The Unchanging Legal and Theological System Islam Demands for the Entire World

When Muslims speak of Shariah, they are not referring to a vague “spiritual path” that each believer can customize. In classical Islam, Shariah is understood as Allah’s fixed, final, and comprehensive law for all humankind. It is a legal and theological system that claims to define how individuals must live, how families must function, how courts must judge, and how rulers must govern. It is presented not as one moral option among many, but as the one divinely ordained pattern to which every society ought to conform.

The very word sharīʿah originally referred to a path leading down to a water source in the desert. Islamic scholars seized on that imagery and applied it to their religion: Shariah is the path that leads to spiritual “life” and safety, while all other paths lead astray. The Quran reinforces this concept when it says that Allah has put Muhammad upon a “sharīʿah,” a prescribed way, and commands him to follow it and not follow the desires of those who do not know. In the Muslim understanding, this means Muhammad is not free to pick and choose. He is bound to a God-given rule, and so are his followers.

Shariah is built on two foundational Quranic claims. First, the Quran declares, “Today I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.” Muslims understand this as a divine statement that the religion, with all its doctrines and laws, is complete. No new prophet will come after Muhammad. No new revelation will correct or soften what has been given. The package is closed.

Second, another verse states that Allah has sent down the Book as “a clarification of all things” needed for guidance and mercy. Muslim scholars do not argue that the Quran lists every trivial detail of life, but they do insist that it contains the principles and commands necessary to govern every aspect of human existence. Out of these verses arose the conviction that Islam is not merely about private worship; it is a total life system.

From that conviction comes the classical doctrine that Shariah covers every human act. Jurists divide all actions into five categories: obligatory, recommended, permitted, disliked, and forbidden. In theory, nothing a person does is outside the scope of Allah’s law. There is no “secular” realm where human reason is free to legislate without reference to revelation. In the Islamic worldview, the more a society aligns its institutions and behavior with Shariah, the closer it comes to true submission. The more it departs from Shariah, the more it sinks back into the ignorance and rebellion of pre-Islamic times.

Crucially, Shariah is not restricted to Arabs, to one region, or to one era. The Quran portrays Muhammad as a messenger to all people. It also declares that Allah sent him with “guidance and the religion of truth so that He may make it prevail over all religion.” Classical commentators and jurists take that seriously. In their view, Islam is not a tribal faith content to coexist as one religion among many. It is a universal claim that Allah’s final law must ultimately triumph over every system that contradicts it.

This is why, in Islamic political thought, there is no sharp divide between “church” and “state,” between mosque and government. Shariah is meant to regulate both. It prescribes rules for worship, but it also prescribes punishments for theft, fornication, and apostasy. It regulates fasting and prayer, but it also regulates war, peace treaties, taxation, and the status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule. The law is seen as one seamless whole, all of it rooted in the same divine source.

From a biblical Christian vantage point, this claim must be weighed against Jehovah’s revelation in Scripture. The Bible teaches that Jehovah’s final Word came in His Son, Jesus Christ, and that salvation comes by faith in Him, not by subjection to a human legal code. The New Testament congregation is commanded to submit to secular authorities where possible, not to replace every government in this age with a theocratic legal system. Shariah, by contrast, insists that a specific set of seventh-century Arabian legal standards represents God’s final will for every human court and government on earth. That claim cannot be reconciled with the Gospel.

Shariah’s Primary Sources: Quran, Hadith, Ijma, and Qiyas

Shariah is not built on vague impressions. Islamic jurists have always claimed to derive it from specific sources. In the Sunni tradition, which represents the majority of Muslims, four roots of law are universally acknowledged.

First and above all stands the Quran, regarded as Allah’s very speech revealed to Muhammad. Wherever the Quran speaks in legal language—commanding, forbidding, specifying shares of inheritance, describing penalties—it is treated as absolute authority. A verse about cutting the hand of the thief or flogging the fornicator is not something later generations can vote away; it is divine legislation.

Second is the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Sunnah consists of his words, his actions, and his silent approvals. These are recorded in thousands of hadith reports transmitted through chains of narrators. Collections such as Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are treated as highly reliable. Where the Quran provides a general rule, the Sunnah clarifies its details. The Quran commands prayer; the Sunnah shows when and how to pray. The Quran prescribes punishments in outline; the Sunnah fills in the specifics. Shariah rests as much on what Muhammad did and said as on what the Quran states.

Already in the earliest generations, prominent Muslim scholars insisted that Quran and Sunnah are inseparable as bases for law. The famous jurist al-Shafi‘i, who died in the early ninth century, argued that obedience to the Messenger is obedience to Allah and that no one may claim to follow the Book while rejecting authentic reports of Muhammad’s practice. In his works, he emphasizes that when a hadith correctly reports the Prophet’s teaching, it is binding law.

Third comes ijma, the consensus of the qualified scholars. Many hadith reports attribute to Muhammad the statement that his community will not agree upon error. On that basis, classical jurists conclude that when all recognized legal experts in a generation agree on a ruling, that consensus itself becomes a proof in Shariah. If the scholars have unanimously held, for instance, that apostasy deserves the death penalty, that consensus is treated almost as strongly as a direct text.

Fourth is qiyas, analogical reasoning. When a clear rule exists in the Quran or Sunnah for a particular case, jurists extend that rule to new situations that share the same underlying cause. For example, the Quran forbids wine because it intoxicates. Applying qiyas, jurists conclude that any intoxicating substance is also forbidden, even if it did not exist in Muhammad’s time and is never mentioned in the texts.

Different schools of law nuance these sources in different ways, but all agree that Shariah is built by extracting rules from the Quran and Sunnah, confirming them by consensus when possible, and extending them through analogy. This is why the system has such a coherent structure. The manuals of Islamic law that developed over centuries are not collections of random opinions. They are attempts—however flawed—to apply this fourfold method consistently.

From the standpoint of Christian apologetics, two points stand out. First, Shariah as defined by classical Islam is text-anchored. It is not merely cultural habit that can be discarded while leaving Islam intact. Its defenders point directly to Quran verses, to hadith reports, to the practice of Muhammad, and to centuries of consensus. Second, modern attempts to present Shariah to Westerners as a flexible “ethical ideal” that can be remade at will do not match how the system understands itself. The sources are seen as fixed. The task of the jurist is not to revise Allah’s law but to uncover and apply it.

The Total Scope of Shariah’s Control: From Prayer to Politics and Criminal Punishment

Shariah does not confine itself to personal devotions. It claims to regulate the entire structure of life. Classical law books are usually divided into broad sections, often beginning with acts of worship and then moving into family, economic, and criminal matters. This layout itself reveals how all-encompassing the system is.

In the section on worship, Shariah specifies the obligations of belief, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and pilgrimage. It describes in detail how to purify oneself before praying, what nullifies that purity, the exact times and conditions for each of the five daily prayers, the behavior required in Ramadan, the calculation of mandatory alms, and the rites of the pilgrimage to Mecca. Nothing is left to individual choice. The devout Muslim is told precisely what to do, when to do it, and in what form.

In another section, Shariah regulates family life. It lays down rules for marriage contracts, dowries, the number of wives a man may have, the conditions under which he may divorce, and the rights and duties of husbands and wives. It defines who may marry whom and who is forbidden. It sets out procedures for guardianship of children, custody after divorce, and the distribution of inheritance among relatives. These rules are treated as expressions of Allah’s will, not as suggestions that can be altered to suit modern sentiment.

Economic matters also fall under Shariah’s control. There are detailed rules about buying and selling, debt, collateral, partnership, and trade. Certain types of transactions are permitted; others are forbidden as riba (usury) or unjust speculation. Contracts are regulated. The aim, from the jurists’ perspective, is to ensure that economic life conforms to what Allah has commanded and prohibited. Again, human legislation is not the final authority; Allah is.

Most alarming to Western readers, Shariah claims jurisdiction over criminal law and warfare. It prescribes specific fixed penalties, known as hudud, for certain offenses. Theft, if proven under strict conditions, is punished by cutting off the hand. Illicit sexual intercourse may be punished by flogging or stoning, depending on the status of the offenders and the proof. False accusation of fornication carries its own lashes. Drinking intoxicants can also lead to corporal punishment. These are not guidelines. They are codified as the rights of Allah, and human rulers are expected to enforce them when the required standards of evidence are met.

Beyond hudud crimes, Shariah governs murder, bodily harm, and property damage under the categories of qisas (retaliation) and diyah (blood money). It prescribes how to handle intentional and unintentional killings, how victims’ families may demand retribution or accept compensation, and how much that compensation should be.

Shariah also organizes jihad, the doctrine of warfare. Classical manuals include chapters on who may be fought, how spoils are divided, how non-Muslim populations may be treated, and the terms under which conquered peoples may be spared by paying a special tax and submitting to Islamic rule. The aim in traditional thought is not merely defense; it is also the expansion of the territory where Shariah is enforced.

Taken together, these categories show that Shariah presents itself as sufficient to run an entire civilization. It tells people how to pray, but it also tells rulers how to punish criminals. It speaks to charity, but it also speaks to war. It addresses the home and the marketplace, the mosque and the court. There is no neutral zone left for “man-made law” to operate entirely on its own authority.

In contrast, the Bible does not authorize Christians to construct a global legal empire under their own power. Jehovah’s people under the new covenant are scattered among nations. They obey Christ’s law in their conduct, submit to secular authorities when possible, and await the return of Jesus to establish His Kingdom. Shariah, however, claims that the ideal society here and now is one where Quran, Sunnah, and their derived rulings override every parliament, constitution, or court that dares to contradict them.

Shariah’s Claim of Supremacy over All Human Law

The Quran does not present Allah’s law as one “value system” among many. It issues direct commands about judging disputes and condemns those who refuse to apply its rulings. In one passage, Allah criticizes people who claim to believe in the revelation yet seek judgment from a different authority. He asks rhetorically if they want the judgment of “ignorance” when Allah’s judgment is available. In another, he tells Muhammad to “judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires away from what has come to you of the truth.” Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are labeled disbelievers, wrongdoers, and rebellious.

Classical jurists took these declarations with deadly seriousness. For them, to substitute human opinion for a clear text of Quran or authentic Sunnah in matters of law is to commit a grave sin. They often describe rulers who refuse to enforce Shariah as tyrants. Even if such rulers call themselves Muslims, their refusal to apply Allah’s law casts doubt on their faith in the eyes of many scholars.

Because Muhammad is portrayed as the final prophet, his law is seen as universally binding. Earlier prophets, such as Moses, brought their own laws for their own peoples, but Islam teaches that Muhammad’s Shariah abrogates those prior codes. The Quran speaks of Allah sending His Messenger “with guidance and the religion of truth so that He may make it prevail over all religion.” Muslim commentators interpret this as a long-term promise: Islam will be victorious. Even when Muslims are weak, they are to believe that their law is meant to replace rival systems.

That theological posture shapes Islamic attitudes toward constitutions, parliaments, and secular courts. A constitution that contradicts Shariah in fundamental ways—for example by guaranteeing full freedom to leave Islam, equal inheritance shares for sons and daughters, or same-sex marriage—is not seen as legitimate in Allah’s sight, no matter how many citizens vote for it. Human beings, in this view, have no authority to permit what Allah has forbidden or to forbid what He has permitted. The highest earthly function of a Muslim ruler is to enforce the divine law, not to create an alternative code.

In some modern contexts, political movements openly state this. Their slogans say that “The Quran is our constitution” and insist that governance must rest directly on the revealed law. Even when they use democratic means to gain power, their goal is not to preserve democracy as an ultimate value, but to use it as a tool until Shariah can be firmly established. Once the legal system is aligned with what they consider Allah’s decrees, the people no longer have the right to vote those decrees away.

From a Christian perspective, this is a direct challenge to the biblical role of governments. Romans chapter 13 portrays earthly rulers as servants of God to punish evil and reward good, but it does not give any human religious law, outside of Scripture itself, permanent supremacy. Nor does it command Christians to install a single detailed legal code over every nation now. Christ’s Kingdom will indeed rule the earth when He returns, but that Kingdom will be administered by Him, not by a human prophet or jurist class. Shariah’s claim to supremacy is therefore not simply a religious conviction; it is a rival sovereignty claim that seeks to displace all other authorities before Christ’s return.

The False Distinction between “Moderate” and “Strict” Shariah

In Western discussions, people constantly hear about “moderate Shariah” versus “strict Shariah,” or about “soft” forms of Islamic law as opposed to “hardline” enforcement. These labels are misleading. They create the impression that there are fundamentally different versions of Shariah, one gentle and harmless, the other harsh and dangerous. In reality, there is one classical Shariah, rooted in the same Quran, the same Sunnah, and the same centuries of juristic consensus. What changes from place to place is not the content of the law, but the degree to which people and governments are willing or able to apply it.

If one asks the question, “What does Shariah say about inheritance shares, about the number of wives a man may have, about penalties for adultery, about apostasy, about blasphemy, about jihad?” the answers given by classical scholars across the major Sunni schools are strikingly similar. They may debate fine points of evidence and procedure, but the foundational rules are consistent: a son receives twice the share of a daughter; a man may marry up to four wives; certain sexual acts are punished severely; a sane adult who openly leaves Islam is to be executed; serious insults against Muhammad are to be punished; warfare under proper authority is an enduring duty.

When Western observers call a particular country “moderate,” they are usually talking about its enforcement, not its doctrine. A state may retain Shariah rules in its personal status laws, governing marriage and divorce, while leaving hudud punishments on the books but rarely carrying them out. A Muslim living in a secularized environment may personally believe in the full Shariah code but choose not to implement it in a non-Muslim society. None of that changes what the law itself prescribes. It only changes how visible those prescriptions are.

It is helpful to think of Shariah as an architectural blueprint, not a dimmer switch. The blueprint remains the same regardless of the stage of construction. In some places, only the foundation has been laid; in others, the entire structure is standing. Calling the foundation stage “moderate” and the finished building “strict” does not alter the fact that both follow the same design. The texts that define Shariah have not changed. The classical manuals have not been rewritten to remove the harsh elements. The supposed “moderation” lies in political restraint, social pressure, or weakness, not in a different revelation.

Some modern Muslim thinkers do openly argue for revising or reinterpreting Shariah in the light of contemporary values. They call for equality in inheritance, full freedom of religion, no legal penalties for sexual sin, and similar changes. But when they do so, they acknowledge that they are departing from the traditional consensus. They admit that they are challenging rulings that jurists for centuries have regarded as fixed. In other words, their proposals are not examples of “moderate Shariah.” They are attempts to move beyond Shariah as classically understood.

From the standpoint of Christian apologetics, this distinction is crucial. When we examine Shariah in this book, we are not attacking individual Muslims who may be kind neighbors and peaceful citizens. We are examining the system as it is grounded in its own sources and taught by its own leading scholars. The distinction between a Muslim’s personal practice and the demands of the law must be kept clear. Many Muslims are “better than their law,” just as many professing Christians are sadly “worse than their Bible.” But the goodness or gentleness of individual adherents does not erase what the law itself prescribes.

The false comfort that comes from saying, “That is only strict Shariah; we support moderate Shariah,” is therefore dangerous. It blinds Western societies to the reality that Shariah is one system, rooted in texts that do not change. It encourages politicians and church leaders to accept incremental accommodations—separate family courts, religious arbitration, public recognition of Shariah norms—under the illusion that these concessions are harmless. In reality, every concession normalizes the presence of a legal order that, if ever fully empowered, would claim the right to replace the very freedoms that allowed it to grow.

The West is running out of time not only because hostile ideologies exist, but because it refuses to look at those ideologies honestly. Shariah is not a mystery. Its sources are public. Its rulings are documented. Its leading scholars speak plainly about what it demands. This chapter has outlined the basic framework. The chapters that follow will expose, point by point, what this system actually requires in practice—especially for women, children, converts, and any who dare resist its claims.

You May Also Enjoy

The Genocide of Banu Qurayza: 600–900 Men Beheaded in One Day (627 C.E.)

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS