DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v22i1.70786

Justice in the Balance: Activating Legislative-Reality Harmony to Ensure Fair Judicial Rulings Between Sharia And Modern Legal Systems

*Yassine Chami orcid scopus  -  College of Law, Abu Dhabi University, United Arab Emirates
Mohamed Elmadni Elsharef orcid  -  College of Law, Dhofar University, Oman
Enas Qutieshat orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Sohar University ; Tashkent State University of Law, Uzbekistan
Open Access Copyright 2026 LAW REFORM under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Achieving judicial fairness requires harmonizing legal texts with evolving societal realities. This research aims to explore the factors that enhance the fairness of judicial rulings by analyzing the interplay between abstract legal texts and practical reality. The method used involves a comparative analytical approach between modern legal systems and Islamic Sharia, supplemented by a review of judicial precedents. The results obtained indicate that legislative coherence and judicial discretion are critical for aligning rulings with justice objectives. Specifically, the study finds that rigid procedural adherence often undermines equity, whereas flexible interpretation grounded in contextual circumstances enhances fairness. Conclusions that can be drawn emphasize the necessity of developing legislative mechanisms that balance stability with equity, alongside promoting judicial transparency.
Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Judicial justice; legislative harmony; judicial discretion; Islamic jurisprudence; legal interpretation; contextual circumstances; procedural formalities

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Most cited articles
PRIVATISASI BADAN USAHA MILIK NEGARA PENGATURAN KAWASAN KESELAMATAN OPERASI PENERBANGAN : STUDI TENTANG PELAKSANAAN KEWENANGAN PEMERINTAH DAERAH DALAM MENGENDALIKAN PEMBANGUNAN DAN BENDA TUMBUH DI KAWASAN KESELAMATAN OPERASI PENERBANGAN BANDAR UDARA AHMAD YANI SEMARANG PENDIDIKAN HUKUM SEBAGAI PENDIDIKAN MANUSIA PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KONSUMEN DALAM TRANSAKSI E-COMMERCE COUNTER TERRORISM BAGI PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA TERORISME SEBAGAI UPAYA PENANGGULANGAN KEJAHATAN TERORISME DI INDONESIA More cited articles
  1. Al-Jawaly, Z., & Al-Ahmad, M. (2023). Judicial verdict as a source for the right of ownership. Al-rafidain of Law Journal, 23(84),43–86. https://doi.org/10.33899/rlawj.2019.126270.1039
  2. Al Kattan, M. S. (2024 ). Digital Justice “Model of the United Arab Emirates”. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v12i1.2800
  3. Al-Sharif, M. M. S. (2024). Legal qualification of the facts, its notion, types, its effect on judicial judgment. Journal of Law, Kuwait University,48(3). https://doi.org/10.34120/jol.v48i3.3173
  4. Alsamaraa, T., & Farouk, G. (2024 ). Legal mechanisms for digital healthcare transformation in Africa: State and perspective. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2410363
  5. Al Mashai, A. (2025). Digital Justice in The Age of AI: Navigating Legal, Ethical, and Social Challenges. SSRN Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5333085
  6. Al-Obaidi, A. H. Y. (2018). Null Judicial Judgement-analytical study. Al-rafidain of Law Journal, 18(62), 140–169. https://doi.org/10.33899/alaw.2018.160796
  7. Al-Omar, A. B. M. B. A. (2024 ). The presumption of continuity and its impact on judicial decisions with judicial applications in the courts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Researches, 11(2), 472–504. https://doi.org/10.52840/1965-011-002-014
  8. AlQodsi, E. M., Jadalhaq, I. Y., & El Maknouzi, M. E. M. (2024). Comparative legal perspectives on voluntary restraints: Analyzing the adaptation of preventive conditions on property rights. Heliyon, 10(9). DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30509
  9. Anis, M. (2015 ). Towards a legal regulation of judgment interpretation in the Jordanian Code of Civil Procedure. Dirasat: Sharia and Law Sciences, 42(3), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.12816/0028531
  10. Asa, A. I., Syamsuddin, M. M., Wahyudi, A., & Hamzah, A. (2025 ). Aliran Filsafat Hukum Sebagai Cara Pandang (Worldview) Hakim Dalam Menjatuhkan Putusan Pidana. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 7(2),199–227. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v7i2.20-48
  11. Asgeirsson, H. (2022). A Puzzle About Vagueness, Reasons, and Judicial Discretion. Legal Theory, 28(3), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325222000143
  12. Awadh, M. T. M. (2025). The Most Important Hierarchical Means of Demanding Human Rights. International Journal of Law and Criminology,5(5),32–38. https://doi.org/10.37547/ijlc/volume05issue05-05
  13. Azeez, R. O., & Miftaudeen, R. (2024). An Islāmic Perspective of Justice Between the Employer and Employee. Jurnal Pembelajaran Dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 4(3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.28926/jpip.v4i4.1636
  14. Chami, Y., & Khater, M. (2025). The influence of Maliki jurisprudence on the French civil law in terms of the opposability of the relative effect of contract to third parties: A comparative study. Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law, 13(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.vol13no1.1157
  15. Desrieux, C., & Espinosa, R. (2019). Case selection and judicial decision-making: evidence from French labor courts. European Journal of Law and Economics,47,57–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-018-9594-7
  16. Donoghue, J. (2017). The Rise of Digital Justice: Courtroom Technology, Public Participation and Access to Justice. Modern Law Review,80(6),995–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12300
  17. Dziedziak, W. (2025). On Justice in Judicial Application of Law. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia,34(2),99–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2025.34.2.99-112
  18. Fetraningtyas, I. D., & Yunanto, Y. (2021). Application of The Properties of Naqli And Aqli in Positive Law With Respect To Islamic Contract Law. Syariah: Jurnal Hukum dan Pemikiran, 21(1), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.18592/sjhp.v21i1.4140
  19. Garoupa, N., & Mathews, J. (2014). Strategic Delegation, Discretion, and Deference: Explaining the Comparative Law of Administrative Review. American Journal of Comparative Law, 62(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2013.0013
  20. Goranov, G. (2021). Judicial practice as a manifestation of secondary institutional justice. Politics and Security, 2(4), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5659463
  21. Gozaly, A. Y., Nuraeni, S., Wibowo, A. H., Amalia, A. (2025). Istishab: Dynamics of Islamic Legal Construction and Its Significance in Digital Era Fiqh Muamalah Transformation. Iqtishod,4(2),268–276. https://doi.org/10.69768/ji.v4i2.146
  22. Hirsch, A. V., Kastellec, J. P., & Taboni, A. R. (2025). Reviewing fast or slow: A theory of summary reversal in the judicial hierarchy. American Journal of Political Science, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.70018
  23. Ismail, D. E., Arsyad, Y., Ahmad, A., Nggilu, N. M., & Chami, Y. (2024). Collocation of restorative justice with human rights in Indonesia. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 32(2),394–417. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v32i2.35374
  24. Ismayawati, A., Ngazizah, I. F., & Abd Aziz, S. N. (2025). Rohingya in Aceh: Human Rights Vs Security Justice Islamic Law Perspective. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia,7(3),428-444. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v7i3.428-444
  25. Jaheed, A. W., & Khil, S. M. A. (2025). Preservation of Religion and Its Practical Strategies in Islamic Shariah. Diwan International Scientific and Research Journal,6(2),37–64. https://doi.org/10.69892/diwan.2025.120
  26. Kamalin, M., Winario, M., & Rafiqoh, L. (2025). Konsep Keadilan dalam Hukum Islam: Kajian Normatif dan Aplikatif. Journal of Legal Sustainability, 2(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.63477/jols.v2i3.361
  27. Khater, M., Chami, Y., & Albakjaji, M. (2025). Legal Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development in The United Arab Emirates. Journal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System, 5(2), 378–411
  28. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v5i2.469
  29. Meyerson, D., & Mackenzie, C. (2018). Procedural justice and the law. Philosophy Compass,13(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12548
  30. Molina, S. A. R. (2020). Judicial Discretion as a Result of Systemic Indeterminacy. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 33(2),369–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/CJLJ.2020.7
  31. Nabila, A. P., & Djayaputra, G. (2023). Urgensi Pelaksanaan Kebebasan Berkontrak dalam Merumuskan Perjanjian Guna Mewujudkan Keadilan Bagi Para Pihak. Unes Law Review,6(2),4072-4080. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1246
  32. Prihantoro, P., & Gillings, M. (2025). The Language of Justice: Examining Courtroom Discourse in an Electoral Conflict. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law,38(7),2385-2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-025-10299-4
  33. Putrijanti, A., Indreswari, T. L., Sulistyawan, A. Y., Ananingsih, S. W., & Lumbanraja, A. D. (2025). Enforcement of environmental law through citizen lawsuit in administrative court. E3S Web of Conferences, 605. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202560503008
  34. Sales, L. (2025). Purpose in Law and in Interpretation. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 74(4). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589325101280
  35. Samiri, M., Kasim, M. A., Nonci, N., Ahmad, J., & Putra, M. A. A. (2025). Optimalisasi Pengelolaan Beban Kerja Hakim Dan Implikasinya Terhadap Integritas Dan Kualitas Peradilan. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 7(2), 288-306. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v7i2.108-127
  36. Satrio, D. B., Artaji, A., Fakhriah, E. L., & Yassine,
  37. C. (2026). Integrating AI into Small Claims Courts: Lessons from Global Practices for Legal Reform in Indonesia. Journal of Law and Legal Reform, 7(1), 337–376 https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v7i1.24028
  38. Siems, M. (2025. The European advantage in empirical comparative law. European Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.62355/ejels.24727
  39. Sourdin, T., Li, B., & McNamara, D. M. (2020). Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis. Health Policy and Technology,9(4),447-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.020
  40. Stewart, H. (2020). Procedural Rights and Factual Accuracy. Legal Theory, 26(2). https://doi. org/10.1017/S1352325220000154
  41. Sumarta, S., Burhanudin, B., & Budiyanto, T. (2024). Maqasid Al-Syariah Mendorong Keadilan Dan Keseimbangan Dalam Hukum Islam. Khulasah: Islamic Studies Journal,6(1),16–31. https://doi.org/10.55656/kisj.v6i1.120
  42. Sung, H.-C. (2020). Can Online Courts Promote Access to Justice? A Case Study of the Internet Courts in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 39. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.clsr.2020.105461
  43. Tang, Y. (2024). The Relationship between Law and Justice. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 42, 205–210. https://doi.org/10.54097/vsd08520
  44. Tobia, K., Slocum, B. G., & Nourse, V. (2023). Ordinary Meaning and Ordinary People. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 171(2),365–468. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4034992
  45. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563
  46. Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1086/652233
  47. Weinrib, J. (2023). What is purposive interpretation? University of Toronto Law Journal, 74(1). https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2021-0116
  48. Yassine, C., Ahmad, A., Muhtar, M. H., Rivera, K. M., & Putri, V. S. (2024). Admissibility of lawsuits based on interest under Algerian civil and administrative procedures. Jambura Law Review, 6(2), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.33756/jlr.v6i2.24309
  49. Al-Muhawas, Y. bin M., & Ahmad, F. A.-M. (2004). Justification of the judicial decision between Islamic jurisprudence and the Saudi judicial system (Doctoral dissertation). King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  50. Aymour, R. (2005). The principle of judicial review between Islamic law and positive legal systems (Master’s thesis). University of Hadj Lakhdar Batna
  51. Ngaisah, Z. F. N. (2015). Keadilan Dalam Al-Qur’an(Kajian Semantik Atas Kata Al-‘Adl Dan Al-Qisṭ). Skripsi Thesis: UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta. https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/17249/
  52. Abd al-Baqi, M. (2002). The judicial ruling in the rule of judicial rulings: The model. Birzeit: Birzeit University, Institute of Law
  53. Berger, M. S. (2014). Sharia and the Nation State. In R. Peters & P. Bearman (Eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Islamic Law (pp. 223–234). London: Ashgate Publishing
  54. Ostřanský, J. (2023). Fair and Equitable Treatment, in David Schneiderman, and Gus Van Harten (eds), Rethinking Investment Law (Oxford, 2023; online edn, Oxford Academic, 14 Dec. 2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192871084.003.0007
  55. Otto, J. M. (2008). Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries: Tensions and Opportunities for Dutch and EU Foreign Policy. Leiden : Leiden University Press. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2915349/view
  56. Al-Nashar, A. S. (1996). Nash’at al-fikr al-falsafi fi al-Islam (8th ed., Vol.1). Cairo: Matba‘at Dar al-Ma‘arif
  57. Al-Sallabi, A. M. (1994). Al-seerah al-nabawiyyah. Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘arifa
  58. Al-Zuhayli, W. (2018). Al-fiqh al-Islami wa adillatuhu. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr
  59. Baderin, M. A. (2016). Islamic law: Cases, authorities, and worldview. London: Routledge
  60. Hallaq, W. B. (2018). Restating orientalism: A critique of modern knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press
  61. Siems, M. (2019). Comparative law and interdisciplinary approaches. In M. Reimann & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198810230.013.48
  62. Siems, M. (2022). Comparative Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108892766
  63. Novari, M., & Mahdavi, A. (2023). The Principle of the Presumption of Continuity (Istiṣḥāb): A Comparative Study of Its Formation, Evolution, and Scope of Application in the Principles of Jurisprudence in Islamic Sects. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.22091/rcjl.2023.8689.1006
  64. Supreme Court of Sudan. (2008). Sabhat Transport Company v. A. M. M., Case No. M.A/T.M./60/2008. In Judicial Decisions Journal (p. 185). Khartoum: Judicial Authority
  65. Sudan Judiciary. (1972). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  66. Sudan Judiciary. (1974). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal, Case No. M.A/N.J/353/74. Supreme Court of Sudan
  67. Sudan Judiciary. (1976). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  68. Sudan Judiciary. (1977). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  69. Sudan Judiciary. (1983). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  70. Sudan Judiciary. (1992). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  71. Sudan Judiciary. (1998). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  72. Sudan Judiciary. (2004). Sudanese Judicial Decisions Journal. Supreme Court of Sudan
  73. Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (Oman). Fatwa No. 222773674
  74. Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (Oman). Fatwa No. 222768253
  75. Supreme Court of Oman. (2006). Appeal No. 195/2005. In Collection of Civil Chamber Rulings (p. 353). Muscat: Supreme Court of Oman
  76. Supreme Court of Oman. (2016). Appeal No. 365/2016. In Collection of Criminal Chamber Judgments (p. 44). Muscat: Supreme Court of Oman
  77. Quran5:8
  78. Quran 4:58
  79. Sudan, Civil Transactions Act (1984). Art. 120(4). Available at https://leap.unep.org/en/ countries/sd/national-legislation/civil-transactions-act-1984

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-04-28 13:07:22

No citation recorded.