‘Political jurisprudence’ in HTS, IS and Al-Qaeda texts: competing visions of Islamic government

Abstract

The relationship between Islamic political movements and modern state institutions remains a contested topic within comparative political thought. This article introduces a new dimension by examining the role of an overlooked genre of literature, ‘Political Jurisprudence’, which undergirds the political thought of armed Islamic groups. It focuses on three insurgent groups in the Syrian context: Hay’at Tahrīr al-Shām, (HTS), Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State (IS). The article analyses normative conceptions of the relationship between Islam and the modern state according to the groups'(former) theorists, specifically studying their approach to (a) the modern state and its mechanisms, including constitutionalism and legislative procedures; and (b) the adoption of bureaucratic rationalization. This study demonstrates that theorists within these movements espouse divergent interpretations of the relationship between the modern state and Islamic law. HTS adopts a flexibile position that encourages coopting modern state structures from former regimes. Similarly, IS recreates the Iraqi Ba’athist bureaucratic system. In contrast, Al-Qaeda has a preference for traditional and localized governance models naturally averse to large urban centres. As a theoretical contribution, this article shows how Islamic groups articulate distinct configurations of Shari'a and state power, advancing divergent approaches to adopting modern governance while participating in a discursive Islamic tradition.