A Comparative Study of Inheritance Law Systems in Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam: An Examination of Legal Dualism and Its Implementation in Muslim Communities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62951/ijsw.v2i3.399Keywords:
Islamic Inheritance Law; Faraid; Comparative Jurisdictional Study of Malaysia and Brunei.Abstract
Background: Islamic inheritance law represents a critical component of family law systems that extends beyond religious obligations to encompass significant socio-economic implications for asset distribution and intergenerational justice. While Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam have both incorporated Islamic law into their national legal frameworks, their implementation approaches demonstrate fundamental structural and procedural differences that warrant systematic comparative analysis. Objective: This study examines the institutional frameworks and implementation effectiveness of Islamic inheritance law systems in Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam, analyzing how constitutional arrangements and governmental approaches influence the practical application of faraid principles. Methods: This research employs a normative legal methodology utilizing comparative analysis of legal frameworks, institutional structures, and judicial decisions. The study analyzes primary legal sources including constitutional provisions, statutory laws, court decisions, and administrative guidelines from both jurisdictions. Data collection encompassed library research examining fiqh literature, national legislation, official documents, scholarly articles, and religious legal opinions. Theoretical frameworks of legal pluralism (Romano-Gierke), Maqasid al-Shariah, and Hartian legal positivism provide analytical foundations for institutional effectiveness assessment. Results: Malaysia's dual legal system creates jurisdictional tensions between Syariah and civil courts, particularly regarding immovable property administration, resulting in administrative complexity and legal uncertainty that undermines Islamic law effectiveness. Conversely, Brunei's centralized Islamic legal framework demonstrates superior institutional coherence through exclusive Syariah court jurisdiction, enabling direct faraid implementation without inter-court conflicts. The study reveals that approximately RM42 billion in Muslim inheritance remains undistributed in Malaysia due to systematic administrative failures, while Brunei's unified approach achieves greater legal certainty and administrative efficiency. Conclusions: Institutional structures fundamentally determine Islamic inheritance law implementation effectiveness in contemporary Muslim societies. Successful Islamic law implementation requires comprehensive institutional support aligning legal structures with religious objectives rather than mere constitutional recognition. Malaysia's fragmented system inadvertently undermines Islamic law's divine authority through secular intervention, while Brunei's unified approach enhances religious legitimacy and community compliance.
Downloads
References
[1] “Al Qur’an Surat 11 Ayat ke 17 dan 176”.
[2] M. B. Hooker, Islamic Law in South-East Asia. Oxford University Press, 1984.
[3] A. Ibrahim, The Administration of Islamic Law in Malaysia, vol. 35. 1987.
[4] Laws of Malaysia, Distribution Act 1958 (Revised. 1983.
[5] N. A. M. Noh, “The Challenges in Enforcing the Syariah Court Decisions in Malaysia,” J. Islam. Law Judic., vol. 8, p. 2, 2019.
[6] Government of Brunei Darussalam, Syariah Penal Code Order. 2013.
[7] W. Z. W. Hussain, Islamic Legal System in Brunei Darussalam: History, Development and Structure. 2020.
[8] S. V. Biryukov, “Santi Romano and the Concept of Legal Pluralism,” Lex Russ., vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 138–147, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.17803/1729-5920.2023.199.6.138-147.
[9] R. Cotterrell, “Still Afraid of Legal Pluralism? Encountering Santi Romano,” Law Soc. Inq., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 539–558, May 2020, doi: 10.1017/lsi.2019.24.
[10] M. Croce and M. Goldoni, “Santi Romano and the Juristic Point of View,” in The Legacy of Pluralism, Stanford University Press, 2020, pp. 51–98. doi: 10.11126/stanford/9781503612112.003.0003.
[11] C. Bazán Seminario, “Decolonising Legal Theory: The Rule of Law and the Legalisation of Legal Pluralism,” Rev. Vía Iuris, no. 36, pp. 38–67, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.37511/viaiuris.n36a2.
[12] E. Conte, “Legal Pluralism from History to Theory and Back: Otto von Gierke, Santi Romano, and Francesco Calasso on Medieval Institutions,” Law Hist. Rev., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 169–180, May 2024, doi: 10.1017/S0738248023000159.
[13] J. Marglin and M. Letteney, “Legal Pluralism as a Category of Analysis,” Law Hist. Rev., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 143–153, May 2024, doi: 10.1017/S0738248023000196.
[14] C. Thornhill, “von Gierke, Otto (1841–1921),” in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Wiley, 2014, pp. 3810–3811. doi: 10.1002/9781118474396.wbept1031.
[15] Y. Qu, “The Enlightenments and Perplexities of Research on Legal Pluralism Theory in China,” in Proceedings of the 2018 3rd International Conference on Modern Management, Education Technology, and Social Science (MMETSS 2018), Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2018. doi: 10.2991/mmetss-18.2018.101.
[16] Muhammad Mujtaba Abdulkadir and Halima Ibrahim Bature, “Aligning Maqasid al-Shari’ah and Ijtihad: A Framework for Contemporary Islamic Jurisprudence,” J. Arts Sociol. Res., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 299–306, May 2025, doi: 10.70382/ajasr.v7i6.030.
[17] H. Mavani, “Islamic Bioethics: Ijtihad,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, Oxford University Press, 2024. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.1261.
[18] C. Tohari, H. Fawwaz, and I. Swadjaja, “The Ijtihad Construction Of Islamic Law Based On The Maqâshid Al-Syarî’Ah Approach In The Indonesian Context,” Prophet. Law Rev., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 195–221, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.20885/PLR.vol4.iss2.art4.
[19] A. Yaqin, “An Examination of the Moderate Ijtihad Method from the Perspective of Abdullah bin Bayyah and Its Application in the Formulation of Islamic Law,” Ulul Albab J. Stud. dan Penelit. Huk. Islam, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 122, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.30659/jua.v8i2.44684.
[20] E. Krapyvin and B. Malyshev, “The Role of H. L. A. Hart’s Rule of Recognition in Contemporary Anglo-American Legal Positivism,” Uzhhorod Natl. Univ. Herald. Ser. Law, vol. 1, no. 84, pp. 78–82, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2024.84.1.10.
[21] M. Djawas, A. Nurdin, M. Zainuddin, I. Idham, and Z. Idami, “Harmonization of State, Custom, and Islamic Law in Aceh: Perspective of Legal Pluralism,” Hasanuddin Law Rev., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 64, May 2024, doi: 10.20956/halrev.v10i1.4824.
[22] M. Reza Saputra and Wicipto Setiadi, “Implementation Of General Principles Of Good Government In The Organization Of The 2024 Elections,” Int. J. Law Soc., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 94–112, May 2024, doi: 10.62951/ijls.v1i3.65.
[23] M. B. Hooker, Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
[24] A. Ibrahim, The Administration of Islamic Law in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: IKIM, 2000.
[25] F. S. Shuaib, Pengenalan Sistem Perundangan di Malaysia. lexisnexis, 2011.
[26] MLJ, Isu pembagian harta pusaka umat Islam dan batas yurisdiksi antara Mahkamah Sivil dan Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia., vol. 5. 2007, p. 101.
[27] M. S. Yaacob, “Instrumen Hibah dan Wasiat dalam Pengurusan Harta Islam di Malaysia,” 2015.
[28] M. B. Hooker, Syariah Law in Southeast Asia. Oxford University Press, 2008.
[29] A. Ibrahim, “The Administration of Islamic Laws in Brunei Darussalam,” J. Southeast Asian Law, vol. 2, no. 1, 2002.
[30] Kerajaan Brunei Darussalam, Islamic Family Law Order 1999 dan Islamic Inheritance Law Faraid. 1999.
[31] A. Ibrahim, “The Administration of Islamic Law in Malaysia,” Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM), 1997, p. 24.
[32] Government of Brunei Darussalam, Undang-Undang Faraid 1999 dan Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Pengangkatan 1999). 1999.
[33] H. Mutalib, Islam in Southeast Asia. ISEAS Publishing, 2008.
[34] N. C. Abdullah, “The Need for Harmonisation Between Civil and Syariah Courts in Malaysia: A Critical Review,” Malayan Law J., 2014.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
