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.
Aspect | Afghanistan | Saudi Arabia |
---|---|---|
Legal System | Mixed system: Civil law + Sharia, influenced by Hanafi Sunni fiqh mainly | Fully Islamic legal system based on Hanbali Sunni fiqh, Quran, Sunnah, and Saudi royal decrees |
Judicial Structure | Formal courts with Sharia judges; tribal and customary laws (Pashtunwali) also influential | Religious courts (Sharia courts) with judges appointed by the King; Ulema council advisory role |
Sources of Law | Quran, Sunnah, Hanafi jurisprudence, Afghan statutes | Quran, Sunnah, Hanbali jurisprudence, royal decrees, fatwas from the Council of Senior Scholars |
Criminal Law | Hudud punishments recognized but often mitigated by statute and judicial discretion | Strict application of Hudud, Qisas, and Ta’zir punishments |
Women's Rights | Traditional but subject to local variation; recent reforms under Afghan government | Conservative interpretation with gender segregation and male guardianship |
Freedom of Religion | Sunni majority with some Shia; some protection for minorities, but discrimination reported | Strict 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
Aspect | Afghanistan | Saudi Arabia |
---|---|---|
Sharia Source | Hanafi jurisprudence + tribal customs | Hanbali jurisprudence + royal decrees |
Women’s Rights | Improving but uneven enforcement | Historically restrictive; reform underway |
Punishments | Hudud applied but often mitigated | Strict Hudud enforcement, some judicial discretion |
Judicial System | Mixed formal and tribal courts | Centralized religious courts |
Freedom of Expression | Some limitations; evolving | Strict restrictions on dissent |
Reforms | Emerging through Afghan judiciary | Gradual reforms by royal decree |
0 comments