Comparison Of Afghan And Saudi Arabian Sharia Practices

Overview: Sharia in Afghanistan vs Saudi Arabia

Both Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia base significant portions of their legal systems on Islamic Sharia law, but their implementation, interpretation, and legal frameworks vary due to history, culture, sectarian differences, and state structure.

AspectAfghanistanSaudi Arabia
Legal SystemMixed system: Civil law + Sharia, influenced by Hanafi Sunni fiqh mainlyFully Islamic legal system based on Hanbali Sunni fiqh, Quran, Sunnah, and Saudi royal decrees
Judicial StructureFormal courts with Sharia judges; tribal and customary laws (Pashtunwali) also influentialReligious courts (Sharia courts) with judges appointed by the King; Ulema council advisory role
Sources of LawQuran, Sunnah, Hanafi jurisprudence, Afghan statutesQuran, Sunnah, Hanbali jurisprudence, royal decrees, fatwas from the Council of Senior Scholars
Criminal LawHudud punishments recognized but often mitigated by statute and judicial discretionStrict application of Hudud, Qisas, and Ta’zir punishments
Women's RightsTraditional but subject to local variation; recent reforms under Afghan governmentConservative interpretation with gender segregation and male guardianship
Freedom of ReligionSunni majority with some Shia; some protection for minorities, but discrimination reportedStrict Wahhabi Sunni Islam with little tolerance for other sects or religions

Key Differences in Practice

Legal Pluralism in Afghanistan

Afghanistan blends formal Sharia courts with customary tribal laws (Pashtunwali), especially in rural areas. This creates a hybrid legal environment.

Strictness and Codification in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia implements Sharia as the law of the land without a formal written constitution, relying heavily on royal decrees and fatwas to supplement Quranic injunctions.

Judicial Authority

In Saudi Arabia, religious scholars (Ulema) have considerable influence, while in Afghanistan, secular judicial reforms coexist with religious authority.

Women's Legal Status

Saudi Arabia historically enforced strict gender segregation and male guardianship, though recent reforms have loosened some restrictions.

Afghanistan’s situation is more fluid, with urban reforms contrasting with rural conservative customs.

📚 Case Law and Legal Precedents

1. Case of Gulnaz (Afghanistan, 2011)

Facts:
Gulnaz, a young Afghan woman, was gang-raped and subsequently sentenced to death for adultery under Afghan Sharia law because she was unable to prove the rape.

Outcome:
The international community protested; Afghan courts eventually released her after intervention.

Legal Significance:
Highlighted the harsh application of Hudud punishments for adultery and the difficulty of proving rape under traditional Sharia evidentiary rules (requiring four male witnesses).
Demonstrated challenges in protecting women's rights under Afghan Sharia law.

2. Case of Raif Badawi (Saudi Arabia, 2014)

Facts:
Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger and activist, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam” and apostasy.

Outcome:
Punishment was carried out sparingly after international condemnation.

Legal Significance:
Shows the Saudi application of Hudud and Ta’zir punishments for crimes against religion, under a strict interpretation of Sharia that criminalizes free expression and apostasy.

3. Afghan Supreme Court Decision on Child Marriage (2019)

Facts:
A petition challenged the legality of child marriage under Afghan law.

Held:
The court ruled that while Islamic law permits marriage at puberty, Afghan civil law requires 16 years minimum age, thereby protecting children from early marriage.

Significance:
Shows Afghan courts balancing Islamic jurisprudence and modern statutory protections, reflecting evolving interpretations of Sharia compatible with human rights.

4. Saudi Case on Women Driving (2018)

Context:
Until 2018, Saudi Arabia banned women from driving based on conservative interpretations of Sharia restricting women's mobility.

Change:
The ban was lifted by royal decree, citing modernization and reinterpretation of Islamic law.

Significance:
Marks a significant reform in Saudi Sharia application, balancing tradition with socio-economic modernization.

5. Mullah Dadullah’s Fatwa and Taliban Law Enforcement (Afghanistan, 2000s)

Facts:
The Taliban issued strict decrees based on their interpretation of Sharia, including public executions and amputations.

Significance:
Demonstrates an extreme literalist interpretation of Sharia, enforced through Taliban judicial organs, contrasting with the more pluralistic Afghan courts post-2001.

6. Saudi Supreme Judicial Council Case on Hudud Punishments (Recent Years)

Facts:
Saudi judges issued Hudud punishments like amputations and floggings but exercised discretion to suspend or commute sentences considering repentance or mitigating factors.

Significance:
Indicates judicial discretion within Saudi Sharia courts, balancing strict scriptural commands with mercy principles.

7. Afghanistan’s Penal Code Amendment (2017) on Blasphemy

Fact:
Afghan Penal Code criminalized blasphemy under Islamic law but also included safeguards to prevent abuse.

Case Example:
A man accused of insulting Islam was acquitted when the court found insufficient evidence.

Significance:
Shows efforts in Afghanistan to codify Sharia in criminal law while incorporating procedural protections.

✅ Summary of Comparison

AspectAfghanistanSaudi Arabia
Sharia SourceHanafi jurisprudence + tribal customsHanbali jurisprudence + royal decrees
Women’s RightsImproving but uneven enforcementHistorically restrictive; reform underway
PunishmentsHudud applied but often mitigatedStrict Hudud enforcement, some judicial discretion
Judicial SystemMixed formal and tribal courtsCentralized religious courts
Freedom of ExpressionSome limitations; evolvingStrict restrictions on dissent
ReformsEmerging through Afghan judiciaryGradual reforms by royal decree

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments