In Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia, Dominik Krell argues that recent legal transformations in Saudi Arabia, including the codification of Islamic family law and judicial reforms, do not represent a rupture from Islamic legal tradition but rather a continuation of juristic practices in Islamic legal history in Arabia. He explores the perspectives of the ʿulamāʾ (Islamic scholars and jurists) to understand how Islamic law is interpreted and applied in Saudi Arabia today. He specifically focuses on the legal developments between the 1980s and the codifications of Islamic law in the early 2020s. Drawing on Talal Asad’s concept of Islam as a “discursive tradition,” Krell demonstrates that the Saudi legal system remains deeply rooted in Islamic juristic tradition, with ʿulamāʾ playing a central role in shaping legal discourse.Footnote ¹ He contends that siyāsa sharʿiyya (governance in accordance with Islamic law) continues to guide legal developments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, ensuring that legal reforms adhere to Islamic jurisprudence rather than signaling a shift toward legal secularization during the process of the modernization of the legal system. Krell highlights that ʿulamāʾ not only dominate judicial reasoning but also confer legitimacy upon the king’s rule, reinforcing the symbiotic relationship between religious authority and political power. He identifies the enduring dominance of Islamic jurisprudence as a defining feature of the Saudi legal system, attributing it to the control of judiciary by traditionally trained ʿulamāʾ (199). Drawing on judicial rulings, juristic writings, legal codes, recordings of lectures, talks, and interviews of Saudi ʿulamāʾ and judges conducted in 2018 and 2019, he demonstrates that Saudi laws and the legal system continue to evolve within the broader Islamic legal tradition, rather than constituting an exotic, exceptional, or static system of political governance.

Krell underscores four continuities in the Saudi legal system. First is the continuation of long-standing juristic practices based on a living legal tradition of Islam that is discursive and normatively pluralistic. Second is the continuation of the doctrine of siyāsa sharʿiyya , which guides legal developments, ensuring that reforms adhere to Islamic jurisprudence rather than signaling a shift toward legal secularization while adopting modern laws. Third is the continuity of the role of ʿulamāʾ in the legal system, which confers legitimacy upon the king’s rule. The fourth flows from the first and third: this is the prevalence of Islamic jurisprudence that continues to guide judges because judges at state courts are traditionally trained ʿulamāʾ .

Within these broad continuities, Krell shows how Saudi ʿulamāʾ have been developing legal rules based on the principles of sharīʿa to adapt Islamic law to modern life by maintaining the vitality of their legal tradition in the twenty-first century. Krell’s analysis of the codification of Islamic family law in the form of the Personal Status Law 2022 demonstrates that judicial reforms are designed to ensure that Islamic law remains relevant in a rapidly changing society. He also explores the impact of digital technology on the judiciary, arguing that it has increased transparency and efficiency while raising new challenges related to data security and judicial independence (37–38).

In chapter 1, Krell outlines the foundations of the Saudi legal system, rooted in the doctrine of siyāsa sharʿiyya as developed by the thirteenth-century scholar Ibn Taymiyya. In 1744, Muḥammad bin Saud of Darʿiya allied with the preacher Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, a follower of Ibn Taymiyya, to establish an Islamic state. The descendants of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (the House of Shaykh) held prominent judicial and advisory roles during the kingdom’s formation and its consolidation in 1932. However, the contemporary religious establishment now includes scholars from other Najdī families beyond the House of Shaykh.

The limited expansion of the scholarly class suggests that while the role of the ʿulamāʾ in the legal system persists, Krell’s third continuity, their class composition has begun to diversify. Whether this shift will lead to broader inclusion within the ruling elite remains an open question, particularly in light of Saudi Arabia’s economic modernization. Recent legislation such as the Companies Law (2022), Insolvency Law (2018), and E-Commerce Law (2019) reflects a legal system that integrates domestic tradition with international norms and regional trends. These reforms necessitate professional legal expertise beyond that of traditionally trained ʿulamāʾ . Consequently, their role is evolving alongside the rise of professional lawyers, many of whom lack formal training in Islamic jurisprudence (9–10). This challenges Krell’s fourth continuity: “the continuing hegemony of Islamic jurisprudence” (199).

According to Krell, the dominant role of Islamic jurisprudence, stemming from the dominant role of ʿulamāʾ in the judiciary, is a defining feature of the Saudi legal system. He disagrees with Chibli Mallat’s argument that the Saudi legal system, once exceptional in the region, has lost its distinctiveness through recent “normalization.”Footnote ² Krell argues that the codification of Islamic law, exemplified by the Personal Status Law 2022, reflects the application of the doctrine of siyāsa sharʿiyya . Unlike other Arab states where codification confined Islamic law to family and inheritance matters, Saudi Arabia preserves its broader application. Codification, Krell contends, does not diminish the influence of Islamic jurisprudence, as judges continue to interpret royal codes exclusively through that framework, a trend likely to persist with future codifications (199).

Krell highlights the adaptability and fluidity of siyāsa sharʿiyya in balancing conflict of religious and political authorities of scholars and rulers, which enabled the Kingdom to address modern challenges, such as the codification of Islamic family law and the integration of digital technology into the judiciary (38, 115–41). He notes that although the 1992 Basic Law of Governance, which outlines the constitutional structure by codifying the doctrine of siyāsa sharʿiyya , describes the king as the source of legislative, judicial, and executive powers ( sulṭāt ) of the state under article 44, Saudi jurists emphasize the independence of judiciary. They also emphasize that the legislative authority of the king is limited to issue regulations ( anẓima ) regarding the overall system of governance, the state’s financial administration, trade, the judicial system, the penal system, military, and international relations (29–33).

Krell’s work contributes to the existing scholarship on the Saudi legal system. A quarter of a century ago, Frank Vogel’s Islamic Law and Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia found that the Saudi legal system was deeply anchored in the authority of the ʿulamāʾ , who interpret and apply Islamic law while also using the methodology of ijtihād .Footnote ³ Despite external pressures and modern administrative reforms, the legal system maintained remarkable continuity, with siyāsa sharʿiyya enabling the state to regulate public affairs while ensuring jurists retain significant control over judicial interpretation.Footnote ⁴ Krell shows how ʿulamāʾ continue to dominate the judiciary and apply the principles of Islamic jurisprudence based on the opinions of multiple Sunni schools, while adopting codification, and king’s codes ( anẓima ), which supplement sharīʿa . While exploring the backgrounds and methodology of Saudi jurists and judges, Krell highlights “the normative pluralism in Salafī jurisprudence: a multitude of equally recognized but possibly contradicting legal opinions” (53). He notes how Saudi jurists such as Ibn Khunayn underscore the importance of ijtihād as “Islamic legal methodology through the scholar’s legal reasoning” (59).

Krell’s arguments align with recent scholarship on Islamic law and legal systems from diverse jurisdictions such as Egypt, British India, and the Ottoman Empire. In Recasting Islamic Law, Rachel Scott identifies “continuities and discontinuities” in Egypt similar to those Krell describes in chapter 7, in which he examines the codification of Islamic family law in Saudi Arabia through the Personal Status Law 2022.Footnote ⁵ Brian Wright presents the argument of the continuity of Islamic law more forcefully in A Continuity of Shari’a. Footnote ⁶ Examining the legal transformations in Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and British India, Wright argues that these reforms were not a break from the history of sharīʿa but rather an adaptation that integrated premodern Islamic legal principles with contemporary needs. In a similar vein, Sohaira Siddiqui, in Islamic Law on Trial, describes how, despite British colonial efforts to standardize and limit Islamic law in British India, Muslim legal practitioners actively engaged with the colonial judiciary to uphold and adapt Islamic legal principles.Footnote ⁷ Her work challenges assumptions about the displacement of Islamic legal traditions under British colonial rule in India.

These recent works collectively represent a shift in the study of Islamic law in the West, moving from a theological perspective to a legal perspective. While the theological focused narrowly on legal texts without exploring their institutional context, the legal considers the broad institutional structures within which these texts operate. The legal perspective examines Islamic law as it functions within specific legal systems, rather than concentrating solely on abstract principles derived from religious texts. The recent scholarship mentioned above helps debunk two dominant narratives about sharīʿa and fiqh , which are both commonly translated in English as “Islamic law.” The first is the trope, widely used during the European colonial period of the Muslim world since the late eighteenth century, that Islamic law because of its religious orientation is fixed, rigid, and immutable. This characterization of Islamic law paved the way for the widescale transplantation of Western laws and administrative institutions along with the reform of classical Islamic family laws. The popular writings of Joseph Schacht and Noel Coulson on Islamic law, along with the work of several Muslim scholars during the second and third quarters of the twentieth century, represent this narrative.Footnote ⁸ The second dominant narrative emerged in scholarship that contested and contradicted the Orientalist narrative of Islamic law’s immutability and identified Western colonialism and its indirect influence as a pivotal rupture in the Islamic legal tradition, leading to the transformation of sharīʿa . Wael Hallaq’s work exemplifies this strand of scholarship, particularly through his periodization of Islamic legal history into distinct pre-colonial and postcolonial eras. This framework underpins his controversial thesis that faith-based sharīʿa is fundamentally incompatible with the coercion-based institutional structures of the modern state, which he argues originated exclusively in Western Europe.Footnote ⁹ In contrast, Krell demonstrates how Saudi ʿulamāʾ have developed legal rules rooted in sharīʿa principles to adapt Islamic law to modern life, thereby preserving the vitality of their legal tradition in the twenty-first century (198–99). Krell notes that “Saudi jurists do not consider the codification of Islamic law a turning point in the history of Islamic legal systems. For them, it is not a break with the tradition but rather the next step in adapting the Islamic legal tradition to the challenges of modernity” (92). He observes that Saudi jurists view codification as a “new text of fiqh ( naṣṣ fiqhī jadīd ),” rather than a replacement for it (76, quoting Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Fāyiz).

Krell’s book offers a valuable English-language contribution to scholarship on the Saudi legal system. Through case studies in criminal and family law, he examines the roles of jurists, judges, and the king in law-making and reform. A notable example is the child custody case in which courts prioritized children’s welfare, even when mothers remarried. In chapter 6, Krell explores “Legal Reform Beyond the State,” demonstrating how changes in drug trafficking law arose from interaction between the king and the ʿulamāʾ . The 2005 shift to imposing the death penalty for drug trafficking followed King Fahd’s request for a ruling from the Council of Senior Scholars, who justified it as a response to fasād affecting the entire umma . An earlier request by King Khalid on the same issue had been met with silence.

The expansion of women’s rights to divorce through “forced khulʿ ” also reflects royal influence, though jurists had initiated related discourse since the mid twentieth century (163). A key turning point came in 1974, when King Fayṣal requested a fatwā from the Council of Senior Scholars (164). Krell frames this as legal reform beyond the state, contrasting it with the dominant view in legal scholarship on Muslim majority states that legal change primarily results from government-led reform efforts—typically following public debate, engagement with civil society, and resistance from the ʿulamāʾ . While a state-centric approach is the chief feature of contemporary legal scholarship on Islamic law in which the state remains mystified, Krell’s case studies highlight the need for broader methodological approaches on how to study sharīʿa / fiqh -based norms in contemporary legal systems in majority-Muslim states.Footnote ¹⁰ As Krell demonstrates, the contemporary Saudi legal system is marked by complexity and fluidity, requiring a broad, interdisciplinary approach that moves beyond rigid categories such as state/non-state, siyāsa / sharīʿa , ijtihād / taqlīd , tradition/modernity, religious/secular, and law/morality, which obscure more than they reveal.

With Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia, Krell offers a fresh and nuanced perspective on the study of Islamic law within the institutional framework of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—a state that has historically adhered to Islamic legal tradition and is now undergoing significant legal transformations. By situating recent reforms within the discursive tradition of Islamic jurisprudence, Krell challenges dominant narratives that frame codification and judicial reform as a rupture from tradition or as mere instruments of state centralization. His analysis not only underscores the adaptability of sharīʿa in contemporary legal systems but also lays important groundwork for future scholarship to examine Islamic law beyond conventional binaries—such as siyāsa/sharīʿa , tradition/modernity, and state/non-state. In doing so, Krell opens space for a more contextual and interdisciplinary understanding of sharīʿa -based norms in Muslim-majority legal systems undergoing modern transformations.