Arab spring and ulama’s discourse on khurūj : (dis)connecting classical political concept to modern context

Abstract

One of the characteristics often attributed to Sunnī political discourse is its permissive attitude towards political despotism. This perception gained further relevance starting in 2010 during the Arab Spring revolutions when prominent ulama such as ‘Alī Jum'a, the Muftī of Egypt, ‘Abd Allāh ibn Bayyah, the head of the Fatwā Council of the United Arab Emirates, and Sa’īd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, the head of the Union of Ulama in Syria, chose to oppose the revolutionary movements and legitimize the power of the status quo regimes. In justifying their anti-revolutionary stances, they referred to the views of pre-modern ulama who rejected the legitimacy of rebellion against unjust or corrupt ruler (al-khurūj alā al-ḥākim al-ẓālim aw al-fāsiq). This study aims to trace the development of this khurūj as a concept from the early Islamic period through the medieval era and how it was subsequently referenced in the context of modern nationstate during the Arab Spring by ‘Alī Jum'a, Ibn Bayyah and al-Būṭī in opposing the revolutions. This research employs Peter L. Berger's theory of social reality construction, arguing that social reality is essentially formed by the process of externalization, where individuals project their thoughts, ideas, and experiences into the social world. This is precisely the role played by these three ulama in shaping the political reality during the Arab Spring. Additionally, this study adopts a comparative approach to compare the premodern and modern ulama's discourses with paying attention to Foucault's genealogy concept that focuses on shifts that led to the emergence of new ways of thinking of khurūj as a concept in Islamic political law (siyāsa shar'iyya). This study found that resistance to political despotism has been present since the early Islamic period and continued through the medieval era, manifesting in both violent opposition, such as armed rebellion (khurūj), and peaceful opposition, including verbal protests and mass actions like demonstrations, strikes, and sit-ins. However, by the end of the followers (tābi’īn) period, peaceful approaches became the predominant method among the ulama, with a consensus claim emerging among ulama to prohibit armed rebellion (khurūj) against unjust rulers. This research argues that the tendency of ‘Alī Jum'a, Ibn Bayyah, and al-Būṭī to selectively adopt specific pre-modern ulama's views on the concept of khurūj, based on their anachronistic reasoning regarding the complex realities (wāqi’) of the Arab Spring, has shaped their anti-revolutionary discourses, which directly or indirectly legitimize political despotism.