When it comes to this concept, everything you know is wrong. It’s quite simple, actually, the Western world has only heard of Sharia through the megaphone of extremists.
“In the West, you have the illusion of truth. We had no such illusions.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Because people living in fear are easily controlled.
First off, you’ve heard it as, “Sharia Law,” which is redundant. “Law” is in the word Sharia. It’s like saying “ATM Machine” when the “M” in “ATM” stands for machine.
Islam
In 7th-century Arabia there was mostly conflict. There was no controlling religion, and hardly any governments. The people were polytheists, tribal, honor-culture based, with no centralized legal system. They knew of Christianity, Judaism had a presence, but the region was mostly pagan.
Islam was created to unify fractured tribes, establish social justice, and codify ethics in a chaotic and ambiguous environment.
When Muhammad began preaching (around 610-632 CD) Christianity was already 600 years old, and Judaism was over 2,000 years old. However, at that time Christianity was deeply divided, split into three major camps, Chalcedonian, Miaphysite, and Nestorian. The irony being they often hated each other more than they hated pagans.
The Jews? They had a law code, the Halakha, that was 2,000 years old, and very detailed. While studying the language and traditions of the Jews, I learned about “ant rice.” You see, ants had developed a technique of storing seeds, wheat and the like, without it germinating. When a person sold his land, by law, he still had the right to come back and get the “ant rice.”
The Jews had 613 commandments (or mitzvot) spread throughout all five of their books known together as the Torah, while the Christians had just 10.
Thus when Muhammad began preaching, all around him was chaos, brothers killing brothers, tribes fighting tribes. Fragmentation and violence were the order of the day, and so Muhammad, from a religious beliefs in one God (the same god of the Jews and Christians, that he called Allah), built a state.
Within ten years of his migration to Medina, he’d created a constitution (the Constitution of Medina), unified tribes under a single political authority, established courts, taxation, military organization , and treaty law, and acted as the head of state, commander in chief, and chief arbiter.
He’d built the nucleus of an empire.
When people say Islam is a religion of peace, detractors immediately point to Muhammad’s laws and how violent they are.
To Western eyes, sure they look violent, but there’s a very simple reason for this: the society Muhammad addressed was already saturated in violence. His laws were written in times of civil wars and were meant to limit violence, not escalate it.
Getting things out of context and a great way to lie. Takes the guilt out of lying.
Muhammed and his Quran built a legal tradition to govern a society.
Muhammed did not create Sharia.
He attempted to unify the Arab world, but shortly after his death everything went to hell. It’s like unity was the software, but tribalism was the hardware. And the film, Lawrence of Arabia is a fitting film to display the costs and violence of tribalism.
Sharia came about over the next 200 – 300 years after Muhammad’s death, put together by scholars in Iraq, Persia, Syria, Egypt and beyond. It is a system of interpretation.
Muhammad’s Quran is not a legal manual, but a book of moral and spiritual teachings, social rules, wartime guidance, and social morality. It is not a comprehensive legal code.
As the Islamic empire expanded, judges and scholars needed rules for contracts, property, taxation, criminal cases, marriage and divorce, in heritance, and governance, and so they built a legal system using the Quran, the Hadith, analogy, consensus, and local custom, and that is what we call Sharia.
Muhammad’s actual contribution was moral direction. He set ethical boundaries in a violent, tribal world; he limited revenge, he protected civilians during war, promoted justice, charity, and restraint. And he tried, and failed to unite tribes under a moral community.
Sharia is Violent and Oppressive
Christians, some Christians, love to cherry-pick from the Bible. They’ll tell you how homosexuality is so sinful that they must be put to death. Many memes on the internet respond by pointing out that wearing a shirt made of two different materials is prohibited, and disobedient children must be stoned to death. Blasphemy, idolatry, and having a smoke on the Sabbath . . . all crimes getting the death penalty.
A rabbi today will tell you the Torah’s law is a moral teaching, not a practical legal command. The laws exist to be studied, not practiced.
The same goes for Sharia.
One of the hugest complaint about Sharia is women’s forced modesty.
There are place in Israel today where people will throw stones at a women dressing immodestly, showing too much leg, or shoulders.
I was not allowed into the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem because I wore shorts. I ran to a local store and rented an outfit. The store owners really went out of their way, with robes, turban, and even a huge fake jewel on the turban. Since I was dark and bearded, I fit right in.
So, all dressed up I went to see the Holy Sepulcher. The American dad in front of me, took quite a few looks at me while I stood silently with my arms in my sleeves, and then said to wife, “Get a look at the guy behinds us. I wonder where he’s from.”
“Minnesota.”
Even for men, there are rules of modesty.
Face covering, according to Muslim scholars is cultural, not divine commanded. The Quran never required covering of the face. That came much later, but still, according to scholars and modern reformers who tell us, modesty is a principle; the face-veil was a 7th-century expression.
Sharia Today is Not One Thing
There is no single Sharia operating in the modern world. There are both progressive and conservative interpretations. In some countries it’s been weaponized.
Take abortion in America. In the Bible, old and new testament, there is nothing about abortion specifically. Yet, in some states, women are dying who need medical abortions, and in others, it’s a trip to the doctor and a little bedrest afterwards.
It’s the same with Sharia.
A nation that beheads its criminals is weaponizing Sharia. To Muhammed, that would violate his call for mercy. Modern Muslim scholars would say, we can discuss these harsh penalties, but must stick to the principle of justice.
I’m going to invoke AI at this point. What I know about Sharia is general knowledge. So I’m using three AI apps . . . I always pit them against each other to find the truth. What I’ve just asked them is to find me modern Sharia scholars and their positions on Sharia today.
Abdullahi Ahmed An‑Na’im (Sudan → Emory University)
Core idea: Sharia must be reinterpreted for a secular, rights‑based state.
- Argues that Sharia cannot be state‑enforced; it must be a moral choice.
- Says classical rules (hudud, gender hierarchy, apostasy laws) reflect 7th‑century Arabia, not eternal norms.
- Advocates constitutionalism, human rights, and religious freedom as Islamic values.
- Calls for a “Second Message of Islam” — a return to Mecca‑era ethics over Medina‑era legalism.
He’s one of the most influential progressive Muslim thinkers alive.
Amina Wadud (United States)
Core idea: Sharia must be reinterpreted through gender‑egalitarian readings of the Qur’an.
- Pioneer of Islamic feminism.
- Argues that patriarchal interpretations were shaped by male jurists, not the Qur’an.
- Supports women leading prayer, equal inheritance, and full legal equality.
- Says Sharia’s purpose is justice, not male authority.
Her work is foundational in gender‑reform circles.
I could post all the answers I found, but that’s your job. Learn to use AI properly, and you’ll never repeat an ignorant lie again.
And never forget, propaganda begins at home. Learn to think critically, ask questions, and don’t accept something just because it resonates with your prejudice.
