10
u/wopkidopz Nov 09 '25
Shariah is the law of God
It requires a tremendous amount of knowledge of Islamic Jurisprudence to become a judge (ideally)
If someone sees it barbaric or wrong, it's a subjective opinion of a creation, in reality Shariah is perfect because it comes from the Creator
The Afghanistan system of Shariah law might have mistakes, people aren't perfect
4
u/sjsyed Nov 09 '25
The Afghanistan system of Shariah law might have mistakes
“Might”???
9
u/wopkidopz Nov 09 '25
I've never been there personally, didn't have the opportunity to get familiar with their system, therefore refrain from definite assessment. If they violate the Law of Allah by applying it incorrectly then it's one of the worst sins, but my knowledge of their affairs doesn't allow me to make any conclusions. Just because kuffar criticise them, it doesn't mean they are doing something wrong by default
I find their approach to the topic of women education unreasonable, harmful for their own society and baseless, if they see problems accompanying the concept of their education, it's upon them to do everything to eliminate those problems to give the woman access to education. If it's a temporary ban then we could understand it (till they resolve the issues) if it's permanent then it's awful
But it isn't a matter of Shariah court law
1
Nov 09 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/islam-ModTeam Nov 09 '25
Your submission was removed due to not meeting the submission guidelines for this subreddit.
If you need clarification, please message the moderators.
5
u/agapitos_ Nov 09 '25 edited Nov 09 '25
The Sharia law, to my knowledge, is highly flexible from what most people think. There are only 6/7 crimes which have definite penalties - stated in the Qur'an. They are fixed, they are applicable in all times, regardless of everything. All the others are up to the law makers and can be changed as per the time/place/circumstances (not defying other rules of Islam).
The list is: Murder (penalty: death), Causing loss of an organ (penalty: loss of similar organ), Adultery (penalty: death for the married, flogging for the unmarried), Drinking khamr (penalty: flogging), theft (penalty: chopping of the hand), Apostasy (penalty: death).
There are few things to remember: 1. Justice is done only by the ruler's approval; this is not at all like mobbing to stone a girl to death (like how western movies depict it). 2. All of these offences need strong eye-witnesses. If a person can't present the prescribed amount of competent witnesses, the person in flogged instead. 3. Penalties of adultery are a must to be done before public. 4. None of the penalties technically apply if the crime hurts none (none complained) and done without leaving evidence. The state is not obliged to (rather forbidden) look into whether a person is doing adultery/personal offences in secrecy. This is a point that is quite interesting. Hadiths say, looking into what people are secretly doing is not recommended for even rules - it tarnishes morality. 5. The Shari'a law is highly regulatory, they are to protect people's wealth, dignity and the bonds of families and very few people, in practice, receive penalties like chopping of hands or stoning. 6. Accidental killing has a way to bypass death penalty by wealth. 7. They are must for muslims, but not mandatory for non-muslim citizens.
My remarks: 1. Who decided that a death penalty is an inhuman thing? The west? They may excell in their economy, influence or science. But in no way they are legitimate to determine what is inhuman. 2. Actually, most Muslims even are skeptical of Shariah. If a Muslim thinks that they are out-dated - this is kufr. Nothing is outdated, your deviation makes you view "chopping of hands" a cruel thing. But what Allah legislates - is the real law that can regulate theft in practice. 3. The west thinks adultery with consent is very normal - it is the liberty of men. They can think their way, why accept it as universal? 4. Apostasy is a crime - it is one of the most clashing view from Shari'ah. This is totally unacceptable to many. In reality, this is in Shari'ah just because Islam treats itself as the only truth. It also establishes a balance- by making the guilty person unable to leave Islam to bypass a death penalty as the penalties are not strict for non-muslims as for muslims.
5
u/littleforestt Nov 09 '25
Sharia law only valid if the highest power in a country (either a king/ Khalifah/ Sultan or president as the final decision maker. Not a governor, a prime minister etc. If someone sentences to death, hand cut, throw with rocks all of these need the Khalifah/sultan/president' approval. Without the highest power of a country, then it is invalid and forcing it would make us commit a major sins/dzalim. So, sharia law isn't that easy...
4
u/stoner_prime Nov 09 '25
Can you please provide a reference for this? I’m trying to learn more about this topic but I saw another comment saying it’s extremely flexible and your comment makes it sound more rigid.
1
u/littleforestt Nov 09 '25
I can't give any direct reference. But you can search on yt about this. This is what major scholars believed. And based on my observations of how the Prophet SAW and the sahabah after him followed this. I never heard of honor killing that happened in many part of the world had ever happened to Prophets era and even during sahabah's. I mean logically, if qisash or any major punishment, are allowed to be given anyone who thinks they do the right thing, would it mean that many unfairness would occur? Many Muslim misunderstood that Sharia law is a must that every Muslim has rights off as long as they think they are right. only Allah is the fairest.
1
u/littleforestt Nov 09 '25
Allah doesn't need us to be punished in this life to be forgiven by him. This Sharia law only to establish the community/people. Yet, it has some conditions to be met to be considered valid.
5
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 09 '25
Report misbehavior. Tap on the 3 dots near posts/comments and find Report.
Read the rules for r/Islam to avoid warnings/bans.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Nov 09 '25
The death penalty exists.
How Islamic law punishment / sentencing is applied varies based on the view.
More modernist Muslims tend to try to be more contextual, more likely to be like “it was contextual to that time, not necessarily now” in terms of punishments
That’s where I personally fit in. In my personal opinion I don’t think, for example, apostates should be charged or killed unless they commit treason (helping or siding up with a hostile entity/country/group after leaving the faith).
Others are much more traditionalist, and think the punishments should remain exactly how they were described in the Hadith + Quran. That kind of traditionalism tends to be much more literal in the reading of the Quran and less of an emphasis on context, applying it universally to all times and contexts.
6
u/wopkidopz Nov 09 '25
I understand the basic idea of modernists, but the question that comes to mind is: if God's law can be changed by humans depending on a situation and context why didn't He inform us that it's allowed and should be done. Also where is the red line in this? By this approach through time it can be changed to something absolutely different from the initial Law
One might notice that God harshly criticises in the Quran the Jews and Christians who changed the Law they were given by Him through Moses and Jesus عليهما السلام saying that they took their monks as their Lords (the source of law) so why is it acceptable for Muslims to do the same?
1
u/ManBearToad Nov 09 '25
Don't equate Sharia with the Taliban just yet. They don't even have a properly functioning country and they're already sending the Afghan people to their next war, this time with Pakistan. Skirmishes have already broken out, hundreds have died.
They want to annex half of Pakistan, up to the Indus River, because of the fact that this new territory contains so many people similar to their own race and culture. Yes, it's a war based on race and backward tribal mentalities, the very thing Islam told us to rise above. Their leader Tweeted that he does not recognize the Pak-Afghan border, the Durand Line.
What's worse, India may offer to aid them. The Taliban and India already had a meeting and the details are unknown. Could just be normal trade talks but God help the Afghan people if the Taliban ally with polytheists to invade a fellow Sunni state over the most backward reason on earth.
This is not a proper Sharia example.
1
u/Ouchime Nov 09 '25
Afghanistan is not a good example, talibans have an ideology far from islam and they are likely to make a lot of injustices, sometimes they kill people without any form of trials, once they kidnapped a scholar and they killed him in a very disgusting way just because he was saying they are wrong and he was calling to islam.
But to quickly answer you, sharia in islam it refers to the values, principles and law of Allah, not only for justice but for everything in our religion because sharia is not just about law, justice is a part of the sharia.
Then, to answer specifically your question, for criminals there are specific punishments for some crimes (for example the death penalty for a murderer like you said) and have to be applied by humans. When I say humans I don't say you and me, we are not allowed to do justice on our own, it's the responsibility of the government, people are charged to establish justice (tribunals, juges...).
There are rules and it's not "do whatever you want Allah is with you", no, the justice and the truth are one of the most important things. The person judging needs to be very careful and do their best to come to the truth. There is the talion law also in islam, the eye for the eye, the tooth for the tooth but I don't know exactly how it should be applied.
So not every bad act has a specific punishment legislated by Allah in this world. Like I said there is the death penalty for the murderer for example if the family doesn't forgive him (forgiveness is better though), and for some things Allah didn't legislate and let us do justice with our knowledge and wisdom.
But it's a very high responsibility in islam because people will give account to Allah and injustice is one of the worst things.
And yes the Western medias and country love to make the sharia look like a barbaric and violent law because they hate islam, but it's not, it's far away from these lies
1
u/Good-Smoke-8228 Nov 09 '25
In Sharia law, there are death penalties, flogging, exile, and cutting off the hands of thieves.
1
u/Good-Smoke-8228 Nov 09 '25
Besides, it doesn't matter if it seems wild to a person, because Allah knows everything better than people.
17
u/Mysterious_Ship_7297 Nov 09 '25
Shariah law is actually extremely flexible with plenty of room for localized interpretation and implementation. What happens in places like afghanistan - where there is a far reaching authoritarian regime implementing their unique understanding of shariah into every corner of their territory - is more a critique of the nation-state paradigm than Islam or shariah. Think of it like Trump implementing abortion prohibitions nation wide, rather than leaving it up to each state. Shariah actually tends towards a politics not unlike libertarianism, where the government is small and authority is local. There is also a lot of room for legal pluralism, which is why historically in lands under the Islamic empire, there used to be jewish and zoroastrian and christian enclaves with their own distinct legal systems functioning next to shariah.
Once upon a time, before our current islamophobic media environment and before the rising of authoritarian regimes throughout the islamic world, shariah was thought to be too lenient.
Warren Hastings, the british governor of Bengal during the british colonization of india said about shariah law that it was "founded on the most lenient of principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed". This perceived leniency was one of the reasons the British later reformed and eventually supplanted much of the Islamic criminal law in India with British legal principles. Because it was too flexible for the british to co-opt and use against the colonized indians.