• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Lina Khatib"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Gulf",
    "Saudi Arabia",
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

The Saudi Regime May Seek Distance From ISIS, But Their Justice Systems Are Not Dissimilar

The public flogging of Raif Badawi has come at a critical time for the Kingdom, with many drawing parallels between the Islamic State’s brutality and law enforcement practices in Saudi Arabia.

Link Copied
By Lina Khatib
Published on Jan 19, 2015

Source: Independent

The public flogging of Raif Badawi has drawn attention to Saudi Arabia’s opaque judicial system, leading to questions about who has the power to revoke Badawi’s sentence.

Saudi Arabia’s courts are mainly sharia courts that issue sentences based on a strict, Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law. In fact, the highest authority in the judiciary is the Grand Mufti, who is also the head of the Senior Council of Ulema (scholars of religious law), the highest religious authority in the country. While non-sharia courts also exist, they only apply to administrative cases like those dealing with commerce and labour issues. Badawi was charged with apostasy, among other charges such as undermining the regime, and his case was therefore strictly handled by the sharia court.

But the kingdom’s court system is far from consistent. Case law does not apply, leaving sentences up to the discretion of individual judges. In addition, political and tribal considerations play a role in determining the outcomes. Above all else, the King has the final say in all court judgments. On several occasions, people escaped sentences or had them revised as a result of royal discretion.

Badawi’s flogging has come at a critical time for Saudi Arabia. Following the rise of jihadism in Syria, the kingdom is trying to reposition itself as a leader on counterradicalisation in the Middle East. Fearing internal instability, the Minister of the Interior, Mohamed bin Nayef, who used to oversee Saudi Arabia’s homegrown deradicalization programs, is trying to steer Saudi policy away from supporting jihadism as a way to topple the Syrian regime. The Grand Mufti has also denounced ISIS.

However, many have drawn parallels between ISIS’s brutality and law enforcement practices in Saudi Arabia, where public beheadings are still common.

The ministry of the interior is therefore under pressure to demonstrate a move towards moderation while not upsetting the country’s influential council of ulema. It is therefore justifiable that the sole avenue for Saudi Arabia to save itself from the Badawi case would be a royal pardon or at least a revision of his sentence on medical or other grounds. This would save face for the judiciary and ulema and present the kingdom in a more favorable light internationally at a time when its credibility in countering radicalization is critically at stake.

This article was originally published by the Independent.

About the Author

Lina Khatib

Former Director, Middle East Center

Khatib was director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. Previously, she was the co-founding head of the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Syria's Last Best Hope: The Southern Front

      Lina Khatib

  • Paper
    The Islamic State’s Strategy: Lasting and Expanding

      Lina Khatib

Lina Khatib
Former Director, Middle East Center
Political ReformDemocracyGulfSaudi ArabiaMiddle East

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?

    In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

      Nur Arafeh

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Tehran’s Easy Targets

    In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The Gulf Conflict and the South Caucasus

    In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.

      Armenak Tokmajyan

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Shockwaves Across the Gulf

    The countries in the region are managing the fallout from Iranian strikes in a paradoxical way.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with Iran

    In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.