THE TRANSFORMATION OF ISLAMIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN NATIONAL LEGISLATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL HARMONIZATION

Abstract

The incorporation of Islamic legal principles into the statutory law of modern nation-states has changed both the form and the authority structure of the sharīʿa, yet legislative practice across Muslim-majority jurisdictions remains methodologically unarticulated and constitutionally uneven. This study aims to explain how Islamic legal principles are transformed when they are absorbed into contemporary national legislation, to construct a comparative typology of harmonization models, and to formulate normative criteria for principle-based harmonization. The research applies normative juridical research combining doctrinal analysis, statutory, conceptual and case approaches with a functional comparative method and an uṣūl al-fiqh reading of the maqāṣid al-sharīʿa, drawing on primary legal materials from Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco and Egypt and on secondary materials from peer-reviewed literature. The findings show that transformation is not merely a change of format but a relocation of interpretive authority from jurists to legislatures, regulators and constitutional courts, and that three distinct models can be identified: harmonization by absorption, harmonization by jurisdictional dualism, and harmonization through a constitutional supremacy clause. The justice deficit produced by harmonization correlates less with the substantive content of the norms than with the procedural opacity and hierarchical irregularity of the instruments through which they enter positive law. The study recommends a harmonization framework built on hierarchy conformity, explicit maqāṣid-based reasoning, rights-compatibility testing, participatory norm formation and the availability of judicial review.