Is Shariah Implementable?

4 Responses

  1. Walter Sieruk says:

    The United States Constitution may not be perfect Nevertheless it’s still a whole a lot better then the cruel oppressive Sharia law. Just look at the so called rights rights of the Iranian citizens that are in great contrast to the genuine rights of the American people in the United States . Pity the poor the oppressed people who have to exist under the tyrannical rule of the mullahs who govern by the brutal and harsh Sharia law. As the Bible teaches “All the days of the oppressed are wretched.” Proverbs 15:15. [N.I.V.] In addition, there is the internet site

  2. Dr. Nishant says:

    Polish take a stand.

    Watch “Year 2015 – Poland: Thousands of Poles against muslims in Warsaw.” on YouTube

    Watch “Polish football fans send clear message to muslims and islam” on YouTube

    Watch “Polish Football Fans: No to this Islamic Horde!” on YouTube

  3. sammy says:

    Sharia law is a draconian set of rules and regulations reflecting a 7th century Arabian mindset,hence its barbarity and opposition to human rights. It therefore has no relevance in todays society, which has laws that can be changed for the betterment of humanity, unlike the Sharia which is eternally fixed.

  4. Jon MC says:

    The Author does not answer his own question, not that there is anything wrong in that – Socratic teaching is always better than didactic.
    It seems to me that the Author expects Sharia aka “Allah’s Laws” to be present in one unique and perfect form and bases his (apparent) dismissal on the facts that (1) various forms exist and – more importantly – (2) the weakness of the sources as well as (3) the condemnation that various aspects of Sharia engenders.
    (1) The first point is analagous to the various forms of National laws (or even differences in State Law in the US) and I suspect that no-one would say that such laws are “unimplementable” due to such differences.
    (2) The second is only relevant to those who actually think that sharia really is “Allah’s laws”. Most other law systems have equally (or even more so) “weak” sources; older systems (e.g. the U.K.) have in Common Law elements that are as much custom as anything else. Again the lack of “authority” – any and all laws can be repealed – does not affect the implementation of the law. Thus from an outside viewpoint, this is hardly grounds for deciding whether or not sharia is implementable. Further, from an “inside” view there is little doubt that those who wish to implement sharia in it’s full barbarity are quite convinced that their version is indeed “Allah’s laws” and thus inarguably right and proper. Thus this point does not address the question posed in the article.
    (3)The other ground – condemnation – is also irrelevant. For example: many Countries condemn the U.S. for using the death penalty; which has not, does not and will not prevent the US from so using it. The same point can be made about China and other non-Muslim Countries, aspects of whose laws also draw condemnation. In fact within non-Muslim societies condemnation of the law is a great pass-time, laws are always being “condemned” in one way or another – hence the continual implementation of legislation. Again this objection does not really address the Author’s argument.

    The author goes on to say: “[T]he dispute within the Muslim community over the legitimacy of Shariah and its sources alone is sufficient to say that Shariah cannot form the basis of a compound system required in the modern day.”
    On one level this is clearly true: Sharia is completely incompatible with any other form or source of law which those seeking to implement Sharia reject as “man-made law” and thus clearly inferior to what they uncritically believe to be “Allah’s laws”.
    My objection here is that those Muslims who seek the implementation of Sharia are not seeking a “compound system” of law – they are seeking to implement Sharia alone, thus the incompatibility of Sharia with other systems is also an irrelevance.

    Thus in my view the author does not actually address the question he poses, at least not from an outside perspective.
    What he does do is hold Sharia Law up to it’s own claim of being “divine” law and shows that this is not the case. The question answered by the Author is really “Is Sharia law god’s law”, to which we can see the answer is “No”.

    “Is Shariah Implementable?”
    The answer is clearly “Yes.” There is little or nothing to prevent Muslims in Muslim-majority Countries or areas implementing Sharia. As the author states, ISIS implements a version of Sharia with great gusto, as does Saudi Arabia.

    Perhaps a more pertinent question would be “Is Shariah Implementable in non-Muslim Countries?”
    The answer to that is a qualified yes.

    Within Sharia itself, or at least within Islamic doctrine are the concepts of Tayseer (ease) and Darura (necessity). These are more or less the two sides to the same coin, but in effect what they mean is that elements of Sharia can be “set aside” if implementing it would cause “difficulties” for the Umma. Thus, using Tayseer, western living Muslims won’t stone adulteresses, not because they all think doing so is “barbaric”, but because those they know that to do so would bring down condemnation or worse on a weak Muslim community, as well as the arrest and trial of those who did. Again, using Darura, they will use the western court system, in the eyes of some illegal Kafir courts, to obtain their rights since this is better for the Umma than suffering without redress. But a corollary of that is that those Muslims who seek to implement Sharia, even when they set aside elements of Sharia, are only doing so until conditions change such that they may be implemented without detriment to the Umma.

    In the U.K. we have “Muslim Arbitration tribunals” or “MAT”s which are effectively Sharia Courts implementing Sharia law. Originally these were supposed to only operate for divorce, wills and other civil matters. However evidence has emerged that they are also “trying” criminal matters, which lie outside their legal purview in the eyes of British law (though not in the view of the Islamic judges, for whom Sharia is the only ‘just’ system of course). To date they have not attempted to impose Hadud punishments for the reasons given above, but (at the risk or repetition) this is not to say that they would not do so if conditions permitted.

    It therefore follows, in my view, that Sharia law is definitely implementable and that it can be done so with sufficient flexibility to allow gradualism in any environment, which only makes it more, not less, dangerous because in the final analysis under the inhumane strictures of Sharia law everyone suffers, Muslim and non-muslim alike.

%d bloggers like this: