The jurisprudence of foundation: Preserving religion within the framework of preserving the homeland.

Introduction:

It is established in the science of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) and the objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al-Shari’ah) that “means take the same ruling as ends,” that rulings are contingent upon their underlying causes, and that the effort to apply rulings to changing realities is the very essence and driving force of Islamic jurisprudence. While the Islamic legal tradition has reached great heights in establishing rulings pertaining to individuals, families, and established societies, the greatest challenge facing the Islamic jurist and thinker today, especially in the Syrian context, is the effort to apply these objectives to a changing reality undergoing a delicate transitional phase, in which the hierarchy of benefits and harms shifts, and priorities become blurred.

This article will not reiterate the calls for “the jurisprudence of the current stage” or “the jurisprudence of priorities” championed by contemporary scholars. Rather, it is an attempt to establish a new approach, perhaps best termed “the jurisprudence of foundation.”

It is an effort to answer a central question: How do we cultivate a civilizational Islamic consciousness that recognizes that preserving the faith of Syrian Muslims at this juncture is contingent upon preserving the homeland? How do we shift the focus of Islamic jurisprudence from averting harm and repelling aggression to creating benefits and building civilization? And how do we utilize the tool of “considering consequences” to anticipate the future of our religious discourse and its impact on the national fabric ten years from now?

The first topic: Redefining Necessity in the Transitional Phase – Towards “Foundational Necessities”:

Scholars have long operated on the principle that “necessity permits the prohibited,” striving to apply it during times of war, famine, and strife. Imam al-Shatibi states in “Al-Muwafaqat”: “A legitimate necessity is one that, if disregarded, would cause people unbearable hardship and difficulty.” However, what we must be mindful of, as we stand at the heart of a historical transitional phase, is that the most pressing necessity today is the very reality that compels us to redefine “necessary,” “necessary,” and “embellishing.”

For example, let us consider a inflammatory religious discourse that incites against a specific social or sectarian group under the pretext of “defending the truth.” This discourse, if measured by the scale of benefit and harm, combines two evils: an immediate evil, which is inflaming passions and threatening civil peace, and a future evil, which is reinforcing the image of Islam as a religion of exclusion and conflict, and distorting the consciousness of an entire generation. This discourse, which may appear on the surface to be “defending the faith,” is in its essence a major transgression against the very purpose of Islam, because it undermines the fundamental principle upon which religion in Syria depends: a secure national community.

• Therefore, it is imperative to call for the establishment of the concept of “foundational necessities,” which differ from the necessities of temporary relief. These necessities are:

1. The necessity of building a national consensus that prevents total collapse and establishes a new social contract based on citizenship.
2. The necessity of establishing a culture of mutual recognition among all Syrian components and rejecting the discourse of exclusion and accusations of treason.
3. The necessity of keeping religious discourse neutral from political conflict, so that it protects the national fabric and does not fuel discord, and unites for the common good rather than dividing it.

The objectives-based jurisprudence guides us to the principle that “that without which an obligation cannot be fulfilled is itself obligatory.” If building a stable state is obligatory for the preservation of life, intellect, and religion, then all means leading to it with wisdom and reason are at the very heart of the religious obligation, not concessions or compromises imposed by temporary necessity. Herein lies the qualitative shift from the “jurisprudence of necessity,” which awaits the removal of the emergency, to the “jurisprudence of foundation,” which builds upon this emergency a permanent project for advancement.

The second topic: From the jurisprudence of “preserving religion” to the jurisprudence of “preserving humanity and the homeland”—establishing a supreme principle:

One of the major objectives-based principles is that the five general objectives (preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property) are the foundation and focus of legislation. However, anyone observing our current Syrian situation will realize that these objectives are not isolated islands, but rather are organically intertwined and interdependent, to the point that some may even be prerequisites for the existence of others.

One of the most dangerous challenges we face today is the “fragmented understanding” of these objectives. Some understand “preserving religion” in isolation from “preserving life” and “preserving society,” thus falling into a fatal contradiction. They defend outward displays of piety and its rituals while their rhetoric leads to the loss of life and the tearing apart of the very society that is the vessel and cradle of religion. This fragmented understanding is what underlies many of the fatwas and inflammatory speeches we hear.

Consider, for example, a religious discourse that forbids dealing with the institutions of the transitional state on the grounds of their “religious illegitimacy,” or calls for boycotting them. This discourse views “preserving religion” from the perspective of pure, abstract doctrine, but it overlooks the fact that the consequence of such a boycott is the collapse of state institutions, the loss of services, and the spread of chaos, inevitably leading to the loss of life, the violation of sanctities, and the displacement of populations. What kind of “religion” is this that is preserved on the ruins of humanity and the homeland?!

The Islamic civilizational vision of objectives clearly states: in the transitional phase, “preserving the homeland” becomes the supreme principle under which all other principles fall. The homeland here is not merely land and geography, but rather the unifying framework within which servitude to God and the development of the earth can be achieved. Imam Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur indicated in his “Objectives of Islamic Law” that the “nation” and the “community” are among the objectives of Islamic law, because through them, the affairs of religion and worldly life are organized. What we are saying is an extension of this principle: no homeland equals no security for the individual, no stability of the mind, no preservation of wealth, and no complete establishment of religion in its civilizational form. Working to preserve the homeland and protect it from fragmentation is among the highest forms of civilizational struggle today.

Third Topic: The Principle of “Consequences” and Foresight:

One of the most brilliant and essential tools of purposive reasoning in our time is “considering consequences.” Al-Shatibi established this principle, saying: “Considering the consequences of actions is a legitimate objective, whether the actions are in accordance with or contrary to Islamic law.” This means that judging an action or statement is not based solely on the intention of the doer or its apparent meaning, but rather on its ultimate results.

And here lies the crux of the matter: much of the impassioned religious rhetoric we hear today may appear on the surface to be “defending the truth” or “protecting the faith,” but in the fragile Syrian context, its ultimate aim is to fuel hatred, deepen divisions, and provide pretexts for internal and external enemies to strike.

The country’s stability and the tearing apart of its social fabric.

The future vision that should govern our religious and media discourse today rests on a specific question we must keep in mind before uttering any word or issuing any fatwa: “What will be the impact of this discourse on the minds of our children and on the fabric of society in five or ten years?”

The pursuit of the objectives of Islamic law (maqasid al-shari’ah) is not meant to derive rulings for the present moment, but rather to offer a future-oriented reading of the destiny toward which our words and actions are leading us.

Therefore, the jurisprudence of foundational principles means that we sow today what we will reap tomorrow. For:

• If we sow a discourse of tolerance, citizenship, and recognition of the other, we will reap stability, harmony, and a fertile ground for building a modern civil state.
• But if we sow a discourse of excommunication, betrayal, and incitement, we will reap a distorted generation carrying the seeds of a future civil war, destroying with its own hands what it believes it is defending, and rendering the sacrifices of the free, revolutionary people who ended the era of tyranny futile!

Section Four: Practical Recommendations for a Purpose-Based Religious Discourse in Syria:

Based on this vision, we present the following priorities for our religious discourse during the transitional phase:

1. Establishing and prioritizing the “jurisprudence of development” over the “jurisprudence of conflict”:
   The task of religious institutions today is to shift from the rhetoric of sedition and conflict to a discourse that instills hope and encourages building, work, and material and spiritual reconstruction. “Developing the land” is the primary task of humankind, the steward of the earth, as God Almighty says: “He is the One Who produced you from the earth and settled you therein” (Hud: 61). Let our discourse reflect this stewardship of development.
2. Establishing a “jurisprudence of citizenship” within the purposive framework:
   Emphasizing that the objectives of Islamic law—justice, freedom, equality, and dignity—are the solid foundation upon which all Syrians can unite to build a new social contract. These values ​​will not be imported from outside the Islamic system; rather, they are the very essence and spirit of the religion. This is what can serve as common ground for everyone in the new Syria.
3. Reviving the “Jurisprudence of Coalition” and Postponing the “Jurisprudence of Disagreement”:
   In the formative stage, seeking common ground and points of consensus takes precedence over reviewing the numerous and readily available jurisprudential and intellectual differences. We must learn to say “yes” to national common ground and postpone contentious issues until the ship is firmly established. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) always sought in his comprehensive discourse what would unite hearts and avoid what would divide ranks.
4. Striving to apply the “Jurisprudence of Public Interest” to find the appropriate form of governance: Islamic law did not specify the form of the state or the system of government in detail, but rather left that to the public interest, which varies according to time and place. Today, we have a duty to strive to find a form of governance that achieves the highest interest for Syria, guarantees the dignity and equality of its citizens, and ensures the just distribution of resources and power. This does not necessarily have to be a carbon copy of previous historical experiences. Here, the study “From Ideology to Urban Development After the Transitional Phase,” published on the Syrian Future Movement website, serves as a guiding intellectual framework for this endeavor.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the “jurisprudence of foundation” we advocate is one that views the future with hope, not fear. It is a jurisprudence that understands that preserving the faith is not achieved through isolation, but rather through openness to all people, extending goodness, calling with wisdom, and participating in building a homeland that accommodates everyone.

The Syrian Future Movement, adopting the vision of “civilizational Islam,” believes that the task of religious scholars and intellectuals at this historical juncture is not to issue fatwas that merely soothe fleeting pains. Their task is to participate in establishing a new consciousness capable of transforming adversity into opportunity, destruction into construction, and division into unity. This is the greater struggle today: the struggle to build both the individual and the nation, with the ultimate goal of preserving the faith.

References:

• Syrian Future Movement, From Ideology to Urban Development After the Transitional Phase, May 1, 2026.
• Al-Shatibi, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Musa. (n.d.). Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’ah. Edited by Abdullah Daraz. Cairo: Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah. Ibn Ashur, Muhammad al-Tahir. (2004).
• Maqasid al-Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah. Edited by Muhammad al-Habib ibn al-Khuja. Qatar: Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs.
• Al-Raysuni, Ahmad. (1992). Nazariyyat al-Maqasid ‘ind al-Imam al-Shatibi (2nd ed.). Riyadh: Al-Dar al-‘Alamiyyah lil-Kitab al-Islami. Al-Wakili, Muhammad. (1997).
• Fiqh al-Awlawiyyat: Dirasah fi al-Dawabit. Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.
• Abd al-Rahman, Taha. (2012). Ruh al-Din: Min Nida’ al-‘Ilmaniyyah ila Sa’at al-Imtianiyyah (1st ed.). Casablanca/Beirut: Arab Cultural Center.