Comparative Study Of Islamic Arbitration And International Commercial Arbitration In Global Islamic Trade

Abstract

The rapid growth of global Islamic trade has intensified the need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms that accommodate both religious principles and international commercial standards. Islamic arbitration has long functioned as a dispute settlement mechanism grounded in Islamic jurisprudence, while international commercial arbitration operates within a secular legal framework widely recognized in cross-border trade. This study examines the similarities and differences between Islamic arbitration and international commercial arbitration in the context of global Islamic trade. The research applies a qualitative comparative approach using doctrinal legal analysis and literature review of arbitration frameworks, including classical Islamic jurisprudence, contemporary arbitration institutions, and international arbitration conventions. The findings indicate that both systems share fundamental objectives such as neutrality, efficiency, and party autonomy in dispute resolution. Islamic arbitration integrates ethical norms derived from Sharia principles including justice, fairness, and prohibition of unlawful transactions. International commercial arbitration emphasizes procedural flexibility and enforceability through international legal instruments. The comparison demonstrates that Islamic arbitration possesses strong normative foundations compatible with international arbitration standards, although institutional harmonization and procedural clarity remain important challenges. The study concludes that the integration of Islamic arbitration principles within global arbitration practices has the potential to strengthen dispute resolution mechanisms for Islamic commercial transactions and enhance legal certainty in international Islamic trade.