Dr Jeffrey KennedyALJOHARH TURKI ABDULRAHMAN ALMOISHEER2022-06-042022-01-132022-06-04109650https://drepo.sdl.edu.sa/handle/20.500.14154/66474This research examines the respective positions of Islamic and positive laws to coercion. The discussion was limited to how coercion has been addressed by criminal law, focussing more specifically on murder committed as a result of coercion. The analysis highlights that Islamic law, as a body of law consisting of both Qur’anic and positive law, is largely consistent when it comes to the law of coercion. The discussion concentrates on the issue of murder, committed in self- defence or as a result of involuntary intoxication (as opposed to murdering a third party under the coercion of someone else). It was noted that the different schools of Islam approached the issue of harming another in self-defence in a slightly different way, although most tend to justify this extreme measure. It has become evident that such was also the approach in the Qur’an, where the victim of coercion was more forcefully called upon to defend his physical integrity, even at the cost of murder. While this approach is justified by the consideration that all life belongs to God and should therefore be protected, it is notable that positive law takes a more measured stance on this, asking for proportionality and restraint in such circumstances. This appears to be the position of the legislator, too. Analysis of the Saudi Code highlights that Saudi legislator have imposed strenuous requirements regarding self-defence, which do not permit going beyond what is strictly necessary for the protection of the attacked. It is also notable that the law provides a similar protection of self-defence to the aggressor in case the attacked went too far and used disproportionate force against him. Importantly, both laws see coercion as a reasonable exemption from liability or at least a reason to decrease it, because the lack of mens rea. But Qur’anic law principles are fixed and have remained unchangeable for more than 1,400 years, suiting all times and circumstances. However, even IPL reaches the same view of the effect of coercion on criminal responsibility, and it still depends on who is handing down judgement. This means that judgement is highly likely to be verified on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the author suggests that such variation in judgement may cause unfairness to criminals who committed the same crime, as it all depends on the judge’s evaluation for the case. One judge may decide that an act was committed under duress and not hold the perpetrator accountable, whereas another may choose the highest degree of accountability. Moreover, by contrast of Qur’anic law, which is divine legislation, positive law has been created by humans, so mistakes are highly likely to be involved. It could be concluded that the combined Islamic body of law has decided the question of calibration of the regime by providing a definite but generalised rulebook (the Qur’an), an extended discussion on the different consequences of different actions (the Madhhabs) or a detailed explanation for the consequence of one’s actions (the state law approach). It is arguable that given that judgements are typically delivered by looking at the body of law in its entirety and assessing the factual circumstances of each case. This provides sufficient certainty as to the legal consequences of committing murder or inflicting serious physical harm on an attacker. It is clear that the law protects the compelled in such circumstances; however, in order to rely on the full protection of the law, the attacked must never go beyond what is strictly necessary to protect himself.30enThesis