The Historico-Normative Principle in Islam

Abstract

This article critically explores the conceptual divergence between Islamic and Western perspectives on public order, constitutionalism, and sovereignty. Islamic public order, rooted in the Covenants of Medina and the historical precedents of the Caliphate, emphasizes a structure based on continuity, communal cooperation, and decentralized authority. In contrast, Western constitutionalism is depicted through the metaphor of atomism, where the state, akin to an atomic nucleus, centralizes power and sovereignty. The article critiques neo-Islamist attempts to reconcile Islamic thought with Western atomistic political theory, particularly the notion of sovereignty. It argues that framing God’s sovereignty as a political function undermines the historico-normative foundations of Islamic constitutionalism, distorting it into a hypothetico-deductive model similar to Western frameworks. This misalignment, the author contends, shifts Islamic thought from its traditional communal basis to a monolithic, state-centered ideology. The discussion extends to the concept of Ijma (consensus) in Islamic jurisprudence, highlighting its historical evolution and distortion. Early Islamic jurists emphasized overt, collective consensus as a cornerstone of public order, rejecting silent or implied consensus as invalid. However, over time, oppressive regimes and complicit scholars reduced Ijma to the agreement of elites, marginalizing laypeople and eroding the democratic essence of Islamic polity. The article concludes by advocating for the restoration of Islamic public order principles, emphasizing inclusivity, overt consensus, and decentralized authority. It underscores the need to distinguish between authentic Islamic governance and adaptations influenced by Western political paradigms, ensuring alignment with the foundational values of Islam.