SHARIAsource

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Al Mamlakah al Arabiyah as Sa'udiyah), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Saudi Arabia's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) is the primary source of legislation.  

The fatwa is a unanimous decision by forty Muslim muftis, affiliated with the Sunni Ittehad Council in Pakistan, declaring honor killing of women as “un-Islamic” or heresy (kuffur) and an “unpardonable sin” (gunah-e-qabir). The decree explicitly states that burning a woman alive, in the name of honor, for marrying a person of their choosing, is heresy and against the commands of Islam. The fatwa quotes a Quranic verse, verse number 232 of Surat al-Baqarah: [translated from the Urdu translation of the verse – as used in the fatwa – into English] “Oh woman’s family, do not say no to women for wanting to marry the husband [of their choice] if the two of them have consented to the marriage.” The fatwa states that Islam is the true guardian of rights of women and that it is imperative upon the leaders of an Islamic nation/government (hukumat) to ensure protection of women’s rights. For that purpose, the government should pass and implement laws that make burning and killing of women an unpardonable crime. The oppression and torture unleashed upon women has no relation to Islam. The fatwa then refers to an example (sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad, as narrated in Sahih-Bukhari: The Prophet (s.a.w.) terminated the marriage contract (nikkah) of a woman who complained to him (s.a.w.) that she did not like the man her father had married her off to. The fatwa condemns the act of burning alive or killing one’s child for marrying someone of their choice and then “appeals” to the parents to focus on the ethical education and upbringing of their children in line with the teachings of Islam; and that the upcoming month of Ramadan will be devoted to raise awareness about women’s rights. Finally, the fatwa states that those who burn women and girls alive should be hanged to death.

The particular newspaper reporting (in Roznama Dunya) on this fatwa includes the names of twenty four clerics who signed the fatwa (the total number of clerics who joined in issuing the fatwa were forty but the newspaper article explicitly mentions just twenty four names).

University of Pennsylvania

Amina Lawal appealed her zinā (fornication) conviction by the lower court on several grounds, including: the inconclusive proof of zinā by the appellant's pregnancy because she had been married within the previous five years; the improper constitution of the Court as the kadi (qāḍī) had sat alone, without two other members, as required by law; and the invalidity of the appellant's confession by the failure of the Court to explain the meaning of zinā. Along with the grounds of appeal, the appellant’s counsel tendered a retraction of the confession that was made before the lower court. All grounds of the appeal failed. The Court held that the appellant’s confession before the lower court was valid as her testimony there indicated that she understood the meaning of zinā. This valid confession coupled with her failure to assert that her divorced husband fathered the child constituted proof of commission of zinā. The Court determined that sharīʿa (based on its understanding of Qurʾān, ḥadīth [prophetic reports], ijmāʿ [consensus], ijtihād [interpretation], and ʿurf [custom]) is supreme and overrides legislative enactments on the composition of the court. Therefore, the failure of the trial court to be constituted as required by legislation does not invalidate the decision, because the decision was issued in compliance with the dictates of sharīʿa. Amina Lawal successfully appealed this decision to the Sharia Court of Appeal.

In this excerpt of his compendium of law-related ḥadīth reports, al-Ṣanʿānī (d.211/827) relays prophetic sources on various topics, among them an ambiguous ḥadīth on the criterion for witness eligibility, which states that, “No community may testify against another, except the community of Muḥammad.” Ahmed El Shamsy notes in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts that this verse is legally ambiguous. Later authorities debate its correct interpretation. While it is widely agreed that non-Muslims are ineligible to serve as witnesses against Muslims, some argue that in certain circumstances a scripturalist (generally defined as Jews and Christians) might testify against another scripturalist. Notably, Ṣanʿānī is the only source which transmits this ḥadīth, and it is not included in the work of his contemporary Ibn Abī Shayba.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.  

This text documenting the positions of the jurist Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) relays a disagreement he had with the scholar Isḥāq Ibn Rāhawayh (d. 238/853). While Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal had maintained the non-Muslims might only testify regarding the last will of a deceased Muslim, Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh upholds the opinion suggested by earlier jurists that non-Muslim scripturalists might testify in Muslim courts so long as they only testify against members of their own faith communities. Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh cites an event in the Prophet Muḥammad’s life as Sunnaic proof for the admissibility of non-Muslim testimony in court. He relays an incident in which Muḥammad apparently accepted the testimony of Jewish individuals against a Jewish couple accused of adultery. Ahmed El Shamsy notes in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts that Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh seems to be one of the only jurists of his day to employ this anecdote to permit non-Muslim testimony.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.  

In this excerpt from his book on the Day of Resurrection, Muḥāsibī describes the scene that will take place on the day itself: the angels surround the judgment scene in rows and the hell-monster Jahannam is seated at the left foot of God’s throne. The Prophet Muḥammad will also be present on the Day of Judgment, interceding for his community. In his chapter comparing earthly justice with heavenly justice in the early Islamic imagination in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Christian Lange uses this source to highlight parallels between exegetes’ depiction of the heavenly court and the features of earthly courtrooms. He notes that the placement of Jahannam corresponds to the usual position of the executioner on the left of the ruler’s throne in medieval representations of the royal court.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In this excerpt from his book of admonitions, Qurṭubī deploys a Prophetic ḥadīth, “This is not a reckoning, it’s a [simple] exposure (ʿarḍ),” to explain Q. 84:7–9 (“As for one who is given his book in his right hand, he will be reckoned with an easy reckoning and will return to his people joyful”). In his chapter comparing earthly justice with heavenly justice in the early Islamic imagination in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Christian Lange uses this source to highlight the ways in which medieval exegetes sought to avoid anthropomorphic interpretations of the Quran. He also points to Qurṭubī’s efforts to alleviate the concern that even true believers will undergo a reckoning (ḥisāb) as indicated inQ. 84:7–9 by arguing that it is only enemies of God who attempt to engage in disputation (jidāl) in order to evade divine judgment.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In this excerpt from his biographical dictionary of the religious scholars of Samarqand, the sixth/twelfth-century scholar Nasafī mentions the ḥadīthactivity of Aḥmad b. Asad’s sons, claiming that at least four of them transmitted ḥadīths, some from their father. One of the latter ḥadīthfeatures the Prophet Muḥammad saying, “When a man dies, his deeds come to an end, except for three: knowledge by which people benefit, continuous charity [in his name], and a righteous son who prays for him.” Nasafī also cites an anecdote concerning Aḥmad b. Asad’s son Naṣr, who was able to verify a waqf document and implement it in the correct manner. In her analysis of Islamic mirrors-for-princes literature on judging in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Louise Marlow uses this example to identify the types of legal issues in which a ruler might find it necessary to intervene using his religious knowledge.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In this excerpt from Quḍāt Qurṭuba, Khushanī (d. 361/971) describes the funny and lighthearted behavior of a scholar,Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Maʿāfirī al-Aʿshā (d. 221/836),who was appraised for the position of judge but eventually turned it down. According to Khushanī, al-Aʿshā challenged the idea that a sense of humor rendered a judge unfit for office. When he was asked why he rejected the position, he explained that he feared being punished in the afterlife for an incorrect or cruel ruling. He followed this reasoning with a rejoinder to his interlocutor about the Prophet Muḥammad’s cousin and son-in-law ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, who did not forego his good humor upon becoming caliph; if, al-Aʿshā argued, such a respectable figure did not become more grave when in power, why should a judge? In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, MaribelFierro uses this source to show that Khushanī does not limit his account of judges’ behavior to their serious and pious actions but also includes their humorous natures. This range testifies both to the expansiveness of Khushanī’s work and to the diversity of judges active at the time.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

This historical source records ʿAlī’s endowment of the land at Yanbuʿ to his heirs. Ḥimyarī (d. ca. 9th/15th c.) gives the text of the endowment as cited by Bakrī <link>, reporting that the Prophet Muḥammad gave the land to Kushd, who asked for it to be given to his nephew. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Asʿad b. Zurāra then bought the land but found the area stricken with plague and contracted an eye disease there. When he returned and ʿAlī asked him where he was coming from, he answered, “Yanbuʿ, and I disliked it; would you like to buy it?” ʿAlī thus purchased the land for 30,000 dinars. When he went to it, “the first thing he did there was [discover] Bughaybigha."

In her chapter on land and leadership in early Islamic societies in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Intisar Rabb draws on this source to demonstrate the complexity of the ʿAlid endowments establishing their entitlement to the land.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts,ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources  and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts from Kindī’s book on governors and judges demonstrate that the appointment of a Ḥanafī judge in a traditionally Mālikī region such as Egypt could have serious repercussions on social life. In the case described by Kindī, Ismāʿīl b. al-Yasaʿ al-Kindī, a Ḥanafī of Iraqi origin, was appointed as judge in Egypt, where the population was not accustomed to this school of law and disliked it. Ismāʿīl al-Kindī adopted an oppressive attitude toward the population and abolished endowments (aḥbās). According to Kindī, the jurist Layth b. Saʿd confronted the judge about this decision and informed the caliph al-Mahdī, who promptly removed the qāḍīin response to Layth’s accusation that Ismāʿīl al-Kindī was harming the Sunna of the Prophet. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this source to illustrate the tensions between judges and jurisconsults belonging to different legal schools.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts from Kindī’s book on governors and judges demonstrate that the appointment of a Ḥanafī judge in a traditionally Mālikī region such as Egypt could have serious repercussions on social life. In the case described by Kindī, Ismāʿīl b. al-Yasaʿ al-Kindī, a Ḥanafī of Iraqi origin, was appointed as judge in Egypt, where the population was not accustomed to this school of law and disliked it. Ismāʿīl al-Kindī adopted an oppressive attitude toward the population and abolished endowments (aḥbās). According to Kindī, the jurist Layth b. Saʿd confronted the judge about this decision and informed the caliph al-Mahdī, who promptly removed the qāḍīin response to Layth’s accusation that Ismāʿīl al-Kindī was harming the Sunna of the Prophet. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this source to illustrate the tensions between judges and jurisconsults belonging to different legal schools.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In the Introduction to Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law, Hossein Modarressi introduces the topic of his study: the early development of the Jaʿfarī Islamic legal school. Modarressi notes that the Jaʿfarī school emerged in the late Umayyad period (i.e., the first half of the second Islamic century/mid-eighth century CE) and its eponym was Imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), a preeminent jurist of Medina and a revered member of the House of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt). Over the course of the Introduction, Modarressi draws on various sources to show how Imam al-Ṣādiq was revered by many as a leading jurist during his time. Modarressi notes that his project utilizes “all material that corresponds to the language and character of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, as known through both historical and biographical accounts, and as such can reasonably be deemed reliable,” without regard to sectarian tendencies and doctrinal affiliations (p. 11).

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

A Toledan man named Ibn Ḥātim was accused of being a heretic by sixty witnesses on the initiative of a fellow Toledan called Ibn Labīd al-Murābiṭ. The judge consulted with the local jurists, and following their legal opinions, he sentenced the accused to death. However, he granted the accused the right to challenge the witnesses (iʿdhār). Ibn Ḥātim escaped from Toledo and found refuge in the neighboring kingdom of Badajoz. Ibn Labīd went after him, carrying a copy of the judge’s sentence (tasjīl) along with the legal opinions of a number of non-Toledan jurists. In Badajoz, the ruler withdrew his support from Ibn Ḥātim, who fled again, this time to Cordoba. While in Cordoba, the “moral” police arrested Ibn Ḥātim, and the judge imprisoned him, giving him two months to prove his innocence. Unable to do so, Ibn Ḥātim was crucified alive. A number of legal issues arise in the course of this case: should the process of iʽdhār—the right to challenge witnesses—be granted to those accused of heresy (zandaqa)? Should refuge be granted to them? What happens with the estate or inheritance of an executed zindīq? Can a judge reverse a sentence given by another judge? The source is a collection of court cases by Andalusi scholar Ibn Sahl (d. 486/1093), and it is based on information directly available to the compiler, who was also a witness of most of the events described.

This fatwa states that there are two conflicting opinions regarding divorce (pronouncement of talak). The first is that the pronouncement of talak three times at once is akin to the third talak. This opinion was held by the Companions of the Prophet (Sahaba), the Tabi'in (the next generation), and imams of all four schools (mazhab) of Sunni Islamic thought. The counter opinion is that pronouncement of talak three times at once is only akin to the first of three pronouncements of talak. This opinion was held by Thawus, the Imamiyah school (mazhab) of Shi'a Islamic thought, Ibnu Taimiyah, and Ahlu az-Zahir. The fatwa states that the Committee finds the former opinion to be more sound. It also notes that marriage and divorce is regulated for Muslims in ss 10 and 31 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and ss 14-18 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975.

The fatwa states that efforts must be made to prevent three pronouncements of talak at once occurring again. Moreover, that if state marriage laws are implemented correctly, there will be no more incidents of three pronouncements of talak at once in Indonesia. The fatwa also acknowledges the significance of the role of the religious courts (pengadilan agama) in preventing such incidents occurring in the future.

The Pakistan Supreme Court has acquitted Asia Bibi of blasphemy charges, removing her from death row. A Pakistani Christian woman, Asia Bibi, was arrested in 2010 after a dispute with her Muslim co-workers in which they claimed that she insulted the Prophet Muhammad. The state prosecutor charged her with blasphemy and the trial court sentenced her to death. The courts subsequently dismissed her appeal to the Lahore High Court. After a lengthy series of appeals, the Pakistan Supreme Court acquitted Asia Bibi of blasphemy charges, vacating her sentence. The decision navigates between affirming the law and reversing its application to Ms. Bibi. The Court notes on the one hand that blasphemy was a severe offense under classic Islamic law, and it upholds capital punishment for it, citing Muhammad Ismail Qureshi v. Pakistan (PLD 1991 FSC 10). The Court concludes, on the other hand, that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant “beyond reasonable doubt.” It noted “glaring and stark contradictions in the evidence,” and cited evidence that the prosecution’s witnesses harbored ill will against Asia Bibi and thus may have fabricated the allegations. According to the Court, “even if there was some grain of truth in the allegations … the glaring contradictions in the evidence … clearly show that the truth in this case had been mixed with a lot which was untrue.” In the end, the Court notes the abuse of the blasphemy charge, and condemns people with “nefarious designs” who level false allegations of blasphemy, citing Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri v. the State (PLD 2016 SC 17). This decision thus upholds blasphemy laws but cautions against broad and false applications of it.

The Muwaṭṭaʾ is the first extant treatise on Islamic law, written by the eighth-century Medinan jurist Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795). It provides an unparalleled window into the life of the early Muslim community of Medina—where the Prophet Muḥammad lived and died after immigrating from Mecca—as well as the rituals, laws, and customs that its members upheld years after his death. Harvard’s Program in Islamic Law, in conjunction with Harvard University Press, published an English translation of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in 2019, edited and translated by Professors Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette. This translation is based on the recently published critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, The Royal Moroccan Edition (Rabat: Ministry of Endowments, 2013). With its extensive notes, the English edition is intended to make this important early legal text widely accessible to a broad spectrum of readers, including those interested in both legal history and Islamic Studies. This Online Companion to the Muwaṭṭaʾ makes the full texts of both the original Arabic edition and its English translation freely available online. We gratefully acknowledge the Moroccan Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs for permissions to make the full Arabic text available online.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the print edition al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, the Royal Moroccan Edition: The Recension of Yaḥyā Ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī (Harvard Series in Islamic Law), edited and translated by Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette (PIL/HUP, 2019).

The Arabic text has been provided in 15 parts, of which this is the fourteenth.

The Muwaṭṭaʾ is the first extant treatise on Islamic law, written by the eighth-century Medinan jurist Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795). It provides an unparalleled window into the life of the early Muslim community of Medina—where the Prophet Muḥammad lived and died after immigrating from Mecca—as well as the rituals, laws, and customs that its members upheld years after his death. Harvard’s Program in Islamic Law, in conjunction with Harvard University Press, published an English translation of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in 2019, edited and translated by Professors Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette. This translation is based on the recently published critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, The Royal Moroccan Edition (Rabat: Ministry of Endowments, 2013). With its extensive notes, the English edition is intended to make this important early legal text widely accessible to a broad spectrum of readers, including those interested in both legal history and Islamic Studies. This Online Companion to the Muwaṭṭaʾ makes the full texts of both the original Arabic edition and its English translation freely available online. We gratefully acknowledge the Moroccan Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs for permissions to make the full Arabic text available online.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the print edition al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, the Royal Moroccan Edition: The Recension of Yaḥyā Ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī (Harvard Series in Islamic Law), edited and translated by Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette (PIL/HUP, 2019).

The Arabic text has been provided in 15 parts, of which this is the fifteenth.

The Muwaṭṭaʾis the first extant treatise on Islamic law, written by the eighth-century Medinan jurist Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795). It provides an unparalleled window into the life of the early Muslim community of Medina—where the Prophet Muḥammad lived and died after immigrating from Mecca—as well as the rituals, laws, and customs that its members upheld years after his death. Harvard’s Program in Islamic Law, in conjunction with Harvard University Press, published an English translation of the Muwaṭṭaʾin 2019, edited and translated by Professors Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette. This translation is based on the recently published critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, The Royal Moroccan Edition (Rabat: Ministry of Endowments, 2013). With its extensive notes, the English edition is intended to make this important early legal text widely accessible to a broad spectrum of readers, including those interested in both legal history and Islamic Studies. This Online Companionto the Muwaṭṭaʾmakes the full texts of both the original Arabic edition and its English translation freely available online. We gratefully acknowledge the Moroccan Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs for permissions to make the full Arabic text available online.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the print edition al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, the Royal Moroccan Edition: The Recension of Yaḥyā Ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī (Harvard Series in Islamic Law), edited and translated by Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette (PIL/HUP, 2019).

The Arabic text has been provided in 15 parts, of which this is the fourth.