Justice, Governance, and Legal Stability:

Functional Parallels and Philosophical Divergences in the Rule of Law across Islamic and Western Legal Traditions

Aftab Sohail

Nurhafilah Musa

Mohamad Rizal Abd Rahman

 

Abstract: This article undertakes a comparative analysis of three foundational dimensions of the rule of law—justice, governance, and legal stability—within Islamic and Western legal traditions. Drawing on primary sources, including the Qur’an, Sunnah, classical Islamic jurisprudence, and Western constitutional theory, as well as contemporary scholarly literature, the research employs a functionalist approach to comparative legal studies. It identifies substantive parallels, including the rejection of arbitrary authority, the prioritisation of equality and impartiality, and the emphasis on legal clarity and predictability as safeguards of justice. However, the traditions diverge significantly in their philosophical underpinnings and sources of legitimacy: Islamic law is rooted in divine revelation and moral accountability before God, whereas Western legal systems derive authority from secular constitutionalism, democratic consent, and rationalist principles. These foundational differences shape institutional design, interpretive methodologies, and the mechanisms of legal reform. By mapping thematic convergences and divergences, this article advances a more context-sensitive understanding of how moral, theological, and procedural norms inform the rule of law across civilisations. It argues that cross-tradition dialogue offers a valuable framework for enriching contemporary legal theory, guiding institutional reform, and fostering a global rule of law that is responsive to both cultural particularities and universal principles of justice.