RECALLING THE RULINGS OF AL-ḤĀKIM ALMUTAGHALLIB: SHOULD THE CONTEXT BE IMPORTED?

Abstract

In the aftermath of recent major events in the Muslim world, the Sunni Muslim jurists, hereafter referred to as the “ʿulamā’,” turn to the classic Muslim tradition in search of answers to questions arising from these events. After the Arab Spring and the 2013 military coup in Egypt and the ensuing revolt of the youth, influential ʿulamā’ deferred to authoritative rulings which declare that the “Ḥākim al-Mutaghallib” (the Usurper Leader) is to be obeyed. However, those ʿulamā’ ignore the difference between the early context in which these rulings emerged and developed and the context in which the modern state employs them today. The ‘ulamā’ treat these rulings as regularized, binding decrees that must be followed by all Muslims – neglecting the fact that they have always been uncertain, controversial rulings. Thus, this paper attempts to compare the two contexts, the classical and the modern state context, to illustrate the problems encountered in the recalling of these rulings. Moreover, it traces the circumstances in which the rulings emerged and how they were legitimized and regularized over the course of Muslim history. This paper attempts to demonstrate that these classical rulings are not immutable and applicable in all times and in all places, as they were developed in response to particular events and in a relatively narrow context. Rather, the rulings should be revisited and reevaluated for applicability in the current time and context.