User Satisfaction With Sulh (Mediation) In Selangor Syariah Courts | FACULTY OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
» ARTICLE » User Satisfaction with Sulh (Mediation) In Selangor Syariah Courts

User Satisfaction with Sulh (Mediation) In Selangor Syariah Courts

Increased rates of divorce, general dissatisfaction with the procedural aspects of the law and the ineffectiveness of the provisions intended to encourage reconciliation, resulted in the introduction of an alternative mechanism for helping parties in dispute to deal with the consequences of their family disputes This alternative mechanism is known as family mediation or sulh in Islamic law. Mediation or sulh emphasised on amicable resolution of dispute which uphold the approach of win-win situation.

The present study aims to determine firstly, the relationships between demographic characteristics of users of sulh and satisfaction with sulh and secondly, the difference in satisfaction with sulh between male and female users. Respondents of this study comprised of users of sulh in the Selangor Syariah Courts, selected by using purposive sampling technique from the sulh case files in the chosen courts. The chosen courts represent the geographical zones in Selangor: the Lower Syariah Court of Sabak Bernam, Lower Syariah Court of Kuala Selangor, Lower Syariah Court of Sepang, Lower Syariah Court of Bandaraya Shah Alam and Lower Syariah Court of Hulu Langat.  A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed via mail to the respondents. Each questionnaire was prefaced with a cover letter explaining the objective of the survey and emphasised the confidentiality of responses and the voluntary nature of the respondent. Self-addressed envelopes were provided to each respondent for returning completed surveys. Reminder postcards were sent to the entire sample one month after the survey questionnaires were sent. A total of 128 questionnaires were received back by the reseacher, garnering a response rate of 51.2 percent. According to Babbie (1990) and Hager (2003), a return of 50 per cent from mailed questionnaire is adequate as a mean of minimising non-response bias.

The results revealed that there were no relationships between demographic characteristics and satisfaction with sulh. Majority (87 percent) of the respondents reported that they were highly satisfied with sulh even though, not all disputes managed to be resolved. Furthermore, male respondents were found to exhibit a higher level of satisfaction compared to female respondents. Findings imply that sulh is a very viable alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the Syariah Courts where disputes managed to be resolved amicably.



Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (3), 650-666.

Ananat, E.O. & Michaels, G. (June 2008). The effect of marital breakup on the income distribution of women with childrenJ. Human Resources, 43,611-620.

Babbie, Earl. (1999). The basics of social research. USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Beck, C.J. & Sales, B. (2001). Family mediation: facts, myths and future prospect. USA: American Psychological Association.

Bikerdike, A. (2003). The voice of the client: key findings from a national outcome evaluation of relationship counseling and mediation service. Steps forward for families research, practice and policy conference, Australian Institute of Family Studies. 

Bigne, E., Moliner, M. A., & Sanchez, J. (2003). Perceived quality and satisfaction in multi service organizations: The case of Spanish public services. The Journal of Services Marketing17 (4), 420-442.

Bordow, S. & Gibson, J. (1994). Evaluation of the family court mediation service, Family Court of Australia, Research Report, No.12. Chelvarajah, R. R. (2000). The Malaysian Bar Council: Family Court. Retrieved from, dated September 14, 2006.

Conneely, S. (2002). Family mediation in Ireland. England: Ashgate-Dartmouth Publishing Co Ltd.

Devaraj, P.E. (2002). The Women’s Crisis Centre, Penang: Research in Divorce in Penang High Court. Retrieved from, dated September 14, 2006.

Douglas, G. & Murch, M. (2002). Taking account of children's needs in divorce - A study of family solicitors' responses to new policy and practiceinitiatives. Child and Family Law Quarterly4 (1), 57-76.

Emery, R. E. (2012). Renegotiating Family Relationship: Divorce, Child Custody and Mediation. (3rd ed) . New York: The Guildford Press.

Emery, R. E., Sbarra, D., & Grover, T. (January 2005). Divorce mediation: research and reflections. Family Court Review43 (1), 22-37.

Emery, R. E., Laumann-Billings, L., Waldron, W. C., Sbarra, D.A., & Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Further evidence of the differing views of mothers and fathers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69 (2), 323-332. Evaluation study on the pilot scheme on family mediation: Final report. Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Retrieved from http//:www.,hk/en/publications/hkpu_finalreport.pdf, dated 1 October 10, 2007.

Kelly, J. B. (2001). Issues facing the family mediation field. PepperdineDispute Resolution Law Journal, 1 (1), Art. 5.

Kelly, J. B. (1996). A decade of divorce mediation research: Some answers and questions. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 373-385.

Kelly, J. B. (Fall 1990). Is mediation less expensive? A comparison of mediated and adversarial divorce. Mediation Quarterly(1). Kelly, J. B. & Duryee, M. A. (1992). Women's and men's views of mediation in voluntary and mandatory mediation settings. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30, 34-49.

Kelly, J. B. (1989). Mediated and adversarial divorce: Respondents' perceptions of their processes and outcomes. Mediation Quarterly, 24, 71-88

Kim, D. & Oka, T (2011). Divorce law reforms and divorce rates in the U.S.: An interactive fixed effects approach. Retrieved from pdf, dated September 14, 2012

Kitzmann, K. M., Parra, G. R., & Jobe-Shields, L. (January 2012). A Review of programs designed to prepare parents for custody and visitation mediation.Family Court Review, 50 (1), 128-136.

Kotler, P. & Clarke, R. N (1987). Marketing for Health Care Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kuhner, T. K. (2005). Court-connected mediation compared: The cases of Argentina and the United States. ILSA Journal of International andComparative Law, 11 (3), 519.

McMutty, S, L. & Hudson, W. H. (September 2000). The client satisfaction inventory: Result of an initial validation study. Research of Social Work Practice10 (5), 644.

Moloney, L, Fisher, T, Love, A., & Ferguson, S(1995). Federally funded family mediation in Melbourne: Outcomes, costs and client satisfaction, AGPS, Canberra.

Moloney, L, Fisher, T, Love, A., & Ferguson, S(1996). Managing differences: Federally funded family mediation in Sidney: Outcomes, costs and client satisfaction, AGPS, Canberra.

Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, (2nd ed). New York: M.E. Sharpe

Pearson, J. & Thoennes, N. (1986). Mediation in custody dispute. Behavioral Sciences and the Law(2), 203-215.

Rad, A. M. M. & Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services19(2), 11-28.

Raihanah Azhari (2005). Sulh dalam perundangan Islam: Kajian di Jabatan Kehakiman Islam Selangor, Ph.D. thesis, Akademi Pengajian Islam Universiti Malaya.

Sa’odah, A. & Nora, A. H. (2010). Provisions on sulh and its application in the state of Selangor. In Mohammad Naqib Ishan Jan & Ashgar Ali Ali Mohamed. Mediation in Malaysia: The Law and Practice. Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis.

Sa’odah, A. & Nora, A.H. (2010a). Sulh (mediation) in the state of Selangor: An analysis of legal provisions and application. International Islamic University Law Journal18 (2), 213-237

Sa’odah, A. & Nora, A.H. (2010b). Family mediation and sulh: An alternative dispute resolution in Malaysia, International Journal of Social Policy and Society7, 66-79.

Sullivan, B. F., Schwebel, A., Lind, J. S., & Shimberg, J. (1997). Parties' evaluations of their relationships with their mediators and accomplishments in a court-connected mediation program. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 405-417.

Trost, M, R., Braver, S. L., & Schoeneman, R. (1988). Mandatory mediation: encouraging results for the court system. Conciliation Courts Rreview26 (2), 59-65.

Wall, J. A. & Dunne, T. C (April 2012). Mediation Research: A Current Review. Negotiation Journal, 28 (2), 217-244

Welsh. N, A. (Spring 2012).The Current Transitional State of Court- Connected Adr. Marquette Law Review, 95 (3), 873-886.









Date of Input: 13/02/2019 | Updated: 13/02/2019 | rozlita


Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang
Selangor Darul Ehsan
03.9769 7051
03.8943 5385