The IFL is a type of law that covers issues such as marriage, divorce, child custody, and the status of women. It can also be called Muslim Personal Status Law. The idea of the IFL was introduced by the European colonial powers. Colonial governments separated family law from the rest of Sharia law and then applied the IFL as national law based on European models of government. All other areas of law were governed by secular European-style laws. The work of the Egyptian Islamic scholar Muhammad ʿAbduh (1849-1905) had the strongest influence on liberal reformist thought. Abduh considered that only Sharia rules relating to religious rituals were inflexible, arguing that other Islamic laws should be adapted to changing circumstances, taking into account social welfare. Following the precedents set by earlier Islamic thinkers, he advocated restoring Islam to its original purity by returning to the Qur`an and Sunnah rather than following medieval schools of jurisprudence. [15] He advocated a creative approach to ijtihad that included direct interpretation of the scriptures and methods of Takhayyur and Talfiq.
[6] [15] The legal systems of most Muslim-majority countries can be classified as secular or mixed. Sharia law plays no role in secular legal systems. In mixed legal systems, Sharia rules are allowed to influence certain national laws, which are codified and may be based on European or Indian models, and the central legislative role is played by modern politicians and jurists rather than ulema (traditional Islamic scholars). Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states have so-called classical Sharia systems, in which national law is largely uncodified and formally assimilated to Sharia law, with ulema playing a crucial role in its interpretation. Iran has adopted some features of classical Sharia systems while retaining the characteristics of mixed systems such as codified laws and a parliament. [120] Some governments allow independent religious authorities to apply and decide the laws of their faith in certain situations. For example, the UK allows Islamic courts governing marriage, divorce and inheritance to make legally binding decisions if both parties agree. Similar mechanisms exist for Jewish and Anglican congregations. In Israel, Christians, Jews and Muslims can decide family law issues in religious courts, as can members of some other faiths. In addition, minority Muslim countries such as Australia, Japan, Britain and the United States allow Islamic or Shariah-compliant banks. At this meeting, Heba F. El-Shazli of George Mason University discusses religious freedom in the Middle East with Dwight Bashir of the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom and authors Janine di Giovanni and Daniel Philpott. In 2017-2018, the Ministry of Interior established an independent commission to review the work of Sharia councils. [22] Among the advice reviewed by the Commission was evidence of good practice: advice almost always given to women seeking divorce; religious divorce is granted as a formality in the case of civil divorce; and reports of domestic violence were referred to police. But there was also evidence of bad practices. In some councils, there are issues that disadvantage or even endanger the women they are trying to help. Some emphasized mediation between the couple as a preparatory step in the process, which could be completely inappropriate if the relationship was abusive. Sometimes mediation can involve intrusive questions about the relationship or drag on for several months. Some counsel lacked adequate protection procedures and few had women as full members of the body (with a few notable exceptions). Today, most Muslim-majority countries do not impose corporal punishment, although a dozen have the power to do so under state laws.
Local and international backlash often deters authorities from implementing such decisions. However, Indonesia, Iran, Maldives and Qatar are among the countries where flogging is still practiced. and Iran, Mauritania [PDF], Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan have amputated convicted thieves in recent decades. In addition, the Taliban carried out public executions and amputations when they ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s and announced that these punishments would return under their new government.