al-Amal bil-Aghlabiyya
- Author died
- -
- Editions
- al-Amal bil-Aghlabiyya
al-Amal bil-Aghlabiyya (Acting on Majority Rule) is a contemporary treatise on Islamic jurisprudence and political theory by Abd al-Mannan al-Talibi, examining the legal validity, historical precedents, and contemporary applications of majority voting in governance and decision-making.
Overview and Definition
The treatise addresses debates among political elites, academics, and Islamic scholars over electoral voting systems and majority decision-making. The author differentiates between absolute majority (half plus one of those present) and relative majority (a candidate receiving more votes than others), defining majority rule generically as adopting the opinion held by more than half of the participants in a given matter.
Al-Talibi notes that majority rule is not directly governed by an explicit text commanding or forbidding it; rather, it is an inferential issue subject to juristic reasoning (ijtihad) deduced from foundational sources, particularly the Prophet's biography (al-Sirah al-Nabawiyya).
Jurisprudential Foundations and Precedents
Proponents of majority rule substantiate its legitimacy through several sources:
- Scripture and Consultation: Quranic verses on mutual consultation (shura), such as وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ ("and whose affair is determined by consultation among themselves" [al-Shura: 38]), indicate shared decision-making where resolving disagreements naturally defers to the majority.
- Legal Maxims: Maxims of jurisprudence (qawa'id fiqhiyya) and legal theory (usul al-fiqh), including "giving weight to predominant probability" (al-ibra bil-zann al-ghalib), "the minority follows the majority" (al-aqallu yatba'u al-akthar), and "giving preference to numerical preponderance" (al-tarjih bil-katha).
- Historical Precedents: Historical events from the prophetic era and early caliphate, such as the Prophet's ﷺ consultation prior to the Battle of Badr, following the majority counsel to march out at the Battle of Uhud, and remaining at the siege of al-Ta'if; Umar ibn al-Khattab's consultation regarding entry into the Levant during an epidemic; and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf's preference for Uthman ibn Affan based on widespread support among the Companions.
- Modern Scholarship and Intuition: Human intuition (badaha) naturally inclines toward numerical weight, a principle supported by modern scholars such as Muhammad Rashid Rida and Abd al-Qadir Awda citing the prophetic narration لا تجتمع أمتي على ضلالة ويد الله مع الجماعة ("My community will not unite upon error, and the hand of God is with the community").
Counterarguments and Refutations
The work examines arguments raised by opponents of majority rule who cite Quranic verses where the majority is censured, such as وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَشْكُرُونَ ("but most people are not grateful" [al-Baqarah: 243]) and وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ("If you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you from the path of God" [al-An'am: 116]).
Al-Talibi responds that such censure applies either to humanity at large devoid of faith or to majorities lacking competence and qualification, rather than qualified consultative councils and eligible voters.
Scope and Conditions
The author outlines two primary spheres where majority decision-making applies:
- Public Elections: Selecting the head of state or ruler, as well as electing members of representative, consultative, and municipal councils. The author cites Abu Hamid al-Ghazali on how effective leadership requires the alignment and support of the majority.
- Administrative Affairs: Resolving collective decisions within institutions, corporations, universities, and ministries concerning shared public interests.
The author sets strict boundaries for majority rule, stipulating that it carries no legal weight if it contradicts an explicit textual ruling from the Quran, an authentic prophetic hadith, or established scholarly consensus (ijma); its valid domain is confined exclusively to discretionary matters open to juristic reasoning where no definitive scriptural text exists.
Answer updated