This article examines the family mediation model of Islamic Family Law as an alternative dispute resolution method in Jordan. This research argues that Jordan should serve as an example for studies on family mediation and models to be implemented, as it is a country with a Muslim majority population and offers a model based on its social realities. This study consists of an introductory section, including a literature review and the importance of the subject, followed by five main headings. The first heading addresses alternative resolution methods for family disputes in Jordan. The second heading examines the establishment of family reform, mediation, and conciliation offices, which are the application centres for family mediation. The third heading analyzes the working system of these offices. The fourth heading discusses the purposes and importance of the offices, and the fifth and final heading outlines the role these offices play in resolving family disputes.

Different countries have varied practises for alternative resolution methods in family disputes. In Jordan, there are two methods: arbitration and family mediation. Arbitration, which was introduced in Jordan’s 1976 Personal Law, is included under the divorce section, titled et-tefrîk li’ş-şikâk ve’n-nizâ’. It has maintained its place in the personal law statutes enacted later and continues to be implemented in the same section in the most recent law from 2019. According to Articles 126 and 127 of this law, when one of the spouses applies to the court due to incompatibility and conflict, and the judge is unable to reconcile them, the case is referred to arbitrators. The arbitration process begins when the case is transferred to the arbitrators. In short, arbitration is an alternative resolution method that is fully dependent on the judicial system.

Family mediation has been a global topic of interest since the early 2000s. In Jordan, the mediation law was published in the official gazette on April 30, 2003, as a temporary law for regulating civil law disputes. In 2006, the mediation law replacing the temporary law was enacted. Although mediation was part of civil law, it was not incorporated into family law until 2013. In 2014, mekâtibi’l-ıslahi ve’l-visâtati ve’t-tevfîki’l-user’î, or family reform, mediation, and conciliation offices, were established and became operational. Initially opened in pilot regions, these offices expanded as they produced positive societal results.

Family reform, mediation, and conciliation offices were established under the sharia courts. Emphasising agreement and reconciliation before judicial proceedings, these offices are an important alternative method for preserving family structures in Jordanian society and resolving conflicts within families. They do not only assist couples in the divorce process. These offices provide services such as family consultations, resolving family disputes consensually, and educating those about to marry. They also aim to organise family-related courses, conduct research, and especially mediate between family members. Ultimately, the success of these offices has contributed to the restoration of marriages on the verge of collapse and a reduction in divorce rates. 

The growing influence of Jordanian family reform, mediation, and conciliation offices in society is due to the fact that their working system is based on promoting peace within the framework of Sharia principles while keeping family members as far from the court system as possible. In line with this purpose, the offices’ services preserve family privacy by resolving disputes outside court. There are two ways to apply to these offices: cases referred from the court and direct applications from the parties. One of the main features of these offices is that procedures are concluded in a short period, typically within 30 days of the application.

Moreover, the family mediation model in Jordan is firmly rooted in social realities, setting it apart from the Western models of family mediation. The Jordanian family mediation experience is better suited to the society because, apart from non-Muslims, the Muslim-majority population prefers local solutions over imported European-based ones. This feature enhances the functionality of family mediation in Jordan, making it a model for other countries. In particular, countries that are newly implementing family mediation should consider the sociological, religious, and historical contexts of their populations. The study emphasises the significance of this argument in Jordan’s case.

To evaluate the concrete impact of family reform, mediation, and conciliation offices in Jordan, the statistical data from the Jordanian judiciary were examined. Issues such as compensation for women in cases where husbands divorce without cause, alimony (for women, children, medical needs, education, iddah, and relatives), termination of alimony, housing fees, hidâne (custody) fees, visitation rights, prevention of a daughter’s marriage by her guardian, dowry disputes, inheritance disputes, travel permissions, financial payments, the reduction of certain rights, and various other family-related issues are discussed and resolved in family reform, mediation, and conciliation offices. In addition to the services provided before and during the divorce process, many other family matters are resolved in these offices. The study covers the issues the offices have handled since they were established, detailing the extent to which consensus has been reached on each matter, using statistical data. The results and number of applications for 2023 are also presented.

In conclusion, the study makes several recommendations: First, family mediation based on the consent of both spouses should be implemented, as the willingness of the spouses to mediate will facilitate the resolution of disputes. Second, following Jordan’s example, family mediation should not rely on a single field expert. Mediators from theology, psychology, sociology, and law should be available, with relevant experts consulted depending on the nature of the dispute. This multidisciplinary approach will result in a more comprehensive application. Third, confidentiality must be strictly observed during

mediation. By adhering to this principle, the parties will feel more comfortable revealing the source of their issues, enabling the mediator to find more effective solutions. Fourth, as in Jordan, couples should be able to sign the mediation results and submit them to the enforcement authorities. If one party fails to comply with the agreement, the other should be able to file a claim. Fifth, family mediation should not be expensive or cost-prohibitive, as is the case in some countries like France. Instead, it should be free of charge or lowcost, as high fees would limit demand and reduce the influence of mediation.