The Paradoxical Use of the Term Sulh: An Analytical Study from Quranic Perspective

Abstract

Dispute resolution systems are broadly divided into two sides namely Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDRS) and Non-Judicial Dispute Resolution Systems (NJDRS). The first one is more formal, and the latter is informal which is known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) all over the world. Though ADR is claimed to be a great innovation of the West, it is found to be practiced in the Islamic Judicial System from its very inception. ADR was practiced throughout the history of Islamic Judiciary as sulh. However, the use of the word sulh in the meaning of ADR needs to be explained in the present judicial context. Scholars sometimes discussed sulh as a system parallel to ADR and sometimes as a process, which creates confusion in its multiuse. Hence, this study aims at eliminating this confusion on the paradoxical use of the term sulh as a system for dispute resolution as well as a process of that system. At present, hardly any study has precisely differentiated between them. Thus, this qualitative study focuses on discussing it primarily from the perspectives of the Quran, documented sources as well as interviews. The major finding of this study is that sulh, comparing with present day ADR, does not need to be used paradoxically. The main contribution of the study is to propose a clarification of sulh in the line of ADR fruitfully. The findings of this study are not only useful in clarifying the exact meanings of the term as used in different contexts but also applicable to solve problems faced by arbitrators involved in various indigenous traditional dispute resolution systems such as shalish in Bangladesh and elsewhere.