Dima Hussain, a Max Weber Fellow at the EUI Law Department, is currently at the Central European University (CEU) through the CIVICA Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme. In this interview, we ask her about the historical interplay between Shari'a and tribal justice in Syria, its impact on contemporary legal structures, and how her research has evolved through her fellowship experiences.
Could you explain what tribal justice entails in the Syrian context and how it differs from Shari'a law?
Tribal justice in Syria is rooted in tribal customs that have developed over thousands of years. These customs were designed to stabilise and organise the interrelationship among tribes themselves and to ensure security within the desert environment. Tribal justice is non-codified; it’s passed down orally from generation to generation, and its primary sources are tribal tradition and tribal precedents.
Within this system, certain individuals – known as arfa – act as tribal judges. An arfa is someone recognised for their wisdom and deep understanding of tribal norms, customs, and precedents. They are entrusted with resolving disputes between conflicting parties who voluntarily turn to them for judgment.
When tribes operate autonomously and without interference from central authorities, the system tends to evolve into a more specialised and complex structure. For instance, some judges may focus specifically on cases of murder or physical harm, while others may deal with sexual crimes. However, under state pressure or when central authority limits their role, tribal justice often contracts to more general knowledge, and specialisation tends to disappear. In such cases, even the sheikh – the leader of the tribe – may take on judicial roles in the absence of specialised judges.
People tend to rely more on tribal justice when it is allowed the space to function independently. This is also when trust in the system is strongest. It’s important to note that tribal justice predates Shari'a law by centuries, having existed in the desert long before the emergence of Islam. While the two systems share some similarities – largely because both developed in the same geographic and social environment, among the tribes in the desert of Arabic Jazeera – they are distinct.
Shari'a has informally absorbed elements of tribal justice, such as the concept of blood money and the emphasis on reconciliation. However, this integration has never been formally acknowledged, and Shari'a is traditionally seen as holding a higher legal and moral status. At the same time, tribal justice has adopted aspects of Islamic rhetoric. For instance, during reconciliation sessions, tribal judges may cite the Quran or Hadith to persuade parties, blending traditional norms with Islamic references.
What distinguishes tribal justice are its four main pillars: honour, retaliation, collective responsibility, and reconciliation.
Honour is central. Tribal members are bound by a code tied to their kinship, origins, and pride in their traditions. If someone harms another, it is seen as an infringement on honour, and retaliation is often the means of restoring that honour. Retaliation, or private violence, doesn’t target only the individual offender but extends to their kin – up to five degrees of kinship, according to tribal rules.
Reconciliation balances retaliation. Communities must either pursue revenge or reach reconciliation; without one, the other is inevitable. This dynamic ensures both are taken seriously and pursued as essential mechanisms of justice.
Because these communities often exist outside centralised authority, they must rely on internal systems to restore justice. Revenge becomes a collective, community-sanctioned act rather than an expression of personal vengeance. Tribal communities are therefore often described as egalitarian: power is decentralised, and even the sheikh holds only limited authority, often requiring the consensus of the group.
Similarly, tribal judges rely heavily on reputation and integrity. Corruption would lead to a loss of trust – and without trust, they would no longer be consulted or respected.
How have Shari'a courts in Idlib adapted or integrated aspects of tribal justice since their establishment in 2012?
After the 2011 uprising, most legal institutions in the Idlib Governorate, located in the northwest of Syria, collapsed. This left a significant justice vacuum, while conflict-related disputes continued and even intensified. In response, community representatives began forming local reconciliation and Shari'a committees.
This period saw a revival of tribal justice, as people turned to tribal sheikhs and judges to resolve disputes. With state institutions gone, tribal leaders regained influence, no longer constrained by governmental oversight.
This is when meaningful interaction began between tribal and Shari'a authorities. Both tribal leaders and Shari'a scholars formed reconciliation committees together. These hybrid bodies worked to resolve local disputes, blending customary norms with religious law.
To understand this interaction and what happened in Idlib after 2012 more clearly, it's helpful to divide the timeline into two phases: before and after Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) established full control.
From 2012 to 2017, before HTS consolidated power, various Islamic factions – including HTS – set up their own Shari'a courts. In 2017, HTS formed the Salvation Government, complete with ministries including a Ministry of Justice, which went on to formally establish Shari'a courts. Although some Shari'a institutions already existed at that point, this was a shift toward central institutionalisation.
By 2019, after HTS had eliminated competing factions, it had full control over Idlib. Initially, HTS viewed tribal justice cautiously, as it had deeper community roots and legitimacy. Unlike rival factions, tribal leaders couldn’t simply be sidelined – they were integral to the fabric of rural Idlib society.
Recognising this, HTS adopted a more inclusive approach. It formed the Tribal Reconciliation Council, affiliated with the Salvation Government. This council organised committees composed of both tribal and religious figures. Each committee is chaired by a Shari'a scholar, who ensures that any final ruling aligns with Islamic principles.
One significant change to tribal system was the elimination of collective retaliation, which is incompatible with Shari'a. Under Islamic law, only the individual offender can be punished. However, blood money – a concept shared by both systems – remained.
This model reflects a centralising approach, in which communal justice is absorbed and subordinated within the state-like structures of the Salvation Government. Nevertheless, the collaboration also shows how tribal justice continues to shape and influence legal practices in Idlib.
What historical examples best illustrate the interaction between tribal justice and Islamic law in Syria?
The interaction between tribal justice and Islamic law dates back to the earliest days of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Since most tribal communities eventually adopted Islam, Islamic teachings were organically integrated into tribal justice systems. This occurred without formal pressure or institutional merging but rather through lived experience and social osmosis.
However, tribal communities were often viewed by Islamic authorities as ‘imperfect’ Muslims. Their spirituality was distinct – closer to indigenous beliefs, with strong connections to nature, animals, and the desert. Their commitment to tribal customs often outweighed their adherence to formal Islamic rituals. This created a tension that has persisted in various forms.
Under Ottoman rule, tribal communities enjoyed considerable autonomy. The Ottoman system was relatively decentralised, especially in peripheral regions like the desert, where tribal communities were based. As a result, tribal justice developed freely, even gaining specialisation.
The situation changed dramatically during the French Mandate. The French introduced a centralised model of governance and sought to monopolise all aspects of judicial authority. They attempted to codify parts of tribal law to bring it under state control and abolished any practices that conflicted with their model, including core tribal institutions.
After Syrian independence, the rise of nationalism brought further marginalisation of tribal structures. The nationalist project emphasised a unified Syrian identity, in which tribal affiliations were seen as relics of the past. Tribal justice was portrayed as uncivilised and incompatible with modernity.
One notable institution that disappeared during this period was the Dakhaleh – a practice in which a tribal leader could grant protection to someone being pursued for an offense. The state viewed this as harbouring a criminal, and such protections became criminalised.
What we see today in Idlib is a kind of revival or renewed phase of tribal-Shari'a interaction, especially during the period when neither a centralised state nor a hegemonic faction had full control. Two non-state legal systems – tribal and Shari'a – were left to co-exist, collaborate, and occasionally clash in real-time. Following this, the centralised approach of HTS and its Salvation Government has led to the further integration of tribal legal practices, resulting in the establishment of an institution where elements of both tribal law and Shari'a are combined.
How is the current political and security situation in Syria affecting the practice and relevance of tribal justice today?
HTS, the group that was controlling Idlib, is now ruling over major parts of Syria, replacing the previous Syrian regime. The situation in Idlib remains largely unchanged, with the same controlling powers in place. It would not be surprising to see the model established in Idlib replicated in other governorates, one that centres around a Shari'a-based legal system, which tolerates and absorbs some elements of tribal justice in areas with a strong tribal presence while eliminating aspects of tribal institutions that conflict with Shari'a principles.
How has your research on this topic evolved from your time as a Max Weber Fellow at EUI to your current work at CEU under the CIVICA fellowship?
My work at EUI, particularly as a Max Weber Fellow, was centred on transforming my thesis ‘Tribal justice struggle and resilience in Syria: societal justice beyond legal centralism’ into a book. During that phase, my focus was primarily on tribal justice and its interaction with various parallel legal systems, including both state and Shari'a law.
Since joining CEU under the CIVICA fellowship, my research has shifted more directly toward the relationship between tribal justice and Shari'a. I’m now affiliated with the Centre for Religious Studies, working with Professor Nadia al-Baghdadi, who specialises in Islamic law and its historical relationship with local communities.
This has been a natural extension of my previous work, but also a deepening of it. I realised that the interaction between tribal and Islamic legal systems is both under-researched and deeply relevant, especially given current developments in Syria. My goal now is to explore this relationship further – both historically and in the present – particularly in areas like Idlib, where these systems are once again in active dialogue.
In what ways has the CIVICA fellowship supported or influenced your approach to studying legal pluralism in Syria?
The CIVICA fellowship has provided not only academic resources but also a strong sense of encouragement and validation. Presenting my work at CEU in Vienna and receiving such enthusiastic responses gave me real confidence in the relevance and originality of my research.
The support I’ve received – both intellectually and emotionally – has reinforced my belief in the importance of this topic. Legal pluralism in Syria, especially the relationship between tribal justice and Shari'a, is an area with vast potential for further study. It’s been my passion throughout my PhD journey at the EUI, and this fellowship has allowed me to pursue it with even greater depth and clarity.
Dima Hussain is an EUI CIVICA Fellow at Central European University and a Fellow at the Max Weber Programme for Postdoctoral Studies. Her research interests include tribal law’s interaction with state law since the 19th century, and tribal law’s interaction with Shari'a law after the 2011 Syrian Uprising. Her PhD thesis ‘Tribal justice struggle and resilience in Syria: societal justice beyond legal centralism’ is available at the EUI’s Repository, Cadmus.
The CIVICA Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme offers postdoctoral researchers the opportunity to spend up to 10 months at a CIVICA partner institution, fostering mobility and collaboration across the alliance. Selected fellows benefit from an enriching research environment and networking opportunities within the CIVICA community.
Check out more EUI research on the new Cadmus, the EUI Research Repository. Just launched, it offers better visibility, accessibility, and usability of EUI’s research through a more user-friendly interface and enhanced search.
Photo credits: General Council of Reconciliation in Idlib