Liberal Citizenship Through the Prism of Shia Jurisprudence: Embracing Fundamental over Partial Solutions

This article explores the compatibility of liberal citizenship with Twelver Shia jurisprudence, a topic previously analyzed from the perspective of Sunni schools, most notably in the extensive research of Andrew F. March. This study confronts the challenges of reconciling liberal citizenship with Islamic jurisprudence, as highlighted in March’s work, through the lens of Shia legal thought. Rather than aiming to critique or review March’s research, this article considers his work solely as a representative example addressing the topic from the perspective of Sunni jurisprudence. This approach provides readers with a fundamental contrast, illuminating the unique insights that emerge from examining the subject within the framework of Shia jurisprudence. Unlike Sunni jurisprudence, which addresses these issues case-by-case by reviewing relevant Quranic and narrational sources, Twelver Shia jurisprudence offers a more foundational resolution. Owing to the belief in the occultation of the twelfth Imam and its implications for the implementation of Islamic law, Shia scholars have advanced theories such as the theory of obstruction (insidād) and the suspension of the social and political dimensions of Sharia. These theories effectively narrow the scope of Sharia, allowing for the acceptance of laws from non-Islamic states and circumventing potential conflicts with liberal citizenship in the absence of the twelfth Imam.