Can we consider the Mufti a political figure in Libya?
Palestinian poet Tamim Al-Barghouti says in one of his video posts that power does not care about contradictions as long as they serve its interests. Consider these examples spanning fifteen centuries: In the fifth century AD, the Franks were a Germanic people. Their religion, like that of their neighbors, worshipped Odin, the All-Father, and his son Thor, the god of thunder. Thor was armed with a magical hammer called Mjölnir, which over time became a symbol of the entire religion, much like the cross for Christians and the crescent for Muslims. When Christianity began to spread among the Frankish kings, they buried crosses and Thor's hammers together with their dead, as they were unsure which religion was true and which god they would meet after death, so they hedged their bets.
In 496, when Clovis I, the founder of what would later become France, converted to Christianity, it was on the condition that the patriarch crown him king by the authority of God, the God of Abraham, rather than because the blood of Thor and Odin ran through his veins as was the custom for old Frankish kings. Thus, he remained a king by divine appointment here and there, ruling both faiths in life and ensuring both salvations in the afterlife. In later centuries, when Viking kings from Scandinavia converted to Christianity, they accepted communion from priests and offered sacrifices to Thor and Odin at the same time, again as a precaution.
When Abu Sufyan came to the camp of the Ansar and Muhajireen before the conquest to convert to Islam, the saying "Whoever enters Abu Sufyan's house is safe" was considered a recognition that he still held some status in Islam as the former chief of Mecca. When his son Muawiya ruled the nation, he would say, "No one like the Umayyads ruled in both the pre-Islamic period and in Islam." After the killing of Hussein ibn Ali in Karbala and the news of his death reached Medina, the Aws, Khazraj, and Muhajireen revolted against the Umayyads. Yazid ibn Muawiya sent an army that sacked Medina for three days, not stopping until they had taken an oath of allegiance from its inhabitants that they were servants to Yazid, to rule over their blood, wealth, and people, and killed many of the companions.
These examples illustrate how power often ignores ethical and religious contradictions if it serves its interests and maintains its dominance.
his brings us to our discussion about a figure who has played a more political than religious role in recent years: the Mufti of Libya, Sheikh Sadiq Al-Ghariani. It is hard to find a political or military event in Libya on which the Sheikh has not expressed an opinion. Over time, many believe that the Sheikh's positions and views have created a following around him, commonly referred to in Libya as the "Mufti's faction."
You will not find a clear slogan for this faction, no official headquarters, no administrative structure, or clear ideological background. It is a faction that follows what the Mufti advocates and determines its stances on Libyan events from the Sheikh's perspective. This claim is supported by significant indicators and clear observations of the faction's influence on decision-makers in Tripoli over the past years and on some security agencies as well.
The Mufti's political role began early, specifically in the General National Congress elections when he emerged during the election silence, at 1 a.m., to urge people not to vote for Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, who was leading the National Forces Alliance at the time. He described Jibril's party as secular, trying to influence the collective mindset of citizens. However, the election results showed otherwise, as Jibril's party won with a historical margin in a country like Libya. Many election experts believe this number will be hard to achieve in the future.
Many observers classify the Mufti's followers as a political faction due to their participation in governance. Former Presidential Council member Mohamed Al-Amari Mohamed is seen by many as representing this faction. Furthermore, some believe that the Mufti's comments on events in Libya sometimes translate into decisions issued by the ruling authority in Libya.
Many observers also note that the Mufti and his faction played a pivotal role in some wars, including the Libya Dawn operation in 2014, where he strongly supported the military force representing Misrata and the "revolutionaries" against armed groups affiliated with Zintan, driving them out of Tripoli's airport and chasing them to the outskirts of Kikla. He also had a significant role in supporting and endorsing the military forces fighting against General Haftar's forces in eastern Libya, referred to at that time as the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council.
The Mufti also had major conflicts with the Salafi (Wahhabi, as their opponents call them) faction, criticizing them for adopting a foreign ideology unfamiliar to the deeply rooted Maliki tradition in Libya and the entire region. He also clashed with the Special Deterrence Force because the force arrested members of the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council accused of terrorism. The Mufti viewed this action as an extension of General Haftar's aggression against the Benghazi revolutionaries, thus stating that the force deviated from the principles of the February Revolution and needed correction.
Recently, under the "Return of Life" government, the Mufti and his faction have had a noticeable influence on events in Libya. The Prime Minister visited the Mufti several times, and during his tenure, citizens were arrested on charges of insulting the Mufti and the Dar Al-Ifta, as reported on many media platforms. We searched the penal code for this crime and found no trace of it.
No one, whether supporters or opponents of the Mufti, denies his great knowledge of Maliki jurisprudence, where he is highly regarded. The entire disagreement revolves around his political role and his comments on events in Libya, which have always sparked controversy, especially since there is a religious aura around everything he says, as he represents the religious image of the state. This is a matter for anyone holding this position in our region. But the central question many observers often ask is:
If there are people who adopt a political stance contrary to that of the Mufti, does that mean they are challenging their faith? Or are they violating religious teachings since the Mufti represents religion in the state?
We believe we may find the answer in the same clip we began this article with, in the words of Tamim Al-Barghouti:
"Many people call for separating religion from politics, but I do not know of any era or country where religion was completely separated from politics, or where politics was completely separated from religion. The most you can find is that they disguise and mingle like water mixing with water, shaped by politicians in their discourse to suit their interests."
I say that the faith of politicians is political, and it must be understood on this basis, and this is an old matter. So, ask yourself whenever you encounter metaphysical or materialistic discourse: Whose interests in this world does it serve? Then see if it benefits you, your family, and your nation, or harms you. Does it unite or divide? Does it resist invaders and tyrants or collude with them? Is it just or oppressive? Take from it what is noble, beautiful, beneficial, and closest to the truth, and protect yourself, for you are always stronger than them, and they know it. They know they cannot overpower you except by deceiving you, so do not be deceived.