Differences in juridical doctrine and practice among Muslims have existed since the early period of Islam. Historically, a unified form of legal structure for different communities was not a popular approach in an Islamic territory. Islamic legal singularity or the centralisation of Islamic law by Muslim dynasties was not common. In fact, most Muslim dynasties at various times and in various places recognised and accepted intra- and extra-legal pluralism among Muslims themselves and among other religious communities.

The millet system of the Ottoman Empire is perhaps a good example of how legal pluralism was present at some previous times in Islamic history. The millet system of the Ottoman Empire lasted for more than 400 years. It was founded during the reign of Sultan Mohammed II (1451–81 ce), but by the mid-nineteenth century it had gradually been abolished. The millet system was introduced to enable the Ottoman Empire to cope with socio-political problems resulting from diverse and complex ethnic and religious identities. Through the establishment of the millet system, the Ottoman government granted virtual sovereignty to each religious community, in perpetuity, without its being subject to renewal, abolition or limitation. Each of the religious communities (for example, Jewish and Christian) had the right to preserve its own courts, to appoint judges and to apply legal principles for the use of co-religionists (Shaw 1976: 151; Braude 1982: 69–81; Karpat 1982: 141–6).

As pointed out by Timur Kuran (2004: 476), Islam has a distinct version of legal pluralism. Islamic legal pluralism gave Muslims fewer options than it gave to Christians or Jews. Comparing Muslim majorities and non-Muslim minorities who were subjects of the Ottoman Empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Kuran (2004: 476–7) discovered that non-Muslims were free to choose and move between the different jurisdictions of the Islamic court system and their own autonomous denominational courts.