How do contemporary Muslim-majority countries vary in implementing Sharia-based criminal justice today (examples and degrees of application)?
Executive summary
Contemporary Muslim-majority countries display a wide spectrum of Sharia-based criminal justice: some apply classical Sharia across the state legal order, others confine Sharia to family law or niche courts, and many operate hybrid systems that blend Islamic principles with European-style codes and secular institutions [1] [2] [3]. High-profile examples—Saudi Arabia and parts of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan on one end, secular Turkey and Tunisia on the other—illustrate differing degrees of implementation and social-political drivers behind those choices [1] [4] [5].
1. Old models, new mixes: classical Sharia versus hybrid legal systems
A minority of states follow a classical Sharia model where Islamic jurisprudence directly underpins criminal and public law—Saudi Arabia is often cited as a system where Islamic law functions as the country’s common law, with religious courts and royal authority shaping outcomes—while Iran mixes constitutional theocracy with parliamentary and codified law, producing a hybrid form [1] [6]. Most Muslim-majority countries, however, have adopted mixed legal systems: constitutions may reference Sharia yet the everyday criminal code and judicial procedures have long been influenced or outright modeled on European legal traditions, meaning Sharia’s practical role is often limited to personal-status and family matters [1] [2].
2. Full criminal enforcement: the most visible and controversial cases
Some jurisdictions retain criminal penalties drawn from classical texts and enforce them with notable harshness, a pattern that draws international criticism for incompatibility with human-rights norms; reporting cites states like Taliban-governed Afghanistan and—historically—extreme interpretations applied by ISIS as examples of strict classical application [4] [7]. Brunei’s 2019 expansion of criminal Sharia penalties provoked international outcry, even as the Sultan later announced some measures would not be enforced, underscoring how political calculation and international pressure can shape implementation [8].
3. Regional patchworks: federations and local Sharia courts
Federal or decentralized states often produce a patchwork of implementation: northern Nigerian states, for instance, have adopted Sharia criminal codes in some states and retain punishments like amputations and flogging on statute books even if executions are rare, while non-Muslims may be excluded from Sharia courts unless they consent [8] [6]. Indonesia’s Aceh province stands out within a largely secular national framework as the one province enforcing Sharia-based criminal regulations, demonstrating how subnational politics create exceptions [8].
4. The widespread role of family law and personal status
Even where criminal Sharia is limited, most Muslim-majority countries incorporate Sharia into family and inheritance law; constitutions and legal practice frequently reserve matters like marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance to religious courts or to Sharia-informed statutes, a near-universal pattern across regions noted by comparative studies and backgrounders [1] [3]. This selective application—where criminal punishments are rare but personal-status law is dominant—helps explain why public support for "Sharia" can coexist with broad acceptance of secular legal institutions [5].
5. Public opinion, politics, and the demand for Sharia
Surveys show strong variation in popular support for making Sharia the official law: countries where Islam already has constitutional prominence (Afghanistan, Iraq) report higher majorities favoring state-level Sharia, while places like Lebanon, Tunisia, and Turkey demonstrate complex attitudes where many support religious judges for family disputes but not necessarily comprehensive Sharia criminal codes [5] [9]. Islamist movements and political actors often press for expanded Sharia, but attempts to introduce or deepen Sharia provisions have provoked contention, violence, or legal backlash in several states [1].
6. Legal reform, international norms, and the limits of reporting
Academic and policy literature stresses that modern Sharia application is dynamic—shaped by migration, modernization, and legal borrowing—so that reforms frequently recodify or limit classical penalties even where Sharia is constitutionally referenced [2] [10]. Reporting and datasets emphasize national variation but cannot fully capture day-to-day judicial discretion, informal religious authority, or how frequently harsh statutory punishments are actually carried out; precise enforcement patterns often require country-level legal records and field research beyond the cited overviews [7] [2].