The Saudi regime may seek distance from Isis, but their justice systems are not dissimilar
Saudi Arabia’s courts are mainly sharia courts that issue sentences based on a strict, Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The public flogging of Raif Badawi has drawn attention to Saudi Arabia’s opaque judicial system, leading to questions about who has the power to revoke Badawi’s sentence.
Saudi Arabia’s courts are mainly sharia courts that issue sentences based on a strict, Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law. In fact, the highest authority in the judiciary is the Grand Mufti, who is also the head of the Senior Council of Ulema (scholars of religious law), the highest religious authority in the country. While non-sharia courts also exist, they only apply to administrative cases like those dealing with commerce and labour issues. Badawi was charged with apostasy, among other charges such as undermining the regime, and his case was therefore strictly handled by the sharia court.
But the kingdom’s court system is far from consistent. Case law does not apply, leaving sentences up to the discretion of individual judges. In addition, political and tribal considerations play a role in determining the outcomes. Above all else, the King has the final say in all court judgments. On several occasions, people escaped sentences or had them revised as a result of royal discretion.
Badawi’s flogging has come at a critical time for Saudi Arabia. Following the rise of jihadism in Syria, the kingdom is trying to re-position itself as a leader on counter-radicalisation in the Middle East. Fearing internal instability, the Minister of the Interior, Mohamed bin Nayef, who used to oversee Saudi Arabia’s home-grown deradicalisation programmes, is trying to steer Saudi policy away from supporting jihadism as a way to topple the Syrian regime. The Grand Mufti has also denounced Isis.
However, many have drawn parallels between Isis’s brutality and law-enforcement practices in Saudi Arabia, where public beheadings are still common.
The ministry of the interior is therefore under pressure to demonstrate a move towards moderation while not upsetting the country’s influential council of ulema. It is therefore justifiable that the sole avenue for Saudi Arabia to save itself from the Badawi case would be a royal pardon or at least a revision of his sentence on medical or other grounds. This would save face for the judiciary and ulema and present the kingdom in a more favourable light internationally at a time when its credibility in countering radicalisation is critically at stake.
Lina Khatib is director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments