During a discussion on this site, commenter eerie said:
Do you know how the sharia is derived? Further, do you know where it is practiced, in full, and not mixed with European code civil? Anything that might suggest you read more than a pamphlet on the topic?So, since I went through the trouble of putting it together, I may as well make a post about it.
::::
When it was created, Sharia was an advanced legal system for its time, but when the concept of Ijtihad was abandoned the system became static and unchanging:
Finding the causes for the decline and fall of the Muslim Ummah has become a life long pursuit for me. One of the most important causes of Muslims deterioration is the low literacy rate. Even the Islamic faith's fundamental requirement of knowledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah is marginal. They lack knowledge of even the simple and basic laws of Islam. Those who have read books of collections of Ahadith and have devotedly and extensively studied the Qur'an are ignorant of the many fundamental Aqaid(canons) of Islam including Fiqh. The term Fiqh means knowledge of all the laws of Islam(Shari'ah). Shariah is synonym for Fiqh. It is necessary for Muslims to understand there are four basic sources for the Sharia, viz: (1) Qur'an (2) Sunnah (3) Ijma(consensus) and (4)Qiyas(analogical deduction). These laws cover every action performed by an individual or society.......Prophet Muhammad (SAS) himself introduced the fifth component (if I would say so) of the Shariah called Ijtihad which is individual intellectual effort. One who performs Ijtihad is a Mujtahid. The word Ijtihad is derived from the Arabic root word of jihad. Ijtihad was once an important force in the articulation and interpretation of Shariah. Some of the greatest minds in the history of Islamic jurisprudence used Ijtihad during the first centuries of Hijra. With time for reasons given below, Ijtihad faltered and was replaced by the doctrine of taqlid or blind imitation. Taqlid not only discouraged individual interpretation but also prohibited it. Some Muslim scholars throughout the ages have been protesting the prohibition of Ijtihad as it violates the original spirit and intention of Islam. Muslims all over the world are fond of saying that Islam is applicable to all places and in all times. How can this be achieved without Ijtehad?
Muslim scholars (ulama) declared the door of Ijtihad to be closed and ruled that all future Muslims must practice taqlid. Why did they do this? Because after 400 years they thought all conceivable questions and situations had been explored and resolved by the ulama, obviating the need for new judgments.
Sharia is practiced, in full (not mixed with European code civil)in Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and Afghanistan under the Taliban. Not coincidentally, these states were the main supporters of terrorism. These states and the majority of Islamist terrorist groups share the same goals - the creation of Islamist states under Sharia.
When the British gave the Saudi/Wahhabis ownership of Mecca and Medina, it was like putting the Nazis in charge of the Vatican. The Wahhabis were already hated throughout the Muslim world for their traditions of terrorism and grave desecration. They're still hated for the damage they're doing to the holy land. But, despite the fact that they're hated, they've basically purchased most of the Muslim world. Many women living in formerly modernized states now dress and conform to Wahhabi standards.
It's not clear if Afghanistan is still a full Sharia state. Since the Bush administration has no real objections to the installation of Sharia laws, I'd guess that it is.
Sharia civil codes are less brutal than the criminal (Hudud) laws, but when these laws are enforced by the state, all are apartheid laws (apartheid in the sense that equality and civil rights are, literally, against the law.).
Some Muslims say that Sharia can be a purely cultural influence, like the unofficial laws that tell Catholics whether they can watch a certain movie or eat meat on a Friday. That Sharia tradition is compatible with human rights. But any state-enforced version of a basically apartheid system is not.










