RECONSTRUCTING SURROGACY REGULATION IN MUSLIM-MAJORITY JURISDICTIONS: A COMPARATIVE ISLAMIC FAMILY LAW AND MAQASID AL-SHARI’AH ANALYSIS

Abstract

The rapid development of assisted reproductive technologies has created complex legal and ethical challenges for Muslim-majority jurisdictions, particularly concerning surrogacy, lineage, parentage, and child welfare. Existing studies often examine the permissibility of surrogacy from particular jurisprudential perspectives, while less attention is given to how divergent Islamic positions are translated into national regulatory frameworks and how legal gaps affect vulnerable parties. This study reconstructs surrogacy regulation through a comparative analysis of eight Muslim-majority jurisdictions: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon. Employing qualitative doctrinal and comparative legal methods, the study examines legislation, fatwas, judicial decisions, and relevant scholarly literature. The findings reveal a fundamental divergence between Iran’s regulated permissive model, rooted in Shia jurisprudence, and the predominantly prohibitory approaches of Sunni-majority jurisdictions. Despite these differences, all jurisdictions face regulatory challenges concerning legal parentage, child registration, inheritance, surrogate protection, and enforcement. The study argues that Maqasid al-shari’ah, particularly the protection of lineage, dignity, and child welfare, provides a normative basis for developing context-sensitive regulatory frameworks. It proposes a balanced approach that preserves Islamic family-law principles while ensuring legal protection for children, surrogate mothers, and intended parents, including through clear parentage rules, informed consent, enforceable safeguards, and interdisciplinary governance.