The Problem of Applying Sharia Today
and Whether It Ever Worked in the First Place
Introduction: The Myth of a Just Sharia System
Muslim scholars and apologists often claim that Sharia law is a comprehensive, divinely revealed legal system that, if applied correctly, would create a just, moral, and peaceful society. The call to “implement Sharia” is not just religious—it’s political, legal, and cultural.
But can Sharia actually work in the modern world?
More provocatively: Did it ever really work?
This article exposes five fundamental flaws in both the historical and contemporary application of Sharia, arguing that its failure is not due to poor implementation—but embedded in its very structure, origins, and assumptions.
1. Sharia Is Not a Unified System—It's a Human Patchwork
Contrary to popular belief, Sharia is not a single, divinely handed-down code. It is a man-made construction drawn from:
-
The Qur’an (only a small fraction of which is legal in nature)
-
The Hadith (massive, contradictory, and often unreliable collections)
-
The consensus (ijma) of scholars
-
Analogical reasoning (qiyas)
This means Sharia is:
-
Subjective
-
Inconsistent
-
Historically fragmented
There are multiple schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali, Ja‘fari, etc.), often with contradictory rulings. For example:
-
Age of marriage? Varies widely.
-
Punishment for theft? Varies by circumstance and school.
-
Rules of jihad? Deeply inconsistent.
A legal system cannot be both divine and contradictory.
Sharia’s diversity is not a strength—it’s a symptom of its incoherence.
2. Sharia Is Based on Premodern Assumptions—Ethically and Epistemologically
Sharia was developed in 7th–10th century Arabia, not in a modern framework of:
-
Human rights
-
Scientific knowledge
-
Economic systems
-
Pluralism
-
Rule of law
This leads to clashes between Sharia and modern moral intuitions on issues such as:
-
Apostasy: punishable by death
-
Homosexuality: criminalized, often with brutal penalties
-
Women’s rights: half inheritance, limited testimony, strict dress codes
-
Slavery: permitted and regulated, not abolished
-
Freedom of religion: denied in practice (especially for Muslims leaving Islam)
These are not anomalies; they are core components of classical Sharia. Attempts to modernize Sharia either:
-
Water it down so much that it ceases to be Sharia, or
-
Preserve it and become incompatible with modern life.
There is no third option.
3. Historical Application of Sharia Was Selective, Political, and Often Abusive
Muslim empires that claimed to implement Sharia—Umayyads, Abbasids, Ottomans—rarely applied it in full. Instead, rulers:
-
Cherry-picked rulings
-
Replaced parts of Sharia with state decrees (siyasa shar‘iyya)
-
Used Sharia courts for control, not justice
Moreover, Sharia’s implementation historically enabled injustice, including:
-
Dhimmī subjugation: Non-Muslims paid jizya and lived with second-class status
-
Blasphemy laws: Used to silence critics and political enemies
-
Heretical suppression: Anyone with unorthodox theology could be tried
-
Gender apartheid: Women’s participation in legal and social spheres was deeply restricted
In other words: Sharia never created a utopia—only a theocratic hierarchy that preserved power for the religious elite.
4. Sharia Cannot Be Imposed Without Coercion
Sharia, by definition, requires the state to enforce religious behavior:
-
Prayer times must be policed
-
Modesty laws must be monitored
-
Ramadan violations must be punished
-
Moral behavior (as defined by medieval scholars) must be enforced by courts or morality police
This means Sharia is inherently coercive. It cannot coexist with:
-
Freedom of conscience
-
Personal autonomy
-
Secular governance
-
Democratic lawmaking
Even “moderate” Islamic states like Malaysia and Indonesia struggle with balancing religious and civil law. In places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, the results are disastrous: draconian laws, mass repression, and violent punishment.
5. Sharia’s Revivalism Today Is a Reactionary Fantasy
The modern call to implement Sharia—by groups like ISIS, the Taliban, and various Islamist parties—is based on a romanticized myth of a golden Islamic past.
But this past:
-
Never existed as a Sharia utopia
-
Was never stable or just
-
Was always compromised by politics, corruption, and human interpretation
Modern Islamists are not restoring something lost—they are constructing a fiction to impose totalitarian control. Their project is doomed because the world has changed—and Sharia hasn’t.
Conclusion: Sharia Is Not Just Obsolete—It’s Unworkable
Sharia law may have historical significance, but it has no viable place in the 21st century. It was born in a tribal, patriarchal, authoritarian context—and it reflects that world.
Attempts to revive it today are not only morally troubling but structurally impossible.
Sharia never created the utopia it promised—because it never could.
Those who seek to impose it are not restoring justice. They are reviving a system that was always flawed, often unjust, and fundamentally unfit for modern civilization.
No comments:
Post a Comment