Al-Qalam 
In this book feature, Al-Qalam Editor talks to Dr Ayesha Omar about her new book, entitled The Pluralistic Frameworks of Ibn Rushd and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai’m.
What prompted you to write this book, and what core questions were you trying to answer?
This book emerged organically from my experience teaching a Masters course in Islamic political thought at Wits University. The classroom discussions revealed a fascinating theoretical pattern in how Islamic scholars have historically engaged with extra-Islamic traditions of political thought. This teaching moment highlighted the sophisticated methodological frameworks Islamic thinkers developed for incorporating external philosophical ideas while maintaining fidelity to Islamic ethical principles.
I was particularly struck by the methodological parallels between Ibn Rushd and An-Na’im, who, despite being separated by eight centuries, both constructed rigorous approaches to integrating extra-Islamic traditions of political thought while preserving a distinct conception of Islamic ethics. Ibn Rushd’s systematic harmonization of sharīʿa with Greek philosophical thought and An-Na’im’s nuanced engagement with liberal political theory exemplifies what I term ‘pluralistic frameworks’ – approaches that selectively and self-consciously enable dialogue while maintaining an awareness of the normativity of sharīʿa.
The core questions that crystallized through this investigation were threefold: How do Islamic thinkers systematically engage with extra-Islamic traditions of political thought? What methodologies do they develop to maintain Islamic authenticity while incorporating external ideas? And how do these frameworks contribute to broader debates about Islamic governance in both historical and contemporary contexts?
How does your book reshape our understanding of pluralistic approaches in Islamic political thought?
The book fundamentally reconceptualizes our understanding of how Islamic political thought engages with a plurality of ideas by demonstrating that methodological frameworks for incorporating diverse philosophical traditions are not merely a modern accommodation but rather a recurring approach throughout Islamic intellectual history. Through analyzing the ‘pluralistic frameworks’ of Ibn Rushd and An-Na’im, I illustrate how Islamic political thought has long developed sophisticated methods for selective philosophical integration while maintaining its distinct ethical foundations.
My analysis reveals two key elements that characterize these frameworks for engaging with plural traditions: flexibility and intellectual comfort with ambiguity. This is evidenced in Ibn Rushd’s sophisticated harmonization of Greek philosophical precepts with sharīʿa and similarly in An-Na’im’s reconciliation of liberal democratic principles with Islamic ethics. Rather than viewing the engagement with multiple philosophical traditions as a concession to modernity, the book demonstrates it as an enduring methodological feature of Islamic political thought—one that has enabled its remarkable adaptability across different historical and cultural contexts.
This reconceptualization challenges both Orientalist narratives that depict Islamic thought as monolithic and rigid, as well as certain traditionalist positions that resist engagement with extra-Islamic philosophical traditions. The book shows instead that the capacity for selective integration of diverse ideas while maintaining ethical authenticity has been a source of intellectual vitality within Islamic political thought.
Your comparative framework spans both classical and contemporary thought. What insights emerged from this approach?
The comparative analysis across classical and contemporary Islamic thought revealed remarkable continuities in philosophical methodology while highlighting the distinct approaches thinkers have developed to reconcile sharīʿa with external traditions. The trans-historical comparison highlights how Islamic political thought has consistently developed sophisticated methodologies for philosophical integration while preserving its core principles, though the methods of reconciliation vary significantly based on historical context.
While Ibn Rushd developed nuanced hermeneutical methods to harmonize Greek thought with sharīʿa through his novel theory of Islamic ethics, An-Na’im works to reconcile liberal democratic principles with Islamic ethics through what he terms ‘civic reason.’ Both demonstrated meticulous attention to maintaining Islamic ethical authenticity while engaging extra-Islamic traditions, albeit through different approaches—Ibn Rushd through harmonization and An-Na’im through what I characterize as a form of radical subversion.
This comparative framework also revealed how the challenges facing contemporary Islamic political thinkers differ significantly from their classical predecessors. While Ibn Rushd could engage Greek philosophy from a position of relative cultural confidence, contemporary thinkers like An-Na’im must navigate the complex legacy of colonialism and the profound transformation of Muslim societies. This highlights how the methodology of engagement is shaped not only by the nature of the extra-Islamic tradition being engaged but also by the socio-political context in which that engagement occurs.
What are the implications of your research for current debates about Islam and democracy?
The implications for current debates about Islam and democracy are significant and multifaceted. By demonstrating how Islamic thinkers have historically developed frameworks for engaging with extra-Islamic traditions of political thought, my research challenges simplistic narratives about the incompatibility between Islamic governance and democratic principles.
The pluralistic frameworks analyzed in the book show how Islamic political thought can systematically engage with democratic concepts while maintaining its ethical foundations. However, the study also reveals the profound challenges inherent in such engagement, particularly in the postcolonial context where the transformation of Islamic societies has disrupted traditional socio-economic and political structures.
As evidenced in An-Na’im’s work, mediating Islamic ethics and politics in the modern context requires grappling with what Hallaq terms the ‘ontological fact of the state’ while preserving Islamic ethical principles. This suggests that contemporary discussions about Islamic democracy might benefit from moving beyond both uncritical adoption and wholesale rejection of democratic principles toward a more nuanced engagement that recognizes both the ethical resources within Islamic tradition and the challenges posed by modern state structures.
The research ultimately suggests that meaningful Islamic engagement with democracy requires not only theoretical reconciliation but also critical attention to the socio-political contexts in which these engagements occur.
How do you envision this work contributing to future scholarship in Islamic political theory?
This work opens several promising avenues for future scholarship in Islamic political theory. First, it provides a methodological framework for analyzing other instances of philosophical integration in Islamic political thought through the lens of what I term ‘pluralistic frameworks.’ This approach could be extended to examine how Islamic thinkers historically engaged with Persian, Indian, and other philosophical traditions.
Second, it suggests new approaches for studying how contemporary Islamic thinkers engage with various political philosophies while maintaining awareness of sharīʿa’s normativity. The concept of pluralistic frameworks offers a more nuanced alternative to the limiting secular/Islamist binary that often dominates discussions of contemporary Islamic politics. The book demonstrates how the prevalent secular/Islamist binary fails to capture the sophisticated methodological approaches Islamic thinkers have developed throughout history
Third, the book suggests that the success of pluralistic frameworks will also depend on the rigour and sincerity of Islamic thinkers in interacting with endogenous modes of Islamic legal and theological sources to develop fresh and innovative political theories that reflect contemporary political realities in the Islamic world. Concepts such as democratic citizenship or constitutionalism could be productively rethought through this interaction. In other words, given the inadequacy of the modern sovereign state, what alternative political imaginaries are possible, and what would they look like? These are difficult questions but need to be urgently theorised and addressed for reimagining the future of Islamic politics. The task of Islamic thinkers is to consider how pluralistic frameworks may aid in this theoretical endeavour.
