The Roots Of Tyranny

In The Arena Of Islamic Political Thought, Where The Stormy Waves Of History Collide With The Guiding Texts Of Revelation, There Emerges An Urgent And Pressing Need For Anatomical Approaches That Go Beyond The Surface Of Events To Dive Into The Depths Of The Nation’s Intellectual And Political Structure. Here, We Encounter The Book “The Constitutional Crisis In Islamic Civilization,” Which Bears The Telling Subtitle: “From The Great Fitna To The Arab Spring.” This Massive Tome, Authored By The Researcher And Thinker Mohamed El-Mokhtar El-Shinqiti, And Published By The “Arab And International Relations Forum,” Does Not Offer A Mere Traditional Historical Narrative, But Rather Proposes A Complex Interpretive Model For One Of The Most Intractable Impasses In Our History: Why Did Muslims Fail To Build Political Institutions That Reflect The Ethical Vision Of Islam?

A Necessary Preface: Restoring Constitutional Consciousness
The Book Opens With A Highly Significant Introduction By Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, In Which He Sets A Critical Framework For The Current Intellectual State. Ghannouchi Points Out With Regret That Arab Publishing Houses Rarely Produce Serious Books In The Field Of Islamic Political Studies, Describing The Situation As “Resembling A State Of Stagnation, Apart From Regurgitations Of Sultanic Literature Whose Time Has Long Passed.” This Observation Is Not Merely A Passing Criticism, But A Diagnosis Of A State Of “Creative Stagnation” That Has Afflicted The Muslim Political Mind, Where The Deviant Reality Was Justified After The Caliphate Turned Into A Biting Kingship, And The Great Political Values Brought By Islam—Such As Justice, Freedom, And Equality—Receded In Favor Of A Jurisprudence That Justifies Domination And Coercion.

The Book, Therefore, As Ghannouchi Describes It, Is A Bold And Confident Attempt To Break This False Link Between Jurisprudence And Sharia On The One Hand, And The Justification Of Despotism On The Other, Calling For The Necessity Of Moving The Basis Of Islamic Consultative Governance From “A Mere Sermon” To “A Political System That Translates The Authority Of The Nation.”

The Unsheathed Sword Of The Imamate: Diagnosing The Malady
El-Shinqiti Begins His Extensive Introduction With An Eloquent Quotation From Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi: “I Am Nothing But One Who Opens A Small Door In The Walls Of Despotism, May Time Widen It,” Thereby Establishing His Grand Objective: To Investigate The Roots Of The Tragic Contradiction Between “The Islamic Political Principle” And “The Historical Reality Lived By Muslims.”

The Author Borrows The Famous Saying Of Imam Al-Shahrastani In His Book “Al-Milal Wa Al-Nihal” To Describe The Depth Of The Wound: “The Greatest Disagreement Among The Nation Is The Disagreement Over The Imamate, For No Sword Has Been Unsheathed In Islam On A Religious Basis Like The Sword That Has Been Unsheathed Over The Imamate In Every Age.” This Unsheathed Sword, Which Has Spilled Pure Blood And Torn The Fabric Of The Nation Since The Middle Of The First Hijri Century, The Author Sees As An Expression Of A Deep Constitutional Crisis Concerning The Legitimacy And Rotation Of Power, Not Merely A Personal Conflict Or A Fleeting Sedition.

The Real Tragedy, As The Book Presents It, Lies In The Fact That The Islamic Nation Internalized This Historical Flaw. The Qur’anic And Prophetic Text Established Foundational Values Of Utmost Nobility And Justice, But The “Historical Experience” That Produced The Jurisprudence Of Necessity And Domination Often Overcame The Spirit Of The Text. The Exception—Which Is Conflict And Coercion—Became The Rule, And The Rule—Which Is Consultation And Mutual Consent—Became The Exception Or A Distant Utopian Dream.

Al-Kawakibi And The Problematic Of “General Apathy”
The Book Pauses To Analyze Contemporary Muslim Thinkers On This Crisis, Elaborating On The Reading Of The Philosopher Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi, Who Brilliantly Realized That Doctrinal Disagreements In Jurisprudence And History Ultimately Trace Back To Purely Political Disagreements. Al-Kawakibi, In Diagnosing The Disease Of “General Apathy” That Afflicted The Nation, Concluded After Thirty Years Of Deep Research That “The Root Of The Disease, And The Secret Of The Affliction, And He Found No Cure For It Except Constitutional Shura.”

This Early Recognition Of The Centrality Of “Political Despotism” As The Mother Of All Ills Is The Starting Point Upon Which El-Shinqiti Builds His Thesis. However, The Author Goes One Step Beyond Al-Kawakibi; Al-Kawakibi Diagnosed The Disease, But El-Shinqiti Seeks To Dismantle The Mechanisms Of This Disease Historically And Institutionally: How Did It Enter Us? And How Did It Become Entrenched In Our Constitutional Jurisprudence?

Grounding The Gap: Between Principle And Environment
One Of The Most Prominent Critical Theses In The Book Is The Explanation Of The “Political Vacuum” In Which Islam Was Born. The Author Argues That Islam Was Born In An Environment—The Arabian Peninsula—That Lacked Deeply Rooted Traditions In Politics, Statehood, And Order. This “Structural Vacuum” In The Bedouin Environment Was A Double-Edged Sword:

It Gave Islam The Freedom To Build Its Pure Values Without Pressure From Ancient State Institutions That Would Hinder It.

But At The Same Time, It Left Muslims, When They Expanded And Collided With Ancient Empires (Persian And Roman), Lacking The “Institutional Solidity” That Would Protect These Values From Infiltration.

Thus, The Islamic Values That Founded Free Political Contracting, Shura, And Equality Found Themselves Face To Face With The “Imperial Spirit” That Dominated The World At That Time. Instead Of These Values Being Translated Into Constitutions, Institutions, And Solid Procedures That Protect The Nation’s Right To Choose And Depose Its Rulers, They Were Gradually Circumvented, Beginning A Dangerous Process Of Borrowing Khosrauid And Caesarean Traditions And Wrapping Them In A False Islamic Garb.

Between Imperial Jurisprudence And Constitutional Jurisprudence
The Book Presents A Radical And Objective Critique Of The Inherited Jurisprudential Heritage, Rejecting The “Excessive Trust In Commentary” That Obscures The Original Text (The Qur’an And Sunnah). The Author Clearly Points Out That Many Of The Terms Of “Sultanic Ethics” Written By Jurists And Thinkers Of Ages Of Decline Were In Essence Justifications For Injustice And Rationalizations Of Necessity Imposed By The Domination Of Those Who Seized Power By The Sword.

In This Part Of The Analysis, The Book Highlights The Importance Of “Distinguishing Between Moral And Legal Commitment.” Modern Constitutions Do Not Rely Only On The “Intentions Of The Ruler” Or His Morals, But On Strict Institutional Legal Checks. Whereas In Periods Of Islamic Civilizational Decline, Political Commitment Was Reduced To The Individual Conscience Of The Ruler (The Justice Of The Individual Ruler), With A Complete Absence Of Institutional Procedures That Translate This Justice Into A Law By Which The Ruler Is Bound And Held Accountable If He Deviates.

The Duality Of “Command With Authority” And “Jurisprudence Of Necessities”: Keys To Interpretation
El-Shinqiti Puts His Hand On The Bleeding Wound In Islamic Political Memory By Formulating A Brilliant Interpretive Model Based On A Methodological Contrast Between Two Concepts He Coined From Heritage: “Al-Ta’ammur Fi Al-Amir” And “Al-Ta’ammur An Ghayr Imrah.” These Two Terms Are Not Mere Wordplay, But Keys To Understanding The Constitutional Dilemma That Has Governed The Entire Course Of Islamic History.

“Al-Ta’ammur Fi Al-Amir” Represents In The Book The Symbol Of Principle And Origin; That Is, The Normative Vision Contained In The Qur’anic Revelation And The Prophetic Sunnah For Building A Political Authority Based On Shura, Free Contracting, Accountability Of The Ruler, And The Sovereignty Of The Nation. It Is, In Short, “Constitutional Values” In Their Most Abstract And Textual Form. In Contrast, The Term “Al-Ta’ammur An Ghayr Imrah” Embodies “The Rule Of Necessity And Exception”; It Is The Jurisprudential And Realistic Expression Of Muslims’ Historical Suffering With A Turbulent Political Reality, Where Domination And Coercion Imposed Themselves As Alternatives To Free Choice And Consent.

Through This Contrast, The Author Sees That The History And Present Of Muslims Are Governed By A Constant Struggle Between These Two Principles, Where Successive Seditions And Conflicts Led To The Sacrifice Of Constitutional Political Legitimacy For The Sake Of “The Unity Of The Nation” And The Shedding Of Blood, Which Left The Nation Languishing In An Extended Historical State Of Exception, Overlooking “The Legitimacy Of Procedures” For Fear Of Existential Collapse.

The Structural Vacuum In The Arab Environment: Fragility Of Foundation
The Book Does Not Content Itself With Blaming Individuals Or Incidental Seditions, But Goes Deep Into The “Sociology” Of The Birth Of The Islamic State. The Author Presents A Solid Analysis Of The “Political Vacuum” In Which Islam Was Born In The Arabian Peninsula. The Dawn Of The Call Emerged In A Bedouin Environment Lacking Firm Political Traditions, And Devoid Of State Structures And Institutional Order.

This Pre-Islamic Legislative And Institutional Vacuum Had A Dual Effect; On The One Hand, It Gave Islam Space To Sow Its Lofty Ethical Political Values Without Resistance From Ancient Imperial Structures. On The Other Hand, And More Importantly In The Context Of The Crisis, This Vacuum Led To Chronic “Institutional Fragility.” When The Founding Generation Passed Away And Crises Erupted, The Noble Islamic Values—Such As Shura, Justice, And Equality—Found No Institutional Vessels And Solid Procedures To Protect Them From Collapse In The Face Of The Flood Of Tribal Partisanship Or The Ambitions Of Military Domination.

The Predicament Of “Pseudomorphosis”: Between The Islamic Spirit And The Imperial Structure
Among The Deepest Philosophical Approaches El-Shinqiti Presents In His Book Is His Brilliant Employment Of The Concept Of “Pseudomorphosis,” Coined By The German Philosopher Of Civilization Oswald Spengler. This Concept In Geology Refers To The Condition In Which New Minerals Fill The Cavities Of Old Minerals, Taking Their External Form While Retaining A Different Internal Composition.

The Author Brilliantly Applies This Theory To The Early Islamic Political Reality; The New Islamic Spirit, Brimming With The Values Of Freedom, Justice, And Equality, Found Itself, After The Rapid And Stunning Conquests, Colliding With The Ancient “Imperial Molds” Of The Romans And Persians. Instead Of This Young Civilizational Spirit Creating Its Own Institutional Forms Springing From Itself, It Was Forcibly Contained Within Despotic Imperial Political Structures.

Thus, A State Of “Pseudomorphosis” Prevailed In Islamic Societies, Where The Features Of The Pure Islamic Political Identity Were Obliterated Under The Cloak Of Ancient Civilizations. The Body Became Islamic, Reciting The Qur’an, But The Institutional Structure Governing It Was Caesarean And Khosrauid Par Excellence, Leading To The Abortion Of The Democratic And Contractual Potential In Its Cradle.

The Book Of God And The Covenant Of Ardashir: The Infiltration Of “Political Paganism”
El-Shinqiti Devotes A Wide And Precisely Documented Space To Analyzing The Sasanian Cultural Infiltration Of Islamic Political Consciousness, Making “The Covenant Of Ardashir” (Founder Of The Sasanian State) A Central Document For Understanding This Constitutional Coup. The Book Explains How Sasanian Values Gradually Seeped In, Beginning A Fierce Competition With The Original Values Of Islam.

This Document And The Traditions It Represents Left A Devastating Negative Impact Manifested In Several Major Axes, Which The Book Defines Precisely:

The Entrenchment Of Political Paganism: Where The Ruler Transformed From An Agent Of The Nation Deriving His Legitimacy From Its Consent, Into The Shadow Of God On Earth, Rising Above Criticism And Accountability.

The Use Of Religion To Serve Power: Instead Of Power Serving Religion And The Nation, Jurisprudence And Religion Were Tamed To Become A Pliable Tool Justifying The Ruler’s Oppression And Bestowing An Aura Of Sanctity Upon His Despotism.

The Consolidation Of Social Stratification: Which Radically Contradicts The Strict Principle Of Equality Established By Islam, Where Concepts Of “The Elite And The Commoners” And “The Rabble” Prevailed In Later Sultanic Literature.

The Justification Of Political Oppression: By Elevating The Value Of “Absolute Obedience” To The Dominant Ruler At The Expense Of The Value Of “Justice” And “Enjoining Good And Forbidding Evil” In Public Affairs.

In Light Of Hegel’s Philosophy: The Aborted “Historical Potential”
El-Shinqiti Does Not Stop At Historical Description, But Elevates The Analysis To Embrace The Horizons Of The Philosophy Of History, Drawing On The Concepts Of The German Philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Specifically The Idea Of “Historical Potential.”

The Author, Relying On Hegel And Other Thinkers Such As Muhammad Iqbal And Malik Bennabi, Argues That The Political Values Brought By Islam—Such As Shura, Justice, And Human Rights—Represented A “Seed” For A Great Historical Potential For An Early Islamic Democracy. This “Noble Seed” Was Born And Descended Into Reality, But It Did Not Find The “Historical Soil” Or The “Temporal Context” Suitable For Its Growth And Full Blossoming.

The Huge Gap Between The “Precious Possibilities” In The Islamic Text And A Human Reality Still Laboring Under The Weight Of Imperial Enslavement Heritages Made It Difficult To Translate These Principles Into A Sustainable Reality. As Hegelian Analysis Clarifies, An Abstract Principle Alone Is Not Enough To Guarantee Its Embodiment In History; It Requires Collective Consciousness, Institutions, And Protective Procedures. Islam Provided A Spacious Horizon For Freedom And Guidance, But The “Inherent Inertia” In Human Consciousness At That Time, And The Succession Of Seditions, Prevented The Transformation Of This “Potential” Into A Firm And Stable Political Reality.

The Splitting Of The Self At Siffin: The Greatest Constitutional Coup
The Book Does Not Approach The Battle Of “Siffin” As Merely A Fleeting Military Clash Over Power, But Dives Into Its Philosophical And Historical Dimensions To Consider It The Moment When “The Islamic Self Split.” In That Desert, It Was Not Only Swords That Clashed, But Contractual Consultative Values Collided With The Ambitions Of Domination And The Beginnings Of The Establishment Of Biting Kingship.

El-Shinqiti Invokes In This Context The Vision Of Thinker Malik Bennabi, Who Brilliantly Realized That The Great Fitna, Specifically Siffin, Represented A Deep Rupture In The “Popular Conscience” And A Sharp Separation Between State And Society. Siffin Was Like An Earthquake That Swallowed The Nascent “Islamic Democracy” And Replaced It With “Tribal Authority.” This Rupture Was Not Merely A Political Rupture, But A Psychological And Civilizational One, Where The Fitna Produced A Shock That Caused The Subsequent Jurisprudential Mind To Withdraw Into Itself, Preferring Options Of Safety Over The Adventure Of Demanding Rights. The Battle Of Siffin Formed The Breaking Point In The Curve Of Historical Development, Where The Civilized Human Being In The Political System Suffered A Loss Of Resolve And Became Unable To Assimilate And Innovate.

The Equation Of Unity And Legitimacy: The Bloody Sacrifice
How Did The Muslim Mind Deal With This Rupture? Here The Book Presents An Extremely Important Analysis Of What It Calls “The Equation Of Unity And Legitimacy.” In Moments Of Fragmentation That Threatened The Material And Moral Existence Of The Nation, Islamic Political And Social Thought Found Itself Before Two Bitter Choices: Either Strict Adherence To Constitutional Legitimacy (Shura And Consent), Which Might Lead To The Continuation Of Civil Wars And The Annihilation Of The Nation, Or The Painful Concession Of The Condition Of “Legitimacy” For The Sake Of Preserving “Unity” And Averting Sedition.

The Sunni Jurisprudential Mind, Under The Pressure Of Fear Of Total Collapse, Chose To Side With “Unity” Even At The Expense Of “Legitimacy.” This Emergency Choice, Which Was Justified In Its Historical Context As A “State Of Emergency,” Unfortunately Transformed Over Centuries Into A Stable Jurisprudential Rule, Where The Rule Of The Dominant Was Justified, And It Became Settled In The Conscience That Obedience To An Unjust Ruler Is Better Than A Sedition In Which Blood Is Shed. Thus, The “Jurisprudence Of Necessity” Was Founded, Which Formed The Ideological Cover For Despotism, And The Sacrifice Of Legitimacy Turned From A Temporary Exception Into A Permanent Condition That Paralyzed The Ability To Change. The Effort Became One Of Saving What Could Be Saved Under The Ceiling Of Political Despotism, After Despairing Of Founding Authority On Legitimate Bases.

Exhausting Ideals And Institutional Fragility
The Book Raises A Deep Philosophical Problematic About The Nature Of Islamic Political Principles, Borrowing The Concept Of “Exhausting Ideals.” The Values Brought By Islam—Absolute Equality, Strict Justice, And Precise Accountability Of The Ruler (As Embodied In The Biography Of The Rightly Guided Caliphs)—Were Values Of Lofty Sublimity, Requiring Exceptional Human Consciousness And Superb “Institutional Solidity” To Preserve Them.

However, Islamic Society, Which Inherited Chronic “Institutional Fragility” Due To The Absence Of State Traditions In The Environment Of Its Early Birth, Found Itself Unable To Bear These “Exhausting Ideals” For A Long Time. The Ethical Ceiling Was Very High, And The Institutional Soil Was Very Fragile. And When Institutions Are Unable To Carry Principles, Societies Collapse Under The Weight Of Their Demands, Which Explains The Rapid Reversion Toward Familiar Imperial Models (Umayyad Then Abbasid) That Were Less Ethically Exhausting And More In Harmony With The Prevailing Natures Of Despotism Of That Time.

The Mother Values Of Politics: Demolishing Hierarchical Paganism
Despite The Harsh Dissection Of History, The Book Does Not Overlook Clarifying The Greatness Of The “Political Structure” Presented By The Islamic Text. The Author Devotes An Entire Section Under The Title “Command With Authority: The Mother Values Of Politics,” To Highlight The Normative Foundation Revealed By Revelation.

This Foundation Begins With “The Demolition Of Political Paganism” And “Overturning The Pharaonic Hierarchy.” Islam Came To Liberate Man From Subjugation To His Fellow Man, Founding A Horizontal Relationship Among Humans Under The Sovereignty Of The Creator Alone. This Monotheistic Vision Was Not Merely A Metaphysical Doctrine, But A “Constitutional Revolution” That Overthrew The Sanctification Of Rulers And Made Authority A Civil Contract Subject To Annulment And Accountability.

The Book Details How The Islamic Text Founded The Values Of Human Dignity, Vicegerency, And The Combination Of Justice And Grace. Freedom In This Foundational System Is Not Mere Luxury, But “Potential And Responsibility”; For An Individual Deprived Of Will Cannot Be Held Accountable. The Author Also Expands In Reviewing The Values Of Political Performance, Highlighting How Islam Made “Public Money The Money Of God” To Protect It From The Plunder Of Authority, And Legislated “Resistance Against Corruption” As A Constitutional Duty Incumbent Upon The Entire Nation.

These Abstract Values, Which Constitute The “Mother Values Of Politics,” Remain The Normative Reference By Which Reality Is Judged. El-Shinqiti’s Review Of Them In This Tome Is Not For The Sake Of Nostalgia For The Past, But To Affirm That “The Text Is Inspiring” And That The Crisis Lies In Human Effort That Failed To Innovate The “Mechanisms” And “Procedures” Capable Of Bringing These Values Down To Earth And Protecting Them From The Tyranny Of Rulers And The Setbacks Of History.

“The Book Of God And The Covenant Of Ardashir”: The Sasanian Cultural Infiltration
The Author Puts His Hand On One Of The Most Dangerous Constitutional Transformations In The History Of Islamic Civilization, Devoting To It A Highly Significant Chapter Titled: “The Book Of God And The Covenant Of Ardashir.” El-Shinqiti Does Not Stop At The Limits Of Military Or Political Interpretation Of The Fitna, But Delves Deeply Into The “Cultural Roots” Of Despotism, Explaining That The Greatest Challenge Was Not Merely A Struggle Over Power, But A Struggle In The Womb Of Muslim Societies Between Islamic Political Values Of A Contractual Consultative Nature And Imperial Values Of A Coercive Nature.

Muslims Found Themselves, After The Stunning Conquests, In The Heart Of The Ancient Eastern World, Surrounded By A Deep-Rooted Persian Imperial Heritage. Here, “The Covenant Of Ardashir” Emerges As A Central Document Representing The “Sasanian Political Culture” That Slowly But Steadily Seeped Into The Ruling Elite. This Infiltration Was Not Innocent, But Led To The “Taming” Of Pioneers Of Islamic Thought And Their Domestication Within The Logic Of Ancient Eastern Despotism.

The Book Explains How This Document And Its Like Left A Deep Negative Impact On The Political Culture Of Muslims; It Carried With It Great Evils, Foremost Among Them The “Stain Of Political Paganism,” Which Transformed The Ruler From A Human Being To Be Questioned And Held Accountable Into An Entity Clothed In Exceptional Sanctity. It Also Led To “Using Religion Instead Of Serving It,” Where Texts Were Employed And Jurisprudence Was Tailored To Justify Political Oppression, In Addition To “Entrenching Social Stratification” Which Radically Contradicts The Spirit Of Islam Based On Absolute Equality. Thus, Islamic Civilization Entered A State Of Stark Contradiction; An Islamic Body Pulsating With The Qur’an, And A Political Spirit Breathing With The Concepts Of Khosrau And Ardashir.

Beyond Sunnism And Shiism: The Comprehensive Legitimacy Predicament
Among The Prominent Critical Contributions Of This Book Is Its Transcendence Of Narrow Sectarian Readings That Confine The Constitutional Crisis To One School Over Another. The Author Argues That Both Major Schools (Sunni And Shiite) Fell Into The Net Of The “Constitutional Crisis” In One Way Or Another, Despite The Different Theoretical Exits Each Group Devised.

El-Shinqiti Analyzes How The Sunni Jurisprudential Mind, Under The Weight Of Fear Of The Nation’s Fragmentation And The Re-Eruption Of Major Seditions, Adopted “The Equation Of Unity At The Expense Of Legitimacy.” This Bias Produced The “Jurisprudence Of Necessities” Which Legitimized The Rule Of The Dominant And Made The Acceptance Of Political Injustice An Ethically Justified Stance To Spare Blood. In Contrast, Shiite Thought Was Not Immune To This Predicament; Historically, It Turned To Withdrawal And Retreat From Practical Political Affairs Through Recourse To Concepts Such As “Taqiyya” And Awaiting The Infallible Imam, Which Ultimately Led To Freezing Political Action Aimed At Building Realistic Constitutional Legitimacy.

The Result, As The Book Decides, Was One: The Absence Of Methodological And Institutional Grounding For Building Political Authority On Consent, And The Postponement Of The Real Battle (The Battle Of Freedom And Shura) In Favor Of Jurisprudential Or Theological Justifications That Do Not Solve The Crisis Of “Command Without Authority.”

The Arab Spring: Emancipation From “Jurisprudence Of Necessity” To Revolution
Here We Arrive At The Analytical Climax Of The Book, Where El-Shinqiti Brilliantly Connects These Deep Historical Roots With The Present Moment, Specifically The Eruption Of The Arab Spring Revolutions At The End Of 2010. The Book Does Not View These Revolutions As Isolated Events Or Fleeting Protests Over Deteriorating Living Conditions, But Considers Them “The Finally Achieved Liberation Of Muslim Peoples From The Legacies Of The Great Fitna And Its Aftermath.”

The Arab Spring, In El-Shinqiti’s Constitutional Reading, Is A Major Historical Attempt At “The Transition From Fitna To Revolution.” Peoples Were Able To Overcome The “Phobias Of Fear Of Fitna” That Controlled Islamic Political Culture Since The Deal Of The Year Of The Community (41 AH). This Chronic Fear Dissipated, And Was Replaced By A New Will To Stand Against Political Injustice And To Restore The Nation’s Original Right To Build Its Authority On True Constitutional Legitimate Foundations.

From Values To Procedures: Engineering The Future
The Book Concludes Its Diagnostic And Therapeutic Vision With An Essential Condition Without Which There Is No Exit From The Constitutional Crisis: “The Transition From Values To Procedures.” The Author Believes That The Historical Dilemma Of Muslims Was Never In A “Lack Of Values”; The Foundational Texts Overflow With Meanings Of Justice, Dignity, And Shura. The Fatal Flaw Lay In The Inability To Translate These Abstract Values Into “Firm Constitutional Institutions And Procedures” Consistent With The Logic Of The Contemporary State.

Merely Celebrating The Idealism Of Islamic Values Is No Longer Sufficient; Indeed, Continuing This Sermonic Approach Without Procedural Translation Constitutes A Perpetuation Of The Crisis. The Book Explicitly Calls For The Necessity Of Investing In The Theoretical And Practical Gains Achieved By Contemporary Democratic Nations, Affirming That This Borrowing Must Be Done With Confidence And Awareness, Far From Complexes Of Inferiority Or Superiority. Building A Civil Democratic State That Protects The Rights Of Citizenship And Achieves Justice For All Is The Only Practical Translation Of The Political Objectives Of Islam In This Era, And The Only Way Out Of The Prolonged Bewilderment.

The Impasse Of Closed Choices: Critique Of Salafism And Secularism
In His Endeavor To Chart A Way Out, The Book Presents A Rigorous Anatomical Critique Of The Approaches Proposed In The Arab And Islamic Arena, Demonstrating The Impossibility Of A Solution In Both Traditional Camps: “The Secular Option” And “The Salafi Option.”

El-Shinqiti Believes That Any Effort To Extract Islamic Civilization From Its Crisis Will Not Succeed Unless It Meets An Essential Characteristic, Which Is To Be “Convincing To The Muslim Conscience Attached To Islamic Political Values.” Here The “Secular Option” Falls, Which Insists On Stripping Islam And Neutralizing It In The Battle Of Civilization, And Fabricating A Solution Severed From The Conscience Of Peoples And Their Religious And Ethical Temperament.

In Contrast, The Book Categorically Rejects The “Salafi Option” Which Attempts To Offer A Solution That Replicates A Bygone Historical Image That Drew Its Features From Defunct Empires, Showing That This Option Falls Into The Trap Of The Heinous Confusion Between “Jurisprudence And Sharia,” And Claims Self-Sufficiency And Disdain For What The Human Mind Has Produced In The Field Of Political Thought. The Synthetic Method Adopted By El-Shinqiti Is The Method That Combines The Religious And The Civil, Rejecting Self-Enclosure And Calling For Creative Interaction With The Achievements Of The Age.

Cultural Borrowing: No Shame In Borrowing Wisdom
The Intellectual Courage In The Book Is Manifested Through Its Clear And Explicit Call For The Necessity Of “Borrowing” From The Theoretical And Practical Gains Achieved By Western Democratic Nations. The Author Clearly Rejects The State Of Introversion And The Claim Of The Existence Of A Ready-Made Islamic Model That Is Self-Sufficient In Its Procedural Details.

The Book Indicates That Muslims Today, More Than Ever, Need This Broad Borrowing From Contemporary Democratic Philosophies And Institutions To Graft Their Political Tree. And It Stipulates That This Cross-Fertilization Be Done With “The Humility Of The Learner, And The Confidence Of The Mature, Far From Complexes Of Inferiority Or Superiority.” Modern Democratic Mechanisms, Such As The Separation Of Powers, Elections, And The Peaceful Rotation Of Power, Are In Their Essence The Only Practical Translation Available Today For The Values Of Shura And Justice, And Borrowing Them Is Not Subservience, But Rather The Application Of The Duty To Retrieve Lost Wisdom.