Saleh Al-Maghamisi: A Saudi preacher raises controversy by calling for the establishment of a “new Islamic school of thought”

After confirming that the Qur’an is the only book that cannot be reviewed, Al Maghamsi explained that Islamic jurisprudence is a human artefact and must be re-read and scrutinized.

And he concluded his speech by asking: “Some people think it too much for you to review Islamic jurisprudence. If you admit that the ‘companions of the sects’ are human, what prevents you from reviewing?”

This statement would have passed without much fanfare if it had been made by a non-famous cleric. However, the controversy caused by the statement is related to the status of its owner and the uproar that accompanied his dismissal from his post in March of 2020.

The sheikh is one of the well-known senior clerics in Saudi Arabia, and he previously held many important positions in the state.

He also served for many years as the imam and preacher of the Quba Mosque in Medina, the first mosque built in Islam. However, the Saudi authorities removed him from leading the mosque in 2020 because of a tweet that he later apologized for and described it as unsuccessful.

At that time, the sheikh demanded the release of “sinful prisoners”, which some considered as words directed at the authorities to remind them of the imprisoned sheikhs.

Over the past years, Saudi Arabia has witnessed a campaign of arrests that included prominent academic, religious and human rights figures.

In his recent interview with the Saudi channel, Al-Maghamisi touched on the details of his dismissal from the leadership of the Quba Mosque, and indicated that “the decision to dismiss him came from the branch of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Medina, and not from the royal court.”

The famous preacher accused some of spreading fallacies about exempting him from leading the mosque.

He directed his criticism mainly at those he called “lurkers among the Muslim Brotherhood, the beneficiary predecessors and the Sururians,” referring to the Sururi movement, which is described as “the most extremist Islamic current in the Middle East.”

Returning to the controversy surrounding Maghamsi’s call for the need to review jurisprudence and the call to establish a new doctrine through digital platforms, we notice a wide divergence in the opinions of the pioneers of those platforms, between welcome and skeptical.

When they followed Maghamsi’s statements, commentators did not neglect to talk about the role that governments and religious currents play in shaping the popular position on the jurisprudential legacy.

Some commentators believe that al-Maghamsi greatly exaggerated his call for the establishment of another school of thought.

Some even considered this a “distortion of the principles of jurisprudence and a departure from the Sunnah.”

Among the commentators are also those who considered that “Al-Maghamsi’s statements come within the framework of a strategy to reposition and get closer to power.”

However, Maghamsi’s call was also well received by a number of Saudi commentators who defended the sheikh’s right to express his opinion and called for the importance of “overturning jurisprudence for which there is no evidence.”

This is shared by others who questioned the reason for the existence of more than one opinion in the majority of jurisprudential issues.

As there are those who believe that the majority of jurists issue their rulings according to interpretations that are subject to change and deletion, and not based on established facts.

Some also argue that reviewing what some jurists say is a healthy matter that does not aim to undermine the fundamentals of religion as much as it is a refusal to try to impose a specific opinion in exchange for ignoring the rest of the jurisprudential opinions.

On the other hand, Saudi commentators praised the “revisions to Maghamsi’s positions and views,” saying that “their country needs to end the idea of ​​militant awakening and the realization of reason.”

While others reminded of previous positions of the Saudi sheikh, warning against returning some symbols to the facade after they were rejected by society.

Likewise, there are those who believe that the repeated calls today for the renewal of religious discourse and jurisprudence, despite their importance, are nothing more than media bubbles used by government tools and those close to them to divert attention from more important issues.

Some say that the issue of reviewing jurisprudence, doctrines, and heritage texts requires an atmosphere of freedoms and thinkers from outside the traditional school to liberate it from the authority of a single thought, as they put it.

Fiqh in language is discernment, knowledge of matters and understanding them accurately. Conventionally, there are different definitions of jurisprudence. And jurisprudence in the Islamic religion is knowledge of legal rulings, and it came in the definition of the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence that it is knowledge of practical subsidiary legal rulings, derived from detailed evidence .The jurist is the one who bases every rule of the Sharia on its evidence .

The research methodology differs in jurisprudential issues among the followers of the schools. While some include this difference under the circle of acceptable and commendable diversity, others raise many questions about the reasons for that difference.

The call for a review of jurisprudence is not new. Many writers and sheikhs have previously called for its development in line with the developments of the era .