<![CDATA[The interaction of Islamic law, state law, and customary norms creates persistent questions of authority, adaptation, and justice in contemporary Muslim societies. This article examines how plural legal orders are conceptually constituted, how transformations in social expectations challenge legal interpretation, and which normative conditions make pluralism compatible with substantive justice. The study employs normative legal research using exclusively a conceptual approach, examining legal doctrines and academic arguments published principally between 2013 and 2026. It distinguishes sharia, juristic interpretation, positive law, and socially practiced norms, thereby avoiding the assumption that these categories have equivalent institutional force. Three forms of legal interaction are conceptualized: accommodation, normative negotiation, and contestation. Social transformation is understood through interpretive, institutional, and cultural dimensions rather than as a linear movement from tradition to modernity. The principal contribution is a provisional evaluative framework of justice-oriented Islamic legal pluralism, consisting of institutional coordination, accountable interpretation, substantive rights protection, and effective access to remedies. The framework offers criteria for assessing plural legal authority without claiming empirically measured effects across societies. The analysis concludes that normative plurality should be judged through the reasons, procedures, and protections by which competing legal claims are recognized and resolved.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
