This research addresses one of the most prominent contemporary fundamental issues: the methodological dilemma facing those seeking to implement Islamic law in light of the multiplicity of schools of jurisprudence and the diversity of interpretations. This dilemma can be summarized in a fundamental question: “Which Sharia will we apply when the jurists disagree?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The research aims to deconstruct this dilemma by examining its historical and logical reality, moving beyond the saying “disagreement is a mercy” from theory to practice, and presenting “purposive ijtihad” (independent reasoning) as a scientific mechanism for managing differences and prioritizing rulings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The research concludes that the diversity of schools of thought does not represent an obstacle to the application of Sharia, but rather an asset that can be utilized through a “purposive Sharia policy” capable of selecting rulings that achieve the priorities of justice and the public interest within the context of the modern state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This approach aligns with the vision of the Syrian Future Movement in its political project based on “Shura-cracy,” where the essential objectives (religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property) constitute a framework for national dialogue and legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The differences among jurists and schools of thought have always been an inherent characteristic of Islamic thought, indeed a natural outcome of the broad scope of interpretation of texts. Researchers and specialists argue that points of agreement among the schools are the general rule, and points of disagreement are limited and subordinate to this rule; thus, disagreement is not a flaw in the realm of thought and interpretation [1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, this jurisprudential characteristic transforms into a methodological obstacle when it comes to building a modern state that seeks to implement Sharia. Objectors then ask: “Which Islam will you implement? The Islam of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i, Malik, or Ahmad ibn Hanbal?” [2]. Herein lies the need for a sound mechanism to manage this difference, neither through the forced unification of schools of thought nor by granting absolute freedom to those bound by them, but rather through utilizing the objectives-based framework that allows for a shift from the logic of “choice” (i.e., choosing any school of thought one wishes) to the logic of “preference” (i.e., choosing the ruling closest to the objectives of Islamic law in light of a specific reality). This is the logic adopted by the Syrian Future Movement in its approach to political and religious affairs, in accordance with its founding document, which establishes “consultation” and “objectives” as the horizon for collective ijtihad (independent reasoning).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before delving into the mechanisms of preference, it is essential to refute what is called the “objection of jurisprudential differences,” which is raised against those calling for the implementation of Sharia. This objection can be refuted from several angles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first angle: Difference is a general characteristic of all texts, and one cannot object to differences in the interpretation of religious texts methodologically, because differences in explaining and interpreting everything that humans deal with exist among all peoples. The mere existence of such differences does not invalidate or negate the concept; otherwise, people’s lives would not function properly [^3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even secular laws have different interpretations among courts, and this does not preclude the existence of an effective legal system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second angle: The principle “difference is a mercy” does not mean chaos. The schools of thought in creed, jurisprudence, and education are the scholarly efforts of Islamic scholars, intended to facilitate their application, and all aim to build the unity of the Muslim community and enrich its intellectual life [^4]. However, according to some, this flexibility does not mean legitimizing conflation or switching between schools of thought based on whims. Rather, it is a space for the qualified scholar, not for the lay follower.[5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third axis: The fundamental principle is adherence to the rules of scholarly preference. If Islamic law is truly beneficial for people in every time and place, then God Almighty must have endowed it with tools for dealing with human diversity. The most prominent of these tools is the science of “objective-based ijtihad” (independent reasoning based on the objectives of Islamic law).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Specialized researchers define “objective-based ijtihad” as: “An intellectual and scholarly effort aimed at discovering the objectives and aims of Islamic law derived from texts and rulings, such that it does not stop at the details but transcends them to a comprehensive vision that considers the public interest.”[6] This is an intellectual trend that originated with Imam Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi (d. 790 AH) in his book “Al-Muwafaqat” [7], and was later revived by Ibn Ashur (d. 1973 CE) in “Maqasid al-Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah” [8], and further developed by contemporary scholars such as Dr. Ahmed al-Raysouni and Dr. Taha Jaber al-Alwani.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This trend is no longer merely theoretical, but has become a practical tool for legislation and issuing legal opinions (fatwas).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maqasid-based ijtihad is based on three fundamental principles:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The first principle is the principle of reasoning, which involves linking legal rulings to their underlying reasons and objectives. This means searching for the wisdom behind the rulings, which makes Islamic jurisprudence more dynamic and relevant to people’s lives. Imam al-Shatibi established this principle in “Al-Muwafaqat” by stating: “Legal rulings are based on the interests of the people” [9].<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second principle: the principle of public interest (istislah), which involves interpreting religious texts in a way that achieves benefit and averts harm, without arbitrarily disregarding or nullifying the texts, but rather through a sound understanding of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This principle is based on the intent of Islamic law (al-shari’ah) to bring about benefits and avert harms, which is known among legal theorists as “unrestricted public interest” (al-maslahah al-mursalah) with its specific conditions [10].<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third principle: the principle of considering consequences (isti’bar al-ma’al), which involves anticipating the future outcomes of legal actions and decisions, and assessing their potential consequences before passing judgment on them. Its importance was highlighted by Imam al-Shatibi and Sheikh Ibn Ashur, and emphasized by contemporary scholars in matters of political jurisprudence and contemporary issues [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n What makes this approach particularly important in our current Syrian context is that the objectives of Islamic law (maqasid) have an impact on resolving apparent contradictions in hadiths, and on resolving conflicts when benefits and harms clash [12], making it the ideal tool for resolving major conflicts during a period of political transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maqasid-based ijtihad is not a philosophical theory, but rather a practical application that answers the question: How do we choose between multiple legal opinions on a single issue?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Specialized works have addressed this issue as a crucial one for the mujtahid (qualified jurist) [13].<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mechanisms of prioritizing based on objectives can be summarized as follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A. Prioritizing based on the levels of objectives: Since the objectives of Sharia are categorized into three levels\u2014necessities, needs, and refinements\u2014any legal ruling\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fulfilling a necessity takes precedence over fulfilling a need, and the essential takes precedence over the complementary when they conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is what al-Shatibi affirmed when he said: \u201cThe essential objectives\u2014which are the five fundamental principles (preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property)\u2014are indispensable for the well-being of both this world and the hereafter.\u201d [14]<\/p>\n\n\n\n B. Preference based on consequences: The opinion that leads to less harmful and more beneficial outcomes is preferred, even if the partial evidence appears stronger on the surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This approach allows political jurisprudence to be proactive, rather than merely reactive to events. [15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n C. Preference based on temporal and spatial context: A ruling that suits a particular time or place may not be the most suitable for another, without compromising the immutability of the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is expressed as \u201cthe change of rulings with the change of time and place,\u201d which is established in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. [16]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps the area most in need of activating the objectives-based approach to Islamic political theory today is that of “Islamic political theory,” which al-Mawardi and other jurists defined as managing public affairs according to the rules of Islamic law [17]. However, in light of modern studies, it can be said that the desired Islamic political theory today is “the jurisprudence of managing public interests in light of the objectives of Islamic law” [18].<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, it has become necessary to implement and activate the objectives-based system in this field, to reinterpret its texts in a pragmatic way that is based on understanding reality and its changes, and to regulate political interpretations and actions according to the rules and objectives of Islamic law [19].<\/p>\n\n\n\n The objectives-based approach to Islamic political theory is no longer merely a means for individual interpretation, but has become an institutional tool that redefines the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on this, it can be noted that most contemporary Muslim scholars and thinkers support the existence of a legislative body (parliament) through reviving the practice of consultation (shura), which developed through the institution of “those who have the authority to decide and make decisions” [20]. This support is based on the consideration of the general objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al-Sharia) in achieving justice and preventing injustice, and on the understanding that the separation of powers is the means to achieve balance and prevent tyranny. This reflects the flexibility of governmental rulings when applied according to a contemporary Maqasid-based vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In light of the above, an institutional model can be derived that aligns with the vision of the Syrian Future Movement\u2014based on “Shura-cracy,” which integrates Shura as a value-based reference and democracy as a procedural mechanism[21]\u2014and is applicable within the context of building the modern Syrian state:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A. In legislation: A “Maqasid-based consultative jurisprudential council” is established, comprising jurists from various schools of thought. Its task is to analyze proposed laws in light of the balance between the five essential objectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This does not imply that the council has guardianship over the elected legislative authority, but rather that the draft law is supported by a Maqasid-based report that clarifies which benefit it achieves and which harm it averts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This reflects the philosophy of “consultation” in making religious authority advisory, not authoritative.[22]<\/p>\n\n\n\n B. In the Judiciary: Judges are trained in the jurisprudence of objectives (maqasid) and the mechanisms of weighing evidence at a higher judicial academy, enabling them to consider the case holistically, rather than being limited to a narrow, partial view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This investment in the jurisprudence of objectives allows the judge to assess complex cases involving multiple intertwined interests, combining reasoning, justification, and application.[23]<\/p>\n\n\n\n C. In National Dialogue: Maqasid-based reasoning is adopted as a “comprehensive language of dialogue” among the various components, based on the five necessities that constitute a common denominator among all Syrians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is what the documents of the Syrian Future Movement call for: “a comprehensive national dialogue as a tool for consensus and transparency.”[24]<\/p>\n\n\n\n D. The Mechanism of Legislative Preference: While acknowledging the immutability of religious principles, the principle of prioritizing necessities (such as security and justice) over needs (such as certain luxuries) is applied, and the long-term consequences are considered in enacting laws.[25]<\/p>\n\n\n\n This research concludes that the multiplicity of schools of Islamic jurisprudence and interpretations is not an obstacle to the application of Sharia, but rather a richness that can be utilized through the methodology of “Maqasid-based ijtihad,” which is based on prioritizing necessities, consequences, and public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contemporary academic studies have demonstrated that Maqasid-based ijtihad is a more effective means of prioritizing rulings, both in their derivation and in their application to contemporary life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Syrian Future Movement recommends the following:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n First: Adopting Maqasid-based ijtihad as an official methodology in Sharia and legal committees, while observing the hierarchy of objectives (necessities, then needs, then refinements) in any prioritization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second: Establishing a specialized scholarly body comprising jurists from various Islamic schools of thought to formulate a comprehensive guide to the objectives of Islamic law (maqasid) for legislators, judges, and officials. This guide would serve as a reference in cases of conflicting priorities or competing interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third: Developing specialized training programs in the field of maqasid jurisprudence and the mechanisms for weighing different schools of thought, thereby elevating the value of collective, institutional ijtihad (independent reasoning) over fragmented, individual fatwas (legal opinions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fourth: Calling for the formation of a supreme national committee for the objectives of Islamic law in Syria. Its mandate would be to review draft laws, budgets, and governance policies in light of the objectives and priorities of Islamic law. Its decisions would be advisory and not binding on the legislative authority\u2014in accordance with the spirit of consultation (shura), which distinguishes between religious authority and political power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, building a new Syrian state capable of fulfilling the objectives of Islamic law in achieving dignity and justice is a collective responsibility. It begins with liberating our minds from the shackles of stagnation and culminates in embodying the spirit of these objectives in our institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And Allah is the One who guides to the straight path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A comprehensive study on the objectives-based approach and its impact on the preference of legal rulings in light of the multiplicity of legal opinions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":64904,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4667],"tags":[4716],"class_list":["post-64907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-religious-office-en","tag-studies"],"yoast_head":"\nFourth, the mechanisms of prioritizing based on objectives:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Fifth, the Objectives of Islamic Political Theory:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Sixth, a proposed model for embodying Maqasid-based ijtihad in the new Syria:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Seventh, Conclusion and Recommendations:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Footnotes:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n