Rulings on Criminal Offenses in Islamic Jurisprudence and Maribi Customary Law: A Comparative Jurisprudential Study

Abstract

ims to elucidate This study a the rulings on criminal liability in Islamic jurisprudence and the tribal customary law of Ma’rib. To achieve its objectives, the research employs a descriptive approach (inductive and analytical) and a comparative method by examining jurists’ opinions, their textual evidence, and tribal customs in Ma’rib Governorate. The paper is structured as follows: A preliminary section defining key terms. Section One: Intentional acts against life and lesser bodily harm in Islamic jurisprudence and Ma’rib custom, including an introduction, three subsections, and a comparison of agreements/discrepancies between Sharia and tribal law. Section Two: Unintentional acts against life, comprising an introduction, one subsection, and an analysis of convergence/divergence between the two systems. Key findings: Divergence in rulings on intentional homicide: Tribal customs permit collective punishment (e.g., executing non-perpetrators) and blood feud (الثأر) contrasting with Sharia’s principle of individual retribution (qiṣāṣ)) Convergence in unintentional acts: Both systems endorse pardon (العفو) and blood money (diya)Recommendations: Tribal legal experts should revise customary laws to align with Sharia. The state must codify tribal customs to prevent overreach by customary judges.