I recently read a book titled The History of Law in the State of Qatar (2024), authored by a group of law professors. What particularly captured my attention was the second section of the first chapter, which focused on the legal and customary systems before Islam. It revealed to me the features of a deeply rooted political and social structure shaped more by necessity than by legal or political theory.
When we reflect on the political and social system of the Arabian Gulf before Islam, we find ourselves facing a deeply entrenched tribal structure, born in a harsh desert environment and shaped more by necessity than by philosophical or legislative thought. The state, as an institutional concept, did not exist; instead, the tribe functioned as the state, the fortress, and the supreme authority in all matters—rulership, justice, ownership, and family.
Within this context, authority took on a personal form, embodied in the tribal sheikh, whose power did not stem from a constitutional document or electoral mandate, but from his lineage, courage, wisdom, and status among his people.
This form of governance, marked by near-total decentralization, reveals a society held together by tribal loyalty rather than law, by customs rather than written codes, and by personal allegiance rather than to a unified political entity. Although this model lacked formal institutions, it compensated with a system of values and traditions that provided a degree of order and protected the community from fragmentation.
Just as the tribe was the unit of governance, it was also the framework that regulated the social, economic, and judicial systems. The family was not a separate entity from the tribe but an extension of it, formed along paternal lineage, governed by the authority of the father, and regulated through marriage and traditions.
As for the judiciary, it was not based on official laws or permanent courts, but rather on inherited customs, social standing, and tribal balance—where the tribal sheikh functioned simultaneously as judge, legislator, and enforcer.
Tribal Governance and Decentralization
The system of governance in the Arabian Gulf before Islam was purely tribal, characterized by a high degree of absolute decentralization. There was no state in the institutional sense, nor a central authority under which these tribes were unified. Each tribe functioned as an independent political unit, with its own leader, customs, and rulings, governing itself based on its internal system.
Inter-tribal relations were not built on unified legislation or permanent alliances, but were dictated by shifting interests, often influenced by considerations of power, dominance, military alliances, and economic benefits.
Fathi Ibrahim, in a study titled The System of Tribal Governance Among the Arabs Before Islam, states that the tribal sheikh was the head of authority. He was selected from among the tribe’s elders based on his status and qualities, after consultation with tribal elders and notables in a council of shura (consultation). He was also required to be strong-willed, commanding respect, capable of managing disputes, protecting the tribe’s interests, and uniting its members during times of crisis.
Within the tribe, authority was based on blood ties, which formed the primary foundation for power and loyalty. Tribal solidarity (ʿasabiyyah) was a vital social force ensuring the cohesion of the group and determining an individual’s position within the tribal hierarchy.
In the absence of a written constitution or legislative authority, inherited customs and community traditions served as the law. These were the basis for organizing relationships, resolving disputes, and protecting rights. Political legitimacy was derived from collective belonging, personal loyalty, and reverence for ancestral traditions—not from written legal texts or legislative institutions.
Sami Al-Harifi, in his article Arbitration Among the Arabs Before Islam, notes that there were no written laws or official codes. Instead, arbitration relied on customs and traditions and was resolved in tribal councils led by sheikhs. This clearly reflects the absolute decentralization that prevailed during that era.
In the Arabian Gulf before Islam, there was no central authority overseeing these tribal units. Tribes exercised full sovereignty without subordination or direction from a higher entity. This decentralization was not a deliberate organizational choice but rather a necessity imposed by the absence of a state, the strength of tribal ties, and the autonomy of each group from the other.
The Family System and Adoption
The family system in the Arabian Gulf before Islam was based on patrilineal descent, which formed the cornerstone of the tribal structure. The tribe was not merely a residential unit but a cohesive social entity grounded in blood relations and collective belonging. It established the individual’s identity and social status. Through it, tribal solidarity (ʿasabiyyah) served as the primary bond determining one’s position within the community. Belonging to a tribe was the key to respect, status, protection, solidarity, rights, and responsibilities.
Tribal society was divided into three main categories:
First, the pure kinsmen, who were direct blood descendants of the tribe and considered its core and ruling elite.
Second, the adopted or affiliated members, who entered the tribe through adoption and attained a social status comparable to that of blood members.
Third, the clients (mawālī), who were connected to the tribe by a bond of allegiance—often freed slaves or outsiders—who generally held a lower position in the social hierarchy.
In this context, the father exercised full authority over the family—as provider, guardian, and decision-maker—whether in matters of marriage, guidance, or discipline. This authority was seen as an extension of the broader tribal power, exemplifying a patriarchal system in all its aspects. Marrying within the tribe was often preferred to preserve blood purity and ensure mutual loyalty among families, reflecting the community’s strong commitment to maintaining its internal structure.
Adoption played a pivotal role in the pre-Islamic family system. As Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Sabuni explains in volume two of his book Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān: Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām min al-Qurʾān (1981), adoption in pre-Islamic Arabia was not merely a humanitarian solution for childless families. It was a means to acquire honor and status and had full legal consequences. The adopted child was treated as a biological son—he inherited, bore the name of the adoptive father, and was forbidden from marrying those whom a biological son could not marry.
Adoption was not just a private family decision but a public act with profound social significance. With the advent of Islam, this system was reformed: adoption was abolished in terms of legal effects. Lineage became a right that could not be granted, and kinship was redefined as a natural rather than a symbolic connection—restoring social and legal balance to the family.
Tribal rule in the Gulf before Islam was based on complete independence. There was no central authority to supervise or regulate; each tribe governed itself, exercised its powers, and structured its family and social systems without oversight from any higher body. Thus, the family system in the pre-Islamic Gulf reflects the tribal nature of society—rooted in blood, loyalty, and tradition—where no law was above tribal authority and no framework governed the family except for inherited customs and traditions.
Ownership and Contract System
Before Islam, there was no central authority in the Arabian Gulf to regulate rights or enact laws. Instead, tribal customs were the primary reference for defining concepts of ownership and types of contracts. Ownership at that time was not private or individual as we know it today. Land was considered communal property belonging to the entire tribe. It was used according to precedence, strength, or tribal sovereignty. Grazing, farming, digging, and exercising practical control over land were all unwritten indicators of a person’s or family’s claim to a particular area.
Ownership was not understood as a legal document but rather as an extension of tribal identity and affiliation. The tribe was the body that guaranteed and protected these rights—not through laws or registries, but through power balances and mutual loyalty. If someone cultivated or grazed land and defended it, they were entitled to it. Any attempt by others to seize that land was considered an offense against the tribe. Thus, the concept of ownership became a kind of temporary tribal privilege, subject to environmental conditions, power dynamics, and internal relationships—with the exception of the tribal chief, who often enjoyed exclusive ownership not shared with other members of the tribe.
As for contracts, they were concluded orally in tribal gatherings, often in the presence of sheikhs or tribal elders. These agreements did not require paperwork, seals, or formal witnesses. Personal honor and commitment were the primary guarantees. Contracts included various transactions such as sales, mortgages, marriages, and settlements. Breaching contracts and covenants was considered one of the gravest offenses, potentially leading to large-scale tribal conflict and severely damaging an individual’s reputation and dignity.
An article in Al Khaleej newspaper titled Arab Laws Before Islam pointed out that pre-Islamic Arabs did not have official courts or written legislative systems. Instead, they relied on a set of inherited oral customs passed down through generations. Despite their simplicity, these customs were sufficient to preserve rights and organize social and economic relations relatively effectively. These customs, backed by social pressure, functioned like a primitive form of civil law—not documented on paper, but deeply respected in the collective conscience, and strictly enforced in the tribal arena.
Through this system, Arabs developed a communal awareness of the value of one’s word and personal honor. Tribal councils became genuine platforms for deals and agreements in the total absence of institutions or official bodies. This environment played a decisive role in shaping the social and economic structures of the Arabian Gulf before the emergence of the modern state.
The Punishment and Customary System
Before Islam, the punishment system in the Arabian Gulf was purely customary, deriving its rules from tribal traditions and inherited norms rather than written laws or formal legislation. There was no central judicial authority or recognized courts in the modern sense. Instead, the tribal sheikh or the council of elders served as the highest authority in settling disputes and determining punishments. Decisions were typically based on social considerations and tribal standing, with the aim of preserving internal balance rather than prioritizing individual justice.
Justice was thus carried out through customs, not institutions, and through the symbolic authority of tribal leaders rather than independent enforcement powers.
Retribution (qisas) was the most prominent and widespread punishment. It was seen not merely as a deterrent but as a means to restore honor and rebalance what the crime had disrupted. If retribution could not be carried out, compensation in the form of blood money (diyah) was offered to the victim’s family in exchange for a pardon.
Exile or expulsion from the tribe was one of the harshest penalties, akin to social death, as it stripped the individual of protection, identity, and belonging.
Punishments were decided and carried out in tribal councils, often in the presence of community members to ensure customary justice and reinforce the ruling’s authority.
Enslavement was also a severe form of punishment—either as a result of a crime or the inability to repay a debt. In crimes such as murder or betrayal, the perpetrator could be handed over as a slave to the victim’s tribe as a form of compensation and humiliation. An article titled Arabs and Slavery Before Islam on the Shubbak website notes that enslavement was not an exceptional punishment but a common practice in major cases. Poverty was also a pathway to slavery; a person might be forced to sell themselves or a family member to fulfill financial obligations. These situations were governed not by judicial institutions but by tribal customs and were enforced under the supervision of tribal elders.
Justice in this context was not reformative, unlike modern systems, but focused on preserving group cohesion and tribal prestige. The aim of punishment was not to rehabilitate the offender or reintegrate them into society but to prevent the recurrence of the act, restore the victim’s dignity, and ensure the tribe’s stability. Thus, justice in pre-Islamic Arabia was part of the tribe’s value system, rooted in power relations, lineage, and reputation more than individual rights or legal codes.
Justice was not based on absolute equality between all parties. It was influenced by lineage, status, and loyalty. A judgment passed on a tribal noble might differ significantly from that passed on a commoner for the same offense. This relativity in justice reflected internal tribal dynamics and prioritized social harmony over legal equity.
A study published on the Malaysian Institute of Science and Development website titled Pre-Islamic Criminal Practices and the Punishments Acknowledged and Refined by Islam clarified that this punitive system was neither chaotic nor arbitrary. Rather, it represented a quasi-judicial structure managed by the tribal leader.
Punishments were approved according to delicate balances that considered custom and social standing. The objective was not merely punitive but to uphold the tribe’s honor. Enforcement of rulings was not institutional but an extension of the chief’s authority, and judgments were carried out due to fear of the leader, not the force of law.
From this, it becomes clear that tribal society was not a chaotic state without order, but rather a tightly structured system based on established customs, inherited traditions, and interconnected loyalties.
While it did not recognize the modern concept of the state, it established a primitive form of political and social organization grounded in lineage, tribalism (asabiyyah), and honor, with reference to customs and tribal councils rather than constitutions or courts.
Every aspect of tribal life was organically connected to the others: governance was highly decentralized, exercised independently by each tribe without any higher authority.
Some may believe that traces of this heritage still linger today—from the central role of the sheikh, to the value placed on honor, to the strength of custom in the face of codified law. However, the Prophet of Islam ﷺ made his stance against tribalism explicitly clear. As reported by Al-Bukhari, he said: “Leave it (tribalism), for it is a stinking thing.” The Prophet ﷺ also affirmed the equality of all before the law. In a hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari, he declared:
“What destroyed the people before you was that if a noble among them stole, they would let him go, but if a weak person stole, they would apply the punishment. By Allah, if Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would cut off her hand.”
Any regression into the ethics of pre-Islamic ignorance is vigilantly addressed by the modern judiciary.
