towards Restoring the Nation's Authority and Confronting the Legitimacy of 'Al-Shawka'

The Tunisian researcher and writer Dr. Abdel Majid Al-Najjar continues to present a series of critical and in-depth readings on the structure of Islamic political jurisprudence, questioning the usefulness of adhering to historical interpretations that no longer meet the demands of contemporary reality. Through these revisions, Al-Najjar aims to restore the concept of 'the nation's authority' and its inherent right to choose its representatives, away from the concepts of dominance and coercion that prevailed in later eras.

The revisions primarily address the concept of 'Al-Shawka' (the thorn/military might), which was historically used to install rulers and impose a new political reality, disregarding the will of the people. The researcher believes that this mechanism, in many jurisprudential texts, transformed from an exceptional measure to avert strife into a legitimate rule that legitimizes the rule of the overcomer, thus undermining the nation's role in the political contract.

Al-Najjar points out that the legitimization of 'the rule of coercion' was not present in the early stages of political jurisprudence, such as in Al-Mawardi's writings, but rather emerged and became entrenched among later jurists like Imam Al-Nawawi. These jurists based their views on the necessity of preserving the unity of Muslims and their cohesion, even if the ruler had seized power with his soldiers without a pledge of allegiance or legitimate succession.

The series reviews the roots of this confiscation of the right to choose, referring to narrations from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal stating that the imamate is established by coercion and dominance and does not require a contract. Al-Najjar believes that these fatwas were circumstantial, dictated by the political challenges of that time, but over time, they transformed into a permanent legislation lacking strong support from religious texts or the practices of the Rightly Guided Caliphate.

Returning to the texts of revelation, the researcher emphasizes that the Holy Quran made 'Shura' (consultation) a binding principle in managing the nation's affairs, as stated in His saying, 'And their affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves.' This means that the appointment of a ruler, being one of the most important matters for Muslims, must be subject to the principle of popular participation and general consent, not to material or military coercion.

Al-Najjar also cites other verses that assigned the authority of execution and legislation to the nation as a whole, indicating that the ruler is merely an agent authorized by it to implement its will. There are no indications in these texts that grant 'Ahl al-Hall wal-Aqd' (people of binding and loosing) or those with military power an exclusive right to determine the nation's destiny apart from its free collective will.

In a reading of the Prophet's Sunnah, the Prophet's stance during the Hawazin delegation stands out, where he refused to make a decision without consulting the general populace through their 'leaders.' This prophetic behavior establishes the necessity of surveying the opinion of the popular base on crucial issues, which was followed by the Rightly Guided Caliphs in many situations before political practice later deviated.

The article discusses the issue of 'succession' (walayat al-ahd) which was prevalent in political jurisprudence, explaining that some contemporary jurists such as Muhammad Salim Al-Awa and Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf re-adapted it. They believe that Abu Bakr's covenant to Omar, or Omar's to the six, was not a binding contract in itself, but merely a 'nomination' presented to the nation to have its final say through a general pledge of allegiance.

Al-Najjar warns that continued recognition of 'military might' as a legitimate path to governance opens the door wide to tyranny and usurpation of power. Prioritizing the balance of power over the balance of right makes military conflict a means to attain the imamate, which historically led to great corruption and strife far exceeding what the jurists sought to avoid.

The researcher recalls the stance of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, who insisted that truth and popular consent are the basis of legitimacy. He believes that Imam Ali's insight aimed to block the path to future tyranny, even if adhering to this principle led to temporary harms, because the harm of permanent tyranny is far greater to the nation's entity.

In a related context, Al-Najjar criticizes the absence of independent chapters for public freedoms in inherited political jurisprudence, where most rulings tended to restrict freedom of thought and expression. He cites the stance of Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, who established the obligation to resist those with dissenting opinions with the sword, a trend that left a deep negative impact on the collective consciousness of Muslims to this day.

The article also calls for the necessity of renewing jurisprudence related to 'citizenship,' considering that traditional divisions between believers and dhimmis are no longer compatible with the reality of the modern state. It emphasizes the importance of developing rulings based on equality and justice among all members of society regardless of their ideological affiliations, so that citizenship becomes the basis of rights and duties.

Dr. Al-Najjar concludes his revisions by emphasizing that this renewal is not an intellectual luxury, but an urgent necessity to reform political life in Islamic societies. He believes that this revision is of particular importance for Muslim minorities in the West, who need a political jurisprudence that aligns with the values of participation and freedom prevalent in those societies.

Rebuilding the Islamic intellectual and political foundation on the principles of justice and popular participation is the essential gateway to any true renaissance. Without reviewing these traditional rulings that legitimize tyranny or restrict freedoms, the nation will remain unable to keep pace with global developments and build modern states that respect human dignity and inherent rights.

Legitimizing the mechanism of 'Al-Shawka' in the contract of imamate abolishes the nation's right to choose, and grants this right to the overcomer, which opens a door to tyranny that is difficult to close.