How do Muslim-majority countries' legal systems treat non-Muslim citizens under Islamic law?
Executive summary
Most Muslim-majority countries treat non‑Muslim citizens through a mix of legal pluralism and state law: about half of these states have some sharia‑based laws, typically in personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance), while criminal and public law have often been secularized—leaving differing rights and restrictions for non‑Muslims depending on the country [1] [2]. Classical Islamic doctrine recognized protected non‑Muslim communities (dhimmis) with distinct rules (including historical taxes and community autonomy), but modern states vary from codifying protections to criminalizing certain non‑Muslim public acts under blasphemy or public‑order provisions [3] [4] [5].
1. Legal pluralism: multiple systems operating at once
Many Muslim‑majority states operate legal pluralism: statutory codes inspired by European models coexist with religious courts and customary law. In practice, sharia references in constitutions often translate into sharia influence mainly in personal status law, while civil and criminal codes were secularized in much of the region during the 19th–20th century reform era [2] [6]. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that about half of the nearly fifty Muslim‑majority countries have some sharia‑based laws, typically governing marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody rather than the full sweep of criminal law [1].
2. Personal status: where non‑Muslims often keep separate rules
Personal status is the clearest locus of difference: in several countries non‑Muslim citizens apply the laws of their own religions for family matters, while Muslims are subject to state interpretations of a particular madhhab or civil sharia code. For example, Egypt applies Hanafi guidance for Muslim citizens while non‑Muslims apply their respective religious laws in such matters [7]. Historical practice under Islamic jurists also allowed “People of the Book” to follow their own systems on marriage and inheritance [3].
3. Historical doctrine vs. modern practice: dhimmi status and its echoes
Classical fiqh developed categories—such as the dhimmi—that defined non‑Muslims’ rights and obligations (including protection and certain communal autonomies, and historically jizya as a fiscal‑political arrangement). Contemporary Islamic bodies promote that sharia guarantees non‑Muslims the “same public and private rights” while calling for observance of public order and manners by all residents (International Islamic Fiqh Academy) — language that affirms protections but links them to state notions of public order [4].
4. Criminal law, blasphemy and public‑order limits
Where state law incorporates sharia concepts into criminal or public‑order statutes, non‑Muslims can face explicit restrictions: archived U.S. State Department reporting documents laws that criminalize public display of non‑Islamic rites, conversion by Muslims, proselytism by non‑Muslims, and speech that “casts doubt” on fundamentals of Islam—showing how some countries use religiously framed public‑order provisions to limit non‑Muslim expression [5]. The CFR backgrounder similarly warns that some nations use sharia references to justify punitive measures and restrictions on minorities [1].
5. Role of religious scholars, courts and consent
In jurisdictions with formal Islamic courts, their jurisdiction is often limited to Muslims, though non‑Muslims may consent to their jurisdiction in specific cases. Judges in mixed disputes sometimes consult ulema or school‑specific jurisprudence to determine applicable law, underscoring that judicial practice can vary locally and be shaped by religious scholarship as well as statute [7].
6. Reform currents and divergent trajectories
Modern reform movements have created divergent outcomes: some states have moved further to secularize criminal law and curb traditional hudud penalties; others have reaffirmed or expanded sharia references. Scholars point to contemporary hermeneutical strategies—contextual ijtihad and selective codification—that allow states to integrate Islamic principles while aligning with human‑rights norms in some areas [8]. Morocco’s recent international vote on a moratorium on the death penalty exemplifies state choices that recalibrate Islamic legal references within global norms [8].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not provide a single, uniform rule for how every Muslim‑majority country treats non‑Muslims; they instead show a spectrum from protective pluralism to restrictive public‑order enforcement [1] [2]. Specific practices—e.g., the day‑to‑day experiences of individual non‑Muslims in a given country, or current legislative changes after the cited documents—are not detailed in the supplied reporting and therefore are not addressed here (not found in current reporting).
Final note: to understand a particular country’s rules for non‑Muslim citizens, consult that country’s constitution and codes and recent human‑rights or embassy reports—the pattern across the Muslim‑majority world is legal pluralism shaped by history, politics, and differing institutional choices [2] [1].