THE INTERPLAY OF CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE IN LEGAL SYSTEMS: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY

Abstract

The relationship between constitutional frameworks and Islamic jurisprudence is a subject of profound significance, particularly in countries where Islam is a predominant religion and where there is a desire to harmonize Islamic principles with modern legal systems. Islamic jurisprudence, or Shariah law, is derived from the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, serving as a comprehensive legal and moral framework for Muslims. Constitutional frameworks, on the other hand, are the foundational legal documents that establish the framework for government and outline the rights and responsibilities of citizens. The interplay between these two systems is multifaceted and manifests in various ways across different jurisdictions. Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, have incorporated Islamic principles into their constitutions, establishing Islamic law as a primary source of legislation. In these countries, Islamic courts interpret and apply Shariah law alongside or in place of civil law. Other countries, like Indonesia and Pakistan, have a dual legal system, where Shariah law applies to personal status matters for Muslims, while civil law governs other areas. This research article seeks to explore the various ways in which constitutional frameworks and Islamic jurisprudence interact in legal systems around the world. It will examine case studies from a range of countries to illustrate the diverse approaches taken to reconcile Islamic principles with modern legal systems. By analyzing these case studies, this article aims to provide insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by the interplay between constitutional frameworks and Islamic jurisprudence, and to contribute to a deeper understanding of how these two systems can coexist and complement each other in contemporary legal systems.