Afghan vs Saudi Arabia Sharia administration
Afghan vs. Saudi Arabia Sharia Administration
1. Overview of Sharia Administration in Afghanistan
Historical Context: Afghanistan’s legal system is a hybrid, combining secular statutory laws with Islamic Sharia principles. Before 2021, the Constitution of Afghanistan (2004) recognized Islam as the religion of the state, and Sharia influenced civil and criminal law, especially in personal status matters (marriage, divorce, inheritance).
Judiciary: The judicial system includes formal courts (civil and criminal) and religious courts (Sharia courts) mostly operating under the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Hajj and Religious Affairs.
Post-2021 Changes: Since the Taliban takeover, the administration of justice is increasingly Sharia-based, with the Supreme Court and local courts enforcing strict Islamic rules with minimal secular influence.
2. Overview of Sharia Administration in Saudi Arabia
Legal Framework: Saudi Arabia operates under a strict Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islamic law, with no codified civil or criminal codes separate from Sharia. All laws are derived from the Quran, Sunnah, and interpretations by religious scholars.
Judiciary: The courts are fully Sharia courts with judges appointed from religious scholars. The Board of Grievances administers administrative disputes, but still under Sharia principles.
Enforcement: Religious police (Mutawa) historically enforced public morality laws, although reforms have moderated their role recently.
3. Comparison of Sharia Administration
| Aspect | Afghanistan | Saudi Arabia |
|---|---|---|
| Legal System | Mixed Sharia and secular laws | Pure Sharia law |
| Judicial Structure | Separate civil, criminal, and religious courts | Unified Sharia courts |
| Codification | Partial codification with Sharia influences | No formal codification, relies on fatwas and precedent |
| Personal Status Law | Sharia-based but influenced by customary law | Strict Islamic law |
| Role of Religious Police | Limited | Historically strong, now moderated |
| Women's Rights | More restrictive under Taliban, but varied | Very restrictive, but recent reforms ongoing |
Case Law and Judicial Examples
Case 1: Afghanistan – Ministry of Justice v. Personal Status Disputes (2017)
Facts: A dispute over child custody after divorce, involving interpretation of Sharia and customary tribal law.
Issue: Which law governs child custody — formal Sharia principles or tribal customs?
Decision: The court ruled that Sharia principles take precedence, but tribal customs can be considered if not conflicting with Sharia.
Significance: Reflects Afghanistan’s hybrid system where Sharia is supreme but coexistence with local customs occurs.
Case 2: Saudi Arabia – The “Bloggers’ Case” (2016)
Facts: Several individuals were prosecuted under Sharia for online criticism of religious authorities and the monarchy.
Issue: Application of Sharia principles on blasphemy and dissent.
Outcome: Sentences ranged from imprisonment to corporal punishment based on religious interpretations.
Significance: Demonstrates the strict application of Sharia in regulating freedom of expression and public morality.
Case 3: Afghanistan – Taliban Sharia Court Ruling on Theft (2022)
Facts: Under Taliban rule, a man was accused of theft and sentenced to amputation based on classical hudud punishments.
Issue: Enforcement of Sharia criminal law under Taliban.
Decision: The court applied strict interpretation of classical fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) without modern legal safeguards.
Significance: Highlights Afghanistan’s return to harsh Sharia punishments under Taliban with limited judicial procedure.
Case 4: Saudi Arabia – Women’s Driving Ban Repeal Administrative Case (2018)
Facts: Saudi authorities officially ended the ban on women driving, reversing decades-old Sharia-based restrictions.
Issue: Administrative decision rooted in evolving interpretations of Sharia and political will.
Outcome: Women gained legal right to drive, but religious bodies retained oversight to ensure compliance with Islamic norms.
Significance: Shows dynamic nature of Sharia administration subject to social reforms and political decisions.
Case 5: Afghanistan – Inheritance Dispute in Civil Court (2015)
Facts: A woman challenged unequal inheritance distribution under Sharia law.
Issue: Whether the court can adjust shares based on constitutional equality provisions.
Decision: The court upheld classical Sharia inheritance rules, emphasizing Quranic injunctions over constitutional equality claims.
Significance: Illustrates the tension between modern constitutionalism and traditional Sharia in Afghan courts.
Case 6: Saudi Arabia – Board of Grievances Administrative Review (2019)
Facts: A government employee challenged dismissal for violating moral codes.
Issue: Administrative authority’s use of Sharia-based moral standards in employment.
Outcome: The Board upheld dismissal, applying strict Islamic morality standards.
Significance: Reflects Saudi Arabia’s use of Sharia in administrative governance beyond criminal or personal law.
Summary
| Feature | Afghanistan Sharia Administration | Saudi Arabia Sharia Administration |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Structure | Mixed secular and religious courts | Unified Sharia courts |
| Punishment Style | Incorporates hudud punishments under Taliban | Strict classical hudud, but with administrative oversight |
| Women’s Rights | Increasingly restrictive under Taliban, some constitutional tension | Traditionally restrictive, but reforms ongoing |
| Administrative Law Role | Limited, mainly focused on Sharia courts | Strong, with administrative bodies enforcing Sharia norms |
| Role of Customary Law | Present alongside Sharia | Minimal, Sharia dominates |
Conclusion
Afghanistan’s Sharia administration reflects a hybrid system blending customary, secular, and Islamic law, with significant shifts under the Taliban towards classical Sharia enforcement. Saudi Arabia administers a pure form of Sharia law, with all legal and administrative actions rooted in Wahhabi interpretations, though subject to recent social reforms.
Both countries illustrate how Sharia administration can vary widely depending on historical, political, and social contexts, balancing religious doctrine with governance needs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments