Legitimacy of non-Muslim judge's judgment in cases of personal status of religious minorities

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Qom University

2 Al-Mustafa University

3 Shahid Motahari University

4 IMAM U

Abstract
The Iranian Constitution declares Islam and the Twelver Jaʿfarī school as the official religion but also recognizes other Islamic denominations and the divine religions of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, granting validity to their personal status laws (Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979/1989, art. 13). This article examines whether adjudication of such cases can be entrusted to non-Muslim judges or must remain limited to Twelver Shiʿi judges. Findings show that disputes of religious minorities may be adjudicated by judges of their own faith under a Shiʿi Islamic government. Arguments for prohibition—such as the exclusive authority of Shiʿi jurists, the dignity of the judicial office, nafy al-sabīl (negation of domination), and bans on recourse to ṭāghūt (unjust authorities)—are found unconvincing. Supporting evidence includes Qurʾānic verses, traditions, the dhimma contract, and the principle of ilzām (binding non-Muslims to their own laws). Thus, delegating personal status disputes of religious minorities to non-Muslim judges is legitimate, though in criminal matters they remain bound by Islamic rulings under Muslim judges.

Keywords