NOT AN ALTERNATIVE: SULH, TAHKIM, AND THE RESTORATION OF ISLAMIC DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN PAKISTAN'S ADR FRAMEWORK

Abstract

Comparative ADR literature often treats Islamic mechanisms such as sulh (reconciliation) and tahkim (arbitration) as evidence that Muslims are no strangers to a technique developed elsewhere. This paper argues the relationship runs the other way: reconciliation is not an alternative to litigation in Islamic law but its default, with adjudication reserved for cases reconciliation fails. Reading the Qur'an and Hadith together, the paper traces a graduated argument moving from a command to reconcile, through a preference for settlement over strict rights, to a procedure for appointing arbitrators, and a justice standard governing any outcome. It then examines Pakistan, where the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2017 and the International Mediation and Arbitration Center (IMAC) increasingly echo this position. The paper concludes that Pakistan's reforms recover Sulh's place in Islamic law rather than import a foreign technique, and proposes a formal role for qualified scholars on IMAC's mediator panels.