This study aims at uncovering a number of characteristics of the jurisdictional policy in the Islamic political framework (siyāsah shar'iyyah) of the Imam and Mujtahid Muhammad b. 'Abd Allāh alKhalīlī, may Allah have mercy on him, one of the famous scholars of the Ibadhi school, who has occupied himself with this field in theory and practice. As the jurisdiction of the Imam in this field is scattered between his legal rules, fatwas, and stances he took and which have been recorded by his contemporaries, this study has taken care of collecting and analyzing them to present the Islamic jurisdictional and political results. To realize this aim, the researcher has divided the study into three chapters. The first chapter talks about different aspects of the Imam's age, his personal, scholarly and political life, as well as the meaning of jurisdictional politics and their relation to siyāsah shar'iyyah. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the factors that influenced the formation of the Imam's jurisdictional policy. The second chapter throws light on the jurisdictional administration of Imam al-Khalīlī in his state, summarizing its most outstanding features. Chapter three expounds on the Imam's policy in jurisdictional rules and their implementation in cases related to rebellion (baghī), bodily punishments (ḥudūd) and penal law (jināyāt), as well as in cases related to personal status, transactions, and punishment which come to the discretion of the Imām (taʼzīr). The study arrives at a number of results, the most important of which are: Jurisdiction in the era of the Imam can be asserted of its independence. This means that everybody, including the Imam himself, was subject to the judiciary. There is nothing in the Imam's contradiction to the judges' rules that would contradict established rights. Among the jurisdictional policy of the Imam is the implementation of political means to get hold of rebellion and insurrection. With regard to taʼzīr, the Imam used a number of means to ward off sinful people. In some cases, he may have pardoned those who deserved punishment to realise a benefit, as he may have imprisoned some notables of the State for the sake of the general benefit.