<![CDATA[The association of Islamic politics with radicalism has become a dominant narrative in contemporary discussions on religion and politics in Indonesia. Existing studies have largely focused on radical movements, religious extremism, and political Islam. At the same time, insufficient attention has been given to the intellectual traditions that have historically shaped moderate Islamic political engagement. This study examines how Shafi'i jurisprudence provides a normative and adaptive framework for political moderation and explores its relevance in challenging radicalism-centered interpretations of Islamic politics. Using qualitative library research, the study analyzes classical Shafi'i political texts, particularly the works of al-Mawardi, al-Juwaynī, and al-Ghazālī, alongside the historical experiences of Hasyim Asy'ari, Mohammad Natsir, and Nahdlatul Ulama in negotiating the relationship between Islam, politics, and the nation-state. The findings reveal that political moderation in the Shafi'i tradition is constructed through five interconnected principles: public welfare (maṣlaḥah), consultation (shūrā), preservation of social order (ḥifẓ al-niẓām), legal realism, and public accountability. These principles enable a flexible and context-sensitive approach to governance, allowing Indonesian Muslim scholars to selectively adapt classical doctrines while rejecting elements incompatible with democratic pluralism. The study argues that the Indonesian experience demonstrates an adaptive model of Shafi'i political thought that reconciles Islamic normative commitments with constitutionalism, democracy, and national unity. This article contributes to the literature by proposing Adaptive Shafi'i Political Theory, a theoretical framework introduced in this study, to explain how classical Shafi'i political principles are selectively adapted to support constitutionalism, democracy, and national unity beyond the dominant radicalism narrative.]]>
